We'll let POTUS know later

[xenon]

@George-K not at all. But, I’d also have an issue if Winters started calling Sobel “dopey” “loser” or some such.

[George K]

@xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:

@George-K not at all. But, I’d also have an issue if Winters started calling Sobel “dopey” “loser” or some such.

Where is the point where disrespect for the man justifies disrespect for the office?

[xenon]

@George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:

@xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:

@George-K not at all. But, I’d also have an issue if Winters started calling Sobel “dopey” “loser” or some such.

Where is the point where disrespect for the man justifies disrespect for the office?

We’re getting deep into the analogy here.

I don’t think disrespect for the office is ever good.

But disrespect for the office can only really be shown by people, entities, or things that are important to the office. (In this case - a private company showed disrespect by not communicating it’s national security/safety gamer changer to the entity in charge of national security).

Perhaps showing physical disrespect to the President himself if you’re in a direct interaction with him?

I dunno - it can be fuzzy

[Larry]

Stop staring at your navel. You don't get it, and you never will.

[xenon]

@Larry said in We'll let POTUS know later:

Stop staring at your navel. You don't get it, and you never will.

Maybe the orange spirit will speak to me directly some day.

[Axtremus]

@xenon , feel free to disregard @Larry's last post.
I fully support your right to stare at your own navel.

[jon-nyc]

@George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:

@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:

There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.

What's that, if I may ask.

Trump’s efforts to overrule his FDA on safety standards in order to get an emergency approval in before the election caused a significant loss of confidence in the vaccine approval process. Polling showed a 15+ percent drop in confidence overall, with even a material drop among Republicans, who were already majority skeptics on taking the vaccine. It got to the point where the presidents of 7 major pharmaceutical companies signed a statement basically saying they would only seek approval on the FDA’s timeline.

What's the material health benefit of letting candidate Biden know ahead of time?

I didn’t make that case.

[Larry]

@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:

@George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:

@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:

There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.

What's that, if I may ask.

Trump’s efforts to overrule his FDA on safety standards in order to get an emergency approval in before the election caused a significant loss of confidence in the vaccine approval process. Polling showed a 15+ percent drop in confidence overall, with even a material drop among Republicans, who were already majority skeptics on taking the vaccine. It got to the point where the presidents of 7 major pharmaceutical companies signed a statement basically saying they would only seek approval on the FDA’s timeline.

What's the material health benefit of letting candidate Biden know ahead of time?

I didn’t make that case.

Bull shit. Pure democrat talking point.

[jon-nyc]

I have a thread where I showed the polling and the WSJ article discussing the statement.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:

I didn’t make that case.

No, but you made the converse:

[jon-nyc]

Yep, which I just explained.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:

Trump’s efforts to overrule his FDA on safety standards in order to get an emergency approval in before the election caused a significant loss of confidence in the vaccine approval process. Polling showed a 15+ percent drop in confidence overall, with even a material drop among Republicans, who were already majority skeptics on taking the vaccine. It got to the point where the presidents of 7 major pharmaceutical companies signed a statement basically saying they would only seek approval on the FDA’s timeline.

I don't disagree with any of your comments, but, like @xenon , you're justifying Pfizer's behavior (which you earlier commented was inappropriate) on Trump's past behavior. One bad actor doesn't justify another.

[jon-nyc]

Not letting Trump announce it was justified on public health grounds. Telling Biden and not Trump was disrespectful to Trump since he is the sitting president.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:

Not letting Trump announce it was justified on public health grounds.

And announcing it 24 hours later was? I don't understand. What public health was jeopardized?

[jon-nyc]

George I don’t follow.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:

George I don’t follow.

You said that not letting Trump know was justified because it would jeopardize public health (paraphrasing here). How is that?

[jon-nyc]

I explained how Trump tainted the process by subordinating safety concerns to his election self-interest.

You make think that’s unfair, but it’s empirically supported, and already affected the behavior of all the major pharmaceutical companies..

[jon-nyc]

Sorry the missing link is that I don’t think Pfizer could reasonably trust Trump not to announce it if they let him know in advance.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:

I explained how Trump tainted the process by subordinating safety concerns to his election self-interest.

And I explained how his bad behavior doesn't justify Pfizer's bad behavior - "Mom..."

I don't disagree with his bad behavior analysis. I'm simply saying that to justify Pfizer's bad behavior in that context is no better.

[jon-nyc]

So to recap - they were justified in not telling him because of the risk he’d announce it.

I agree that telling Biden and not Trump was disrespectful.

I’m not sure if there’s anything we disagree on at this point.