"You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine."
-
@George-K said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
So, what, specifically, should he have done earlier? Which advisors (both in and outside the White House) did he ignore?
So, on March 16th he announced 'Social Distancing Guidelines' that were to be in place for two-weeks, which basically were "stay home if you're feeling sick"...when just a week earlier he was telling the public the coronavirus isn't nearly as bad as the seasonal flu? Quite a mixed message, and a weak one at that.
Now, him making moves like closing air traffic from Europe on March 11th, that was a bold step. I was impressed. So to answer your question, having a clear and coherent message from the white house about strict social distancing in early to mid March, or encouraging states to issue stay at home orders in early to mid March, would've likely saved tens of thousands of lives. Instead, we didn't see that until the last week of March. (don't forget Trump subsequently urged folks to resist the stay at home orders)
-
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@LuFins-Dad yes and traffic deaths go down when folks wear seat belts.
I don’t even see how that statement relates to anything I said. Please explain.
Many predicted that, once the curve is flattened, there will be those that say "See? It wasn't that bad"
I was the first to make that prediction in February on TNCR. The second part of my prediction was that there would be those shaking their heads saying it was worse than we thought. It goes both ways. People on this forum and the web were predicting near apocalyptic conditions by now even WITH MITIGATION.
Also, Trump initially said it wasn't serious. Only once the deaths started stacking up did he admit it was.
Flat out wrong. Trump addressed it before anybody else did. He thought it was serious enough to talk about at SOTU. He thought it was serious enough to appoint a task force. He thought it was serious enough for travel bans including Europe in early March. You aren’t applying context to what he was saying.Serious is a subjective phrase.
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@Larry said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
You honestly don't see how crippled your logic is, do You?
Jesus.
Until you specify what I'm incorrect about, I'm just going to ignore you.
I've done that already.
-
Examples of what? All I've said from the start was had Trump taken this more seriously and acted earlier (even by a day, let alone a few weeks), we would've likely seen fewer deaths, based on science/math/statistics. No one, and especially you, have said where that is an incorrect statement.
-
The seat belt comment was in reference to your first prediction, that because of mitigation strategies, we didn't see "beds in the street". In other words, if society started wearing social-distancing "seat belts", the traffic deaths on Pandemic Avenue wouldn't be as bad as they would otherwise have been.
For the other part, you said Trump said it "was serious but not that bad". Even on March 9th he was saying it wasn't that serious. And if you define "bad" as beds on the street, then of course you're right, but if you define "bad" as 100,000+ Americans died, then you're wrong.
-
@taiwan_girl said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@Larry
Maybe not in a true sense (but who knows).There are plenty of examples of politic parties changing their positions because the opposite party changed their position.
My understanding (which may be of course incorrect) is that in the recent past, Democrats were more for protection of the US market and Republics were more for open trade. That seems to have changed.
But before then (100 years ago), the Republic Party was more for protection of American workers,
I understand that party positions change, but I do not think that President Trumps policy positions today would fit in with the Republic party of (for example) 30 years ago.
Things change - I get that. And some of that change is because the other party wants to be different.
The Republic party of today wants more protection for American markets. The Democrats cannot agree with that, so they have to move to a different viewpoint.
Here are a couple of conservative think tanks that have the same view
Too simplistic, and you're missing some big things. For example, the Chinese pumped money into the Clintons, as far back as the 90's. The ChiComs didn't do it to protect American workers.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
Examples of what? All I've said from the start was had Trump taken this more seriously and acted earlier (even by a day, let alone a few weeks), we would've likely seen fewer deaths, based on science/math/statistics. No one, and especially you, have said where that is an incorrect statement.
This is from The Federalist, but it is very hard to find a completely unbiased list, so feel free to refute:
The leftist national media incessantly reports that the spread of the coronavirus is, well, President Trump’s fault. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, always good for the most incendiary and least helpful comments in any difficult situation, said on Sunday, “[T]he president — his denial at the beginning was deadly.”
Then in Joe Biden’s latest effort to be relevant, his campaign has released an ad attacking President Trump for not being sufficiently responsive to the threats of the coronavirus from the “beginning.”
Here is a key fact: In the beginning, China lied. People died. Although the first case of the coronavirus was reported in Wuhan, China in early December 2019, the Chinese authorities continued through January 2020 to downplay the potential for the disease to spread.
The World Health Organization (WHO) reinforced China’s falsehoods, saying on Jan. 14 that “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in Wuhan, China.” This was five to six weeks after the opposite was confirmed to be the case in Wuhan.
Biden’s supposed chronicle of Trump administration failures derides the president’s statement on Jan. 22, saying, “We have it totally under control, it is one person, coming in from China…” What was actually happening in the United States on Jan. 22? It was one person coming in from China. And the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had yet to confirm the human-to-human spread of the virus.
So, what did we know? When did we know it?
On Jan. 17, the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that American citizens returning from travel-restricted countries were being rerouted to specific airports, where they would be screened and isolated. CDC on that day also stated that, “based on current information, the risk from 2019-nCoV to the American public is currently deemed to be low.”
Japan, South Korea, and Thailand reported their first cases of novel coronavirus on Jan. 20.
On Jan. 21, the first case of coronavirus in the United States was reported, of a man who had traveled from Wuhan, China. That is the case President Trump referred to the next day
The Biden ad skips from Jan. 22 to Feb. 27, ignoring crucial developments during that time period.
Jan. 24: The CDC confirmed the second U.S. case of coronavirus, adding again that “based on what we know right now, the immediate risk to America remains low.”
Jan. 28: The WHO published another statement about the coronavirus, with a photograph and headline saying: “WHO, China leaders discuss next steps in battle against coronavirus outbreak.” Pictured are WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in Beijing with Chinese President Xi Jinping. According to the release, “The WHO delegation highly appreciated the actions China has implemented in response to the outbreak, its speed in identifying the virus and openness to sharing information with WHO and other countries.”
Think about that: On Jan. 28, the WHO praised China for its “speed and openness” in dealing with the virus. The same day, President Trump expanded U.S. airport screenings to identify travelers showing symptoms and instituted mandatory quarantines.
On Jan. 30, the WHO declared a global health emergency of international concern.
On Jan. 30, the CDC confirmed publicly for the first time the person-to-person spread of Wuhan virus and applauded WHO’s decision. That day, the president created the White House Coronavirus Task Force to coordinate efforts regarding this new disease.
The next day, Jan. 31, the president declared coronavirus a U.S. public health emergency and issued the ban on travel between the United States and China. On that same day, the Senate voted on the production of additional documents in the impeachment trial of President Trump. Campaigning in Iowa that day, Biden criticized President Trump’s China travel ban, saying during an Iowa campaign event, “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia.”
Feb. 4: The White House directed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to step up coronavirus diagnostic testing procedures.
Feb. 5: The CDC issued a public statement saying, “While we continue to believe the immediate risk of 2019nCoV exposure to the general public is low, CDC is undertaking measures to help keep that risk low.”
Feb. 18: The CDC reaffirmed that the “risk to Americans from coronavirus is low.”
Feb. 20: The administration raised travel warnings to their highest level for Japan and South Korea.
It was not until Feb. 26 that the first case of suspected local transmission in the United States was announced by the CDC. President Trump that day named Vice President Pence to lead the Coronavirus Task Force. The next day, Feb. 27, Pence named Dr. Deborah Birx to serve as the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator.
On Feb. 29, the first death from the coronavirus was recorded in the United States. On that date, President Trump halted travel with Iran.
On March 11, the WHO declared coronavirus a worldwide pandemic. The next day, on March 12, President Trump imposed travel restrictions on Europe and elsewhere. Biden criticized that decision also.
Then, on March 13, President Trump declared a national emergency.
If Pelosi believes the president should have done something at the beginning, when exactly does she think was the ‘beginning’? Was it during the impeachment proceedings that Pelosi instigated? Should Pelosi bear some responsibility for what she perceives as the president’s failure to focus on the coronavirus back in January?
The single most important step taken by President Trump was his closing of U.S. travel with China, which happened on Jan. 31, something the president reminds us at every briefing.
He’s right, but what he doesn’t say is he made that decision at a time the CDC was assuring us the risk to America was low, the WHO was covering for China, Democrats were trying to impeach the president, and Biden was attacking the decision as xenophobic.
It is impossible to overestimate the number of American lives saved by that momentous decision by President Trump on January 31. And no media or Pelosi false narratives or phony Biden campaign ad can change the truth about the real chronology of the coronavirus.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@taiwan_girl said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@Larry
Maybe not in a true sense (but who knows).There are plenty of examples of politic parties changing their positions because the opposite party changed their position.
My understanding (which may be of course incorrect) is that in the recent past, Democrats were more for protection of the US market and Republics were more for open trade. That seems to have changed.
But before then (100 years ago), the Republic Party was more for protection of American workers,
I understand that party positions change, but I do not think that President Trumps policy positions today would fit in with the Republic party of (for example) 30 years ago.
Things change - I get that. And some of that change is because the other party wants to be different.
The Republic party of today wants more protection for American markets. The Democrats cannot agree with that, so they have to move to a different viewpoint.
Here are a couple of conservative think tanks that have the same view
Too simplistic, and you're missing some big things. For example, the Chinese pumped money into the Clintons, as far back as the 90's. The ChiComs didn't do it to protect American workers.
I am sorry Jolly, but I am not understanding your reply.
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
Examples of what? All I've said from the start was had Trump taken this more seriously and acted earlier (even by a day, let alone a few weeks), we would've likely seen fewer deaths, based on science/math/statistics. No one, and especially you, have said where that is an incorrect statement.
No, that's not all you said. Nor did you say it as innocently as you now want to portray it. Your purpose in saying it was to bash Trump, not to merely pose an academic musing over what if's about starting dates. You also based your argument on a March starting date. When I pointed out to you that Trump started taking action in January, you got sarcastic and ridiculed it, and ridiculed me for telling you about it. Then, as if no one had proven you wrong, you charged straight back in with the same argument. One can only conclude from that that if Trump had been a fortune teller and warned everyone about the virus the day he took office, you'd still insist he didn't act fast enough.
But it hasn't been just me that has pointed out your error. Half the people on this forum have shown you the same thing, and you have twisted like a pretzel to avoid changing your argument. To you it is "orange man bad" and based on your "all I said" post you are willing to sacrifice your own intellectual integrity rather than back off your Trump bashing argument. So ignore me if you want, you've already shown everyone you don't care about the truth.
-
@Jolly while that timeline has bias smeared all over it, it does include a number of actions Trump took that were good. I've never argued against that. Which leads me to...
@Larry Incorrect, indeed that is exactly what I've been saying all along. It just triggered your TDS, but my message has been the same. You can view the start of this in Post 63 of the US has Shitloads thread and follow my comments there as well as in this thread. It's been the same message all along. Don't let your TDS blind you. I've been apolitical the entire time.
The bottom line also remains the same. We now have over 90,000 american deaths, and my position is this number would be smaller had the president not taken a "not as bad as the flu" position in early/mid March and had he advocated for stricter social distancing earlier, it would've helped lower the exponential growth we have seen since. None of this is even debatable, really. But go ahead...let the TDS "most competent president of our lifetime" kick in.
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
As I’ve said a number of times, he waited far too long to take the pandemic seriously,
1/29 Establish White House Coronavirus Task Force
So at this point he is taking it seriously.
3/11 WHO declared the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak a global pandemic
That's 42 days before the pandemic was declared he was taking it seriously.
I know there was all kinds of noise during this time, but he was taking action for 42 days before there was a pandemic.
-
And yet on January 30th he said:
"We only have five people. Hopefully, everything's going to be great. They (China) have somewhat of a problem, but hopefully, it's all going to be great."
And on March 9th he was not taking it seriously when he implied the season flu is far more deadly.
-
And this shows the root of the problem. He would say one thing, then say the opposite later. Over and over. From "This will never be a pandemic" to "I always knew this would be a pandemic". From "people should stay home" to "fight stay at home orders". From "this will be over soon" to "this could last years". Having a coherent message erring on the side of caution, instead of contradictory one, would've helped lower the death count.
-
Every decision he makes is prioritized:
- Will this help my reelection?
- Will this help my reelection?
- Will this help my reelection?
The reason he downplayed it in the beginning was because he knew the market would take a hit, this hurting his reelection chances. He doesn't give a crap about you and me. He cares for only himself, as a good narcissist should.
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
And yet on January 30th he said:
"We only have five people. Hopefully, everything's going to be great. They (China) have somewhat of a problem, but hopefully, it's all going to be great."
And on March 9th he was not taking it seriously when he implied the season flu is far more deadly.
At those dates both statements were true.
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
And this shows the root of the problem. He would say one thing, then say the opposite later. Over and over. From "This will never be a pandemic" to "I always knew this would be a pandemic". From "people should stay home" to "fight stay at home orders". From "this will be over soon" to "this could last years". Having a coherent message erring on the side of caution, instead of contradictory one, would've helped lower the death count.
Given that the smartest people in the world were at that time just barely learning how to collect data, and still today are having trouble collecting comprehensive data it is at best speculation to say that anything he might have done would help raise or lower the death count.
-
@Copper yes those statements were true and EXACTLY the type of myopic message that delayed the seriously positive impact of social distancing that was only advocated for much later.
And yes, absolutely my position is speculation, although it's hard to think having a coherent message erring on the side of caution would've raised the death count.
