"You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine."
-
@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.
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@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.
Caution does not have a universal definition.
Caution that favors saving lives over preserving the economy could be considered reckless behavior.
Even now, some lives could probably be preserved temporarily by shutting down all business for several more months. This would be reckless.
-
@Jolly said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
If Pelosi believes the president should have done something at the beginning, when exactly does she think was the ‘beginning’?
Well, it certainly wasn't on Feb 24th, when she advised people to visit Chinatown, as it was perfectly safe.
I wonder how many lives were lost and how many more cases were positive as a result of this advice????
Link to videoIt also seems to me that around that timeframe, New York mayor, Big Bird was telling people to go out and eat and enjoy themselves.
But nobody listens to them, right? Cause they're not the President.
-
@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.
You keep repeating the same thing over. Repeating it doesn't make it relevant.
As the old saw goes, "Never pay attention to what a politician says; pay attention to what he does."
Or, in this case, what you claim he didn't do.
What specific action should Trump have taken?
-
I'll chime in here with the preface that my key criticism of Trump is that he's just not intellectually up to the job of governing. I also often argue that the role of the President in governing the U.S. is much more limited than people act like it is.
It's interesting that the argument now is - "well, the President actually can't do much here." Convenient - but I don't disagree that much. Powers to carry out specific actions are limited, but there is massive opportunity and responsibility to rally the country.
Now, on what he could do. It's a litany of tactical things that point to the fact that the white house didn't take this serious enough until pretty late. Example - PPE:
https://apnews.com/090600c299a8cf07f5b44d92534856bcAfter the first alarms sounded in early January that an outbreak of a novel coronavirus in China might ignite a global pandemic, the Trump administration squandered nearly two months that could have been used to bolster the federal stockpile of critically needed medical supplies and equipment.
A review of federal purchasing contracts by The Associated Press shows federal agencies largely waited until mid-March to begin placing bulk orders of N95 respirator masks, mechanical ventilators and other equipment needed by front-line health care workers.
You can argue whose fault it was that the stockpile was low (a good case to be made for Trump, a reasonable one for Obama). But why wait until, I think it was March-21 to place orders for N-95 masks?
-
@George-K said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
And how did that demand for ventilators work out? Was there a shortage?
George - is your implicit argument here that we didn't need as many ventilators as we thought - so what a waste of time and effort? Similarly PPE isn't that important, it was/is going to be a waste of time anyways?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, so help me unpack that.