"You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine."
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@George-K said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
The timeline: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/timeline-trump-administration-s-response-coronavirus-n1162206
Note: This timeline in the "politics" section of NBC is heavy on 'what he said' in addition to what actually was done.
What, specifically, should have been earlier?
Before moving off of what was said, just having a President publicly take the outbreak seriously and erring on the side of caution and prudence instead of erring on the side of downplaying and saying it’ll “go away”, would’ve been a great example.
I asked you to be specific about what should have been done earlier. If you look at the timeline from NBC there were lots of things in the works early on.
So, what, specifically, should he have done earlier? Which advisors (both in and outside the White House) did he ignore?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Larry said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@Larry said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
89th, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it won't change the fact that you are incorrect.
You have yet to tell me what I’m incorrect about, after asking you many times.
EVERYTHING!!!! You start out on a false narrative and then build your entire position from it.
So the part I’m incorrect about is the false part. Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying
-
My statement was that there is a alternate reality out there, where the positions are completely opposite from what we see here. In other words, in this different universe with a Democrat president, each party has taken a position opposite what they have done in our reality, simply because they are against the other party/
-
@89th - I am no Trump fan. Neither am I a badger. There’s been a lot that he’s done that I’ve disliked and there has been a lot that he has done that I have been very pleasantly surprised. I think that he is much smarter than people give him credit for, and I suspect his talking in overly simplistic ways is actually a fairly intelligent manipulation of the public.
Now let me put this out there, and please hear me out before jumping all over me.
Trump was right. It’s not that bad. And he was right to try to tamp down the panic. Remember what early - Mid March was like. The phrase “bodies on the streets” was tossed around a lot. The stock market had dropped to 18000 and many were saying it had a lot farther to go. New York was screaming that they needed 30K ventilators, their hospital system was overwhelmed, and this was what everybody else in the country had coming. Florida and Louisiana were going to be a living hell, and people were panic buying toilet paper and supplies at unbelievable levels. It was panic.
Trump said that it was serious, but not THAT bad. He was right.
-
@LuFins-Dad yes and traffic deaths go down when folks wear seat belts.
Many predicted that, once the curve is flattened, there will be those that say "See? It wasn't that bad" while ignoring the reason why the curve flattened. <Insert pictures of empty NYC streets at noon>
Also, Trump initially said it wasn't serious. Only once the deaths started stacking up did he admit it was.
-
@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
-
@89th said in "You're damn right I'm taking hydroxychloroquine.":
@LuFins-Dad yes and traffic deaths go down when folks wear seat belts.
Many predicted that, once the curve is flattened, there will be those that say "See? It wasn't that bad" while ignoring the reason why the curve flattened. <Insert pictures of empty NYC streets at noon>
Also, Trump initially said it wasn't serious. Only once the deaths started stacking up did he admit it was.
You honestly don't see how crippled your logic is, do You?
Jesus.
-
@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.
