We'll let POTUS know later

[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.

[George K]

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

I don’t think Pfizer could reasonably trust Trump not to announce it if they let him know in advance.

OK - so they let Biden know on Sunday, and let Trump know it via the press.

Is that what you're saying? 24 hours would have made a difference in anything?

Nope, this was purely spite and disrespect. Exactly what everyone accuses Trump of, though in a more subtle way.

[jon-nyc]

We cross posted, see my last.

[George K]

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

We cross posted, see my last.

Just saw it. Yup. Both were assholes, to sum it up. The only difference is the timeframe.

Trump - pick whatever you want for a timeframe.
Pfizer - last weekend.