We'll let POTUS know later
-
@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 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.
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
-
-
@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 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.
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
"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.
-
@George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@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.
No, the difference is Pfizer is justified to fear Trump announcing the news in a way that is detrimental to public health. Pfizer has no such concern with sharing this news with Biden.
The timeframe is immaterial. The difference comes down to trust: Biden can be trusted to not undermine public trust with the advance notice, Trump cannot.
The above is me going by @jon-nyc's "risk to public health" rationale, with which I also acknowledge that had the same rationale been applied, Pfizer could probably not have sufficient trust in Kanye to tell Kanye the news ahead of Pfizer's own announcement, but Pfizer would equally be fine to tell the news to, say, Jo Jorgensen without worrying about Jorgensen handling that information in a way that undermines public trust.
-
