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.
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:04 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:05 last edited by
I have a thread where I showed the polling and the WSJ article discussing the statement.
-
@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.
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:13 last edited by@jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:
I didn’t make that case.
No, but you made the converse:
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:15 last edited by
Yep, which I just explained.
-
@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.
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:16 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:17 last edited by 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.
-
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.
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:19 last edited by 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?
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:21 last edited by
George I don’t follow.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:23 last edited by
@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?
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:23 last edited by
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..
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:24 last edited by 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.
-
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..
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:25 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:26 last edited by 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.
-
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.
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:27 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:27 last edited by
We cross posted, see my last.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:28 last edited by
@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. -
@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.wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 03:50 last edited by Axtremus@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.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 04:32 last edited by
The claim that Trump announcing it would negatively affect public health is stupid.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 04:42 last edited by jon-nyc
His actions had a material impact on the percentage of people - Dem, Republican, and Independent alike - that trusted the safety of the process.
-
wrote on 15 Nov 2020, 06:19 last edited by
Oh, bull shit.
Hahahahaaaaa
