3 ms·

I think Trump was just casting about for anything he might hitch his wagon to and claim credit for later. It's unfortunate that "the other side" heaped so much

I think Trump was just casting about for anything he might hitch his wagon to and claim credit for later. It's unfortunate that "the other side" heaped so much scorn on chloroquine just because Trump was touting it, because there was never any conclusive evidence that it doesn't work, and if it actually does work then they played right into Trump's usual "hoax" angle.

D13Fd 7y ago
Agreed. But by trying to hitch their wagon to one particular treatment, and trying take ownership of that issue, they are making it about them and about politics rather than about the efficacy of the treatment. In this kind of crisis, the last thing we need is to be injecting politics into the decision about which treatments are most effective.
randcraw 7y ago
"The other side" criticized Trump for what he said. They did not impugn the potential of chloroquine. This issue is only, "What did the president say and should he have said it". No responsible person should offer unproven medical advice IN ANY WAY. And no medical professional should do so unless they have multiple reliables sources to support their advice. Trump failed on both of these points. If chloroquine turns out to fail, he'll surely promote more possible treatments again and again, thereby whittling away public trust and hope, over and over. That's terrible leadership, and rightly merits criticism from everyone who gives a damn, not just "the other side".
- caconym_ 7y ago
  I have to disagree that "the other side" "did not impugn the potential of chloroquine". The opinion that it had been disproven was (and still probably is) widespread. If you were paying attention, I don't see how you could have missed all the fear-mongering about overdoses and side effects, the fish tank cleaner thing, and so on. There are also a lot of people who think the same as we both do: that whatever happens in the future re: chloroquine, Trump should not be touting unproven treatments on TV. But the issue has clearly grown vastly more complicated than that, spreading through a game of telephone across hyper-opinionated social media bubbles. This is precisely the same effect Trump exploits with his thinly-veiled racist and sexist dogwhistles, etc., allowing him to say horrible things without actually saying them, but on the left/liberal side there's no leader coordinating the application of that interpretive force for political "good" (except, perhaps, Putin's troll farms). We also agree that Trump is a terrible leader. I'd go further, and say that the blood of at least tens of thousands of Americans will be on his hands by the time this is all over. Unfortunately, his disapproval rate has fallen to just 50% and is still trending downward, and the persistence forecast says it'll keep going that way regardless of his gross negligence in managing this crisis. After all, the degree to which he's escaped accountability to date is astonishing. If we want to get rid of him, we need to do better than wandering through the trees of his playbook while losing sight of the forest.
BFatts 7y ago
"the other side" didn't say anything negative about CQ or HCQ - and instead (if you had actually listened to their message) tried to get people to NOT take it themselves, to NOT hoard it, to NOT prescribe it a prophylactic when that is an unknown (this depleting existing supplies). That is what "the other side" was saying.
- caconym_ 7y ago
  I say you are wrong, though maybe this is the line we should be using if we still think we can tiptoe backwards out of Trump's chloroquine trap. I repied to somebody saying essentially the same thing as you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22760840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22760840
- WalterSear 7y ago
  We all saw the same news. The hammer has come down quite hysterically against chloroquine. Trump is usually a reliable liar: I presumed that journalists were banking on that fact and on disputing him as a safe way to get attention. And not doing their research. Difficult to watch, as someone familiar with chloroquine, knowing they were spreading mistaken information about the side effects and blowing the risks well out of proportion.

D13Fd 7y ago

Agreed. But by trying to hitch their wagon to one particular treatment, and trying take ownership of that issue, they are making it about them and about politics rather than about the efficacy of the treatment. In this kind of crisis, the last thing we need is to be injecting politics into the decision about which treatments are most effective.

randcraw 7y ago

"The other side" criticized Trump for what he said. They did not impugn the potential of chloroquine. This issue is only, "What did the president say and should he have said it". No responsible person should offer unproven medical advice IN ANY WAY. And no medical professional should do so unless they have multiple reliables sources to support their advice. Trump failed on both of these points. If chloroquine turns out to fail, he'll surely promote more possible treatments again and again, thereby whittling away public trust and hope, over and over. That's terrible leadership, and rightly merits criticism from everyone who gives a damn, not just "the other side".

caconym_ 7y ago
I have to disagree that "the other side" "did not impugn the potential of chloroquine". The opinion that it had been disproven was (and still probably is) widespread. If you were paying attention, I don't see how you could have missed all the fear-mongering about overdoses and side effects, the fish tank cleaner thing, and so on. There are also a lot of people who think the same as we both do: that whatever happens in the future re: chloroquine, Trump should not be touting unproven treatments on TV. But the issue has clearly grown vastly more complicated than that, spreading through a game of telephone across hyper-opinionated social media bubbles. This is precisely the same effect Trump exploits with his thinly-veiled racist and sexist dogwhistles, etc., allowing him to say horrible things without actually saying them, but on the left/liberal side there's no leader coordinating the application of that interpretive force for political "good" (except, perhaps, Putin's troll farms). We also agree that Trump is a terrible leader. I'd go further, and say that the blood of at least tens of thousands of Americans will be on his hands by the time this is all over. Unfortunately, his disapproval rate has fallen to just 50% and is still trending downward, and the persistence forecast says it'll keep going that way regardless of his gross negligence in managing this crisis. After all, the degree to which he's escaped accountability to date is astonishing. If we want to get rid of him, we need to do better than wandering through the trees of his playbook while losing sight of the forest.

BFatts 7y ago

"the other side" didn't say anything negative about CQ or HCQ - and instead (if you had actually listened to their message) tried to get people to NOT take it themselves, to NOT hoard it, to NOT prescribe it a prophylactic when that is an unknown (this depleting existing supplies). That is what "the other side" was saying.

caconym_ 7y ago
I say you are wrong, though maybe this is the line we should be using if we still think we can tiptoe backwards out of Trump's chloroquine trap. I repied to somebody saying essentially the same thing as you here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22760840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22760840
WalterSear 7y ago
We all saw the same news. The hammer has come down quite hysterically against chloroquine. Trump is usually a reliable liar: I presumed that journalists were banking on that fact and on disputing him as a safe way to get attention. And not doing their research. Difficult to watch, as someone familiar with chloroquine, knowing they were spreading mistaken information about the side effects and blowing the risks well out of proportion.