6 ms·

Trump pushed it as a miracle cure, at least at one point, and he evokes bitter opposition in many. (I think this is quite irrational, but that's your answer.)

Goronmon 7y ago
People are in opposition to the president promoting drugs with unproven effectiveness as a miracle cure for an ongoing pandemic. I didn't think testing drugs before giving them to people was considered "irrational" as you state, but I guess that is where we are now.
- downerending 7y ago
  It's "irrational" to oppose an idea just because it comes from someone you despise. It's not like this is coming from the National Enquirer--he has access to some of the brightest minds in the world. The efficacy picture on these drugs is quite confusing, and it's not out of the question that they will turn out to be crucially useful. Giving up on them without further investigation doesn't seem wise at this point. Beyond that, sometimes being a leader means giving people hope, even if that might involve shading things. Trump may not be an Adama, but I do think he's pretty good at making people feel better, or at least distracting them from their troubles. And right now, that probably is saving lives.
  - Goronmon 7y ago
    It's "irrational" to oppose an idea just because it comes from someone you despise. Giving up on them without further investigation doesn't seem wise at this point. I don't disagree with these ideas on the surface, but they seem largely strawmen-style arguments. I'm not convinced a significant number of people somehow "hate" hydroxychloroquine or are against research solely on the basis that Trump mentioned it.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    Let's say Trump instead proposed that people taking, I don't know, silver supplements was a proper treatment for covid-19. Would you say it's irrational to oppose that idea? I mean it's not been proven to not work, so you gotta try anything you can, right? And he's giving people hope.
    - downerending 7y ago
      If a lot of scientists world-wide were looking at it, yes, I would think that irrational to not consider silver supplements. As far as I know, Trump has never advocated taking any drug without medical guidance. We were (and largely still are) dealing with a lot of unknowns. As far as I'm concerned, everything is on the table, as a possible improvement.
      - Goronmon 7y ago
        Isn't one of his quotes "It's been out there for a long time. What do you have to lose?" though I guess he does followup by saying he will talk to his doctor before he takes it. But the overall sentiment makes me pretty uncomfortable.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "It's not like this is coming from the National Enquirer" It could be! I mean, his ideas presumably don't come from taking a random issue of the National Enquirer at face value, but he has or had a widely reported close relationship with the publisher, so it seems entirely plausible he might have been influenced by, say, David Pecker's opinions.
    - downerending 7y ago
      I'm dubious, but who knows? If the scientists and doctors think it looks promising, I don't much care who suggested it. Trump isn't much to watch, but he does end up being right on some of his wacky-sounding calls more than I would have thought. I wouldn't bet my money against him.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > It's not like this is coming from the National Enquirer--he has access to some of the brightest minds in the world. And yet on multiple occasions he's been seen tweeting and announcing policies in lockstep with segments on Fox News opinion shows.
- jeegsy 7y ago
  I think the point is that the stated reason for opposition is all rational and proper but the suspicion (based on current year political sentiments) is that it is nevertheless a cover for an altogether irrational hope that the the drug is proven ineffective.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    A problem in my view, with attributing a strategy to the opposition, is that without hindsight, when Trump makes a weird/nonsensical/hyperbolic statement like this, you can't know if it's going to vanish without a trace or be doubled down on and become a huge thing. At the time, who could say if his opinion was based on anything, he would be proven right, anyone would take it seriously, etc.? The public and media don't know these things.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
I generally try hard to stay out of politics and to intentionally not get caught up in the Trump bashing that is quite common in my Twitter feed. I'm having a really hard time trying to abide by that rule in this case. I will suggest that you may have cause and effect backwards in at least some cases. Some people may be bitterly opposed to him because of nonsense like this rather than thinking this is nonsense because they bitterly oppose him.
- downerending 7y ago
  No doubt it's some of each. Difficult to imagine anyone having a strong opinion on some random drug if he wasn't involved, though.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    He's the president of the US (aka the most powerful political leader in the world). Whatever one's personal feelings about the man, him touting something unproven while in such a powerful role is bound to get a rise out of people. He has an obligation to look out for his people. This is not how you do that. This is the opposite of responsible behavior. I'm quite upset about the whole thing, not because I'm anti Trump, but because it's a global pandemic. This isn't run of the mill, business as usual bullshit where political things like cronyism and glad handing make any sense whatsoever.
    - downerending 7y ago
      Yeah, I think we're all pretty unnerved. And we're far from knowing just how deep this rabbit hole is going to be. (Or how shallow.) If you look at the charts of per-capita deaths in various countries, there's not much of a pattern, in terms of places we'd think of as having "good" government and/or public health versus "bad". Belgium, for example, is the worst right now (or among them), and many European countries are doing quite badly. My personal suspicion is that in a case like this, there isn't really that much difference in in-the-moment governing across countries.

Goronmon 7y ago

People are in opposition to the president promoting drugs with unproven effectiveness as a miracle cure for an ongoing pandemic. I didn't think testing drugs before giving them to people was considered "irrational" as you state, but I guess that is where we are now.

downerending 7y ago
It's "irrational" to oppose an idea just because it comes from someone you despise. It's not like this is coming from the National Enquirer--he has access to some of the brightest minds in the world. The efficacy picture on these drugs is quite confusing, and it's not out of the question that they will turn out to be crucially useful. Giving up on them without further investigation doesn't seem wise at this point. Beyond that, sometimes being a leader means giving people hope, even if that might involve shading things. Trump may not be an Adama, but I do think he's pretty good at making people feel better, or at least distracting them from their troubles. And right now, that probably is saving lives.
- Goronmon 7y ago
  It's "irrational" to oppose an idea just because it comes from someone you despise. Giving up on them without further investigation doesn't seem wise at this point. I don't disagree with these ideas on the surface, but they seem largely strawmen-style arguments. I'm not convinced a significant number of people somehow "hate" hydroxychloroquine or are against research solely on the basis that Trump mentioned it.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  Let's say Trump instead proposed that people taking, I don't know, silver supplements was a proper treatment for covid-19. Would you say it's irrational to oppose that idea? I mean it's not been proven to not work, so you gotta try anything you can, right? And he's giving people hope.
  - downerending 7y ago
    If a lot of scientists world-wide were looking at it, yes, I would think that irrational to not consider silver supplements. As far as I know, Trump has never advocated taking any drug without medical guidance. We were (and largely still are) dealing with a lot of unknowns. As far as I'm concerned, everything is on the table, as a possible improvement.
    - Goronmon 7y ago
      Isn't one of his quotes "It's been out there for a long time. What do you have to lose?" though I guess he does followup by saying he will talk to his doctor before he takes it. But the overall sentiment makes me pretty uncomfortable.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "It's not like this is coming from the National Enquirer" It could be! I mean, his ideas presumably don't come from taking a random issue of the National Enquirer at face value, but he has or had a widely reported close relationship with the publisher, so it seems entirely plausible he might have been influenced by, say, David Pecker's opinions.
  - downerending 7y ago
    I'm dubious, but who knows? If the scientists and doctors think it looks promising, I don't much care who suggested it. Trump isn't much to watch, but he does end up being right on some of his wacky-sounding calls more than I would have thought. I wouldn't bet my money against him.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > It's not like this is coming from the National Enquirer--he has access to some of the brightest minds in the world. And yet on multiple occasions he's been seen tweeting and announcing policies in lockstep with segments on Fox News opinion shows.
jeegsy 7y ago
I think the point is that the stated reason for opposition is all rational and proper but the suspicion (based on current year political sentiments) is that it is nevertheless a cover for an altogether irrational hope that the the drug is proven ineffective.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  A problem in my view, with attributing a strategy to the opposition, is that without hindsight, when Trump makes a weird/nonsensical/hyperbolic statement like this, you can't know if it's going to vanish without a trace or be doubled down on and become a huge thing. At the time, who could say if his opinion was based on anything, he would be proven right, anyone would take it seriously, etc.? The public and media don't know these things.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

I generally try hard to stay out of politics and to intentionally not get caught up in the Trump bashing that is quite common in my Twitter feed. I'm having a really hard time trying to abide by that rule in this case. I will suggest that you may have cause and effect backwards in at least some cases. Some people may be bitterly opposed to him because of nonsense like this rather than thinking this is nonsense because they bitterly oppose him.

downerending 7y ago
No doubt it's some of each. Difficult to imagine anyone having a strong opinion on some random drug if he wasn't involved, though.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  He's the president of the US (aka the most powerful political leader in the world). Whatever one's personal feelings about the man, him touting something unproven while in such a powerful role is bound to get a rise out of people. He has an obligation to look out for his people. This is not how you do that. This is the opposite of responsible behavior. I'm quite upset about the whole thing, not because I'm anti Trump, but because it's a global pandemic. This isn't run of the mill, business as usual bullshit where political things like cronyism and glad handing make any sense whatsoever.
  - downerending 7y ago
    Yeah, I think we're all pretty unnerved. And we're far from knowing just how deep this rabbit hole is going to be. (Or how shallow.) If you look at the charts of per-capita deaths in various countries, there's not much of a pattern, in terms of places we'd think of as having "good" government and/or public health versus "bad". Belgium, for example, is the worst right now (or among them), and many European countries are doing quite badly. My personal suspicion is that in a case like this, there isn't really that much difference in in-the-moment governing across countries.