4 ms·

As insane as that is. And how funny is it (at least to me) that this is only because Trump came down on one side initially. If he had come out saying exactly t

As insane as that is. And how funny is it (at least to me) that this is only because Trump came down on one side initially. If he had come out saying exactly the opposite, that HCQ was bad and we should be skeptical, everyone hoping it doesn’t work now would be looking for the 10 person studies saying it totally works and defending its use. It’s almost beyond reason how hyper partisan this specific issue is.

lalaland1125 7y ago
The fundamental difference is that one side is backed by neutral experts such as Anthony Fauci and the other side has shown nothing but disdain for science in countless issues (global warming, evolution, election fraud, etc).
- Bendingo 7y ago
  > neutral experts such as Anthony Fauci Fauci isn't close to being a neutral expert.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Sorry, I don’t buy into pole riding / hero worship, nor do I believe that theoretical-you on the theoretical-“other side” wouldn’t have an equal but opposing argument. It’s all game, do you really not see that? ... If you’ve been following this topic, shouldn’t you be able to make the steelman argument for it?
rsynnott 7y ago
This isn't left vs right; it's an unqualified politician vs pretty much all of the scientific community.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  This is not accurate and kind of exposes your own bias. If you listen to virologist podcast, TWIV, they talk about the effectiveness of HCQ. They aren't all "it's amazing!", but they do not make the claim that it doesn't work.
noelsusman 7y ago
Maybe we run in different circles but the two main sides I've seen are "This drug is a miracle cure" and "Maybe let's wait for some evidence". If the first side flipped to "This drug is terrible" then the other side would still be saying "Maybe let's wait for some evidence". I haven't seen very many people actively hoping the drug doesn't work just to spite the president. For some issues there's plenty of partisan hackery to go around, but in this instance there is clearly one person to blame for turning this into a partisan issue. Politicians should not be offering their opinions on drug efficacy, full stop.

lalaland1125 7y ago

The fundamental difference is that one side is backed by neutral experts such as Anthony Fauci and the other side has shown nothing but disdain for science in countless issues (global warming, evolution, election fraud, etc).

Bendingo 7y ago
> neutral experts such as Anthony Fauci Fauci isn't close to being a neutral expert.
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Sorry, I don’t buy into pole riding / hero worship, nor do I believe that theoretical-you on the theoretical-“other side” wouldn’t have an equal but opposing argument. It’s all game, do you really not see that? ... If you’ve been following this topic, shouldn’t you be able to make the steelman argument for it?

rsynnott 7y ago

This isn't left vs right; it's an unqualified politician vs pretty much all of the scientific community.

koheripbal 7y ago
This is not accurate and kind of exposes your own bias. If you listen to virologist podcast, TWIV, they talk about the effectiveness of HCQ. They aren't all "it's amazing!", but they do not make the claim that it doesn't work.

noelsusman 7y ago

Maybe we run in different circles but the two main sides I've seen are "This drug is a miracle cure" and "Maybe let's wait for some evidence". If the first side flipped to "This drug is terrible" then the other side would still be saying "Maybe let's wait for some evidence". I haven't seen very many people actively hoping the drug doesn't work just to spite the president. For some issues there's plenty of partisan hackery to go around, but in this instance there is clearly one person to blame for turning this into a partisan issue. Politicians should not be offering their opinions on drug efficacy, full stop.