5 ms·

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 b

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.

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.