6 ms·

But he didn't say that. He had a scientist up to announce promising results, and he suggested some avenues for further research or invention. At no point did he

by Tycho 7y ago

But he didn't say that. He had a scientist up to announce promising results, and he suggested some avenues for further research or invention. At no point did he turn to the camera and say "so you see folks, if you're worried about the coronavirus, just reach into your kitchen cupboard and pour yourself a nice glass of bleach." I don't know why you're pretending otherwise.

Cyph0n 7y ago
It is not the president’s job to suggest avenues for further medical research on live TV, especially if the suggestions are stupid and life-threatening. We already have enough on our hands with the pandemic, so let’s try to avoid getting more people in the ER.
- Tycho 7y ago
  Who said it’s not the president’s job to show scientific progress to the public and engender discussion of new ideas? I realise many people are very used to dry, carefully stage-managed government briefings written in ObamaScript, but being spontaneous and discursive has its advantages. Many medical interventions are dangerous by nature - doesn’t and shouldn’t stop people discussing new possibilities for investigation, which is what happened here.
  - cthalupa 7y ago
    You're offering up a very charitable interpretation to a man that has been saying to take chloroquine and asking "What have you go to lose?" for several weeks now, despite the fact that we know that while chloroquine is relatively safe for most people, there are serious potential side effects including blindness and heart failure that can occur. So, the answer for to his question is "my sight" and "my life", which are, at least in my opinion, significant enough things to risk that he should't be telling people to take the drug. Why would we expect this to be anything more than more of the same? I know in HN we are supposed to give each other the benefit of the doubt, but we're well beyond benefit of the doubt here - you're asking us to check our critical thinking skills at the door and to ignore past actions - from the very recent past!
    - Tycho 7y ago
      You say I'm being very charitable. This is what I see: - President brings scientist on stage to talk about new findings that will help combat COVID-19. Why? Because it's important to show people that progress is being made and we're not in a hopeless situation. - President follows up with the scientist with questions about possible therapies that could be developed. He uses words like 'would it be possible to', 'could we somehow', 'and 'it would be interesting to check that.' To me that's just a natural reading, given the context. Your reading appears to be: - President brings scientists on stage to talk about findings - President recommends that people inject themselves with Dettol (motive unclear) The problem is that's a ridiculously uncharitable interpretation. I mean, is that what you actually believe the president was thinking? The (hydroxy)chloroquine is example is also a non-issue. Trump correctly pointed out that this was a low-cost, long circulated drug with well understood risks, and that even if we don't yet know for sure if it works, if patients are dying from the virus, it makes sense for doctors to try it. I'm glad he shone a spotlight on it.
      - cthalupa 7y ago
        >The problem is that's a ridiculously uncharitable interpretation. I mean, is that what you actually believe the president was thinking? Yes. If not outright recommending it, bringing it up as a somewhat viable possibility. Poison control hotlines have been fielding hundreds of calls asking if it is safe to ingest or inject disinfectant. >The (hydroxy)chloroquine is example is also a non-issue. Trump correctly pointed out that this was a low-cost, long circulated drug with well understood risks, and that even if we don't yet know for sure if it works, if patients are dying from the virus, it makes sense for doctors to try it. I'm glad he shone a spotlight on it. Those well understood risks include heart failure and blindness. Trump asked "What have you got to lose?" when saying "I think you should take it", and the answer is my sight and my life. There was no solid medical evidence at that time that chloroquine had any impact on coronavirus in vivo, and what we're finding now is that the null hypothesis is still the best supported in that regard, and that it causes an increase in all cause mortality, to the point where several studies have had to stop because the people they were giving hydroxychloroquine people were dying from heart failure, and the best completed study we have showed a nearly 3x increase in all cause mortality among those taking hydroxychloroquine vs. the control. It was reckless and irresponsible, exactly like this. >(motive unclear) The motive is extremely clear. Trump is worried about a wrecked economy ruining his re-election chances. He wants to open the economy back up to improve his chances, so getting people to believe that we have a plethora of solutions to novel coronavirus helps him achieve that goal.

by Tycho 7y ago

Cyph0n 7y ago

It is not the president’s job to suggest avenues for further medical research on live TV, especially if the suggestions are stupid and life-threatening. We already have enough on our hands with the pandemic, so let’s try to avoid getting more people in the ER.

Tycho 7y ago
Who said it’s not the president’s job to show scientific progress to the public and engender discussion of new ideas? I realise many people are very used to dry, carefully stage-managed government briefings written in ObamaScript, but being spontaneous and discursive has its advantages. Many medical interventions are dangerous by nature - doesn’t and shouldn’t stop people discussing new possibilities for investigation, which is what happened here.
- cthalupa 7y ago
  You're offering up a very charitable interpretation to a man that has been saying to take chloroquine and asking "What have you go to lose?" for several weeks now, despite the fact that we know that while chloroquine is relatively safe for most people, there are serious potential side effects including blindness and heart failure that can occur. So, the answer for to his question is "my sight" and "my life", which are, at least in my opinion, significant enough things to risk that he should't be telling people to take the drug. Why would we expect this to be anything more than more of the same? I know in HN we are supposed to give each other the benefit of the doubt, but we're well beyond benefit of the doubt here - you're asking us to check our critical thinking skills at the door and to ignore past actions - from the very recent past!
  - Tycho 7y ago
    You say I'm being very charitable. This is what I see: - President brings scientist on stage to talk about new findings that will help combat COVID-19. Why? Because it's important to show people that progress is being made and we're not in a hopeless situation. - President follows up with the scientist with questions about possible therapies that could be developed. He uses words like 'would it be possible to', 'could we somehow', 'and 'it would be interesting to check that.' To me that's just a natural reading, given the context. Your reading appears to be: - President brings scientists on stage to talk about findings - President recommends that people inject themselves with Dettol (motive unclear) The problem is that's a ridiculously uncharitable interpretation. I mean, is that what you actually believe the president was thinking? The (hydroxy)chloroquine is example is also a non-issue. Trump correctly pointed out that this was a low-cost, long circulated drug with well understood risks, and that even if we don't yet know for sure if it works, if patients are dying from the virus, it makes sense for doctors to try it. I'm glad he shone a spotlight on it.
    - cthalupa 7y ago
      >The problem is that's a ridiculously uncharitable interpretation. I mean, is that what you actually believe the president was thinking? Yes. If not outright recommending it, bringing it up as a somewhat viable possibility. Poison control hotlines have been fielding hundreds of calls asking if it is safe to ingest or inject disinfectant. >The (hydroxy)chloroquine is example is also a non-issue. Trump correctly pointed out that this was a low-cost, long circulated drug with well understood risks, and that even if we don't yet know for sure if it works, if patients are dying from the virus, it makes sense for doctors to try it. I'm glad he shone a spotlight on it. Those well understood risks include heart failure and blindness. Trump asked "What have you got to lose?" when saying "I think you should take it", and the answer is my sight and my life. There was no solid medical evidence at that time that chloroquine had any impact on coronavirus in vivo, and what we're finding now is that the null hypothesis is still the best supported in that regard, and that it causes an increase in all cause mortality, to the point where several studies have had to stop because the people they were giving hydroxychloroquine people were dying from heart failure, and the best completed study we have showed a nearly 3x increase in all cause mortality among those taking hydroxychloroquine vs. the control. It was reckless and irresponsible, exactly like this. >(motive unclear) The motive is extremely clear. Trump is worried about a wrecked economy ruining his re-election chances. He wants to open the economy back up to improve his chances, so getting people to believe that we have a plethora of solutions to novel coronavirus helps him achieve that goal.