ABC poll: 55% approve of Trump's handling of the coronavirus crisi

[Ronson]

Doctor who helped defeat smallpox says "this is the most irresponsible act of an elected official that I've ever witnessed in my lifetime" of Trump's handling of coronavirus.

He was a medical officer at WHO when WHO eradicated smallpox. Brilliant claiming to have helped defeat the disease is like Ray Croc claiming he invented the hamburger.

[demi-conservative]

Pity Trump keeps doing it.

Demi thinks it's better if Trump leaves it to Pence.

So medical professionals regularly having to inform the public Trump is wrong

Having? They should be used to lying to patients, yes? Or giving them some amount of possibly false hope, sweet talk.

[Starlight]

So medical professionals regularly having to inform the public Trump is wrong after Trump makes medically false statements, is bad? Agreed.

Pity Trump keeps doing it.

And it happened twice again today.

Firstly regarding whether the FDA has approved a drug to treat COVID19:

President Trump, at his daily press briefing... "We're going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately. And that's where the FDA has been so great. They've gone through the approval process - it's been approved."

However, the FDA has made it clear it has not been approved for treating those infected with the Covid-19 coronavirus... "There are no FDA-approved therapeutics or drugs to treat, cure or prevent Covid-19."

And secondly, Trump was today touting that drug (which has been around for decades) on twitter as "one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine [with regard to treating COVID19]".

This contradicting Trump's chief medical officer's statements at the last press conference. Dr Fauci, at the press conference, when asked about whether the drug was useful, answered: "No, the answer... is no. The information that you're referring to [about the effectiveness of the drug for treating COVID19] specifically is anecdotal... It was not done in a controlled clinical trial, so you really can't make any definitive statement about it."

[demi-conservative]

And it happened twice again today.

Firstly regarding whether the FDA has approved a drug to treat COVID19:

President Trump, at his daily press briefing... "We're going to be able to make that drug available almost immediately. And that's where the FDA has been so great. They've gone through the approval process - it's been approved."

However, the FDA has made it clear it has not been approved for treating those infected with the Covid-19 coronavirus... "There are no FDA-approved therapeutics or drugs to treat, cure or prevent Covid-19."

From your link "At a later briefing, Mr Trump said chloroquine had been approved for "compassionate use". This is where a doctor can give a drug that is yet to be cleared by the government to a patient in a life threatening condition. Doctors are able to prescribe chloroquine in these circumstances, as it's a registered drug."

Scrambled message, but it's going to be available and seems approved for emergency use.

And secondly, Trump was today touting that drug (which has been around for decades) on twitter as "one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine [with regard to treating COVID19]".

From your link, the full tweet

HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains - Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents)...

Is there a real chance that you are able to read and understand the words "a real chance"?

Is there a real chance that you will take back this Fake News statement about Trump?

[Starlight]

It's amazing how much your brain is warped by TDS that you can twist anything in favor of the one you worship.

[demi-conservative]

It's amazing how much my brain is warped by TDS that I can twist anything against the one I hate.

Fixed.

Plainly Trump talked about how there's "a real chance" it might work, but you can't admit that. Pathetic.

[simplicio]

He was a medical officer at WHO when WHO eradicated smallpox. Brilliant claiming to have helped defeat the disease is like Ray Croc claiming he invented the hamburger.

He was a medical officer at WHO who was an epidemiologist with an expertise in the field. The battle against smallpox was successful, and it shows that progress can be made.

One interesting point he made in the interview:

Tests would make a measurable difference. We should be doing a stochastic process random probability sample of the country to find out where the hell the virus really is. Because we don't know. Maybe Mississippi is reporting no cases because it's not looking. How would they know? Zimbabwe reports zero cases because they don't have testing capability, not because they don't have the virus.

[rogue06]

He was a medical officer at WHO who was an epidemiologist with an expertise in the field. The battle against smallpox was successful, and it shows that progress can be made.

He was a cog in the machine but has been represented by some as having been much more. My father was a tank commander in WWII but if he criticized how the Korean War was being fought that wouldn't make him a leading authority.

[simplicio]

He was a cog in the machine but has been represented by some as having been much more. My father was a tank commander in WWII but if he criticized how the Korean War was being fought that wouldn't make him a leading authority.

A cog? Probably accurate, because many persons were involved in the fight against smallpox. But he does have expertise in epidemiology, at least enough that he could hold down a job in the field.

Just how would you define an expert in epidemiology? I wonder if this is yet another example of not recognizing a point raised by anyone across some political divide. At some point we have to acknowledge the TDS also affects the Trump supporters here! (that is what this actually hinges on, an evil atheist who criticizes Trump called someone an expert who criticized Trump)

[rogue06]

A cog? Probably accurate, because many persons were involved in the fight against smallpox. But he does have expertise in epidemiology, at least enough that he could hold down a job in the field.

And my father had "expertise" in fighting a war. The point is that just because you find one person involved in fighting smallpox doesn't mean you elevate him to being the ultimate authority just because he feeds your need to demonize someone you don't like.

[simplicio]

And my father had "expertise" in fighting a war. The point is that just because you find one person involved in fighting smallpox doesn't mean you elevate him to being the ultimate authority just because he feeds your need to demonize someone you don't like.

And it is apparent that you and others are discounting him because of his criticism, not because of any weakness in his resume.

Here is the post from starlight (a Kiwi, heathen, liberal)

Pence organizing for all statements about coronavirus to go through him, rather than being issued by the medical authorities, was a classic case of political correctness. It was apparently important to the administration that statements were politically correct rather than medically correct.

Meanwhile Trump in interviews and on twitter has been making all sorts of false statements.

Doctor who helped defeat smallpox says "this is the most irresponsible act of an elected official that I've ever witnessed in my lifetime" of Trump's handling of coronavirus.

What Trump's done is lied, called it a hoax, lied some more.

Here's a timeline of some of Trump's statements:

Jan 22: "We have it totally under controltheir [the Democrat's] new hoax".

Feb 29: "everything is under control... Everything is really under control.

March 19: "No one has ever seen numbers like this, no one would be ready for this."

In a 3 week period he went from it's a "hoax" and "under control" to "it's not under control anywhere" and "I've always known this is a real... pandemic".

I would say that Starlight inappropriately used a wrong term, describing the motivation as "political correctness", when another term would be more appropriate. In spite of that (and I might even forgive him that awful transgression) the post does contain some valid points.

But focusing on the expertise of the epidemiologist, the scientist, avoids the need to address the points.

But hey, Starlight is a scientist, so he is probably just too biased to make an informed decision on science, he is a liberal who does not like Trump, so he is probably unable to form a reasoned opinion on any topic surrounding Trump.

[rogue06]

And it is apparent that you and others are discounting him because of his criticism, not because of any weakness in his resume.

I'm not discounting him but rather objecting to how he was elevated to the ultimate authority solely because he dislikes Trump.

[rogue06]

What appears to have been lost in this is that most Americans (55% to 43%) think that Trump has been doing a good job. In this era of hyper-partisanship 12% is a sizable majority -- especially in light of a virulently hostile media bombarding the public 24/7 with a message that he has bungled this more than anyone possible. Maybe they're smart enough to comprehend that there are going to be missteps in something like this no matter who is in charge.

Or perhaps they recognize that the left hasn't offered any solutions but rather has focused on worrying about being politically correct instead. Or that the presumed Democrat presidential candidate has effectively plagiarized (he has a long history of this) what Trump has proposed and is doing with the exception of wanting to keep the borders open and naming someone to head his task force who thinks that those 75 years old and older should die.

[simplicio]

I'm not discounting him but rather objecting to how he was elevated to the ultimate authority solely because he dislikes Trump.

Did Starlight use him as an example because he was critical of Trump, or because of an example a person who might be able to make an informed decision on an epidemic response? (an appeal to authority)

Notice the authorities which are accepted or rejected by various posters here. By disputing his status as an authority, you are effectively discounting him and his conclusions.

Do you think that the epidemiologist criticized Trump solely because he dislikes Trump? (remember the thread I started whether someone who disagrees can form an opinion, which was based on a specific charge which pops up here on a regular basis)

Is it possible that people can form valid conclusions even if they are biased on their political views?

[rogue06]

Did Starlight use him as an example because he was critical of Trump, or because of an example a person who might be able to make an informed decision on an epidemic response? (an appeal to authority)

Since I'm in no mood for 20 questions I'll only answer this first one but with one of my own. Do you think that he would have ever cited him if he wasn't highly critical of Trump?