So now Trump is an idiot-savant? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/health/sunlight-coronavir...
In the COVID-19 case the major problem is the bacterial sepsis caused by the infection.
This does not appear to be at all true.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/how-does-coronavirus...
My hunch is that he heard about this as a potential treatment from some doctor/advisor and then put his usual spin on it. This could work, it could be great, it's very promising, why don't we try it?
In fact it was reported last week that Rick Bright was fired from HHS because he tried to resist the chloroquines spin and push traditional vaccine development instead. It seems almost certain that significant bandwidth will be tied up in the bureaucracy because of the desire in the executive branch to provide evidence backing up POTUS statements.
Like, confusion over this is not uncommon; elderly people trying to ingest disinfectants, say, is A Thing, and weird health claims for UV/sunbed aren’t new. It’s just that most senile people don’t really have the platform to promote it.
Cynical response to Trump: He only half listens to the people around him, and genuinely believes he knows better than everyone in the world.
Not sure which of those it actually is, but I'm sure it's one of the two.
Why wouldn’t he just say whatever pops into his head, regardless of whether it’s remotely plausible at all?
I think there’s almost no forethought given to a lot of his words/actions. Nobody could set up a long game like this for 70+ years to become President.
That's not context. The fact that he acts like a child does not justify exaggeration or sensationalism. And the press has undeniably been antagonistic going back to election season - he just seems to be the first president to fight back, however crudely.
And objectivity requires normalizing context for emotional influence. That means not being blind to context, but inhibiting your hatred momentarily to examine whether the media is also behaving unbecomingly.
Here's an excerpt from his announcement speech: When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.
People like you have have lots of problems. You're bringing drugs. You're bringing crime. You're rapists. And some of you, I assume, are good people.
How do you feel to find yourself as the subject of such rhetoric? I'm guessing, not very good. You're probably feeling something along the lines of 'what did I do to you, I'm just living my life and you come along and start saying these things about me.' And before he announced his entry to the political field on that occasion, he had many times solicited attention online by making unilateral aggressive personal attacks on other public figures. What he's 'fighting back' against appears to the plain reports of his own behavior. At press conferences, when he's asked how his rhetoric comports with previous and recent statements of his that appear contradictory, he frequently complains about 'nasty questions' and engages in direct personal attacks.
And objectivity requires normalizing context for emotional influence. That means not being blind to context, but inhibiting your hatred momentarily to examine whether the media is also behaving unbecomingly.
What hatred? And which unbecoming media behavior are we talking about? I formed my negative opinion of Trump's remarks at his press conference yesterday based upon listening to them on the White house's youtube channel. I don't have a cable TV subscription so I don't rely on second-hand interpretations by news anchors or pundits. Seems like you might be experiencing a little cognitive bias of your own.
I'm the son of immigrants and if anyone implied that most of the immigrants from my third world country of origin were, let's say, underachievers, I wouldn't have any problem with it, because this hypersensitivity to anything remotely critical of people from other nations or cultures is an inane western cultural norm. I assure you that liberal white people are far more offended on anyone's behalf than actual minorities.
>How do you feel to find yourself as the subject of such rhetoric? I'm guessing, not very good. You're probably feeling something along the lines of 'what did I do to you, I'm just living my life and you come along and start saying these things about me.'
This is absolutely childish reasoning. What Trump says about the general state of immigrants coming from my country of origin does not reflect on me personally.
Moreover, what he's saying is objectively true, in that the people crossing the border illegally are not exactly doctors and scientists with post graduate degrees. They are mostly a burden on our infrastructure and all that about how they contribute more than they take is absolute hogwash...but that's another discussion.
>What he's 'fighting back' against appears to the plain reports of his own behavior.
>I formed my negative opinion of Trump's remarks at his press conference yesterday based upon listening to them on the White house's youtube channel.
Do you honestly think it's reasonable that some 95% of headlines about Trump are negative? Do you truly believe that every single thing he does is negative? I challenge you to find a single positive headline from CNN or MSNBC or the like from the last few years that isn't an editorial.
>Seems like you might be experiencing a little cognitive bias of your own.
My cognitive bias is that statistically for Trump to make the wrong call as often as the media claims he does, he'd have to do so deliberately. As in it would take effort and skill to be wrong this often.
>What hatred
Please. You want to pretend people online aren't rabidly against Trump? Even this latest gaffe, coverage of which is exclusively negative, could trivially be interpreted as listening and deferring to suggestions from experts. But you won't find that valid take on "reputable" media.
That's an elegant sidestep from suggesting I'm biased by media framing to being biased by simply being online. Go on complaining about the media though.
Sometimes, one upvote is never enough.
Oh wait, you mean because he kinda-sorta had a similar suggestion to this absurd medical practice? No. His goal is to stay in power.
He never said anything about mainlining bleach though.
Bleach, isopropyl alcohol, hydrogen peroxide...
Whichever disinfectant he was suggesting injecting into the body, it's not a good idea.
UV light injected into the body via fiber optics...
He didn't specifically say "mainlining bleach", but he was referencing injecting one of the aforementioned disinfectants. It's kind of hard to say he didn't.
> And then I said, supposing it brought the light inside the body, which you can either do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're gonna test that too, sounds interesting. And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way you can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning.
He's clearly talking about two things - one sentence is about light, "And I then I see the disinfectant"... - and you simply can't "inject" light.
You can inject light via fiber optics. We all know 'inject" isn't the right term, but it's how he was using it.
Regardless, and most importantly, he never specified any disinfectant, so in the context, he meant UV light. No contortion necessary. It's all there in the quote you provided.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/24/disinfectan...
> Trump’s eyebrow-raising query came immediately after William N. Bryan, the acting undersecretary for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security, gave a presentation on the potential impact of summer heat and humidity, which also included references to tests that showed the effectiveness of different types of disinfectants. He recounted data from recent tests that showed how bleach, alcohol and sunlight could kill the coronavirus on surfaces.
> Bryan said bleach killed the virus in about five minutes and isopropyl alcohol killed it in 30 seconds. In tests, sunlight and high temperatures also appeared to shorten the virus’s life on surfaces and in the air, Bryan said.
> Bryan said
Last I checked, Bryan wasn't Trump.
> And I then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way you can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning.
You're saying he's saying "nothing" but in fact he's suggesting that disinfectant injections are worth trying
Okay, I'll play along. Here's part of that quote, "is there a way..."
When someone merely asks if there's a way, I don't interpret that as them suggesting anything, since a question isn't a suggestion.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/319030/should-a-...
"I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
So for all this talk about examining context and intentionally interpreting the President's comments in an unfavorable light, he was in fact being disingenuous and sarcastic. He wasn't "merely" asking a question. He was trolling. BTW, this is why people are so eager to not take him at face value.
Discussing potential treatments with, as he said, "medical personnel", is nowhere near advising people to drink bleach.
The fact that a person would ingest a known and clearly dangerous chemical simply because Trump said the word disinfectant is a reflection on the individual, not a valid reason to censor the president. If people are ignorant enough to go from "president mentions potential treatment" to "I must inject myself with bleach" then, frankly, the heard needs to be culled. Arguably the way we've coddled such people for decades is part of the reason we're in this sorry state, but that's another discussion. In any case the number of people who actually go on to do such a thing will be negligible if not zero. This is pure sensationalism.
You speak of misinformation but you are consuming the very same, only oblivious to it because of your bias. How often do people actually look at the primary source, i.e. the interview? Because by the time anything is filtered through the media it is nearly always exaggerated and misreported. Even this example - the guy is rambling like an obvious idiot, that's clear and more than enough to report on. But then we go and have the media holding him liable for the poor choices of others, for discussing a potentially medical treatment? This happens literally every time he talks.
We're way past the point of justifying faith in any of our popular media.