Covering a cover-up in real time
axios.com
axios.com
Can someone’s health condition be signed and verified?
Is it okay for it to be normalized to real time?
Health outcomes are nonlinear. Even if it were reduced to a number, could people interpret it correctly?
Is he more likely to recover better if his medical condition is disclosed? Is it ethical to spend medical resources on concerns that do not improve his outcome? Can technology ameliorate that?
By the way, most doctors would agree paperwork, billing and insurance unethically harm patient outcomes.
https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/
Healthcare providers can only ethically disclose patient records if authorized by the patient himself (or someone legally authorized to act on the patient's behalf). There is nothing in the code of medical ethics which prohibits doing paperwork or dealing with insurance billing.
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/code-medical...
I know. I just texted some MDs and asked for their opinions.
It would be pretty wild to make it possible to share a real-time health chart.
The world learned Trump had it late Thursday night. 36 hours later, Conley said he’d been diagnosed 72 hours earlier, which would’ve been the morning after the debate. Another doctor said Trump had been on a certain treatment for 48 hours, which would have been Thursday morning.
They issued a statement hours later correcting the timeline, but the statement was unsigned and riddled with errors.
Since Trump did a bunch of fundraising and meeting with people (not to mention attending the debate!) this week it’s pretty important to be sure about the timeline. It’s sounding like the original timeline is correct based on stuff the press has discovered but it’s such a mess.
It also seems like the only reason we know ANY of this is because someone leaked to the press that Hope Hicks, Trump's top aide, had COVID. The White House STILL hasn't even taken the simple measure of emailing its employees, or people working on the campaign- Chris Christie, who was just diagnosed, learned that he needed to get tested from the news.
I have a feeling if Trump dies over this illness the message will be the last of their worries.
Avoiding appearance of weakness and similar political-image based concerns, especially given the President’s past minimization of the risk from the virus, is also a credible explanation.
His team also refused to be tested before the debate. Imagine if it comes out that they knew they were having an outbreak and showed up anyway without masks. It sounds like a conspiracy theory but I can see it happening- the alternative would have been to cancel the debate at the last minute, which has terrible optics. If his team had suddenly worn masks it would have been an indication they knew something was up.
It shows Trump as alert and well. "Very concerning" and "not on a clear path to a full recovery" are scary phrases, but they are relative terms. So do consider how they can describe two very different realities: mild symptoms of a potentially catastrophic illness, or severe symptoms of an individual "at death's door". Given the gulf between those scenarios, I would not advise extensive divining from that statement by Meadows.