Rather than criticize everything with 20/20 hindsight, please explain what YOU would have done, if you actually have any ideas.
And what does this prove? @RidgeSprinter
If you have the courage to do so, please explain specifically what you think Trump should have done differently regarding covid-19.
(It’s easy to complain. Not so easy to offer a better solution.)
Developed a plan
Told the truth
Not contradicted the scientists
Led the country
Put personal gain aside
Told the truth
Not held rallies under the guise of coronavirus briefings
Not sided with protesters against his own administration
Told the truth
Wow, that is an incredible schedule . I would love to see the actual destinations and time flying as well to Trump’s non- job related activities.
Thanks for proving my point. You make a general criticism, but you cannot give one SPECIFIC example of what Trump should have done differently, and not even one specific example to back up your claim.
This includes the fact that you have no better idea than Trump’s ban of foreigners travelling from China… This is because you’re well aware that President Trump had a better solution than everybody.
At first I wasn’t going to engage, because the answers to your questions are so patently obvious that they don’t need to be answered. But, you successfully have goaded me into stating the obvious.
There has been no coherent plan to research solutions, there has been no coherent plan to buy and supply PPE, there has been no coherent plan to open the economy. It’s simply been several months of rage tweets and contradicting today what was said yesterday.
I can’t believe that I have to state the obvious here.
“No. Not at all. And we have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s — going to be just fine.”
The coronavirus would weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.”
The outbreak would be temporary: “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.”
The Obama White House’s response to the H1N1 pandemic was “a full scale disaster, with thousands dying, and nothing meaningful done to fix the testing problem, until now.”
The Trump White House “inherited” a “broken,” “bad,” and “obsolete” test for the coronavirus.
“Well, I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number. Now, and this is just my hunch, and — but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this,” Trump said, going on to peg the real figure as “way under 1 percent.”
But his statement televised on Fox nevertheless undermines what doctors and other health experts are trying to explain to the public: Even people with mild symptoms should stay home and “self-isolate” because they can spread the virus to others — some of whom will get deathly ill, or pass it on to yet more people, spreading disease.
Every Coronavirus Task Force meeting became the Donald Trump show, where he touted his ratings while people were dying. He took the stage and made it all about him.
This is obvious. Just read the news.
I do believe the impeachment hearings were a waste of time. But neither the Congress nor the WH would have done anything to protect the country even if they were not preoccupied with impeachment. They are all totally ineffective and useless to the average American.
Trump said it was a hoax and would be zero soon as his initial response.
Did the Congress make him say that?
@Maximus1: “Trump said it was a hoax”
Thanks for your SPECIFIC example, as opposed to a lazy and useless “orange-man bad” drive-by comment.
You’re not the first person to make the Trump coronavirus “hoax” claim, so I thought I’d present the ACTUAL TEXT:
“We have exposed the far left’s corruption and defeated their sinister schemes and let’s see what happens in the coming months,” Trump said. “Let’s watch. Let’s just watch. Very dishonest people. Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus, you know that right? Coronavirus, they’re politicizing it.”
“They tried anything,” said Trump about a minute after his first mention of the coronavirus. “They tried it over and over. They’d been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning. They lost. It’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax.”
Throughout his speech, Trump reiterated that his administration is taking the threat of the coronavirus seriously.
Trump described the “politicizing” of the White House’s response to the disease as an attempt to undermine his administration, likening it to Democrats’ impeachment drive and the Russia investigation.
When looking at the entirety of Trump’s remarks, it appears the “new hoax” comment refers to the Democrats’ alleged “politicizing” of his response to the coronavirus threat—not the coronavirus itself.
At NO POINT in the rally did Trump directly call the novel coronavirus outbreak a “hoax” or “conspiracy.” In fact, he referred to the respiratory virus as a “public health threat” and reiterated that “we have to take it very, very seriously. That’s what we’re doing. We are preparing for the worst.”
This is why we refer to the leftist “news” as FAKE NEWS.
Not so fast.
The president used Hoax to discredit? I agree.
The point you make about hoax as an objective reality of the virus is one issue. The effort to discredit opposition narrative about the virus is another. You apparently agree the latter was Trump’s goal.
Hoax and the objective he had when Trump uses it.
PERCEPTION IS REALITY. As the only credible source, The Virus is whatever he says, if he successfully discredits everyone but himself. With all respect, people fear what this president can do, and is willing to do, if given unopposed opportunity to convince the virus is as he says.
Truth is, the virus is what America believes it is to a large extent. That isn’t difficult to understand. For Democrats, all there is between a reality based perception and a Trump provided perception is anything other than Trump influencing perception.
Ask, what is the harm you fear when Trump used the word hoax?
That it actually is a hoax?
Trump cannot actually change the properties of the virus.
That Trump wants you to think it’s a hoax?
What Trump wants us to think is exactly what Democrats fear. That is why the push back and reaction is, what it is. It is a pushback against danger. A danger he can offer a narrative of, for example, miracle treatment drug, as an absolute fact for example." I say this drug is the answer and them? Their fake."
I frankly appreciate your candor.
You say," this is why we refer to the leftist news as fake news."
I am going to score your statement at the highest truthfulness in what it reveals.
HOAX AND FAKE NEWS represent two strategies in the playbook of discrediting. These words are branded. The purpose is the same for both terms. I would expect to see them in your post in the same conversation.
Do you think it matters if he calls it a hoax, or “it was yesterday but not today,” or, " it will be at zero soon," or, " the numbers are extrordinarily better now." Or any of a number of attempts he has made to identify reality that differs from Fauci or others materially?
Finally, hoax is a word he selected. One thing is for certain, his use of HOAX will never be confused with an attempt to raise perception that the virus is very very serious. THATS NO ACCIDENT.
Using words like infestation to describe people does not mean Trump literally believes those people are bugs. He baits the accusation so people like you can say," fake news about Trump."( WHEN people like me that the word infestation is used to describe bugs not humans.)
And that’s the deception. Because infestation is a word that dehumanizes. That is the intended perception.
Add, believe the perception I offer and not fake news is the insidious message.
Really? What did he say, throughout the speech, that hat suggested that his administration was taking the threat of the coronavirus seriously?
Some I’ve listed in my previous comments, like lifesaving foreign travel ban & quarantine.
Quickly produced far more ventilators than needed for woefully unprepared states.
@paulinva:“Well, I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number,” Trump said, going on to peg the real figure as “way under 1 percent.”
@1cthlctrth: Science: no serious person thinks the death rate is anywhere near 3.4%. Trump was ahead of the “science” that said 3.4%:
Thus significantly dropping the estimated fatality rate.
As reported by CNN Tuesday, a new study published in Lancet estimates that even the lower-end 1% fatality rate estimation is too high. Researchers say it is about 0.66%.
“We’ve seen 1,227 deaths in the state of California with a possible incidents or prevalence of 4.7 million. That means you have a 0.03 chance of dying from COVID-19 in the state of California.”
And we’re fortunate to have President Trump in charge, instead of the Democrats:
from January 27th, the only travel bans Dems were concerned about was STOPPING Trump:
Former Vice President Joe Biden was harshly critical, tweeting March 12, “A wall will not stop the coronavirus. Banning all travel from Europe — or any other part of the world — will not stop it.” Biden’s earlier attack on Trump’s international travel restrictions: “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia … and fearmongering.”
You are going to shut down and tell people to stay home, you have to lead and convince them why.
You make a travel ban, you have to sell why. You don’t dictate in a free nation. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU TRAFFIC IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND VICTIMHOOD. This isn’t the church where obedience is valued.( And obedience only comes when men’s hearts accept righteous authority). Leadership creates public acceptance, and sails ships in the same direction.
The articles shout ineffective
And epic fail in which, whatever time was bought, was badly wasted.
There are effective ways to keep out the virus - as numberous countries have shown
Travel bans of foreigners are not among them - as our country has shown, dramatically.
Shots in the dark are not science, and “anywhere near” is not a scientific term.
What we know: in the US 20% of all resolved cases have been resolved in death.
In the US, the ratio of deaths to total cases to date is 6%.
The virus is novel.
We also know that the study that you repost from the Daily Wire suggesting 50-80 fold higher caseloads than detected has been thoroughly and harshly debunked, some time ago.
And by the way, the Lancet estimate that you cite is from Mar30 and is made on the basis of analysis of reports from China. It is, notably, inconsistent with the 50-80 factor for undetected cases; it suggests s factor of 2.
I’d like add you to the list of commenters I’d like to challenge to specifically identify what your plan to defeat coronavirus would have been. Even with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight, nobody has been able to specifically identify a coherent plan that would have been better than President Trump’s. (I suspect the lack of specificity is the result of commenters knowing that I might easily poke holes in whatever specifics commenters identify.)
By the way, you’re looking at obsolete data if you think the death rate exceeds 1%. I can keep doing this, you know (and I’d be happy to):
0.26% is eight to 15 times lower than earlier mortality rate estimates of between two and four percent, which prompted the lockdowns.
The CDC data is consistent with other assessments. “By now, multiple studies from Europe, Japan, and the U.S. all suggest that the overall fatality rate is far lower than early estimates, perhaps below 0.1 to 0.4%, i.e., ten to forty times lower than estimates that motivated extreme isolation,” Dr. Scott Atlas, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, told lawmakers in early May, referring to the infection rate.
Are you addressing me, eight days later?
I have said on multiple occasions that following policies and procedures used in countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, and so on. One needn’t get any more specific than that.
I look at current data from Worldometer.
There are a variety of estimates of the number of undetected infections. The Stanford work using antibody testing has been thoroughly debunked. The analysis of Horowitz lacks specificity on how he comes up with his number. But the CDC scenarios put these are equal to the number of detected cases or less.