I really hope they do widespread an
You must be in a good mood today.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Hekate
- Start date
Red
Well-Known Member
Specifically, Trump said: “I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning”?
So we all should, and likely do in this case, recognize a very stupid statement when we see one. (We should bear in mind, that at that same press conference, Trump later did clarify that he did not mean to suggest disinfectants be injected).
The bigger story is not that people suggested actual examples, including brand names, of liquid disinfectant. The bigger story is that Trump suggested something as dumb as injecting ANY disinfectant in the first place.
Some people insist on being Trump apologists. And that's all they are doing by focusing on Trump detractors using words like bleach and Clorox. A smarter Trump apologist could just point out Trump later corrected his statement in that very press conference.
Edit: Below is Trump's clarification, but, while it talks back "injection", in reading again, I'm not sure what he is saying here. But we should also note that "bleach" was in fact one of the disinfectants mentioned before Trump made his injection remark in response to THOSE very mentions, so when other people substituted "bleach", maybe that was not a misrepresentation at all.
So, pay attention, Trump "he never said bleach" apologists, because THIS is what Secretary Bryan said about disinfectants, and TO WHICH Trump was responding with his "injection" comment:
"We’re also testing disinfectants readily available. We’ve tested bleach, we’ve tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus, specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids. And I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes; isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds, and that’s with no manipulation, no rubbing — just spraying it on and letting it go. You rub it and it goes away even faster. We’re also looking at other disinfectants, specifically looking at the COVID-19 virus in saliva".
And Trump's clarification:
Q But I — just, can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there? I mean —(Question was addressed to Acting Undersecretary Bryan).
THE PRESIDENT: It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object. (Note: based on Bryan’s remarks, it’s likely Trump is referring to either bleach or isopropyl alcohol in his original injection comment, and the latter may be more likely since 30 seconds is closer to Trump’s “one minute” than it is to 5 minutes, and Bryan mentioned isopropyl alcohol in relation to “respiratory fluids”.)
So we all should, and likely do in this case, recognize a very stupid statement when we see one. (We should bear in mind, that at that same press conference, Trump later did clarify that he did not mean to suggest disinfectants be injected).
The bigger story is not that people suggested actual examples, including brand names, of liquid disinfectant. The bigger story is that Trump suggested something as dumb as injecting ANY disinfectant in the first place.
Some people insist on being Trump apologists. And that's all they are doing by focusing on Trump detractors using words like bleach and Clorox. A smarter Trump apologist could just point out Trump later corrected his statement in that very press conference.
Edit: Below is Trump's clarification, but, while it talks back "injection", in reading again, I'm not sure what he is saying here. But we should also note that "bleach" was in fact one of the disinfectants mentioned before Trump made his injection remark in response to THOSE very mentions, so when other people substituted "bleach", maybe that was not a misrepresentation at all.
So, pay attention, Trump "he never said bleach" apologists, because THIS is what Secretary Bryan said about disinfectants, and TO WHICH Trump was responding with his "injection" comment:
"We’re also testing disinfectants readily available. We’ve tested bleach, we’ve tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus, specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids. And I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes; isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds, and that’s with no manipulation, no rubbing — just spraying it on and letting it go. You rub it and it goes away even faster. We’re also looking at other disinfectants, specifically looking at the COVID-19 virus in saliva".
And Trump's clarification:
Q But I — just, can I ask about — the President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There’s no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there? I mean —(Question was addressed to Acting Undersecretary Bryan).
THE PRESIDENT: It wouldn’t be through injection. We’re talking about through almost a cleaning, sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work. But it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object. (Note: based on Bryan’s remarks, it’s likely Trump is referring to either bleach or isopropyl alcohol in his original injection comment, and the latter may be more likely since 30 seconds is closer to Trump’s “one minute” than it is to 5 minutes, and Bryan mentioned isopropyl alcohol in relation to “respiratory fluids”.)
Last edited:
Avery
Well-Known Member
Regardless of how much you want to read into what Trump did or didn't say, the whole point is you shouldn't pontificate on a stage full of cameras to a live audience. When you do so, that's going to leave a lot open to interpretation. The correct thing is to put the idea in the parking lot and discuss it in a meeting with knowledgeable experts.
This will be interesting. However, as I’ve said before, if there’s no explosion of cases, here are the arguments that will be raised, in my order of how much they’ll be promulgated:
1a. Give it more time.
1b. The people protesting are among the most disenfranchised in society, have the least amount of access to healthcare, and are disproportionately among those without ability to be tested.
2. Videos are everywhere. For such big protests, most people were very responsible and most all worse masks and practiced social distancing.
3. The infrastructure of these communities was hit the hardest, and the testing results were getting now are more reflective of the communities that didn’t get hit with protests and riots, so we’re undercounting because these communities didn’t just “magically” not have COVID.
4. The protestors were only a small fraction of the population, and they congregated in cities but then dispersed back to their home communities, so it’s impossible to measure the spread among those individuals because the actual rates will get distributed across different communities and be difficult to track.
In any case, a term nobody has heard for a while is exponential growth. The belief was that it was going to continue indefinitely. Shutting everything down is credited with stopping exponential growth. No better test than what we’re about to experience as to whether or not shutting things down was the true independent variable in stopping exponential growth. But if it doesn’t grow, then we’ve got built in reasons for why it isn’t (in part some of the arguments as per above).
The best analogy I can make is with regard to 9/11. Airport security totally changed. They implemented a shot-gun approach to safety and banned things like plastic ware that you can go get behind the gates. But it made everyone feel more safe. I haven’t followed specifically airliner hijackings since, but I know I sure as hell haven’t heard of any. And I don’t believe that’s simply because of increased security. It’s because you have a plane full of people who lived through 9/11 and would all risk their lives in the process of defending a plane knowing the potential of what could happen if they don’t. But as I google this, it looks like there’s been no US hijackings since 9/11, and they attribute it to greater security measures. I feel like that will be the case with a lot of COVID issues — we will attribute it mostly to rationalizing continued economic shutdown, and not acknowledge changing human behavior and awareness (though some may argue they’re inextricably linked).
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
The primary reason for no hijackings is that cockpit doors are now secure. In the event of a truly threatening passenger pilots would put the plane into a sudden dive that would devastate any unseatbelted passenger. The reality is that due to these sorts of measures (probably much more so than due to airport screening measures) commercial airliners are no longer a good target for terrorists.
Good thoughts. Thanks. I’d also be curious, absent any of that, would a plane full of passengers allow it to be hijacked? Obviously things have changed where you have a good proportion of the population who either wasn’t alive or wasn’t cognizant during 9/11, but for anyone living through that, I’d have a hard time seeing a plane full of people not being willing to die in the process of stopping a hijacker.
He can't tell. Literally incapable of questioning whether the leader's arguments are in good faith.
Do you feel any of the arguments are distortions of the reality, rather than presentations of reality?
Every model I saw for exponential growth stopped at no higher than 50% of the population, many were lower.
We both know covid cases are increasing in the past few days within many localities. I'll say right now that trying to align increases/decreases in covid cases with these protests will be fraught with difficulties.
lauriandres
Well-Known Member
Good news from Italy:
https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2020...-number-of-new-covid-19-cases-since-february/
We in Estonia also had 0 new cases yesterday. I do not remember well, but i guess that is first time since the end of the February.
So lets hope that all over the world the virus is losing gradually its power/leathality sooner or later. IMHO the good thing is that while the number of cases is high, then also the number of recovered patients is not a tiny number.
https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2020...-number-of-new-covid-19-cases-since-february/
We in Estonia also had 0 new cases yesterday. I do not remember well, but i guess that is first time since the end of the February.
So lets hope that all over the world the virus is losing gradually its power/leathality sooner or later. IMHO the good thing is that while the number of cases is high, then also the number of recovered patients is not a tiny number.
Not necessarily, but also not entirely. What I'm doing is identifying the arguments before people are in search of them. Right now those arguments aren't being made. Having those arguments arise post hoc diminishes their value. In research, your primary outcome measure is really the best thing you're looking at, and really the only thing that the P value is all that relevant to (without interpretive correction). If you include a multitude of secondary outcome measures, then you have to interpret those P values accordingly and offer a correction, because the larger sample of variables means increased probability of chance. This is somewhat similar here. If the arguments that are being made now don't come to fruition, then alternative arguments will be sought for that remain consistent with the original hypothesis. They could be valid, obviously, but not as valid as if they were integrated within the original hypothesis. I think the argument that we can't open things up because of how dangerous it is takes a gigantic blow if there isn't a spike in cases. In the event there isn't, it should cause us to reflect on why there isn't, rather than continue to presume the hypothesis is correct and seek hypothesis-confirming explanations. But I think, ultimately, it will fall back on those arguments because they allow people to feel they were right all along, and will prevent us from questioning what we know or believe. Considering a possibility that perhaps we don't have all the answers would not factor in to the equation because a lot of what we've shut everything down for has come with feigned certainty. My personal view is that the rates will stay flat or continue to drop. If they increase, I have nowhere to go other than reevaluating my assessments, and I'm willing to do so because there's still a lot we don't know. But if the increase is 10%? Or 15%? It warrants some serious discussion on diminishing returns by continuing to double down. Very few people have been able to reevaluate their assessments along the way. People took a side and dug in, and with how invasive this issue has been in people's lives (well, until this weekend), people felt very emotionally connected to whichever original position they took, and to let go of that, or simply reassess it, represents something much, much deeper than simply needing to recalibrate. It means having to completely question the essence of the way they see the world and their identity because so many personal and political entanglements got tied in to one issue.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Everything doesn't have to be a lie. It is likely that the president was taking hydroxychloroquine despite your lawyer-speak analysis of the documents. I have taken that drug before. Lots of people have. The people who have convinced you that it is so dangerous are only doing so because they want to gin up yet another controversy. The desire to turn everything single thing this president says or does into a controversy is asinine.
I haven't looked it up but I remember reading that the new 911 security has yet to stop a single incident either. I think it's been largely ineffective. People trying to get things past security have been able to. Although maybe it's more to scare people away to begin with. Kind of like a fake cameras around your house.