SectionC3

It’s not a refusal to admit. It’s a refusal to address a point immaterial to this debate. If were going to get into Obama, we may as well explore Reagan’s response to AIDS and Woodrow Wilson’s response to the “Spanish” flu. Those points have no bearing on the efficacy of Trump’s response, and the question of Obama’s response to a different pandemic at a different time likewise is of no relevance here.

1. Not. The. Issue. 2. He did call it a hoax. And assuming he didn’t, the point remains that his attention was focused on a figmentary hoax of some sort when it should have been figured on solving the problem. One half measure (but still a good measure, to be clear) - the significant restriction on China travel - does not excuse the other failures.

1. More whataboutism. Obama is not the issue. 2. I never said that nobody was working on a vax since January. What I said was that the administration didn’t prioritize it. Instead the president was focused on hoaxes and warm weather and miracle cures. That’s not fake news. That’s what actually happened. And he should be held to account for it. 3. The were other proactive approaches. Like encouraging the use of masks. And modeling social distancing. Trump undermined both approaches on a daily basis, and he continues to undermine at least the distancing approach in his pressers.

Or clarified.

Nobody said that. Try reading a little lore carefully. If the vax takes 12 to 18 months to develop, test, and produce, and if (as it is in this instance), happens to be mildly important, wouldn’t it be better to start the work sooner that later? Like making it a priority in early January? The vax is on ply the key to like, getting the economy open and halting the pandemic. But it was better to focus on hoaxes and jiggery pockery like warm weather and some unproven drug that may or may not work for some patients. But you have your opinion and I mine. Have a nice night. And skip the name calling until you improve your reading comprehension. There’s a difference between delaying and prioritizing. You think the government prioritized the issue before early April? Why not move some of the Johnson and Johnson money into play in January? Im here for your response. One more thing. You’re right I’m blaming trump for his role in this mess. The buck stops with him.

Who said anything about developing one in three months? I think the point was pretty clear: the earlier we start, the earlier we finish. So if it’s going to take 12 to 18 months, better to get a jump on things. Or we can talk about hoaxes and warm weather. I prefer the former, proactive approach. You’re fine with the latter. And that’s cool. We just agree to disagree. That’s nice. Resort to insults. Great conversation. Have a nice night.

You didn't walk anything back. Trump did. I quoted it. Snopes saw confusion in Trump's remarks. You interpret them as Snopes did. Politico, among others, similarly saw confusion, but interpreted the remarks in a different way. I take it you don't trust Politico, since you seemed to have ignored that post. It's clear that I'm with the "Poiltico" understanding of what was said. And my case is strengthened by the points that the president had to walk the statement back, that the walkback was vague at best, and that the president's actions during the same time period were consistent with the view that he saw the virus as a hoax and proceeded accordingly.

Can you link to a specific video or video? There seem to be dozens of videos there. *** I assume this is the walkback that you're going to get to: “The ‘hoax’ was used with respect to Democrats and what they were saying,” Trump said. “It was a ‘hoax,’ what they were saying.” A couple of points there. If the statement was so clear in the first place, then there would be no need to walk it back. And, if the walk back was truthful, wouldn't it be easy to identify the "Democrats" and specify "what they were saying" that constitutes a "hoax?"

Link?

That made me laugh. Well done.

So educate me on the creation of a vaccine. Why could nothing have been done earlier? I'm serious. Let me know. And on NYC, as Italy has shown us, population density is an enormous factor in how this is spread. So of course it's going to be easier to contain in Washington than it would be in NYC. Blaming is different from assessing, Doc. Despite your efforts at deflection, the issue remains Trump, and whether he could have done better. Apparently you think he could not have improved upon his performance. I completely disagree. It seems as if you and I should leave it at that. But you'll take the time to explain why you won't do the "minimal" work. Makes. Perfect. Sense.

That's great. Distills to "I think you're wrong, but I won't tell you how you're wrong!" Sorry, Joe. Not sure what that means.

January. The sequence has been known since January. And nothing was done about it. Why? The earlier we start, the earlier we finish. The rest of the post is mostly blame game. "Any country could make a vaccine." Sure. Why didn't the (nationalist) leader of our country get on the hop to get it done here to protect our country? HCQ might have promise, but it shouldn't be taken casually as the president has suggested, because the side effects might outweigh the benefits. NYC is a different kettle of fish from Seattle, and to a point from Cali. Could Cuomo have done better? Maybe. But could the president have done better? Yes. The issue here isn't Cuomo. It's Trump. And it's stunning that you can't admit that he played a huge part in this historic mess. Bottom line: you have nothing intelligent to say. Tell me again about the politicization efforts at the time the president made that statement. I'm all ears.

So was it the virus that was the hoax? Or some actions of the Democrats? And if it was Democractic actions, why were they a hoax? Because the virus wasn't to be taken seriously? That leads us back to . . . the virus is a hoax. You'll respond several times to dodge giving an answer, but won't give what you hint is a simple answer. Makes. Perfect. Sense.

And yet you can't refute the logic.

Still waiting.

Nice emoji. Still no explanation.

"it's their new hoax" came next. So was it the virus that was the hoax? Or some actions of the Democrats? And if it was Democractic actions, why were they a hoax? Because the virus wasn't to be taken seriously? That leads us back to . . . the virus is a hoax.

Great. Put your money where your mouth is and do it.

Honestly, Doc, that's just more whatboutism garbage in the first paragraph. Could Obama have done a better job w/r/t H1N1? Maybe. But that's not the issue right now. I think you're missing the point on the "Dem admin." thing, too. It's not a Republican/Democrat issue. You're making it that. It's a Trump/competent president issue. I've made my case: Trump has acted incompetently here. Blaming China for his failure to act in February is absurd. Perhaps medical and drug manufacturing would still face production issues in a different world, but if we started prioritizing a scientific approach earlier (such as, say, a vaccine) when the genetic sequencing was published, we'd be ahead of the game. The point about deBlasio is a fair one, just as it's fair to criticize Ron DeSantis and Brian Kemp for their ineptitude. The last sentence is pure speculation and has nothing to do with the issue whether Trump has performed well here. Only because you can't explain how to drink here. So the theory is that the (unspecified) politicization of the virus is the new hoax? How exactly was the virus "weaponized" by Congressional democrats at the time the President spoke? I don't see it anywhere in the statement. So the hoax, under your theory, would be politicizing something that the president took seriously? I'm lost, I honestly am, particularly in view of the fact that the president, as noted earlier in this thread, obviously didn't take the virus seriously for weeks afterwards.

We had, what, a week to get ready for Katrina. We had about two months to steel ourselves for COVID. I expect a president to treat the threat seriously. I expect a president to prepare FEMA. I expect a president to be prepared to invoke the DPA. I expect a president to use the national emergency stockpile for good, not to have his son-in-law inexplicably claim that it's "ours" to support its withholding from the state. I expect the president to show leadership; to have enacted social distancing without prodding, and to have modeled social distancing instead of shaking hands at pressers. And I expect the president to have acknowledged the flaws in our capacity and worked immediately to correct them, such as in the case of testing. Bluffing the problem away won't work here. By your logic, it would have been OK to have wished Katrina to blow back to sea, or to have hoped that another earthquake would have put everything back everything back in its place in Northridge. That's not good enough here, and it's sad that you and others don't demand more from the leader of what was once and what hopefully still will be the greatest nation on earth once this mess is over. Nice try. You can't do it. I know it. And so do you. So I'll ask again? What's the hoax? If it's not the virus, then tell me what it is.

That's great, Doc. What the president of the United States says shouldn't be taken at face value because he's a barker. Unless it should be. I'm just lost by that. On deBlasio, I completely agree with you. He messed up, too. Badly. When the time comes to lay blame, he's going to bear a good amount of it. Just as Trump should and will. On the border closing, I agree with you to a point. I think Trump was late on that, but I suspect others would have been, too. What gets me about Trump is that he spent his time bloviating and trying to wish the virus away instead of enhancing testing capabilities, working on PPE supply chain issues, and recommending social distancing. That much is inarguable and inexcusable.

If it's so evident tell me what it is. Two wrongs make a right, eh? Somebody else made a mistake, therefore Trump is absolved of responsibility.

I think you're missing the point. It's not the fact that people died in H1N1 or in this pandemic that's the issue. It's the response that's the problem. I suspect you're old enough to grasp the distinction. And since we're moving into playing the semantics game today, I'll accept this as your admission that Trump called the virus a hoax in the first instance. I appreciate your comments, and I appreciate the fact that we disagree on things.

With respect, I think my track record, particularly in this thread, is to provide fact-based analysis. Take a look at my prior post and tell me where I'm wrong. I ask you kindly.