[JustAnotherFan]

Not sure who had a chance to watch the White House coronavirus briefing this afternoon, but it was kinda a disaster if you want to have faith in your government. 

POTUS scolded a reporter for bad reporting after the reporter gave him a softball question: "What do you say to Americans who are scared?"

Then Trump once again promoted hydroxychoorquine after being prompted, and Dr. Fauci had to effectively caution people not to listen to Trump. 
https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/...6303044608

[JustAnotherFan]

Not sure who had a chance to watch the White House coronavirus briefing this afternoon, but it was kinda a disaster if you want to have faith in your government. 

POTUS scolded a reporter for bad reporting after the reporter gave him a softball question: "What do you say to Americans who are scared?"

Then Trump once again promoted hydroxychoorquine after being prompted, and Dr. Fauci had to effectively caution people not to listen to Trump. 
https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/...6303044608

[dabigv13]

There's gonna be a run on it so that even if it works ( my understanding is the literature is preliminary and it is not a miracle cure but may mildly improve outcomes for some patients), no one will get it because the supply has been bought up by people who don't need it.

[dabigv13]

There's gonna be a run on it so that even if it works ( my understanding is the literature is preliminary and it is not a miracle cure but may mildly improve outcomes for some patients), no one will get it because the supply has been bought up by people who don't need it.

[martyup]

Not sure who had a chance to watch the White House coronavirus briefing this afternoon, but it was kinda a disaster if you want to have faith in your government. 

POTUS scolded a reporter for bad reporting after the reporter gave him a softball question: "What do you say to Americans who are scared?"

Then Trump once again promoted hydroxychoorquine after being prompted, and Dr. Fauci had to effectively caution people not to listen to Trump. 
https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/...6303044608

Watch to video clip.  The question was the effectiveness of the drug on malaria and SARS.  POTUS wasn't sure about the answer regarding SARS, so he turned to the Doctor and asked him to answer it, which he did.  He did not correct or scold Trump.  Why post this here?  This is political propoganda and false reporting.

[martyup]

Not sure who had a chance to watch the White House coronavirus briefing this afternoon, but it was kinda a disaster if you want to have faith in your government. 

POTUS scolded a reporter for bad reporting after the reporter gave him a softball question: "What do you say to Americans who are scared?"

Then Trump once again promoted hydroxychoorquine after being prompted, and Dr. Fauci had to effectively caution people not to listen to Trump. 
https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/...6303044608

Watch to video clip.  The question was the effectiveness of the drug on malaria and SARS.  POTUS wasn't sure about the answer regarding SARS, so he turned to the Doctor and asked him to answer it, which he did.  He did not correct or scold Trump.  Why post this here?  This is political propoganda and false reporting.

[BostonCard]

Yeah, I think Faucci was directing his comment at the reporter who asked the question, not at Trump.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, I think Faucci was directing his comment at the reporter who asked the question, not at Trump.

BC

[M T]

While supporting caution in viewing some suggestive (but not even preliminary) evidence, I expect all of us are hoping that the optimistic hopes wind up being right.

There's gonna be a run on it so that even if it works ( my understanding is the literature is preliminary and it is not a miracle cure but may mildly improve outcomes for some patients), no one will get it because the supply has been bought up by people who don't need it.

I'm not sure I'd even call it "preliminary".  This site references the outcome of 6 patients a basis.  That's appropriate for calling for a study.  I wouldn't have worded this as they did.

A recent controlled clinical study conducted by Didier Raoult M.D/Ph.D, et. al in France has shown that 100% patients that received a combination of HCQ and Azithromycin tested negative and were virologically cured within 6 days of treatment.

Following that "controlled clinical study" link, gives this

Among hydroxychloroquine-treated patients six patients received azithromycin (500mg on day1
followed by 250mg per day, the next four days) to prevent bacterial super-infection under
daily electrocardiogram control.

The HCQ data also seems to be a bit cherry-picked in that a significant number of the original set
that had bad outcomes were excluded, perhaps reasonably so. (Here I openly admit to
cherry-picking the outcomes that were negative.)  I would suggest that this means that some of
the tougher cases were in fact removed from the study, leading to better numbers than might be real.

We enrolled 36 out of 42 patients meeting the inclusion criteria in this study that had at least
six days of follow-up at the time of the present analysis. A total of 26 patients received
hydroxychloroquine and 16 were control patients. Six hydroxychloroquine-treated patients
were lost in follow-up during the survey because of early cessation of treatment. Reasons are
as follows: three patients were transferred to intensive care unit, including one transferred on
day2 post-inclusion who was PCR-positive on day1, one transferred on day3 post-inclusion
who was PCR-positive on days1-2 and one transferred on day4 post-inclusion who was PCR-
positive on day1 and day3; one patient died on day3 post inclusion and was PCR-negative on
day2; one patient decided to leave the hospital on day3 post-inclusion and was PCR-negative
on days1-2; finally, one patient stopped the treatment on day3 post-inclusion because of
nausea and was PCR-positive on days1-2-3.

[M T]

While supporting caution in viewing some suggestive (but not even preliminary) evidence, I expect all of us are hoping that the optimistic hopes wind up being right.

There's gonna be a run on it so that even if it works ( my understanding is the literature is preliminary and it is not a miracle cure but may mildly improve outcomes for some patients), no one will get it because the supply has been bought up by people who don't need it.

I'm not sure I'd even call it "preliminary".  This site references the outcome of 6 patients a basis.  That's appropriate for calling for a study.  I wouldn't have worded this as they did.

A recent controlled clinical study conducted by Didier Raoult M.D/Ph.D, et. al in France has shown that 100% patients that received a combination of HCQ and Azithromycin tested negative and were virologically cured within 6 days of treatment.

Following that "controlled clinical study" link, gives this

Among hydroxychloroquine-treated patients six patients received azithromycin (500mg on day1
followed by 250mg per day, the next four days) to prevent bacterial super-infection under
daily electrocardiogram control.

The HCQ data also seems to be a bit cherry-picked in that a significant number of the original set
that had bad outcomes were excluded, perhaps reasonably so. (Here I openly admit to
cherry-picking the outcomes that were negative.)  I would suggest that this means that some of
the tougher cases were in fact removed from the study, leading to better numbers than might be real.

We enrolled 36 out of 42 patients meeting the inclusion criteria in this study that had at least
six days of follow-up at the time of the present analysis. A total of 26 patients received
hydroxychloroquine and 16 were control patients. Six hydroxychloroquine-treated patients
were lost in follow-up during the survey because of early cessation of treatment. Reasons are
as follows: three patients were transferred to intensive care unit, including one transferred on
day2 post-inclusion who was PCR-positive on day1, one transferred on day3 post-inclusion
who was PCR-positive on days1-2 and one transferred on day4 post-inclusion who was PCR-
positive on day1 and day3; one patient died on day3 post inclusion and was PCR-negative on
day2; one patient decided to leave the hospital on day3 post-inclusion and was PCR-negative
on days1-2; finally, one patient stopped the treatment on day3 post-inclusion because of
nausea and was PCR-positive on days1-2-3.

[BostonCard]

The evidence cited is laughable.  I've been involved in an inpatient influenza clinical trial.  The rule is "once randomized, always analyzed", and your outcome of interest is clinical status.  We used a five-point clinical status (dead, ICU, hospitalized on oxygen, hospitalized without oxygen, discharged), but you could also use survival to hospital discharge as an outcome or something similar, or ventilator-free survival (or if you are trying it in a critical care sending, time to liberation from the ventilator).

So among the 26 patients, who were randomized to hydroxychloroquine, you had three go to the ICU and 1 death.  This is broadly in line with what has been reported in the population of hospitalized patients with Covid-19 overall: (20% of symptomatic infectious patients need hospitalization, 1/4 of those need ICU care, and somewhere between 1/5 and 1/2 of those die).

It is definitely worth exploring, but nobody should go into this expecting that any given treatment will work.  The PTS (probability of technical success) of a drug entering clinical trials is between 10% and 15% depending on indication, so expect 7 in 8 of these highly publicized treatments to fail.

BC

[BostonCard]

The evidence cited is laughable.  I've been involved in an inpatient influenza clinical trial.  The rule is "once randomized, always analyzed", and your outcome of interest is clinical status.  We used a five-point clinical status (dead, ICU, hospitalized on oxygen, hospitalized without oxygen, discharged), but you could also use survival to hospital discharge as an outcome or something similar, or ventilator-free survival (or if you are trying it in a critical care sending, time to liberation from the ventilator).

So among the 26 patients, who were randomized to hydroxychloroquine, you had three go to the ICU and 1 death.  This is broadly in line with what has been reported in the population of hospitalized patients with Covid-19 overall: (20% of symptomatic infectious patients need hospitalization, 1/4 of those need ICU care, and somewhere between 1/5 and 1/2 of those die).

It is definitely worth exploring, but nobody should go into this expecting that any given treatment will work.  The PTS (probability of technical success) of a drug entering clinical trials is between 10% and 15% depending on indication, so expect 7 in 8 of these highly publicized treatments to fail.

BC

[Mick]

Not sure who had a chance to watch the White House coronavirus briefing this afternoon, but it was kinda a disaster if you want to have faith in your government. 

POTUS scolded a reporter for bad reporting after the reporter gave him a softball question: "What do you say to Americans who are scared?"

Then Trump once again promoted hydroxychoorquine after being prompted, and Dr. Fauci had to effectively caution people not to listen to Trump. 
https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/...6303044608

Watch to video clip.  The question was the effectiveness of the drug on malaria and SARS.  POTUS wasn't sure about the answer regarding SARS, so he turned to the Doctor and asked him to answer it, which he did.  He did not correct or scold Trump.  Why post this here?  This is political propoganda and false reporting.

Perhaps unidrectional political propaganda is acceptable.

[Mick]

Not sure who had a chance to watch the White House coronavirus briefing this afternoon, but it was kinda a disaster if you want to have faith in your government. 

POTUS scolded a reporter for bad reporting after the reporter gave him a softball question: "What do you say to Americans who are scared?"

Then Trump once again promoted hydroxychoorquine after being prompted, and Dr. Fauci had to effectively caution people not to listen to Trump. 
https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/...6303044608

Watch to video clip.  The question was the effectiveness of the drug on malaria and SARS.  POTUS wasn't sure about the answer regarding SARS, so he turned to the Doctor and asked him to answer it, which he did.  He did not correct or scold Trump.  Why post this here?  This is political propoganda and false reporting.

Perhaps unidrectional political propaganda is acceptable.

[BostonCard]

I want to see the full clip, but here may be a case where Fauci is disagreeing with Trump:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1241424111857000449?s=20[/tweet]

Dale has made a career out of live-tweeting Trump rallies and press conferences and pointing out all the inaccuracies in realtime.

BC

[BostonCard]

I want to see the full clip, but here may be a case where Fauci is disagreeing with Trump:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1241424111857000449?s=20[/tweet]

Dale has made a career out of live-tweeting Trump rallies and press conferences and pointing out all the inaccuracies in realtime.

BC

[cardcrimson]

I want to see the full clip, but here may be a case where Fauci is disagreeing with Trump:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1241424111857000449?s=20[/tweet]

Dale has made a career out of live-tweeting Trump rallies and press conferences and pointing out all the inaccuracies in realtime.

BC

Et tu BC?

[cardcrimson]

I want to see the full clip, but here may be a case where Fauci is disagreeing with Trump:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1241424111857000449?s=20[/tweet]

Dale has made a career out of live-tweeting Trump rallies and press conferences and pointing out all the inaccuracies in realtime.

BC

Et tu BC?

[JustAnotherFan]

Yeah, I think Faucci was directing his comment at the reporter who asked the question, not at Trump.

BC

He can't just argue with Trump. He needs to gently set the record straight by talking to the reporter. Which he did. Fauci did an excellent job given the constraints.

---

Not sure who had a chance to watch the White House coronavirus briefing this afternoon, but it was kinda a disaster if you want to have faith in your government. 

POTUS scolded a reporter for bad reporting after the reporter gave him a softball question: "What do you say to Americans who are scared?"

Then Trump once again promoted hydroxychoorquine after being prompted, and Dr. Fauci had to effectively caution people not to listen to Trump. 
https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/...6303044608

Watch to video clip.  The question was the effectiveness of the drug on malaria and SARS.  POTUS wasn't sure about the answer regarding SARS, so he turned to the Doctor and asked him to answer it, which he did.  He did not correct or scold Trump.  Why post this here?  This is political propoganda and false reporting.

I didn't watch the clip. I watched the entire briefing. POTUS wasn't just not sure. He was given baseless hope and the Fauci had to gently tell the press not to go down that rabbit hole. You really expect him to scold Trump? I posted it here because it speaks to the frustrations people are dealing with what is coming from the government. There was no political propaganda or false reporting with my post.

[JustAnotherFan]

Yeah, I think Faucci was directing his comment at the reporter who asked the question, not at Trump.

BC

He can't just argue with Trump. He needs to gently set the record straight by talking to the reporter. Which he did. Fauci did an excellent job given the constraints.

---

Not sure who had a chance to watch the White House coronavirus briefing this afternoon, but it was kinda a disaster if you want to have faith in your government. 

POTUS scolded a reporter for bad reporting after the reporter gave him a softball question: "What do you say to Americans who are scared?"

Then Trump once again promoted hydroxychoorquine after being prompted, and Dr. Fauci had to effectively caution people not to listen to Trump. 
https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/...6303044608

Watch to video clip.  The question was the effectiveness of the drug on malaria and SARS.  POTUS wasn't sure about the answer regarding SARS, so he turned to the Doctor and asked him to answer it, which he did.  He did not correct or scold Trump.  Why post this here?  This is political propoganda and false reporting.

I didn't watch the clip. I watched the entire briefing. POTUS wasn't just not sure. He was given baseless hope and the Fauci had to gently tell the press not to go down that rabbit hole. You really expect him to scold Trump? I posted it here because it speaks to the frustrations people are dealing with what is coming from the government. There was no political propaganda or false reporting with my post.

[martyup]

The fact that the POTUS has Faucci at his side at these press breifings shows that he trusts his opinions.  The fact that POTUS has the doctor answer questions when he is not sure shows that he defers to the doctor's opinions.  If Trump wanted to just lie about the virus so more people would die, why would he have the doctor there?  This thread is just a political attack on a POTUS that is doing his best with the advice he is being given.  Can't we just keep the Trump hatred off this board while we all try to survive this pandemic?

[martyup]

The fact that the POTUS has Faucci at his side at these press breifings shows that he trusts his opinions.  The fact that POTUS has the doctor answer questions when he is not sure shows that he defers to the doctor's opinions.  If Trump wanted to just lie about the virus so more people would die, why would he have the doctor there?  This thread is just a political attack on a POTUS that is doing his best with the advice he is being given.  Can't we just keep the Trump hatred off this board while we all try to survive this pandemic?

[2006alum]

The fact that the POTUS has Fauci at his side at these press breifings shows that he trusts his opinions.  The fact that POTUS has the doctor answer questions when he is not sure shows that he defers to the doctor's opinions.  If Trump wanted to just lie about the virus so more people would die, why would he have the doctor there?  This thread is just a political attack on a POTUS that is doing his best with the advice he is being given.  Can't we just keep the Trump hatred off this board while we all try to survive this pandemic?

Marty, with all due respect, I think a lot of us think Trump is an impediment to us trying to survive this pandemic. That's the root problem. And if you can't see it, I guess you and I will never see eye to eye. I have really tried to avoid going partisan on this, but it is clear some elected leaders are taking responsibility and others just care about optics. We can agree to disagree, and as you know I rarely call out Trump specifically by name because among other things, I don't think it's productive. I'd rather focus on the policy issues and the potential solutions.

However, I am not going to stop calling out terrible policy decisionmaking when I see it. I have at least one acquaintance/loose friend I know who has been hospitalized and is on ventilator after a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis (mid-40s, marathon runner, in perfect health before this), and I have other MD friends who work in emergency medicine and who are preparing for the possibility that they are entering a warzone and won't be able to see loved ones for the next month because of the likelihood of infection and need to be quarantined from others. I have a good friend who's a dentist and has been told she has to close her practice for 90 days, has had to lay off her entire staff, potentially put her small business into bankruptcy absent emergency loan intervention, and is herself having to seek unemployment benefits. Etc. I'm sure we all have our own personal stories of the fall-out from this.

But for precisely this reason, this situation is too serious to pussy-foot around while lives are at risk, not only medically, but also economically. Almost everything I see at the highest levels of the Trump Administration is either lies, half-truths, or omissions of important information. The few exceptions are the rare experts allowed into the room who themselves have to dance around Our Elected Leader for fear of contradicting him and being shown the door. That is what people are calling out.

Until we have widespread testing, contact tracing, and isolation, this is not going away. And until we have it, I'm going to continue to criticize those in charge who I think are falling short of what we need.

[2006alum]

The fact that the POTUS has Fauci at his side at these press breifings shows that he trusts his opinions.  The fact that POTUS has the doctor answer questions when he is not sure shows that he defers to the doctor's opinions.  If Trump wanted to just lie about the virus so more people would die, why would he have the doctor there?  This thread is just a political attack on a POTUS that is doing his best with the advice he is being given.  Can't we just keep the Trump hatred off this board while we all try to survive this pandemic?

Marty, with all due respect, I think a lot of us think Trump is an impediment to us trying to survive this pandemic. That's the root problem. And if you can't see it, I guess you and I will never see eye to eye. I have really tried to avoid going partisan on this, but it is clear some elected leaders are taking responsibility and others just care about optics. We can agree to disagree, and as you know I rarely call out Trump specifically by name because among other things, I don't think it's productive. I'd rather focus on the policy issues and the potential solutions.

However, I am not going to stop calling out terrible policy decisionmaking when I see it. I have at least one acquaintance/loose friend I know who has been hospitalized and is on ventilator after a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis (mid-40s, marathon runner, in perfect health before this), and I have other MD friends who work in emergency medicine and who are preparing for the possibility that they are entering a warzone and won't be able to see loved ones for the next month because of the likelihood of infection and need to be quarantined from others. I have a good friend who's a dentist and has been told she has to close her practice for 90 days, has had to lay off her entire staff, potentially put her small business into bankruptcy absent emergency loan intervention, and is herself having to seek unemployment benefits. Etc. I'm sure we all have our own personal stories of the fall-out from this.

But for precisely this reason, this situation is too serious to pussy-foot around while lives are at risk, not only medically, but also economically. Almost everything I see at the highest levels of the Trump Administration is either lies, half-truths, or omissions of important information. The few exceptions are the rare experts allowed into the room who themselves have to dance around Our Elected Leader for fear of contradicting him and being shown the door. That is what people are calling out.

Until we have widespread testing, contact tracing, and isolation, this is not going away. And until we have it, I'm going to continue to criticize those in charge who I think are falling short of what we need.

[martyup]

2006Alum.  Yes, a lot of us have political opinions.  Not everyone on this board agrees with yours. Maybe most do.  But, as a moderator, you know that the rules of this board forbid expressing them.  There are plenty of internet sites that will allow you to vent your political opinions.  Please follow the rules of this board.

[martyup]

2006Alum.  Yes, a lot of us have political opinions.  Not everyone on this board agrees with yours. Maybe most do.  But, as a moderator, you know that the rules of this board forbid expressing them.  There are plenty of internet sites that will allow you to vent your political opinions.  Please follow the rules of this board.

[JustAnotherFan]

2006Alum.  Yes, a lot of us have political opinions.  Not everyone on this board agrees with yours. Maybe most do.  But, as a moderator, you know that the rules of this board forbid expressing them.  There are plenty of internet sites that will allow you to vent your political opinions.  Please follow the rules of this board.

Everything is political. Arguing that anyone pointing out Trump's (or any other politician's) actions and mistakes in response to COVID-19 is forbidden is very political. Would you prefer that we just say POTUS so that you don't have to feel anyone is being political in critiquing him?

[JustAnotherFan]

2006Alum.  Yes, a lot of us have political opinions.  Not everyone on this board agrees with yours. Maybe most do.  But, as a moderator, you know that the rules of this board forbid expressing them.  There are plenty of internet sites that will allow you to vent your political opinions.  Please follow the rules of this board.

Everything is political. Arguing that anyone pointing out Trump's (or any other politician's) actions and mistakes in response to COVID-19 is forbidden is very political. Would you prefer that we just say POTUS so that you don't have to feel anyone is being political in critiquing him?

[martyup]

2006Alum.  Yes, a lot of us have political opinions.  Not everyone on this board agrees with yours. Maybe most do.  But, as a moderator, you know that the rules of this board forbid expressing them.  There are plenty of internet sites that will allow you to vent your political opinions.  Please follow the rules of this board.

Everything is political. Arguing that anyone pointing out Trump's (or any other politician's) actions and mistakes in response to COVID-19 is forbidden is very political. Would you prefer that we just say POTUS so that you don't have to feel anyone is being political in critiquing him?

It really isn't that hard to keep your political views off this board.  I doubt if you would feel the same if a member consistently posted articles and made comments about all of the good things the federal gov't is doing to combat this virus, or how Trump's approval ratings for handling this virus have gone up.  Please keep political opinions off the Cardboard.

[martyup]

2006Alum.  Yes, a lot of us have political opinions.  Not everyone on this board agrees with yours. Maybe most do.  But, as a moderator, you know that the rules of this board forbid expressing them.  There are plenty of internet sites that will allow you to vent your political opinions.  Please follow the rules of this board.

Everything is political. Arguing that anyone pointing out Trump's (or any other politician's) actions and mistakes in response to COVID-19 is forbidden is very political. Would you prefer that we just say POTUS so that you don't have to feel anyone is being political in critiquing him?

It really isn't that hard to keep your political views off this board.  I doubt if you would feel the same if a member consistently posted articles and made comments about all of the good things the federal gov't is doing to combat this virus, or how Trump's approval ratings for handling this virus have gone up.  Please keep political opinions off the Cardboard.

[BostonCard]

Ok, I’ll play.  Here are Trump’s approval ratings.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/20...ent-138570

The majority of America approves of his management. does that make you feel better?

BC

[BostonCard]

Ok, I’ll play.  Here are Trump’s approval ratings.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/20...ent-138570

The majority of America approves of his management. does that make you feel better?

BC

[JustAnotherFan]

2006Alum.  Yes, a lot of us have political opinions.  Not everyone on this board agrees with yours. Maybe most do.  But, as a moderator, you know that the rules of this board forbid expressing them.  There are plenty of internet sites that will allow you to vent your political opinions.  Please follow the rules of this board.

Everything is political. Arguing that anyone pointing out Trump's (or any other politician's) actions and mistakes in response to COVID-19 is forbidden is very political. Would you prefer that we just say POTUS so that you don't have to feel anyone is being political in critiquing him?

It really isn't that hard to keep your political views off this board.  I doubt if you would feel the same if a member consistently posted articles and made comments about all of the good things the federal gov't is doing to combat this virus, or how Trump's approval ratings for handling this virus have gone up.  Please keep political opinions off the Cardboard.

Well pointing to approval ratings would be mindless partisan politics so I get your point there. But no reasonable person could argue the federal government is doing a bang up job. Feel free to tell me what political opinion I've shared that wouldn't be just as valid if say we were criticizing a mayor or governor for the same so I know what you're talking about. If you're saying to simply not criticize POTUS for what POTUS does or says then I think that the restriction is absurd.

[JustAnotherFan]

2006Alum.  Yes, a lot of us have political opinions.  Not everyone on this board agrees with yours. Maybe most do.  But, as a moderator, you know that the rules of this board forbid expressing them.  There are plenty of internet sites that will allow you to vent your political opinions.  Please follow the rules of this board.

Everything is political. Arguing that anyone pointing out Trump's (or any other politician's) actions and mistakes in response to COVID-19 is forbidden is very political. Would you prefer that we just say POTUS so that you don't have to feel anyone is being political in critiquing him?

It really isn't that hard to keep your political views off this board.  I doubt if you would feel the same if a member consistently posted articles and made comments about all of the good things the federal gov't is doing to combat this virus, or how Trump's approval ratings for handling this virus have gone up.  Please keep political opinions off the Cardboard.

Well pointing to approval ratings would be mindless partisan politics so I get your point there. But no reasonable person could argue the federal government is doing a bang up job. Feel free to tell me what political opinion I've shared that wouldn't be just as valid if say we were criticizing a mayor or governor for the same so I know what you're talking about. If you're saying to simply not criticize POTUS for what POTUS does or says then I think that the restriction is absurd.

[cardcrimson]

Ask yourself, what was the intent of the original post?

"Fauci disagrees with Trump at briefing". 

That's not criticizing the actions of the POTUS or the federal government, now is it? Even if it were accurate, which apparently, it isn't, what is your apolitical point and how does that help solve the problem before us all?

[cardcrimson]

Ask yourself, what was the intent of the original post?

"Fauci disagrees with Trump at briefing". 

That's not criticizing the actions of the POTUS or the federal government, now is it? Even if it were accurate, which apparently, it isn't, what is your apolitical point and how does that help solve the problem before us all?

[Goose]

It is possible to disagree with what action a politician (or any individual) takes without attacking him personally (even if the attack is nuanced in a way to allow one to plead ignorance). You can also clearly set out what should have been done instead, and why that action would have been preferable. Saying someone is an idiot (even when they are) is different than saying they should have done X instead of doing Y, and why. Beware though, that conterfactual speculation can be difficult to support unless you have actual facts. Saying something is obvious isn't an argument. Saying why it is obvious is.
Unfortunately, essentially all nations have bad situations with this virus that could probably have been avoided if everybody "knew" then what we "know" now (quotes because we really do not know a hell of a lot). It is also important to remember that politics is the art of the possible. Lots of great responses simply would have been politically impossible even if the leaders involved had both the insight and the courage to do so. Look no further than the New York Mayor trying to start a lockdown and being stopped by the Governor twice. I am not saying who was right and who was wrong, because I don't know. I have a strong opinion however. It doesn't require me to disparage either man to disagree with either or both of them.
On this board many often disagree with what coach Shaw (in particular) has done. We mostly do that without attacking the man, although at times that line is crossed unfortunately. It is one thing to say "Shaw shouldn't turtle because ...." as opposed to "Shaw is too g****** stubborn and always turtles too much". IMHO, the first is acceptable, the second is not. Political speech is the same. What, not who. Logos, not ethos or pathos.

[Goose]

It is possible to disagree with what action a politician (or any individual) takes without attacking him personally (even if the attack is nuanced in a way to allow one to plead ignorance). You can also clearly set out what should have been done instead, and why that action would have been preferable. Saying someone is an idiot (even when they are) is different than saying they should have done X instead of doing Y, and why. Beware though, that conterfactual speculation can be difficult to support unless you have actual facts. Saying something is obvious isn't an argument. Saying why it is obvious is.
Unfortunately, essentially all nations have bad situations with this virus that could probably have been avoided if everybody "knew" then what we "know" now (quotes because we really do not know a hell of a lot). It is also important to remember that politics is the art of the possible. Lots of great responses simply would have been politically impossible even if the leaders involved had both the insight and the courage to do so. Look no further than the New York Mayor trying to start a lockdown and being stopped by the Governor twice. I am not saying who was right and who was wrong, because I don't know. I have a strong opinion however. It doesn't require me to disparage either man to disagree with either or both of them.
On this board many often disagree with what coach Shaw (in particular) has done. We mostly do that without attacking the man, although at times that line is crossed unfortunately. It is one thing to say "Shaw shouldn't turtle because ...." as opposed to "Shaw is too g****** stubborn and always turtles too much". IMHO, the first is acceptable, the second is not. Political speech is the same. What, not who. Logos, not ethos or pathos.

[JustAnotherFan]

I'll try to refrain from saying anything that might come across as any way mean in reference to our dear leader.

[JustAnotherFan]

I'll try to refrain from saying anything that might come across as any way mean in reference to our dear leader.