[Goose]

the idea that his response determines the narrative is flawed. If the scientific community (possibly as constituted in the department of HHS) had clearly spoken out, backing up their statements with data or at least a plausibility argument, I doubt may people would be listening to the man who recommended drinking bleach. That didn't happen.

You probably doubt many people believe Trump's current flawed narrative on the election, despite very clear court rulings, state election certifications (including GOP controlled ones), etc, all saying there is no fraud.  You ignore polls and the clear cult-like behavior of a substantial part of his base.

As you probably have already noted, I do believe that MOST Trump voters believe that the election was honest. The polls from Nov 7 to Nov 17 were taken before the court rulings and state election certifications etc. During this time, Trump was tweeting up a storm that there was fraud. If his supporters were in doubt before about the result, there is no longer any reason to have such doubts. Yes, I believe that right now most (not all) Trump supporters believe the election was fair and that number is growing with each passing day. Whether the remainder can be defined as "substantial" is probably arguable, but I certainly agree it isn't zero. However, that has little if anything to do with any of the points I made in my reply to your post. My point was and is "the idea that Trump's response determines the narrative is flawed". 

Your comment about testing problems is a talking point from the right that's patently stupid.

I guess I don't keep track of talking points from the right. The only one I am aware of regarding testing is the idea that more testing is bad because it makes things look worse than they are. If that is what you refer to, I agree that is stupid. However, that was not my point. My point was that the CDC shipped a contaminated test, and that that fact (along with the CDC's somewhat confused public response to that fact) undermined public confidence in the CDC. The first part of the above statement is a documented fact, so I doubt you are talking about that. Are you saying that this problem did NOT reduce confidence in the CDC and to say it did is "patently stupid"? I would like to hear you defend that assertion as opposed to just dismissing the notion that the CDC's image suffered from that event.



FWIW, I also don't consider whether some thesis is a talking point of the left, the right, or nobody in particular to be relevant to it's merit. It is either defensible or it isn't. Attributing as a source some particular group as an argument of it's merit is an attempt at poisoning the well. It doesn't make finding the truth easier.

It's almost like you think in the middle of a pandemic there can't be a massive effort, a war-time effort, to substantially change things.  Like what happened with vaccine development.  It's the kind of defeatist attitude that goes along with "well the virus will infect everyone".

I am unsure why you would think I believed any of the above. I certainly didn't say anything like that. In fact, I think the fact that vaccine development went so well supports my thesis that Trump doesn't control the narrative. Science has delivered despite Trump being ant-science in many ways. What I have pointed out is that there have been some policy failures (or at least disappointments) and that these policies were supported by scientists, particularly the contact tracking and tracing program. In those cases science is ill-served by not giving the full rationale for the recommendations initially and by not revealing the cause of the problems that ensued. The public thinks it has been misled when this happens. I cited some cases where that has happened. You didn't respond to any of those points.

The only thing I've seen that's "dangerously false" is unchecked apologist crap peddled on these forums.

I think I have consistently during this epidemic pointed out Trump's shortcomings (OK, I really had lots of help with that). I have also pointed out other situations where I felt there were serious shortcomings (to the point BC has stated that I have harped on our contact tracing and testing failures). I have pointed out that some of these problems predate Trump, and some other problems exist on the State and Local level where the Federal Government is not the controlling agency. My point here and in several other places on this board is that when Trump is gone, all these other problems don't go away, and that most of them Trump did not cause. Can they be fixed? Sure, but they won't be if we just declare victory because Trump is gone. Is there a danger that will happen? Yes, if the narrative is that it was all Trump's fault. That is why I believe that narrative is "dangerously false".

[Goose]

the idea that his response determines the narrative is flawed. If the scientific community (possibly as constituted in the department of HHS) had clearly spoken out, backing up their statements with data or at least a plausibility argument, I doubt may people would be listening to the man who recommended drinking bleach. That didn't happen.

You probably doubt many people believe Trump's current flawed narrative on the election, despite very clear court rulings, state election certifications (including GOP controlled ones), etc, all saying there is no fraud.  You ignore polls and the clear cult-like behavior of a substantial part of his base.

As you probably have already noted, I do believe that MOST Trump voters believe that the election was honest. The polls from Nov 7 to Nov 17 were taken before the court rulings and state election certifications etc. During this time, Trump was tweeting up a storm that there was fraud. If his supporters were in doubt before about the result, there is no longer any reason to have such doubts. Yes, I believe that right now most (not all) Trump supporters believe the election was fair and that number is growing with each passing day. Whether the remainder can be defined as "substantial" is probably arguable, but I certainly agree it isn't zero. However, that has little if anything to do with any of the points I made in my reply to your post. My point was and is "the idea that Trump's response determines the narrative is flawed". 

Your comment about testing problems is a talking point from the right that's patently stupid.

I guess I don't keep track of talking points from the right. The only one I am aware of regarding testing is the idea that more testing is bad because it makes things look worse than they are. If that is what you refer to, I agree that is stupid. However, that was not my point. My point was that the CDC shipped a contaminated test, and that that fact (along with the CDC's somewhat confused public response to that fact) undermined public confidence in the CDC. The first part of the above statement is a documented fact, so I doubt you are talking about that. Are you saying that this problem did NOT reduce confidence in the CDC and to say it did is "patently stupid"? I would like to hear you defend that assertion as opposed to just dismissing the notion that the CDC's image suffered from that event.



FWIW, I also don't consider whether some thesis is a talking point of the left, the right, or nobody in particular to be relevant to it's merit. It is either defensible or it isn't. Attributing as a source some particular group as an argument of it's merit is an attempt at poisoning the well. It doesn't make finding the truth easier.

It's almost like you think in the middle of a pandemic there can't be a massive effort, a war-time effort, to substantially change things.  Like what happened with vaccine development.  It's the kind of defeatist attitude that goes along with "well the virus will infect everyone".

I am unsure why you would think I believed any of the above. I certainly didn't say anything like that. In fact, I think the fact that vaccine development went so well supports my thesis that Trump doesn't control the narrative. Science has delivered despite Trump being ant-science in many ways. What I have pointed out is that there have been some policy failures (or at least disappointments) and that these policies were supported by scientists, particularly the contact tracking and tracing program. In those cases science is ill-served by not giving the full rationale for the recommendations initially and by not revealing the cause of the problems that ensued. The public thinks it has been misled when this happens. I cited some cases where that has happened. You didn't respond to any of those points.

The only thing I've seen that's "dangerously false" is unchecked apologist crap peddled on these forums.

I think I have consistently during this epidemic pointed out Trump's shortcomings (OK, I really had lots of help with that). I have also pointed out other situations where I felt there were serious shortcomings (to the point BC has stated that I have harped on our contact tracing and testing failures). I have pointed out that some of these problems predate Trump, and some other problems exist on the State and Local level where the Federal Government is not the controlling agency. My point here and in several other places on this board is that when Trump is gone, all these other problems don't go away, and that most of them Trump did not cause. Can they be fixed? Sure, but they won't be if we just declare victory because Trump is gone. Is there a danger that will happen? Yes, if the narrative is that it was all Trump's fault. That is why I believe that narrative is "dangerously false".