American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by New Era

Really? I thought her answer was perfect. I would not trust a vaccine put out by this administration, and it goes back to the answer of the first question. This is an administration that has done nothing but lie at every turn during this pandemic. The president has promoted every kookie idea that has come into his head as to how to defend against this. Remember hydroxychloroquine? Remember bleach?

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...ust-crazy-more

Remember all of those scientific agencies that have been muzzled by the administration?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020...virus-gag-rule

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...e-fauci-410861

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ts-critics-say

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...administration

No, I would not take this administration's word. I would not take the word of agency that Trump has influence over. I would only take the word of independent sources who have tested the vaccine and proved it to be safe. Until then, nothing coming from this government is believable.

It is comforting (or not comforting) to know that a lack of understanding of science crosses all political stripes. For some reason republican voters get lumped in as anti-science, but the response from the anti-Trump demographic on vaccines is quite anti-science.

You won't need to trust Trump or the FDA. You'll be able to read the clinical trials yourself. The beauty of science is that you never need to appeal to authority in order to validate the conclusions. You are able to build your knowledge from the ground up to be able to interpret the data yourself.

We already know what the FDA is considering a successful study for licensing - 50% efficacy against disease. So the licensing metrics have been established already.

Indemnifications for vaccines has been around since the 80's. That isn't a new concept.

"Opposite of What Orange Man Thinks" is not a valid position on science (or anything for that matter).

[burn_this_city]

Isn't it pretty dystopian that we have to rely on corporations to safeguard medical testing, rather than the government agency ran specifically for that reason? I read not too long ago that all the major drug companies signed a pledge not to bow to political pressure. If Trump rams through an approval before the election, I'll be rightly or wrongly be skeptical of the 737Max vaccine.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Okay I'll play a game with you.

A vaccine is purported by Trump to be effective and is approved under the FDA Trump appointee and director of health and human services, also appointed by Trump. It shows up 3 or 4 days before the election and Trump runs around claiming a major victory and that he's done his job to lead us out of this crisis. At that point it has been approved by appropriate government agencies, yet, at that point in time, there has been no independent studies or vetting of the approval process.

Do you go out and take that vaccine?

I say this as someone who has been bullish on the idea that everyone should get the vaccine as soon as it's available. However, this is government influence over science, from someone who is as anti-science as you can possibly get, so he doesn't believe in the process and he only uses it as a tool to aid his bid for re-election.

Under any other circumstance, I'd agree with you. Under this president? No chance in hell do I trust his word on this.

It also doesn't matter what Trump says on or before November 3. The actual general public won't be able to make the decision for themselves to take the vaccine until April either way.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It is comforting (or not comforting) to know that a lack of understanding of science crosses all political stripes. For some reason republican voters get lumped in as anti-science, but the response from the anti-Trump demographic on vaccines is quite anti-science.

You won't need to trust Trump or the FDA. You'll be able to read the clinical trials yourself. The beauty of science is that you never need to appeal to authority in order to validate the conclusions. You are able to build your knowledge from the ground up to be able to interpret the data yourself.

We already know what the FDA is considering a successful study for licensing - 50% efficacy against disease. So the licensing metrics have been established already.

Indemnifications for vaccines has been around since the 80's. That isn't a new concept.

"Opposite of What Orange Man Thinks" is not a valid position on science (or anything for that matter).

In an ideal world, yes, everyone will be able to accurately read a scientific study and understand the conclusions which are being made but this is not at all possible right now. I have a PhD in organic chemistry and been part in numerous medical trials and even I have a hard time understanding papers outside of my immediate discipline. I agree that science is beautiful in its impartiality, but c'mon, we need to have sector experts who are trusted to accurately inform the masses. To be frank, inexperienced people reading the scientific literature and making their own erroneous conclusions is a big problem.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

In an ideal world, yes, everyone will be able to accurately read a scientific study and understand the conclusions which are being made but this is not at all possible right now. I have a PhD in organic chemistry and been part in numerous medical trials and even I have a hard time understanding papers outside of my immediate discipline. I agree that science is beautiful in its impartiality, but c'mon, we need to have sector experts who are trusted to accurately inform the masses. To be frank, inexperienced people reading the scientific literature and making their own erroneous conclusions is a big problem.

Do the sector experts need Trump's help in interpreting the data?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Isn't it pretty dystopian that we have to rely on corporations to safeguard medical testing, rather than the government agency ran specifically for that reason? I read not too long ago that all the major drug companies signed a pledge not to bow to political pressure. If Trump rams through an approval before the election, I'll be rightly or wrongly be skeptical of the 737Max vaccine.

The FDA does not conduct clinical trials for new medications or vaccines.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The FDA does not conduct clinical trials for new medications or vaccines.

No but they provide the regulations and oversight.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Do the sector experts need Trump's help in interpreting the data?

No, sector specialists do not need Trump's help in interpreting data but that's not the point. The issue is that Trump is the President of that country and a world leader. It's he that needs to let the experts interpret the data and trust in their expertise so that he can properly inform the American people of the recommendations. He is not doing that and has even gone so far as to undercut sector specialists in any number of scientifically forward government bodies.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

No, sector specialists do not need Trump's help in interpreting data but that's not the point. The issue is that Trump is the President of that country and a world leader. It's he that needs to let the experts interpret the data and trust in their expertise so that he can properly inform the American people of the recommendations. He is not doing that and has even gone so far as to undercut sector specialists in any number of scientifically forward government bodies.

Is the concern then that Trump will be able to manipulate the data, the regulatory bodies, the journals, the double blinded studies, the pharmaceutical companies, and the thousands of specialists who can analyze the trials independently? Or is the concern that he might say something dumb on twitter?

People are highly clouded by their emotional response to Trump and they become unscientific because of it.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Is the concern then that Trump will be able to manipulate the data, the regulatory bodies, the journals, the double blinded studies, the pharmaceutical companies, and the thousands of specialists who can analyze the trials independently? Or is the concern that he might say something dumb on twitter?

People are highly clouded by their emotional response to Trump and they become unscientific because of it.

The concern is Trump interfering with FDA standards.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nyti...ience.amp.html

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Looch City

From the President that brought you the hydroxychloroquine sham and injecting disinfectant, we are happy to announce the perfectly safe and definitely tested COVID19 vaccine.

It's also backed by none other than Vladimir Putin himself, just take out word for it okay?

How dare you play politics!!!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

In a way I agree, they do...



You've lost me chief. Where is the proof of this? Fox News talking heads claiming it? Trump? The DoJ?

Any legitimate threat posed by some sort of organized Antifa group that you can point to?

Does it matter what label far-left anarchists go by? I mean, they're anarchists. How much organization are they going to have?

But the lack of formal organization doesn't mean they're politically irrelevant. The fiasco of the Capital Hill commune is part of the political landscape of 2020.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The concern is Trump interfering with FDA standards.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nyti...ience.amp.html

"We may or may not approve it" is a non-statement.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

"We may or may not approve it" is a non-statement.

That’s why it is a concern, not a statement of fact

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by edslunch

That’s why it is a concern, not a statement of fact

This is an alternative version of Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by New Era

Reason is a hack organization who has been pumping out disinformation on a number of topics for years.

I'm interested in this statement. Can you provide an example?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Another dishonest framing of a conversation.

afc says antifa doesn't really exist (echoing comments made earlier by psycnet and others).

I point out that they actually do exist, and have played an active role in high--profile incidents of rioting and political violence. While also pointing out they aren't as widespread or as big a problem as their right-wing counterparts.

So the respsonse? You guys are saying they're equivalent.

Pointing out something exists is not equivocation. It’s just trying to introduce some reality and complexity into tribal circle-jerks.

Another misguided interpretation of basic information.

My post wasn't directed at you or whatever conversation you were having with afc. It was in reference to BoLevi and 2Stoned and their over-dependence on false equivalence by actually suggesting two very different things, that might both be valid issues, are equivalent (when they obviously are not).

As much as I disagree with you (and we agree... sometimes) I wouldn't really label you as right wing based purely on some of our economic discussions, and I certainly wouldn't call you out for false equivalency, since you don't really seem to do that.

I agree, pointing out something exists is not equivocation. Equating two things is. Seems that should be obvious.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Do the sector experts need Trump's help in interpreting the data?

No, but for those experts interpreting the data they require confidence from the public that what they are saying is accurate and factual. The Trump administration has gone out of their way to discredit every institution of government involved in scientific research or application of scientific findings. Without that credibility their findings are worthless. Trump has destroyed the intellectual infrastructure in the government that would lend credibility to anything that comes from his administration. At a time when we need to trust our government to protect us, the opposite condition exists.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm interested in this statement. Can you provide an example?

Reason was behind the now defunct newenvironmentalism.org, which was site that relied on pseudo-science to counter climate change and climate science. Reason is and has been a front for the Koch Foundations and promoting a pro-market, pro-fossil fuel agenda.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Does it matter what label far-left anarchists go by?

Uh, anarchists are not far-left. They are not far-right. They are ANARCHISTS. They don't believe in the value of any ideology and reject it all.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by New Era

Reason was behind the now defunct newenvironmentalism.org, which was site that relied on pseudo-science to counter climate change and climate science. Reason is and has been a front for the Koch Foundations and promoting a pro-market, pro-fossil fuel agenda.

I didn't spend any time on that website, so I have no comment.

I understand the Reason foundation owns the magazine and is basically the Koch brothers foundation.

But I am interested to see examples of where the publication itself has been so manipulative. I read Reason.com from time to time and they seem to be one the least partisan (as in Democrat vs. Republican) publications out there. They are ideological in terms of being small-l libertarian/ small government types, but that isn't the same as examples of misinformation, manipulation, etc.

They are certainly pro-market, although they don't seem to be explicitly pro-fossil fuel (very regularly anyway).

As far as publications go, they don't seem to promote a private agenda any more than say The Washington Post with Bezos or the NYT with Sulzberger. If you have sufficient critical thinking skills, you can gauge the merit of an argument or piece without needing to refer to the name at the top of the paper or on the cover of the magazine.

If you could indulge me on another example which does not involve a defunct website that is for sale.