I think 'inaccurate' was the key word. I think that's a reasonable barrier.

Politicians, journalists and the general population make inaccurate claims all the time in both pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown stances.

Luckily as educated adults we are blessed with being able to exercise our judgement to assess what is right, wrong, an honest mistake, a deliberate distortion, a kinda-bad inaccurate claim, or a dangerously-bad inaccurate claim.

The evidence shows that most adults are not all that sharp.

This. If we’ve learned anything at all.

But who is anybody to say what is or isn't accurate.

Before COVID-19, I would have said that we pay for CDC, FDA, Surgeon General, epidemiologists, and virologists to be right about that stuff and they're generally trustworthy.

But then they all tried to convince Americans not to wear masks.

Fair point, we are in a post-truth society now.

Facebook and Twitter, obviously.

I didn't read their comment that way. The article isn't about doctors with years of experience advocating for lockdown, so this conversation is framed around people disagreeing with how deadly the virus is and the lockdown procedures.

I'm sure that poster, like me, also doesn't want politicians making inaccurate claims the other way about how the virus is the deadliest thing imaginable, or to prioritize saving every single life possible by orders of house arrest.

FWIW, I didn't read the the comment this way, and it doesn't seem like "the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says".

From the HN guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Yeah, if you're fine with unqualified politicians making inaccurate claims about the virus in order to intensify lockdowns (which, frankly, has been most of the lockdown justifications) then that's pretty unfair.

The burden of proof should be on the lockdown proponents, not people trying to return to the status quo.

We're not used to sharing space with hungry wolves or big felines, in fact humans tend to exterminate them when they move into a new environment.

There's a new predator out there, invading our space and we're its lunch. there's precious little status quo to return to until we have the tools to exterminate it.

We're not used to not being apex predators. That's fact.

A new predator, to go along with all of the others. AIDS, the other things that get lumped into 'colds' or 'flus' (which are different from COVID-19 in degree, but not really in kind), Malaria, and so many more.

Except HIV isn't airborne, doesn't choke you to death within a couple weeks and the other 'cold' and 'flus' aren't nearly as deadly.

Cov2 is both everywhere and lethal, that's quite a difference in kind.

And WRT "Malaria, and so many more" we as humans and our collective organizations have been busy trying to exterminate or avoid them as much as possible. Since forever.

I am commenting on a combination of the motives and the qualifications of speaking as an authority - not on the position of the speaker.

Only if you intentionally ignore the very first sentence, which is obviously supportive.

> in the absence of good governance.

This is begging the question, though.

Downvoters:

"US President Donald Trump has been lambasted by the medical community after suggesting research into whether coronavirus might be treated by injecting disinfectant into the body."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177

What he actually said. He clearly gives caveats to what he's saying: he's not advocating anyone actually do anything. He's talking about further research.

"So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light...and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it....And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting....And then I see the disinfectant where it 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 it'd be interesting to check that....I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what. [Pointing to his head]

Regarding using light to disinfect ...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-experimental-ultraviolet-lig...

Do you think the President of the United States spoke in a responsible fashion?

That’s what matters.

As someone who disagrees with Trump almost always, I feel like this is not a good point to harp on because most people realize he wasn't really suggesting people inject disinfectants, just musing. When conservatives see this kind of mischaracterization it just solidifies their beliefs that his critics are always wrong about him.

I am more upset about the fact he still doesn't seem to believe masks are very useful.

It is incredibly irresponsible for the President of the United States (or of any country) to speculate about obviously questionable practices like injecting disinfectant in the midst of a global pandemic and a national emergency.

And, the sad fact that we have to remind ourselves of this (you don't "muse" about injecting disinfectant!) is an indicator of just how irresponsible, destructive, and and constant the President's behavior, and it's enabling by politicians, the news media, or others in positions of influence (whose responsibility was to condemn such behavior) has been.

This is not complicated. No one who cares about their own well-being would ever want to work under a boss like that, much less let someone like that babysit their kids.

So you are agreeing your statement was objectively wrong?

It is incredibly irresponsible for the President of the United States (or of any country) to speculate about obviously questionable practices like injecting disinfectant in the midst of a global pandemic and a national emergency.

Do you see any difference between “people should try injecting bleach” and “coronavirus might be treated by injecting disinfectant into the body”?

Trump was blathering there and had no idea what he was talking about, but he nowhere says “people should try injecting bleach”

So basically you are saying “the President of the United States did not say the totally crazy thing you said he did, rather, he said something less crazy which was both incomprehensible and totally irresponsible.”

Is that correct?

I say it this because at this point, it’s not as if we are dealing with a honest broker known for truthfulness, so, especially since everyone seemed to understand exactly what I was referring to and the “bleach” thing was a common point of mockery across media and late-night television, aren’t we kind of missing the forest for the trees?

The forest of course is a President who is utterly irresponsible and has contributed to the unnecessary deaths of over 200,000 Americans.

I absolutely apologize for and retract my incorrect description. Can we now talk about the reality of a covid-diagnosed President walking around in public without a mask?

Or does someone want to diddle and play and parse with words again?

If you are interested in rallying the base then go ahead and mock like late night comedians, but if you want to have a discussion with someone who may not be wearing the same jersey as you then you may want to be more precise.

Sure. Do you think what the President actually said - not my paraphrasing of it - was responsible and appropriate under the circumstances?

Did he demonstrate good judgement?

Also, again, I think you’re constructing an issue where none exists. Everyone in this discussion seems to have understood perfectly well what I was referring to.

I do not think what I said is really the issue here.

The issue is a number of irresponsible politicians actively and knowingly undermining public-health efforts during a pandemic.

That’s what we should be talking about.

And I find it frustrating that folks seem to want to shy away from this unpleasant truth when it’s raised.

It’s like if a truck is going to hit you and someone yells “watch out for that damned truck”, and you yell back “can’t you tell me that without cursing?”

Or if you said “you know I worry the way you said that might make it difficult for someone else to understand your message of the impending truck.”

While the truck is hurtling towards you.

Focus on the truck.

If you keep cussing at people to get out of the way of a truck and they keep getting hit by trucks because they stop and say “did you have to use so many swear words?” maybe stop cussing.

The problem is the person driving the truck irresponsibly, not the person pointing out the impending accident.

Look. Point is. President Trump and his political enablers have proven themselves to be dangerous and irresponsible, and bear significant responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of americans because of the administrations terrible handling of the pandemic.

That is the truth.

I understand some people disagree. Those people are wrong.

This is ultimately about right and wrong, and irreconcilable values.

The current administration and its political enablers are pandering or outright leading the worst aspects of American society - white supremacy, exploitation of the poor and powerless, sexism, and authoritarian/fascist tendencies.

This is what I believe to be true, and while I will listen and discuss with people who may not agree with me in full, I will not equivocate about the immoral, unethical, un-American nature of the Trump Administration and what the bulk of the Republican party has become.

The great thing about a well-working democracy is when people talk with each other and select a good truck driver. (Though I’m not a fan of thinking of the President as the driver of the truck, but that’s a different issue).

We're talking to each other now.

Do you believe the President of the United States spoke in a responsible fashion? Do you believe his words were responsible, prudent, and appropriate to the moment?