Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

[EricHiggin]

JWeinCom said:

EricHiggin said:

How did they scientifically research it, before questioning if it was worth looking into in the first place? Was anyone negatively impacted?

I'd like to know a concrete answer, yes. If it's potentially useful and can be worked on, great, if it's not, then no big deal.

The difference is not all scientists knew. Did every single scientist globally, know about the exact same findings? Do they all know what is and isn't possible now? Have people in the past been harmed because the information wasn't known be all? Are people harmed now because of medical mistakes or simply being the rare occurrence of a negative reaction to a treatment? Has anyone ever been harmed because a scientist asked a question or suggested research based on an idea?

Not all science is perfect, and neither is leadership. Should some of us think science and the people who use it are stupid and idiotic because of what harm it's caused? Science = bad because one person was hurt though many were saved? Should we spend all day everyday going out of our way to bash science? Quite a negative way to look at things I'd say.

We have someone who doesn't know something, asking a question, and suggesting the professionals potentially look into it if there's any reason to. If that's such a terrible thing, then I don't even know why anyone bothers.

Again, you're avoiding the point by asking a series of abstract questions bearing pretty much no relevance to the actual topic.

The risks inherent in studying the unknown are not comparable with suggesting something that is patently idiotic in light of what we actually do know.  And while there is nothing wrong with asking questions, there is something very wrong when someone who is in a position of authority in the situation hasn't educated himself enough to know what he is suggesting is a terrible idea. 

Who asked the questions that led to nuclear findings? Who made suggestions based on those? What is something immensely destructive we have today that could end the world multiple times over? What started and led to that?

If the scientists knew what nuclear findings would lead to, would they will have asked the questions and made the suggestions? Did they have any authority? Were they not educated enough, even as they learned?

Does anyone know everything and do some hold back what should have been said or asked, which leads to negative consequences for others?

Torillian said:

EricHiggin said:

An immediate concrete answer would have been best. It would also be nice if the world was nothing but immediate concrete answers to all questions for everyone. Maybe everyone should write down or record every question that comes to mind and hope when they eventually ask it that's it's widely agreed upon to be the right way at the right time. That's not how the world works though in reality, unfortunately.

This isn't about an ideal world where there are always experts around that can give concrete answers to dumb questions. The people that have the concrete answers were there, they just didn't want to annoy the baby-in-chief. And when the dumb question is being broadcast to the entire country that's not good. From what I've read Trump is now saying he was being sarcastic (or at least the administration is) and based on how he ran out before questions during yesterday's press briefing it doesn't seem like he wants to clear up any misunderstandings. So again this all fits with the model I have:

1. Trump is dumb and he gets easily annoyed when told he said something dumb.

2. Trump has been vindictive in the past with his firings so those around him don't want to speak up even when he says something mind numbingly stupid. 

And no administration is ideal either, which is what this is supposed to be about, correct?

Trump has his issues like all leaders have. Trump seems to be vindictive at times, but sometimes people keep quiet to stop themselves from looking worse for their own good. Nobodies perfect.