[magnus]

said Trump...

President Trump on Friday broke with health experts, telling reporters that the coronavirus will “go away without a vaccine.”

“This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time,” Trump said at the White House.

Is it February 2nd? Why would he say this?

At a time when everyone needs to take this virus seriously, is there any benefit to the American people in that statement?

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-corona...54249.html

[magnus]

said Trump...

President Trump on Friday broke with health experts, telling reporters that the coronavirus will “go away without a vaccine.”

“This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time,” Trump said at the White House.

Is it February 2nd? Why would he say this?

At a time when everyone needs to take this virus seriously, is there any benefit to the American people in that statement?

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-corona...54249.html

[76lsjumb]

said Trump...

President Trump on Friday broke with health experts, telling reporters that the coronavirus will “go away without a vaccine.”

“This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time,” Trump said at the White House.

Is it February 2nd? Why would he say this?

At a time when everyone needs to take this virus seriously, is there any benefit to the American people in that statement?

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-corona...54249.html

Partial quotes taken out of context can be very misleading.  For example, if I reported that, on May 9, magnus asked "Is it February 2nd?," suggesting that the statement indicated serious disorientation, if not mental incapacity, the reporting would be true, but obviously misleading.  Listening to the whole exchange, there is nothing in it that indicates the virus shouldn't be taken seriously, and I imagine no one on this Board, whatever their political leaning, is taking the virus less seriously as a result of the President's comments.  As for a "benefit to the American people," I would ask what benefit there was to the American people in asking the President the question in the first place.

Beyond that, if the press wanted to cast this in the way you apparently think it should be cast to "benefit the American people," then the headline could just as accurately have said "Trump says 'vaccine would be very helpful.' "  He also praised the companies doing work on vaccine development, something that was never mentioned in the story.  If you're concerned about the effect of this on the public, would you agree that this would have been a better headline and approach to reporting the comments?  Or, do you prefer what appears to be an anti-Trump bias, given the information included and the information excluded in the story?

[76lsjumb]

said Trump...

President Trump on Friday broke with health experts, telling reporters that the coronavirus will “go away without a vaccine.”

“This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time,” Trump said at the White House.

Is it February 2nd? Why would he say this?

At a time when everyone needs to take this virus seriously, is there any benefit to the American people in that statement?

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-corona...54249.html

Partial quotes taken out of context can be very misleading.  For example, if I reported that, on May 9, magnus asked "Is it February 2nd?," suggesting that the statement indicated serious disorientation, if not mental incapacity, the reporting would be true, but obviously misleading.  Listening to the whole exchange, there is nothing in it that indicates the virus shouldn't be taken seriously, and I imagine no one on this Board, whatever their political leaning, is taking the virus less seriously as a result of the President's comments.  As for a "benefit to the American people," I would ask what benefit there was to the American people in asking the President the question in the first place.

Beyond that, if the press wanted to cast this in the way you apparently think it should be cast to "benefit the American people," then the headline could just as accurately have said "Trump says 'vaccine would be very helpful.' "  He also praised the companies doing work on vaccine development, something that was never mentioned in the story.  If you're concerned about the effect of this on the public, would you agree that this would have been a better headline and approach to reporting the comments?  Or, do you prefer what appears to be an anti-Trump bias, given the information included and the information excluded in the story?

[dabigv13]

“This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time,” Trump said at the White House. “You may have some flare-ups, and I guess I would expect that.”

76lsjumb, do you believe what the President is saying there is true?

[dabigv13]

“This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time,” Trump said at the White House. “You may have some flare-ups, and I guess I would expect that.”

76lsjumb, do you believe what the President is saying there is true?

[82 Card]

Partial quotes taken out of context can be very misleading.  For example, if I reported that, on May 9, magnus asked "Is it February 2nd?," suggesting that the statement indicated serious disorientation, if not mental incapacity, the reporting would be true, but obviously misleading.  Listening to the whole exchange, there is nothing in it that indicates the virus shouldn't be taken seriously, and I imagine no one on this Board, whatever their political leaning, is taking the virus less seriously as a result of the President's comments.  As for a "benefit to the American people," I would ask what benefit there was to the American people in asking the President the question in the first place.


Beyond that, if the press wanted to cast this in the way you apparently think it should be cast to "benefit the American people," then the headline could just as accurately have said "Trump says 'vaccine would be very helpful.' "  He also praised the companies doing work on vaccine development, something that was never mentioned in the story.  If you're concerned about the effect of this on the public, would you agree that this would have been a better headline and approach to reporting the comments?  Or, do you prefer what appears to be an anti-Trump bias, given the information included and the information excluded in the story?

I've seen extended clips of the session. I don't think he was joking. The clips do not show any indication of humorous intent. Even if you're right that he wasn't serious, I'm not sure that makes it better. Normal people don't joke about such things at public appearances. Why is this man constantly not serious about something deadly serious?

[82 Card]

Partial quotes taken out of context can be very misleading.  For example, if I reported that, on May 9, magnus asked "Is it February 2nd?," suggesting that the statement indicated serious disorientation, if not mental incapacity, the reporting would be true, but obviously misleading.  Listening to the whole exchange, there is nothing in it that indicates the virus shouldn't be taken seriously, and I imagine no one on this Board, whatever their political leaning, is taking the virus less seriously as a result of the President's comments.  As for a "benefit to the American people," I would ask what benefit there was to the American people in asking the President the question in the first place.


Beyond that, if the press wanted to cast this in the way you apparently think it should be cast to "benefit the American people," then the headline could just as accurately have said "Trump says 'vaccine would be very helpful.' "  He also praised the companies doing work on vaccine development, something that was never mentioned in the story.  If you're concerned about the effect of this on the public, would you agree that this would have been a better headline and approach to reporting the comments?  Or, do you prefer what appears to be an anti-Trump bias, given the information included and the information excluded in the story?

I've seen extended clips of the session. I don't think he was joking. The clips do not show any indication of humorous intent. Even if you're right that he wasn't serious, I'm not sure that makes it better. Normal people don't joke about such things at public appearances. Why is this man constantly not serious about something deadly serious?

[76lsjumb]

“This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time,” Trump said at the White House. “You may have some flare-ups, and I guess I would expect that.”

76lsjumb, do you believe what the President is saying there is true?

Do I believe the President hopes it will go away without a vaccine and we’re not going to see it after a period of time? Yes.

 Do I believe we’re going to have some flare ups? Yes.

Do I believe the President expects that? Yes.

Have some viruses gone away without a vaccine? I have no idea.

Do I believe Trump has heard some doctor say that? Probably.

Is the president one of the worst, least coherent, and most imprecise public speakers I have heard in a long time? Absolutely (although Biden may give him a run for his money).

---

Partial quotes taken out of context can be very misleading.  For example, if I reported that, on May 9, magnus asked "Is it February 2nd?," suggesting that the statement indicated serious disorientation, if not mental incapacity, the reporting would be true, but obviously misleading.  Listening to the whole exchange, there is nothing in it that indicates the virus shouldn't be taken seriously, and I imagine no one on this Board, whatever their political leaning, is taking the virus less seriously as a result of the President's comments.  As for a "benefit to the American people," I would ask what benefit there was to the American people in asking the President the question in the first place.


Beyond that, if the press wanted to cast this in the way you apparently think it should be cast to "benefit the American people," then the headline could just as accurately have said "Trump says 'vaccine would be very helpful.' "  He also praised the companies doing work on vaccine development, something that was never mentioned in the story.  If you're concerned about the effect of this on the public, would you agree that this would have been a better headline and approach to reporting the comments?  Or, do you prefer what appears to be an anti-Trump bias, given the information included and the information excluded in the story?

I've seen extended clips of the session. I don't think he was joking. The clips do not show any indication of humorous intent. Even if you're right that he wasn't serious, I'm not sure that makes it better. Normal people don't joke about such things at public appearances. Why is this man constantly not serious about something deadly serious?

Who said he wasn’t serious or that he was joking? Not I. My point was that the article misrepresented the entirety of his comments in order to drive a narrative.  You may not agree with him. He may be overly optimistic and even wrong.  But, if your point is that he essentially needs to be constantly screaming “We’re all gonna die!!“, so that the people who aren’t as smart as you will behave as you believe they should, I respectfully disagree.

[76lsjumb]

“This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time,” Trump said at the White House. “You may have some flare-ups, and I guess I would expect that.”

76lsjumb, do you believe what the President is saying there is true?

Do I believe the President hopes it will go away without a vaccine and we’re not going to see it after a period of time? Yes.

 Do I believe we’re going to have some flare ups? Yes.

Do I believe the President expects that? Yes.

Have some viruses gone away without a vaccine? I have no idea.

Do I believe Trump has heard some doctor say that? Probably.

Is the president one of the worst, least coherent, and most imprecise public speakers I have heard in a long time? Absolutely (although Biden may give him a run for his money).

---

Partial quotes taken out of context can be very misleading.  For example, if I reported that, on May 9, magnus asked "Is it February 2nd?," suggesting that the statement indicated serious disorientation, if not mental incapacity, the reporting would be true, but obviously misleading.  Listening to the whole exchange, there is nothing in it that indicates the virus shouldn't be taken seriously, and I imagine no one on this Board, whatever their political leaning, is taking the virus less seriously as a result of the President's comments.  As for a "benefit to the American people," I would ask what benefit there was to the American people in asking the President the question in the first place.


Beyond that, if the press wanted to cast this in the way you apparently think it should be cast to "benefit the American people," then the headline could just as accurately have said "Trump says 'vaccine would be very helpful.' "  He also praised the companies doing work on vaccine development, something that was never mentioned in the story.  If you're concerned about the effect of this on the public, would you agree that this would have been a better headline and approach to reporting the comments?  Or, do you prefer what appears to be an anti-Trump bias, given the information included and the information excluded in the story?

I've seen extended clips of the session. I don't think he was joking. The clips do not show any indication of humorous intent. Even if you're right that he wasn't serious, I'm not sure that makes it better. Normal people don't joke about such things at public appearances. Why is this man constantly not serious about something deadly serious?

Who said he wasn’t serious or that he was joking? Not I. My point was that the article misrepresented the entirety of his comments in order to drive a narrative.  You may not agree with him. He may be overly optimistic and even wrong.  But, if your point is that he essentially needs to be constantly screaming “We’re all gonna die!!“, so that the people who aren’t as smart as you will behave as you believe they should, I respectfully disagree.

[magnus]

said Trump...

President Trump on Friday broke with health experts, telling reporters that the coronavirus will “go away without a vaccine.”

“This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time,” Trump said at the White House.

Is it February 2nd? Why would he say this?

At a time when everyone needs to take this virus seriously, is there any benefit to the American people in that statement?

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-corona...54249.html

Beyond that, if the press wanted to cast this in the way you apparently think it should be cast to "benefit the American people," then the headline could just as accurately have said "Trump says 'vaccine would be very helpful.' "  He also praised the companies doing work on vaccine development, something that was never mentioned in the story.  If you're concerned about the effect of this on the public, would you agree that this would have been a better headline and approach to reporting the comments?  

76lsjumb, I apologize if I took this out of context.  However, I'm still not sure what context surrounds the quote above (I don't know which interview it happened in).  If you could expand on how that quote came about, I'd truly appreciate it.  I'd be more than happy to know that Trump isn't sending out mixed signals and it's unfortunately the media misrepresenting random snippets.  The more Trump can stay on point with the message that this virus is more serious than the flu and that we need to take precautions (promote the CDC guidelines.  Heck, just don't go out if you're sick), it would go a long way towards reducing the transmissibility of this virus.  Sure there will always be people that won't listen.  But there are those that will listen to whatever the President says (like the governor of Florida, when he finally decided to act only after Trump's demeanor changed), and every little bit helps.

[magnus]

said Trump...

President Trump on Friday broke with health experts, telling reporters that the coronavirus will “go away without a vaccine.”

“This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time,” Trump said at the White House.

Is it February 2nd? Why would he say this?

At a time when everyone needs to take this virus seriously, is there any benefit to the American people in that statement?

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-corona...54249.html

Beyond that, if the press wanted to cast this in the way you apparently think it should be cast to "benefit the American people," then the headline could just as accurately have said "Trump says 'vaccine would be very helpful.' "  He also praised the companies doing work on vaccine development, something that was never mentioned in the story.  If you're concerned about the effect of this on the public, would you agree that this would have been a better headline and approach to reporting the comments?  

76lsjumb, I apologize if I took this out of context.  However, I'm still not sure what context surrounds the quote above (I don't know which interview it happened in).  If you could expand on how that quote came about, I'd truly appreciate it.  I'd be more than happy to know that Trump isn't sending out mixed signals and it's unfortunately the media misrepresenting random snippets.  The more Trump can stay on point with the message that this virus is more serious than the flu and that we need to take precautions (promote the CDC guidelines.  Heck, just don't go out if you're sick), it would go a long way towards reducing the transmissibility of this virus.  Sure there will always be people that won't listen.  But there are those that will listen to whatever the President says (like the governor of Florida, when he finally decided to act only after Trump's demeanor changed), and every little bit helps.

[Leftcoast]

President Trump is a most Un-Cardboard like president.  His signal to noise ratio is very, very low.

[Leftcoast]

President Trump is a most Un-Cardboard like president.  His signal to noise ratio is very, very low.

[82 Card]

Who said he wasn’t serious or that he was joking? Not I. My point was that the article misrepresented the entirety of his comments in order to drive a narrative.  You may not agree with him. He may be overly optimistic and even wrong.  But, if your point is that he essentially needs to be constantly screaming “We’re all gonna die!!“, so that the people who aren’t as smart as you will behave as you believe they should, I respectfully disagree.

If you believe he was serious, perhaps you can explain the serious point he was making when he said: “This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time.” Does he have special knowledge that immunity lasts long enough to reach her immunity without vaccines or is he making stuff up with no basis? It doesn't matter that he may have said other things that aren't crazy. Even that part about vaccine being "helpful" is angled to downplay its importance.

[82 Card]

Who said he wasn’t serious or that he was joking? Not I. My point was that the article misrepresented the entirety of his comments in order to drive a narrative.  You may not agree with him. He may be overly optimistic and even wrong.  But, if your point is that he essentially needs to be constantly screaming “We’re all gonna die!!“, so that the people who aren’t as smart as you will behave as you believe they should, I respectfully disagree.

If you believe he was serious, perhaps you can explain the serious point he was making when he said: “This is going to go away without a vaccine, it’s gonna go away, and we’re not going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time.” Does he have special knowledge that immunity lasts long enough to reach her immunity without vaccines or is he making stuff up with no basis? It doesn't matter that he may have said other things that aren't crazy. Even that part about vaccine being "helpful" is angled to downplay its importance.

[chrisk]

"We are all tired of waiting"

https://www.economist.com/the-world-this...ls-cartoon

[chrisk]

"We are all tired of waiting"

https://www.economist.com/the-world-this...ls-cartoon

[Snorlax94]

If people think Trump was taken out of context or was just joking, here are the videos. People can watch and come to their own conclusions.

On the virus just disappearing:
https://youtu.be/7qbtqew-CI8

On the use of internal sunlight or Lysol as potential treatments:
https://youtu.be/33QdTOyXz3w

On Covid just going away:
https://youtu.be/r8yOv4PwttM

[Snorlax94]

If people think Trump was taken out of context or was just joking, here are the videos. People can watch and come to their own conclusions.

On the virus just disappearing:
https://youtu.be/7qbtqew-CI8

On the use of internal sunlight or Lysol as potential treatments:
https://youtu.be/33QdTOyXz3w

On Covid just going away:
https://youtu.be/r8yOv4PwttM

[OutsiderFan]

Can we move these posts to the Humor thread?

I mean seriously, the things the current POTUS says would be jokes in a stand-up act if said by a comedian performing one.

[OutsiderFan]

Can we move these posts to the Humor thread?

I mean seriously, the things the current POTUS says would be jokes in a stand-up act if said by a comedian performing one.

[Farm93]

This isn't that hard really.

He wants COVID19 to go away.   This COVID19 thing is killing his presidential success story and legacy.  By implying it won't be a big deal in a few weeks then business can get back to hiring workers and expanding their businesses.  Companies need to be hiring and expanding in July and August for people to feel good about the USA's prospects by election day. 

Humor, sarcasm, fantasy, delusional thoughts, aspirational thoughts,..whatever.   Those turning to POTUS45 seeking information at this point should understand he is a very unreliable information source. 

SARS more or less died out on its own.  Dr. Fauci has said this at briefings and in media interviews.  This is likely where POTUS45 has heard that viruses sometimes die out on their own.   Sadly, his own scientists know that SARS story and have mentioned several times that COVID19 is far more contagious and is now in both the northern and southern hemispheres so it is unlikely to just die out when summer arrives.

President Trump wants COVID19 to disappear like SARS.   I get that, we all want that too.  What is so frustrating is that as a country we now bounce along from Trump wish to Trump wish.   I never get the sense that anyone in his inner circle is planning for plausible worst case scenarios.

Oh well, stay safe everyone and remember to never trust only one source, especially if that source is rather unreliable.

[Farm93]

This isn't that hard really.

He wants COVID19 to go away.   This COVID19 thing is killing his presidential success story and legacy.  By implying it won't be a big deal in a few weeks then business can get back to hiring workers and expanding their businesses.  Companies need to be hiring and expanding in July and August for people to feel good about the USA's prospects by election day. 

Humor, sarcasm, fantasy, delusional thoughts, aspirational thoughts,..whatever.   Those turning to POTUS45 seeking information at this point should understand he is a very unreliable information source. 

SARS more or less died out on its own.  Dr. Fauci has said this at briefings and in media interviews.  This is likely where POTUS45 has heard that viruses sometimes die out on their own.   Sadly, his own scientists know that SARS story and have mentioned several times that COVID19 is far more contagious and is now in both the northern and southern hemispheres so it is unlikely to just die out when summer arrives.

President Trump wants COVID19 to disappear like SARS.   I get that, we all want that too.  What is so frustrating is that as a country we now bounce along from Trump wish to Trump wish.   I never get the sense that anyone in his inner circle is planning for plausible worst case scenarios.

Oh well, stay safe everyone and remember to never trust only one source, especially if that source is rather unreliable.

[JustAnotherFan]

This is actually brilliant Trump playing the rest of us. He knows it probably isn't just going to go away. He is thinking about reelection. 

He is securing the anti-vax vote. Which is quite substantial. Very politically engaged. And many of them are on the blue side and will eagerly swing right to support the guy who looks like he supports their cause.

Trump is an incompetent leader. Trump is unhinged and has little self control. Trump would eagerly trade off thousands of American lives for one good poll. But he is a political genius who deceivingly dabbles in populism, corporatism, white nationalism, xenophobia, racism, protectionism, and just enough conspiracy theories that he is able to grossly outperform what should be reasonable, and people need to recognize that reality.

[JustAnotherFan]

This is actually brilliant Trump playing the rest of us. He knows it probably isn't just going to go away. He is thinking about reelection. 

He is securing the anti-vax vote. Which is quite substantial. Very politically engaged. And many of them are on the blue side and will eagerly swing right to support the guy who looks like he supports their cause.

Trump is an incompetent leader. Trump is unhinged and has little self control. Trump would eagerly trade off thousands of American lives for one good poll. But he is a political genius who deceivingly dabbles in populism, corporatism, white nationalism, xenophobia, racism, protectionism, and just enough conspiracy theories that he is able to grossly outperform what should be reasonable, and people need to recognize that reality.

[76lsjumb]

This isn't that hard really.

He wants COVID19 to go away.   This COVID19 thing is killing his presidential success story and legacy.  By implying it won't be a big deal in a few weeks then business can get back to hiring workers and expanding their businesses.  Companies need to be hiring and expanding in July and August for people to feel good about the USA's prospects by election day. 

Humor, sarcasm, fantasy, delusional thoughts, aspirational thoughts,..whatever.   Those turning to POTUS45 seeking information at this point should understand he is a very unreliable information source. 

SARS more or less died out on its own.  Dr. Fauci has said this at briefings and in media interviews.  This is likely where POTUS45 has heard that viruses sometimes die out on their own.   Sadly, his own scientists know that SARS story and have mentioned several times that COVID19 is far more contagious and is now in both the northern and southern hemispheres so it is unlikely to just die out when summer arrives.

President Trump wants COVID19 to disappear like SARS.   I get that, we all want that too.  What is so frustrating is that as a country we now bounce along from Trump wish to Trump wish.   I never get the sense that anyone in his inner circle is planning for plausible worst case scenarios.

Oh well, stay safe everyone and remember to never trust only one source, especially if that source is rather unreliable.

A few quibbles, but, all in all, I think this is a pretty reasonable summary of the situation.

[76lsjumb]

This isn't that hard really.

He wants COVID19 to go away.   This COVID19 thing is killing his presidential success story and legacy.  By implying it won't be a big deal in a few weeks then business can get back to hiring workers and expanding their businesses.  Companies need to be hiring and expanding in July and August for people to feel good about the USA's prospects by election day. 

Humor, sarcasm, fantasy, delusional thoughts, aspirational thoughts,..whatever.   Those turning to POTUS45 seeking information at this point should understand he is a very unreliable information source. 

SARS more or less died out on its own.  Dr. Fauci has said this at briefings and in media interviews.  This is likely where POTUS45 has heard that viruses sometimes die out on their own.   Sadly, his own scientists know that SARS story and have mentioned several times that COVID19 is far more contagious and is now in both the northern and southern hemispheres so it is unlikely to just die out when summer arrives.

President Trump wants COVID19 to disappear like SARS.   I get that, we all want that too.  What is so frustrating is that as a country we now bounce along from Trump wish to Trump wish.   I never get the sense that anyone in his inner circle is planning for plausible worst case scenarios.

Oh well, stay safe everyone and remember to never trust only one source, especially if that source is rather unreliable.

A few quibbles, but, all in all, I think this is a pretty reasonable summary of the situation.

[82 Card]

This isn't that hard really.

He wants COVID19 to go away.   This COVID19 thing is killing his presidential success story and legacy.  By implying it won't be a big deal in a few weeks then business can get back to hiring workers and expanding their businesses.  Companies need to be hiring and expanding in July and August for people to feel good about the USA's prospects by election day. 

Humor, sarcasm, fantasy, delusional thoughts, aspirational thoughts,..whatever.   Those turning to POTUS45 seeking information at this point should understand he is a very unreliable information source. 

SARS more or less died out on its own.  Dr. Fauci has said this at briefings and in media interviews.  This is likely where POTUS45 has heard that viruses sometimes die out on their own.   Sadly, his own scientists know that SARS story and have mentioned several times that COVID19 is far more contagious and is now in both the northern and southern hemispheres so it is unlikely to just die out when summer arrives.

President Trump wants COVID19 to disappear like SARS.   I get that, we all want that too.  What is so frustrating is that as a country we now bounce along from Trump wish to Trump wish.   I never get the sense that anyone in his inner circle is planning for plausible worst case scenarios.

Oh well, stay safe everyone and remember to never trust only one source, especially if that source is rather unreliable.

A few quibbles, but, all in all, I think this is a pretty reasonable summary of the situation.

Then I don't understand the objection to the article in OP.

[82 Card]

This isn't that hard really.

He wants COVID19 to go away.   This COVID19 thing is killing his presidential success story and legacy.  By implying it won't be a big deal in a few weeks then business can get back to hiring workers and expanding their businesses.  Companies need to be hiring and expanding in July and August for people to feel good about the USA's prospects by election day. 

Humor, sarcasm, fantasy, delusional thoughts, aspirational thoughts,..whatever.   Those turning to POTUS45 seeking information at this point should understand he is a very unreliable information source. 

SARS more or less died out on its own.  Dr. Fauci has said this at briefings and in media interviews.  This is likely where POTUS45 has heard that viruses sometimes die out on their own.   Sadly, his own scientists know that SARS story and have mentioned several times that COVID19 is far more contagious and is now in both the northern and southern hemispheres so it is unlikely to just die out when summer arrives.

President Trump wants COVID19 to disappear like SARS.   I get that, we all want that too.  What is so frustrating is that as a country we now bounce along from Trump wish to Trump wish.   I never get the sense that anyone in his inner circle is planning for plausible worst case scenarios.

Oh well, stay safe everyone and remember to never trust only one source, especially if that source is rather unreliable.

A few quibbles, but, all in all, I think this is a pretty reasonable summary of the situation.

Then I don't understand the objection to the article in OP.

[dabigv13]

I like that 76lsjumb's defense of the President is basically that he's a moron that no reasonable person should listen to.

[dabigv13]

I like that 76lsjumb's defense of the President is basically that he's a moron that no reasonable person should listen to.

[fullmetal]

Focusing on the continued ignorance of POTUS's ill-considered remarks likely detracts from the bandwidth we could be spending on substantive discussions, tbh.  Too easy to dunk on this jabroni.

[fullmetal]

Focusing on the continued ignorance of POTUS's ill-considered remarks likely detracts from the bandwidth we could be spending on substantive discussions, tbh.  Too easy to dunk on this jabroni.

[BostonCard]

Technically, he is probably correct.  Even absent a vaccine, with enough time the virus will infect enough people that there will be herd immunity and there will be few enough people left to infect that it will go away.  It is worth noting that this is what happened to the 1918 influenza.  The flu pandemic hit in two big waves (summar and fall of 1918, the latter being the major wave), and there were two, smaller waves in 1919 and 1920.  And after that it largely did "go away", though it was probably circulating endemically.

The problem is that the virus will take with it somewhere between 0.1% and 0.5% of the population (depending on what the ultimate case fatality rate winds up being).  It will take roughly 75% of the community being sickened by it before herd immunity takes hold, and even if the CFR is on the lines of 0.1%, that's roughly 250,000 deaths to over 1 million deaths if the CFR is closer to 0.5%.

SARS didn't die down on its own; it required aggressive contact tracing and isolation.  This was made somewhat easier by the fact that there was not much asymptomatic transmission of SARS and patients with SARS were sicker than patients with COVID-19, so most were hospitalized.  But still, this was not an infection that went away on its own.

BC

[BostonCard]

Technically, he is probably correct.  Even absent a vaccine, with enough time the virus will infect enough people that there will be herd immunity and there will be few enough people left to infect that it will go away.  It is worth noting that this is what happened to the 1918 influenza.  The flu pandemic hit in two big waves (summar and fall of 1918, the latter being the major wave), and there were two, smaller waves in 1919 and 1920.  And after that it largely did "go away", though it was probably circulating endemically.

The problem is that the virus will take with it somewhere between 0.1% and 0.5% of the population (depending on what the ultimate case fatality rate winds up being).  It will take roughly 75% of the community being sickened by it before herd immunity takes hold, and even if the CFR is on the lines of 0.1%, that's roughly 250,000 deaths to over 1 million deaths if the CFR is closer to 0.5%.

SARS didn't die down on its own; it required aggressive contact tracing and isolation.  This was made somewhat easier by the fact that there was not much asymptomatic transmission of SARS and patients with SARS were sicker than patients with COVID-19, so most were hospitalized.  But still, this was not an infection that went away on its own.

BC

[Hulk01]

"Or, do you prefer what appears to be an anti-Trump bias, given the information included and the information excluded in the story?"

Is every antipathy a bias, or does every antipathy lead to one?

I dislike liver. 
Have I failed to give it its due? 
Have I judged it unfairly?
Have I dismissed it without seeing some of its virtues?

[Hulk01]

"Or, do you prefer what appears to be an anti-Trump bias, given the information included and the information excluded in the story?"

Is every antipathy a bias, or does every antipathy lead to one?

I dislike liver. 
Have I failed to give it its due? 
Have I judged it unfairly?
Have I dismissed it without seeing some of its virtues?

[akiddoc]

Technically, he is probably correct.  Even absent a vaccine, with enough time the virus will infect enough people that there will be herd immunity and there will be few enough people left to infect that it will go away.  It is worth noting that this is what happened to the 1918 influenza.  The flu pandemic hit in two big waves (summar and fall of 1918, the latter being the major wave), and there were two, smaller waves in 1919 and 1920.  And after that it largely did "go away", though it was probably circulating endemically.

The problem is that the virus will take with it somewhere between 0.1% and 0.5% of the population (depending on what the ultimate case fatality rate winds up being).  It will take roughly 75% of the community being sickened by it before herd immunity takes hold, and even if the CFR is on the lines of 0.1%, that's roughly 250,000 deaths to over 1 million deaths if the CFR is closer to 0.5%.

SARS didn't die down on its own; it required aggressive contact tracing and isolation.  This was made somewhat easier by the fact that there was not much asymptomatic transmission of SARS and patients with SARS were sicker than patients with COVID-19, so most were hospitalized.  But still, this was not an infection that went away on its own.

BC

 

The common coronaviruses are not going away. I see no reason to think this one will.

[akiddoc]

Technically, he is probably correct.  Even absent a vaccine, with enough time the virus will infect enough people that there will be herd immunity and there will be few enough people left to infect that it will go away.  It is worth noting that this is what happened to the 1918 influenza.  The flu pandemic hit in two big waves (summar and fall of 1918, the latter being the major wave), and there were two, smaller waves in 1919 and 1920.  And after that it largely did "go away", though it was probably circulating endemically.

The problem is that the virus will take with it somewhere between 0.1% and 0.5% of the population (depending on what the ultimate case fatality rate winds up being).  It will take roughly 75% of the community being sickened by it before herd immunity takes hold, and even if the CFR is on the lines of 0.1%, that's roughly 250,000 deaths to over 1 million deaths if the CFR is closer to 0.5%.

SARS didn't die down on its own; it required aggressive contact tracing and isolation.  This was made somewhat easier by the fact that there was not much asymptomatic transmission of SARS and patients with SARS were sicker than patients with COVID-19, so most were hospitalized.  But still, this was not an infection that went away on its own.

BC

 

The common coronaviruses are not going away. I see no reason to think this one will.