Hacker News Reader

Comment by pattrn | Hacker News Reader

Interesting read, but I'm not sure the analysis of the following exchange is correct.

> Q: But was it ever below 90, here or at the White House?

> CONLEY: No, it was below 94 percent. It wasn't down in the low 80s or anything.

When Conley answer's "No," that implies it was not below 90 "here" or at the White House. And "it was below 94 percent" implies it was somewhere in the range of 90 to 94. Assuming Conley told the truth, the only way you can interpret the oxygen levels as being below 90 is if you ignore the presence of the word "no."

I've noticed when speaking with physicians that they tend to give very precise answers (unless they believe the precise answer will lead to worse health outcomes for a patient). This exchange sounded pretty typical to me. Doesn't seem like Conley intended anything nefarious.

View on HN

> CONLEY: [...] It wasn't down in the low 80s or anything.

I read this last part in several ways:

1. He is telling the truth: he wants to assure reporters that T’s oxygen level didn’t reach critical levels

2. He is telling a lie: he already mentioned that the oxygen level was below 94. Why mentioning the low 80s?

3. He is just nervous or tired, and he doesn’t want to have his words twisted

Trumps O2 stat was between 84 and 94.

I think you're misunderstanding. The point isn't about the ability to infer objective truth from a dissembling source, nor about how to prove an objective lie from that source.

It's about cultivating an ability to detect when you are probably being lied to by an otherwise authoritative source. And it's something americans have traditionally been very bad at.

(Including, I have to be honest, you. In fact it was reported just last week that Trump was sicker than the public was informed and that his blood oxygen did indeed drop into the low 80's. Your desire to believe the authority figures you trust led you to buy the spin. But people with this kind of "Autoritarian Muscle Memory" described were clued in much earlier.)

>And it's something americans have traditionally been very bad at.

As this comment thread is proving :p

I used the qualifier "assuming Conley told the truth" to establish an axiom, since the author did that implicitly. Everything else was pure deductive reasoning.

That aside, I personally believe that the entire media and all public figures will lie on behalf of what they believe to be "the greater good." Their goal is not "truth." For that reason, I don't believe this interview communicated any meaningful information; I also don't believe the follow-up last week communicated any meaningful information. I don't assume Conley told the truth. My comment intended only to point out a flaw in the deductive reasoning of the article.

(Regarding your assumption about me, this is the exact problem with trying to develop opinions by reading between the lines. It's easy to develop strong, unfounded opinions without any evidence.)

That "No" could mean that it was below 90, but not "here" - "here" could mean literally in this room, or even exactly where the speaker is standing right now.

But the writer has a New York Times quote suggesting that:

> Mr. Trump’s blood oxygen level alone was cause for extreme concern, dipping into the 80s, according to the people familiar with his evaluation. The disease is considered severe when the blood oxygen level falls to the low 90s.

So now there's evidence that the oxygen % went below 90, despite what Conley said that day.

Honestly, where is the evidence? You’re trusting the NYT sources to tell the truth. I trust NYT to deliver accurate news - but only true evidence removes any doubt.

There are reports coming out the past week that seem to suggest Trump was in a very bad way with COVID-19.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com