Comment by coolso | Hacker News Reader

Comment by coolso | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Not defending Ivermectin, but what do people have against trying alternative therapeutics for COVID?

You have to look at everything surrounding COVID in context. The most important context was that prior to COVID, Trump was obviously going to be re-elected. None of the world-ending catastrophes that everyone said would happen under him, did, in fact we got a lot of good out of his administration. The economy was great, taxes were low, gas prices were low, etc.

But then COVID happened, and finally, the opposition saw their opening. If they had any hope of Trump losing reelection, this was their only chance, and so every single day they did whatever they could to blame everything on Trump and only Trump, and did whatever they could to come to the defense of any organization or entity that Trump assigned blame to (WHO, China, etc.), and they also did whatever they could to trash anything that looked like it might help reduce the effects of the pandemic prior to the election.

People on a particular side of the aisle were "TERRIFIED" that the vaccine would be released before the election.

You'll recall, for example, that many of the people and organizations that shame everyone as "anti-vaxxers" for being wary of the vaccine, did that very same thing just prior to the election, spreading FUD (including Biden himself):

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccin...

Ivermectin, a life-saving drug WHO-listed essential drug (found ineffective for most for COVID) that has a side-effect profile close to that of the antibiotics we as a country receive so many prescriptions of like candy, was referred to as "horse paste", and do you know why some idiots were resorting to getting the animal kind instead of the human kind? Because the media and the establishment treated this relatively harmless drug as something evil and so people who are inclined to believe everything is a conspiracy, had that further reinforced in their minds, so they did whatever they could to seek something that the establishment was actively trying to keep from them.

>in fact we got a lot of good out of his administration. The economy was great, taxes were low, gas prices were low

This a mixture of the state of the country Obama left him with and things that presidents and their admin don't have much influence over.

Do you actually think Biden increased gas prices as if the effects of the pandemic and war (that trump likely helped cause by his deference to putin and hostility towards nato) aren't the actual causes?

Trump threw out the pandemic playbook.

Trump and the GOP's raised taxes on a substantial number of middle class and lower income people. Some of it was immediately and some of those increases were left as timebombs.

I really could go on and on, but that will turn in to arguing on the internet. But that statement on how "good" trump's admin suggests extremely rose colored glasses on what actually went on.

> This a mixture of the state of the country Obama left him with and things that presidents and their admin don't have much influence over.

So first it was "Trump is going to destroy the economy!" but now it's "actually he had nothing to do with it, everything was just magically great despite all the bad things he did to try to destroy it", interesting.

> Do you actually think Biden increased gas prices as if the effects of the pandemic and war (that trump likely helped cause by his deference to putin and hostility towards nato) aren't the actual causes?

I think Biden's major hostility towards oil, his poor economic policies, and his poor handling of the pandemic (under Biden we had far more deaths than under Trump during the same time period) resulted in much higher prices (which were already $1-1.50/gallon higher than under Trump prior to the war) as well as Putin realizing he had nothing to fear from Biden, resulting in him invading Ukraine. Do you think gas prices were just magically cheaper under Trump because he asked nicely?

> Trump threw out the pandemic playbook.

And it's looking more and more that he was right all along, given the facts on the ground showing that the majority of deaths and serious illnesses were of people over 65 and obese; the effects it's had on the economy; the effects it's had on younger generations; suicide rates; etc. Can't wait to see all of the other long term studies that show how disastrous our overreaction to everything ended up being overall.

Let's not forget Trump gave us a vaccine in record time as well - a vaccine that Joe Biden spread FUD about until after the election was over.

> Trump and the GOP's raised taxes on a substantial number of middle class and lower income people. Some of it was immediately and some of those increases were left as timebombs.

Most people saw lower taxes. I'm not going to claim Trump didn't have a fairly shit Congress during his administration, which is why it's great he's backing more anti-neocons for the upcoming midterms.

> But that statement on how "good" trump's admin suggests extremely rose colored glasses on what actually went on.

At the end of the day the only bad thing about the Trump admin was the mean tweets. Quality of life was far higher under him than recent past presidents, as well as our current president. We replaced him with a politically correct political veteran and we got all of... this. Simple as.

> And it's looking more and more that he was right all along, given the facts on the ground showing that the majority of deaths and serious illnesses were of people over 65 and obese;

What do you think you sound like to people who experience empathy and sympathy? Your statements are so focused on ignoring anything that may lay any responsibility at the feet of Trump, and it is uncomfortable to see this degree of denial defining your post history at a brief glance.

>"At the end of the day the only bad thing about the Trump admin was the mean tweets."

That's a new definition of "mean tweets", I didn't know it meant the failings of a twice impeached president whose wife wore a shirt saying "I don't care, do you?" when visiting children her husband's admin had caged, plus about 200 hundred other actions that were objectively abhorrent and un-american.

Appearing not to be able to criticize something one views positively despite plenty of severe failings makes endorsements seem unreliable. In this case, it's as if there was some edict that declared if trump did it, it was by definition good.

Sometimes I read comments that seem to be describing an alternate reality and are incompatible with my understanding of the world and it's fun to wonder if the posters of the comment view my description of reality the same way. It's not a matter of different opinions, but a matter being 100% impossible to coexists and both be correct. One view must be false and wrong, but whose?

What if my world is the bizarro world, and what testable facts am I basing my world view on that I can verify or test? And does the other poster ever consider these same thoughts about their views.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com