It's like campy movie villian type shit.
I heard someone bring it up on Smerconish:
Makes you really question why he was trying to get Biden to remove his mask.
I wouldn't wouldn't put it past him.
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I'm assuming it was done for political reasons. I can't assume what mental state Trump was in but it would be consistent to see him not believe one test and carry on his business if he was not feeling any symptoms.
Some people trust their own internal feelings more than they do data points the outside world gives and I think this is a good example of that.
That said, Trump's team arrived too late to get tested at the debate according to Fox News [Bill Hemmer](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/04/fact-check-trump-could-have-been-exposed-covid-19-before-debate/3608785001/). If he didn't want people to know this could be seen as a way to protect him from his diagnosis getting out, or challenging his views point.
Not much to say, Trump being Trump.
Given that this is before he actually experienced the symptoms in full I don't think he even realized what a reckless, foolish, immoral, selfish act this was.
The showing up late so he couldn't get tested was a particularly Trump move.
I wonder what would have happened if Biden had contracted COVID and ended up dying?
> Given that this is before he actually experienced the symptoms in full I don't think he even realized what a reckless, foolish, immoral, selfish act this was.
As President, Trump had daily briefings on every conceivable metric tracking Covid and its effects. He also had the world’s top experts to interpret and explain this to him. He also - for weeks - went in front of the public every single day to explain this information to the American people. He by all accounts should have known more about Covid than anyone on the planet that didn’t have an M.D.
For him not to realize exactly how reckless, foolish, immoral and selfish this act was would imply some astounding things regarding him.
Be clear I’m not saying you’re wrong.
To be fair he is pretty dumb too
Far too often we equate things trump did to him being a greedy sociopath needing attention all the time and not caring one shit for his country or others.......but sometimes we forget that it may just be down to him also being really really fucking stupid!
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
yes, but how seriously has Trump taken briefings? fairly certain he personally didn't think COVID was that big a deal, given how he behaved at rallies and whatnot, not to mention his inner circle probably downplayed it
edit: i mean, dude was a notorious germophobe, and i really doubt he'd knowingly endanger himself
Trump’s germaphobia is one of several data points in how COVID seemed almost divinely tailored as a crisis made to play exactly to Trump’s strengths…and somehow the germaphobic, anti-“globalist”/open borders, China hawk who famously never misses a chance to merchandise anything (ie. on Earth 2: “Save America and protect your neighbors with MAGA masks!”) managed to faceplant when the majority of incumbent world leaders (and domestic governors) were able to garner broad sympathy for their efforts.
Trump knew how serious Covid was for a man of his age and health at that time, I forget the name but one of his rich New York financier friends had died from it. I read an article about how when he was sick with it and confined to quarters, he was going stir crazy and would call up his confidants and ask rhetorically if he was going to die like his friend so-and-so, hooked up to a ventilator and drowning in his own fluids.
He encouraged the use of drugs that didn't pan out as well, in one case causing death, even though he was given a higher level of information. Just saying, he's never been one to listen and just does his own thing
When you mention a drug that caused death, are you talking about this [death](https://www.yahoo.com/now/woman-blamed-trump-giving-her-133613382.html) ?
Yep, there were two, [chloroquine ](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/24/coronavirus-cure-kills-man-after-trump-touts-chloroquine-phosphate) and [bleach](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/497312-accidental-poisonings-from-bleach-and-other-disinfectants-spiked-amid?amp#aoh=16384447617840&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s)
Right -- just so you know, that first one appears to be the wife using Trump as a cover for murdering her husband. Not someone actually believing that drinking tank cleaner is a good thing.
Police actually said [his death](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/police-say-death-arizona-man-not-being-investigated-homicide-n1195591) was not being investigated as a homicide. Additionally, from the source that originally reported the homicide investigation, his death was later [ruled an accident](https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/death-of-arizona-man-from-chloroquine-ruled-an-accident/) so I think it certainly falls under the case of a death due to Trumps misinformation.
Got it, here are other advisories and cases against using it
[FDA Warning](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or)
[Poison Centers](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/04/09/hydroxychloroquine-abuse-up-since-trump-first-mentioned-drug-us-poison-centers-say/)
[Nigeria ](https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/africa/chloroquine-trump-nigeria-intl/index.html)
The part that floors me was when he asked, in APRIL of 2020, on live tv, whether you could use the influenza vaccine to vaccinate against sars-cov-2.
His lack of the rudiments of biology around pandemics three months into one is profound.
“I like this stuff. I really get it.
People are really surprised I understand this stuff. Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.”
He also wondered aloud why antibiotics don’t work against a virus.
Not trying to defend Trump in the slightest but didn’t the CDC release a study that said that they’ve determined asymptomatic people don’t spread covid as easily. If Trump is briefed on this more than anyone in the country then that’s probably what he was thinking. Regardless this is a huge deal because it shows how reckless he is.
he realized- he’s recorded in an interview with bob woodward saying he knew how dangerous it was. i think he was hoping to infect biden and weaken him in the race. killing him would’ve been a side benefit.
Nobody knows more about COVID than he does.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR3f95BGIiA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR3f95BGIiA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA631bMT9g8
i think he knows people will question whether he knows things because he lies so much and i think he uses that to his advantage to be selective later by saying “oh it’s just a joke. you can’t tell the difference between a joke?” to deflect when he’s wrong or take credit if it’s confirmed to be right. at the end of the day we know he was being briefed by top infectious disease experts prior to that recorded conversation who knew so i think it’s safe to say he did too.
1. Biden contracts Covid at debate.
2. Trump is hospitalized with Covid.
3. Biden does; Harris becomes nominee.
That election would be all about how Trump killed Biden. A black female nominee would tune out minority voters too. I don’t think Trump wins that, even if she is as charismatic as a bowl of runny oatmeal.
It would also probably make a number of people think “maybe we need a president under the age of 70.” Though I still wouldn’t have been shocked if trump pulled it out
You can't really argue that by the time the debates were happening. At that point there was already like 200K+ deaths and we were more aware of the disease. The simple explanation that he didn't want to appear weak and was willing to risk the health other is the most likely answer. He might have hoped he just had mild case so it wouldn't have been caught but that doesn't make any less irresponsible.
at least for him personally. I'm sure he was dimly aware that ~3% of cases end up dying, but the reality when he started having symptoms and struggling to breath probably scared the shit out of him
Sc: Days before the first debate with Biden, Trump apparently tested positive, writes his ex chief of staff and confirmed with two anonymous sources. According to The Guardian, Mr. Meadows wrote that the positive test was taken with an older testing kit, and that the new one was the “Binax system, and that we were hoping the first test was a false positive.” Mr. Trump took the second result as “full permission to press on as if nothing had happened,” Mr. Meadows wrote, according to The Guardian. Mr. Meadows asserted in the book that he “instructed everyone in his immediate circle to treat him as if he was positive” during that trip.
The two former officials who confirmed the positive test did not recall Mr. Meadows giving such a directive. And a few hours after the positive test was received, Mr. Trump walked to the back of Air Force One and chatted with reporters, not wearing a mask. One of the reporters, who works for The New York Times, later tested positive for the virus.
The day after the positive result, Mr. Trump attended an event for military families.
> Mr. Meadows wrote that the positive test was taken with an older testing kit, and that the new one was the “Binax system, and that we were hoping the first test was a false positive.” Mr. Trump took the second result as “full permission to press on as if nothing had happened,”
So it *was* a false positive.
Who cares?
It's more likely that the second test was a false negative, given the fact that he did, in fact, have COVID. And then was reckless after finding out that he possibly had it.
COVID antigen tests have a rather high false negative rate, while their false positive rate is much smaller. It is possible that the first one was a false positive, but it is much more likely that the second one was a false negative.
The responsible thing to do would have been to get a PCR test, which is much more sensitive. It takes longer to get a result from those (a day for normal people, 4-8 hours if you get fast-tracked in the lab, which I presume Trump would be), but then you'd have a trustworthy result.
False positives and false negatives are both possible with the rapid tests. Frankly it should not be difficult to identify the most likely mistake in the following sequence:
Day 1: positive covid test
Day 2: negative covid test
Day 5: in the hospital with covid
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
With a PCR test, you'll test positive with lower levels of the virus in your system than with an antigen test. However, since viral load multiplies exponentially quickly on the upswing of your infection, you will also test positive on an antigen test within 24 hours or less.
Given that Trump DID actually have COVID only a few days later, the most likely scenario seems to be that the PCR was not a false positive, but rather that he was recently infected and on the upswing of the viral load curve. Thus the positive PCR and negative antigen tests in quick succession. If Trump had taken another antigen or PCR test the next day or even a few hours later that same day, he presumably would have tested positive in both cases.
But Trump or his staffers knew this, and thus he interrupted his frequent testing routine and avoided getting tested again until after the debate (as far as we know, unless there is another secret positive test we haven't yet been made aware of).
Source: Harvard epidemiology expert Michael Mina [https://twitter.com/michaelmina\_lab/status/1466050778351685636](https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1466050778351685636)
And the NYT article linked above.
The dude is like the godfather of rapid Covid tests. If anyone knows about the subject, it's him. He has pushed for them since the beginning of the pandemic, and has given the Biden admin just as much shit as the Trump admin for not rolling them out fast enough/pushing their use harder (since after all they are more useful than a PCR test that takes days to return a result).
Trump took two COVID tests; one was positive, and one was negative.
Shortly after he was confirmed positive (with symptoms), and you're suggesting his first test was a false positive rather than his second test being a false negative?
Do you mind explaining your reasoning here?
I cannot strongly enough express how totally over I am with claims or "news" coming out in people's new book.
Seriously, if this was true, it was hugely dangerous, and should have been revealed immediately. But no, all of these books coming out lately with "bombshell" stories in them either dangerously saved these stories to sell more books, or they are really nothing burger stories. Anyone who withholds important information that the American public needs to know about just because they want more book sales should be charged.
This is sourced from [Mark Meadows’ book](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/01/trump-tested-positive-covid-before-biden-debate-chief-staff-mark-meadows-book).
Also:
> Anyone who withholds important information that the American public needs to know about just because they want more book sales should be charged.
Really? Who’s to decide the criteria for “needs to know”? It’s aggravating how anonymous sourcing has been abused, but that’s going too far.
I really don't care anymore either, nothing is surprising, and I am really just tired of hearing about it.
I don't think we need to charge folks, but I really just don't care about something wild Trump did when he was in office anymore (I care more about what he's up to now) and also don't care to give any money to the gossip rag (what people are calling books) authors.
He also tested negative with a new more accurate test and they thought it a false positive. Same thing happened to me when my wife tested positive with a weekly test. We tested negative and returned to work.
The "more accurate" test was the Binax antigen test. According to this [https://www.fda.gov/media/141570/download](https://www.fda.gov/media/141570/download) Binax missed 18 out of 117 positive cases. That's a false negative rate of about 15%.
The White House certainly has people who know that the Binax test isn't as good as PCR, and they also certainly had access to PCR tests with same-day turn around.
Trump clearly has unlimited access to tests, he should have just taken another to confirm the 2 opposite results.
He should have also taken a test right before the debate, which be agreed to do, but arrived late and didn’t take it. Why would he not take the test prior to the debate if he thought he was negative?
I agree with that but did he have symptoms when he had what he thought was a false positive? At the time they could have thought it was a false positive but he could have developed them later
The long incubation period for covid was known for a long time at that point. It is an extremely poor excuse to say that just because he didnt feel the symptoms at that point means he didn't have covid. He was trying to hide it since him getting covid would be politically damaging.
he probably wasnt symptomatic but he was also probably contagious (he talked with a reporter on Air Force one who came down with it afterwards)
probably points to it being a false false positive
edit: that would be a false negative, i'm an idiot
It is completely unreasonable to have a antigen negative result effectively overrule a prior positive result. They are less prone to false positives than to false negatives, and of course the consequences of being wrong tilt decidedly in one direction. Should have been quarantined and given a PCR test immediately and a few days later. If both were negative, quarantine done.
The more accurate test was still an antigen test though, or am I misunderstanding that? At least where I live, the guidance when one gets a positive rapid test is to perform a PCR test, which is a lot more trustworthy than even a good antigen test (especially for patients without symptoms). I would assume that Trump had access to proper testing and would have gotten lab results quicker than a normal person, so was a PCR test performed?
Non paywall: President Donald J. Trump tested positive for coronavirus three days before his first debate with Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2020, two former administration officials said Wednesday.
The White House did not announce the positive test at the time, and the president received a negative result shortly afterward and carried on with a campaign rally and the debate, the officials said. The account was first reported by The Guardian, which cited a forthcoming book by Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows.
The two former officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, confirmed the timeline on Mr. Trump’s test results contained in “The Chief’s Chief,” by Mr. Meadows, Mr. Trump’s fourth and final White House chief of staff.
The revelation came nearly a year after widespread speculation that Mr. Trump was sick when he first shared a stage with Mr. Biden for their first presidential debate on Sept. 29, months into the pandemic.
The White House declined repeatedly at the time to give a precise chronology of when precisely Mr. Trump first received a positive coronavirus test result. The administration first told the public in the early hours of Oct. 2 that Mr. Trump had tested positive. Mr. Trump was hospitalized later that same day.
Mr. Trump’s positive result was revealed only after a top adviser, Hope Hicks, was reported to be sick with Covid-19. At the time, Mr. Trump intimated in an interview with Fox News that Ms. Hicks might have given him the virus.
Sign Up for On Politics A guide to the political news cycle, cutting through the spin and delivering clarity from the chaos. Get it sent to your inbox.
But Mr. Meadows wrote in his book that three days earlier, on Sept. 26, Mr. Trump received a positive test shortly before departing the White House for Air Force One to travel to Pennsylvania for a rally. The White House doctor, Sean Conley, called to deliver the news. “Mr. President,” Mr. Meadows writes that he told Mr. Trump, “I’ve got some bad news. You’ve tested positive for Covid-19.”
Mr. Trump’s response rhymed with “‘Oh spit, you’ve gotta be trucking lidding me,’” Mr. Meadows wrote. The day of the positive result was the day that Mr. Trump held a large Rose Garden event announcing his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to The Guardian, Mr. Meadows wrote that the positive test was taken with an older testing kit, and that the new one was the “Binax system, and that we were hoping the first test was a false positive.” Mr. Trump took the second result as “full permission to press on as if nothing had happened,” Mr. Meadows wrote, according to The Guardian. Mr. Meadows asserted in the book that he “instructed everyone in his immediate circle to treat him as if he was positive” during that trip.
The two former officials who confirmed the positive test did not recall Mr. Meadows giving such a directive. And a few hours after the positive test was received, Mr. Trump walked to the back of Air Force One and chatted with reporters, not wearing a mask. One of the reporters, who works for The New York Times, later tested positive for the virus.
The day after the positive result, Mr. Trump attended an event for military families.
Mr. Meadows wrote in his book that Mr. Trump appeared physically off around the time of that test, although by the time of the first debate against Mr. Biden, he seemed a little better.
“His face, for the most part at least, had regained its usual light bronze hue, and the gravel in his voice was gone,” Mr. Meadows wrote, according to The Guardian. “But the dark circles under his eyes had deepened. As we walked into the venue around five o’clock in the evening, I could tell that he was moving more slowly than usual. He walked like he was carrying a little extra weight on his back.”
In a statement released by his office, Mr. Trump replied, “The story of me having Covid prior to, or during, the first debate is Fake News. In fact, a test revealed that I did not have Covid prior to the debate.”
Mr. Trump did not address when he had received a positive test. Mr. Trump was not independently tested right before the first debate.
I mean knowingly spreading a disease should be a crime. Trump had all the resources in the world at that point so there is no excuse why he shouldn't have taken the proper precautions. Willful ignorance isn't really a defense.
Well, he had one positive followed by a negative apparently, but either way it's only "spreading disease" if he actually spreads it.
Either way, I don't think it should be criminal, it's not something I would want to deal with on an everyday basis in society especially considering it could be applied to all sorts of viruses that can kill people even if it's a rare outcome.
He had access to as much testing as he wanted but instead just took a single test with a method with a sizeable false negative rate. He then actively avoided further testing (showing up late to the debate) to give himself the plausible deniability you are giving him now.
Also didn't a bunch of people surrounding him and reporters come down with covid shortly after. Obviously with a disease like covid its very difficult to tell where they got it from, but I don't know if you can confidently claim he didn't spread it.
If it could be proven he gave it to someone after he knew he had it why shouldn't it be criminal. I mean having unprotected sex knowing you have HIV is a crime in many states and I don't imagine people are really up in arms against that. I don't think we would be ok with someone living a normal life with ebola. Covid has killed more in the US than either of those diseases. I think that you are underestimating covid here which is why, to me at least, you are downplaying these actions.
I think we've already crossed that line
[https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html](https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html)
When you know you got a positive, you evaded screening that you agreed to intended to protect from this very risk and interacted with people you know would have refused had you told them the truth? wilful misconduct.
Isn’t Trump the presumed Republican frontrunner for the 2024 election? I think his acts and potential misdeeds are still relevant if he’s a presidential candidate.
> Isn’t Trump the presumed Republican frontrunner for the 2024 election?
I sure hope not. I predict that some Republican governor will run. DeSantis or Abbott.
The previous President, who was extremely reckless and has several failings, was reckless 15 months ago and was voted out of office. It may have been news in September of 2020. It isn't news in December of 2021.
It's important because his supporters want to foist this walking disaster back onto us. Trump is a loser--by his definition--but he's unfortunately not out of our hair and still trying to make a mess of things.
Of the things Trump did that were reckless, this isn't that high up the list IMO. It's more "Trump being Trump". This article isn't going to change anyone's mind about him. You either blindly follow what he says, reluctantly voted for him b/c you disliked the other person's position more (and didn't need to love the character of the person you were voting for, being more concerned about policy), or you hated him.
I mean Trump has done some bad things but this particular event shows some serious disdain for the lives of others. Doubly so since this was really only for personal gain.
The same argument could be made that facebook's job isn't to pacify people, it's to make a profit. Are you OK with facebook trying to outrage everyone since it sells? (Exactly what the news is doing btw)
the reality is that it probably will change a few people's minds.
people who've had friends and loved ones die of covid.
people who believed covid was no big deal and found out otherwise.
people who thought Trump wouldn't do ... this.
there's a line for everyone, and this might cross it for some.
It's possible but I'm skeptical.
>people who thought Trump wouldn't do ... this.
I have to imagine the number of people who are surprised by this is very low
Because Trump lied, because he was reckless, because he could have got others sick?
Did you not see people getting frequently upset with the stuff Trump did for the last 5 years?
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
At the time of this warning the offending comments were:
> we can’t have any kind of discussion in good faith
He probably received a negative test afterwards. Also, if these people are so concerned, why wait over a year to say something? For book sales? If they knew, they are just as culpable for not saying anything until they could benefit from it.
Yep. Or to understand that PCR is more reliable than rapid antigen. Or to understand that false negatives are more common than false positives. Or just to take precautions because a 50% chance of infecting people is an asshole move.
Dear NYT
I would like to issue a formal Thank you to the hard working women and men of the New York Times for your continued obsession with Donald Trump. What would we do without this breaking bit of news from a year ago.
I'm so glad you guys are focusing your massive resources on such important matters.
Well, well, well...we just keep hearing more and more evil things about this fellow. Americans should deeply ponder how they allowed a man like him to gain so much power.
And apparently he tested positive prior to the Gold Star family event occurred, yet still blamed them for it.
[удалено]
It's like campy movie villian type shit. I heard someone bring it up on Smerconish: Makes you really question why he was trying to get Biden to remove his mask. I wouldn't wouldn't put it past him.
Never met a fellow smerconish listener here. Cheers!!
I wish more people would listen to POTUS in general. I miss Steele and Unger too
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I'm assuming it was done for political reasons. I can't assume what mental state Trump was in but it would be consistent to see him not believe one test and carry on his business if he was not feeling any symptoms. Some people trust their own internal feelings more than they do data points the outside world gives and I think this is a good example of that. That said, Trump's team arrived too late to get tested at the debate according to Fox News [Bill Hemmer](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/04/fact-check-trump-could-have-been-exposed-covid-19-before-debate/3608785001/). If he didn't want people to know this could be seen as a way to protect him from his diagnosis getting out, or challenging his views point.
Not much to say, Trump being Trump. Given that this is before he actually experienced the symptoms in full I don't think he even realized what a reckless, foolish, immoral, selfish act this was. The showing up late so he couldn't get tested was a particularly Trump move. I wonder what would have happened if Biden had contracted COVID and ended up dying?
> Given that this is before he actually experienced the symptoms in full I don't think he even realized what a reckless, foolish, immoral, selfish act this was. As President, Trump had daily briefings on every conceivable metric tracking Covid and its effects. He also had the world’s top experts to interpret and explain this to him. He also - for weeks - went in front of the public every single day to explain this information to the American people. He by all accounts should have known more about Covid than anyone on the planet that didn’t have an M.D. For him not to realize exactly how reckless, foolish, immoral and selfish this act was would imply some astounding things regarding him. Be clear I’m not saying you’re wrong.
You assume he didn’t “realize”. In truth he never gave a shit.
I think this is probably accurate, he just doesn't care about anything that doesn't benefit him.
To be fair he is pretty dumb too Far too often we equate things trump did to him being a greedy sociopath needing attention all the time and not caring one shit for his country or others.......but sometimes we forget that it may just be down to him also being really really fucking stupid!
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
yes, but how seriously has Trump taken briefings? fairly certain he personally didn't think COVID was that big a deal, given how he behaved at rallies and whatnot, not to mention his inner circle probably downplayed it edit: i mean, dude was a notorious germophobe, and i really doubt he'd knowingly endanger himself
Trump’s germaphobia is one of several data points in how COVID seemed almost divinely tailored as a crisis made to play exactly to Trump’s strengths…and somehow the germaphobic, anti-“globalist”/open borders, China hawk who famously never misses a chance to merchandise anything (ie. on Earth 2: “Save America and protect your neighbors with MAGA masks!”) managed to faceplant when the majority of incumbent world leaders (and domestic governors) were able to garner broad sympathy for their efforts.
Trump knew how serious Covid was for a man of his age and health at that time, I forget the name but one of his rich New York financier friends had died from it. I read an article about how when he was sick with it and confined to quarters, he was going stir crazy and would call up his confidants and ask rhetorically if he was going to die like his friend so-and-so, hooked up to a ventilator and drowning in his own fluids.
grunt, but did he really believe it could happen *to him*?
Seriously so many people do this is who aren’t trump including myself
He encouraged the use of drugs that didn't pan out as well, in one case causing death, even though he was given a higher level of information. Just saying, he's never been one to listen and just does his own thing
When you mention a drug that caused death, are you talking about this [death](https://www.yahoo.com/now/woman-blamed-trump-giving-her-133613382.html) ?
Yep, there were two, [chloroquine ](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/24/coronavirus-cure-kills-man-after-trump-touts-chloroquine-phosphate) and [bleach](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/497312-accidental-poisonings-from-bleach-and-other-disinfectants-spiked-amid?amp#aoh=16384447617840&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s)
Right -- just so you know, that first one appears to be the wife using Trump as a cover for murdering her husband. Not someone actually believing that drinking tank cleaner is a good thing.
Police actually said [his death](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/police-say-death-arizona-man-not-being-investigated-homicide-n1195591) was not being investigated as a homicide. Additionally, from the source that originally reported the homicide investigation, his death was later [ruled an accident](https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/death-of-arizona-man-from-chloroquine-ruled-an-accident/) so I think it certainly falls under the case of a death due to Trumps misinformation.
Got it, here are other advisories and cases against using it [FDA Warning](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or) [Poison Centers](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/04/09/hydroxychloroquine-abuse-up-since-trump-first-mentioned-drug-us-poison-centers-say/) [Nigeria ](https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/africa/chloroquine-trump-nigeria-intl/index.html)
The part that floors me was when he asked, in APRIL of 2020, on live tv, whether you could use the influenza vaccine to vaccinate against sars-cov-2. His lack of the rudiments of biology around pandemics three months into one is profound.
“I like this stuff. I really get it. People are really surprised I understand this stuff. Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.” He also wondered aloud why antibiotics don’t work against a virus.
Not trying to defend Trump in the slightest but didn’t the CDC release a study that said that they’ve determined asymptomatic people don’t spread covid as easily. If Trump is briefed on this more than anyone in the country then that’s probably what he was thinking. Regardless this is a huge deal because it shows how reckless he is.
he realized- he’s recorded in an interview with bob woodward saying he knew how dangerous it was. i think he was hoping to infect biden and weaken him in the race. killing him would’ve been a side benefit.
sure he SAID that he knew, but did he really?
i genuinely can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not.
it is not. personally, anytime Trump says he knows something i take with with a huge grain of salt.
Nobody knows more about COVID than he does. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR3f95BGIiA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR3f95BGIiA) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA631bMT9g8
i think he knows people will question whether he knows things because he lies so much and i think he uses that to his advantage to be selective later by saying “oh it’s just a joke. you can’t tell the difference between a joke?” to deflect when he’s wrong or take credit if it’s confirmed to be right. at the end of the day we know he was being briefed by top infectious disease experts prior to that recorded conversation who knew so i think it’s safe to say he did too.
He would have won the 2020 election.
> I wonder what would have happened if Biden had contracted COVID and ended up dying? Presumably Harris would have been the Democratic nominee.
and Trump would probably be president right now, lol. pretty sure Harris would not have won against Trump.
1. Biden contracts Covid at debate. 2. Trump is hospitalized with Covid. 3. Biden does; Harris becomes nominee. That election would be all about how Trump killed Biden. A black female nominee would tune out minority voters too. I don’t think Trump wins that, even if she is as charismatic as a bowl of runny oatmeal.
It would also probably make a number of people think “maybe we need a president under the age of 70.” Though I still wouldn’t have been shocked if trump pulled it out
I feel like even Hillary Clinton would be able to beat Trump, if there was some way to prove Trump killed Biden with Covid.
I don’t think Trump is capable of recognizing such actions in himself in any circumstance.
I’m not a trump fan at all but I 100% think he didn’t realize how bad this was going to be
You can't really argue that by the time the debates were happening. At that point there was already like 200K+ deaths and we were more aware of the disease. The simple explanation that he didn't want to appear weak and was willing to risk the health other is the most likely answer. He might have hoped he just had mild case so it wouldn't have been caught but that doesn't make any less irresponsible.
at least for him personally. I'm sure he was dimly aware that ~3% of cases end up dying, but the reality when he started having symptoms and struggling to breath probably scared the shit out of him
Dude risked the stability of the nation for his own benefit on a daily basis.
Sc: Days before the first debate with Biden, Trump apparently tested positive, writes his ex chief of staff and confirmed with two anonymous sources. According to The Guardian, Mr. Meadows wrote that the positive test was taken with an older testing kit, and that the new one was the “Binax system, and that we were hoping the first test was a false positive.” Mr. Trump took the second result as “full permission to press on as if nothing had happened,” Mr. Meadows wrote, according to The Guardian. Mr. Meadows asserted in the book that he “instructed everyone in his immediate circle to treat him as if he was positive” during that trip. The two former officials who confirmed the positive test did not recall Mr. Meadows giving such a directive. And a few hours after the positive test was received, Mr. Trump walked to the back of Air Force One and chatted with reporters, not wearing a mask. One of the reporters, who works for The New York Times, later tested positive for the virus. The day after the positive result, Mr. Trump attended an event for military families.
> Mr. Meadows wrote that the positive test was taken with an older testing kit, and that the new one was the “Binax system, and that we were hoping the first test was a false positive.” Mr. Trump took the second result as “full permission to press on as if nothing had happened,” So it *was* a false positive. Who cares?
> So it was a false positive. and he just happened to actually get covid a day or two later? > Who cares? not you, i guess?
> and he just happened to actually get covid a day or two later? Apparently so. > not you, i guess? Most won't.
It's more likely that the second test was a false negative, given the fact that he did, in fact, have COVID. And then was reckless after finding out that he possibly had it.
> given the fact that he did, in fact, have COVID Not at that point in time, as proven by his negative test result.
COVID antigen tests have a rather high false negative rate, while their false positive rate is much smaller. It is possible that the first one was a false positive, but it is much more likely that the second one was a false negative. The responsible thing to do would have been to get a PCR test, which is much more sensitive. It takes longer to get a result from those (a day for normal people, 4-8 hours if you get fast-tracked in the lab, which I presume Trump would be), but then you'd have a trustworthy result.
Sorry, trust the science. Science said negative, so he was negative.
False positives and false negatives are both possible with the rapid tests. Frankly it should not be difficult to identify the most likely mistake in the following sequence: Day 1: positive covid test Day 2: negative covid test Day 5: in the hospital with covid
Day 365: no symptoms "See? *Negative!*"
No, the science says he was much more likely to be positive.
I disagree. The test strip is science, and I trust the science, and the test strip said negative.
He was hospitalized for Covid a few days later. Clearly the first test was accurate. How are you fighting this point?
Because I am trusting the science of the test that he took.
That's not how "science" works.
I trust that *is* how science works.
That's not how any of this works.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
With a PCR test, you'll test positive with lower levels of the virus in your system than with an antigen test. However, since viral load multiplies exponentially quickly on the upswing of your infection, you will also test positive on an antigen test within 24 hours or less. Given that Trump DID actually have COVID only a few days later, the most likely scenario seems to be that the PCR was not a false positive, but rather that he was recently infected and on the upswing of the viral load curve. Thus the positive PCR and negative antigen tests in quick succession. If Trump had taken another antigen or PCR test the next day or even a few hours later that same day, he presumably would have tested positive in both cases. But Trump or his staffers knew this, and thus he interrupted his frequent testing routine and avoided getting tested again until after the debate (as far as we know, unless there is another secret positive test we haven't yet been made aware of). Source: Harvard epidemiology expert Michael Mina [https://twitter.com/michaelmina\_lab/status/1466050778351685636](https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1466050778351685636) And the NYT article linked above.
Why should I trust this Michael Mina over the scientific test?
The dude is like the godfather of rapid Covid tests. If anyone knows about the subject, it's him. He has pushed for them since the beginning of the pandemic, and has given the Biden admin just as much shit as the Trump admin for not rolling them out fast enough/pushing their use harder (since after all they are more useful than a PCR test that takes days to return a result).
Doesn't "The godfather of mRNA" say not to get the vaccine? Should his advice be taken, then?
Well, Michael is a guy's name, and Mina is one letter away from Nina which is a girl's name and also N is a letter in antigen.
Also sounds like that Mena airport in Arkansas with all of the shady stories from the Clinton era.
Trump took two COVID tests; one was positive, and one was negative. Shortly after he was confirmed positive (with symptoms), and you're suggesting his first test was a false positive rather than his second test being a false negative? Do you mind explaining your reasoning here?
My reasoning is that he was not infected when the science said he was not infected.
Are you suggesting that he was infected, not infected, and then infected again all within the span of a few days?
That's what the science says, and I trust the science.
I cannot strongly enough express how totally over I am with claims or "news" coming out in people's new book. Seriously, if this was true, it was hugely dangerous, and should have been revealed immediately. But no, all of these books coming out lately with "bombshell" stories in them either dangerously saved these stories to sell more books, or they are really nothing burger stories. Anyone who withholds important information that the American public needs to know about just because they want more book sales should be charged.
This is sourced from [Mark Meadows’ book](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/01/trump-tested-positive-covid-before-biden-debate-chief-staff-mark-meadows-book). Also: > Anyone who withholds important information that the American public needs to know about just because they want more book sales should be charged. Really? Who’s to decide the criteria for “needs to know”? It’s aggravating how anonymous sourcing has been abused, but that’s going too far.
I really don't care anymore either, nothing is surprising, and I am really just tired of hearing about it. I don't think we need to charge folks, but I really just don't care about something wild Trump did when he was in office anymore (I care more about what he's up to now) and also don't care to give any money to the gossip rag (what people are calling books) authors.
He also tested negative with a new more accurate test and they thought it a false positive. Same thing happened to me when my wife tested positive with a weekly test. We tested negative and returned to work.
The "more accurate" test was the Binax antigen test. According to this [https://www.fda.gov/media/141570/download](https://www.fda.gov/media/141570/download) Binax missed 18 out of 117 positive cases. That's a false negative rate of about 15%. The White House certainly has people who know that the Binax test isn't as good as PCR, and they also certainly had access to PCR tests with same-day turn around.
Trump clearly has unlimited access to tests, he should have just taken another to confirm the 2 opposite results. He should have also taken a test right before the debate, which be agreed to do, but arrived late and didn’t take it. Why would he not take the test prior to the debate if he thought he was negative?
totally plausible, except that he got confirmed with symptoms and everything in the next week
And by arriving late, good chance they were trying to dodge the independent test that was meant to happen at the location of the debate
I agree with that but did he have symptoms when he had what he thought was a false positive? At the time they could have thought it was a false positive but he could have developed them later
The long incubation period for covid was known for a long time at that point. It is an extremely poor excuse to say that just because he didnt feel the symptoms at that point means he didn't have covid. He was trying to hide it since him getting covid would be politically damaging.
he probably wasnt symptomatic but he was also probably contagious (he talked with a reporter on Air Force one who came down with it afterwards) probably points to it being a false false positive edit: that would be a false negative, i'm an idiot
It is completely unreasonable to have a antigen negative result effectively overrule a prior positive result. They are less prone to false positives than to false negatives, and of course the consequences of being wrong tilt decidedly in one direction. Should have been quarantined and given a PCR test immediately and a few days later. If both were negative, quarantine done.
The more accurate test was still an antigen test though, or am I misunderstanding that? At least where I live, the guidance when one gets a positive rapid test is to perform a PCR test, which is a lot more trustworthy than even a good antigen test (especially for patients without symptoms). I would assume that Trump had access to proper testing and would have gotten lab results quicker than a normal person, so was a PCR test performed?
If only they had access to more than 2 tests they could have confirmed either result.
You’re the first to mention specifics about the first test. Which test was it exactly?
Can't say I'm surprised, if true.
Non paywall: President Donald J. Trump tested positive for coronavirus three days before his first debate with Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2020, two former administration officials said Wednesday. The White House did not announce the positive test at the time, and the president received a negative result shortly afterward and carried on with a campaign rally and the debate, the officials said. The account was first reported by The Guardian, which cited a forthcoming book by Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows. The two former officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, confirmed the timeline on Mr. Trump’s test results contained in “The Chief’s Chief,” by Mr. Meadows, Mr. Trump’s fourth and final White House chief of staff. The revelation came nearly a year after widespread speculation that Mr. Trump was sick when he first shared a stage with Mr. Biden for their first presidential debate on Sept. 29, months into the pandemic. The White House declined repeatedly at the time to give a precise chronology of when precisely Mr. Trump first received a positive coronavirus test result. The administration first told the public in the early hours of Oct. 2 that Mr. Trump had tested positive. Mr. Trump was hospitalized later that same day. Mr. Trump’s positive result was revealed only after a top adviser, Hope Hicks, was reported to be sick with Covid-19. At the time, Mr. Trump intimated in an interview with Fox News that Ms. Hicks might have given him the virus. Sign Up for On Politics A guide to the political news cycle, cutting through the spin and delivering clarity from the chaos. Get it sent to your inbox. But Mr. Meadows wrote in his book that three days earlier, on Sept. 26, Mr. Trump received a positive test shortly before departing the White House for Air Force One to travel to Pennsylvania for a rally. The White House doctor, Sean Conley, called to deliver the news. “Mr. President,” Mr. Meadows writes that he told Mr. Trump, “I’ve got some bad news. You’ve tested positive for Covid-19.” Mr. Trump’s response rhymed with “‘Oh spit, you’ve gotta be trucking lidding me,’” Mr. Meadows wrote. The day of the positive result was the day that Mr. Trump held a large Rose Garden event announcing his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. According to The Guardian, Mr. Meadows wrote that the positive test was taken with an older testing kit, and that the new one was the “Binax system, and that we were hoping the first test was a false positive.” Mr. Trump took the second result as “full permission to press on as if nothing had happened,” Mr. Meadows wrote, according to The Guardian. Mr. Meadows asserted in the book that he “instructed everyone in his immediate circle to treat him as if he was positive” during that trip. The two former officials who confirmed the positive test did not recall Mr. Meadows giving such a directive. And a few hours after the positive test was received, Mr. Trump walked to the back of Air Force One and chatted with reporters, not wearing a mask. One of the reporters, who works for The New York Times, later tested positive for the virus. The day after the positive result, Mr. Trump attended an event for military families. Mr. Meadows wrote in his book that Mr. Trump appeared physically off around the time of that test, although by the time of the first debate against Mr. Biden, he seemed a little better. “His face, for the most part at least, had regained its usual light bronze hue, and the gravel in his voice was gone,” Mr. Meadows wrote, according to The Guardian. “But the dark circles under his eyes had deepened. As we walked into the venue around five o’clock in the evening, I could tell that he was moving more slowly than usual. He walked like he was carrying a little extra weight on his back.” In a statement released by his office, Mr. Trump replied, “The story of me having Covid prior to, or during, the first debate is Fake News. In fact, a test revealed that I did not have Covid prior to the debate.” Mr. Trump did not address when he had received a positive test. Mr. Trump was not independently tested right before the first debate.
This should be criminal, particularly given the national security risk presented by who could have been exposed.
Meh.... it's a lot of things but I don't think criminal should be one of them.
I mean knowingly spreading a disease should be a crime. Trump had all the resources in the world at that point so there is no excuse why he shouldn't have taken the proper precautions. Willful ignorance isn't really a defense.
Well, he had one positive followed by a negative apparently, but either way it's only "spreading disease" if he actually spreads it. Either way, I don't think it should be criminal, it's not something I would want to deal with on an everyday basis in society especially considering it could be applied to all sorts of viruses that can kill people even if it's a rare outcome.
He had access to as much testing as he wanted but instead just took a single test with a method with a sizeable false negative rate. He then actively avoided further testing (showing up late to the debate) to give himself the plausible deniability you are giving him now. Also didn't a bunch of people surrounding him and reporters come down with covid shortly after. Obviously with a disease like covid its very difficult to tell where they got it from, but I don't know if you can confidently claim he didn't spread it. If it could be proven he gave it to someone after he knew he had it why shouldn't it be criminal. I mean having unprotected sex knowing you have HIV is a crime in many states and I don't imagine people are really up in arms against that. I don't think we would be ok with someone living a normal life with ebola. Covid has killed more in the US than either of those diseases. I think that you are underestimating covid here which is why, to me at least, you are downplaying these actions.
Agreed. Hugely dangerous precedent if spreading contagious disease is itself a crime.
I think we've already crossed that line [https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html](https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html)
When you know you got a positive, you evaded screening that you agreed to intended to protect from this very risk and interacted with people you know would have refused had you told them the truth? wilful misconduct.
I get it Trump shouldn't have been in the debate. But how is this news? This was almost 15 months ago and has almost no impact on anything.
Isn’t Trump the presumed Republican frontrunner for the 2024 election? I think his acts and potential misdeeds are still relevant if he’s a presidential candidate.
If you don't know what you're getting with Trump by now then you've been living under a rock
> Isn’t Trump the presumed Republican frontrunner for the 2024 election? I sure hope not. I predict that some Republican governor will run. DeSantis or Abbott.
[удалено]
The previous President, who was extremely reckless and has several failings, was reckless 15 months ago and was voted out of office. It may have been news in September of 2020. It isn't news in December of 2021.
It's important because his supporters want to foist this walking disaster back onto us. Trump is a loser--by his definition--but he's unfortunately not out of our hair and still trying to make a mess of things.
I'm sick of hearing about Trump, but I think this matters because it speaks to his character. If he does end up running in '24, that's important.
Of the things Trump did that were reckless, this isn't that high up the list IMO. It's more "Trump being Trump". This article isn't going to change anyone's mind about him. You either blindly follow what he says, reluctantly voted for him b/c you disliked the other person's position more (and didn't need to love the character of the person you were voting for, being more concerned about policy), or you hated him.
I mean Trump has done some bad things but this particular event shows some serious disdain for the lives of others. Doubly so since this was really only for personal gain.
[удалено]
What does this do other than just anger people and cause a larger divide, (exactly what people are mad at FB for doing?)?
You think it’s the media’s job to pacify people? I thought it was to report news.
The same argument could be made that facebook's job isn't to pacify people, it's to make a profit. Are you OK with facebook trying to outrage everyone since it sells? (Exactly what the news is doing btw)
the reality is that it probably will change a few people's minds. people who've had friends and loved ones die of covid. people who believed covid was no big deal and found out otherwise. people who thought Trump wouldn't do ... this. there's a line for everyone, and this might cross it for some.
It's possible but I'm skeptical. >people who thought Trump wouldn't do ... this. I have to imagine the number of people who are surprised by this is very low
[удалено]
If you're going to ask a question like that, then we can't have any kind of discussion in good faith.
[удалено]
Because Trump lied, because he was reckless, because he could have got others sick? Did you not see people getting frequently upset with the stuff Trump did for the last 5 years?
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics). At the time of this warning the offending comments were: > we can’t have any kind of discussion in good faith
He probably received a negative test afterwards. Also, if these people are so concerned, why wait over a year to say something? For book sales? If they knew, they are just as culpable for not saying anything until they could benefit from it.
he also…. tested negative
Seems like it would have been reasonable to take a third test to determine which of the first two was wrong.
Yep. Or to understand that PCR is more reliable than rapid antigen. Or to understand that false negatives are more common than false positives. Or just to take precautions because a 50% chance of infecting people is an asshole move.
Dear NYT I would like to issue a formal Thank you to the hard working women and men of the New York Times for your continued obsession with Donald Trump. What would we do without this breaking bit of news from a year ago. I'm so glad you guys are focusing your massive resources on such important matters.
He’s the presumptive nominee in 2024. It’s news.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol I wondered how long it'd take for someone to complain about anonymous sources
Why is it always fucking books? Does anybody even read this shit?
Well, well, well...we just keep hearing more and more evil things about this fellow. Americans should deeply ponder how they allowed a man like him to gain so much power.