Thank
you again to christopher_best.
I’ll
start with Con’s observations:
COV1:
Trump’s “exaggerations” are not benign. Impact matters, not the means by
which it occurred.
COV2:
Regardless of any perceived bias in our sources, any analysis thereof is only
valid if it tackles the claims made in the argument.
COV3: Don't grade Trump’s performance on a curve. Trump’s actions stand for
themselves; efforts to compare pandemics or presidents do not establish
how well this president has done with this pandemic.
Observations of Pro's rebuttals:
ROV1:
Pro asserts contradictions in my arguments. To do so, he conflates all
optimistic statements and treats them all as beneficial. Trump has had
information that his statements ignored. Pro does not validate those
statements - thus, this optimism is misplaced. A leader must both recognize the basic
facts and present a positive outlook. Ignoring those facts to sound optimistic
only breeds distrust. By Pro’s logic, Trump would best serve the American
public by constantly lying about CoV to sound positive, yet that kind of
optimism destroys confidence in our leaders.
ROV2:
Pro argues that decisions by other parties are not Trump’s responsibility.
While Trump does not bear the entire responsibility for decisions made by other
leaders in the US, he does still bear some responsibility where he could have
influenced them or overridden them. Recognizing that blame is shared doesn’t
redeem Trump.
ROV3:
Pro argues that Trump has corrected himself. Trump’s inconsistency is, itself,
harmful. It’s not clarifying to have a leader oscillate between caution and
impatience.
Onto the debate.
1) CoV Spread
B) Preventing its
arrival
The
Europe travel ban came in stages long after the disease became widespread.[26]
Trump waited until mid-March to implement these travel bans, when Italy had over
10,000 cases, and excluded countries like the UK and Ireland for days as their
cases began to skyrocket.[27]
B) Restricting its
spread
B1)
Messaging
The spread of CoV has been reduced by social distancing
efforts. Successes have largely resulted from state and local messaging.[57] Pro’s claim that Trump has “obviously encouraged social distancing” is belied
by numerous statements he’s made, yet Pro’s only responses to those quotes are to
dismiss my source 6 as biased and say that Trump has made some accurate
statements.
For
the first, refer to COV2. Pro does not challenge the validity of those quotes,
nor does he challenge the conclusion that these statements have led many to
defy social distancing efforts.
For
the second, refer to ROV3. Accuracy in some instances does not erase the quotes
I’ve cited, each dropped by Pro. Trump downplayed the threat of CoV many
times.[28, 29] Similarly, Trump’s release of lockdown guidelines runs contrary
to his disparaging shelter in place orders and wanting them rescinded early.[30]
The lack of consistency by itself leads to the outcomes I described (and Pro
dropped) that do more to spread the virus.
B2)
Policy
Trump’s lockdown guidelines came weeks late. Despite being
repeatedly advised to release these guidelines since February 21st,
the first guidelines were released in mid-March. No less than Dr. Fauci himself
has stated that implementing these earlier “could have saved lives.”[31]
What would nationwide order have done? Many that failed to implement shelter
in place order early and saw soaring cases. For example, Florida had over 5000
cases before its governor took action. There are still several states with
limited or non-existent shelter in place policies, and their numbers continue
to rise largely unabated without an order.[32] These cases could have been
slowed or stopped by a nationwide order.
Pro
cedes the harms resulting from the lack of testing, arguing that the Trump
administration is not responsible for the actions of the CDC. The CDC is part
of the executive branch and therefore part of his administration. They’re under
HHS, which is headed by Alex Azar, a Trump appointee.[33] They don’t act wholly
independently. Their failure is Trump’s failure. So is the failure of the FDA
to use regulatory work-arounds to make this rollout of testing faster.[34] So
the failure to expand testing, to use the WHO-developed test, and Trump’s false projections of its
expansion are Trump's responsibility.
Three
responses to Pro’s claims on equipment and PPE.
Pro
drops sources 22 and 23, which show that states are bidding on equipment and
PPE, raising their prices astronomically and denying access for many, which belies Pro's claim that
“[s]tates handle equipment best”.
Pro drops that the federal government could keep them low via purchasing power
alone. Even if we ignore the DPA, this alone would increase available supplies to states that can’t afford soaring prices.
Pro
ignores the solvency of the DPA, which ensures a greater supply of these
necessary tools and reduces their price. Pro provides some evidence that
companies are producing these supplies, but that supply increase hasn’t brought
down prices or increased availability significantly.[35] However, these
companies demonstrate that, contrary to Pro's claims, shifting production to products in huge demand doesn’t
cause mass layoffs.
Pro’s
comparison to South Korea works against him. As Pro conceded, the number of
cases in South Korea have plateaued, while the number in the US continue to
rise.[36] Part of that rise is the spread of CoV to health care workers, which
is rampant due to this lack of necessary PPE. As for death tolls,
epidemiologists have stated that we’re not at a peak yet [37]. New York might
be, which is why theirs is spiking.[38]
2) CoV Treatment
Let’s
talk about CQ.
Pro
drops Trump’s claim. He claimed that these drugs were already approved by the
FDA for this purpose. That’s not something you can clarify by saying it’s “a
feeling.”
Pro
also argues about optimism. Refer back to ROV1; Trump is not required to wait
for years of drug testing to occur, but he must present the situation honestly.
Pro
shows that the supply of CQ is increasing but fails to assess demand. There are
numerous examples of doctors hoarding the drug for family and friends and
prescribing the medication with abandon.[39, 40] This supply boost may not be
enough for the CoV demand plus the 3 million patients with lupus and RA, many
of whom are also hoarding the medication. Lack of access could lead to
extensive damage to the vital organs of lupus patients.[41]
Pro
fails to establish any actual impact of CQ use in hospitals, despite their
broad implementation. He focuses on studies, so I’ll do the same.
Pro’s
Nature study is entirely
in vitro, i.e. non-clinical. It doesn't show efficacy in patients.
The
review Pro cites discusses 23 small clinical studies, but of the few that have
ended, some have shown no effect.[42] They’re not alone.[43, 44]
On the French studies.
The
first is far too small and lacks controls. It was rushed through peer review,
concludes using 6 patients, uses an incomparable control group can’t
distinguish between the effects of CQ and azithromycin, and excludes the
results of patients who dropped out after visiting the ICU or dying.[45-47]
The
second had more patients, but no control group and has not been validated by
peer review. 85% of these patients didn’t even have a fever, and thus were
likely to clear the virus without intervention.[48, 49]
The
side-effects of CQ are well-studied… in other patients. CoV may actually cause
heart disease, which is worsened by CQ, which means this treatment is
inherently risky.[50, 51] The prescribing physicians bear some responsibility
for patients with preexisting conditions, but so do the people that incite
these patients to panic and demand CQ.
3) CoV Impact
Pro
downplays the impact of CoV, claiming:
“something that mildly affects 10 percent of Americans for 2 weeks
should not be considered substantial in the context of a national emergency.”
That
is a loaded statement. It’s unclear what a mild effect is, but more
importantly, as patients often recover in 2 weeks, Pro is basically asserting that anyone who gets CoV and has mild
symptoms is not impactful. I have 3 responses.
First,
the medical impact of CoV is not minor. Pro’s numbers have the mortality rate
at least 7 times higher than the flu. By daily average alone, it’s killing more
people today than any other disease.[52] In hot spots like New York, the mortality rate is higher and the deaths
are diverse.[53] The impact is most severe in those with preexisting conditions, especially in nursing
homes.[54]
Second, the results of CoV infection are not predetermined. This is a
life-threatening disease. Patients can’t know whether they’ll develop
pneumonia, nor whether they will receive adequate care if they do. Whether CoV
leads to those terrible physical impacts or only pushes them and their family
to panic, that impact is not mild. It results in overcrowding at ERs, reduced
care for others, and further spread of the virus.[55]
Third,
more CoV carriers with mild symptoms increases disease spread. Someone with a
heavy cough is much less likely to interact with others than someone who is
asymptomatic or showing minor symptoms. That’s why this population spreads the
disease much more readily.[56]
Why do voters vote based on a concession even if the contender rejected it?
Very helpful analysis, thank you
I appreciate the RFD, it is certainly thorough! Thanks!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgZ_1jUHu0ooQ1fIn2293kWMQm8Yez2UhtI93r74nXQ/edit?usp=sharing
Not my greatest RFD (I wrote this at 3 AM) but it sure is exensive. Good job to both debaters.
well done to you as well, I need to come up with some more interesting topics soon though!
:P Well done, btw! Enjoyed debating this.
oh yes, my apologies
Hey! No new arguments in the comments!
I reject your rejection of my concession
Cool, just checking :)
You're good to post whenever you feel ready. I have enough free time to survive :)
While I’m planning on posting closer to the deadline (partly because I want to make sure my argument includes more of the ever-evolving situation), I just wanted to check and see if you were OK with me posting earlier. I know it’s a week prep time regardless, but I’d hate to put you out by posting early one of these rounds. Just let me know if you need a delay on my posts any round.
This should be a good debate. I was thinking of starting a debate on the same topic.
Good luck guys!
I agree that it is good practice to only introduce new material in constructive. I should probably specify that more in my Structure section next time.
Agreed. To me the final round should be a conclusion to what came before, not a time for epiphanies.
If something changes in the coming weeks after the debate, there's always the option of a rematch.
Makes sense. I would generally restrict new material to constructive rounds, and that includes evidence. I know some people like to say that at least new evidence is fair game in the final round, but I'm personally not a fan.
For the evolving situation, I think a good cutoff would be the end of R2.
Of course any vote based on parts of his response not mentioned in the debate, will be deleted if reported.
Part of the reason I took this debate is because it’s evolving in real time. I think that’s going to hurt my opponent more than it does me, but we’ll have to see.
That is a necessary complication unfortunately.
Trump's response is still occurring, so I feel that any analysis will necessarily be incomplete. Nonetheless, I am looking forward to this.
Same.
Looking forward to a good debate.
You're on.
Sure. I see the resolution as covering the course of the outbreak anyway. By "response" I mean all that has taken place until now.
Can we change "is" to "has been"? I think it's important to cover how he has responded to COVID-19 over the course of the outbreak and not just how he's handling things right now.