Covering a cover-up in real time(axios.com)
axios.com
Covering a cover-up in real time
https://www.axios.com/covering-cover-up-trump-coronavirus-b71a3921-4d1c-45bc-bdbc-08c3871e1b26.html
28 comments
It’s so incredibly damaging to the institution of the Presidency that you can’t trust a single word of any of these people. Who has the credibility right now to provide an update on the health of the president? Maybe Fauci?
Dr. Fauci is not one of the president's physicians and has no direct access to his medical records. Fauci has an entirely different role in the NIH.
Right. Which is exactly the problem. There isn’t a single one of the president’s physicians that I’d trust right now after the last few days. I had hoped that staff MDs at Walter Reed would be able to provide a decent patient report in the form of “admitted at xxxx hour, administered remdisivr at yyyy hour”
But they’ve proven they can’t even manage that.
Why under HIPAA rules would they be able to give out any of that information?
HIPAA rights can be waived away by the patient. Presumably the president would be willing to waive those rights in order to be forthcoming with the US people.
The public interest outweighs the safeguards of HIPAA. But it's likely not automatic - up to POTUS to waive their HIPAA rights.
Maybe a joint statement from, say, Pence and Pelosi, (#1 and #2 in the line of succession) but I don’t know how you get them on the same page and I do NOT want them in the same room right now...
I suppose. But his expertise is infectious disease and not primary / intensive care, right? I'm guessing he hasn't treated many patients. However I think he does have the requisite credibility among most of the population anyways.
To stay focused on technology issues...
Can someone’s health condition be signed and verified?
Is it okay for it to be normalized to real time?
Health outcomes are nonlinear. Even if it were reduced to a number, could people interpret it correctly?
Is he more likely to recover better if his medical condition is disclosed? Is it ethical to spend medical resources on concerns that do not improve his outcome? Can technology ameliorate that?
By the way, most doctors would agree paperwork, billing and insurance unethically harm patient outcomes.
Can someone’s health condition be signed and verified?
Is it okay for it to be normalized to real time?
Health outcomes are nonlinear. Even if it were reduced to a number, could people interpret it correctly?
Is he more likely to recover better if his medical condition is disclosed? Is it ethical to spend medical resources on concerns that do not improve his outcome? Can technology ameliorate that?
By the way, most doctors would agree paperwork, billing and insurance unethically harm patient outcomes.
A patient chart note recorded in HL7 CDA R2 format or similar can be digitally signed just like any other XML document. But that doesn't guarantee the document is clinically accurate.
https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/
Healthcare providers can only ethically disclose patient records if authorized by the patient himself (or someone legally authorized to act on the patient's behalf). There is nothing in the code of medical ethics which prohibits doing paperwork or dealing with insurance billing.
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/code-medical...
https://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/
Healthcare providers can only ethically disclose patient records if authorized by the patient himself (or someone legally authorized to act on the patient's behalf). There is nothing in the code of medical ethics which prohibits doing paperwork or dealing with insurance billing.
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/code-medical...
> There is nothing in the code of medical ethics which prohibits doing paperwork or dealing with insurance billing.
I know. I just texted some MDs and asked for their opinions.
It would be pretty wild to make it possible to share a real-time health chart.
I know. I just texted some MDs and asked for their opinions.
It would be pretty wild to make it possible to share a real-time health chart.
This article doesn’t even go into the timeline issue.
The world learned Trump had it late Thursday night. 36 hours later, Conley said he’d been diagnosed 72 hours earlier, which would’ve been the morning after the debate. Another doctor said Trump had been on a certain treatment for 48 hours, which would have been Thursday morning.
They issued a statement hours later correcting the timeline, but the statement was unsigned and riddled with errors.
Since Trump did a bunch of fundraising and meeting with people (not to mention attending the debate!) this week it’s pretty important to be sure about the timeline. It’s sounding like the original timeline is correct based on stuff the press has discovered but it’s such a mess.
It also seems like the only reason we know ANY of this is because someone leaked to the press that Hope Hicks, Trump's top aide, had COVID. The White House STILL hasn't even taken the simple measure of emailing its employees, or people working on the campaign- Chris Christie, who was just diagnosed, learned that he needed to get tested from the news.
The world learned Trump had it late Thursday night. 36 hours later, Conley said he’d been diagnosed 72 hours earlier, which would’ve been the morning after the debate. Another doctor said Trump had been on a certain treatment for 48 hours, which would have been Thursday morning.
They issued a statement hours later correcting the timeline, but the statement was unsigned and riddled with errors.
Since Trump did a bunch of fundraising and meeting with people (not to mention attending the debate!) this week it’s pretty important to be sure about the timeline. It’s sounding like the original timeline is correct based on stuff the press has discovered but it’s such a mess.
It also seems like the only reason we know ANY of this is because someone leaked to the press that Hope Hicks, Trump's top aide, had COVID. The White House STILL hasn't even taken the simple measure of emailing its employees, or people working on the campaign- Chris Christie, who was just diagnosed, learned that he needed to get tested from the news.
What's the motivation behind this lack of transparency?
The least cynical, to the point of rose-colored glasses, explanation is trying to avoid panic and exploitation by external enemies.
Avoiding appearance of weakness and similar political-image based concerns, especially given the President’s past minimization of the risk from the virus, is also a credible explanation.
Avoiding appearance of weakness and similar political-image based concerns, especially given the President’s past minimization of the risk from the virus, is also a credible explanation.
[deleted]
[deleted]
In terms of Nat Sec does that information need to be out there ?
I think the Trump administration wants to show how trivially he overcomes the disease in order to support his message of, “This is just a flu”. Also he tends to want to project how strong he is.
I don't think it's anything quite so clever. More like "keep telling them I'm fine regardless of what happens."
> the Trump administration wants to show how trivially he overcomes the disease
I have a feeling if Trump dies over this illness the message will be the last of their worries.
I have a feeling if Trump dies over this illness the message will be the last of their worries.
Trump and his team had a rally and other campaign events after Hicks came down sick. If it turns out that Trump was symptomatic before those events it’s a huge lack of discretion and maybe even criminal. In theory he has access to a test with a 15-minute turnaround time. So why the delay in diagnosing?
His team also refused to be tested before the debate. Imagine if it comes out that they knew they were having an outbreak and showed up anyway without masks. It sounds like a conspiracy theory but I can see it happening- the alternative would have been to cancel the debate at the last minute, which has terrible optics. If his team had suddenly worn masks it would have been an indication they knew something was up.
His team also refused to be tested before the debate. Imagine if it comes out that they knew they were having an outbreak and showed up anyway without masks. It sounds like a conspiracy theory but I can see it happening- the alternative would have been to cancel the debate at the last minute, which has terrible optics. If his team had suddenly worn masks it would have been an indication they knew something was up.
This video was posted an hour ago: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13125258335050588...
It shows Trump as alert and well. "Very concerning" and "not on a clear path to a full recovery" are scary phrases, but they are relative terms. So do consider how they can describe two very different realities: mild symptoms of a potentially catastrophic illness, or severe symptoms of an individual "at death's door". Given the gulf between those scenarios, I would not advise extensive divining from that statement by Meadows.
It shows Trump as alert and well. "Very concerning" and "not on a clear path to a full recovery" are scary phrases, but they are relative terms. So do consider how they can describe two very different realities: mild symptoms of a potentially catastrophic illness, or severe symptoms of an individual "at death's door". Given the gulf between those scenarios, I would not advise extensive divining from that statement by Meadows.