Adham is the new Maszlee

What he hasn't addressed is that the non-Tablighi-linked cases are now the majority of daily growth. The non-Tablighi-linked case count is growing EXPONENTIALLY, over the past few days... the military's involvement is late. They should have been mobilised to assist with contract tracing a week ago. Whatever, we can split hairs on roles and responsibilities.
.
I think it's brashly disingenuous to complain that ministers are doing a bad job without acknowledging that they could be doing a much worse one :P UPDATE: wow, he's getting a lot of heat for his statements on drinking warm water, but there's nothing wrong with what he said - hot water is better than cold. It's a relatively trivial, but not completely trivial point.
.
You can of course, fault him for divergent messaging, or you can fault the crowd for amplifying the bits that help no one and ignoring the bits that do help :)

/

The health minister's statements on drinking warm, boiled, water are being misconstrued - for fun, by social media. So you critics, don't pretend to be genuinely concerned. You are helping no one... if you're going to criticise a doctor's advice, at least quote it properly.
/ / / / / / / / /
Updated:

Non-stop, these people are copy-pasting articles in rhetorical comments against Adham's video. I replied to one of those, and I shall save my response here.

Here's the basic epistemological process that should follow:

PART ONE

1. (TV) You have one doctor, Dr. Adham, whose advice you are seeking to critique.
2. (BBC) You have another doctor, Sabapathy, whose advice you quote.

(1. + 2. =>) 3. At best you now have two opposing opinions, which is well and good, but there is no further evidence presented to show which of 1. and 2. you should believe to be truer.

PART TWO

Quote from 2. "Sabapathy says that, though telling people to keep their mouths moist and drink water every 15 minutes might sound harmless, it’s important to squash this kind of misleading advice quickly.

The danger lies in the false sense of security that it provides. “People will think that by doing that, they're going to be OK,” she says. “It diverts from the much more important messages.”

The overwhelming evidence suggests that the best approach remains avoiding unnecessary social contact and washing your hands. So her advice is to put down the water and pick up the soap instead."

Does 1. address this?

Yes, the entire interview segment preceding the snippet shown in your examples is spent precisely on telling people to wash their hands. Can you verify this?

(Honestly I'm too lazy to check (TV station)'s complete replay on their website for the sake of a comments argument, and your source 1. has now privatised his account from view).

I hope it leads you to further learnings.

SUMMARY POINT OF VIEW

1. Never makes the claim that drinking boiled, warm, water is necessary, or sufficient, for protecting oneself from viruses. In addition, 1. provides an extended comment, WHICH IS EXCLUDED FROM YOUR BROUGHT EVIDENCE, which details other (explicitly: more) important factors in avoidance of viral infection. 1. presents the claim as a secondary example of good practice, subsequent to a primary commentary on other methods.

1.'s advice is neither false, nor misleading, if taken in consideration of the entirety of 1.'s presentation. But your complaints (and many similar ones) appear to intentionally amplify a segment of 1.'s comments, without context, in a libelous fashion.

Thanks for reading, no further comment without a fee. LOL

/

Adham is going to be the new Maszlee. Put an abstract thinking optimistic NF type in the hotseat of public opinion, in charge of the one portfolio which channels the zeitgeist of anxiety, in a hateful political environment, and watch'em burn. Burn clowns, burn...

/

My friend asked me why I am defending the health minister's statements. (Ok, this is meta-discussion ya, for the discussion on the actual comments, you go find some of those posts below.)
.
1. In general, if a couple of people are going to make a claim, I'm going to want to know if they can defend it. That's just for shits, it's basic risk management, and I like being contrarian.
.
2. I also have specific professional portfolios which have come under similar harassment, so now it is part of my professional branding to address these things. (Even if it makes me look uglier.)
.
3. I'm sad that there are so many people who think they are smart. But hey, I'm sure they think I am not very smart either. LOL

/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/anthony-fauci-shows-us-the-right-way-to-be-an-expert

I agree with this article. But I do not agree that a Minister of Health is supposed to be an expert on public health- he's supposed to be a competent administrator.