741–750 of 925 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A majority of people ARE vaccinated in the US. And you're vaccinating over 1% more per day. Don't undersell yourselves.
36.3% are fully vaccinated. It is great progress. But it is not a majority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With that logic, the compulsion to send your kids to school in the USA is on shaky ground.
Is not the US education system very ideological? Among the US citizens (mostly LA area) which I know it was not uncommon to hear how they "love America", similarly to how Christian believers "love Jesus". Moreover from what I understand the local historical textbooks are censoring displeasing moments from the time of oppression of the black community. I'm far from an anarchist yet I would take my kids out of the syst…
This is usually done by requiring certain things be taught in great detail in order to preclude time being spent on other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A doctor friend of mine told me, at the start of the pandemic, that they found it important to correctly follow Public Health advice whether or not they (an expert) agreed with all of it. The importance of following the principles for public health is greater than the importance of the advice being unbiasedly perfect at every moment.
> The importance of following the principles for public health is greater than the importance of the advice being unbiasedly perfect at every moment. You're falsely conflating "principles for public health" with "public health advice". Principles for public health include protecting yourself against airborne diseases, which meant that anybody with some knowledge on the issue and ability to think for themselves should…
That slippery slope must be lubed up real good for anyone to fall off it. Wearing masks, staying away from people, getting vaccinated, etc are far, far away from committing atrocities, and you know it. The point GP was making is in times of crisis, following advice from public health authorities, even if it changes, is the general best strategy. It’s extremely (that’s not even a strong enough word) unlikely they’ll be goading people into committing ‘atrocities’ when a novel pandemic is taking place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What changed? It's the same number of dead people, right? Aside from general aviation concerns, that 747-400 will have young families, infants and children on board, whereas exposing everyone on that 747-400 to COVID-19 would mostly result in the deaths of the elderly and the infirm. If we had an outbreak of Spanish flu with the same overall death rate it would not be as bad. It would be much worse. The deaths of t…
Early on, I read that even though people who die of covid are typically old, they have plenty of time left. E.g. an 85 year old dies, who would be expected to live 10 more years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that guidance was based upon a prioritization necessity to make sure that medical first responders had access to PPE. Once the supply of PPE was great enough the guidance was also changed
The problem is they didn't say "masks work but please save them for first responders until we get more." They said "masks don't work." You can argue they may have had a good reason to lie, but you can't argue that they didn't lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trust in the CDC and Fauci only really declined among Republican voters (and was still high). Sometimes, certain people being told not to trust you is a sign you're doing the right thing.
You do not speak for most Democrats. I’m a Democrat; my circle is mostly Democrats. We also knew last year in February and March that we wanted masks. So trust that Fauci meant well? Yes. He was in an extremely difficult position and in a position of policy advisor. But trudt that masks were ineffective for the average person? Absolutely not. It’s a contradiction that masks are effective for frontlines, yet somehow w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do not confuse medical and scientific community with authorities. The ill advisory was coming from WHO and parroted by national authorities (including CDC). All while the efficacy of masks against airborne/pulmonary diseases was pretty much established. WHO is not a scientific body conducting independent research but a bureaucratic organization with heavy dose of politics. However back in spring 2020 when the officia…
> in spring 2020 when the official position amounted to "a mask is a facehugger" Well I guess it would be fruitless to ask for a source on this.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article240...
"Masks may actually increase your coronavirus risk if worn improperly, surgeon general warns"
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/02/health/surgeon-general-co...
It was literally everywhere until correction in april 2020.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please also note it is unnecessary to do any additional analysis to describe the example cited as a "lie." We know it was a deliberate lie because the then head of the CDC has said so [1] - unless he was lying about claiming he was lying there's not much doubt in that case. The CDC lie when it suits them isn't something that's really debatable. Does it matter that they lied? This is the proposition that can be debate…
I know this gets repeated a lot, but that doesn't make it more true. Show me the quote where he said "we lied about masks", and "we changed our message about masks" doesn't count. The reality is that the knowledge about Covid changed significantly in march/April last year. In particular the understanding about unsymptomatic spread lead to a significant change of thinking. That makes sense, if the virus only spreads f…
The Street: "So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning?"
Fauci: "Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected."
https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-dire...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The importance of following the principles for public health is greater than the importance of the advice being unbiasedly perfect Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Also, even if this is true at some point, as more people adopt your mindset of conformity, it would become very valuable to manipulate, which is easy to do (Goodhart’s law).
Overwhelmingly we follow laws against public drinking, noise ordinances, littering, etc. How is following a mask mandate adopting a mindset of conformity that is different than following laws on littering? Consider the possibility that you have been manipulated to find outrage/concern/defiance over wearing a mask.
1) regardless of how you might think masks are unobtrusive, enough of the population will consider it annoying to wear a mask when jogging or cycling that they won't exercise. Even during this pandemic, public-health officials think exercise needs to be encouraged for long-term public health and less demand on the healthcare system.
2) The science shows that the risk of COVID spread outdoors in non-public spaces is negligible. If a health minister requires masks in spite of the science, he harms his own credibility. That means that the population might also start to ignore those measures that scientists say are essential.
Definitely wearing a mask indoors or in crowded outdoor spaces remains relevant. But there are legitimate grounds for criticism here and nuance, it isn't just inane outrage or defiance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in spring 2020 when the official position amounted to "a mask is a facehugger" Well I guess it would be fruitless to ask for a source on this.
“There’s no evidence that wearing masks on healthy people will protect them,” Perencevich said, the publication reported. “They wear them incorrectly, and they can increase the risk of infection because they’re touching their face more often.” https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article240... "Masks may actually increase your coronavirus risk if worn improperly, surgeon general warns" https://edition.cn…
Don't let that facehugger insert a parasite embryo down your throat! Why not? Well overall it would be more beneficial to society if frontline medical staff were wearing that facehugger while treating patients with confirmed or suspected cases of the virus. Oh okay, that seems sensible.