Governor Cuomo going down?

7,418 Views | 125 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Doc Holliday
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No mask, 1 mask, 2 masks; kids not in school, kids in school; vaccines work, but you really can't change any other protective behaviors; herd immunity is at 30 - no 60 - no 70 - no 80% ... Whatever. We've never asked our Shamans to be perfectly consistent. You must remember the most important thing is their position as Shaman. They're just inherently more in contact with God/nature/the spirits / #followthescience / what have you, and that gives the people comfort. So don't question Shaman Fauci - you're just causing trouble. Just listen, hear what the Shaman says next, follow it like a good boy, and sleep well. The rains will come, and the sun will shine.

In the meantime, I'd eat clean, work out daily, get some good sleep, and take care of myself. Help a shaman out.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

The discussion of Fauci is misleading. The fact that he wanted to save masks for health care workers wasn't a later admission; it was what he said all along:
Quote:

LaPook, March 8: There's a lot of confusion among people, and misinformation, surrounding face masks. Can you discuss that?

Fauci: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.

LaPook: You're sure of it? Because people are listening really closely to this.

Fauci: There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences - people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?

Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks - that's fine, that's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine.

LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?

Fauci: Exactly, that's the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

Weeks later he reversed course on masks and claimed they were needed for protection, and recommended govt. mask-wearing mandates to the public. Either he lied or he was mistaken in his initial assessment. The former appears much more likely.
He said "right now," as of March 8, there was no reason for people without symptoms to go around with masks. He also said masks were important for sick people and health care workers. They were recommended for the general public as we became more aware of asymptomatic and aerosol transmission.
If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?
He didn't say that. He did downplay them.
It's certainly what he suggested. He said masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet," but then suggested even what limited protection if any the mask provides would be offset by people fidgeting with it.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

Asymptomatic people need to mask because we now know they're one of the most significant factors in spreading the disease. We also know more about the importance of airborne particles as opposed to fomites.

This isn't nearly as hard as some are making it. There were two reasons they recommended against masks early on -- scarcity of PPE at the time and a focus on the contracton of the virus rather than the spread. Once those two things changed, their recommendations changed, and Trump's own surgeon general laid out a really clear case for why at the time.

Unfortunately, people's minds don't change with the facts. Humans are an innately irrational species.
A little revisionist history here...

Fauci suggested the masks were not effective, and said they may catch the occasional drop of saliva. How then is a mask ineffective to prevent oral transmission - as Fauci suggested - now effective to prevent airborne transmission? Help this "irrational" guy understand the logic.



He didn't say that. You've created a narrative based on faulty facts.

And again, Trump's surgeon general laid out a clear and concise case at the time for why the mask recommendations were changed. You can google it now and find out exactly what was actually said and why.


No, he really hasn't. Fauci, in an attempt to protect the supply of PPE, downplayed the potential effectiveness of masks in March 2020. That is a fair reading of what he said. I don't think you'll find a lot of demonstrably false statements in his interview, but the emphasis and framing was such that it created the impression that masks were more of a pacifier and may actually do more harm than good.

More recently, he raised his estimate of what percentage of the population needed to be vaccinated for her immunity to take hold based on higher numbers of people saying they were willing to take the vaccine. It makes me wonder whether he really has any idea what actually would provide herd immunity.
He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.


He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.
It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.


Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.
No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.


He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?
He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.


It absolutely amazes me the Sam Lowry I've known for years has no issue with Fauci feeding the public information based on his perception of what it was ready to hear. Fear has a strange effect on people.
Actually I do have an issue with it. It's just that the issue was never properly raised until D.C Bear's last post. Everything else y'all have said has mischaracterized Fauci's position to some degree or another.


I "properly raised" it on the first page of this thread:
" When Dr. Fauci, for example, increased his estimated vaccination percentage required for herd immunity based not on medical information but on survey data showing a decline in vaccine hesitancy, that was not a good public message." My analysis then was based on a fair and accurate reflection of his own description of what he said and why he said it, and is no different from my analysis in my last post that you referenced above.
It's not fair and accurate to say his estimate wasn't based on medical information. To quote him out of context and imply that he concealed his purpose to conserve masks, or that he invented it after the fact, is grossly misleading.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Is it really your position that Fauci was unaware of the efficacy of masks prior to his statements downplaying their effectiveness? Come on, Sam.

We can argue semantics if you like. If Fauci was aware that masks are more effective than he suggested but downplayed their effectiveness so as not to create a supply problem, I call that deceptive and dishonest. Perhaps you feel he was just telling the public "what it was ready to hear." Either way, it's likewise deceptive and dishonest, and any American should have a problem with it.

I don't see a semantic issue here. Feel free to point one out if I've missed it.

If you don't think masks are effective, you don't say it's important for infected people to wear them. And it's hard to be deceptive about your intention to avoid a mask shortage when you say "the point is it could lead to a shortage of masks."
WacoKelly83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/01/25/dr-anthony-fauci-the-highest-paid-employee-in-the-entire-us-federal-government/
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

The discussion of Fauci is misleading. The fact that he wanted to save masks for health care workers wasn't a later admission; it was what he said all along:
Quote:

LaPook, March 8: There's a lot of confusion among people, and misinformation, surrounding face masks. Can you discuss that?

Fauci: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.

LaPook: You're sure of it? Because people are listening really closely to this.

Fauci: There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences - people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?

Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks - that's fine, that's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine.

LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?

Fauci: Exactly, that's the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

Weeks later he reversed course on masks and claimed they were needed for protection, and recommended govt. mask-wearing mandates to the public. Either he lied or he was mistaken in his initial assessment. The former appears much more likely.
He said "right now," as of March 8, there was no reason for people without symptoms to go around with masks. He also said masks were important for sick people and health care workers. They were recommended for the general public as we became more aware of asymptomatic and aerosol transmission.
If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?
He didn't say that. He did downplay them.
It's certainly what he suggested. He said masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet," but then suggested even what limited protection if any the mask provides would be offset by people fidgeting with it.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

Asymptomatic people need to mask because we now know they're one of the most significant factors in spreading the disease. We also know more about the importance of airborne particles as opposed to fomites.

This isn't nearly as hard as some are making it. There were two reasons they recommended against masks early on -- scarcity of PPE at the time and a focus on the contracton of the virus rather than the spread. Once those two things changed, their recommendations changed, and Trump's own surgeon general laid out a really clear case for why at the time.

Unfortunately, people's minds don't change with the facts. Humans are an innately irrational species.
A little revisionist history here...

Fauci suggested the masks were not effective, and said they may catch the occasional drop of saliva. How then is a mask ineffective to prevent oral transmission - as Fauci suggested - now effective to prevent airborne transmission? Help this "irrational" guy understand the logic.



He didn't say that. You've created a narrative based on faulty facts.

And again, Trump's surgeon general laid out a clear and concise case at the time for why the mask recommendations were changed. You can google it now and find out exactly what was actually said and why.


No, he really hasn't. Fauci, in an attempt to protect the supply of PPE, downplayed the potential effectiveness of masks in March 2020. That is a fair reading of what he said. I don't think you'll find a lot of demonstrably false statements in his interview, but the emphasis and framing was such that it created the impression that masks were more of a pacifier and may actually do more harm than good.

More recently, he raised his estimate of what percentage of the population needed to be vaccinated for her immunity to take hold based on higher numbers of people saying they were willing to take the vaccine. It makes me wonder whether he really has any idea what actually would provide herd immunity.
He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.


He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.
It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.


Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.
No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.


He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?
He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.


It absolutely amazes me the Sam Lowry I've known for years has no issue with Fauci feeding the public information based on his perception of what it was ready to hear. Fear has a strange effect on people.
Actually I do have an issue with it. It's just that the issue was never properly raised until D.C Bear's last post. Everything else y'all have said has mischaracterized Fauci's position to some degree or another.


I "properly raised" it on the first page of this thread:
" When Dr. Fauci, for example, increased his estimated vaccination percentage required for herd immunity based not on medical information but on survey data showing a decline in vaccine hesitancy, that was not a good public message." My analysis then was based on a fair and accurate reflection of his own description of what he said and why he said it, and is no different from my analysis in my last post that you referenced above.
It's not fair and accurate to say his estimate wasn't based on medical information. To quote him out of context and imply that he concealed his purpose to conserve masks, or that he invented it after the fact, is grossly misleading.


It is fair and accurate to say that he changed his public statements on the percentage he thought it would take for herd immunity because of survey data because he himself clearly said that he changed his public statements on the percentage he thought it would take for herd immunity because of survey data. That's how fair and accurate works. When he explains himself clearly and I repeat what he said, that is "fair and accurate" and it is not out of context.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

The discussion of Fauci is misleading. The fact that he wanted to save masks for health care workers wasn't a later admission; it was what he said all along:
Quote:

LaPook, March 8: There's a lot of confusion among people, and misinformation, surrounding face masks. Can you discuss that?

Fauci: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.

LaPook: You're sure of it? Because people are listening really closely to this.

Fauci: There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences - people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?

Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks - that's fine, that's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine.

LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?

Fauci: Exactly, that's the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

Weeks later he reversed course on masks and claimed they were needed for protection, and recommended govt. mask-wearing mandates to the public. Either he lied or he was mistaken in his initial assessment. The former appears much more likely.
He said "right now," as of March 8, there was no reason for people without symptoms to go around with masks. He also said masks were important for sick people and health care workers. They were recommended for the general public as we became more aware of asymptomatic and aerosol transmission.
If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?
He didn't say that. He did downplay them.
It's certainly what he suggested. He said masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet," but then suggested even what limited protection if any the mask provides would be offset by people fidgeting with it.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

Asymptomatic people need to mask because we now know they're one of the most significant factors in spreading the disease. We also know more about the importance of airborne particles as opposed to fomites.

This isn't nearly as hard as some are making it. There were two reasons they recommended against masks early on -- scarcity of PPE at the time and a focus on the contracton of the virus rather than the spread. Once those two things changed, their recommendations changed, and Trump's own surgeon general laid out a really clear case for why at the time.

Unfortunately, people's minds don't change with the facts. Humans are an innately irrational species.
A little revisionist history here...

Fauci suggested the masks were not effective, and said they may catch the occasional drop of saliva. How then is a mask ineffective to prevent oral transmission - as Fauci suggested - now effective to prevent airborne transmission? Help this "irrational" guy understand the logic.



He didn't say that. You've created a narrative based on faulty facts.

And again, Trump's surgeon general laid out a clear and concise case at the time for why the mask recommendations were changed. You can google it now and find out exactly what was actually said and why.


No, he really hasn't. Fauci, in an attempt to protect the supply of PPE, downplayed the potential effectiveness of masks in March 2020. That is a fair reading of what he said. I don't think you'll find a lot of demonstrably false statements in his interview, but the emphasis and framing was such that it created the impression that masks were more of a pacifier and may actually do more harm than good.

More recently, he raised his estimate of what percentage of the population needed to be vaccinated for her immunity to take hold based on higher numbers of people saying they were willing to take the vaccine. It makes me wonder whether he really has any idea what actually would provide herd immunity.
He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.


He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.
It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.


Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.
No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.


He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?
He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.


It absolutely amazes me the Sam Lowry I've known for years has no issue with Fauci feeding the public information based on his perception of what it was ready to hear. Fear has a strange effect on people.
Actually I do have an issue with it. It's just that the issue was never properly raised until D.C Bear's last post. Everything else y'all have said has mischaracterized Fauci's position to some degree or another.


I "properly raised" it on the first page of this thread:
" When Dr. Fauci, for example, increased his estimated vaccination percentage required for herd immunity based not on medical information but on survey data showing a decline in vaccine hesitancy, that was not a good public message." My analysis then was based on a fair and accurate reflection of his own description of what he said and why he said it, and is no different from my analysis in my last post that you referenced above.
It's not fair and accurate to say his estimate wasn't based on medical information. To quote him out of context and imply that he concealed his purpose to conserve masks, or that he invented it after the fact, is grossly misleading.


It is fair and accurate to say that he changed his public statements on the percentage he thought it would take for herd immunity because of survey data because he himself clearly said that he changed his public statements on the percentage he thought it would take for herd immunity because of survey data. That's how fair and accurate works. When he explains himself clearly and I repeat what he said, that is "fair and accurate" and it is not out of context.
You're omitting the false claim again, which is a good start. Fair and accurate would be to include the context that Fauci provided.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

The discussion of Fauci is misleading. The fact that he wanted to save masks for health care workers wasn't a later admission; it was what he said all along:
Quote:

LaPook, March 8: There's a lot of confusion among people, and misinformation, surrounding face masks. Can you discuss that?

Fauci: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.

LaPook: You're sure of it? Because people are listening really closely to this.

Fauci: There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences - people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?

Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks - that's fine, that's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine.

LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?

Fauci: Exactly, that's the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

Weeks later he reversed course on masks and claimed they were needed for protection, and recommended govt. mask-wearing mandates to the public. Either he lied or he was mistaken in his initial assessment. The former appears much more likely.
He said "right now," as of March 8, there was no reason for people without symptoms to go around with masks. He also said masks were important for sick people and health care workers. They were recommended for the general public as we became more aware of asymptomatic and aerosol transmission.
If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?
He didn't say that. He did downplay them.
It's certainly what he suggested. He said masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet," but then suggested even what limited protection if any the mask provides would be offset by people fidgeting with it.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

Asymptomatic people need to mask because we now know they're one of the most significant factors in spreading the disease. We also know more about the importance of airborne particles as opposed to fomites.

This isn't nearly as hard as some are making it. There were two reasons they recommended against masks early on -- scarcity of PPE at the time and a focus on the contracton of the virus rather than the spread. Once those two things changed, their recommendations changed, and Trump's own surgeon general laid out a really clear case for why at the time.

Unfortunately, people's minds don't change with the facts. Humans are an innately irrational species.
A little revisionist history here...

Fauci suggested the masks were not effective, and said they may catch the occasional drop of saliva. How then is a mask ineffective to prevent oral transmission - as Fauci suggested - now effective to prevent airborne transmission? Help this "irrational" guy understand the logic.



He didn't say that. You've created a narrative based on faulty facts.

And again, Trump's surgeon general laid out a clear and concise case at the time for why the mask recommendations were changed. You can google it now and find out exactly what was actually said and why.


No, he really hasn't. Fauci, in an attempt to protect the supply of PPE, downplayed the potential effectiveness of masks in March 2020. That is a fair reading of what he said. I don't think you'll find a lot of demonstrably false statements in his interview, but the emphasis and framing was such that it created the impression that masks were more of a pacifier and may actually do more harm than good.

More recently, he raised his estimate of what percentage of the population needed to be vaccinated for her immunity to take hold based on higher numbers of people saying they were willing to take the vaccine. It makes me wonder whether he really has any idea what actually would provide herd immunity.
He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.


He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.
It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.


Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.
No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.


He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?
He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.


It absolutely amazes me the Sam Lowry I've known for years has no issue with Fauci feeding the public information based on his perception of what it was ready to hear. Fear has a strange effect on people.
Actually I do have an issue with it. It's just that the issue was never properly raised until D.C Bear's last post. Everything else y'all have said has mischaracterized Fauci's position to some degree or another.


I "properly raised" it on the first page of this thread:
" When Dr. Fauci, for example, increased his estimated vaccination percentage required for herd immunity based not on medical information but on survey data showing a decline in vaccine hesitancy, that was not a good public message." My analysis then was based on a fair and accurate reflection of his own description of what he said and why he said it, and is no different from my analysis in my last post that you referenced above.
It's not fair and accurate to say his estimate wasn't based on medical information. To quote him out of context and imply that he concealed his purpose to conserve masks, or that he invented it after the fact, is grossly misleading.


It is fair and accurate to say that he changed his public statements on the percentage he thought it would take for herd immunity because of survey data because he himself clearly said that he changed his public statements on the percentage he thought it would take for herd immunity because of survey data. That's how fair and accurate works. When he explains himself clearly and I repeat what he said, that is "fair and accurate" and it is not out of context.
You're omitting the false claim again, which is a good start. Fair and accurate would be to include the context that Fauci provided.


I haven't made any false claims, nor have my statements been out of context.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

The discussion of Fauci is misleading. The fact that he wanted to save masks for health care workers wasn't a later admission; it was what he said all along:
Quote:

LaPook, March 8: There's a lot of confusion among people, and misinformation, surrounding face masks. Can you discuss that?

Fauci: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.

LaPook: You're sure of it? Because people are listening really closely to this.

Fauci: There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences - people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?

Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks - that's fine, that's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine.

LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?

Fauci: Exactly, that's the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

Weeks later he reversed course on masks and claimed they were needed for protection, and recommended govt. mask-wearing mandates to the public. Either he lied or he was mistaken in his initial assessment. The former appears much more likely.
He said "right now," as of March 8, there was no reason for people without symptoms to go around with masks. He also said masks were important for sick people and health care workers. They were recommended for the general public as we became more aware of asymptomatic and aerosol transmission.
If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?
He didn't say that. He did downplay them.
It's certainly what he suggested. He said masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet," but then suggested even what limited protection if any the mask provides would be offset by people fidgeting with it.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

Asymptomatic people need to mask because we now know they're one of the most significant factors in spreading the disease. We also know more about the importance of airborne particles as opposed to fomites.

This isn't nearly as hard as some are making it. There were two reasons they recommended against masks early on -- scarcity of PPE at the time and a focus on the contracton of the virus rather than the spread. Once those two things changed, their recommendations changed, and Trump's own surgeon general laid out a really clear case for why at the time.

Unfortunately, people's minds don't change with the facts. Humans are an innately irrational species.
A little revisionist history here...

Fauci suggested the masks were not effective, and said they may catch the occasional drop of saliva. How then is a mask ineffective to prevent oral transmission - as Fauci suggested - now effective to prevent airborne transmission? Help this "irrational" guy understand the logic.



He didn't say that. You've created a narrative based on faulty facts.

And again, Trump's surgeon general laid out a clear and concise case at the time for why the mask recommendations were changed. You can google it now and find out exactly what was actually said and why.


No, he really hasn't. Fauci, in an attempt to protect the supply of PPE, downplayed the potential effectiveness of masks in March 2020. That is a fair reading of what he said. I don't think you'll find a lot of demonstrably false statements in his interview, but the emphasis and framing was such that it created the impression that masks were more of a pacifier and may actually do more harm than good.

More recently, he raised his estimate of what percentage of the population needed to be vaccinated for her immunity to take hold based on higher numbers of people saying they were willing to take the vaccine. It makes me wonder whether he really has any idea what actually would provide herd immunity.
He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.


He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.
It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.


Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.
No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.


He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?
He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.


It absolutely amazes me the Sam Lowry I've known for years has no issue with Fauci feeding the public information based on his perception of what it was ready to hear. Fear has a strange effect on people.
Actually I do have an issue with it. It's just that the issue was never properly raised until D.C Bear's last post. Everything else y'all have said has mischaracterized Fauci's position to some degree or another.


I "properly raised" it on the first page of this thread:
" When Dr. Fauci, for example, increased his estimated vaccination percentage required for herd immunity based not on medical information but on survey data showing a decline in vaccine hesitancy, that was not a good public message." My analysis then was based on a fair and accurate reflection of his own description of what he said and why he said it, and is no different from my analysis in my last post that you referenced above.
It's not fair and accurate to say his estimate wasn't based on medical information. To quote him out of context and imply that he concealed his purpose to conserve masks, or that he invented it after the fact, is grossly misleading.


It is fair and accurate to say that he changed his public statements on the percentage he thought it would take for herd immunity because of survey data because he himself clearly said that he changed his public statements on the percentage he thought it would take for herd immunity because of survey data. That's how fair and accurate works. When he explains himself clearly and I repeat what he said, that is "fair and accurate" and it is not out of context.
You're omitting the false claim again, which is a good start. Fair and accurate would be to include the context that Fauci provided.


I haven't made any false claims, nor have my statements been out of context.
They quite obviously have. I won't belabor the point, but you're operating below your standard for whatever reason.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

The discussion of Fauci is misleading. The fact that he wanted to save masks for health care workers wasn't a later admission; it was what he said all along:
Quote:

LaPook, March 8: There's a lot of confusion among people, and misinformation, surrounding face masks. Can you discuss that?

Fauci: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.

LaPook: You're sure of it? Because people are listening really closely to this.

Fauci: There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences - people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?

Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks - that's fine, that's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine.

LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?

Fauci: Exactly, that's the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

Weeks later he reversed course on masks and claimed they were needed for protection, and recommended govt. mask-wearing mandates to the public. Either he lied or he was mistaken in his initial assessment. The former appears much more likely.
He said "right now," as of March 8, there was no reason for people without symptoms to go around with masks. He also said masks were important for sick people and health care workers. They were recommended for the general public as we became more aware of asymptomatic and aerosol transmission.
If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?
He didn't say that. He did downplay them.
It's certainly what he suggested. He said masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet," but then suggested even what limited protection if any the mask provides would be offset by people fidgeting with it.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

Asymptomatic people need to mask because we now know they're one of the most significant factors in spreading the disease. We also know more about the importance of airborne particles as opposed to fomites.

This isn't nearly as hard as some are making it. There were two reasons they recommended against masks early on -- scarcity of PPE at the time and a focus on the contracton of the virus rather than the spread. Once those two things changed, their recommendations changed, and Trump's own surgeon general laid out a really clear case for why at the time.

Unfortunately, people's minds don't change with the facts. Humans are an innately irrational species.
A little revisionist history here...

Fauci suggested the masks were not effective, and said they may catch the occasional drop of saliva. How then is a mask ineffective to prevent oral transmission - as Fauci suggested - now effective to prevent airborne transmission? Help this "irrational" guy understand the logic.



He didn't say that. You've created a narrative based on faulty facts.

And again, Trump's surgeon general laid out a clear and concise case at the time for why the mask recommendations were changed. You can google it now and find out exactly what was actually said and why.


No, he really hasn't. Fauci, in an attempt to protect the supply of PPE, downplayed the potential effectiveness of masks in March 2020. That is a fair reading of what he said. I don't think you'll find a lot of demonstrably false statements in his interview, but the emphasis and framing was such that it created the impression that masks were more of a pacifier and may actually do more harm than good.

More recently, he raised his estimate of what percentage of the population needed to be vaccinated for her immunity to take hold based on higher numbers of people saying they were willing to take the vaccine. It makes me wonder whether he really has any idea what actually would provide herd immunity.
He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.


He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.
It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.


Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.
No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.


He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?
He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.


It absolutely amazes me the Sam Lowry I've known for years has no issue with Fauci feeding the public information based on his perception of what it was ready to hear. Fear has a strange effect on people.
Actually I do have an issue with it. It's just that the issue was never properly raised until D.C Bear's last post. Everything else y'all have said has mischaracterized Fauci's position to some degree or another.


I "properly raised" it on the first page of this thread:
" When Dr. Fauci, for example, increased his estimated vaccination percentage required for herd immunity based not on medical information but on survey data showing a decline in vaccine hesitancy, that was not a good public message." My analysis then was based on a fair and accurate reflection of his own description of what he said and why he said it, and is no different from my analysis in my last post that you referenced above.
It's not fair and accurate to say his estimate wasn't based on medical information. To quote him out of context and imply that he concealed his purpose to conserve masks, or that he invented it after the fact, is grossly misleading.


It is fair and accurate to say that he changed his public statements on the percentage he thought it would take for herd immunity because of survey data because he himself clearly said that he changed his public statements on the percentage he thought it would take for herd immunity because of survey data. That's how fair and accurate works. When he explains himself clearly and I repeat what he said, that is "fair and accurate" and it is not out of context.
You're omitting the false claim again, which is a good start. Fair and accurate would be to include the context that Fauci provided.


I haven't made any false claims, nor have my statements been out of context.
They quite obviously have. I won't belabor the point, but you're operating below your standard for whatever reason.


In what context does Fauci's statement that he changed the number he stated publicly for herd immunity because of the changing numbers in survey data on vaccine hesitancy mean something other than he changed the number he stated publicly for herd immunity because of the changing numbers in survey data on vaccine hesitancy?

Survey data shouldn't influence what his best professional judgment is, but, according to his own statements, it did.
BearlySpeaking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

I keep forgetting y"all are bigger experts on things than even those experts highly regarded in their field.
You are right; we can't criticize the experts. This reminds me of the book, The Nazi Doctors. They were professional medical experts long before they were Nazis. They were respectable doctors, surgeons, psychiatrists, and professors. Held perfectly respectable opinions on avoiding human suffering by humanely refusing treatment for obviously deformed children and euthanizing ******ed children, the way we abort Downs children today in huge numbers to avoid the burden doctors believe they would bring on the rest of humanity. The German medical profession was highly respected; its practicioners knew the medical field far better than you or I did, and published in professional medical journals.

They gradually began to support National Socialist public policies on the basis of scientific principles. They helped set up the T4 Aktion program to reduce the suffering of children. Eventually these same professionals and experts ended up working in the concentration and extermination camps, for what they considered the highest scientific principles.

Who are you to criticize the Nazi doctors? They were far more knowledgeable and had far more expertise in medicine and psychology than you ever will.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know the question , but I did enjoy his pierced nipples!
Willie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearlySpeaking said:

PartyBear said:

I keep forgetting y"all are bigger experts on things than even those experts highly regarded in their field.
You are right; we can't criticize the experts. This reminds me of the book, The Nazi Doctors. They were professional medical experts long before they were Nazis. They were respectable doctors, surgeons, psychiatrists, and professors. Held perfectly respectable opinions on avoiding human suffering by humanely refusing treatment for obviously deformed children and euthanizing ******ed children, the way we abort Downs children today in huge numbers to avoid the burden doctors believe they would bring on the rest of humanity. The German medical profession was highly respected; its practicioners knew the medical field far better than you or I did, and published in professional medical journals.

They gradually began to support National Socialist public policies on the basis of scientific principles. They helped set up the T4 Aktion program to reduce the suffering of children. Eventually these same professionals and experts ended up working in the concentration and extermination camps, for what they considered the highest scientific principles.

Who are you to criticize the Nazi doctors? They were far more knowledgeable and had far more expertise in medicine and psychology than you ever will.
I don't post often, but I have to say this is the best post I've read in a very long time.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Is it really your position that Fauci was unaware of the efficacy of masks prior to his statements downplaying their effectiveness? Come on, Sam.

We can argue semantics if you like. If Fauci was aware that masks are more effective than he suggested but downplayed their effectiveness so as not to create a supply problem, I call that deceptive and dishonest. Perhaps you feel he was just telling the public "what it was ready to hear." Either way, it's likewise deceptive and dishonest, and any American should have a problem with it.

I don't see a semantic issue here. Feel free to point one out if I've missed it.

If you don't think masks are effective, you don't say it's important for infected people to wear them. And it's hard to be deceptive about your intention to avoid a mask shortage when you say "the point is it could lead to a shortage of masks."

You're selective in your quotes. Fauci made a number of inconsistent statements in that March 8th interview that for some reason you've ignored. He downplayed the effectiveness of the masks, suggesting that they are not providing good protection and only make people feel better because they may stop the occasional droplet. He then went on to suggest that people who aren't sick shouldn't wear them because of lack of effectiveness, while at the same time stating that medical providers who aren't sick should wear them. Does that mean they are effective for healthy people to prevent the spread or not?

Bottom line is Fauci could have said he thought masks were effective for healthy people, but was concerned with a shortage, if that is what he truly believed, and just left it at that. He didn't have to downplay their effectiveness if he believed otherwise in order to avoid a mask shortage. That was deceptive at best.

And as DC pointed out (and you acknowledged), he was deceptive in other areas as well.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

Sam Lowry said:

D. C. Bear said:

bear2be2 said:

Mothra said:

bear2be2 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

The discussion of Fauci is misleading. The fact that he wanted to save masks for health care workers wasn't a later admission; it was what he said all along:
Quote:

LaPook, March 8: There's a lot of confusion among people, and misinformation, surrounding face masks. Can you discuss that?

Fauci: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.

LaPook: You're sure of it? Because people are listening really closely to this.

Fauci: There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences - people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

LaPook: And can you get some schmutz, sort of staying inside there?

Fauci: Of course, of course. But, when you think masks, you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people who, when you look at the films of foreign countries and you see 85% of the people wearing masks - that's fine, that's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine.

LaPook: But it can lead to a shortage of masks?

Fauci: Exactly, that's the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.

Your summary is likewise misleading. Fauci initially said that masks were unnecessary and provided little if any protection.

Weeks later he reversed course on masks and claimed they were needed for protection, and recommended govt. mask-wearing mandates to the public. Either he lied or he was mistaken in his initial assessment. The former appears much more likely.
He said "right now," as of March 8, there was no reason for people without symptoms to go around with masks. He also said masks were important for sick people and health care workers. They were recommended for the general public as we became more aware of asymptomatic and aerosol transmission.
If masks are ineffective, as he initially said, then why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?
He didn't say that. He did downplay them.
It's certainly what he suggested. He said masks "might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet," but then suggested even what limited protection if any the mask provides would be offset by people fidgeting with it.

So again, I ask, if the mask is ineffective or very limited in effectiveness, why would asymptomatic people need to wear them?

Asymptomatic people need to mask because we now know they're one of the most significant factors in spreading the disease. We also know more about the importance of airborne particles as opposed to fomites.

This isn't nearly as hard as some are making it. There were two reasons they recommended against masks early on -- scarcity of PPE at the time and a focus on the contracton of the virus rather than the spread. Once those two things changed, their recommendations changed, and Trump's own surgeon general laid out a really clear case for why at the time.

Unfortunately, people's minds don't change with the facts. Humans are an innately irrational species.
A little revisionist history here...

Fauci suggested the masks were not effective, and said they may catch the occasional drop of saliva. How then is a mask ineffective to prevent oral transmission - as Fauci suggested - now effective to prevent airborne transmission? Help this "irrational" guy understand the logic.



He didn't say that. You've created a narrative based on faulty facts.

And again, Trump's surgeon general laid out a clear and concise case at the time for why the mask recommendations were changed. You can google it now and find out exactly what was actually said and why.


No, he really hasn't. Fauci, in an attempt to protect the supply of PPE, downplayed the potential effectiveness of masks in March 2020. That is a fair reading of what he said. I don't think you'll find a lot of demonstrably false statements in his interview, but the emphasis and framing was such that it created the impression that masks were more of a pacifier and may actually do more harm than good.

More recently, he raised his estimate of what percentage of the population needed to be vaccinated for her immunity to take hold based on higher numbers of people saying they were willing to take the vaccine. It makes me wonder whether he really has any idea what actually would provide herd immunity.
He has a range of numbers for herd immunity. It's impossible to know exactly because we don't know exactly how transmissible covid is compared to other diseases.


He specifically said that he increased the number he was saying publicly because he saw survey data showing that more people were willing to take the vaccine. (Not because new data in the disease somehow showed a higher number). We shouldn't need to make excuses for him.
It was always a range. If he'd said it was definitely 85% and it turned out to be 75%, plenty of people would be ready to crucify him for that too.


Better to be criticized for being honest and mistaken than to monkey with numbers in an attempt to manipulate the public and then need people to make excuses for you left and right.
No one manipulated the numbers. Fauci's original estimates were in line with other scientists' at the time. They've changed based on revisions of early data from China and Italy, more transmissible virus strains, and other new information.


He said he adjusted the numbers for herd immunity that he was giving publicly because of survey data showing a lower level of vaccine hesitancy, but you are saying that new research about the nature of the disease changed the numbers he was giving. Why are you calling him a liar?
He told the NYT that he was adjusting his public statements based on new science as well as his perception of what the public was ready to hear.


It absolutely amazes me the Sam Lowry I've known for years has no issue with Fauci feeding the public information based on his perception of what it was ready to hear. Fear has a strange effect on people.
Actually I do have an issue with it. It's just that the issue was never properly raised until D.C Bear's last post. Everything else y'all have said has mischaracterized Fauci's position to some degree or another.


I "properly raised" it on the first page of this thread:
" When Dr. Fauci, for example, increased his estimated vaccination percentage required for herd immunity based not on medical information but on survey data showing a decline in vaccine hesitancy, that was not a good public message." My analysis then was based on a fair and accurate reflection of his own description of what he said and why he said it, and is no different from my analysis in my last post that you referenced above.
It's not fair and accurate to say his estimate wasn't based on medical information. To quote him out of context and imply that he concealed his purpose to conserve masks, or that he invented it after the fact, is grossly misleading.


It is fair and accurate to say that he changed his public statements on the percentage he thought it would take for herd immunity because of survey data because he himself clearly said that he changed his public statements on the percentage he thought it would take for herd immunity because of survey data. That's how fair and accurate works. When he explains himself clearly and I repeat what he said, that is "fair and accurate" and it is not out of context.
You're omitting the false claim again, which is a good start. Fair and accurate would be to include the context that Fauci provided.


I haven't made any false claims, nor have my statements been out of context.
They quite obviously have. I won't belabor the point, but you're operating below your standard for whatever reason.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Is it really your position that Fauci was unaware of the efficacy of masks prior to his statements downplaying their effectiveness? Come on, Sam.

We can argue semantics if you like. If Fauci was aware that masks are more effective than he suggested but downplayed their effectiveness so as not to create a supply problem, I call that deceptive and dishonest. Perhaps you feel he was just telling the public "what it was ready to hear." Either way, it's likewise deceptive and dishonest, and any American should have a problem with it.

I don't see a semantic issue here. Feel free to point one out if I've missed it.

If you don't think masks are effective, you don't say it's important for infected people to wear them. And it's hard to be deceptive about your intention to avoid a mask shortage when you say "the point is it could lead to a shortage of masks."

You're selective in your quotes. Fauci made a number of inconsistent statements in that March 8th interview that for some reason you've ignored. He downplayed the effectiveness of the masks, suggesting that they are not providing good protection and only make people feel better because they may stop the occasional droplet. He then went on to suggest that people who aren't sick shouldn't wear them because of lack of effectiveness, while at the same time stating that medical providers who aren't sick should wear them. Does that mean they are effective for healthy people to prevent the spread or not?

Bottom line is Fauci could have said he thought masks were effective for healthy people, but was concerned with a shortage, if that is what he truly believed, and just left it at that. He didn't have to downplay their effectiveness if he believed otherwise in order to avoid a mask shortage. That was deceptive at best.

And as DC pointed out (and you acknowledged), he was deceptive in other areas as well.

I quoted the full passage from the interview, and I've answered that question.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Is it really your position that Fauci was unaware of the efficacy of masks prior to his statements downplaying their effectiveness? Come on, Sam.

We can argue semantics if you like. If Fauci was aware that masks are more effective than he suggested but downplayed their effectiveness so as not to create a supply problem, I call that deceptive and dishonest. Perhaps you feel he was just telling the public "what it was ready to hear." Either way, it's likewise deceptive and dishonest, and any American should have a problem with it.

I don't see a semantic issue here. Feel free to point one out if I've missed it.

If you don't think masks are effective, you don't say it's important for infected people to wear them. And it's hard to be deceptive about your intention to avoid a mask shortage when you say "the point is it could lead to a shortage of masks."

You're selective in your quotes. Fauci made a number of inconsistent statements in that March 8th interview that for some reason you've ignored. He downplayed the effectiveness of the masks, suggesting that they are not providing good protection and only make people feel better because they may stop the occasional droplet. He then went on to suggest that people who aren't sick shouldn't wear them because of lack of effectiveness, while at the same time stating that medical providers who aren't sick should wear them. Does that mean they are effective for healthy people to prevent the spread or not?

Bottom line is Fauci could have said he thought masks were effective for healthy people, but was concerned with a shortage, if that is what he truly believed, and just left it at that. He didn't have to downplay their effectiveness if he believed otherwise in order to avoid a mask shortage. That was deceptive at best.

And as DC pointed out (and you acknowledged), he was deceptive in other areas as well.

I quoted the full passage from the interview, and I've answered that question.


I didn't suggest you didn't.

As I pointed out, you claim his comments weren't deceptive whereas I believe they clearly were. We disagree on that point. I believe there is no other reasonable interpretation.
Mulder
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cuomo is a crook and a pervert.
Lock him up!
An Objective Fan of The Former Baylor Lady Bears.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mulder said:

Cuomo is a crook and a pervert.
Lock him up!
He's just been given visiting professor status at UT-Austin.
Mulder
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Will your daughter sign up for his class?
An Objective Fan of The Former Baylor Lady Bears.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mulder said:

Will your daughter sign up for his class?
No. She went to a conservative school rather than the Austin campus of Cal.
NeuroticBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NY Senate majority leader (D) calls on Cuomo to resign.

https://twitter.com/ZackFinkNews/status/1368653562570539009?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1368653562570539009%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2021%2F03%2F07%2Fheastie-stewart-cousins-cuomo-resignation-anti-democratic%2F
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The DOJ hates you.


 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.