Bingo.
Not at all.JXL said:Sam Lowry said:"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection," Fauci wrote.Mothra said:Please cite me to where Fauci said that masks are typically much less effective keeping it out than keeping it in.%A0 Please show me where he said healthy people should buy masks to protect themselves.Sam Lowry said:I can't answer your questions because those things never happened. They're just another part of the self-contained narrative that anti-maskers repeat for their own enjoyment.Mothra said:Yet, that is not what he said. %A0For the third time I ask, what science was that based on? %A0What science made him change course? %A0And does it trouble you how wrong he was or that he lied to protect the mask supply?Sam Lowry said:They are typically much less effective keeping it out than keeping it in. That remains true. The issue here was whether healthy people should buy masks to protect themselves. Given the limited supply, he didn't think the benefit outweighed the cost in the early weeks of the pandemic.Mothra said:He said the typical mask is not effective at keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material and recommended not wearing a mask. %A0Sam Lowry said:They are effective at preventing the spread. It says so right there in the email: "Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection."Mothra said:I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. %A0What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? %A0Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February? %A0Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said:You might want to take a look at the FOIA Fauci emails just released. There's going to be a lot of crow eating around here.Sam Lowry said:Not really true. But keep in mind that if I can't prove vaccines didn't cause 4,000 deaths, you can't prove Fauci's mandates aren't responsible for beating the pandemic. Post hoc, propter hoc. So let's give credit where it's due.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
In an email on February 5, 2020, Fauci advised against wearing masks and said that face masks bought in a store would not be effective at protecting against the virus. He was replying to queries from one Sylvia Burwell, who may be to the same Sylvia Burwell who served as secretary for health and human services from 2014 to 2017.
"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection," Fauci wrote.
"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."
This is of course all very science based, according to Sam.
As we all know, he then reverses course and said cloth masks are effective. So again I ask, what science was that based on? %A0What science made him change course? %A0And does it trouble you how wrong he was?
"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."
So making entire school districts wear masks was pretty much an exercise in pointless futility?
This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.Mothra said:What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.Sam Lowry said:It's a quote. What's your interpretation?Mothra said:
As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.
That's some amazing scientific reasoning, The same mask that can't prevent a virus from getting to you from externally breathed air IS effective in preventing it from being internally exhaled. Are we really this stupid?Sam Lowry said:"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection," Fauci wrote.Mothra said:Please cite me to where Fauci said that masks are typically much less effective keeping it out than keeping it in.%A0 Please show me where he said healthy people should buy masks to protect themselves.Sam Lowry said:I can't answer your questions because those things never happened. They're just another part of the self-contained narrative that anti-maskers repeat for their own enjoyment.Mothra said:Yet, that is not what he said. %A0For the third time I ask, what science was that based on? %A0What science made him change course? %A0And does it trouble you how wrong he was or that he lied to protect the mask supply?Sam Lowry said:They are typically much less effective keeping it out than keeping it in. That remains true. The issue here was whether healthy people should buy masks to protect themselves. Given the limited supply, he didn't think the benefit outweighed the cost in the early weeks of the pandemic.Mothra said:He said the typical mask is not effective at keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material and recommended not wearing a mask. %A0Sam Lowry said:They are effective at preventing the spread. It says so right there in the email: "Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection."Mothra said:I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. %A0What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? %A0Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February? %A0Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said:You might want to take a look at the FOIA Fauci emails just released. There's going to be a lot of crow eating around here.Sam Lowry said:Not really true. But keep in mind that if I can't prove vaccines didn't cause 4,000 deaths, you can't prove Fauci's mandates aren't responsible for beating the pandemic. Post hoc, propter hoc. So let's give credit where it's due.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
In an email on February 5, 2020, Fauci advised against wearing masks and said that face masks bought in a store would not be effective at protecting against the virus. He was replying to queries from one Sylvia Burwell, who may be to the same Sylvia Burwell who served as secretary for health and human services from 2014 to 2017.
"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection," Fauci wrote.
"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."
This is of course all very science based, according to Sam.
As we all know, he then reverses course and said cloth masks are effective. So again I ask, what science was that based on? %A0What science made him change course? %A0And does it trouble you how wrong he was?
"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."
It's not the same level of protection. When you wear a mask, you're not just keeping your droplets from contacting other people. You're also keeping the droplets from evaporating into smaller particles which could more easily avoid other people's masks. This is why an unmasked person in a roomful of masked people is probably safer than a masked person in a roomful of unmasked people. The more people are masked, the fewer particles are in the air.ATL Bear said:That's some amazing scientific reasoning, The same mask that can't prevent a virus from getting to you from externally breathed air IS effective in preventing it from being internally exhaled. Are we really this stupid?Sam Lowry said:"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection," Fauci wrote.Mothra said:Please cite me to where Fauci said that masks are typically much less effective keeping it out than keeping it in.%A0 Please show me where he said healthy people should buy masks to protect themselves.Sam Lowry said:I can't answer your questions because those things never happened. They're just another part of the self-contained narrative that anti-maskers repeat for their own enjoyment.Mothra said:Yet, that is not what he said. %A0For the third time I ask, what science was that based on? %A0What science made him change course? %A0And does it trouble you how wrong he was or that he lied to protect the mask supply?Sam Lowry said:They are typically much less effective keeping it out than keeping it in. That remains true. The issue here was whether healthy people should buy masks to protect themselves. Given the limited supply, he didn't think the benefit outweighed the cost in the early weeks of the pandemic.Mothra said:He said the typical mask is not effective at keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material and recommended not wearing a mask. %A0Sam Lowry said:They are effective at preventing the spread. It says so right there in the email: "Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection."Mothra said:I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. %A0What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? %A0Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February? %A0Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said:You might want to take a look at the FOIA Fauci emails just released. There's going to be a lot of crow eating around here.Sam Lowry said:Not really true. But keep in mind that if I can't prove vaccines didn't cause 4,000 deaths, you can't prove Fauci's mandates aren't responsible for beating the pandemic. Post hoc, propter hoc. So let's give credit where it's due.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
In an email on February 5, 2020, Fauci advised against wearing masks and said that face masks bought in a store would not be effective at protecting against the virus. He was replying to queries from one Sylvia Burwell, who may be to the same Sylvia Burwell who served as secretary for health and human services from 2014 to 2017.
"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection," Fauci wrote.
"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."
This is of course all very science based, according to Sam.
As we all know, he then reverses course and said cloth masks are effective. So again I ask, what science was that based on? %A0What science made him change course? %A0And does it trouble you how wrong he was?
"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."
It was the same level of protection. A mask helped stop large droplets from exiting or entering your mouth and nose. It was the equivalent of having your elbow at the ready for every cough, sneeze, throat clear, etc. Ultimately the virus was easily spread through nano particles that could all but avoid most non N95 electrostatic protective face coverings.
Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
It's more a lack of honesty on your part than anything. You've always been an apologist for Fauci. Just didn't realize how willing you were to lie for him.Sam Lowry said:This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.Mothra said:What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.Sam Lowry said:It's a quote. What's your interpretation?Mothra said:
As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.
Yup. No doubt Sam will come to the defense of that behavior.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data. The science about how the virus functions does not change with polling data. That was irresponsible, at best, on his part.
Mothra said:It's more a lack of honesty on your part than anything. You've always been an apologist for Fauci. Just didn't realize how willing you were to lie for him.Sam Lowry said:This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.Mothra said:What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.Sam Lowry said:It's a quote. What's your interpretation?Mothra said:
As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.
That's rather harsh. I'd say it is more likely that Sam chose to believe Dr. Fauci, and does not want to look too closely at the contradictions in his behavior and statements since last year, much less his support for funding the WIV for gain of function research.Robert Wilson said:Mothra said:It's more a lack of honesty on your part than anything. You've always been an apologist for Fauci. Just didn't realize how willing you were to lie for him.Sam Lowry said:This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.Mothra said:What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.Sam Lowry said:It's a quote. What's your interpretation?Mothra said:
As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.
You didn't? I'd have given you 100/1 odds that Sam would be dishonest to support the little tyrant. That's a critical piece of his security blanket.
While this is a much more civil way of putting it, the bolded part is a significant understatement.Oldbear83 said:That's rather harsh. I'd say it is more likely that Sam chose to believe Dr. Fauci, and does not want to look too closely at the contradictions in his behavior and statements since last year, much less his support for funding the WIV for gain of function research.Robert Wilson said:Mothra said:It's more a lack of honesty on your part than anything. You've always been an apologist for Fauci. Just didn't realize how willing you were to lie for him.Sam Lowry said:This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.Mothra said:What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.Sam Lowry said:It's a quote. What's your interpretation?Mothra said:
As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.
You didn't? I'd have given you 100/1 odds that Sam would be dishonest to support the little tyrant. That's a critical piece of his security blanket.
If you want to have a conversation with Sam, civility matters. And it occurs to me that we all will look at facts in the light we prefer,Mothra said:While this is a much more civil way of putting it, the bolded part is a significant understatement.Oldbear83 said:That's rather harsh. I'd say it is more likely that Sam chose to believe Dr. Fauci, and does not want to look too closely at the contradictions in his behavior and statements since last year, much less his support for funding the WIV for gain of function research.Robert Wilson said:Mothra said:It's more a lack of honesty on your part than anything. You've always been an apologist for Fauci. Just didn't realize how willing you were to lie for him.Sam Lowry said:This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.Mothra said:What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.Sam Lowry said:It's a quote. What's your interpretation?Mothra said:
As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.
You didn't? I'd have given you 100/1 odds that Sam would be dishonest to support the little tyrant. That's a critical piece of his security blanket.
Turning a blind eye would more aptly describe his behavior.
Don't disagree, Sam and I have sparred civilly for 20 years and probably agree more often than not. But there is a difference to me between interpreting facts to fit your narrative, and twisting them. We are all guilty of that at times, but Sam is guilty of that here.Oldbear83 said:If you want to have a conversation with Sam, civility matters. And it occurs to me that we all will look at facts in the light we prefer,Mothra said:While this is a much more civil way of putting it, the bolded part is a significant understatement.Oldbear83 said:That's rather harsh. I'd say it is more likely that Sam chose to believe Dr. Fauci, and does not want to look too closely at the contradictions in his behavior and statements since last year, much less his support for funding the WIV for gain of function research.Robert Wilson said:Mothra said:It's more a lack of honesty on your part than anything. You've always been an apologist for Fauci. Just didn't realize how willing you were to lie for him.Sam Lowry said:This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.Mothra said:What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.Sam Lowry said:It's a quote. What's your interpretation?Mothra said:
As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.
You didn't? I'd have given you 100/1 odds that Sam would be dishonest to support the little tyrant. That's a critical piece of his security blanket.
Turning a blind eye would more aptly describe his behavior.
Personally, I have never trusted someone with power who was never elected, who is documented to have knowingly made false statements for political reasons, and whose behavior when challenged is eerily similar to Speaker Pelosi during her tantrum-time-of-the-month, but it's important to distinguish between the evil charlatan and the people who hoped he was as wise as he claimed to be.
There was no way to know who was infected and who wasn't. Masking the general public was the only option.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "It's not the same level of protection. When you wear a mask, you're not just keeping your droplets from contacting other people. You're also keeping the droplets from evaporating into smaller particles which could more easily avoid other people's masks. This is why an unmasked person in a roomful of masked people is probably safer than a masked person in a roomful of unmasked people. The more people are masked, the fewer particles are in the air."
What gets lost is the probability that someone is infected. If someone is not infected, there is 0% chance of transmission by definition. What got out of hand was the assumption that requiring everyone to mask up everywhere, all the time would somehow prevent the virus from spreading. The data indicates that assumption was false, and also that front-line essential workers, who should have caught the virus more often since they were exposed to the general public in order to do their jobs, did not show evidence that such exposure led to significantly more infection.
Ergo, we would have done better to use protocols and practices employed in past pandemics.
Completely false.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data.
Sam Lowry said:There was no way to know who was infected and who wasn't. Masking the general public was the only option.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "It's not the same level of protection. When you wear a mask, you're not just keeping your droplets from contacting other people. You're also keeping the droplets from evaporating into smaller particles which could more easily avoid other people's masks. This is why an unmasked person in a roomful of masked people is probably safer than a masked person in a roomful of unmasked people. The more people are masked, the fewer particles are in the air."
What gets lost is the probability that someone is infected. If someone is not infected, there is 0% chance of transmission by definition. What got out of hand was the assumption that requiring everyone to mask up everywhere, all the time would somehow prevent the virus from spreading. The data indicates that assumption was false, and also that front-line essential workers, who should have caught the virus more often since they were exposed to the general public in order to do their jobs, did not show evidence that such exposure led to significantly more infection.
Ergo, we would have done better to use protocols and practices employed in past pandemics.
Considering all possibilities before reaching a conclusion is not scandalous behavior. It's what scientists are supposed to do.Mothra said:Yup. No doubt Sam will come to the defense of that behavior.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data. The science about how the virus functions does not change with polling data. That was irresponsible, at best, on his part.
Of course, privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being man-made while burying the theory publicly shortly thereafter, only to reverse course again just last week, is an even bigger concern.
No it's not. When Fauci admits that his statements on this issue were influenced by "his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks," that is a problem.Sam Lowry said:Completely false.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data.
Sam Lowry said:Completely false.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data.
Nope.Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry said:There was no way to know who was infected and who wasn't. Masking the general public was the only option.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "It's not the same level of protection. When you wear a mask, you're not just keeping your droplets from contacting other people. You're also keeping the droplets from evaporating into smaller particles which could more easily avoid other people's masks. This is why an unmasked person in a roomful of masked people is probably safer than a masked person in a roomful of unmasked people. The more people are masked, the fewer particles are in the air."
What gets lost is the probability that someone is infected. If someone is not infected, there is 0% chance of transmission by definition. What got out of hand was the assumption that requiring everyone to mask up everywhere, all the time would somehow prevent the virus from spreading. The data indicates that assumption was false, and also that front-line essential workers, who should have caught the virus more often since they were exposed to the general public in order to do their jobs, did not show evidence that such exposure led to significantly more infection.
Ergo, we would have done better to use protocols and practices employed in past pandemics.
Not true. We could have treated this the way we handled SARs or Legionnaires disease, for example. It was stupid on steroids to make panic official policy.
If that were all that happened, I would agree with you. But as you well know, that's not all that happened. Fauci buried the theory publicly to the point that social media platforms were canceling those who suggested a man-made origin, only to reverse course again last week when he said that it was a possibility the virus is man-made. That is irresponsible behavior at best.Sam Lowry said:Considering all possibilities before reaching a conclusion is not scandalous behavior. It's what scientists are supposed to do.Mothra said:Yup. No doubt Sam will come to the defense of that behavior.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data. The science about how the virus functions does not change with polling data. That was irresponsible, at best, on his part.
Of course, privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being man-made while burying the theory publicly shortly thereafter, only to reverse course again just last week, is an even bigger concern.
Here it is:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:Completely false.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data.
It is straight from the horses mouth.
Direct quote from him in public interview.
It is only completely false if the interview was a deep fake video. It wasn't.
We've both seen and discussed the video. You know by now that he was working with new scientific information, not just polling data.D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:Completely false.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data.
It is straight from the horses mouth.
Direct quote from him in public interview.
It is only completely false if the interview was a deep fake video. It wasn't.
Sam Lowry said:We've both seen and discussed the video. You know by now that he was working with new scientific information, not just polling data.D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:Completely false.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data.
It is straight from the horses mouth.
Direct quote from him in public interview.
It is only completely false if the interview was a deep fake video. It wasn't.
Fauci isn't responsible for social media. Reversing course is also appropriate based on new information, in this case regarding the poor safety protocols at the lab. Though it should be said, he still thinks the virus probably evolved naturally.Mothra said:If that were all that happened, I would agree with you. But as you well know, that's not all that happened. Fauci buried the theory publicly to the point that social media platforms were canceling those who suggested a man-made origin, only to reverse course again last week when he said that it was a possibility the virus is man-made. That is irresponsible behavior at best.Sam Lowry said:Considering all possibilities before reaching a conclusion is not scandalous behavior. It's what scientists are supposed to do.Mothra said:Yup. No doubt Sam will come to the defense of that behavior.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data. The science about how the virus functions does not change with polling data. That was irresponsible, at best, on his part.
Of course, privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being man-made while burying the theory publicly shortly thereafter, only to reverse course again just last week, is an even bigger concern.
Sam Lowry said:Fauci isn't responsible for social media. Reversing course is also appropriate based on new information, in this case regarding the poor safety protocols at the lab. Though it should be said, he still thinks the virus probably evolved naturally.Mothra said:If that were all that happened, I would agree with you. But as you well know, that's not all that happened. Fauci buried the theory publicly to the point that social media platforms were canceling those who suggested a man-made origin, only to reverse course again last week when he said that it was a possibility the virus is man-made. That is irresponsible behavior at best.Sam Lowry said:Considering all possibilities before reaching a conclusion is not scandalous behavior. It's what scientists are supposed to do.Mothra said:Yup. No doubt Sam will come to the defense of that behavior.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data. The science about how the virus functions does not change with polling data. That was irresponsible, at best, on his part.
Of course, privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being man-made while burying the theory publicly shortly thereafter, only to reverse course again just last week, is an even bigger concern.
Yep....I was dead wrong about this guy.BornAgain said:
The guy is a tool. He played us all.
I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.Robert Wilson said:I don't really disagree with any of that.Oldbear83 said:I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.
Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available.
Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders.
But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.
Publicly burying the possibility - to the point of suggesting those who spread it are conspiracy theorists - and then completely reversing course is irresponsible, however you want to spin it.Sam Lowry said:Fauci isn't responsible for social media. Reversing course is also appropriate based on new information, in this case regarding the poor safety protocols at the lab. Though it should be said, he still thinks the virus probably evolved naturally.Mothra said:If that were all that happened, I would agree with you. But as you well know, that's not all that happened. Fauci buried the theory publicly to the point that social media platforms were canceling those who suggested a man-made origin, only to reverse course again last week when he said that it was a possibility the virus is man-made. That is irresponsible behavior at best.Sam Lowry said:Considering all possibilities before reaching a conclusion is not scandalous behavior. It's what scientists are supposed to do.Mothra said:Yup. No doubt Sam will come to the defense of that behavior.D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.Porteroso said:Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?
The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.
Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.
"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data. The science about how the virus functions does not change with polling data. That was irresponsible, at best, on his part.
Of course, privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being man-made while burying the theory publicly shortly thereafter, only to reverse course again just last week, is an even bigger concern.
LOL. No, you would just find a way to spin his dishonest statements like you always do.Sam Lowry said:I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.Robert Wilson said:I don't really disagree with any of that.Oldbear83 said:I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.
Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available.
Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders.
But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.
It did raise a red flag. That's why I went and found out what he actually said.Mothra said:LOL. No, you would just find a way to spin his dishonest statements like you always do.Sam Lowry said:I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.Robert Wilson said:I don't really disagree with any of that.Oldbear83 said:I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.Robert Wilson said:You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.Sam Lowry said:Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.Porteroso said:Doc Holliday said:
The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.
He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.
Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.
Unsurprising.
Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.
Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available.
Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders.
But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.
There is a direct quote above in which he admitted he considered polling data in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity. That should raise red flags with any reasonable person.