The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm Posts: 32276 Location: Buenos Aires
surfndestroy wrote:
There are points in time that maybe scientists should say "we don't have enough data to have an informed opinion,"
A lot of the early messaging was definitely along the lines of "this is really fucking new and we're finding new things about it every day and that's why we should err on the side of caution"
I think Redfield would get some votes early on because he's a big guy and it would look amusing but Birx to me would really run away with it. Fauci has proven performance anxieties based on his attempt at throwing out first pitch.
There are points in time that maybe scientists should say "we don't have enough data to have an informed opinion,"
A lot of the early messaging was definitely along the lines of "this is really fucking new and we're finding new things about it every day and that's why we should err on the side of caution"
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm Posts: 32276 Location: Buenos Aires
verb_to_trust wrote:
Jorge wrote:
surfndestroy wrote:
There are points in time that maybe scientists should say "we don't have enough data to have an informed opinion,"
A lot of the early messaging was definitely along the lines of "this is really fucking new and we're finding new things about it every day and that's why we should err on the side of caution"
Oh, and don't wear a mask, masks are pointless.
I don't understand why you think this is a "gotcha" -- it furthers Stickman's argument. Recommendations are amended as new information emerges. So?
There are points in time that maybe scientists should say "we don't have enough data to have an informed opinion,"
A lot of the early messaging was definitely along the lines of "this is really fucking new and we're finding new things about it every day and that's why we should err on the side of caution"
There are points in time that maybe scientists should say "we don't have enough data to have an informed opinion,"
A lot of the early messaging was definitely along the lines of "this is really fucking new and we're finding new things about it every day and that's why we should err on the side of caution"
Oh, and don't wear a mask, masks are pointless.
I don't understand why you think this is a "gotcha" -- it furthers Stickman's argument. Recommendations are amended as new information emerges. So?
Didn't they admit this was the messaging early on so they could keep supplies on hand for the hospitals? Probably a pretty important thing to do, but 6 months later when you're trying to get people to listen to you that mixed messaging doesn't help.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm Posts: 32276 Location: Buenos Aires
verb_to_trust wrote:
Jorge wrote:
verb_to_trust wrote:
Jorge wrote:
surfndestroy wrote:
There are points in time that maybe scientists should say "we don't have enough data to have an informed opinion,"
A lot of the early messaging was definitely along the lines of "this is really fucking new and we're finding new things about it every day and that's why we should err on the side of caution"
Oh, and don't wear a mask, masks are pointless.
I don't understand why you think this is a "gotcha" -- it furthers Stickman's argument. Recommendations are amended as new information emerges. So?
Didn't they admit this was the messaging early on so they could keep supplies on hand for the hospitals? Probably a pretty important thing to do, but 6 months later when you're trying to get people to listen to you that mixed messaging doesn't help.
There are points in time that maybe scientists should say "we don't have enough data to have an informed opinion,"
A lot of the early messaging was definitely along the lines of "this is really fucking new and we're finding new things about it every day and that's why we should err on the side of caution"
Oh, and don't wear a mask, masks are pointless.
I don't understand why you think this is a "gotcha" -- it furthers Stickman's argument. Recommendations are amended as new information emerges. So?
Didn't they admit this was the messaging early on so they could keep supplies on hand for the hospitals? Probably a pretty important thing to do, but 6 months later when you're trying to get people to listen to you that mixed messaging doesn't help.
I remember that being a concern early on yeah
So you don't see how it might not be wise for Mr. follow the science to basically admit after the fact he fibbed about something? Even if it was for the greater good? In a country polarized beyond repair?
He's not saying "yep sorry I lied," he was acting with the information they had at the time, and as soon as more information became clear -- that it could be spread by asymptomatic carriers, and that homemade facemasks had some effectiveness in slowing the spread -- they corrected the recommendation
There were a number of institutions advising against mask use at the time, not just in the US
It just doesn't make sense to me how a smart guy would make that forceful of a recommendation if it weren't for ulterior motives. Especially when the go to for experts is double talk and no promises.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm Posts: 32276 Location: Buenos Aires
verb_to_trust wrote:
Jorge wrote:
verb_to_trust wrote:
The surgeon general straight up lied.
How do you figure?
There were a number of institutions advising against mask use at the time, not just in the US
It just doesn't make sense to me how a smart guy would make that forceful of a recommendation if it weren't for ulterior motives. Especially when the go to for experts is double talk and no promises.
What would the "ulterior motive" be in this case? If you mean preventing a mask shortage for hospital workers, then it's really not that "ulterior" as he straight up states it as one of the reasons he was advising against mask use. It checks out that this concern, coupled with what appears to have been the scientific consensus at the time, inform his directive. For the record, I don't think Fauci, the Surgeon General, or even "experts" as a monolithic figure are infallible or incorruptible -- of course they're not. But I also think the whole "no one knows anything! Everything is pointless! No one knows what they're talking about! Everyone's talking out of their ass" thing is myopic, obscurantist, unhelpful, and super fucking tiresome
Joined: Fri January 04, 2013 1:46 am Posts: 2837 Location: Connecticut
His logic was pretty widespread at the time, and basically about user error. I don't think he was lying, I think evidence was lacking.
Quote:
in an interview with “Fox & Friends” on March 2 he said:
One of the things [the general public] shouldn’t be doing is going out and buying masks … It has not been proven to be effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus amongst the general public … Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot, and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus. You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a healthcare provider.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
