Public Health and the Public

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  141 comments

By:   drjjoyner (Outside the Beltway)

Public Health and the Public
Are Fauci, the CDC, and others getting a bum rap?

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Public Health and the Public


Are Fauci, the CDC, and others getting a bum rap?


James Joyner · Sunday, January 9, 2022 · 71 comments

Kevin Drum offers "A Brief Timeline of CDC Advice."


1. Somebody publishes research suggesting that things have changed. This gets reported.

2. A cadre of loud and persistent critics begins demanding that the CDC skip its usual bureaucratic dilly-dallying and change its guidelines now. Science has spoken. This gets reported.

3. Someone leaks the news that the CDC is thinking about announcing a change. This gets reported.

4. The CDC announces new guidance. This gets reported

5. A new pack of critics begins yelling that the CDC blew it and the guidelines really should have stated something different. This gets reported.

6. Someone finds a source in the FDA who says the the CDC never consulted with them, and this explains why they screwed things up. This gets reported.

7. The CDC explains its guidelines with some added nuance. This gets reported.

8. Every doctor and pseudo-doctor on TV, radio, and social media begins to loudly debate the guidelines. In newspapers and on local TV, reporters produce pieces listing the pros and cons of each side.

9. After inhaling all this, half the country complains that the CDC waited too long. The other half complains that they acted too quickly and caved to political expediency. A third half complains that they just can't keep up with the CDC's constantly changing advice.

10. Somebody publishes research suggesting that something else has changed. This gets reported.

Rinse and repeat.

Commenter Joel approvingly adds,


The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: "Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?" This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment.

I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyzed before taking some action. With new evidence, a change in action is sometimes warranted.

Thanks to COVID, the curtain on research and discovery has been pulled away and the omniscient Oz is revealed to be a mere mortal doing their best with the resources at hand. So when new and better data appear, it is right and responsible to examine previous advice in light of those data. This happens all the time, even if most people don't see it.

So rather than prating at the CDC for evolving standards in light of new data as though discovering that papal bull was found to be papal bull****, celebrate the fact that science is self-correcting and, overall, moves towards better understanding. To paraphrase MLK: "the arc of the scientific universe is long, but it bends toward truth."

And Clawback piles on,


I'm always amazed at the inability of people to deal with uncertainty. Look, it's a "novel" coronavirus, right? Almost nothing was known about it initially, and it takes time to understand its behavior, especially since it's constantly changing. Any official advice is going to be preliminary and you're going to have to use judgment when applying it. I guess critical thinking just isn't really a thing among either our elites or the public.

And Salamander takes it a step further:


The public/pundit rage-fests seem a part of the American public's drift into absolutist, babyish, dogma-based thinking. Look at Bush the Lesser and his endless use of the infantile term "bad guys". Also, the bible-beater domination of the Republican Party and their reliance on immutable, fixed, scriptural "truth." Which, incredibly, can change for them daily, based on the current moods of their new dark god — but that's OK!

The rise of what was once billed as "24 hour news" channels, which in fact amount to 24 hours of every opinionated talking head addressing the same small story — or non-story — over and over and over, all day long, has helped propel these stupidities and rushes to judgment, as has the speed of the several internet gossip "apps."

If the public was better at critical thinking, evaluating information, detecting bull, the problem wouldn't be as severe, and lots of companies would have to find other ways to make themselves filthy rich.

There's clearly a lot of nonsense in the public debate over the CDC guidelines, attributable to many causes. The politicization of the virus by former President Trump and the right-wing infotainment complex hasn't helped. Republican governors and mayors have followed suit, taking idiotic stances against masking, vaccination, and other measures. Whether in reaction or because of different circumstances, some of their Democratic counterparts have gone too far in the other direction, treating masking and the like as a shibboleth. This has all been compounded by the natural attitudinal and cultural differences between densely-packed urban centers and rural and suburban areas. Add in the American "you can't tell me what to do" attitude, an Internet that makes everyone think they're a medical expert because they can "do my own research," and social media bubbled and algorithms that feed them just for fun.

At the same time, let's not pretend that the CDC guidelines are simply the evolving scientific consensus on an emergent and constantly evolving situation. As I've noted many times as this has unfolded, public health isn't just about the science, it's about messaging, incentives, political realities, and balancing competing policy priorities.

Public health officials deliberately lied to the American public about masking because we had limited stocks of medical-grade respirators and surgical masks and didn't want panic buying to take them away from frontline workers who needed them more. Way too late, they decided that, well, cloth masks would be okay. And way, way too late they told us that, well, cloth masks aren't really all that valuable and we should upgrade to medical-grade masks-but preferably the ones from Korea rather than the ones American healthcare workers use. This, not unreasonably, sowed confusion and distrust.

Similarly, when they issued guidance that fully-vaccinated people should be allowed to go about their lives (with modest exceptions like masking on airplanes) just as they did before, they were making a public policy choice, not a medical one. They reasoned, correctly, that this would encourage people to get vaccinated, which was the best way to get to "herd immunity." But, because the politics mitigated against vaccine passports outside maybe a handful of tightly-packed cities, this also allowed the unvaccinated to free ride and almost certainly contributed to the spread of the virus.

CDC director Rochelle Walensky has admitted that the agency has done a bad job of communicating with the public. Part of it is simply a function of trying to distill a complicated decision tree into simple recommendations. Part of it is genuine disagreement among the top researchers in the field as to what the evidence shows. Part of it is balancing competing priorities.

So, absolutely, too much of the criticism of the CDC is just a function of non-experts watching the sausage being made and not understanding or liking what they're seeing. But a lot of it is the fault of officials doing a bad job of the public part of public health.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Please read and digest the article before commenting. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

I briefly scanned it but I have an idea what the gist of the seed is. Scientists didn't know a thing about this virus when it first showed up so guidelines were the basic guidelines of any virus-type disease...wash hands, avoid contact, cough into your sleeve. As scientists learned more about the virus better guidelines were developed.

What the normal lay person doesn't seem to understand is that science is dynamic which means it changes as more information is learned. So Fauci didn't recommend masks at first then he changed his mind. That's what scientists do when they learn new things. He's not being wishy washy, he's trying to tell what he thinks is the best way for us to keep from getting sick

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
1.1.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    2 weeks ago
What the normal lay person doesn't seem to understand is that science is dynamic which means it changes as more information is learned.

[deleted] Problem is it doesn't change minute to minute second to second... Which is the environment we have lived in for two years... if it isn't a government paid talking head it's a media paid talking head... we are bombarded with it incessantly day in day out... so many talking heads all paid for and all saying something different, who do you believe?

I believe my personal physician, who believes the same as I do, this is a fraud and will be over when the people stop buying it... And she is one of the most well regarded physicians in the state... She has been vaxxed as well as I... She has to fear for her job cause if anyone complains that she is giving out "Misinformation" to the government she will lose her license to practice... 

When I'm told that I have to obey information given out under threat to a persons livelyhood, I look to the reason for the threat and try to learn why they are being threatened and what is being withheld... The information being given under threat comes with a HUGE question mark at that point...

Coupled with the proven information that the government is and has been caught padding figures....

What your all arguing on the liberal side for is blind acceptance, and to an intelligent person that should NEVER, EVER happen...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
Problem is it doesn't change minute to minute second to second... Which is the environment we have lived in for two years...

During a pandemic, the information is indeed rapidly changing as the world learns about that which is on the bleeding edge of our understanding.    But your claim of reported findings changing minute to minute is ridiculous hyperbole.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Time to find a new personal physician.  Sounds like a real quack.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.1    2 weeks ago
What your all arguing on the liberal side for is blind acceptance

See that is just more bullshit.   First, I am not a liberal, but more importantly most people do not advocate blind of acceptance scientific findings.   That is just more hyperbole.

Many (especially those with a strong driving bias) ignore the nuances of reality and leap to the extreme that satisfies their bias.   That is an excellent way to be wrong.   Those who are wrong —and stubbornly insist on their extreme views as being a correct read of reality— destroy their credibility.    Finally, when the reasons the wrong notions are explained, some cannot handle being corrected and get emotional.

Science provides an awesome service to humanity.   It is imperfect since it is on the bleeding edge of knowledge and also because human beings are imperfect.   Rational minds realize this and factor it into the equation.   In the end, rational minds recognize that science has historically expanded our knowledge towards truth far more than it has misled.   Its findings have repeatedly proved to be correct as evidenced by the fields (typically engineering) which apply science to build buildings, space stations, vehicles, bridges, vaccines, etc.

But there are always those with a particular bias who seek to distort reality to their desires.   Those who are attacking Fauci are doing just that.   They pretend that Fauci is supposed to know everything about the pandemic and thus always make perfect, future-proof recommendations.   And they also pretend that science can never lead to different recommendations based on changing conditions (e.g. the emergence of a new variant of a virus) or based on new information that adjusts a prior finding.

It is sickening to watch the partisan | ideological bias at play nowadays.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
See that is just more bullshit. 

It's not.  It's an ongoing theme in American public discourse, in which Covid is simply a recent chapter.

First, I am not a liberal,

Right.  So take yourself out of it and look at it from outside the petri dish.

more importantly most people do not advocate blind of acceptance scientific findings.

"Most" is immaterial when the loudest and most hysterical voices are dominating the public square.  The fact is that many people demand blind obedience quite loudly because it assuages their own emotional insecurities.

You know as well as I do that the people most likely to declare loudly and emotionally that "I believe in science" are also those most likely to think Avogadro's Number must be where he gets his text messages.

Many (especially those with a strong driving bias) ignore the nuances of reality and leap to the extreme that satisfies their bias.   That is an excellent way to be wrong. 

Sure.  But that predates Covid by a long time.  It just spilled over, drawing Covid in as just another issue in the bucket of lunacy that American society has become.

Science provides an awesome service to humanity. 

Obviously.  The issue here is how non-scientific people misapply science, and then often demand others do the same.

Rational minds

Fine...but as a society, we're not rational.   As the line goes... "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

We're currently in one of those historical eras where prolonged peace and prosperity have given us the luxury of pretending "emotional" is just a different kind of "rational".   Some people expect to "feel good" no matter what, and they have no reticence whatsoever in demanding that everyone else do whatever they believe will make that happen. 

Unsurprisingly, the people they attempt to strongarm are unhappy about it.

Those who are attacking Fauci are doing just that.   They pretend that Fauci is supposed to know everything about the pandemic and thus always make perfect, future-proof recommendations.

Meh.  I think it has far less to do with Fauci himself and far more to do with the hysterical people demanding nonsensical compliance with shit they clearly misunderstand based on what they thought they heard Fauci say.... and you better not challenge them or they'll get Avogadro on the phone RIGHT NOW because they have his number.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
Right.  So take yourself out of it and look at it from outside the petri dish.

I am already outside of the petri dish.  

"Most" is immaterial when the loudest and most hysterical voices are dominating the public square. 

It is not immaterial.   What most people think and do is of critical importance.   More so than the loudest and most hysterical voices.

You know as well as I do that the people most likely to declare loudly and emotionally that "I believe in science" are also those most likely to think Avogadro's Number must be where he gets his text messages.

Those who claim to 'believe in science' almost certainly do not know what they are talking about.

Sure.  But that predates Covid by a long time. 

Yes it does.   By the way, why are you focusing on Covid?   My entire post was about science in general and not any particular phenomenon.

Obviously.  The issue here is how non-scientific people misapply science, and then often demand others do the same.

People should not call this non-scientific misapplication 'science'.   People blame 'science' when they should be blaming those who misuse science for their own benefit.

Fine...but as a society, we're not rational.   

I was talking about rational minds.    Individuals, not society.   I made no comment on sociology.

Some people expect to "feel good" no matter what, and they have no reticence whatsoever in demanding that everyone else do whatever they believe will make that happen. 

I agree.  

I think it has far less to do with Fauci himself and far more to do with the hysterical people demanding nonsensical compliance with shit they clearly misunderstand based on what they thought they heard Fauci say.... and you better not challenge them or they'll get Avogadro on the phone RIGHT NOW because they have his number.

Same here.   The Fauci bashing phenomenon is bizarre.   Apparently it started with Trump trying to discredit Fauci and that set the tone of "Fauci = bad".   From then on it looks to me like good old fashioned confirmation bias.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.7  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.6    2 weeks ago
It is not immaterial.   What most people think and do is of critical importance.   More so than the loudest and most hysterical voices.

I think history disagrees, but that's a separate discussion.  Pertinent to this discussion is perception, which a small minority can influence drastically.  

By the way, why are you focusing on Covid?

Because we're on a seed about Covid, you mentioned Fauci by name, and because Covid is the overwhelmingly favorite topic for anybody currently debating the "validity of science" or "infallibility of scientists" (depending on which group you're talking to).

People should not call this non-scientific misapplication 'science'.   People blame 'science' when they should be blaming those who misuse science for their own benefit.

They shouldn't, but they do.  It's kinda like how Bernie Sanders creates problems for the Democratic Party, even though he's not a Democrat.  Or how televangelists create problems for traditional religions, even though they have nothing to do with each other.

I was talking about rational minds.

Rational minds are not doing the things you're complaining about.  The most egregious thing rational minds are doing is dwindling in number.

The Fauci bashing phenomenon is bizarre.   Apparently it started with Trump trying to discredit Fauci and that set the tone of "Fauci = bad".   From then on it looks to me like good old fashioned confirmation bias.

Fauci was thrust into the middle of a brainless political shitstorm, and just was not the man for that job.  He's a good scientist and a good man, but he never really seemed to grasp that the 330 million people he was talking to contained about 270 million complete simpletons who were three unsupervised minutes away from either kissing 50 strangers at a pride party on the beach or injecting themselves with medication the vet left for the horses.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.7    2 weeks ago
Pertinent to this discussion is perception, which a small minority can influence drastically.  

It is always a small minority that influences perception.   That has been true throughout history.   It is also always a small minority that rules ... also true throughout history.   

Ultimately:  "What most people think and do is of critical importance. " and "... most people do not advocate blind of acceptance scientific findings.".    The phrase "trust the science" likely connotes (to most people) as:

"scientific findings are the result of specialists whose full time job is to study these things so they probably are a good source to go with"

as opposed to:

"do not think, do not question, just accept the science and STFU".  

The latter is the hyperbole to which I object and deem bullshit.

Because we're on a seed about Covid, you mentioned Fauci by name, and because Covid is the overwhelmingly favorite topic for anybody currently debating the "validity of science" or "infallibility of scientists" (depending on which group you're talking to).

The focus of my comment was not on Fauci or the pandemic but rather on the hyperbole of blind acceptance and the partisan attacks on science.

They shouldn't, but they do. 

Which is why some of us will continue to challenge those misguided notions.

Rational minds are not doing the things you're complaining about. 

Which was my point:

TiG @1.1.4 ☞ In the end, rational minds recognize that science has historically expanded our knowledge towards truth far more than it has misled.   Its findings have repeatedly proved to be correct as evidenced by the fields (typically engineering) which apply science to build buildings, space stations, vehicles, bridges, vaccines, etc.

I am implicitly criticizing the irrational minds.

He's a good scientist and a good man, but he never really seemed to grasp that the 330 million people he was talking to contained about 270 million complete simpletons who were three unsupervised minutes away from either kissing 50 strangers at a pride party on the beach or injecting themselves with medication the vet left for the horses.

Of course I agree in principle.   However, I resist viewing ~82% of the population of the USA as 'complete simpletons' who are unable to understand what Fauci was communicating.   I suspect (almost certain, actually) your opinions are not as harsh as your words might suggest.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Krishna  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

And she is one of the most well regarded physicians in the state..

Well my personal physician is one of the most highly regarded physical in the entire country-- if not the entire world!

(And she says your phyiscian is lying! 

You see what i did there?

MY PHYSICIAN IS BETTER THAN YOUR PHYSICIAN..NYA, NYA, NYA, NYA! 

{Of course the other thing we're doing here is playing a variation of the time-honoured "People Are Saying" card!)

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.10  cjcold  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Due to your typing mistakes, your comments lead me to believe you are Russian. 

Knew some Russians once who made the same mistakes.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

Russia, Russia, Russia.

is that you, Hillary?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2  Mark in Wyoming     2 weeks ago

Following to see how the discussion goes .

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2    2 weeks ago

Yeah I'm going to as well, this should prove entertaining at least... {chuckle}

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1    2 weeks ago

Why, are you going to entertain us ?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.1.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

No I'll let you do that...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

This is one of the more interesting articles I've seen in a while, which is why it probably wont get any comments. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.1.4  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    2 weeks ago

Not disagreeing with you my friend, it relates truths, interesting truths that many supporting the governments position do not want to accept...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: "Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?" This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment

Because circumstances changed, information about the virus and its spread and effect changed, and vaccine results and treatment options changed, those prone to conspiracies and "alternative" views based on internet "experts" disregard the governments medical experts directions. 

It is folly to disregard medical advice because it "changes" with new information and data. 

This disregard is what 20 or 30 years of conservatives falling prey to conspiracy thinking has brought us. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

I'd rather believe the nations best medical experts, even if they change their advice over a period of time, than someone on the internet telling me to take a product meant for horses. How about you Nowhere Man ? 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.1.7  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.6    2 weeks ago
I'd rather believe the nations best medical experts, even if they change their advice over a period of time, than someone on the internet telling me to take a product meant for horses. How about you Nowhere Man ? 

The problem is their opinions aren't changing over a period of time, unless the time it takes to change the TV or Radio channel you consider a period of time...

As far as Ivermectin?  Horse De-Worming is only one of it's uses and that is not the same Ivermectin approved for the use on humans.. Here is some info from the FDA....

Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea.  Some forms of animal ivermectin are approved to prevent heartworm disease and treat certain internal and external parasites. It’s important to note that these products are different from the ones for people, and safe only when used in animals as prescribed.

No it's not approved for treatment of Covid 19 but they are still testing it... Ivermectin is used more in and on humans than it is in/on animals...

I don't take any medications without consulting a medical professional I can trust... I don't just accept any Dr's medical opinion unless the situation forces it... Especially Dr's being paid by the media to defend a political position... 

This Ivermectin thing is one of the issues that exposes intent.. it's easy to find out that it is a human medicine that in more powerful forms is used to do the same thing in animals it does in humans, since it CAN be used on both it is a fairly benign drug compound...

The ridiculing of Ivermectin is a media driven campaign to discredit any opposing viewpoint... But what it really does is display the motives of the ridiculers... 

If it was really just a horse De-wormer as is claimed, why are they still testing it against Covid -19?

Ivermectin is a human medicine adapted to animals... That is what the pharmacology says... So John, you still going to go with a media talking heads opinion of what it is, (and continue the bold faced lie) or the scientific description of what it is?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.7    2 weeks ago

What is the "bold  faced lie" ?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.1.9  Nowhere Man  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.8    2 weeks ago

That's it an Veterinarian medicine not fit for humans?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
2.1.10  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.7    2 weeks ago

Ivermectin is used on parasite infestations.  Assuming it would work on a novel virus is like assuming aspirin might be a cure for a missing limb.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.1.11  Split Personality  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

What do you think people were buying at the feed store,  You don't need to buy it from a veterinarian.

You just need cash.

And if you read the label, guess what?  "poisonous"

800

800

But it does come in apple flavor.....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.12  devangelical  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.1.13  Split Personality  replied to  devangelical @2.1.12    2 weeks ago

It does come in injectibles particularly for cows but that involves knowing the cows weight very accurately 

and some math, much more dangerous than pills or paste.

More likely to be administered by a Veterinarian.

My feed store has someone studying to be a vet and lots of people bring in barnyard animals and dogs

for free treatments/advice.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.1.14  Nowhere Man  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.10    2 weeks ago
Ivermectin is used on parasite infestations.  Assuming it would work on a novel virus is like assuming aspirin might be a cure for a missing limb.

Yes it is, in both humans and animals, whomever is using it without proper medical counseling is a fool...

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.13    2 weeks ago

There are 30 feed stores within 15 miles of me.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.1.16  Nowhere Man  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.11    2 weeks ago
And if you read the label, guess what?  "poisonous"

Yes, very true.. the versions used for animals are way too powerful for human usage... And as I have said usage without proper medical advice is both foolish and stupid...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.1.17  Nowhere Man  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.15    2 weeks ago
There are 30 feed stores within 15 miles of me.

We have 4 within 5 miles, this is also horse and cow country... No Vet or feed store out here will sell it to anyone talking about treating Covid...

It's against the law...

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Expert
2.1.18  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
It is folly to disregard medical advice because it "changes" with new information and data.

I've never understood those that refuse to consider changes in status when re-evaluating a circumstance, especially in regard to science.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.1.18    2 weeks ago

I think some truly do not understand science.   However, there are others who I am confident understand science but are so focused on partisan spin that they do not care if they come across as utterly ignorant of science.   The politics is more important than personal credibility.

Bizarre.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.20  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.1.18    2 weeks ago

they can't believe in the evolution of anything...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.21  cjcold  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

Learn to use a/an and punctuation correctly. [removed]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.22  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @2.1.21    2 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
2.2  Krishna  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2    2 weeks ago
Following to see how the discussion goes .

But don't these political "discussions" here always go the same way...?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

The information has been confusing, conflicting, incomplete and, ambiguous from day one. The main stream media continues to fan the flames of hysteria. The public is Covid weary and are tuning it out...and according to MSN....AOC has tested positive for Covid

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
3.1  Krishna  replied to  Greg Jones @3    2 weeks ago
The main stream media continues to fan the flames of hysteria

So by that statement, either you are claiming that A- Fox News is not mainstream media...or else  B-that while it is mainstream media, it is not fanning the flames of hysteria?

(Either way its a losing proposition...)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

Rings true to me.   It just amazes me, for example, how so many people seem to be utterly unaware of what science is and how it works.    Those who think science (which operates on the bleeding edge of knowledge) is going to magically get everything right the first time are truly so unaware that they should not be opening their mouths.

To think that the CDC, NIH, etc. are doing something wrong by updating recommendations based on evolving and new information is just staggeringly stupid.

But this is the mentality of millions in our nation.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4    2 weeks ago
It just amazes me, for example, how so many people seem to be utterly unaware of what science is and how it works.   

That no longer amazes me. Now it just saddens me.

To think that the CDC, NIH, etc. are doing something wrong by updating recommendations based on evolving and new information is just staggeringly stupid.

It seems we as a nation have become staggeringly stupid. Just look at how many people oppose vaccinations, downplay Covid, think Trump won the election, ect..

But this is the mentality of millions in our nation.  

It's also a sad commentary on our nation. No wonder we're slipping.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
4.2  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @4    2 weeks ago
so unaware that they should not be opening their mouths

But let's get real here.

After all, isn't that what happens in some 90% of the discussions on Social Media sites?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5  Nowhere Man    2 weeks ago

There is the set of personages in our society who believe it's science, we should automatically believe everything they say and follow every recommendation they make... They are astounded that people can be so stupid as to not follow the talking head.. Heck it's science... right?

The population is staggeringly stupid to coin the phrase....

But there's a problem that such opinions expressed by the elitists just are ignorant of in their disgust of people who seem not to want to follow the groupthink they think should be automatically followed..

How many talking heads does it take to say "Turn out the lights" and how many times must a talking head repeat themselves? Well, this does come somewhat from the attitudes I just described above, they believe that the more times they say it to the stupid people some of them just might get it and obey.... so they bring out more and more different talking heads... They bring out the latest updates just seconds old cause in their zeal to save everyone the information no matter how minute or inconsequential, MUST be sent out, Those Idiots MUST be Informed!!!

They are trying to save the planet right?

But what they are really doing is confusing everyone.. One official talking head is saying one thing, another official talking head is saying another... repeat that in every market, village, town, city, state and region... Each one has their ownest own "Official" talking head and as the attitude shows they MUST be obeyed... we are stupid is we don't...

What happens when they are not all saying the same things? and sometimes what they are saying is at cross purposes to each other? But we just need to get the info out there so lets get the politicians to spread the messages that must be heard and obeyed as well! And since many pay as much attention to the politicians as they do the talking heads, lets enlist the MEDIA! Mass Media, great now we have clueless talking heads parroting things they couldn't comprehend in the first place with all the moral authority of the Talking heads and the agenda driving politicians behind them...

Who in their right minds would fail to obey such an elite army that is trying to save all the stupid people!

And on top of this overabundance of confusing contradictory information, we find out one of the leading talking heads, was the prime funding source for creating the disaster in the first place... we find out that the political talking heads and skewing the data to make the situation seem worse than it actually is cause they need certain conditions to impose what they want us all to do under the force of law...

And of course the thousands of clueless media talking heads lamenting "It's also a sad commentary on our nation. No wonder we're slipping."... or  "It seems we as a nation have become staggeringly stupid."

All because, people are confused by this onslaught of information much of it conflicting, emotions of don't you care people are dying, to the arrogant claims HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID!!!!

And then we find out they were lying all along... the peoples common sense, which they were using from the start, is the only thing left to rely on... the talking heads and their scientists can't come up with a reliable cure, the politicians only want to push their political agenda while the people heads are occupied by the talking heads... and the media is simply being the blind, dumb and stupid megaphone for the other two cause that is what they are paid to do, BE blind dumb and stupid...

None of this confusing mass of conflict takes into account every person going into the hospital is tested, if they test positive they are tallied up as a covid patient even though they are wheeling him to radiology to get shots of the massive compound leg fracture he just happens to have... Since he is here for covid care, we might just as well take care of that broken leg .... I mean it's the right thing to do isn't it?

The scientific types are exclaiming in shock as to why people don't just submit to their overwhelming smartness...

After two years of the ever shifting overwhelming smartness backed by the smarmy corrupt politicians and their clueless barkers on the tube...

Is it any wonder that the people are ignoring the blaring chicken proclaiming they will be extinct if they don't follow the prescribed, now legally mandated, course when it is clear they don't even have a clue themselves...

And we the people are the stupid ones.... It's our fault...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  Nowhere Man @5    2 weeks ago
There is the set of personages in our society who believe it's science, we should automatically believe everything they say and follow every recommendation they make... They are astounded that people can be so stupid as to not follow the talking head.. Heck it's science... right?

Anyone who understands science knows that science is not something that is given by authority to be believed.   Rather, science produces explanations for phenomena based on empirical evidence, formal verification, testing and continual adversarial challenges.    One accepts a particular finding of science or not.

Now, science also represents the work of professionals who specialize in a particular sub-discipline of science.   Their findings are, by definition, on the bleeding edge of human knowledge.   When these individuals produce findings of science one is free to reject them based on conspiracy theory, stubborn stupidity or whatever.   One is also free to do research, look at statistics of trials and usages, etc. and then accept or reject the findings based on objective factors (e.g.  not being convinced that sufficient verification has been done).

In short, if one views science as an authoritative force (to be resisted) one is truly clueless about science.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.1.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    2 weeks ago
In short, if one views science as an authoritative force (to be resisted) one is truly clueless about science.

No it's not, but then I'm not clueless am I... {chuckle} Scientists USE politicians to provide the force of government, in exchange they get funding...

I'm not clueless about science nor government neither am I clueless as to how both Government and Science uses the media... What is clueless is the educated claiming it isn't this way.... The big lie that science doesn't have an agenda...

Just the fact that such is claimed by the educated shows the intent... An intent that isn't in the publics interest... Like Fauci through the National Institute of Health funding the increase of function research that created Covid... But then again to the educated that is a conspiracy theory... {chuckle}

One of the problem is all this "Objective" factoring, just who decides what is "Objective" and what isn't... not the scientists, they have a huge financial interest in the outcome... Not the government, they have their own interests of political power and control....

Just WHO decided what is objective? You? that makes me laugh...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
Scientists USE politicians to provide the force of government, in exchange they get funding...

There are corrupt people in every field.   It is a clear sign of not understanding science to categorically view science itself to be corrupt like the minority of scum-bags who prostitute science for $$$.

You?

Lame.   No, NWM, I have not even remotely hinted that I, personally, decide all that is objective.   Objective reasoning is a defined concept and it basically boils down to following solid evidence to wherever it leads and downplaying one's own personal bias.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.1.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

As usual, when at a loss you go personal.   With projection even.  I suggest you focus your attention on making sound, thoughtful replies instead of always resorting to personal attacks.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.1.5  Nowhere Man  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    2 weeks ago

[deleted..]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.5    2 weeks ago

We'll let you know when you provide facts.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    2 weeks ago

That's all he appears to have while you rely on facts and knowledge.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.8  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.6    2 weeks ago

break out the 10 year calendar...

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.9  squiggy  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Krishna  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
that makes me laugh...

LOL! jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
5.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Nowhere Man @5    2 weeks ago
There is the set of personages in our society who believe it's science, we should automatically believe everything they say and follow every recommendation they make... They are astounded that people can be so stupid as to not follow the talking head.. Heck it's science... right?

I'm addressing several points in the comment but ain't gonna copy the whole dang thing.

First of all it is a novel coronavirus.  The specific virus is new and not seen in humans before.  Science, across broad range of narrow disciplines, is playing catchup; science doesn't know.

The finger pointers excuse themselves by pointing out that science doesn't know and then order us to do something because they are following the science.  The finger pointers have elevated expert opinion, speculation, and conjecture to the same stature as knowledge.  'We believe' has become as important (and in some cases more important) than knowledge.  Expert consensus has relegated actual knowledge to obsolescence.  Even direct empirical knowledge cannot refute a consensus of expert opinion.

What has confused the public is the explanations that science doesn't know everything (don't blame science) accompanied by expert demands we follow the science (science knows everything).  That sort of doublespeak is a mainstay of politics.  Naturally the public views the response to the pandemic as political because of the doublespeak contradictions embedded in that response.  

The public is being expected to trust credentials.  And available information is being filtered and selected to polish the gloss on those credentials.  Those credentials are the litmus test for being part of the consensus, too.  The opinion of credentialed experts in the consensus isn't accountable to knowledge.  Since the coronavirus is novel and new, science doesn't know.  Now science doesn't need to know.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.2    2 weeks ago

Okay Nerm, when a finding of science is made known to the public, what is your typical reaction?

Do you ...

  1. trust the science and simply accept it as truth?
  2. note the finding and consider it likely truth?
  3. question the finding and verify it by cross validating scientific analysis and looking at the research data?
  4. distrust the science and consider it likely false?
  5. reject the finding as false?

My answer is that I am usually 2;  I note the finding and consider it likely to be true because in my experience science is right far more often than wrong.   But I also think it through and if something causes me to be suspicious I will question the finding and research as per item 3.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
5.2.2  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.1    2 weeks ago
Okay Nerm, when a finding of science is made known to the public, what is your typical reaction?

Do you ...

  1. trust the science and simply accept it as truth?
  2. note the finding and consider it likely truth?
  3. question the finding and verify it by cross validating scientific analysis and looking at the research data?
  4. distrust the science and consider it likely false?
  5. reject the finding as false?
My answer is that I am usually 2;  I note the finding and consider it likely to be true because in my experience science is right far more often than wrong.   But I also think it through and if something causes me to be suspicious I will question the finding and research as per item 3.

The science is not making itself known to the public.  So, the trustworthiness of the source is a real issue.

When a spokesperson tells the public that data isn't available but mandates are being put in place out of an abundance of caution then there isn't any science involved.  No amount of expert hand waving overcomes the lack of data.  That's just bare naked politics.

And if the spokesperson has engaged in politics before then how is the public supposed to know the next time won't be more politics than science?  How is the public supposed to trust a spokesperson that freely engages in political doublespeak?

If the science is made known in a scientific journal then there is greater assurance that the science is trustworthy.  If the science is made known in a pop media publication then there is much less assurance of trustworthiness.  And if the science is made know by a hand waving expert that has freely engaged in political doublespeak before then there is no assurance of trustworthiness.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.2.2    2 weeks ago
The science is not making itself known to the public.  So, the trustworthiness of the source is a real issue.

I did not ask you about talking heads, I asked you about science itself.

When a spokesperson tells the public that data isn't available but mandates are being put in place out of an abundance of caution then there isn't any science involved. 

What does this specific scenario have to do with what I asked you?  

And if the spokesperson has engaged in politics before then how is the public supposed to know the next time won't be more politics than science? 

Rational adults typically figure out how to separate politics from science.   And if you cannot do that, then what to do you do ... reject everything you hear and dream up conspiracy theories??

If the science is made known in a scientific journal then there is greater assurance that the science is trustworthy. 

So you recognize that one should go to credible sources for information.   


You managed to totally ignore my question and you even quoted it.    Amazing.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
5.2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.3    2 weeks ago
I did not ask you about talking heads, I asked you about science itself.

I don't know what the science itself is because the science is filtered through a talking head.  Science hides behind very expensive paywalls.

What does this specific scenario have to do with what I asked you?  

Yep, the real world doesn't have anything to do with carefully crafted hypotheticals that only work on a game console in the parent's basement.

Rational adults typically figure out how to separate politics from science.   And if you cannot do that, then what to do you do ... reject everything you hear and dream up conspiracy theories??

So, the National Enquirer just has to call it science and you'll believe anything it publishes? 

What's the difference between a consensus without data and a conspiracy theory?  The consensus of science experts have been pushing conspiracy theories about spread of the virus for two years.

We're suppose to social distance but travel bans won't do anything?  That's a special kind of Q.  The Wuhan bush meat market was a conspiracy theory.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.2.4    2 weeks ago
I don't know what the science itself is because the science is filtered through a talking head. 

Oh come on Nerm, you are fully capable of digging to get plenty of information on the science.   You would never get down to research notes and that is not what I was suggesting you do (unless you really need to).

Yep, the real world doesn't have anything to do with carefully crafted hypotheticals that only work on a game console in the parent's basement.

Whatever that is supposed to mean, the end result is you still dodging my question.   But why?   It is not as though I asked a tough question  .... and I even gave my answers to it in the same comment.

So, the National Enquirer just has to call it science and you'll believe anything it publishes? 

Why do I even bother with you?   What is the point of making up nonsense like this?

We're suppose to social distance but travel bans won't do anything?

Social distancing is excellent and travel bans would absolutely make an impact.   Are we talking science or politics?  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
5.2.6  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.5    2 weeks ago
Whatever that is supposed to mean, the end result is you still dodging my question.   But why?   It is not as though I asked a tough question  .... and I even gave my answers to it in the same comment.

Where did I mention anything about trusting science?  You've drop kicked the standard talking points and are trying to move the goalposts to score a point.  You are not addressing what I wrote.

The public is being expected to trust the credentials of talking heads.  Science isn't even involved.  The only science that matters is whatever supports the opinions, speculation, and conjecture of expert talking heads that are telling us what to do.  We aren't allowed to see the science.  We aren't allowed to think.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @5.2.6    2 weeks ago

Nerm, we are done here.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Expert
5.2.8  Veronica  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.7    2 weeks ago

I do not know how you had the patience as long as you did.  

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
5.2.9  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @5.2    2 weeks ago
I'm addressing several points in the comment but ain't gonna copy the whole dang thing.

Thank goodness for that!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
5.2.10  Nerm_L  replied to  Krishna @5.2.9    2 weeks ago
Thank goodness for that!

You're welcome!  

384

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
5.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Nowhere Man @5    2 weeks ago

we find out one of the leading talking heads, was the prime funding source for creating the disaster in the first place

Someone is funding Mother Nature?  She created all the pandemics of the past, and will continue to do so in the future.  Pretending that Mother Nature is on sabbatical and Dr. Evil is substituting for her is a little out there.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.3.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.3    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
5.3.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.3.1    2 weeks ago

This Gain of Function blame game is nothing but a fundraising gimmick, as pointed out by Fauci.  The same people using it as a red herring for the pandemic would be the first to condemn those who didn’t conduct that kind of research in the event we were the victim of a bio weapon from an enemy who did use GoF to develop it.  Rand Paul is going to get people killed with this bullshit.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.3.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.3.2    2 weeks ago

DARPA refused to pay for it calling it too risky to the population of the planet, So by your reasoning DARPA is going to get people killed as well?

Fearing for the lives of everyone on the planet is bullshit?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
5.3.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.3.3    2 weeks ago

Those who would engage in it for the purposes of bioterrorism would be at a tremendous advantage if the rest of the world were wholly unprepared to fight it.  There is no evidence that this pandemic originated from anything other than natural events, as all pandemics throughout history have.  Sleazy politicians like Paul will do and say anything for a buck, even when it puts others in danger.  How are you going to feel when another Comet Pizza moron succeeds in murdering the targets of a sleazy politician?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.3.5  Nowhere Man  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.3.4    2 weeks ago

So your issue isn't that it might be an engineered virus, (world scientists don't agree on this point yet... some say Yea, some say Nay )

Your issue is solely about a libertarian politician, despite the plain evidence, hence entirely political... Got it...

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
5.3.6  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.3.5    2 weeks ago

Plain evidence?  There has never been an engineered virus resulting in a pandemic, but there have been many naturally occurring pandemics.  

We now have a nation whose absolute worst elements have been empowered by the continuous divisive rhetoric from the last administration, and who are ripe for fleecing by unscrupulous politicians in the form of scare mongering political donations.  You are pushing a narrative that this pandemic is a synthetic circumstance created by your political enemies.  It is opportunistic, damaging, dishonest, and dare I say un-American - although as time wears on this type of strategizing is unfortunately becoming distinctly American.  This constant drive towards all out civil war may achieve your goal of obliterating the federal government, but it will destroy everything positive about American values and leave this nation eons behind the rest of the developed world.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.3.7  Nowhere Man  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.3.6    2 weeks ago

yeah, Everyone who disagrees with you is unamerican and trying to destroy the government..... All I did is point out that Scientists investigating the claim haven't come to any solid conclusion yet... I guess Science is also unamerican and trying to destroy the government as well?

Some say yes and some say no... You are saying bullshit to science...

What the scientists are actually saying is the paucity of early infection data (with a strong possibility of Chinese government interference) prevents at this time any serious conclusion as to the origin of Covid... and depending on who you talk to some say a lab infection although possible is probably unlikely, but the possibility is strong enough for President Biden AND the WHO to have ordered the research...

I guess they are unamerican and wish to destroy the government as well.. AS I pointed out in the previous link the National Institute of Health's own genetic researchers are unwilling to rule out a lab generated origin to CoV -2...

Nice to see the reliance on science to back up your claim... And that in your opinion, the American Government itself is unamerican and trying to destroy itself....

And then there is this....

Yeah I know, conspiracy theory right? Even Fauci reacted seriously to it...

Oh, here's the article Fauci set the researcher....

Even at the start the were looking for the source.... And two years later they are yet to find it...

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
5.3.8  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.3.7    2 weeks ago

Rand Paul is hardly receptive to the natural origin possibility.  Nefarious theories sell much better when seeking money from suckers who thrive on conspiracy and hate, which the US now has in spades.  You are providing him an assist in this pursuit, and Dr. Fauci is receiving daily death threats, including a verified assassination attempt as a result.  You’re defense of Paul basically amounts to the vagaries of proving a negative - holding as much weight as “prove that there isn’t a UFO sitting somewhere on the floor of the ocean”.  Until there is some semblance of proof, then extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.3.7    2 weeks ago

271733632_10227930648438391_6752358607499974204_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=i9U2LJo7ZwAAX9lcutr&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8BiWSM_Hfw3O2Hd7oMeFRBXtkBAAeBqhHJRar_dWGjOA&oe=61E5C826

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  Nowhere Man @5.3.7    2 weeks ago

271568065_310279691203612_9006841836047053260_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=TLaGEur6Z5kAX_C8VD7&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9XoPk1TWFkzqo41tdLw7wCjjoYbzCejM3jRFVTfx59Ag&oe=61E56BE2

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.3.11  Nowhere Man  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.3.8    2 weeks ago

Thank you Hal...

For establishing that you and your friends that thumbed you up have a serious political slant to science...

Much appreciated.... Ridicule rather than reality.... The fact that science hasn't found the source of Covid is equivalent to “prove that there isn’t a UFO sitting somewhere on the floor of the ocean”. That's your rational? Personal political opinion? [deleted]

It took them two weeks to find the crossover source of Zika, 3 for SARS, 6 for Ebola and 5 for MERSA... For covid 19, we are running on 112 weeks and counting... It's rapidly becoming plain that the Chinese government is not allowing access to the lab records needed and any cogent and sane person that believes in fact has to question why.... The people in the lab know the source Covid is not something they invented out of whole cloth...

In any court, one would have to question why? wouldn't they?

Do I feel sorry for Fauci? hell no, he wants to be the #1 talking head in the world? more power to him, 

What's the most interesting here is you and your thumbs uppers friends outright rejection of fact and science to support the man who ignored scientific advice and authorized the payment for the development of Covid 19... amongst other things...

Not nefarious theories... Cold hard facts... 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
5.3.12  Nowhere Man  replied to  Tessylo @5.3.10    2 weeks ago

IMPASSE

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
5.4  Krishna  replied to  Nowhere Man @5    2 weeks ago
There is the set of personages in our society who believe it's science,

So what, in your not so humble opinion, is the difference between actual Scinece..and mere speculation based on stupidstition?

Or, for that matter, the words of loony religious prosylitizers?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
5.5  Krishna  replied to  Nowhere Man @5    2 weeks ago
But there's a problem that such opinions expressed by the elitists

What, exactly, do you mean by the term "elitists"?

For example, isn't Trump an "elitist"/ In fact, possibly the biggest elitest of all?

(The most powerful man in the U.S.-- which means the powerful man in the world).

And one of the richest.

(If that doesn't make him an elitiest, I don't know what would...).

[Its a similar lie perpetrated by people who contend that Fox News is not "Media")

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.5.1  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @5.5    2 weeks ago
What, exactly, do you mean by the term "elitists"?
What does it mean to be an elitist?
Elitism. Elitism is the belief or attitude that individuals who form an elite — a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, special skills, or experience — are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others.
 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

Some people act like obedient, mindless sheep...blindly accepting everything the so called "experts" say without question.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @6    2 weeks ago

Yes, let's all follow the recommendations of internet quacks instead !

Donald Trump was looking for a quick, immediate fix to the pandemic when he touted hydroxychloroquine, and his minions all fell in lockstep behind him , and took it even further. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.2  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @6    2 weeks ago

Who would you follow besides an "expert?" Would you follow the medical advise of someone other than a doctor? Or the legal advise of someone other than a lawyer, ect.? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6    2 weeks ago
Some people act like obedient, mindless sheep...blindly accepting everything the so called "experts" say without question.

And there are some who simply use the above as an excuse to stubbornly stick with their preconceived biases.    The phrase 'so called "experts"' is quite revealing.   A research scientist working in a specialty if their discipline (what most scientists do) IS an expert in this area.   That is precisely what the word 'expert' means.

So, yeah, Greg, do not listen to people who present themselves as experts when they truly are not.   But do seriously consider what the true experts have to say about their field of expertise.   To not do so is like rejecting the medical advice of your personal physician because s/he is a 'so called expert'.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @6.3    2 weeks ago

No...I'm referring to attention seeking media quacks like Fauci, who helped the Chinese scientists develop a weaponized virus.

I generally trust my doctor's advice, while researching other opinions. True scientists have always challenged previous conclusions if new evidence warrants it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6.3.1    2 weeks ago
... attention seeking media quacks like Fauci, who helped the Chinese scientists develop a weaponized virus

The above is partisan crap.   It is group-think conformism run amok rather than objective analysis of the facts.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.3.3  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.2    2 weeks ago

It's the fucking truth, which you deny.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

It is blind partisan bias to consider Fauci a 'quack'.

Similarly, there is no evidence that China's scientists created a 'weaponized' virus.

Conspiracy theory.   Irrational.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
6.4  Krishna  replied to  Greg Jones @6    2 weeks ago
Some people act like obedient, mindless sheep.

Agreed.

And obviously the worst of the lot are those sycophants who worship elitists such as Trump-- and blindly believe everything he says!

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
8  Kathleen    2 weeks ago

I have been listening to my doctor during this virus. I do not listen to the media anymore because it is conflicting and they like to use this virus for their agenda most of the time. I want what is best for my own health and any of the conditions that I have. The same goes for my family. I would never listen to anyone on the internet and especially on here. I would hope that everyone on here takes the advice of their doctors.  Some of the information that is given on here about the virus is helpful and some is certainly not. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1  Gordy327  replied to  Kathleen @8    2 weeks ago

Listening to medical professionals or infectious disease experts regarding Covid is smart. Unfortunately, many if not most people are not smart and prefer to listen to politicians or internet "sources" regarding Covid. It's that kind of stupidity that is one reason why Covid persists and spreads.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
8.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1    2 weeks ago

That's why many of us don't trust anything Biden says today, or what Trump said early on.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

Doing your own research rather than simply accepting what Biden says is a sensible way to operate.   But, of course, the research should be studying the findings of science rather than listening to people like Tucker Carlson.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

Why would anyone trust something a politician says, especially regarding medical matters? 

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.4  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.2    2 weeks ago
Doing your own research rather than simply accepting what {anyone} says is a sensible way to operate.

The problem being that most people have enough to do/worry about in their everyday lives that they do not have or make the time (or even know where or how) to do the research. The population at large is trying to live, and, IMO, this is impeded by the constant barrage of conflicting information, so they pick a horse (so to speak) and ride it through the stream. Scientific information can be confusing during the best of times, and the "horses" are, unfortunately, primarily not interested in the dispensation of objective fact but in pushing their own version of reality. 

...rather than listening to people like Tucker Carlson

Unfortunately, people, for whatever reason, do listen to him, though he can quite handily be proven false on the tenor, tone and substance of his emissions, which, sticking with the metaphor, come out the other end of the horse.... jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @8.1.4    2 weeks ago

We all have factors in our life that take out time.   Finding time to do research is a matter of setting priorities.   And if one simply cannot get sufficient time, most human beings know how to make the best of what we have.   So someone may want to dig deep into research but must settle instead for reading select but potentially opposing scientific reports (e.g. Scientific American vs. Fox News) and make a judgment call.

The key, of course, is to be aware enough of reality to know that one cannot simply accept what a cable host talking head says as truth and find a way to approximate truth rather than merely accepting whatever the host tells you.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.6  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.5    2 weeks ago

Quite specifically, I think that the ability to recognize and reject false assertions and premises is missing from a good many people. If one does not recognize and reject these false assertions, then one cannot reliably and objectively do research....  TiG, we see here on a minute by minute basis the effects of this failure.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @8.1.6    2 weeks ago

I think the ability is there Thomas, but the desire is to have a particular reality that may not match true reality.   Thus instead of actually trying to find truth, they engage in confirmation bias to shore up the reality they desire.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.1.8  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.7    2 weeks ago
I think the ability is there Thomas, but the desire is to have a particular reality that may not match true reality

Would that not be encompassed by "the ability to recognize and reject false assertions and premises"???

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
8.1.9  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @8.1.3    2 weeks ago

Why would anyone trust something a politician says, especially regarding medical matters? 

One word: CONFIRMATION BIAS!

(I know, its two words. I lied ...just trying to play politician for a while here. (Heh)

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
8.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @8.1.9    2 weeks ago

What you call confirmation bias, I call stupidity.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
8.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Kathleen @8    2 weeks ago

Simply listening to your doctor’s advice doesn’t change anything about the problems this article speaks to.  My doctor just parrots the CDC, nowhere man’s doctor says the pandemic is a fraud, your doctor may same something different.  The real problem (imo) is the 24 the news cycle and the dominance social media has over everyone’s lives.  You don’t have to look far to find an opinion that best matches your preference.  In simpler times vaccines were given the respect they deserve as miracles of modern science.  Now they are just another political chess piece.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Kathleen  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.2    2 weeks ago

Like I said, some of the information on these sites are helpful and some are not. 

Maybe you should be stronger and not let the 24 hour news stations run your life. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
8.2.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Kathleen @8.2.1    2 weeks ago

Maybe you should be stronger and not let the 24 hour news stations run your life.

I am a casual observer, capable of running my own life just fine.  I identify as a liberal, but more like the way Bill Maher identifies as a liberal.  We are in general agreement with the left side of the isle, but not afraid to be critical or to ridicule liberal trends when they exceed the boundaries of pragmatism and common sense - or to agree with our opponents when they speak the truth.  Unfortunately for the 24 hour news cycle coverage by right wing “news” sources, there is very little truth on display.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
8.2.3  Kathleen  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.2.2    2 weeks ago

You were doing pretty good until your last sentence, then you are just like the rest when it comes to being biased.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @8.2.3    2 weeks ago

lol

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
8.2.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Kathleen @8.2.3    2 weeks ago

Lol.  So I was doing well when I expressed negativity towards the left, then lost credibility when I expressed negativity towards the right.  Is that your fair and unbiased opinion?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.2.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.2.5    2 weeks ago

Face it....you're a known liberal so you can't win

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
8.2.7  Kathleen  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.2.5    2 weeks ago

No, you expressed much more negativity on the right. You made a dig, and don’t try to deny it. It’s nice that you recognize the problems on the left, but to say the right is very truthful, is wrong. I too have issues with some of the right, but I would not say that they are mostly not truthful. 

I would say they are both untruthful some of the times. I do not agree with everything with  both sides too. 

Laugh all you want, but you know what I mean...

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
8.2.8  Krishna  replied to  Kathleen @8.2.7    2 weeks ago
I would say they are both untruthful some of the times

Indeed!

"A Violent Terrorist Attack on the Capitol"

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
8.2.9  Krishna  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.2.2    2 weeks ago
Unfortunately for the 24 hour news cycle coverage by right wing “news” sources, there is very little truth on display.

Well there's a lot of that on both stations like Fox as well as MSNBC, etc.

Buy I'm not sure the "24 hour news cycle" is the cause.

(I'm basically a researcher -- if I'm not sure something is factual...and I feel its important enough to find out the truth) I do. (Id you liked the MBTI Personality Type Test you'd probably like this one as well).

(BTW that system appears a bit silly and superficial at first glance, but i've found it to be fairly accurate. And she's trying toappeal to a younger audience).

P.S: Actually "Researcher" is my secondary type....that alternates with "teacher"> (I am not going to disclose my primary...)

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
8.2.10  Kathleen  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.2.6    2 weeks ago

I am a known moderate and I can’t win. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.2.15  devangelical  replied to  Kathleen @8.2.10    2 weeks ago

I really don't believe that's what you're known for here.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.16  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @8.2.10    2 weeks ago
I am a known moderate

is that what you call it? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.17  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @8.2.10    2 weeks ago

There is no such thing as a moderate that supports Trump, which you do. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.16    2 weeks ago

What word didn't you understand?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
8.2.19  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  devangelical @8.2.15    2 weeks ago

Q: How do you keep a blonde busy?

A: Write "flip" on both sides of a sheet of paper

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
8.2.20  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.2.19    2 weeks ago

Q - How do you confuse a magat?

A - Put them in a round room and tell them to stand in the corner.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
8.2.21  Kathleen  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.18    2 weeks ago

Plenty.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
8.2.22  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.17    2 weeks ago

Show me where I SAID that I support Trump?

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
8.2.23  Kathleen  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @8.2.19    2 weeks ago

You must be Blonde.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  Kathleen @8.2.22    2 weeks ago

If you aren't a foaming-at-the-mouth progressive screeching nonstop about Trump 24/7/365.................................then that makes you a Trump supporter to some folks.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
8.2.25  Kathleen  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.24    2 weeks ago

Yep!  You got it! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.2.26  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @8.2.3    2 weeks ago
You were doing pretty good until your last sentence, then you are just like the rest when it comes to being biased.

From a slander ruling against Fox and Carlson:

"After the case was removed from New York state court, Fox News moved to dismiss Ms. McDougal’s claim on the grounds that Mr. Carlson’s statements were not statements of fact and that she failed adequately to allege actual malice."

That's NOT the first time that Fox has argued in court that it was just honky dory that Carlson et al lie their asses off. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
8.3  Krishna  replied to  Kathleen @8    2 weeks ago
I would hope that everyone on here takes the advice of their doctors.

But that's scientific-- and many people here feel that Science is bad and evil!

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
8.3.1  Kathleen  replied to  Krishna @8.3    2 weeks ago

I don't. I can't speak for others...

I wish some people would realize that I have a mind of my own and I just don't go with any group, or go along to go along.(I am not talking about you) jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

I agree with some people more then others, but because I don't exactly 'think' like them, they become defensive and ready to pounce.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
8.3.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @8.3.1    2 weeks ago

This is just a general notice:

Part of this thread was removed for no value and personal.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
8.3.3  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.3.2    2 weeks ago

I noticed. I also noticed that 8.2.15 is personal.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.3.5  devangelical  replied to  Kathleen @8.3.3    2 weeks ago

agree to disagree.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
8.3.6  Kathleen  replied to  devangelical @8.3.5    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
9  Jack_TX    2 weeks ago
CDC director Rochelle Walensky has admitted that the agency has done a bad job of communicating with the public.

This is 98% of the issue. 

Communication has been really very poor at a time when it needed to be really very excellent.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Principal
9.1  Krishna  replied to  Jack_TX @9    2 weeks ago
Communication has been really very poor at a time when it needed to be really very excellent.

Agreed-- its poor.

(But I wonder-- has it usually been better?-- IMO the dominent trend in that regards varies from decade to decade).

Anyone remember The McCarthy Era?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
9.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Krishna @9.1    2 weeks ago
Agreed-- its poor.

I think they meant well.

(But I wonder-- has it usually been better?

That's a great point.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Krishna @9.1    2 weeks ago
(But I wonder-- has it usually been better?-- IMO the dominent trend in that regards varies from decade to decade).

This is the first pandemic since the takeover of 'don't believe your lying eyes' ideology.

During the 2009 Swine flu pandemic, the CDC had press conferences every day early on and then about once a week and little to no 'social media' foot print. 

I for one don't remember there being politicization of the CDC's response or 'one side' questioning every move the CDC made and the motives of its leadership or the leadership of the NIH. 

Could the CDC be better at communicating.

Hell ya. 

Will the vast majority of the 'don't believe your lying eyes' ideologues believe more clear communications?  

Hell no. 

 
 

Who is online

Nowhere Man
XXJefferson51
Gordy327


36 visitors