NFR Do Yourself a Favor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fauci has initials and told us on March 8 - "wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet" but then a month later is telling us that you must wear masks. Did he get some additional initials behind his name during that month that all of a sudden gave him some new insight?

It's about the data, not about who said it.
Sorry, JC. This is bogus.

Fauci had lots of data of varying quality streaming in during the early phases of the pandemic and was doing his best to try to develop a public health response. The fact that he changed his recommendation when he had more information (and when PPE had become more readily available) indicates to me that he is following respected scientific approach and being willing to change his recommendation as information demanded.

...and as far as initials after someone's name goes, I prefer to accept the opinions of someone who is educated in the subject on which they speak over someone who is not, absent any other evidence of who may be right. So, yes, additional initials are important here.
 

jaredoconnor

WFF Supporter
There's a serious dearth of individual critical reasoning skills in this thread, but it's impressive how well and uniformly people can sing along with the misleading chorus from mainstream media.

You criticized folks in this thread of a lack of critical thinking, but then cited the two sources below.
  1. An anonymous Twitter account, called "el gato malo".
  2. The Twitter account of a "Justin Hart", who claims to be a "data expert", but has no science background and has been a GOP campaign worker.
This is a really bad place to start and I hope you can see the irony of it. I started writing a really long rebuttal, going through each argument thoroughly, but I got worn out. Below is the best summary I can give, without giving myself an aneurysm.

What's the single biggest risk factor for covid mortality? Is it whether you live in a high rise condo or secluded on a 40 acre parcel? Nope. It's age, because generally speaking as you get over about 70, your immune system strength weakens significantly. The percent of Washingtonians aged >65 was around 12% in 2010 (the last census that I could easily find), and with the influx of younger working professionals into Washington in the last 10 years that % is likely much lower today. I'm guessing closer to 10%. 20% of Sweden's population is older than 65. Is it so hard to think they'd have an 85% higher mortality per million? Think people. Think....or just look at the data in a way that tickles your political fancy. Looking at any single variable whether it's population density or age demographic is not adequate.

You stated that age is the biggest risk factor. That is obviously untrue; having a compromised immune or cardiovascular system is a much bigger risk. Regardless, you debunked your own argument in the same paragraph, by saying no one should look at any individual variable. There seems to be no actual point here.

As far as the political theater of masks is concerned, "global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science. this was never true and that fact was known and knowable. let's look:"



Where are these quotes coming from? Were they written before we had actually encountered a worldwide novel pandemic like this? Context matters. How you address a human influenza is very different from how you address something the world has literally never seen before. As you said yourself, you can take a few variables (or quotes in this case) and spin any story you want.

"Do mask mandates work? Our analysis below. We looked at cases on days where mask mandates were in place vs when they were not. We calculated the cases per day adjusted for population and:"

They have made zero effort to control variables meaningfully. This "data" would make every data scientist that I work with either cry or laugh. Again, as you said earlier, you can take just about any handful of variables you like and spin a story.

More importantly, Rational Ground is a completely garbage source. You cannot compare them to WHO, CDC, NIH and so on. I went through every single contributor, listed on their website. The closest thing they have to a scientist is a computer systems engineer. That person may not even have any meaningful education; they are anonymous, so I couldn't find their LinkedIn. All the other contributors are writers, marketers, influencers, "business people", GOP campaign workers or anonymous. Funnily enough, one of the contributors has the text below as their bio on Twitter.

NMH
@nosmhnmh
Follows data on all things coronavirus, I used to be an objective Trump supporter, now I’m just fed up with his COMPLETE lack of leadership & incompetence.

You also posted a bunch of images, containing quotes from various health organizations. Parts of those quotes, saying things like "masks are not necessary", have been outlined. However, if you read each quote in its entirety, below are the common themes.
  1. Social distancing is better than wearing a face covering.
  2. When social distancing isn't possible, face coverings should be worn.
  3. Face coverings do little to protect healthy individuals from infected individuals.
  4. Face coverings do reduce the spread from infected individuals.
  5. Face coverings can make matters worse, if they are not used appropriately.
  6. Where widespread transmission is identified, further measures like medical or non-medical face masks may be necessary.
  7. Face coverings aren't needed where the population complies with recommendations.
  8. Face coverings are not justified in a certain country/area/scenario.
This is all completely consistent with what health experts in the USA are saying. The last few points are the most important; we do have widespread transmission and Americans are not compliant, which is why face coverings and other mandates have come into place.

Highlighting the parts saying "masks aren't needed" doesn't invalidate everything else that is written. All of these images constitute a non-argument.
 
Last edited:
I think they literally said that... what am I missing?
View attachment 266630
View attachment 266631
I had the good fortune to watch several Mariners games when Ken Griffey Jr. was at his peak. In about 30-40 at bats, I never saw him hit a home run. I would be justified in saying that, on the basis of this sample, "In the present study, ... there was no evidence of Ken Griffey Jr. hitting a home run."

Cannuck's explanation is excellent. The studies being described are quite different, and in the Wuhan study there are explanations other than that asymptomatic individuals CANNOT hit home runs, er, I mean, cannot transmit the virus, only that in their study none did.
 

long_rod_silvers

WFF Supporter
I had the good fortune to watch several Mariners games when Ken Griffey Jr. was at his peak. In about 30-40 at bats, I never saw him hit a home run. I would be justified in saying that, on the basis of this sample, "In the present study, ... there was no evidence of Ken Griffey Jr. hitting a home run."
If you watched Jr. for 30 at bats, you saw him hit a home run.
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
"Who is Justin Hart", not that I'm going to white knight for Justin Hart, whoever he is, but if anything worthy only comes from people with lots of initials behind their names, how did we ever get out of caves? Idolizing people who have lots of initials is just as foolhardy as idolizing someone who has no initials.

Fauci has initials and told us on March 8 - "wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet" but then a month later is telling us that you must wear masks. Did he get some additional initials behind his name during that month that all of a sudden gave him some new insight?

It's about the data, not about who said it.
Justin Hart was sited and Twitter account copy/pasted by J Chromer on pg 5 - I looked him up - he isa self-proclaimed "data expert", whatever that means, and political consultant. His LinkedIn lists his education as BYU (1989-1996), but does not list any degree; Another site states "Mr. Hart studied Comparative Literature, Russian, and Polish at Brigham Young University" but again, no degree. ie, is is no expert.

I in no way "idolize" individuals with initials after their names, but I do recognize individuals who are experts in their fields. What Fauci stated on March 8 has been taken out of context, cropped (as appears above) and grossly mischaracterized as outlined in another post.

Now added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jccady

WFF Supporter
Sorry, JC. This is bogus.

Fauci had lots of data of varying quality streaming in during the early phases of the pandemic and was doing his best to try to develop a public health response. The fact that he changed his recommendation when he had more information (and when PPE had become more readily available) indicates to me that he is following respected scientific approach and being willing to change his recommendation as information demanded.

...and as far as initials after someone's name goes, I prefer to accept the opinions of someone who is educated in the subject on which they speak over someone who is not, absent any other evidence of who may be right. So, yes, additional initials are important here.
I'm not sure how this is bogus, Fauci did say no masks and then he did flip his position a month later. Those are facts and they are not disputable. If you need video evidence, I can dig it up.

The problem is why did he change his position. You say that he changed it because of more information, but that is actually bogus.

He explains that he lied about the masks initially because of concerns about the availability of PPE. So there's what initials get you, people who think it's fine to lie to the entire country in order to manipulate you into certain behavior.
 

Swimmy

Practice your craft.
WFF Supporter
Was that a dig?

Possibly. Probably.
L8VPdFIT_o.gif
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
I think they literally said that... what am I missing?
View attachment 266630
View attachment 266631
Please read your highlights more carefully - virus culture was negative, so yes they were very likely noninfections - does not mean they never were, we also do not know when the "close contacts" were in contact and what mitigation efforts were being practiced - given it was in Wuhan, probably pretty severe.
1609809456755.png
"There was no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious" (bolding is mine - the "identified asymptomatic" cases was an n of 300, an extraordinarily small sample size for any sort of epidemiological study, which this really wasn't)

This is a very different statement than "asymptomatic transmission does not occur".

Hope this clarifies.

Cheers
 

Scott Salzer

previously micro brew
WFF Supporter
I won’t waste my time. I come here for Fishing, not this stuff. Went through it VERY quickly, nothing of value for a fly fishing back and forth site. There are other venues that you can do this stuff.
Fly fishing, get back to that. My humble plea, please......
I fished yesterday , how bout you ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top