How "The Science" can change in less than 24 hours

[SkBlogW]

Yesterday:

REPORTER: “But we can gather for Christmas or it’s just too soon to tell?”

FAUCI: “It’s just too soon to tell”

Today:

FAUCI: “I will be spending Christmas with my family. I encourage people -- particularly the vaccinated people who are protected -- to have a good, normal Christmas with your family.”

[blueash]

Yesterday:

REPORTER: “But we can gather for Christmas or it’s just too soon to tell?”

FAUCI: “It’s just too soon to tell”

Today:

FAUCI: “I will be spending Christmas with my family. I encourage people -- particularly the vaccinated people who are protected -- to have a good, normal Christmas with your family.”

There is absolutely no change in what Dr Fauci said, just as there is no change in your constant attacks on a person who has devoted his life to combating disease. Statement one is about the nation as a whole, asking will the pandemic be over by Xmas. He honestly answers that we don't know yet. Will the anti-vax people see the light? Will a new strain emerge? Will hospitals continue to have to triage? Those kind of well informed questions lead Dr Fauci to his cautious answer.

The second statement is also clear. If you and your family are full vaccinated you can have a good normal Xmas. The unspoken part of that second statement is that if you and your family are not vaccinated then whether it is safe to gather is still unknown. So are you intentionally being obtuse or do you really not understand what is very clear to me in those two statements?

The science did NOT change. But science does improve knowledge with testing and evaluation in an ongoing manner. So if at some point the science does change that does not make an earlier statement wrong based on the information available at the time. However, when information is available it is the obligation of those who wish to claim the mantle of science to be up to date in their pronouncements. For those who are anti-science, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the literature and believe their own "opinions" about vaccines or deworming meds or social distancing, or masking should be taken seriously, just No to them.

[golfing eagles]

There is absolutely no change in what Dr Fauci said, just as there is no change in your constant attacks on a person who has devoted his life to combating disease. Statement one is about the nation as a whole, asking will the pandemic be over by Xmas. He honestly answers that we don't know yet. Will the anti-vax people see the light? Will a new strain emerge? Will hospitals continue to have to triage? Those kind of well informed questions lead Dr Fauci to his cautious answer.

The second statement is also clear. If you and your family are full vaccinated you can have a good normal Xmas. The unspoken part of that second statement is that if you and your family are not vaccinated then whether it is safe to gather is still unknown. So are you intentionally being obtuse or do you really not understand what is very clear to me in those two statements?

The science did NOT change. But science does improve knowledge with testing and evaluation in an ongoing manner. So if at some point the science does change that does not make an earlier statement wrong based on the information available at the time. However, when information is available it is the obligation of those who wish to claim the mantle of science to be up to date in their pronouncements. For those who are anti-science, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the literature and believe their own "opinions" about vaccines or deworming meds or social distancing, or masking should be taken seriously, just No to them.

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better:bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:

Of course, you realize that some posters have an agenda, it might be an idiotic agenda, but an agenda nonetheless:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

The sad part is that there may be some people out there that believe some of the garbage that is spit out on this site

[thelegges]

Since March of 2020, Except for me all my kids, grandchildren, plus my other half spent every holiday, including Christmas, with hundreds of unvaccinated. Plan is to do it again, this Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Since March of 2020, Except for me all my kids, grandchildren, plus my other half spent every holiday, including Christmas, with hundreds of unvaccinated. Plan is to do it again, this Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years.

That is sad, I wish you luck in your plans.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better:bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:

Of course, you realize that some posters have an agenda, it might be an idiotic agenda, but an agenda nonetheless:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

The sad part is that there may be some people out there that believe some of the garbage that is spit out on this site

I waited to form an opinion until I read the OP, and having read it, it is my opinion that the post is intended to (I think the kids say this) cast shade on science. Anti-science is rampant and sad. I could be wrong and the poster was honest and sincere and did not have an "implied" comment.

But, considering the history of this site and the strong implication of constantly changing science, I doubt that.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I waited to form an opinion until I read the OP, and having read it, it is my opinion that the post is intended to (I think the kids say this) cast shade on science. Anti-science is rampant and sad. I could be wrong and the poster was honest and sincere and did not have an "implied" comment.

But, considering the history of this site and the strong implication of constantly changing science, I doubt that.

Throw shade, but yeah.

[Escape Artist]

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better:bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:

Of course, you realize that some posters have an agenda, it might be an idiotic agenda, but an agenda nonetheless:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

The sad part is that there may be some people out there that believe some of the garbage that is spit out on this site

I didn't know you were a Fauci fan? :shrug:

[jswirs]

That is sad, I wish you luck in your plans.

Sad? That is your opinion. It sounds joyful to me.

I don't need anyone's advice on how I should spend the holidays with my family. I would rather rely on my own common sense and critical thinking, which may be referred to as personal responsibility. Common sense and critical thinking is, IMHO, rapidly diminishing in today's society.
I have successfully and healthfully ascended into my 70's, and I'm not about to change what has gotten me this far.
If other's feel the need to be directed, that's their choice, not mine.

[MSchad]

Don’t understand the division. Vaxed or unvaxed, “science” proves both contract and pass the virus. If you and yours are healthy, enjoy your holidays with your loved ones. If you are sick stay home. Advice we have all followed and passed on for decades.

[Challenger]

Since March of 2020, Except for me all my kids, grandchildren, plus my other half spent every holiday, including Christmas, with hundreds of unvaccinated. Plan is to do it again, this Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years.

Dont forget to put the bullet in chamber #6 before you spin

[rrtjp]

Fauci has not been right about anything that he was not wrong first.

On January 21, 2020 Fauci said “Americans Don't Need To Worry About Coronavirus.

On February 8, 2020 Danger of getting coronavirus now is just minusculely low.'

On February 2020 tells the Today Show that there is NO NEED for the public to change their behavior over concern for Coronavirus. This is also around the same time Dr. Fauci begins advising Americans against wearing masks.

On March 9, 2020 Dr. Fauci recommends taking a cruise, tells Forbes Magazine that if you’re healthy, cruise ships are safe.

In May 2012 Fauci states schools should not reopen until a vaccination has widespread use.

Given on what Fauci stated above in just the first few months, a lot more people would be dead if they followed his advice.

As for Fauci being in government for almost 40 years shows more of his incompetence than his successful career. There is not a single researcher or scientist that would take a government job when the private sector offers much greater flexibility and income opportunities.
Agree

[swooner]

Since March of 2020, Except for me all my kids, grandchildren, plus my other half spent every holiday, including Christmas, with hundreds of unvaccinated. Plan is to do it again, this Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years.

Will be looking for your family obits!

[jswirs]

That is sad, I wish you luck in your plans.

Dont forget to put the bullet in chamber #6 before you spin
Yes, thank you. And don't you forget to put the bullets in chambers #1 and #6 for the next time you are crossing the street.

[Singerlady]

Yesterday:

REPORTER: “But we can gather for Christmas or it’s just too soon to tell?”

FAUCI: “It’s just too soon to tell”

Today:

FAUCI: “I will be spending Christmas with my family. I encourage people -- particularly the vaccinated people who are protected -- to have a good, normal Christmas with your family.”
Science is not the truth. Science is finding the truth. When science changes it’s opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.
-Anonymous-

[jswirs]

Will be looking for your family obits!
That's good! Looking for obits will give you something to do, which is better than living in fear of Covid!

[GeriS]

There is absolutely no change in what Dr Fauci said, just as there is no change in your constant attacks on a person who has devoted his life to combating disease. Statement one is about the nation as a whole, asking will the pandemic be over by Xmas. He honestly answers that we don't know yet. Will the anti-vax people see the light? Will a new strain emerge? Will hospitals continue to have to triage? Those kind of well informed questions lead Dr Fauci to his cautious answer.

The second statement is also clear. If you and your family are full vaccinated you can have a good normal Xmas. The unspoken part of that second statement is that if you and your family are not vaccinated then whether it is safe to gather is still unknown. So are you intentionally being obtuse or do you really not understand what is very clear to me in those two statements?

The science did NOT change. But science does improve knowledge with testing and evaluation in an ongoing manner. So if at some point the science does change that does not make an earlier statement wrong based on the information available at the time. However, when information is available it is the obligation of those who wish to claim the mantle of science to be up to date in their pronouncements. For those who are anti-science, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the literature and believe their own "opinions" about vaccines or deworming meds or social distancing, or masking should be taken seriously, just No to them.
You know nothing of Fauci's history.

[GeriS]

Dont forget to put the bullet in chamber #6 before you spin
What you don't realize is that is exactly what you have done.

[Boffin]

91051

[tsmall22204]

Those who are vaccinated WILL HAVE A NICE CHRISTMAS. those who are not, if still alive, might not be so lucky.

[ithos]

Fauci is self serving publicity hound, a habitual liar and a shill for Big Pharma. And untold thousands have died because of it.

He covered for WHO and the CCP early on when they conducted the sham investigation

He lied when he said COVID was of natural origin.

He lied about Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine despite documented findings from government agencies and renowned health professionals around the world.

Ivermectin, antiviral properties and COVID-19: a possible new mechanism of action - PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32462282/)
Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19 - PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/)

And he lied before Congress about funding the Wuhan Lab.

Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab (https://theintercept.com/2021/09/06/new-details-emerge-about-coronavirus-research-at-chinese-lab/)

He doesn't have supporters. He has groupies.

Saint Anthony Fauci Prayer Candle Label | Etsy (https://www.etsy.com/listing/1080384537/saint-anthony-fauci-prayer-candle-label?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=fauci+prayer+candle&ref=sc_gallery-1-3&plkey=14b816f7b26db167dd0cbfc0d47bdbd97d3f9ba7%3A1 080384537)

[ChicagoNative]

Questioning science is science.

Like most of the world, I admired Fauci when this all started, but I’ve come to view him as an ivory tower academician cum politician. His tarnished reputation is his own doing.

[JMintzer]

There is absolutely no change in what Dr Fauci said, just as there is no change in your constant attacks on a person who has devoted his life to combating disease. Statement one is about the nation as a whole, asking will the pandemic be over by Xmas. He honestly answers that we don't know yet. Will the anti-vax people see the light? Will a new strain emerge? Will hospitals continue to have to triage? Those kind of well informed questions lead Dr Fauci to his cautious answer.

The second statement is also clear. If you and your family are full vaccinated you can have a good normal Xmas. The unspoken part of that second statement is that if you and your family are not vaccinated then whether it is safe to gather is still unknown. So are you intentionally being obtuse or do you really not understand what is very clear to me in those two statements?

The science did NOT change. But science does improve knowledge with testing and evaluation in an ongoing manner. So if at some point the science does change that does not make an earlier statement wrong based on the information available at the time. However, when information is available it is the obligation of those who wish to claim the mantle of science to be up to date in their pronouncements. For those who are anti-science, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the literature and believe their own "opinions" about vaccines or deworming meds or social distancing, or masking should be taken seriously, just No to them.

Sorry, but that spin made me dizzy...

I agree, the science did not change, but his message most certainly did... And that's the problem... No consistency in the messaging...

[JMintzer]

Science is not the truth. Science is finding the truth. When science changes it’s opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.
-Anonymous-

The science didn't change in 24 hrs, but the message most certainly did...

[Ksfirefighter]

I waited to form an opinion until I read the OP, and having read it, it is my opinion that the post is intended to (I think the kids say this) cast shade on science. Anti-science is rampant and sad. I could be wrong and the poster was honest and sincere and did not have an "implied" comment.

But, considering the history of this site and the strong implication of constantly changing science, I doubt that.

Is physical gender a science? Or is it ever changing?

[lkagele]

Those who are vaccinated WILL HAVE A NICE CHRISTMAS. those who are not, if still alive, might not be so lucky.

...if still alive... Good grief. A little fear mongering?

[lkagele]

Fauci is self serving publicity hound, a habitual liar and a shill for Big Pharma. And untold thousands have died because of it.

He covered for WHO and the CCP early on when they conducted the sham investigation

He lied when he said COVID was of natural origin.

He lied about Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine despite documented findings from government agencies and renowned health professionals around the world.

Ivermectin, antiviral properties and COVID-19: a possible new mechanism of action - PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32462282/)
Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19 - PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/)

And he lied before Congress about funding the Wuhan Lab.

Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab (https://theintercept.com/2021/09/06/new-details-emerge-about-coronavirus-research-at-chinese-lab/)

He doesn't have supporters. He has groupies.

Saint Anthony Fauci Prayer Candle Label | Etsy (https://www.etsy.com/listing/1080384537/saint-anthony-fauci-prayer-candle-label?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=fauci+prayer+candle&ref=sc_gallery-1-3&plkey=14b816f7b26db167dd0cbfc0d47bdbd97d3f9ba7%3A1 080384537)

Remember, any attack on Fauci is an attack on science. By my count, you just attacked science 6 times.

[MrZero]

Will be looking for your family obits!

Wow! Such hatred. I can't believe where the country is going. #WTF!

[Waltdisney4life]

Fauci the fake!! He is nothing but Hollywood!

[SkBlogW]

Fauci is self serving publicity hound, a habitual liar and a shill for Big Pharma. And untold thousands have died because of it.

He covered for WHO and the CCP early on when they conducted the sham investigation

He lied when he said COVID was of natural origin.

He lied about Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine despite documented findings from government agencies and renowned health professionals around the world.

Ivermectin, antiviral properties and COVID-19: a possible new mechanism of action - PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32462282/)
Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19 - PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/)

And he lied before Congress about funding the Wuhan Lab.

Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab (https://theintercept.com/2021/09/06/new-details-emerge-about-coronavirus-research-at-chinese-lab/)

He doesn't have supporters. He has groupies.

Saint Anthony Fauci Prayer Candle Label | Etsy (https://www.etsy.com/listing/1080384537/saint-anthony-fauci-prayer-candle-label?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=fauci+prayer+candle&ref=sc_gallery-1-3&plkey=14b816f7b26db167dd0cbfc0d47bdbd97d3f9ba7%3A1 080384537)

The Fauci groupies are certifiably crazy, the guy funds gain of function research that unleashes a worldwide pandemic and they still defend him.

[jbrown132]

Fauci has never passed a microphone he has not fell in love with. When he first came onto the scene I had respect for him. But as time has gone one it is clear he his a narcissist who cannot get enough attention. As such, everything he says has become suspect and he has lost credibility with many people and when you lose credibility you can no longer be effective.

[Joe C.]

OK OK OK Nobody has even checked to see if Santa has been vaccinated. He visits EVERY HOME on Christmas Eve. .... he could be a "super spreader". Somebody should check with Fauci .....maybe he should be required to get a covid test before going out.

[Wyseguy]

Yesterday:

REPORTER: “But we can gather for Christmas or it’s just too soon to tell?”

FAUCI: “It’s just too soon to tell”

Today:

FAUCI: “I will be spending Christmas with my family. I encourage people -- particularly the vaccinated people who are protected -- to have a good, normal Christmas with your family.”

What he said must not have polled well.

[Beyond The Wall]

Yesterday:

REPORTER: “But we can gather for Christmas or it’s just too soon to tell?”

FAUCI: “It’s just too soon to tell”

Today:

FAUCI: “I will be spending Christmas with my family. I encourage people -- particularly the vaccinated people who are protected -- to have a good, normal Christmas with your family.”
He has changed what the science is some many times. That is partially the reason for the confusion. He should be fired

[Wyseguy]

Thank you, I couldn't have said it better:bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:

Of course, you realize that some posters have an agenda, it might be an idiotic agenda, but an agenda nonetheless:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

The sad part is that there may be some people out there that believe some of the garbage that is spit out on this site

Why are the "Just Obey" people so nasty. No one attacked you on this thread, yet you come out attacking others.

[Wyseguy]

Since March of 2020, Except for me all my kids, grandchildren, plus my other half spent every holiday, including Christmas, with hundreds of unvaccinated. Plan is to do it again, this Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years.

Good For them. Live life. Some are so timid and fearful one would think they plan to isolate until a cure for death is found.

[Beyond The Wall]

He did change what he says constantly! He is the highest paid person in federal government. He has dedicated his life to getting rich. His wife is a paid member of the health board. He failed with the AIDS vac. He has fail with WuFlu. He has ZERO credibility !

[Ptmckiou]

There is absolutely no change in what Dr Fauci said, just as there is no change in your constant attacks on a person who has devoted his life to combating disease. Statement one is about the nation as a whole, asking will the pandemic be over by Xmas. He honestly answers that we don't know yet. Will the anti-vax people see the light? Will a new strain emerge? Will hospitals continue to have to triage? Those kind of well informed questions lead Dr Fauci to his cautious answer.

The second statement is also clear. If you and your family are full vaccinated you can have a good normal Xmas. The unspoken part of that second statement is that if you and your family are not vaccinated then whether it is safe to gather is still unknown. So are you intentionally being obtuse or do you really not understand what is very clear to me in those two statements?

The science did NOT change. But science does improve knowledge with testing and evaluation in an ongoing manner. So if at some point the science does change that does not make an earlier statement wrong based on the information available at the time. However, when information is available it is the obligation of those who wish to claim the mantle of science to be up to date in their pronouncements. For those who are anti-science, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the literature and believe their own "opinions" about vaccines or deworming meds or social distancing, or masking should be taken seriously, just No to them.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

[NJMike]

The covid variants will probably continue, real or imagined, until the government has gained complete control over our lives. The final variant will probably be called "Communism".

[holger danske]

Fauci: Christmas Comment 'Taken Completely Out of Context' -- 'I Encourage' People to Have Normal Christmas (https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/10/04/fauci-christmas-comment-taken-completely-out-of-context-i-encourage-people-to-have-normal-christmas/)

Glad he cleared that. There was an old saying "The most dangerous place to be in Washington was between Chuck Schumer and a camera." Fauci has replaced Schumer.
Hugh Hewitt asked him last week whether he thought it was time for him to go because so few people still believe or trust him and let a younger person carry the message. He said absolutely not.
Whether you love him or hate him it's clear to me that his expiration date on all things covid has expired.

[Wyseguy]

Sad? That is your opinion. It sounds joyful to me.

I don't need anyone's advice on how I should spend the holidays with my family. I would rather rely on my own common sense and critical thinking, which may be referred to as personal responsibility. Common sense and critical thinking is, IMHO, rapidly diminishing in today's society.
I have successfully and healthfully ascended into my 70's, and I'm not about to change what has gotten me this far.
If other's feel the need to be directed, that's their choice, not mine.

God Bless you. Celebrate life and family. I would propose that those who want to isolate from their families most likely had that in them since before the virus.

[GrumpyOldMan]

The covid variants will probably continue, real or imagined, until the government has gained complete control over our lives. The final variant will probably be called "Communism".

Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep...

[Bay Kid]

I can never believe anything that comes out of his mouth. His china lab is still the reason.

[PJackpot]

There is absolutely no change in what Dr Fauci said, just as there is no change in your constant attacks on a person who has devoted his life to combating disease. Statement one is about the nation as a whole, asking will the pandemic be over by Xmas. He honestly answers that we don't know yet. Will the anti-vax people see the light? Will a new strain emerge? Will hospitals continue to have to triage? Those kind of well informed questions lead Dr Fauci to his cautious answer.

The second statement is also clear. If you and your family are full vaccinated you can have a good normal Xmas. The unspoken part of that second statement is that if you and your family are not vaccinated then whether it is safe to gather is still unknown. So are you intentionally being obtuse or do you really not understand what is very clear to me in those two statements?

The science did NOT change. But science does improve knowledge with testing and evaluation in an ongoing manner. So if at some point the science does change that does not make an earlier statement wrong based on the information available at the time. However, when information is available it is the obligation of those who wish to claim the mantle of science to be up to date in their pronouncements. For those who are anti-science, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the literature and believe their own "opinions" about vaccines or deworming meds or social distancing, or masking should be taken seriously, just No to them.

No, that was not the question he was asked. But it’s no surprise to me how some people feel the need to interpret what the rest of us clearly heard, in order to justify the inconsistency of Buffoons like Fauci.

[Wyseguy]

Will be looking for your family obits!

Horrible thing to say.

[Love2Swim]

There is absolutely no change in what Dr Fauci said, just as there is no change in your constant attacks on a person who has devoted his life to combating disease. Statement one is about the nation as a whole, asking will the pandemic be over by Xmas. He honestly answers that we don't know yet. Will the anti-vax people see the light? Will a new strain emerge? Will hospitals continue to have to triage? Those kind of well informed questions lead Dr Fauci to his cautious answer.

The second statement is also clear. If you and your family are full vaccinated you can have a good normal Xmas. The unspoken part of that second statement is that if you and your family are not vaccinated then whether it is safe to gather is still unknown. So are you intentionally being obtuse or do you really not understand what is very clear to me in those two statements?

The science did NOT change. But science does improve knowledge with testing and evaluation in an ongoing manner. So if at some point the science does change that does not make an earlier statement wrong based on the information available at the time. However, when information is available it is the obligation of those who wish to claim the mantle of science to be up to date in their pronouncements. For those who are anti-science, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the literature and believe their own "opinions" about vaccines or deworming meds or social distancing, or masking should be taken seriously, just No to them.

:bigbow: Nailed it. Thank you!

[Wyseguy]

That's good! Looking for obits will give you something to do, which is better than living in fear of Covid!

Excellent response. I notice a trend among those fearful to live life. They seem to be less than pleasant people.

[stevemac]

Great post!!!

[JMintzer]

Questioning science is science.

Like most of the world, I admired Fauci when this all started, but I’ve come to view him as an ivory tower academician cum politician. His tarnished reputation is his own doing.

I totally agree!

[jammaiora]

Yesterday:

REPORTER: “But we can gather for Christmas or it’s just too soon to tell?”

FAUCI: “It’s just too soon to tell”

Today:

FAUCI: “I will be spending Christmas with my family. I encourage people -- particularly the vaccinated people who are protected -- to have a good, normal Christmas with your family.”
Stop whining! Yesterday was too soon, today is correct. Point being, if you are around vaccinated people you are safer to socialize. If you are not with vaccinated people, it's best, for your health and safety, not to socialize with or around them. Common sense!

[Wyseguy]

...if still alive... Good grief. A little fear mongering?

These fear mongers would be lost without this topic. They like to use it to show how caring and woke they are. They end up showing how mean and callous they can be.

[Sherry8bal]

Fauci is just another overpaid "government" worker who says whatever POTUS wants him to say in order to keep the American public scared. I hear people out getting a booster shot when it's not needed in the first place. These same people have Alexis, etc. in their homes and don't think one iota that "someone" is listening to everything that goes on in their own home. Ever read the book "1984"???

[Lindaws]

Get together with your families this holiday season. Life is too short. LIVE your
life. Don’t let someone dictate.

[jswirs]

Will be looking for your family obits!

Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep...
I believe it is "Into your LIFE it will creep"....

And how it seems to be creeping into all those "JUST OBEY" people's lives. Now that is SAD.

[Byte1]

Don't think the boarder will be best pleased having hole plugged!:icon_wink:

"....first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

:icon_wink::shocked:

[PugMom]

Sad? That is your opinion. It sounds joyful to me.

I don't need anyone's advice on how I should spend the holidays with my family. I would rather rely on my own common sense and critical thinking, which may be referred to as personal responsibility. Common sense and critical thinking is, IMHO, rapidly diminishing in today's society.
I have successfully and healthfully ascended into my 70's, and I'm not about to change what has gotten me this far.
If other's feel the need to be directed, that's their choice, not mine.

Bless you. The bigger picture I'm looking @ is how insane it is to seek a type of permission to see your own family. Hubby & I remain unvaxxed, had a trip up north on public transit & all the way back. We still test negative, much to the dismay of local doctors. I am responsible for myself, always have been, & will continue to do so without the help of elected officials & media hacks. Thanks for listening. :duck:

[ithos]

Remember, any attack on Fauci is an attack on science. By my count, you just attacked science 6 times.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic but that was a hilarious response.

[fcgiii]

I waited to form an opinion until I read the OP, and having read it, it is my opinion that the post is intended to (I think the kids say this) cast shade on science. Anti-science is rampant and sad. I could be wrong and the poster was honest and sincere and did not have an "implied" comment.

But, considering the history of this site and the strong implication of constantly changing science, I doubt that.

A problem centers around those who throw the word "science" around but have no clue what science is and could not begin to describe the scientific method. A bigger problem is that there seems to be very little science going on or at least available for reporting to the public. That which is reported through the mainstream media favors the narrative of fear. Where is the science comparing the effectiveness of recovering from COVID vs. the vaccines? Instead of a vaccine passport, why not have people get tested for antibodies, which better describe the immune condition of an individual? How effective are the masks that are being pushed down even to newborns? Last year we decried the terror of "Super spreader events" like the gathering at Mount Rushmore. Now we have hundreds of thousands of unmasked people side to side at football games with no reported spreading going on.

I do not fear the COVID. I do fear what has happened to this formerly free country. Had any one written about this 2 years ago they would have been laughed out of the room. Now we have overburdened hospitals with short staffs being forced to kick out doctors and nurses who decline to get vaccinated, thus greatly acerbating the health care situation.

In the spring of 2020 Dr. Fauci was promising herd immunity, Now we have herd hysteria and a population increasingly afraid to go on with life. I fear this will not end well.

[Lisanp@aol.com]

There is absolutely no change in what Dr Fauci said, just as there is no change in your constant attacks on a person who has devoted his life to combating disease. Statement one is about the nation as a whole, asking will the pandemic be over by Xmas. He honestly answers that we don't know yet. Will the anti-vax people see the light? Will a new strain emerge? Will hospitals continue to have to triage? Those kind of well informed questions lead Dr Fauci to his cautious answer.

The second statement is also clear. If you and your family are full vaccinated you can have a good normal Xmas. The unspoken part of that second statement is that if you and your family are not vaccinated then whether it is safe to gather is still unknown. So are you intentionally being obtuse or do you really not understand what is very clear to me in those two statements?

The science did NOT change. But science does improve knowledge with testing and evaluation in an ongoing manner. So if at some point the science does change that does not make an earlier statement wrong based on the information available at the time. However, when information is available it is the obligation of those who wish to claim the mantle of science to be up to date in their pronouncements. For those who are anti-science, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the literature and believe their own "opinions" about vaccines or deworming meds or social distancing, or masking should be taken seriously, just No to them.

Amen!

You forgot that science and research are constantly evolving by their very definitions. Educated people know that.

Tucker Carlson’s Fauci as “Jesus” stand-up routine last night was vulgar, with the sole purpose of inciting the Evangelicals. He should be very very ashamed!

[Byte1]

Amen!

You forgot that science and research are constantly evolving by their very definitions. Educated people know that.

Tucker Carlson’s Fauci as “Jesus” stand-up routine last night was vulgar, with the sole purpose of inciting the Evangelicals. He should be very very ashamed!

I never watch Tucker's show, but last night I was browsing channels and happen to stop on it just as he was beginning his opening assault on Fauci. I watched it for a while because I thought it very interesting and entertaining. I didn't see any fault in what he said, but then again that may be in the eyes of the beholder. I haven't watched FOX for a long time, and rarely watch any of the left sided media news(?)/propaganda networks either, other than the local news to hear the weather report in the morning.
In my opinion, Fauci brings on the attacks, by being available for cretins to grill him until he makes a controversial comment. To be honest with you, I have never liked what the man has said, and even less how he has spoken politically. If he is truly linked to subsidizing the covid studies in Wuhan, I give him partial blame for this mess we are enduring right now. That said, I do not know him personally. If he was as smart as he says he is, then he would keep his mouth shut and let the CDC speak about this mess instead of him.

[JMintzer]

I believe it is "Into your LIFE it will creep"....


Yes, it is... For what it's worth...

[Joe Folker]

And you're proud of this?

[SkBlogW]

What he said must not have polled well.

Bingo!

I was waiting for someone to nail this.

To those who think I am casting shade on science, you couldn't be more inaccurate.

I am casting shade on those who think they are informed by the science when all they really are informed by is the politics.

[Cheryl Barrios]

Will be looking for your family obits!

Wow! What a true human.

[golfing eagles]

Why are the "Just Obey" people so nasty. No one attacked you on this thread, yet you come out attacking others.

Those who spout out garbage, aka misinformation, on a topic as important as a worldwide pandemic should be called out, harshly or otherwise. I have watched post after post since this pandemic began and the most common theme is non-professionals googling something, finding a short absurd blurb, and then pronouncing it as the gospel truth and proclaiming themselves "experts" I'm just trying to protect the innocent from these "posters"

[lkagele]

There is absolutely no change in what Dr Fauci said, just as there is no change in your constant attacks on a person who has devoted his life to combating disease. Statement one is about the nation as a whole, asking will the pandemic be over by Xmas. He honestly answers that we don't know yet. Will the anti-vax people see the light? Will a new strain emerge? Will hospitals continue to have to triage? Those kind of well informed questions lead Dr Fauci to his cautious answer.

The second statement is also clear. If you and your family are full vaccinated you can have a good normal Xmas. The unspoken part of that second statement is that if you and your family are not vaccinated then whether it is safe to gather is still unknown. So are you intentionally being obtuse or do you really not understand what is very clear to me in those two statements?

The science did NOT change. But science does improve knowledge with testing and evaluation in an ongoing manner. So if at some point the science does change that does not make an earlier statement wrong based on the information available at the time. However, when information is available it is the obligation of those who wish to claim the mantle of science to be up to date in their pronouncements. For those who are anti-science, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the literature and believe their own "opinions" about vaccines or deworming meds or social distancing, or masking should be taken seriously, just No to them.

Apparently the mask science has changed.

White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci once dismissed wearing a mask to prevent infectious disease as a “paranoid” tool, laughing at the prospect during a 2019 sit-down interview on The David Rubenstein Show.

[Wyseguy]

Wow! What a true human.

It is something you see in many fear filled "Just Obey" individuals.

[Bill14564]

Apparently the mask science has changed.

White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci once dismissed wearing a mask to prevent infectious disease as a “paranoid” tool, laughing at the prospect during a 2019 sit-down interview on The David Rubenstein Show.

It's doubtful the mask science changed. If anything, the mask science is more understood now but the general principles remain the same.

What changed, what you (intentionally?) neglected, was the threat. In 2019 the world was getting by just fine by adopting healthy habits and taking necessary vaccines. In 2020 Covid arrived in the US and the threat changed significantly. A different threat requires a different evaluation of mitigations.

Masks in a fully-vaccinated population are likely as unnecessary as they were in 2019. However, due to the continued efforts of some, we do not have a fully-vaccinated population and people are still dying at a rate of almost 2,000 per day.

[Boomer]

Bless you. The bigger picture I'm looking @ is how insane it is to seek a type of permission to see your own family. Hubby & I remain unvaxxed, had a trip up north on public transit & all the way back. We still test negative, much to the dismay of local doctors. I am responsible for myself, always have been, & will continue to do so without the help of elected officials & media hacks. Thanks for listening. :duck:


PugMom,

I am truly curious about how this works from your angle — and I hope you will answer my questions. . .

Do you so proudly declare your unvaccinated status to those you are visiting in order to recognize their right to make their own decisions as to whether they want you in their social group? (Some may be too polite to ask — so do you give them a heads-up, in advance?)

As you go out and about on public transit, etc., do you practice advised measures to do the best you can to minimize risk of infection? (Typhoid Mary was asymptomatic, you know.)

Sooooo, how do you work this? Do you hang out with only other unvaxxed people? Do you at least use good manners by asking those you want to visit if they are OK with it? What do you do in one of those friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend things that happens sometimes with lunch groups, etc., in TV? Do you check the prevailing wind, the lay of the land, to see if you would be welcome in a group of mostly strangers who might feel differently about vaccination status or do you just waltz right in among ‘em?

I really do want to know how the unvaxxed feel about how they should be handling these social situations. I think my questions are fair.

Boomer

PS: We are vaccinated and have our social life back in gear — with other vaccinated people. We certainly are not cowering in bunkers — just making choices.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Bingo!

I was waiting for someone to nail this.

To those who think I am casting shade on science, you couldn't be more inaccurate.

I am casting shade on those who think they are informed by the science when all they really are informed by is the politics.

That would be YOUR opinion. But, you are certainly entitled to you opinion.

[thelegges]

That is sad, I wish you luck in your plans.

Dont forget to put the bullet in chamber #6 before you spin

You should be thankful they all have sacrificed many things for the last 1.5 years. If you follow any posts, all of my family is in health care in multiple states. So challenger.. you think they should be shot for taking care of someone like you, vaxed or not.. But then they don’t have fear like some. Their job is not to judge others, but to do no harm to anyone who enters. Good lesson to live by.

People stopped banging on pots along time ago.

[npwalters]

Questioning science is science.

Like most of the world, I admired Fauci when this all started, but I’ve come to view him as an ivory tower academician cum politician. His tarnished reputation is his own doing.

Same here

[Wyseguy]

Those who spout out garbage, aka misinformation, on a topic as important as a worldwide pandemic should be called out, harshly or otherwise. I have watched post after post since this pandemic began and the most common theme is non-professionals googling something, finding a short absurd blurb, and then pronouncing it as the gospel truth and proclaiming themselves "experts" I'm just trying to protect the innocent from these "posters"

No you are not. Many times you offer no alternate view backed by facts, you just throw out nasty remarks. I do not see how that is going to accomplish anything other than turn people off to what you say.

[Wyseguy]

You should be thankful they all have sacrificed many things for the last 1.5 years. If you follow any posts, all of my family is in health care in multiple states. So challenger.. you think they should be shot for taking care of someone like you, vaxed or not.. But then they don’t have fear like some. Their job is not to judge others, but to do no harm to anyone who enters. Good lesson to live by.

People stopped banging on pots along time ago.

Too many of the "Just Obey" fear spreaders are nasty. We can pray for them to escape the darkness and divisiveness.

[Road-Runner]

Wow! Such hatred. I can't believe where the country is going. #WTF!

Not going, gone at this point.

[Road-Runner]

Fauci is just another overpaid "government" worker who says whatever POTUS wants him to say in order to keep the American public scared. I hear people out getting a booster shot when it's not needed in the first place. These same people have Alexis, etc. in their homes and don't think one iota that "someone" is listening to everything that goes on in their own home. Ever read the book "1984"???

I ask people that all the time, and as time has gone on the answer has become 'No' much more often. People are sheep just like those in power want them to be.

[golfing eagles]

No you are not. Many times you offer no alternate view backed by facts, you just throw out nasty remarks. I do not see how that is going to accomplish anything other than turn people off to what you say.

Then you need to read my posts more carefully

[Road-Runner]

A problem centers around those who throw the word "science" around but have no clue what science is and could not begin to describe the scientific method. A bigger problem is that there seems to be very little science going on or at least available for reporting to the public. That which is reported through the mainstream media favors the narrative of fear. Where is the science comparing the effectiveness of recovering from COVID vs. the vaccines? Instead of a vaccine passport, why not have people get tested for antibodies, which better describe the immune condition of an individual? How effective are the masks that are being pushed down even to newborns? Last year we decried the terror of "Super spreader events" like the gathering at Mount Rushmore. Now we have hundreds of thousands of unmasked people side to side at football games with no reported spreading going on.

I do not fear the COVID. I do fear what has happened to this formerly free country. Had any one written about this 2 years ago they would have been laughed out of the room. Now we have overburdened hospitals with short staffs being forced to kick out doctors and nurses who decline to get vaccinated, thus greatly acerbating the health care situation.

In the spring of 2020 Dr. Fauci was promising herd immunity, Now we have herd hysteria and a population increasingly afraid to go on with life. I fear this will not end well.

Great (actually) scientific study published by the NIH (actual scientists) about Mask Mandates for Covid. Most won't get half way through it (it's very long) but the opening section lays out what their findings are very well.

Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards? (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/)

[Road-Runner]

Deleted Duplicate

[GrumpyOldMan]

Too many of the "Just Obey" fear spreaders are nasty. We can pray for them to escape the darkness and divisiveness.

Good job name-calling, got three in one sentence. That will certainly promote civil discussions.

[lkagele]

It's doubtful the mask science changed. If anything, the mask science is more understood now but the general principles remain the same.

What changed, what you (intentionally?) neglected, was the threat. In 2019 the world was getting by just fine by adopting healthy habits and taking necessary vaccines. In 2020 Covid arrived in the US and the threat changed significantly. A different threat requires a different evaluation of mitigations.

Masks in a fully-vaccinated population are likely as unnecessary as they were in 2019. However, due to the continued efforts of some, we do not have a fully-vaccinated population and people are still dying at a rate of almost 2,000 per day.

Thanks for sticking up for his highness. What about this one?

This is hardly the first time Fauci has dismissed the need for masks. During a 60 Minutes interview in March 2020, at the start of the pandemic, he suggested masks provided more psychological relief than anything else.

[Carla B]

You should be thankful they all have sacrificed many things for the last 1.5 years. If you follow any posts, all of my family is in health care in multiple states. So challenger.. you think they should be shot for taking care of someone like you, vaxed or not.. But then they don’t have fear like some. Their job is not to judge others, but to do no harm to anyone who enters. Good lesson to live by.

People stopped banging on pots along time ago.

The issue is your post (number 4) left out the pertinent info (family works in health care). Posters can't be expected to know all about posters. Especially when using more than one screen name.

[Bill14564]

Great (actually) scientific study published by the NIH (actual scientists) about Mask Mandates for Covid. Most won't get half way through it (it's very long) but the opening section lays out what their findings are very well.

Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards? (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/)

I'm still reading but do I have this much correct:

- They set out to show that masks caused adverse effects. They weren't trying to evaluate *if* the masks caused the effects, they specifically wanted to show that they did.

- They stared with 1226 articles on the effects of masks then tossed 1117 of them because they "were irrelevant to the research question" (i.e. didn't show negative effects)

- They then declared success in showing that masks cause negative effects.

Now, my characterization of the remainder of the paper that I'm still reading: They throw this spaghetti at the wall to see if any of it will stick. For example, they go as far as discussing the environmental effects from improper disposal of the masks (pollution) as a negative effect of wearing a mask. And the suggestion that doctors should consider the "1948 Geneva Declaration, as revised in 2017" seems (again, I'm still reading) to come close to jumping the shark.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Then you need to read my posts more carefully

No point in replying, they are not interested in anything that disagrees with them.

[GrumpyOldMan]

I'm still reading but do I have this much correct:

- They set out to show that masks caused adverse effects. They weren't trying to evaluate *if* the masks caused the effects, they specifically wanted to show that they did.

- They stared with 1226 articles on the effects of masks then tossed 1117 of them because they "were irrelevant to the research question" (i.e. didn't show negative effects)

- They then declared success in showing that masks cause negative effects.

Now, my characterization of the remainder of the paper that I'm still reading: They throw this spaghetti at the wall to see if any of it will stick. For example, they go as far as discussing the environmental effects from improper disposal of the masks (pollution) as a negative effect of wearing a mask. And the suggestion that doctors should consider the "1948 Geneva Declaration, as revised in 2017" seems (again, I'm still reading) to come close to jumping the shark.

I started reading it and closed it after coming to basically your conclusions. They are not weighing benefit vs risk, they are simply pointing out anything that might be bad.

But, some will find that comforting in justifying their views.

[MSchad]

Stop whining! Yesterday was too soon, today is correct. Point being, if you are around vaccinated people you are safer to socialize. If you are not with vaccinated people, it's best, for your health and safety, not to socialize with or around them. Common sense!
That statement makes no sense. I’m not vaccinated and have had covid. You are vaccinated and haven’t had covid. Who is safer?

[JMintzer]

Good job name-calling, got three in one sentence. That will certainly promote civil discussions.

That piddly name calling is a problem? You must be new here... :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[GrumpyOldMan]

That piddly name calling is a problem? You must be new here... :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Not a problem, actually I saluted their adept use of the method.

[MSchad]

PS: We are vaccinated and have our social life back in gear — with other vaccinated people. We certainly are not cowering in bunkers — just making choices.

Are you not worried about getting covid since you are all vaccinated? Don’t think one of your friends could still get it and pass to you?

[GrumpyOldMan]

Are you not worried about getting covid since you are all vaccinated? Don’t think one of your friends could still get it and pass to you?

Do you live in a black and white world? Is everything 100% or zero? Because that is how your posts sound.

[twinklesweep]

That statement makes no sense. I’m not vaccinated and have had covid. You are vaccinated and haven’t had covid. Who is safer?

Let’s see: President Trump and Governor DeSantis (cited as public figures, not politically) have been vaccinated. Prominent businessman Herman Cain (cited for the same reason—a noted figure) was not vaccinated. Who is/was safer?


Since over 98.5% of people who catch this disease are not killed by the chinese flu, comments like this show ignorance and inability to absorb facts

What utter insensitivity! To dismiss the lives of 1.5% of Covid victims as though they are insignificant because the percent is relatively small, and the devastation to their family members for the same reason, is shocking. We hear enough stories of “tune changing” when this dreadful disease hits home, at which point it’s too late. And this doesn’t even address long-term health issues of Covid survivors (who will perhaps also be dismissed as insignificant because, at least as far as we know at this point, the percentage is also small). How terribly sad for those affected!

[Topgun 1776]

Why is this even a concern anymore? Around the country, millions of total strangers attend college football games sitting in cramped seats next to each other. Based on this alone, I believe we can stop the charade of social distancing now, folks.

[jswirs]

Amen!

You forgot that science and research are constantly evolving by their very definitions. Educated people know that.

Tucker Carlson’s Fauci as “Jesus” stand-up routine last night was vulgar, with the sole purpose of inciting the Evangelicals. He should be very very ashamed!

Education is non-congruent with intelligence. I've seen far too many over educated, egotistical people, in life as well as on this forum, that, because they have some initials behind their names, they seem to suffer from some sort of a "superiority complex".

Common sense and pragmatic thinking is all that is needed to understand any of these post.

[Byte1]

Great (actually) scientific study published by the NIH (actual scientists) about Mask Mandates for Covid. Most won't get half way through it (it's very long) but the opening section lays out what their findings are very well.

Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards? (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/)

Very interesting paper on the side effects of prolonged mask usage. :coolsmiley:

[Byte1]

I'm still reading but do I have this much correct:

- They set out to show that masks caused adverse effects. They weren't trying to evaluate *if* the masks caused the effects, they specifically wanted to show that they did.

- They stared with 1226 articles on the effects of masks then tossed 1117 of them because they "were irrelevant to the research question" (i.e. didn't show negative effects)

- They then declared success in showing that masks cause negative effects.

Now, my characterization of the remainder of the paper that I'm still reading: They throw this spaghetti at the wall to see if any of it will stick. For example, they go as far as discussing the environmental effects from improper disposal of the masks (pollution) as a negative effect of wearing a mask. And the suggestion that doctors should consider the "1948 Geneva Declaration, as revised in 2017" seems (again, I'm still reading) to come close to jumping the shark.

Ah but when you throw spaghetti at the wall and it sticks, it is done. The question when throwing it at the wall is: is the pasta done or not- yes or no? If you do a study and it comes up positive, do you simply say "this is not the result I was looking for" or do you accept that there is a ratio of positive to negative results?
The question was "what kind of negative results do you get from wearing a mask." Why would anyone ask someone that has had no negative side effects the question? The science was a study of the side effects caused by mask wearing over a time period.

There is a study regarding possible side effects of the vaccine. The percentage of those that incur heart defects from the vaccination are just about the same as a child dying from the virus (my understanding, as I am not a professional/expert and just reading the numbers).

I did not read the paper to it's conclusion but I think that the question to be answered is what are the chances of incurring negative side effects of prolonged wearing of the N95 mask, versus the advantages of wearing the mask over a prolonged period.

[Byte1]

I started reading it and closed it after coming to basically your conclusions. They are not weighing benefit vs risk, they are simply pointing out anything that might be bad.

But, some will find that comforting in justifying their views.

So, it didn't fit your agenda therefore you quit reading and found it comforting to your view not to continue? Isn't that the same thing?

I guess there are those that are closed minded enough that they will not examine the studies in the paper with an open mind, IF they do NOT want to admit that there may/may be some negative connotations in their present practice.

I found a study regarding serious side effects of the vaccine, BUT that was not enough to discourage me from seeking the vaccination. I find it nice to be prepared for ANY possibilities that might occur down the road.

[MSchad]

Do you live in a black and white world? Is everything 100% or zero? Because that is how your posts sound.

My point exactly… not black and white, nor 100% or zero.

[Bill14564]

Thanks for sticking up for his highness. What about this one?

This is hardly the first time Fauci has dismissed the need for masks. During a 60 Minutes interview in March 2020, at the start of the pandemic, he suggested masks provided more psychological relief than anything else.

March 2020... that was back when the virus was thought to spread through surface contact, right? There was a huge emphasis on washing hands, not touching your face, no handshakes, disinfect the groceries before they came into the house, etc? If that was how the virus was transmitted then masks would have done no good, they would have provided more psychological relief than anything else.

Science soon learned more and found the virus is spread through droplets. Since masks can reduce droplets the advice was changed. Evolving advice based on evolving science is what I hope for out of those in positions of influence.

My conjecture is he provided thoughts and guidance based on the information he had at the time. As information changed he didn't dig in his heels and stick with what turned out to be the wrong guidance, he revised his guidance to meet the new information.

But if you want to accuse him of lying then what did Dr. Fauci have to gain by intentionally lying about the masks in 2019, in March 2020, or today?

[kenoc7]

Since March of 2020, Except for me all my kids, grandchildren, plus my other half spent every holiday, including Christmas, with hundreds of unvaccinated. Plan is to do it again, this Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years.
They are all covidiots.

[kenoc7]

I didn't know you were a Fauci fan? :shrug:
Anyone with any sense is a Fauci fan.

[SkBlogW]

March 2020... that was back when the virus was thought to spread through surface contact, right? There was a huge emphasis on washing hands, not touching your face, no handshakes, disinfect the groceries before they came into the house, etc? If that was how the virus was transmitted then masks would have done no good, they would have provided more psychological relief than anything else.

Science soon learned more and found the virus is spread through droplets. Since masks can reduce droplets the advice was changed. Evolving advice based on evolving science is what I hope for out of those in positions of influence.

My conjecture is he provided thoughts and guidance based on the information he had at the time. As information changed he didn't dig in his heels and stick with what turned out to be the wrong guidance, he revised his guidance to meet the new information.

But if you want to accuse him of lying then what did Dr. Fauci have to gain by intentionally lying about the masks in 2019, in March 2020, or today?

That's a nice fantasy but far from reality. CDC guidance on covid transmission has always said (starting in Feb 2020) the virus can be spread through respiratory droplets and also fomites. They changed guidance in Oct 2020 to acknowledge it also spread through fine aerosols and they downplayed fomite transmission.

To say Fauci didn't know the virus spread through respiratory droplets in February 2020 is laughable. Here is Tony in his own words in an email dated Feb 5 2020

91065

[ithos]

March 2020... that was back when the virus was thought to spread through surface contact, right? There was a huge emphasis on washing hands, not touching your face, no handshakes, disinfect the groceries before they came into the house, etc? If that was how the virus was transmitted then masks would have done no good, they would have provided more psychological relief than anything else.

Science soon learned more and found the virus is spread through droplets. Since masks can reduce droplets the advice was changed. Evolving advice based on evolving science is what I hope for out of those in positions of influence.

My conjecture is he provided thoughts and guidance based on the information he had at the time. As information changed he didn't dig in his heels and stick with what turned out to be the wrong guidance, he revised his guidance to meet the new information.

But if you want to accuse him of lying then what did Dr. Fauci have to gain by intentionally lying about the masks in 2019, in March 2020, or today?

First of all, the recommendations did not EVOLVE.. It changed almost overnight. I am sure it was a coincidence but the policy u-turn occurred about the same time the extreme lockdowns were implemented.

Here is Fauci's job descriptions:

Dr. Fauci was appointed Director of NIAID in 1984. He oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, etc.

Since pandemics from viruses have occurred through out recorded history, why is it that in 2020 the highest paid US government employee with a tenure of almost 40 years did not have a clue about the effectiveness of cloth masks? Have we not been using masks in the medical field for decades?

I am not anti mask on a limited basis but the flip flop on policy was not based primarily on "Science" unless you are talking about political science.

And for the Fauci faithful out there, which prior health crisis out there has he done a superb job on?

[Byte1]

Anyone with any sense is a Fauci fan.

And anyone with any CENTS will make Fauci a fan...........:1rotfl:

[Bill14564]

That's a nice fantasy but far from reality. CDC guidance on covid transmission has always said (starting in Feb 2020) the virus can be spread through respiratory droplets and also fomites. They changed guidance in Oct 2020 to acknowledge it also spread through fine aerosols and they downplayed fomite transmission.

To say Fauci didn't know the virus spread through respiratory droplets in February 2020 is laughable. Here is Tony in his own words in an email dated Feb 5 2020

91065

All that, plus what I wrote, is completely consistent with the increasing knowledge of the virus. It doesn't fit the "Fauci is a liar and a fraud" narrative, but it does fit reality.

[Bill14564]

First of all, the recommendations did not EVOLVE.. It changed almost overnight. I am sure it was a coincidence but the policy u-turn occurred about the same time the extreme lockdowns were implemented.

Here is Fauci's job descriptions:

Dr. Fauci was appointed Director of NIAID in 1984. He oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, etc.

Since pandemics from viruses have occurred through out recorded history, why is it that in 2020 the highest paid US government employee with a tenure of almost 40 years did not have a clue about the effectiveness of cloth masks? Have we not been using masks in the medical field for decades?

I am not anti mask on a limited basis but the flip flop on policy was not based primarily on "Science" unless you are talking about political science.

And for the Fauci faithful out there, which prior health crisis out there has he done a superb job on?

How long does evolution of knowledge take with the appearance of a new virus? As more was learned about how the virus was spread and how fast it was spreading the recommendations changed. "Almost overnight" is a pretty good timespan if it means saving thousands of lives. And you are wrong, it was not just a coincidence that the mask policy changed at the same time as the restrictions since both actions were in response to new awareness of the threat.

I don't see the flip flop on masks. Another post included an email pointing out that masks, particularly those available through the drug store, have little effectiveness in protecting the wearer. Nothing has flip flopped, masks are still most effective at source control - this is how masks have been used for over 40 years. While some masks can protect the user they are not the masks that were available in the drug store back at that time.

[golfing eagles]

That's a nice fantasy but far from reality. CDC guidance on covid transmission has always said (starting in Feb 2020) the virus can be spread through respiratory droplets and also fomites. They changed guidance in Oct 2020 to acknowledge it also spread through fine aerosols and they downplayed fomite transmission.

To say Fauci didn't know the virus spread through respiratory droplets in February 2020 is laughable. Here is Tony in his own words in an email dated Feb 5 2020

91065

And what he stated in that email is 110% correct, both at that time and today. Yes, I know there are still some people who think they are protecting themselves with a mask, for them ignorance is bliss. So just what is the criticism of Fauci that that email was supposed to prove??? I don't see anything at all.

[golfing eagles]

First of all, the recommendations did not EVOLVE.. It changed almost overnight. I am sure it was a coincidence but the policy u-turn occurred about the same time the extreme lockdowns were implemented.

Here is Fauci's job descriptions:

Dr. Fauci was appointed Director of NIAID in 1984. He oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, etc.

Since pandemics from viruses have occurred through out recorded history, why is it that in 2020 the highest paid US government employee with a tenure of almost 40 years did not have a clue about the effectiveness of cloth masks? Have we not been using masks in the medical field for decades?

I am not anti mask on a limited basis but the flip flop on policy was not based primarily on "Science" unless you are talking about political science.

And for the Fauci faithful out there, which prior health crisis out there has he done a superb job on?

See previous post with email. He obviously was 100% correct about the efficacy of masks. And yes, we have used paper masks for decades---TO PROTECT THE PATIENT, NOT OURSELVES!. We use a completely different set of PPE when dealing with something that we could catch, like meningococcus.

And while on the subject, there have been any number of posters that are piling on Tony Fauci like he is the bad guy. To all of you that think that, you have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't care what you read on which conspiracy web site. Do you know him? Have you had dinner with him several times? Have you talked with him for an hour or two? If not, you need to zip it. If you had, you would have a better idea of what Tony is all about.

[petiteone]

Yesterday:

REPORTER: “But we can gather for Christmas or it’s just too soon to tell?”

FAUCI: “It’s just too soon to tell”

Today:

FAUCI: “I will be spending Christmas with my family. I encourage people -- particularly the vaccinated people who are protected -- to have a good, normal Christmas with your family.”

So....what's your issue? Christmas is not until December and everything could change tomorrow with the new Mu variant. It's not difficult to stay flexible. Fauci knows Best, even if you don't like it.

[jimjamuser]

Yesterday:

REPORTER: “But we can gather for Christmas or it’s just too soon to tell?”

FAUCI: “It’s just too soon to tell”

Today:

FAUCI: “I will be spending Christmas with my family. I encourage people -- particularly the vaccinated people who are protected -- to have a good, normal Christmas with your family.”
I would be fine with one xmas day for the Vaccinated and their family get-togethers. Then, another day for the recalcitrant anti-vaxxers and their families. It is the smushing together of the Vaccinated and the non-vaccinated that is causing all the problems in the US - whether that is at church, sports events, or anywhere! Portugal does NOT have that problem; they are 98% vaccinated. That is to dream for!

[jimjamuser]

There is absolutely no change in what Dr Fauci said, just as there is no change in your constant attacks on a person who has devoted his life to combating disease. Statement one is about the nation as a whole, asking will the pandemic be over by Xmas. He honestly answers that we don't know yet. Will the anti-vax people see the light? Will a new strain emerge? Will hospitals continue to have to triage? Those kind of well informed questions lead Dr Fauci to his cautious answer.

The second statement is also clear. If you and your family are full vaccinated you can have a good normal Xmas. The unspoken part of that second statement is that if you and your family are not vaccinated then whether it is safe to gather is still unknown. So are you intentionally being obtuse or do you really not understand what is very clear to me in those two statements?

The science did NOT change. But science does improve knowledge with testing and evaluation in an ongoing manner. So if at some point the science does change that does not make an earlier statement wrong based on the information available at the time. However, when information is available it is the obligation of those who wish to claim the mantle of science to be up to date in their pronouncements. For those who are anti-science, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the literature and believe their own "opinions" about vaccines or deworming meds or social distancing, or masking should be taken seriously, just No to them.
I agree with the contents of this post!

[Byte1]

I would be fine with one xmas day for the Vaccinated and their family get-togethers. Then, another day for the recalcitrant anti-vaxxers and their families. It is the smushing together of the Vaccinated and the non-vaccinated that is causing all the problems in the US - whether that is at church, sports events, or anywhere! Portugal does NOT have that problem; they are 98% vaccinated. That is to dream for!

Are there no flights to Portugal?

[jimjamuser]

Since March of 2020, Except for me all my kids, grandchildren, plus my other half spent every holiday, including Christmas, with hundreds of unvaccinated. Plan is to do it again, this Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years.
I disagree with the contents of this post. And good luck because a person can not play Russian Roulette forever!

[jimjamuser]

Sad? That is your opinion. It sounds joyful to me.

I don't need anyone's advice on how I should spend the holidays with my family. I would rather rely on my own common sense and critical thinking, which may be referred to as personal responsibility. Common sense and critical thinking is, IMHO, rapidly diminishing in today's society.
I have successfully and healthfully ascended into my 70's, and I'm not about to change what has gotten me this far.
If other's feel the need to be directed, that's their choice, not mine.
But the point IS......who is the puppet and who is the puppet master??????

[Nellmack]

Bless you. The bigger picture I'm looking @ is how insane it is to seek a type of permission to see your own family. Hubby & I remain unvaxxed, had a trip up north on public transit & all the way back. We still test negative, much to the dismay of local doctors. I am responsible for myself, always have been, & will continue to do so without the help of elected officials & media hacks. Thanks for listening. :duck:

I'm glad you made your trip and did not get infected. Sadly I know quite a few people that weren't so lucky. I received a death notice from a work colleague just today, he got Covid one month ago and went down hill, died Thursday. I'm not suggesting that you get vaccinated at all. I don't know you and if you get infected and die I'll probably never learn of it. I do hope that if you do become infected you won't take the hospital space for some elderly person that has a heart attack or stroke. I don't mean to sound cruel but someone needs to point out what is fair. Good luck with your decision.

[jimjamuser]

Don’t understand the division. Vaxed or unvaxed, “science” proves both contract and pass the virus. If you and yours are healthy, enjoy your holidays with your loved ones. If you are sick stay home. Advice we have all followed and passed on for decades.
There are many differences! One IS that the vaxxed ones do NOT die, but the unvaxxed DO. All the reputable, non-propagandizing TV and media channels and radio have given COUNTLESS examples and face-to-face interviews with dying CV patients warning their relatives and ALL others to, "GET the Shot"! If you have a DEATH WISH, just do not get the vaccine and continue with your normal, Russian Roulette lifestyle, while taking innocent people with you.
2nd) pretending the CV does NOT exist IS inviting disaster and providing an incubation area for the Virus to mutate to a stronger variety.
3rd) personally from my perspective and from a humanitarian and social perspective - I have eliminated all friendships and acquaintances that I know are anti-vaxxers. I don't want them around me - they make my skin itch and I don't trust them and try to NEVER do business with them! Did I make myself clear enough? Did I stutter?

[jimjamuser]

Fauci is self serving publicity hound, a habitual liar and a shill for Big Pharma. And untold thousands have died because of it.

He covered for WHO and the CCP early on when they conducted the sham investigation

He lied when he said COVID was of natural origin.

He lied about Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine despite documented findings from government agencies and renowned health professionals around the world.

Ivermectin, antiviral properties and COVID-19: a possible new mechanism of action - PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32462282/)
Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19 - PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/)

And he lied before Congress about funding the Wuhan Lab.

Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab (https://theintercept.com/2021/09/06/new-details-emerge-about-coronavirus-research-at-chinese-lab/)

He doesn't have supporters. He has groupies.

Saint Anthony Fauci Prayer Candle Label | Etsy (https://www.etsy.com/listing/1080384537/saint-anthony-fauci-prayer-candle-label?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=fauci+prayer+candle&ref=sc_gallery-1-3&plkey=14b816f7b26db167dd0cbfc0d47bdbd97d3f9ba7%3A1 080384537)
I disagree with what may be the ALL-TIME worst content on this subject!

[jimjamuser]

The covid variants will probably continue, real or imagined, until the government has gained complete control over our lives. The final variant will probably be called "Communism".
By THAT logic, Portugal must have gone communist without our knowledge, because Portugal has a 98% CV vaccination rate!

[jimjamuser]

God Bless you. Celebrate life and family. I would propose that those who want to isolate from their families most likely had that in them since before the virus.
From my statistical calculation of # of pro-anti-vaxxers relative to the # of pro-vaccination folks - I may either move to Portugal or stay here and start building a fall-out shelter ( with CV blocking air filters).
When this is finally over (like right now in Portugal) I may STILL be afraid of my so-many crazy neighbors. There are a lot out there, Dorthy.....forget Kansas let's duck back into OZ!

[jimjamuser]

Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep...
"step out of line"
"the man come"
"and rip off your mask"
That's where we are headed, WE are NOT in Kansas anymore. Dorthy!

[nick demis]

There is absolutely no change in what Dr Fauci said, just as there is no change in your constant attacks on a person who has devoted his life to combating disease. Statement one is about the nation as a whole, asking will the pandemic be over by Xmas. He honestly answers that we don't know yet. Will the anti-vax people see the light? Will a new strain emerge? Will hospitals continue to have to triage? Those kind of well informed questions lead Dr Fauci to his cautious answer.

The second statement is also clear. If you and your family are full vaccinated you can have a good normal Xmas. The unspoken part of that second statement is that if you and your family are not vaccinated then whether it is safe to gather is still unknown. So are you intentionally being obtuse or do you really not understand what is very clear to me in those two statements?

The science did NOT change. But science does improve knowledge with testing and evaluation in an ongoing manner. So if at some point the science does change that does not make an earlier statement wrong based on the information available at the time. However, when information is available it is the obligation of those who wish to claim the mantle of science to be up to date in their pronouncements. For those who are anti-science, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the literature and believe their own "opinions" about vaccines or deworming meds or social distancing, or masking should be taken seriously, just No to them.

He quoted Fauci. Period. It doesn't sound like he is making an issue, more like you are making an issue.

[jimjamuser]

Stop whining! Yesterday was too soon, today is correct. Point being, if you are around vaccinated people you are safer to socialize. If you are not with vaccinated people, it's best, for your health and safety, not to socialize with or around them. Common sense!
IMO We should form clubs of the vaxxed residents and have our own times for pool shooting, swimming pool use, card clubs, investment clubs, indoor volleyball, water volleyball, and vaccinate EVERYTHING. Even whole leagues of golf, tennis, pickleball, softball, and ETC! Corporations are moving that way - some will be vaccinated and some may be evangelical corporations of the UNvaxxed. Some whole countries are HIGHLY vaccinated like Portugal (98%). And there will be more like that !!!!!! And yes, if I had the cash and the family agreement and Portugal would let me in - I would be OUTTA here on the 1st plane or boat. I could rent there until all the UNvaxxed people in the US have gone - " to graveyards everyone". I wonder if my buddy Bezos would yacht me there? Portugal that is, not to graveyards.

[jimjamuser]

I never watch Tucker's show, but last night I was browsing channels and happen to stop on it just as he was beginning his opening assault on Fauci. I watched it for a while because I thought it very interesting and entertaining. I didn't see any fault in what he said, but then again that may be in the eyes of the beholder. I haven't watched FOX for a long time, and rarely watch any of the left sided media news(?)/propaganda networks either, other than the local news to hear the weather report in the morning.
In my opinion, Fauci brings on the attacks, by being available for cretins to grill him until he makes a controversial comment. To be honest with you, I have never liked what the man has said, and even less how he has spoken politically. If he is truly linked to subsidizing the covid studies in Wuhan, I give him partial blame for this mess we are enduring right now. That said, I do not know him personally. If he was as smart as he says he is, then he would keep his mouth shut and let the CDC speak about this mess instead of him.
If 40% of the US population were 1/2 as smart as DOCTOR Fauci, that would give them an IQ of around 100 and THEN and only then would we have a 98% CV vaccination rate (probably last year)! And our US CV problem would be a distant memory! Also, we would have National Health Care. We would have an average citizen's wealth as high as Switzerland and Finland. WE would be higher than 30th in the world in "Quality of Life". We would all be about 2 inches taller. We would have put racism to rest (RIP) about 1985. We would be living the "life of Reily" (an old expression). We would all be driving electric cars and trucks and NEVER any smelly, stinky, noisy gas-infernal combustion Golf Cars! And driverless A.I. vehicles would be on the streets!
.... and I could keep up that dream world, but we traded all that so that certain people could pay less income and property taxes and not bother to support upward mobility and education - because they got theirs and to h*l* with you! And anytime a middle class develops or gets stronger they just knock it back down by bringing more ignoramuses immigrants into USA-Land!
.... And THAT is how you use science to improve America. You heard it 1st here....sports fans

[JMintzer]

I would be fine with one xmas day for the Vaccinated and their family get-togethers. Then, another day for the recalcitrant anti-vaxxers and their families. It is the smushing together of the Vaccinated and the non-vaccinated that is causing all the problems in the US - whether that is at church, sports events, or anywhere! Portugal does NOT have that problem; they are 98% vaccinated. That is to dream for!

Why do you keep repeating that false information?

[Red Rose]

Except for you? Why is that? Plus your run on sentence sounds like all of you didn't get together. That's why the responder said that's sad.

[JMintzer]

By THAT logic, Portugal must have gone communist without our knowledge, because Portugal has a 98% CV vaccination rate!

No they do not. They have an 84% rate. I've shown you the proof, yet you insist on perpetuating misinformation. Why is that?

[JMintzer]

IMO We should form clubs of the vaxxed residents and have our own times for pool shooting, swimming pool use, card clubs, investment clubs, indoor volleyball, water volleyball, and vaccinate EVERYTHING. Even whole leagues of golf, tennis, pickleball, softball, and ETC! Corporations are moving that way - some will be vaccinated and some may be evangelical corporations of the UNvaxxed. Some whole countries are HIGHLY vaccinated like Portugal (98%). And there will be more like that !!!!!! And yes, if I had the cash and the family agreement and Portugal would let me in - I would be OUTTA here on the 1st plane or boat. I could rent there until all the UNvaxxed people in the US have gone - " to graveyards everyone". I wonder if my buddy Bezos would yacht me there? Portugal that is, not to graveyards.

Again with that lie...

[jimjamuser]

That would be YOUR opinion. But, you are certainly entitled to you opinion.
I agree and let's look at the opinions of DEAD BODIES !!!!!!! In Florida, in 10 months 55,000 Florida citizens have died. In 10 years of the US fighting in Vietnam, we lost 58,000 American soldiers........ SOMETHING is going on here
.......and what it is
is definitely clear
.......There is a man over there
saying step out of
that vaccination line

[jimjamuser]

Too many of the "Just Obey" fear spreaders are nasty. We can pray for them to escape the darkness and divisiveness.
I'd like to know if "just obey" is a motto of a new dark web media site? Or is it new teenage slang?

[jimjamuser]

Do you live in a black and white world? Is everything 100% or zero? Because that is how your posts sound.
If thw UNvaccinated get CV (with the new Delta variant) they are LIKELY to be painfully hospitalized and die or have LONG-TERM CV. If the vaccinated get it (a very small number) they avoid the hospital and do NOT die. To die or NOT to die, that is the question - whether is better to exist in an unreal Science-denying world or get your vaccine and show off that big BRAIN of yours.

[jimjamuser]

Let’s see: President Trump and Governor DeSantis (cited as public figures, not politically) have been vaccinated. Prominent businessman Herman Cain (cited for the same reason—a noted figure) was not vaccinated. Who is/was safer?




What utter insensitivity! To dismiss the lives of 1.5% of Covid victims as though they are insignificant because the percent is relatively small, and the devastation to their family members for the same reason, is shocking. We hear enough stories of “tune changing” when this dreadful disease hits home, at which point it’s too late. And this doesn’t even address long-term health issues of Covid survivors (who will perhaps also be dismissed as insignificant because, at least as far as we know at this point, the percentage is also small). How terribly sad for those affected!
The Florida governor got vaccinated early on!

[jimjamuser]

Education is non-congruent with intelligence. I've seen far too many over educated, egotistical people, in life as well as on this forum, that, because they have some initials behind their names, they seem to suffer from some sort of a "superiority complex".

Common sense and pragmatic thinking is all that is needed to understand any of these post.
Education attainment is non-linearly correlated to intelligence. Non-congruent means something else.

[jimjamuser]

See previous post with email. He obviously was 100% correct about the efficacy of masks. And yes, we have used paper masks for decades---TO PROTECT THE PATIENT, NOT OURSELVES!. We use a completely different set of PPE when dealing with something that we could catch, like meningococcus.

And while on the subject, there have been any number of posters that are piling on Tony Fauci like he is the bad guy. To all of you that think that, you have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't care what you read on which conspiracy web site. Do you know him? Have you had dinner with him several times? Have you talked with him for an hour or two? If not, you need to zip it. If you had, you would have a better idea of what Tony is all about.
I agree with the content of this post!

[Byte1]

If thw UNvaccinated get CV (with the new Delta variant) they are LIKELY to be painfully hospitalized and die or have LONG-TERM CV. If the vaccinated get it (a very small number) they avoid the hospital and do NOT die. To die or NOT to die, that is the question - whether is better to exist in an unreal Science-denying world or get your vaccine and show off that big BRAIN of yours.

Not true. If you look at the stats on infections today and the death rate, you will see how far off you are. And now with the treatment available, there has been a 50% decrease in hospitalizations in Florida. That's "science" and no one is "denying" it.

[ithos]

I agree with the content of this post!

You see that thumbs up symbol at the bottom of the post? That will convey the same message.

[SkBlogW]

Someone ate too many paint chips as a kid.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

See previous post with email. He obviously was 100% correct about the efficacy of masks. And yes, we have used paper masks for decades---TO PROTECT THE PATIENT, NOT OURSELVES!. We use a completely different set of PPE when dealing with something that we could catch, like meningococcus.

And while on the subject, there have been any number of posters that are piling on Tony Fauci like he is the bad guy. To all of you that think that, you have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't care what you read on which conspiracy web site. Do you know him? Have you had dinner with him several times? Have you talked with him for an hour or two? If not, you need to zip it. If you had, you would have a better idea of what Tony is all about.

The bold underlined part is why sometimes your posts about masks frustrates me.

Masks protect people. Even paper masks protect people. You just said so in this post. No, my paper mask is not likely to offer much (if any) significant protection TO me against your germs. But it is very likely to offer much significant protection FROM my germs against you.

If we are both wearing paper masks, and talking to each other, we have twice the thickness of protection between us, which adds even more protection - including SOME protection to me against you, and to you against me.

That's why paper masks have been and continue to be the recommendation for us "commoner" folk. Indoors, inside buildings other than your own, masks will help. They will help a whole lot if everyone is doing it. Less so if only a few are doing it. Not at all if no one is doing it.

[SkBlogW]

And what he stated in that email is 110% correct, both at that time and today. Yes, I know there are still some people who think they are protecting themselves with a mask, for them ignorance is bliss. So just what is the criticism of Fauci that that email was supposed to prove??? I don't see anything at all.

Duh I was responding to a poster who had concocted some fantasy that in early 2020 the CDC etc thought covid was spread only by fomites, implying that "the science" had changed and nobody knew before that covid spread through respitory droplets.

The Fauci email was used to show said fantasizer that Faici CDC etc knew very early in 2020 that the virus was spread through respiration and not just fomites.

Next time try reading carefully before jumping to conclusions. And yes, Fauci was accurate in the email, cloth and surgical masks don't do much at all, as I have always said. :icon_wink:

[golfing eagles]

The bold underlined part is why sometimes your posts about masks frustrates me.

Masks protect people. Even paper masks protect people. You just said so in this post. No, my paper mask is not likely to offer much (if any) significant protection TO me against your germs. But it is very likely to offer much significant protection FROM my germs against you.

If we are both wearing paper masks, and talking to each other, we have twice the thickness of protection between us, which adds even more protection - including SOME protection to me against you, and to you against me.

That's why paper masks have been and continue to be the recommendation for us "commoner" folk. Indoors, inside buildings other than your own, masks will help. They will help a whole lot if everyone is doing it. Less so if only a few are doing it. Not at all if no one is doing it.

The post was in response to Fauci's email of 2/20---where he essentially stated that a mask is of little use to protect yourself but much better at protecting others from you. I 110% agree with him. The person who posted that did not understand what Fauci was writing and was trying to use that statement against him, for whatever reason.

Now, universal masking has the benefit of protecting people from each other, although I disagree that having 2 masks increases the protection for the wearer to any extent. But contrary to all the anti-vaxxers that just love to repeat the false claim that vaccinated people can spread the virus just as easily as the unvaccinated---not false because they can't , but false because they do it at a substantially lower rate than the unvaccinated, masks might help to curtail that spread.

[golfing eagles]

Duh I was responding to a poster who had concocted some fantasy that in early 2020 the CDC etc thought covid was spread only by fomites, implying that "the science" had changed and nobody knew before that covid spread through respitory droplets.

The Fauci email was used to show said fantasizer that Faici CDC etc knew very early in 2020 that the virus was spread through respiration and not just fomites.

Next time try reading carefully before jumping to conclusions. And yes, Fauci was accurate in the email, cloth and surgical masks don't do much at all, as I have always said. :icon_wink:

I'm pretty sure I understood the post. I'll admit I only addressed the mask aspect, since it is pretty clear to most medical professionals that coronaviruses are most likely spread by aerosols or go airborne, not by fomites, and Fauci knows that better than almost all of us.

PS: next time you can skip the "duh", I very much doubt it will ever apply to me.

[Byte1]

The bold underlined part is why sometimes your posts about masks frustrates me.

Masks protect people. Even paper masks protect people. You just said so in this post. No, my paper mask is not likely to offer much (if any) significant protection TO me against your germs. But it is very likely to offer much significant protection FROM my germs against you.

If we are both wearing paper masks, and talking to each other, we have twice the thickness of protection between us, which adds even more protection - including SOME protection to me against you, and to you against me.

That's why paper masks have been and continue to be the recommendation for us "commoner" folk. Indoors, inside buildings other than your own, masks will help. They will help a whole lot if everyone is doing it. Less so if only a few are doing it. Not at all if no one is doing it.

I suppose some wish the mask to be a mandated future attire. To protect "others" from catching the virus, the Flu, a common cold, etc. Sorry, but I haven't worn my mask since the second week after I received my vaccination.
Like I said before, if that bothers anyone then they can stay home. And I have never had the flu so I do not get the flu shot. So, during flu season and you all wish to wear you masks, go for it. I have no intention of wearing one. If that makes you think that I am bad, then so be it. If I ever feel threatened by a contagious disease, I have a military gas mask that I will wear, not a useless piece of paper or a spare sock.

[JMintzer]

You see that thumbs up symbol at the bottom of the post? That will convey the same message.

But not so EVERYBODY will see it and get the attention one seeks...

[thelegges]

The issue is your post (number 4) left out the pertinent info (family works in health care). Posters can't be expected to know all about posters. Especially when using more than one screen name.

There were 7 poster on TOTV who’s family’s are in healthcare, all but 2 have stopped posting, if you read the original post where exactly would one be exposed to HUNDREDS of people unless in a healthcare facility, or an essential worker. I only have one screen name, I use my real name, how about you.

They are all covidiots.

It must be hard to read all the posts, before one calls people idiots.

I disagree with the contents of this post. And good luck because a person can not play Russian Roulette forever!

Read all the posts then you can insert foot wherever you feel appropriate. The first post how exactly do you think that people are exposed to hundreds of unvaccinated people during the holidays, unless they were essential workers, cause they choose not to hide in their house like others. Yet they are still working, surviving, thriving. Yes some were lost, but it comes with the territory.

It is so much fun to watch people attack, belittle, call them idiots, or stupid when they really don’t have a clue, or just can’t comprehend a post.

Wishing they could read their OBIT wins the prize.

There are many healthcare workers that wish they could pick and choose who they would like to take care of. But sadly they don’t get that ability to choose.

They take all, including those who wish them dead.

[jimjamuser]

You see that thumbs up symbol at the bottom of the post? That will convey the same message.
Thanks for that. Someday I might tell, "the rest of the story".

[jimjamuser]

The bold underlined part is why sometimes your posts about masks frustrates me.

Masks protect people. Even paper masks protect people. You just said so in this post. No, my paper mask is not likely to offer much (if any) significant protection TO me against your germs. But it is very likely to offer much significant protection FROM my germs against you.

If we are both wearing paper masks, and talking to each other, we have twice the thickness of protection between us, which adds even more protection - including SOME protection to me against you, and to you against me.

That's why paper masks have been and continue to be the recommendation for us "commoner" folk. Indoors, inside buildings other than your own, masks will help. They will help a whole lot if everyone is doing it. Less so if only a few are doing it. Not at all if no one is doing it.
I agree with the content of this post.

[jimjamuser]

The post was in response to Fauci's email of 2/20---where he essentially stated that a mask is of little use to protect yourself but much better at protecting others from you. I 110% agree with him. The person who posted that did not understand what Fauci was writing and was trying to use that statement against him, for whatever reason.

Now, universal masking has the benefit of protecting people from each other, although I disagree that having 2 masks increases the protection for the wearer to any extent. But contrary to all the anti-vaxxers that just love to repeat the false claim that vaccinated people can spread the virus just as easily as the unvaccinated---not false because they can't , but false because they do it at a substantially lower rate than the unvaccinated, masks might help to curtail that spread.
Good post!

[Two Bills]

According to ECDC official figures.

Portugal
One dose vaccinated--98%
Two dose vaccinated--90.2%

COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker | European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#uptake-tab)

PS. Denmark is actually better, with a 95% first and second vaccination rate.

[Altavia]

For the infectious disease experts here, do other upper respiratory diseases ramp up and back down again as rapidly as CV?

Will this be the new normal for CV?

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Don’t understand the division. Vaxed or unvaxed, “science” proves both contract and pass the virus. If you and yours are healthy, enjoy your holidays with your loved ones. If you are sick stay home. Advice we have all followed and passed on for decades.

But that's not the whole story. Yes, if you vaccinated you can still contract and pass the virus. But vaccinated people that contract the virus will have milder symptoms than unvaccinated people.

To your second point, you can have the virus and pass it on even if you have no symptoms. Some people will never have any symptoms and other may have the virus in their system and still be able to pass it on for up to 14 days before they experience symptoms.

The vaccines are designed to limit hospitalizations and deaths. Not to prevent contracting the virus.

Unvaccinated people account for around 98%-99% of all deaths due to Covid-19.

That being said, less than 2% of all Covid cases result in death and less than 20% require hospitalization. Both of those number have been declining since the vaccines were introduced.

I don't tell anyone what to do but those are the number.

As for myself, I believe that the vaccine saved my life.

[Byte1]

I cannot fathom how people are STILL posting that lie...

Because rather than LISTEN to what was really said, they will parrot whatever they hear someone in the media that chooses to distort. Proves to us that the media is living rent free in their minds.

[JMintzer]

According to ECDC official figures.

Portugal
One dose vaccinated--98%
Two dose vaccinated--90.2%

COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker | European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#uptake-tab)

PS. Denmark is actually better, with a 95% first and second vaccination rate.

Your own link states Portugal is now at 90% (FULLY VACCINATED). Last I checked, 90% does not equal 98%...

And according to this site...

prortugal vaccination rate - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=prortugal+vaccination+rate&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS873US874&oq=prortugal+vaccination+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i13l8j0i22i30.7074j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

84.7% fully vaccinated as of 10/5...

And Denmark? 85.6%

Denmark: the latest coronavirus counts, charts and maps (https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/denmark/)

[Bill14564]

By THAT logic, Portugal must have gone communist without our knowledge, because Portugal has a 98% CV vaccination rate!

No they do not. They have an 84% rate. I've shown you the proof, yet you insist on perpetuating misinformation. Why is that?

According to ECDC official figures.

Portugal
One dose vaccinated--98%
Two dose vaccinated--90.2%

COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker | European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#uptake-tab)

PS. Denmark is actually better, with a 95% first and second vaccination rate.

Your own link states Portugal is now at 90% (FULLY VACCINATED). Last I checked, 90% does not equal 98%...

And according to this site...

prortugal vaccination rate - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=prortugal+vaccination+rate&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS873US874&oq=prortugal+vaccination+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i13l8j0i22i30.7074j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

84.7% fully vaccinated as of 10/5...

And Denmark? 85.6%

Denmark: the latest coronavirus counts, charts and maps (https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/denmark/)

As fun as this back and forth is to watch, this can be put to bed if you would read the information on the page to see what the numbers represent.

According to the information on the pages, Portugal has fully vaccinated about 98% of those 18 and above. However, there are also people living in Portugal who are not yet 18 and if you consider those individuals, Portugal has vaccinated approximately 87% of the entire population.

[CFrance]

As fun as this back and forth is to watch, this can be put to bed if you would read the information on the page to see what the numbers represent.

According to the information on the pages, Portugal has fully vaccinated about 98% of those 18 and above. However, there are also people living in Portugal who are not yet 18 and if you consider those individuals, Portugal has vaccinated approximately 87% of the entire population.
Well, we certainly wouldn't want all the facts to get in our way!

[GrumpyOldMan]

Well, we certainly wouldn't want all the facts to get in our way!

Because, you know, giving someone the benefit of the doubt that maybe they made a mistake and missed the detail would be silly. much more fun to argue.

[Two Bills]

Your own link states Portugal is now at 90% (FULLY VACCINATED). Last I checked, 90% does not equal 98%...

And according to this site...

prortugal vaccination rate - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=prortugal+vaccination+rate&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS873US874&oq=prortugal+vaccination+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i13l8j0i22i30.7074j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

84.7% fully vaccinated as of 10/5...

And Denmark? 85.6%

Denmark: the latest coronavirus counts, charts and maps (https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/denmark/)

I give not a tinkers cuss what Portugal's numbers are.
I just posted the ECDC's data.
Over 18's or under, they are the EEC's collating body, unless of course, they are supposed to run all numbers past you first for approval.
In which case they obviously failed to do so, and a grave error has been committed, and I posted false information

[Byte1]

And the Villages has an 82% vaccinated.
I am glad that I cannot see the tantrums some of the posters are having every time they scream "get vaccinated!" "It is your PATRIOTIC duty to get vaccinated!" "If you do not get vaccinated, you are going to kill us all!"
And then the ones that say "If you don't get vaccinated, I hope you die!" "The hospitals should not treat you." "Because of you, our insurance is going up."
Such a great bunch of screamers.
Calm down folks. Most of the eligible folks in this area have been vaccinated (82%) and most of the others have already resistance to the virus due to surviving Covid.
If you are so excited about other countries, feel free to immigrate to those places and enjoy their socialized medicine.

[Woodbear]

And to think more people have died in 2021 when a vaccine was available than the majority of 2020 when none was approved.

[rmd2]

It's doubtful the mask science changed. If anything, the mask science is more understood now but the general principles remain the same.

What changed, what you (intentionally?) neglected, was the threat. In 2019 the world was getting by just fine by adopting healthy habits and taking necessary vaccines. In 2020 Covid arrived in the US and the threat changed significantly. A different threat requires a different evaluation of mitigations.

Masks in a fully-vaccinated population are likely as unnecessary as they were in 2019. However, due to the continued efforts of some, we do not have a fully-vaccinated population and people are still dying at a rate of almost 2,000 per day.

With regard to mask use, Dr. Fauci admitted he said we didn't need to wear masks partly because there was a shortage of masks and healthcare workers needed the masks. That had nothing to do with science.

[coffeebean]

There is absolutely no change in what Dr Fauci said, just as there is no change in your constant attacks on a person who has devoted his life to combating disease. Statement one is about the nation as a whole, asking will the pandemic be over by Xmas. He honestly answers that we don't know yet. Will the anti-vax people see the light? Will a new strain emerge? Will hospitals continue to have to triage? Those kind of well informed questions lead Dr Fauci to his cautious answer.

The second statement is also clear. If you and your family are full vaccinated you can have a good normal Xmas. The unspoken part of that second statement is that if you and your family are not vaccinated then whether it is safe to gather is still unknown. So are you intentionally being obtuse or do you really not understand what is very clear to me in those two statements?

The science did NOT change. But science does improve knowledge with testing and evaluation in an ongoing manner. So if at some point the science does change that does not make an earlier statement wrong based on the information available at the time. However, when information is available it is the obligation of those who wish to claim the mantle of science to be up to date in their pronouncements. For those who are anti-science, ignorant, or incapable of understanding the literature and believe their own "opinions" about vaccines or deworming meds or social distancing, or masking should be taken seriously, just No to them.

WOW.......has the OP seen the amount of thanks for this post? I wish I could thank this post more than once. That's for sure.

[coffeebean]

Yes, thank you. And don't you forget to put the bullets in chambers #1 and #6 for the next time you are crossing the street.

I was a child when I was taught to look both ways before crossing the street. I still do it to this day.

[justjim]

And to think more people have died in 2021 when a vaccine was available than the majority of 2020 when none was approved.

I don’t suppose the difference has anything to do with the Delta variant. Nah..,

[Woodbear]

I don’t suppose the difference has anything to do with the Delta variant. Nah..,

The delta variant of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 has been found to be far more infectious, while being less deadly than the original coronavirus. This is mainly attributed to the vaccine being around. So again, more people have died of Covid in 2021 even though a vaccine exists.

[Altavia]

The delta variant of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 has been found to be far more infectious, while being less deadly than the original coronavirus. This is mainly attributed to the vaccine being around. So again, more people have died of Covid in 2021 even though a vaccine exists.

And +90% of those deaths were the unvacinated.

[JMintzer]

WOW.......has the OP seen the amount of thanks for this post? I wish I could thank this post more than once. That's for sure.

Where is the running "Thank Count" for individual posts?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

And the Villages has an 82% vaccinated.
I am glad that I cannot see the tantrums some of the posters are having every time they scream "get vaccinated!" "It is your PATRIOTIC duty to get vaccinated!" "If you do not get vaccinated, you are going to kill us all!"
And then the ones that say "If you don't get vaccinated, I hope you die!" "The hospitals should not treat you." "Because of you, our insurance is going up."
Such a great bunch of screamers.
Calm down folks. Most of the eligible folks in this area have been vaccinated (82%) and most of the others have already resistance to the virus due to surviving Covid.
If you are so excited about other countries, feel free to immigrate to those places and enjoy their socialized medicine.

My neighbors were fully vaccinated, they'd received their second shot just short of a week before they both started feeling ill. Both of them are "at risk" being over 80 years old, with one of them having some health issues and the other not having any. They both tested positive, and got the antibodies transfusion thingie, and started feeling better after several days.

But it was very scary, knowing that both of them could've been gone "just like that" even though they took precautions.

We love our neighbors. And we love our families. We also love ourselves. And so out of love for friends, family, neighbors, and selves, we are both fully vaccinated. I still wear a mask when I go into stores, or get take-out in restaurants.

I only wore a mask outside in open air when it was required of me as part of my job with Publix, last year.

[Woodbear]

And +90% of those deaths were the unvacinated.


And for almost all of 2020 there was no vaccine, so 100% of the folks that died were unvaccinated. Why are more dying in 2021 if a vaccine is available?

[Altavia]

And for almost all of 2020 there was no vaccine, so 100% of the folks that died were unvaccinated. Why are more dying in 2021 if a vaccine is available?

The Delta varient was 4-10 times more infectious.

Without the vaccine, deaths would have been more than double.

[JMintzer]

The Delta varient was 4-10 times more infectious.

Without the vaccine, deaths would have been more than double.

Or... Did we learn how to better treat those with infections?

[coffeebean]

I'm still reading but do I have this much correct:

- They set out to show that masks caused adverse effects. They weren't trying to evaluate *if* the masks caused the effects, they specifically wanted to show that they did.

- They stared with 1226 articles on the effects of masks then tossed 1117 of them because they "were irrelevant to the research question" (i.e. didn't show negative effects)

- They then declared success in showing that masks cause negative effects.

Now, my characterization of the remainder of the paper that I'm still reading: They throw this spaghetti at the wall to see if any of it will stick. For example, they go as far as discussing the environmental effects from improper disposal of the masks (pollution) as a negative effect of wearing a mask. And the suggestion that doctors should consider the "1948 Geneva Declaration, as revised in 2017" seems (again, I'm still reading) to come close to jumping the shark.

Kudos to you for reading that mumbo jumbo. It took me longer just to scroll to the end than it does to read a long winded post on this forum. Yikes! I appreciate you giving us the Reader's Digest version. Thank you.

[Altavia]

Or... Did we learn how to better treat those with infections?

Interesting point - probably. Wonder if the deaths per hospitalization decreased?

What do you think the hospitalization/death rate would have looked like with Delta in 2021 without the vaccine?

[JMintzer]

Interesting point - probably. Wonder if the deaths per hospitalization decreased?

What do you think the hospitalization/death rate would have looked like with Delta in 2021 without the vaccine?

I haven't a clue. And neither does anyone else...

[Bill14564]

Interesting point - probably. Wonder if the deaths per hospitalization decreased?

What do you think the hospitalization/death rate would have looked like with Delta in 2021 without the vaccine?

We were told over 90% of hospitalizations were unvaccinated. We know about 50% of the population was vaccinated. We can't know what would have happened but if there had been twice as many unvaccinated then it would not be unreasonable to assume there could have been twice as many hospitalized.

The ratio of deaths per reported infections was about 1.5% in January. In September the ratio was about 1.2%. There were several things that could have reduced the death rate including more effective treatments.

[Altavia]

We were told over 90% of hospitalizations were unvaccinated. We know about 50% of the population was vaccinated. We can't know what would have happened but if there had been twice as many unvaccinated then it would not be unreasonable to assume there could have been twice as many hospitalized.

The ratio of deaths per reported infections was about 1.5% in January. In September the ratio was about 1.2%. There were several things that could have reduced the death rate including more effective treatments.

Thanks, I was trying to help the thought process of the poster who interpreted more deaths in 2021 as a vaccine failure.

Delta also gave a lot of people immunity the hard way.

Hopefully the new antivirals will be additional help to calm things down.

[Woodbear]

Or... Did we learn how to better treat those with infections?

It would be great to know if treatment or vaccine is rendering positive results. Given the NIH's own paper showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin, how come we never hear about treatment.

If differing treatments produce various results, shouldn't we know which ones work and which ones do not produce the best outcomes.

Here is the paper from the NIH
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/)

And the conclusions:

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

[ithos]

It would be great to know if treatment or vaccine is rendering positive results. Given the NIH's own paper showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin, how come we never hear about treatment.

If differing treatments produce various results, shouldn't we know which ones work and which ones do not produce the best outcomes.

Here is the paper from the NIH
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/)

And the conclusions:

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

You don't have the big picture. Never let a crisis go to waste. This is a rare opportunity to expand the power of government to new heights and roll back our Constitutional rights. Thus pesky studies like this need to be ignored or suppressed.

[drducat]

You don't have the big picture. Never let a crisis go to waste. This is a rare opportunity to expand the power of government to new heights and roll back our Constitutional rights. Thus pesky studies like this need to be ignored or suppressed.

Here is a bigger picture...feel for those that are vaccinated and those that are not. Looks like the graphs are showing rates much higher in the vaccinated....thought so.....


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf

[coffeebean]

Where is the running "Thank Count" for individual posts?

Click on the PLUS icon. The list of posters will be viewable there. I just counted up the amount of poster's usernames that were displayed. I have never seen more than four rows of names before so I was curious to see the actual count.

The plus icon won't appear unless there are "likes" for that post. I find that sometimes the plus icon does not appear after I have "liked" a post so I refresh the page.

[golfing eagles]

It would be great to know if treatment or vaccine is rendering positive results. Given the NIH's own paper showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin, how come we never hear about treatment.

If differing treatments produce various results, shouldn't we know which ones work and which ones do not produce the best outcomes.

Here is the paper from the NIH
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/)

And the conclusions:

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

The paper cited is NOT FROM THE NIH, but simply listed in their library The REAL conclusion is this, from the MEDICAL Journal of Infectious Disease, not some quack journal of "therapeutics":

The headline exaggerates, given that the study says only that fewer deaths might be possible. It is a review of trials done with ivermectin on COVID-19 patients.

Moreover, the study was done by researchers affiliated with a group that is campaigning for ivermectin to be approved for COVID-19 use. Despite their connection to the group, the authors declared in the study they had no conflict of interest.

The World Health Organization, in its COVID-19 treatment guidelines, says: "We recommend not to use ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 except in the context of a clinical trial," citing "very low certainty evidence" about the drug.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says ivermectin should not be used to prevent or treat COVID-19. Ivermectin, which is FDA-approved to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms and parasites such as lice, in large doses "is dangerous and can cause serious harm."

Here’s what we know about the study generating favorable headlines of the drug as a way to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Study reviewed trials
The peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Therapeutics was published June 17 and led by Andrew Bryant, a research associate in gastroenterology at the Population Health Sciences Institute of Newcastle University.

The researchers said they analyzed results from studies and looked at mortality rates among people who were given ivermectin versus people who weren’t. The researchers concluded:

"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

They added: "Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and" prevention.

Study’s underpinnings
Experts said the trials that the study relies on are not high quality.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said the study is a meta-analysis (an analysis of other analyses) "whose strength is dependent on the underlying studies that comprise it."

"In general, most of the ivermectin studies that purport to show a positive benefit are of low quality and have potential sources of bias," which is why the drug is not recommended by the National Institutes of Health or the Infectious Diseases Society of America, he said. "It is only with rigorously designed randomized control trials that any true benefit can be discovered."

Assuming the meta-analysis is correct, ivermectin "would seem to merit further study," said Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University Medical Center.

Some drugs initially seem promising, but don’t hold up in more rigorous clinical testing, Morse said. For instance, some insisted that hydroxychloroquine was "a cure," but there hasn’t been strong supporting data for it, he said.

"That can be a real problem, and raise unrealistic expectations for a drug that might be very promising or useful, but not a homerun," Morse said.

Some of the studies analyzed in the ivermectin meta-analysis were not peer reviewed, said Dr. David Gorski, a professor of surgery and oncology at Wayne State University and chief of breast surgery at the Karmanos Cancer Institute, who has criticized the June study.

"Pooling data from a large number of small, low-quality clinical trials does not magically create one large, high-quality clinical trial," wrote Gorski, who is also managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a website that evaluates medical claims.

He added: "The few existing higher quality clinical trials testing ivermectin against the disease uniformly have failed to find a positive result. It’s only the smaller, lower-quality trials that have been positive. This is a good indication that the drug probably doesn’t work."

Gorski also pointed out that the researchers, despite claiming to have no conflicts of interest, are affiliated with BIRD (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development) Group.

BIRD describes itself as "campaigning for the safe medicine ivermectin to be approved to prevent and cure COVID-19 around the world."

Tess Lawrie, who is one of the study’s co-authors and a BIRD leader, told PolitiFact in an email that her study "shows that large reductions in deaths from COVID are probable when ivermectin is used, especially when employed as early treatment."

Another meta-analysis, published June 28, arrived at an opposite conclusion.

That study was led by a University of Connecticut researcher and appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, a publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. It found that in comparison to standard of care or placebo, ivermectin "did not reduce all-cause mortality." The study concluded saying that the drug "is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients."

BIRD reacted by calling on the journal to take down the meta-analysis or issue a warning about its "incorrect information."

I would say the same about the above misguided , misinformed, biased post. Please stop this nonsense before some unwitting reader gets injured or worse.

[coffeebean]

The paper cited is NOT FROM THE NIH, but simply listed in their library The REAL conclusion is this, from the MEDICAL Journal of Infectious Disease, not some quack journal of "therapeutics":

The headline exaggerates, given that the study says only that fewer deaths might be possible. It is a review of trials done with ivermectin on COVID-19 patients.

Moreover, the study was done by researchers affiliated with a group that is campaigning for ivermectin to be approved for COVID-19 use. Despite their connection to the group, the authors declared in the study they had no conflict of interest.

The World Health Organization, in its COVID-19 treatment guidelines, says: "We recommend not to use ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 except in the context of a clinical trial," citing "very low certainty evidence" about the drug.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says ivermectin should not be used to prevent or treat COVID-19. Ivermectin, which is FDA-approved to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms and parasites such as lice, in large doses "is dangerous and can cause serious harm."

Here’s what we know about the study generating favorable headlines of the drug as a way to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Study reviewed trials
The peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Therapeutics was published June 17 and led by Andrew Bryant, a research associate in gastroenterology at the Population Health Sciences Institute of Newcastle University.

The researchers said they analyzed results from studies and looked at mortality rates among people who were given ivermectin versus people who weren’t. The researchers concluded:

"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

They added: "Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and" prevention.

Study’s underpinnings
Experts said the trials that the study relies on are not high quality.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said the study is a meta-analysis (an analysis of other analyses) "whose strength is dependent on the underlying studies that comprise it."

"In general, most of the ivermectin studies that purport to show a positive benefit are of low quality and have potential sources of bias," which is why the drug is not recommended by the National Institutes of Health or the Infectious Diseases Society of America, he said. "It is only with rigorously designed randomized control trials that any true benefit can be discovered."

Assuming the meta-analysis is correct, ivermectin "would seem to merit further study," said Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University Medical Center.

Some drugs initially seem promising, but don’t hold up in more rigorous clinical testing, Morse said. For instance, some insisted that hydroxychloroquine was "a cure," but there hasn’t been strong supporting data for it, he said.

"That can be a real problem, and raise unrealistic expectations for a drug that might be very promising or useful, but not a homerun," Morse said.

Some of the studies analyzed in the ivermectin meta-analysis were not peer reviewed, said Dr. David Gorski, a professor of surgery and oncology at Wayne State University and chief of breast surgery at the Karmanos Cancer Institute, who has criticized the June study.

"Pooling data from a large number of small, low-quality clinical trials does not magically create one large, high-quality clinical trial," wrote Gorski, who is also managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a website that evaluates medical claims.

He added: "The few existing higher quality clinical trials testing ivermectin against the disease uniformly have failed to find a positive result. It’s only the smaller, lower-quality trials that have been positive. This is a good indication that the drug probably doesn’t work."

Gorski also pointed out that the researchers, despite claiming to have no conflicts of interest, are affiliated with BIRD (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development) Group.

BIRD describes itself as "campaigning for the safe medicine ivermectin to be approved to prevent and cure COVID-19 around the world."

Tess Lawrie, who is one of the study’s co-authors and a BIRD leader, told PolitiFact in an email that her study "shows that large reductions in deaths from COVID are probable when ivermectin is used, especially when employed as early treatment."

Another meta-analysis, published June 28, arrived at an opposite conclusion.

That study was led by a University of Connecticut researcher and appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, a publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. It found that in comparison to standard of care or placebo, ivermectin "did not reduce all-cause mortality." The study concluded saying that the drug "is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients."

BIRD reacted by calling on the journal to take down the meta-analysis or issue a warning about its "incorrect information."

I would say the same about the above misguided , misinformed, biased post. Please stop this nonsense before some unwitting reader gets injured or worse.

GE.......how can you be this sharp so early in the morning?

[golfing eagles]

GE.......how can you be this sharp so early in the morning?

Coffee:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Bay Kid]

We have been lied to so much it is like dealing with my X, I don't know what to believe.

[golfing eagles]

We have been lied to so much it is like dealing with my X, I don't know what to believe.

?shifting recommendations based on new data and new studies, as well as new variants, or "lying". Knowing what I know, I'll go with the former.

[MDLNB]

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeebean https://d32rzbb554tqz0.cloudfront.net/forums/images/thirteen/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/how-science-can-change-less-than-24-hours-324834-post2015986/#post2015986)
GE.......how can you be this sharp so early in the morning?



Coffee:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:


Can you quote a STUDY that indicates that coffee really indeed gives you the ability to "be this sharp so early in the morning?" :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[golfing eagles]

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeebean https://d32rzbb554tqz0.cloudfront.net/forums/images/thirteen/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/how-science-can-change-less-than-24-hours-324834-post2015986/#post2015986)
GE.......how can you be this sharp so early in the morning?

Can you quote a STUDY that indicates that coffee really indeed give you the ability to "be this sharp so early in the morning?" :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

In this particular case, I'm ignoring the scientific method and relying on an anecdotal case study of ONE!!!!:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Altavia]

Here is a bigger picture...feel for those that are vaccinated and those that are not. Looks like the graphs are showing rates much higher in the vaccinated....thought so.....


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf

Very interesting - thanks for the post. Maybe the UK is approaching herd Immunity?

"Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 98.0% of the adult population now have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination compared to 19.0% that have antibodies from infection alone. Over 96% of adults aged 17 or older have antibodies from either infection or vaccination"

[coffeebean]

Coffee:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

:1rotfl:

[SkBlogW]

From the Disney + special on Fauci

91122

All my friends have larger than lifesize paintings of themselves hanging in their home office. It's a sure sign of a humble public servant. :shocked::shocked::shocked:

[Woodbear]

From the Disney + special on Fauci

91122

All my friends have larger than lifesize paintings of themselves hanging in their home office. It's a sure sign of a humble public servant. :shocked::shocked::shocked:

Sometimes it is hard to find the right mirror to fit a room. Reminds me a bit of the triple-self Rockwell as that painting shows we can have an unrealistic opinion of our worth/appearance to others.

[MDLNB]

From the Disney + special on Fauci

91122

All my friends have larger than lifesize paintings of themselves hanging in their home office. It's a sure sign of a humble public servant. :shocked::shocked::shocked:


No big deal but the other day I was watching an interview with Fauci in his study/den(?) and in the background on the book shelf was a couple of candles with his picture on the sides. Hey, who am I do judge? I just have a set of Russian nesting dolls with the likeness of past premiers.

[SkBlogW]

No comment necessary

91139

[golfing eagles]

No comment necessary

91139

That's because it isn't worth commenting on:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[jdulej]

From the Disney + special on Fauci

91122

All my friends have larger than lifesize paintings of themselves hanging in their home office. It's a sure sign of a humble public servant. :shocked::shocked::shocked:

I seem to recall that the Person Who Shall Not Be Named used his charities funds to buy a portrait of himself. Wonder which room it's hanging in now...
If overblown egos are cause for criticism, just look around TV where just about every public building/place is named after one of the Morses.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I seem to recall that the Person Who Shall Not Be Named used his charities funds to buy a portrait of himself. Wonder which room it's hanging in now...
If overblown egos are cause for criticism, just look around TV where just about every public building/place is named after one of the Morses.

And the streets are named after their families and friends.

[golfing eagles]

I seem to recall that the Person Who Shall Not Be Named used his charities funds to buy a portrait of himself. Wonder which room it's hanging in now...
If overblown egos are cause for criticism, just look around TV where just about every public building/place is named after one of the Morses.

Interesting, since I just looked at the list of 100 recreation centers and only a few are named after Morse family members. Also, didn't notice any of the 50+ golf courses had a Morse name. Street names are a different story

[SkBlogW]

That's because it isn't worth commenting on:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Obviously the audience has never had an intimate dinner with Tony :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Interesting, since I just looked at the list of 100 recreation centers and only a few are named after Morse family members. Also, didn't notice any of the 50+ golf courses had a Morse name. Street names are a different story

There are also the Sharon Morse Performing Arts Center and the Sharon Morse Medical Center.

And let's not forget the larger-than-life-sized statue of Harold Schwartz standing in the fountain-pool at Spanish Springs Town Square.

Point being, it's not any more or less narcissistic to have a big honkin portrait of yourself somewhere in your house, than it is to have a statue made in your honor or a building named after you. For all anyone knows, Fauci was given this portrait as a gift from some well-known artist, and it's valuable, and thematic (since it's a portrait of him), so he has it displayed prominently in the room.

My grandparents had busts made of themselves by a local artist and they were displayed in the foyer of their home, across from the front doors. They weren't narcissistic either - to them it was them, supporting the arts. They were also donors at the local performance theatre, and had little plaques with their names on a pair of box seats. My parents did the same.

[golfing eagles]

Obviously the audience has never had an intimate dinner with Tony :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Obviously:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[jdulej]

Interesting, since I just looked at the list of 100 recreation centers and only a few are named after Morse family members. Also, didn't notice any of the 50+ golf courses had a Morse name. Street names are a different story

I have a curiosity question - are the rec centers considered public places? I have not been to one lately, but seem to recall being asked for my Village's ID card before being allowed in. I know exceptions are made for voting, but for day to day access are they really public places?

[golfing eagles]

I have a curiosity question - are the rec centers considered public places? I have not been to one lately, but seem to recall being asked for my Village's ID card before being allowed in. I know exceptions are made for voting, but for day to day access are they really public places?

Residents and their guests only, ID is checked at the front desk. IDs are theoretically checked at the pools, but some non-residents sneak in. Much harder to sneak inside the rec center

[SkBlogW]

There are also the Sharon Morse Performing Arts Center and the Sharon Morse Medical Center.

And let's not forget the larger-than-life-sized statue of Harold Schwartz standing in the fountain-pool at Spanish Springs Town Square.

Point being, it's not any more or less narcissistic to have a big honkin portrait of yourself somewhere in your house, than it is to have a statue made in your honor or a building named after you. For all anyone knows, Fauci was given this portrait as a gift from some well-known artist, and it's valuable, and thematic (since it's a portrait of him), so he has it displayed prominently in the room.

My grandparents had busts made of themselves by a local artist and they were displayed in the foyer of their home, across from the front doors. They weren't narcissistic either - to them it was them, supporting the arts. They were also donors at the local performance theatre, and had little plaques with their names on a pair of box seats. My parents did the same.

Stop, you are making me dizzy.

PS A statue in a square or a a building named after you are not the same as a big honkin portrait of yourself in your home office.

Supporting the arts? :bigbow: That's world class spin.