Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2013428)

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.

Originally Posted by thelegges (Post 2013460)

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.

Originally Posted by Road-Runner (Post 2013490)

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?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2013483)

Then you need to read my posts more carefully

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2013516)

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.

Originally Posted by jammaiora (Post 2013281)

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!

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 2013503)

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

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2013600)

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

Originally Posted by Boomer (Post 2013435)

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.

Originally Posted by MSchad (Post 2013613)

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?

Originally Posted by MSchad (Post 2013595)

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

Originally Posted by merrymini (Post 2013620)

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

Originally Posted by Lisanp@aol.com (Post 2013365)

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!

Originally Posted by Road-Runner (Post 2013490)

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?

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2013516)

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.

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 2013524)

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.

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 2013624)

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

Originally Posted by lkagele (Post 2013511)

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.

Originally Posted by thelegges (Post 2013049)

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.

Originally Posted by Escape Artist (Post 2013077)

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

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2013710)

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?

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2013710)

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?

Originally Posted by kenoc7 (Post 2013718)

Anyone with any sense is a Fauci fan.

Originally Posted by SkBlogW (Post 2013749)

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

Attachment 91065

Originally Posted by ithos (Post 2013763)

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?

Originally Posted by SkBlogW (Post 2013749)

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

Attachment 91065

Originally Posted by ithos (Post 2013763)

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?

Originally Posted by SkBlogW (Post 2012984)

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.”

Originally Posted by SkBlogW (Post 2012984)

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.”

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 2013018)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2013897)

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!

Originally Posted by thelegges (Post 2013049)

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.

Originally Posted by jswirs (Post 2013082)

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.

Originally Posted by PugMom (Post 2013348)

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:

Originally Posted by MSchad (Post 2013086)

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.

Originally Posted by ithos (Post 2013170)

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
Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19 - PubMed

And he lied before Congress about funding the Wuhan Lab.

Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab

He doesn't have supporters. He has groupies.

Saint Anthony Fauci Prayer Candle Label | Etsy

Originally Posted by NJMike (Post 2013249)

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".

Originally Posted by Wyseguy (Post 2013252)

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.

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 2013256)

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

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 2013018)

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.