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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

They are all covidiots.

Anyone with any sense is a Fauci fan.

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

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?

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

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.

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.