The 'Fauci == bad' is IMO just another conspiracy story like 5G causing CV-19. Yes, the man is full of himself but who isn't these days.

And the Fauci was also doing just what he was told by someone who I can't mention.

 

I have a Friend who despises Fauci with a vengeance ... his reaction to the mention of his name is so visceral that he won't listen to reason anymore. He doesn't care if the guy helped stop ebola in Africa, or how many books or scientific papers he's written. He only likes to listen to people that already agree with his own point of view and he'll reflexively dismiss any dissenting view out of hand without listening to facts or numbers, or even reason for that matter.

We're living in extremely polarized times...

 

I see many here making that implication, mostly members of the"gang". I must have missed something as to why this keeps being brought up. Can you or another of the "gang" enlighten me as to why this keeps being said?

First of all, enough with the name-calling. Argue your case, but please do so respectfully.

There are numerous examples of Fauci telling outright lies to our faces. Like in the above video, where he repeatedly denies that he funded "gain of function" research even though BY DEFINITION that is exactly what they were doing.

Or when he admitted that he lied about the need for people to wear masks because he was "worried that hospitals might run out of them". In the heat of the pandemic!

Not only that, he has never addressed the conflict of interest concerns relating to the fact that he personally owns several patents related to Covid vaccines which are currently raking in a HUGE profits. Sure, nothing to see there!

So you see, the reason people keep bringing it up is because IT'S TRUE.

 

And the Fauci was also doing just what he was told by someone who I can't mention.

I personally think that the early trust in computer model pandemic predictions (that we maybe have finally learned have ZERO predictive power) was the chief cause of much of the early policies. Depending on what flawed model you believed in, the world was ending or the virus spread would end in a few weeks. If you were a leader that decided not to believe any of the Hocus Pocus models as a driver for public policy you were call a unscientific fool or a cave-man. I don't blame the researchers as they usually have a large disclaimer section on the paper listing a huge number of limitations of the models.

IMO this was a root cause failure of using the power of complex simulations to drive policy by using model projections. The outcomes from these imperfect tools are not “settled science," beyond a crystal-ball.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...ing-studies-predict-future-dont-be-victim-you

Flaws in statistical predictions
Recently published mathematical models are numerous, use complex formulas to predict how an event might unfold, and have made predictions on various aspects of the next pandemic, including:

The likelihood of its occurrence
Our ability to avert it by early and widespread use of antiviral drugs
How it will unfold in terms of case numbers and deaths
If your preparedness plan uses these models to provide evidence for a certain intervention or to estimate the course of the next pandemic, you are grossly overinterpreting their validity.

In 33 years in epidemiology, I have performed many thousands of statistical calculations along with my colleagues. Some of these calculations have had important public health impact, particularly when they involved disease outbreaks. I have also advised numerous graduate students who have used quite sophisticated statistical analyses.

It's with this experience that I feel confident saying that most of the currently touted complex statistical models don't really tell us about the future. In fact, they very well may mislead us into preparing for something that will almost certainly unfold very differently than the model predicted.

Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH, is Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy

 

I personally think that the early trust in computer model pandemic predictions (that we maybe have finally learned have ZERO predictive power) was the chief cause of much of the early policies. Depending on what flawed model you believed in, the world was ending or the virus spread would end in a few weeks. If you were a leader that decided not to believe any of the Hocus Pocus models as a driver for public policy you were call a unscientific fool or a cave-man. I don't blame the researchers as they usually have a large disclaimer section on the paper listing a huge number of limitations of the models.

IMO this was a root cause failure of using the power of complex simulations to drive policy by using model projections. The outcomes from these imperfect tools are not “settled science," beyond a crystal-ball.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...ing-studies-predict-future-dont-be-victim-you


Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH, is Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy

And in the end, politicians and public figures (the least dishonest ones, that is) made decisions and statements based on who they trusted most, since they themselves didn't know blip about the subject itself ... and now it turns out that the professional model makers didn't know blip themselves either, but they didn't even know that they didn't know...

I pity them, because I am certain most of them were sincere and trying to err on the safe side of things. And now, with all the new information that's pouring in from all sources, rightfulness jerks are throwing tons of hindsight rocks at them, accusing them of incompetence even though there was absolutely no one better prepared to face the situation at the time.

 

First of all, enough with the name-calling. Argue your case, but please do so respectfully.

What would you have me call all of you that agree with and supported a certain person? I can't use any of the commonly use phrases because when I do I get deleted or banned from the thread for being "political". If I call a person out by name I get told to quit attacking members and post deleted. So far saying "gang" isn't getting me banned. So you give me an all inclusive word for you members that think the same and I will go with that.

Or when he admitted that he lied about the need for people to wear masks because he was "worried that hospitals might run out of them". In the heat of the pandemic!

And that is exactly what was happening at the time, sorry you don't remember it. The 3M masks were in very short supply and they were being hoarded by people like they were rolls of toilet paper. The hospitals were being shut out because those that had the masks could get more money on Amazon.

Not only that, he has never addressed the conflict of interest concerns relating to the fact that he personally owns several patents related to Covid vaccines which are currently raking in a HUGE profits. Sure, nothing to see there!

QAnon much? That is a debunked conspiracy started by Jerome Corsi, or as it is some times wrongly called an alternate fact. There are a lot of them floating around if you only listen to one side of a story.
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...racy-theorist-spreads-false-claim-about-fauc/

 

And in the end, politicians and public figures (the least dishonest ones, that is) made decisions and statements based on who they trusted most, since they themselves didn't know blip about the subject itself .

Least dishonest? Other than that part your quote doesn't describe what happened at all. There are tapes of him saying to Bob Woodward what he knew and when he knew it.

but they didn't even know that they didn't know...

That was true in the beginning, but by the time ~100K were dead the scientists were getting a handle on things. But changing how things were being handled would have meant admitting the big guy was wrong in what he said publicly. Couldn't have that could we? So many of those that died after the first 100K or so are on the people that wouldn't change or allow the message to be changed. If this is deemed to political so be it but it is true.

 

Least dishonest? Other than that part your quote doesn't describe what happened at all. There are tapes of him saying to Bob Woodward what he knew and when he knew it.

I was talking about public world figures in general... Mr T was not among those I was referring to.

Same for the "they didn't even know that they didn't know", ...

What is really shameful is that shortly after reality and data kicked in, either a disproportionate response was implemented or simply no response at all... the former cost the livelihoods of many decent people ... and the latter was an act of pretending an alternate reality that cost hundreds of thousands of lives.... and in both cases the trust of a significant part of the population was lost, and that in itself might have even stronger repercussions in the near future.

History will separate the wheat from the chaff, eventually ...

 

What is really shameful is that shortly after reality and data kicked in

No, what was shameful is ego was worth more than people.

 

No, what was shameful is ego was worth more than people.

... that too...

 

What would you have me call all of you that agree with and supported a certain person? I can't use any of the commonly use phrases because when I do I get deleted or banned from the thread for being "political". If I call a person out by name I get told to quit attacking members and post deleted. So far saying "gang" isn't getting me banned. So you give me an all inclusive word for you members that think the same and I will go with that.

The divisive language just isn't very helpful. All it does is create an artificial dichotomy between people which hinders honest discussion. There are invariably going to be things that you and I disagree about. On many other topics we likely agree.

And that is exactly what was happening at the time, sorry you don't remember it. The 3M masks were in very short supply and they were being hoarded by people like they were rolls of toilet paper. The hospitals were being shut out because those that had the masks could get more money on Amazon.

Nevertheless, doesn't it bother you in the least that he apparently had NO QUALMS lying to people at a time where the most lives were on the line?

QAnon much? That is a debunked conspiracy started by Jerome Corsi, or as it is some times wrongly called an alternate fact. There are a lot of them floating around if you only listen to one side of a story.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...racy-theorist-spreads-false-claim-about-fauc/

Well I stand corrected. For some reason I thought he had Covid patents too. He most certainly has engaged in that kind of profiteering over the years anyhow.

More than 900 current and former scientists at the National Institutes of Health legally collected $8.9 million in such royalties last year for drugs and inventions they discovered while working for the government, according to information obtained by The Associated Press.

 

What would you have me call all of you that agree with and supported a certain person? I can't use any of the commonly use phrases because when I do I get deleted or banned from the thread for being "political". If I call a person out by name I get told to quit attacking members and post deleted. So far saying "gang" isn't getting me banned. So you give me an all inclusive word for you members that think the same and I will go with that.




And that is exactly what was happening at the time, sorry you don't remember it. The 3M masks were in very short supply and they were being hoarded by people like they were rolls of toilet paper. The hospitals were being shut out because those that had the masks could get more money on Amazon.



QAnon much? That is a debunked conspiracy started by Jerome Corsi, or as it is some times wrongly called an alternate fact. There are a lot of them floating around if you only listen to one side of a story.
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...racy-theorist-spreads-false-claim-about-fauc/

You should know by now I call them as I see them. I'm not a believer in right or left wing conspiracy theories. Those in the media of all stripes are paid to sell soap, period. If a BS story line gets clicks or page loads, they don't care as long as the check clears the bank.

 

The divisive language just isn't very helpful.

How exactly is saying the gang divisive? I truly don't understand. If someone says, "hey, the gangs all here", is that divisive?

There is a gang in this thread, like it or not. And I'm the outsider, just a fact and one I accept. The gang includes many of the moderators too. If I don't go along with the agenda I get banned. Most all of the things, not all but most, that were said when I wasn't allowed to participate were talking points from only one side of the spectrum, the side that mostly was just putting out opinion not doing any real reporting of what was happening. When I put links to things that ACTUALLY happened and WHO said them that is why I got banned from this thread, because I didn't "go along to get along". I know where those talking points came from, because I look at both sides and for the most part, again not always, if it sounds too good to be true it usually isn't.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/participate-in-activities.html
Choosing Safer Activities

It's a nice day, the 'Gang' is going fishing today.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/corona...oost-vaccinations-offers-5-1-million-drawings

Amid dropping vaccine demand in Ohio, Governor Mike DeWine announced five, weekly drawings of $1 million open to residents who've received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. A similar lottery for teenagers will provide the lucky names with a full, four-year scholarship to a public university in Ohio - room and board included.

 

How exactly is saying the gang divisive? I truly don't understand. If someone says, "hey, the gangs all here", is that divisive?

There is a gang in this thread, like it or not. And I'm the outsider, just a fact and one I accept. The gang includes many of the moderators too. If I don't go along with the agenda I get banned. Most all of the things, not all but most, that were said when I wasn't allowed to participate were talking points from only one side of the spectrum, the side that mostly was just putting out opinion not doing any real reporting of what was happening. When I put links to things that ACTUALLY happened and WHO said them that is why I got banned from this thread, because I didn't "go along to get along". I know where those talking points came from, because I look at both sides and for the most part, again not always, if it sounds too good to be true it usually isn't.

I don't think anyone singled you out there shortbus. I had some posts deleted as well. That's just what happens sometimes when political discussions turn ugly.

It's a contentious subject. Maybe we should just let the whole thing rest for a while...

 

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-masks-cdc-guidelines-9d10c8b5f80a4ac720fa1df2a4fb93e5

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a striking move to send the country back toward pre-pandemic life, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday will ease indoor mask-wearing guidance for fully vaccinated people, allowing them to safely stop wearing masks inside in most places, according to a person briefed on the announcement.

The new guidance will still call for wearing masks in crowded indoor settings like buses, planes, hospitals, prisons and homeless shelters, but could ease restrictions for reopening workplaces, schools, and other venues — even removing the need for masks or social distancing for those who are fully vaccinated.

The CDC will also no longer recommend that fully vaccinated people wear masks outdoors in crowds. The announcement comes as the CDC and the Biden administration have faced pressure to ease restrictions on fully vaccinated people — people who are two weeks past their last required COVID-19 vaccine dose — in part to highlight the benefits of getting the shot.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/health/cdc-masks-guidance.html

“We’ve got to liberalize the restrictions so people can feel like they’re getting back to some normalcy,” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the Biden administration’s senior adviser on the pandemic, said in an interview. “Pulling back restrictions on indoor masks is an important step in the right direction.”
“You can’t inhibit people from doing the things they want to do, which is one of the reasons they wanted to get vaccinated in the first place, because other people are not getting vaccinated,” he added.
The move could raise alarms among more cautious Americans, who may be more reluctant to engage in public activities when more people are unmasked. There is no way to know who is vaccinated and who is not, and the majority of the population is not yet fully vaccinated.
“For those who are more risk averse, you have a choice of continuing to wear it if you want to,” Dr. Fauci said.

 

I don't think anyone singled you out there shortbus. I had some posts deleted as well. That's just what happens sometimes when political discussions turn ugly

Oh, if I would show you my PM's from the mods you would think differently. When I posted the link that got me banned form the thread, it was only a couple of weeks until other member posted and talked about the same thing. No ban or deletion for them.

 

Let the masks hit the floor!

https://www.king5.com/article/news/...ople/281-5b9dd348-fae8-4d76-b85c-1a1f7f556b8b

Washington state lifting mask mandate for fully vaccinated people
People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will no longer need to wear a mask in most indoor and outdoor settings, Gov. Jay Inslee said Thursday.

https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavi...ns-in-most-public-settings-governor-says.html

Mask requirement lifted for fully vaccinated Oregonians in most ‘public settings,’ governor says

Fully vaccinated Oregonians can ditch their face masks in most public settings, Gov. Kate Brown announced Thursday, aligning the state with new federal guidance on the ubiquitous mainstays of pandemic life.