Wear a freaking mask already

Oops, typo, I meant by design.
Excellent post. But then, given our VERY unhealthy population (40% of our adults are obese, the biggest percentage in all other countries except for the tiny exceptions you've mentioned, and that's obese, there are also a good percentage of overweight - BMI between 25 and 30) we SHOULDN'T be still trying to get boneheaded ideas through, like this covidiot Dr. Scott Atlas is trying to push, again with the BS of herd immunity, and Trump is listening to him! Yikes! It's been said that the curtailment of tests for asymptomatic contacts, the new guideline from the CDC, came out of pressure by Atlas, because that would put forward his idea of herd immunity. Same with the push for sports.

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...hing-herd-immunity-idea-lambasted-by-experts/

A country this unhealthy should be MORE careful, not less. And obesity is just one diagnosis. Just hypertension, we have 100 million adults with it.

The recent developments with this dangerous idiot getting into the good graces of President Trump have tipped the scale for me. I am now decided to vote for Biden; I should say not for Biden but against Trump. I think we need to remove these dangerous idiots from the White House before we get engaged in the biggest catastrophe of our history. These people still have 4 months and a half to be in charge. I hope they don't do too much damage until then, and now I hope they lose and get replaced.

By the way the misguided idea of 6% of deaths without co-morbidity being equal to the other 94% not having died of COVID-19, got me enraged and Trump was already losing my vote for having retweeted that (I posted long posts trying to get people to understand how death certificates are written, and why).Then I read about Scott Atlas, and Trump lost me for good.

I was sincerely still considering a vote for Trump, until I understood what is really going on with these pushes to increase the number of young people who get infected. It's all this idiot's plan! And Trump is falling for it. The imbecile is a neuroradiologist with no clue in epidemiology and infectious diseases. He used to be a Fox News pundit. Jesus! God help us!

 

I’m not voting for either crazy old man so my response here isn’t to try and influence your vote. Yes Trump says stupid stuff. So does Biden. Saying things like he will do whatever scientists propose in relation to shutdowns etc. should scare the bejeezus out of anyone who cares about the Constitution. It’s as nutty as Trump saying take guns early and do due process later.

As far as your link, my integral pattern recognition software set off alarm bells when what we have is anonymous sources making claims diametrically opposed to quotes from Atlas. We’ve seen the media use this trick over and over to push a false narrative. It’s possible Trump considered herd immunity by 100% natural infection, but obviously it’s not his plan if he’s focused on vaccines, even emergency use authorizations. The two just don’t jive.

Neither Trump nor Biden are fit to handle a pandemic. I don’t want advice from either. I planned years ago how to handle a pandemic and even then I made some mistakes in preparations. But I’m doing a lot better than everyone whining about this or that politician. Frankly, as far as C19 health aspects I couldn’t care less who’s president. My preferences are all based on the freedom vs. authoritarian dynamic.

As far as obesity, my calculations were based on 36% obesity in the US. Your 40% makes it worse yet. And the “overweight not obese” factor is a good point. It all boils down to our lifestyle. Too much food and too much leisure spent vegetating. First world problems and really nobody to blame but ourselves.

 

No, I looked at other sources too, including a much more comprehensive article behind a paywall to which I only had access at work earlier today, can't post it here from home.
The thing is, Atlas is now denying it... but yes, they did a compilation of his previous statements, all on camera, and yes, that's what he thinks. So now, for political expediency he is denying it. Because if it goes out there that the administration is pushing for sports, schools, and fewer testing in order to be able to get everybody infected, willingly and knowingly, the backlash will be huge. So of course he denies it.

Is it inconsistent with Trump's push for vaccines? It sure is if we think of what strategy they want to focus on, but then, not entirely, because vaccines would add to and accelerate herd immunity. Besides, since when is Trump a coherent, consistent guy? He is a walking contradiction and changes his mind on stuff all the time, according to who is the right wing influencer that has his ears at any specific point, and/or what makes his big ego shine.

 

Fair enough. I’m not keeping up with all the drama.

If only half the country is willing to take the vaccine you are left with no choice but to combine it with natural herd immunity. Or else you are going to have to mandate vaccination which will not save lives. Maybe it’s wise to consider this and not put all the eggs in the vaccine basket. You would think folks like Fauci should be discussing this with Trump, then people like Atlas wouldn’t be necessary. I’m afraid there’s too much dogmatism in bureaucratic health officials for them to admit even a great vaccine isn’t a magical solution in a free country. We are going to have to deal with reality, not just assume everyone is going to get vaccinated. Certain demographics and geographical regions are going to require more natural immunity than others. It’s not crazy to try and accomplish that with as little loss of life as possible.

Now I’ve been over the herd immunity thing too many times to hash it out again, but it’s undeniable certain places like NYC are already benefitting from a certain level of herd immunity. Add 50% vaccination into a population like that and you should be golden.

I know natural herd immunity is the third rail to health professionals and I understand why, but the reality is a vaccine isn’t going to be the only source of herd immunity in this country. It just isn’t. Not discussing it and planning for it is a mistake.

 

Hm... I almost always agree with you but this time I can't.

One, Fauci did discuss Herd Immunity with Trump right at the beginning, because Trump wanted it, and thankfully Fauci was able to dissuade him. This was reported at the time, months ago. And I'm sure Fauci continues to try (this guy clashed already with him and Birx) but the problem is, Trump is in love with Atlas, because, hey, he's got the ultimate credentials (despite no infectious disease or epidemiology expertise): he is a former Fox News pundit, and the kind that gets Trump's attention because he is saying what Trump wants to hear. Trump loving a good yes man, Fauci has no chance.

Two, NO major pandemic of a very infectious virus has EVER been curbed with natural herd immunity in the history of mankind. NONE. Interesting, huh?

Three. We DO have an example. Sweden has 577 deaths per million inhabitants due to their (failed) attempt to achieve herd immunity... The very similar Norway which decided NOT to embrace the concept, has 49 deaths per million inhabitants.

Four. It's not that herd immunity can't be a contributor, but it shouldn't be PROMOTED because there is a price to pay, like Sweden showed us.

Five. All these people going on and on about herd immunity like to quote the small infection-fatality rate, ignoring that more and more long-term organ damage is being discovered. Have you seen the study of 100 random positive cases from a testing center in Germany, 67% of them with MILD and moderate disease that didn't require hospitalization, youngish (median age 49 with 14 as standard deviation, so just one SD down, people who are 35 years old) most of them with no underlying condition... that showed up with, in freaking 78% of them, silent (up to being checked by cardiac MRI and troponin) but significant inflammatory cardiomyopathy, similar to the kind (same markers) that often leads to heart failure down the road, a few years later???

Small study, only 100 people, not yet confirmed by larger studies... but the sheer possibility raised by this study is so concerning and so scary (all main cardiology organizations got pretty spooked), that it is quasi-criminal to be PROMOTING infections in young people in the hope of achieving herd immunity (we may end up with a generation of people with heart failure).

Six. Just this week we had the NEJM phase 1 results for the Novavax vaccine. Brace for it: freaking 100% seroconversion, with neutralizing antibodies four to six times higher than the average conferred by the natural infection!!! Only 1 subject in 109 got a mild fever that lasted less than one day. No reaction more serious than that.

So, if we get to have a very safe and freaking 100% efficacious vaccine (of course, that's just phase 1 so we'll see, including because phase 3 will add older and less immuno-competent subjects), maybe we DON'T need the covidiot-in-chief Dr. Atlas stupid push for natural herd immunity idea after all, and we'd be able to achieve it with a vaccine even if only 50% of people accept it.

Seven, like you said, we are a sick population. Attempts to foster herd immunity here might push us into a 2 million deaths situation. All perfectly available since the vaccines are coming.

So, attempts to adopt the natural herd immunity approach are quasi-criminal considering where we are right now, and it's being championed by a freaking radiologist with no experience and no expertise in epidemiology whatsoever. He's one of these arrogant types who think they are smarter than others and run with an idea that *seems* to make sense but doesn't, anytime you look closer.

The problem is, he is in the sort of position from where he will be able to hurt a LOT of Americans with his retarded idea.

Oh, and NYC has herd immunity? I doubt. They continue to have mask mandates and the population got very good at following epidemiological controls, including, they have 14-day mandatory quarantine for arrivals. Stop all precautions and I'm sure the contagion will come back, roaring.

 

I guess we’ll see. I still think it’s best not to be myopic about solutions.

You can only claim that if your definition of herd immunity is malleable. The Spanish flu pandemic most certainly ended in natural herd immunity. Yes, you can argue genetics of that virus are still with us, but that’s the malleable function rearing it’s ugly head. Herd immunity is not eradication of a pathogen. That’s part of the problem with discussion of herd immunity. It means different things to different people. Some insist it’s endpoint is viral eradication, some accept cessation of community spread. Also, some refer to herd immunity in defined populations and some insist it must be global.

Don’t get caught up in media portrayals. Half of Sweden’s deaths were in care homes because they basically pulled a Cuomo. If they had protected the aged from the start you would have a very different outcome. Remember the discussion you seem interested in at the White House explicitly delineates between young healthy people and the most vulnerable in policy that would relate to hypothetical natural herd immunity.

See above. One tweak at the start and Sweden comes out looking like a rose. We should learn from them, not throw the baby out with the bath water. I’m not promoting natural herd immunity, I’m telling you it’s going to have to play a part in reality whether we like it or not.

Yes I’ve read the study numerous times. I’m keeping an open mind but there simply isn’t enough there for me to be all in on the conclusion they are going to die of heart failure. I would sure like to see the whole data set of each individual with respect to actual underlying conditions paired with resultant heart abnormalities. With only 100 I think it would be interesting reading. I’ve never seen it published.

We have to weigh that against other health risks like depression, increased drug abuse, and economic effects on short and long term health.

Is mild fever less serious than headache, fatigue and myalgia reported in the press release? I guess that’s subjective.

That sounds good. But I’m very skeptical of a claim like that. If true and sustainable in later trials it will be the first 100% efficacious vaccine in history I’m aware of.

So are you saying you think herd immunity is achieved at 50% of the population having immunity? I wouldn’t disagree with that and wouldn’t be surprised if it’s lower.

Retarded or not, I think we better be forward thinking about a vaccine not delivering herd immunity on its own.

Mandate or not, in late August many parts of NYC like Queens only 20% of people were wearing masks. Fifty percent is common and over 75% adherence is the exception. Masks are not what’s keeping infections down in NYC.

California (and other states) had a huge spike with mask mandates. You have to look at actual compliance not just existence of mandates. There isn’t much compliance in NYC. Some of the hardest hit boroughs are the least compliant with masks and distancing now, yet their new infections remain very low in phase 4 reopening.

 

And if that's the case, then there's no point in a mask, if it's true that the 'pores' in a mask are bigger than 0.1 micron - which is most masks. But from what I understand, there is still very much the possibility of it being in droplets.

 

You don’t need to look far to find an answer to your question.
The resistance comes from politics and particularly from Trump. He has politicized this. He has just mocked Biden for wearing a mask.

Are you willing to criticize trump for this? Do you understand why the Lincoln Project finds him unfit for the office?

 

"Got fired. Look up the people who testified against Trump in the impeachment hearings.

Look up someone called Lt. Col. Vindman."


Vindman testified. I'm talking about LEAKS to the media. You know, those things which happen about a thousand times every day? Again, if the CDC is engaged in a conspiracy, putting Trump's re-election ahead of public health, I just have one simple question: WHY IN THE HELL HAVE THERE BEEN NO LEAKS?

"Look up the guy who tried to tell him early on that hydroxychloroquine was a bad idea, Rick Bright.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/us/politics/rick-bright-trump-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus.html"

Bright wasn't fired. He was reassigned - something which was two years in the making. Now, would he have been reassigned at a later stage if not for his testimony? Possibly, but we don't know. His former employer, HHS rejected that it was because of his testimony. This is the official narrative, and to believe that it's a lie is to believe a conspiracy theory, despite how justified it might be.

 

I do agree that herd immunity can apply to segmented populations, but then, in a nation like ours, the virus just migrates elsewhere.

577 per million to 49 per million? That's more than 10 times more. Somehow I doubt that the nursing home problem explain ten times more.

Play a part, sure. As in, you get 50% of people immune with a vaccine, and 25% more from natural infection, you have global herd immunity.
[/quote]
Yes I’ve read the study numerous times. I’m keeping an open mind but there simply isn’t enough there for me to be all in on the conclusion they are going to die of heart failure. I would sure like to see the whole data set of each individual with respect to actual underlying conditions paired with resultant heart abnormalities. With only 100 I think it would be interesting reading. I’ve never seen it published.[/quote]
If you read the study multiple times you must have noticed that it did not find a correlation between the heart damage and pre-existing underlying conditions. It's said in all letters, the finding was independent of pre-existing conditions. Your other point: the study is well-written and sober so it doesn't go into dramatic and alarmist conclusions about future heart failure, it wouldn't be proper. But cardiologists reading the study and looking at the MRI findings and biological markings have said that this inflammatory myocarditis matches others that have the worst prognosis. The study doesn't say so, but cardiologists commenting upon it, do. I posted elsewhere in my posting history some six or seven statements by reputable cardiologists.

I fail to see how exposing millions to the virus will be any better in terms of risks of depression, drug abuse, etc. I do know that long term morbidity FROM THE VIRUS may have a lasting economic impact.

Definitely. Objective fever is taken more seriously in vaccine studies than subjective symptoms like headache, fatigue, and myalgia. What gets people in trouble is often an inflammatory reaction, and the ones without fever tend to be less serious.

Like I said, when the phase 2 and especially 3 move on to less immunocompetent subjects we'll probably not see 100%, but it is very encouraging that we do see it in healthy subjects younger than 60. After all, that's the people you all want to expose to achieve herd immunity, right? (I'm not being sarcastic).

I said 50% from the vaccine. To this, you have to add all the people who already got natural immunity. Say, 25%. Then, 50% + 25% =75% = herd immunity threshold.

Of course not on its own since there will be people in the community immune to the virus from natural infection.

I confess that I am not highly familiar with the current situation in New York. I have relatives in Manhattan and they say that mask compliance has been amazing.

The large Duke University study (I posted a link in another thread) on all counties in the US has consistently found that those with mask mandates have fared significantly better. Same happened in Kansas.

Unrelated: it looks like statins are protective. I wonder if Dr. Paul Marik will include them in his protocol.

https://www.mdedge.com/infectiousdi...atins linked to reduced mortality in COVID-19

 

Droplets, main route. Aerosol, very possible but less frequent. Pores in a mask even bigger than 0.1 micron still trap 0.1 micron particles due to brownian motion. Particles of 0.1 micron are subject to brownian motion while bigger ones aren't. Actually paradoxically a 0.1 micron virus can be more easily trapped by a filter with 0.3 micron pores, than a 0.2 or 0.3 one. I know it's hard to believe but it's a fact known to Physics. Very small particles behave in interesting ways.

And absolutely there is a point in using masks against the SARS-CoV-2. All 29 studies I posted here on efficacy of masks for viruses this size, were done 100% with coronaviruses (SARS-1, MERS, and SARS-CoV-2). They all showed risk reduction.

The studies, though, were done with N95 respirators or surgical masks. I'm sure cloth masks would have performed much worse.

 

Well, there's been leaks, though. How do you suppose the investigative journalists who wrote the articles on this, got a hold of the accounts that Atlas is behind the CDC's recommendation for not testing asymptomatic contacts?

Oh wow, you don't think that Vindman was "fired" (metaphorically speaking).

I don't understand why you seem to speculate a lot to defend Trump, but if anybody else speculates against him, you call the person a conspiracy theorist. See, your idea that "the pandemic preparedness office must exist in some other agency and made of some other people" with no evidence to back this up whatsoever, can also be called a CT.

 

All apart from this study though, right?: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ng-mask-already.577383/page-9#post-1072000130

 

I did a Google for articles relating to Mr. Atlas and the change in CDC testing recommendations and found nothing which says that he is behind it. Only recent reports about Atlas' inclusion in the team. Can you support your claim?

Vindman or Bright?

I said that there MIGHT have been something which replaced the team. There in lies the difference. Whereas you have been saying the the CDC and the USPS IS conspiring with Trump.

 

"It depends on what you consider "recently" - I was thinking Pataki but I'll grant you he served until 2006 so OK, not *that* recent.
New Jersey, though, much more recent: Chris Christie, the previous one."

Importantly, nobody in New York likes Trump. Trump's downplaying rhetoric cannot be blamed for the insane deaths in New York, where pretty much everybody died. If you want to play that game, then I can too. New York where everyone loves Pelosi - I can say that Pelosi is to blame for the death in New York by telling people to come to Chinatown about 5 seconds before Trump began to take it seriously.

Sure, but I'm just saying that he didn't call it a "hoax."

"How the hell do I know that? By simply reading this forum and other forums, where plenty of people keep saying that. Some even say it's an international George Soros conspiracy. "

You said that people believed this crap "cause Trump." So how do you know that it was because of Trump?

"And you know, lately Trump has even been endorsing QAnon."

No, he didn't "endorse" them. He just refused to reject their accusations about Harris. It was still stupid though. He should have rejected them.

"Do you take me as a Fauci defender by any chance?"

No. My point is, that you didn't seem to be aware that Fauci also downplayed it. If you DID, then you would have to believe that Fauci and Trump were on the same page. The only difference being Trump's particular WAY of downplaying it. However, they both believed that there was no reason for people to change anything about their lifestyle.

"I'm very far from clueless, dear. What's wrong with your argumentation, are you veering towards personal attacks now?"

Sorry, I didn't mean "clueless" as an attack. What I meant was that you don't seem to KNOW about the things which I'm telling you. I'm "clueless" about alot of things, given that I don't know about EVERYTHING in the world! So did you or did you not know about Pelosi and Fauci downplaying the virus? If you didn't, then you were in fact "clueless" before I told you. See?

"As for the content of your criticism, I am appalled that you don't seem to understand the concept of leadership and the weight of the word of the POTUS in many people's minds. Maybe because Australia is not a presidential country. Here, people tend to look up to the POTUS. Or used to."

You surely don't think that Trump should have being saying the OPPOSITE to Fauci!

"Such as many other actions, and more consistency. Why, because do you ACTUALLY think that America has responded well to this crisis???"

Oh no, NOT AT ALL! I've been quite stunned actually at how bad it has been. The CDC clearly dropped the ball early on with testing.

"4% of the world's population, 22% of the world's deaths, and we're supposed to be an advanced country."

Belgium, Spain, UK and Italy are also advanced, but they've been hit worse than the US. And France and Sweden aren't too far behind.

"Where does the buck stop? Again, I'm appalled that you don't seem to understand the power of good leadership."

At the same time, you KNOW that matters such as the response to a pandemic is NOT solely in the hands of a country's leader.

"When the team is losing you want to fire the coach and hire another one."

Except that a coach is not a fair analogy for a President. A President/CEO/chairman of a sports team is though. The President of a country is the HEAD of government. A coach is not the HEAD of a sports team. A coach is a fair analogy for an agency/department head. Maybe the CDC head should be fired.

""You have nothing to lose, take it" in the context of a supposed pharmacological treatment for a disease, can't be construed as ANYTHING other than medical advice. Is it reason enough for ya, to have a problem with that? Well, it is for me."

Wasn't Trump talking about people who are literally on their deathbed with absolutely no other option and therefore "nothing to lose?"

"Yeah, yeah, sure. This mysterious team that only you seem to believe that it hypothetically exists, don't you think that if it did exist, Trump would be touting its expertise and the wonders done by it? Come on. It. Doesn't. Exist."

You're probably right. Again what's more likely is that the duties which that team had were simply reallocated to other areas of government. Again, we don't know.

"Do you actually know how to perform a Google search? Because it took me all of half a second to find numerous articles. Here is one:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-ebola-coronavirus-trump-congress-tea-party-a9469186.html"

I guess you're better at Google than me! Apparently, most of the money was secured. From the article:

"Most of that money was eventually secured, but funding for the future preparedness programmes was reduced. According to ProPublica, only $165m (£132m) went to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention’s public health emergency preparedness programmes, which included the stockpile."

"It's actually quite funny that this is your take. Again, where do the buck stop? Maybe if Trump actually read briefings and stop playing gold all the time he'd have his eyes on the ball. Not the golf ball. The nation's ball."

Well, if he read in a briefing that it is recommended that the team be axed, is he supposed to object to it? What does he know about pandemic preparedness?

"I'm not in the business of interviewing every single person in the South to find out, but we've seen enough covidiots spouting nonsense around and we've seen the crowds flocking to beaches and bars."

So if Trump is to blame for the people in the South flocking to beaches and bars, who is to blame for people in Democrat cities flocking to protests?

"Well, AGAIN Trump minimizing it and dismissing it contributes to people thinking "no big deal" and going out to party and to the beaches, as we saw happening for example in Florida."

Are you referring to Trump's 'liberate' tweets?

 

Now that "no reported case" of aerosol transmission has been busted by the choir...we have speculation on frequency. Is it just the choral music?

The entire Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson family gets it, is it one talking spitter with too much saliva within six feet or a bunch of family talking inside an unventilated space? If it can't be answered, precisely, aunt with too much saliva did it, frequency is left to a lab experiment.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-08-risky-covid-.html

 

And I gave you a study showing mask greatly reduced droplets that the virus travels on. That's proof.

 

Lincoln project? LMAO
Trump mocked Biden for politicizing mask. He wears one for photo ops like Pelosi who got busted for her fake mask wearing.

 

Huh? These studies were filtration studies, not risk reduction studies. There is nothing in these studies I quoted in that post that contradicts the 29 others I posted on risk reduction, all in real-life situation rather than laboratory. And by the way I don't understand your points. The two studies I quoted in that post you've just quoted do show excellent filtration for several masks. Not all masks are equal, something I've been trying to educate people on, forever, including, how to find the good ones and how to use them.

 

Yes, I can, if you look up my posting history because I've already posted a link to an article saying so. I won't have the time to go after it again as I'm posting during a very short break, very busy day. I figure that posting a link once is sufficient substantiation. By the way, I don't know what is wrong with your Google searches. You've been saying that you can't find this and that in your searches when I say something, and then I do show that my searches to produce the appropriate hits. Should you refine the keywords you've been using? You gotta do better with these searches, man!

Vindman was "fired" and Bright was fired if you get what I mean.

What I believe is that this Dr. Scott Atlas is undermining the CDC because he wants Herd Immunity (which is clueless, stupid, and dangerous but Trump is delighted) and the new superintendent appointed by Trump got along with Trump in his crusade to undermine voting by mail. I mean, isn't it clear that there is an effort to curtail that? The AG is suing a state for allowing voting by mail, for God's sake! How much more clear do you want this to be? It's no conspiracy theory. It's a concerted effort.

 

First, thank you for the new style of going line by line without making me scroll up and down. Much better! Clever!
As for New York and "nobody" there likes Trump: funny. Tell that to the precisely 2,819,534 people who voted for Trump in New York in 2016, which is 36.5% of the electorate. As for Pelosi, I find these comments disgraceful too. Again, are you under the impression that I'm a Democrat? Newsflash: being a critic of President Trump's shortcoming (while also praising some of his accomplishments, but yes, I've been irritated at him, more so, lately) doesn't make of me a Democrat. I'm in no obligation in any way, shape, or form, to defend House Speaker Ms. Nancy Pelosi.

Kind of. Trump is a master communicator. He knows how to push people's bottoms. He let it linger there with a subtle change in wording, his followers gobbled it up, and he didn't come back to the issue to say "common, my followers, this virus is not a hoax, it is very much real and very much dangerous." Which would have been an example of leadership. To his credit he eventually did say some good stuff; I very much liked the first press briefing that happened after the long pause, where I was surprised at his somber tone and his mostly appropriate comments. But a bit too little too late, and then he resumed undermining the whole thing, including in the last few days

Again, because some of these people said so in all letters. Why do you doubt them? It's a cult mentality. These people think Trump is a God who can do no wrong.

Agreed. Again, Trump, the master communicator, knows how to stop a bit short of fully endorsing them but the symbolic effects are there.

Yes, I was aware of it. Fauci did say that we didn't need to worry or change behavior. But what he ALSO added and conservatives never bother to add that context, is "FOR NOW; IT COULD CHANGE." Still, I do blame Fauci for some mistakes. I can't get past the deliberate lie about masks not protecting the wearer.

I did know about them. Therefore I'm not clueless, thank you. But I am under no obligation to attack or defend them. By the way, two wrongs don't make a right. To say "well, I excuse Trump because Fauci also mispoke or Pelosi also mispoke" sorry, but it doesn't work. Fauci was wrong, Pelosi was wrong, AND Trump was also wrong.

Well, he did, many times... including in the hydroxychloroquine debacle when Fauci kept saying "not so fast, no evidence" and Trump got upset and kept insisting. You should really take some time to read those press brief transcripts to fully understand this. So, should I say that YOU are clueless on this, by any chance? Because you refused to read the link I gave you claiming you don't have 4 hours to spare, and then you keep not knowing the full extent of what Trump said.

Agreed. I've said, I blame Trump, I blame Fauci, I blame Cuomo, I blame the CDC, I blame the WHO, I blame the Chinese, and I blame the American people too. We've all been very stupid around this issue. We should have responded to the crisis with transparency, unity, consistent action, and we should have approached it as a public health crisis affecting all of us regardless of party or race or whatever, and should not have over-politicized it any more than the natural degree of political action necessary to fight it off.

These countries, though, except Sweden, did get the curve down after their huge outbreaks, and did take consistent and coherent measures, while we kept going in the opposite direction. I won't be surprised at all if after it's all said and done, we far surpass the damage done by the virus (proportionallly) in all of these European countries you've mentioned, maybe not Sweden because they approached it in an incredibly boneheaded way. Still, they are a more homogeneous, less densely populated, more disciplined population so maybe even Sweden will end up doing better than we're doing.

A leader can do a lot if a leader leads, inspires, persuades, sets a good example, etc.

You mean the very head of the CDC who is a Trump loyalist and was personally appointed by Trump? Agreed. But see above about what a leader can do. OK your analogy is better than mine, the president/CEO/chairman of a sports team, but again, leadership matters.
[/quote]
""You have nothing to lose, take it" in the context of a supposed pharmacological treatment for a disease, can't be construed as ANYTHING other than medical advice. Is it reason enough for ya, to have a problem with that? Well, it is for me."

Wasn't Trump talking about people who are literally on their deathbed with absolutely no other option and therefore "nothing to lose?"[/quote]
Again, should I call you clueless? Read the damn thing! Or else don't pass judgment on what you didn't read. Trump in MULTIPLE occasions defended HCQ including for mild cases and for prophylaxis including saying that he was taking it himself. You should also look up (Google is your friend if you use it right) a piece of investigative journalism by Vanity Fair on the actions of the Trump administration, under his direct push, to impose the use of HCQ in the State of New York. Quite appalling. You'll say, "Vanity Fair? Come on!" shooting the messenger, but surprisingly Vanity Fair is not just about vanity... they do have some very good pieces of investigative journalism from time to time.
[/quote]
"Yeah, yeah, sure. This mysterious team that only you seem to believe that it hypothetically exists, don't you think that if it did exist, Trump would be touting its expertise and the wonders done by it? Come on. It. Doesn't. Exist."

You're probably right. Again what's more likely is that the duties which that team had were simply reallocated to other areas of government. Again, we don't know.
[/quote]
Yes, we do know. On this, I'm right and you're wrong. I'm glad that you seem to be slowly realizing it, although still partially. Have you noticed how Trump repeatedly boasts about his travel ban? Any accomplishment by anybody linked to his administration on this, he'd be boasting about it non-stop. No, there was no pandemic preparedness team or individuals left and we were caught with our pants down.

Agreed.
[/quote]
Apparently, most of the money was secured. From the article:

"Most of that money was eventually secured, but funding for the future preparedness programmes was reduced. According to ProPublica, only $165m (£132m) went to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention’s public health emergency preparedness programmes, which included the stockpile."
[/quote]
What part of "only" and "reduced" you don't understand?

Yeah! Of course he can object to it, he is the freaking POTUS! If he didn't want the team axed, the team would not have been axed. Are you under the impression that a POTUS doesn't have authority over his own team?? Again, maybe you're more used to thinking in parliamentary and Prime Minister team. Over here we have a President. His word is final. If someone briefed him "well, we're spending too much on this team, we don't need it, we recommend axing it" he could simply have said "disagreed. Pandemic preparedness is important; a new pandemic can pop up any time, I do not want the team axed, end of the story. Next topic, please."

Democrats. Where did I say that I don't blame them?

I'm referring to Trump's WHOLE posture about this virus and this disease, which has been back and forth with a few instances of taking it seriously and saying the right things, and tones of, much more numerous, instances of minimizing it and undermining efforts to contain it. He just mocked Biden again for wearing a mask, for God's sake! How can we have consistent mask use if the POTUS and Commander-in-Chief and beloved cult leader of 35% of America keeps undermining it??? In his place, I'd be on TV (dully masked) everyday saying "No, no, you gotta wear masks, you gotta social distance, you gotta be careful because that's how you'll help me in helping you and jump starting the economy. This is serious, no joke, no hoax, no overcounted deaths, I'm telling you, take it seriously." Do you want more examples? "Children are immune." "People younger than 40 have nothing to fear." Both statements are contradicted by science and by facts on the field. I guess now I understand why he is saying this, from being in love with his new guru Dr. Scott Atlas, the biggest covidiot ever.

 

Biden has politcized wearing a mask? Is it Opposite Day?

Trump mocked Biden for wearing one. Trump has politcized it. Not Biden.

Even you acknowledged it is a political issue in your OP, saying that you’re to the right of Rush but still wear a mask. It isn’t a political issue anywhere else. Only in America. Thanks to Trump.

 

Yes, it's mostly speculation due to the difficulty in putting this to test. Like your own article says, "Although a number of studies reported online have attempted to examine the quantities of particulate matter expelled by performers, they have struggled to correctly quantify the aerosol and droplets because of the large number of ambient particles in the environment, making it impossible to identify which particles come from the performer and which are just already present in the space."

But given very well proven droplet route and the aerosol route being less evident I speculate that the frequency of the former beats the frequency of the latter. No time to perform a full search of studies on this, right now. End of my work break. I have to go. Bye.

 

Biden politicizes mask when he wears them unnecessarily for photo ops.

 

""You have nothing to lose, take it" in the context of a supposed pharmacological treatment for a disease, can't be construed as ANYTHING other than medical advice. Is it reason enough for ya, to have a problem with that? Well, it is for me."

Wasn't Trump talking about people who are literally on their deathbed with absolutely no other option and therefore "nothing to lose?"[/quote]
Again, should I call you clueless? Read the damn thing! Or else don't pass judgment on what you didn't read. Trump in MULTIPLE occasions defended HCQ including for mild cases and for prophylaxis including saying that he was taking it himself. You should also look up (Google is your friend if you use it right) a piece of investigative journalism by Vanity Fair on the actions of the Trump administration, under his direct push, to impose the use of HCQ in the State of New York. Quite appalling. You'll say, "Vanity Fair? Come on!" shooting the messenger, but surprisingly Vanity Fair is not just about vanity... they do have some very good pieces of investigative journalism from time to time.
[/quote]
"Yeah, yeah, sure. This mysterious team that only you seem to believe that it hypothetically exists, don't you think that if it did exist, Trump would be touting its expertise and the wonders done by it? Come on. It. Doesn't. Exist."

You're probably right. Again what's more likely is that the duties which that team had were simply reallocated to other areas of government. Again, we don't know.
[/quote]
Yes, we do know. On this, I'm right and you're wrong. I'm glad that you seem to be slowly realizing it, although still partially. Have you noticed how Trump repeatedly boasts about his travel ban? Any accomplishment by anybody linked to his administration on this, he'd be boasting about it non-stop. No, there was no pandemic preparedness team or individuals left and we were caught with our pants down.

Agreed.
[/quote]
Apparently, most of the money was secured. From the article:

"Most of that money was eventually secured, but funding for the future preparedness programmes was reduced. According to ProPublica, only $165m (£132m) went to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention’s public health emergency preparedness programmes, which included the stockpile."
[/quote]
What part of "only" and "reduced" you don't understand?

Yeah! Of course he can object to it, he is the freaking POTUS! If he didn't want the team axed, the team would not have been axed. Are you under the impression that a POTUS doesn't have authority over his own team?? Again, maybe you're more used to thinking in parliamentary and Prime Minister team. Over here we have a President. His word is final. If someone briefed him "well, we're spending too much on this team, we don't need it, we recommend axing it" he could simply have said "disagreed. Pandemic preparedness is important; a new pandemic can pop up any time, I do not want the team axed, end of the story. Next topic, please."

Democrats. Where did I say that I don't blame them?

I'm referring to Trump's WHOLE posture about this virus and this disease, which has been back and forth with a few instances of taking it seriously and saying the right things, and tones of, much more numerous, instances of minimizing it and undermining efforts to contain it. He just mocked Biden again for wearing a mask, for God's sake! How can we have consistent mask use if the POTUS and Commander-in-Chief and beloved cult leader of 35% of America keeps undermining it??? In his place, I'd be on TV (dully masked) everyday saying "No, no, you gotta wear masks, you gotta social distance, you gotta be careful because that's how you'll help me in helping you and jump starting the economy. This is serious, no joke, no hoax, no overcounted deaths, I'm telling you, take it seriously." Do you want more examples? "Children are immune." "People younger than 40 have nothing to fear." Both statements are contradicted by science and by facts on the field. I guess now I understand why he is saying this, from being in love with his new guru Dr. Scott Atlas, the biggest covidiot ever.[/QUOTE]


Quite often I make the choice of reading a book or coming here a few minutes. This poster blurs the distinction. lol