Lol, Marty is trying to literally fix the American health system. If Fauci is so amazing, why has Marty been right far more times than Fauci during this pandemic? Again, Marty was saying to do tons of shit January of 2020 to curtail the virus. Whereas Fauci on February 29th "There is no need to change anything that you're doing..." (and 20% of NYC was infected by April). We might have had a chance to be New Zealand if Marty was in charge.No, he's held one position related to public health in his professional life (a teaching professorship, not anything to do with actual practice).
What public health campaigns has he worked on? What areas of virology or immunology has he researched? It's quite easy to find long lists of practical past experience for Fauci.
What was Marty wrong about?Only if you assume the truth of everything else you're spouting, which I do not.
Outside is safe, plain and simple. Just don't do this.Yes, but you and those epidemiologists aren't quite saying the same thing. Why has been explained to you multiple times already, unfortunately you just don't seem to able to process it.
Let me try this analogy for you. In the average year, not that many people are stabbed, and the average person should have no significant fear walking around doing their daily business that they could at any moment be stabbed. However, a person that decides to go into a dangerous area of town and challenge some of the local kids to a fight needs to radically revise their assessment of stabbing risk, because the argument that almost no-one gets stabbed doesn't actually hold so much weight in those circumstances. Thus it is both true to say your chance of being stabbed is very, very low, and also to say that there are situations where you would be very strongly advised to take precautions against being stabbed.
The vitamin d data is actually better because you can isolate vitamin d much more than masks as there's so many variables that go into spikes and valleys, not to mention every country or every US state has a population with different restrictions and a population with different behaviors. Also, vitamin d studies in the past have shown better results in reducing flu than mask studies have shown against the flu. There is literally no solid data showing masks have done much of anything.Remember when I said that covid-19 is not chickenpox? Well, in much the same way, vitamin D is not facemasks.
There is not a rule "X is correlational and false therefore Y is false because it is also correlational", because the data that supports X and the data that supports Y is different data. You are trying to draw this sort ridiculous logical parallel between two different things instead of accepting that they are different things with different evidence bases. The rest of it is just cherry picking your data to defend what you please.
So it sounds like a "better safe than sorry" approach, which is why masks were recommended in the 1st place. Shouldn't you do things to counter something that is "very likely" in a pandemic of a new virus (until you figure out that it's looks almost certainly not likely)?That letter of 200+ scientists (6th July) says stuff like "It is understood that there is not as yet universal acceptance of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV2; but in our collective assessment there is more than enough supporting evidence so that the precautionary principle should apply." This roughly translates to "it might not be certain, but it's very likely".
And indeed, policy for infection control was already designed on the assumption of spread through the air (social distancing, masks, etc.)
Your complaint boils down to the CDC offering an official scientific judgement on airborne spread when they thought the evidence put it beyond any reasonable doubt, rather than just when it was very likely. Given that it was already recommending policy on the assumption of airborne spread well before then, your complaint amounts to a whole heap of nothing much.
---
Funny how you don't respond to the actual thread topic. To be in favor of censoring a plausible theory is the opposite of science. Literally, all I (or anyone) has to prove is that the lab leak theory isn't impossible.
The Media's Lab Leak Debacle Shows Why Banning 'Misinformation' Is a Terrible Idea
Facebook made a quiet but dramatic reversal last week: It no longer forbids users from touting the theory that COVID-19 came from a laboratory. "In light
reason.com