Food for thought: COVID up, flu WAY down

[Agema]

Or it's not inappropriate at all, because I can disagree with an action while defending the motivation behind the action. The argument wasn't "was his action the best option", but rather "did he pretend the pandemic wasn't serious for bad reasons", and my argument was that everything he said matched the messaging from the CDC, and Fauci insisted that Trump was basically repeating what experts told him to say, so the people arguing he was doing something malicious were, you know, full of crap.

Firstly, you should consider the sheer absurdity of complaining about lying whilst having spent four years defending the most serially dishonest president in US history.

But in terms of the specifics, Trump said that Covid-19 was just like flu, and that it would just go away. This is definitely not what the CDC and others were saying, and Trump himself acknowledged that when he decided to lie. (This is of course assuming Trump did deliberately lie, because it would be very Trump to just blab something random off the top of his head, and concoct an explanatory excuse later.)

Nor indeed was Fauci lying about masks. He stated there was no evidence mask-wearing by the public would do the any good, which was actually true at the time. The rationale for pushing this was also for a good cause, to prevent a massive run on masks that would endanger supplies for key workers in a time of global shortage. Then as more evidence rolled in, they changed their messaging. Whatever way you want to look at it, you have a double standard here because you want to protect Trump.

The reason we have the narrative that Fauci lied is really - again - all about Donald fucking Trump. Because that orange oaf did completely mess up the messaging on covid-19. When that plainly set him at odds with the advice from Fauci, CDC, and other healthcare experts and agencies, Team Trump at the White House and their media minions set out to damage people like Fauci in order to protect Trump. Fauci batted away criticism of Trump to stay on-side, because if he were marginalised he couldn't do any good. Of course Trump ended up marginalising him anyway, partly out of envy at Fauci's better trust with the public, and partly because Fauci wouldn't demean his self-respect and post by reinforcing Trump's bullshit. This is exactly the sort of dysfunction Trump's incompetence and stupid, petty, narcissistic ego brewed and that you want to run around excusing.

 

[stroopwafel]

According to Google Translate, there is nothing in that article that states they deliberately pressured scientists into lying so they could apply excessively draconian measures. I cannot see how anything done here that substantially differentiates from a standard government procedure to model a worst case scenario for contingency planning. From that they can prepare measures, and they can prepare the public for the measures that need to be enacted to encourage adherence.

Your interpretation looks like conspiracy theory bullshit I'd expect from covid deniers.

You have blind faith in the motivations of authorities when taking away people's constitutional rights for the 'greater good' but even the recent past has shown how easily it is for rights once surrendered to become permanently lost or conditional. It is just in the nature of authorities. That is why we have these controls in the first place. You give them a finger they take the entire arm. After 9/11 there was a similar incentive to give authorities more extra judicial capabilities and establish far reaching legislation for the 'greater good'. Result? The entirety of people's privacy has been taken away through legalized interception of personal information and the establishment of the surveillance state. People can be detained without allegation in judicially grey areas. On the extreme end it even led to prisoner abuse and outsourcing of torture. And so on. Look how much we lost in the government's response to terrorism after two decades and it's still largely ineffective. This is what happens when governments become authoritarian espescially when there is a misplaced sentiment that the end justifies the means.

If you don't see the risk in not having the authorities justify their actions to the people they serve and that deliberately misleading them to 'instill fear' is a perfectly justifiable tactic to make them easily accept lockdowns and that this isn't a serious risk to our democratic order then you're being pretty naive. Frankly I'm surprised this isn't a bigger scandal in Germany.

 

[Satinavian]

If you don't see the risk in not having the authorities justify their actions to the people they serve and that deliberately misleading them to 'instill fear' is a perfectly justifiable tactic to make them easily accept lockdowns and that this isn't a serious risk to our democratic order then you're being pretty naive. Frankly I'm surprised this isn't a bigger scandal in Germany.

People were not "deliberately misled". Politicians didn't massage what they got from the scientists and the scientists did not do bad science to satisfy politicians. That is why there is no scandal.

If there had been any actual lie, there would be one of course.

 

[Agema]

You have blind faith in the motivations of authorities when taking away people's constitutional rights for the 'greater good' but even the recent past has shown how easily it is for rights once surrendered to become permanently lost or conditional.

No, I don't have blind faith in the authorities.

In the case of a pandemic, I would take the view that collective action is integral to an effective response, and the government will usually need to mediate that. The government has a remit to preserve the lives of its citizens; similarly the actions of citizens can be constrained where they threaten the lives of others as a basic principle. These are pretty simple and basic concepts.

After that, you're in a democracy. It's the responsibility and duty of the people to control their government. In large part, if they decline to do so, that's on them. When people often say that the government won't do what they want, all too often the real underlying issue is that large proportions of their fellow citizens do not agree with their position.

 

[Silvanus]

Are you saying only doctors can research things in their own very specific field? You don't have to go to school and get a degree in every single field to be able to research something and figure it out yourself.

I'm saying that if somebody doesn't actually work in the area, then they're not going to be authoritative in that area. He's not an expert on the topic we're talking about.

I think I put an extra "all" in there by mistake, I meant he talked with experts in all the fields, not literally every expert. The scientific majority/consensus is definitely that you can have schools open, Where is this scientific consensus that schools shouldn't be open? If the consensus is that schools should be closed, why have so many countries opened schools?

Every time I post links to studies/ experts/ etc, you dismiss it out of hand.

As for why so many countries have opened schools-- why do you think? Do you believe public policy has been accurately and responsibly cleaving to the scientific consensus from the start of the pandemic? That's obviously not the case.

 

[Seanchaidh]

there's a pic of kids sitting right next to each other and doing just fine.

because neither of them have COVID

 

[tstorm823]

Whatever way you want to look at it, you have a double standard here because you want to protect Trump.

I don't. You do. I think Fauci shouldn't have said that but can appreciate the motive. I also don't think Trump should have said what he said, but can appreciate the motive. Frankly, I believe they were the same motive, because Trump was saying what Fauci told him to.

You are the one who goes out of your way to rationalize how Trump is evil in every situation, and you hate that I don't do it with you.

 

[Agema]

You are the one who goes out of your way to rationalize how Trump is evil in every situation, and you hate that I don't do it with you.

The emotion I feel for Trump defenders is a lot more pity than it is hate. Most of them are not bad enough people to be worth hating.

 

[Silvanus]

Frankly, I believe they were the same motive, because Trump was saying what Fauci told him to.

You think Fauci told Trump to say that it was just like the flu, and that it would just miraculously disappear on its own? Even though Fauci himself never said anything of the sort, and even though its rank bollocks?

 

[tstorm823]

You think Fauci told Trump to say that it was just like the flu, and that it would just miraculously disappear on its own? Even though Fauci himself never said anything of the sort, and even though its rank bollocks?

Fauci was asked about things Trump said, and responded explicitly that Trump's statements matched what he was told in their briefings. So, yes.

 

[Agema]

Fauci was asked about things Trump said, and responded explicitly that Trump's statements matched what he was told in their briefings. So, yes.

Slight hitch in your argument: Fauci was referring to briefings he personally had with Trump. Trump made these claims before anyone allowed Fauci into his presence. In fact, Fauci very clearly dodged the question of Trump's pre-Fauci comments by saying he was not involved.

Also, let's bear in mind when Trump finally departed last month, Fauci announced that he felt constrained in what he could say with Trump as president because of the threat of "repercussions". I think this is important to contextualise many statements Fauci made about Trump: basically, he refrained from criticising Trump in order to not be shut out from decision making or even fired. Of course Trump ostracised him anyway: we all know that in the end Fauci was forced to contradict too many of Trump's falsehoods and misrepresentations.

 

[tstorm823]

I think this is important to contextualise many statements Fauci made about Trump.

I understand. You think it's important to contextualize all things Trump related with the assumption that Trump is secretly a mafia boss pulling everyone's strings with implied threats. Like, Fauci didn't say Trump threatened him with repercussions, he just said he felt uncomfortable contradicting the President, but that doesn't stop you from characterizing it as a threat, because you insert implied evil threats into everything he says.

That's on you.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm saying that if somebody doesn't actually work in the area, then they're not going to be authoritative in that area. He's not an expert on the topic we're talking about.



Every time I post links to studies/ experts/ etc, you dismiss it out of hand.

As for why so many countries have opened schools-- why do you think? Do you believe public policy has been accurately and responsibly cleaving to the scientific consensus from the start of the pandemic? That's obviously not the case.

He might not be qualified to setup and run specific studies in specific areas but being able to understand and read studies others have done can be done by pretty much any good doctor. Although the studies that have shown school transmissions aren't hard to do from a methodology standpoint, that's pretty easy and you don't need an expert to do that. It's getting the resources for the logistics of it all that would be troublesome. Now being able to explain why kids don't transmit a virus while others do would take an expert in the field to break down all the moving parts (immune system, virus, etc.). But we just need to know if X is true or false and not the why to make policy.

You said scientific consensus is that schools should be closed. That means a majority of scientists say so, where is that majority? If you google "school study covid", most of the studies you find highly lean towards kids not transmitting. Mind you, it's not freaking 0 chance as you like to imply that I mean no kid will ever transmit the virus and link to an article of a known kid transmitting it to someone. It's highly unlikely of kids transmitting it to adults. Whereas we know that's not true of the flu because we have numbers that show flu transmissions drop during school breaks.

I didn't dismiss your studies out of hand. I quoted parts of them and said it doesn't lead to a specific conclusion you're implying it does. That one study assumed kids transmit at 50% of 20 year-old or higher (IIRC) and based their model off of that. Yes, if kids did transmit at that rate, schools should be closed (that was the conclusion of that specific study). That study had nothing to with finding the transmission rate nor did they attempt to, that wasn't the point of their study/modeling. We have tons of open schools in the world that you can study so you don't need modeling or guess work.

Do you think parents would be cool with sending their kids back to school if the experts were saying it's not safe? Making something policy doesn't mean people will do it. You can open bars and restaurants, it doesn't mean people will flock back to them. People didn't go back to movie theaters when they opened. I went to see Tenet at the theater not because I thought theaters were safe but I knew people didn't think they were safe and there'd be like nobody there, and there was like 5 people in the whole theater, which is safe.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

because neither of them have COVID

They could have covid and they'd still be fine, they're kids, the flu is more deadly to them.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Baffle]

Fauci insisted that Trump was basically repeating what experts told him to say.

Those so-called experts and their mad ideas about injecting bleach, eh? What do they learn at college these days?!

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Agema]

I understand. You think it's important to contextualize all things Trump related with the assumption that Trump is secretly a mafia boss pulling everyone's strings with implied threats. Like, Fauci didn't say Trump threatened him with repercussions, he just said he felt uncomfortable contradicting the President, but that doesn't stop you from characterizing it as a threat, because you insert implied evil threats into everything he says.

That's on you.

What do you mean "implied threats"? He happily speculated in public about firing Fauci. His minions like Navarro were busy briefing against Fauci long before. And even before covid-19, Trump loved firing people: he made a big show of it every time he did, and his record of firing people (some of them, in usual government way, forced resignations rather than firings) speaks for itself.

And yes, you need to get your head round the fact that Trump is a capricious, authoritarian man. Insecure and intolerant of dissent or disagreement, and cruel (as described by his own sister) with it. This is how workplaces run by ill-tempered bullies operate: everyone learns the importance of keeping the boss happy, even at the expense of honesty or doing a proper job. I've worked for such a person, almost everyone I know has, and it is always the same: fear, stress, unhappiness. "Pulling strings" suggests more intent and deviousness than may actually be there: it doesn't need to be a deliberate strategy, it's just what happens with that sort of toxic manager.

Narcissistic managers

Preoccupied with their own importance, narcissistic managers are grandiose and arrogant. They devalue others, lack empathy for others and have little, if any, conscience. Feeling exempt from the normal rules of society, they exploit people without remorse. Narcissistic individuals are also very sensitive to anything that threatens their self-esteem. Challenges to their grandiose self image can lead to narcissistic rage that sees them lose all judgment and attack in ways that are destructive to themselves and their victims.

Arrogant with peers and subordinates, they may suddenly become submissive in the presence of a superior. Once the superior has left, they may well disparage her. They generally deprecate and exploit others, including former idols. They may, however, idealize powerful individuals who support them, though only for a short time.

Under the surface, narcissistic managers struggle with fragile self-esteem. They also have a sense of emptiness arising from their lack of true self-love and inability to care about other people or about abstract values such as honesty and integrity. Their grandiose fantasies are attempts to fill the emptiness and reinforce their fragile self-esteem.

The classic narcissistic manager is grandiose. Grandiose managers are legends in their own minds. Preoccupied with their exaggerated accomplishments and grandiose expectations for the future, they expect others to hold them in awe. Constantly boasting, they resemble peacocks strutting around with their tail feathers unfurled.

Some narcissistic managers are not effusive about their abilities and accomplishments. What stands out about them is a willingness to exploit others, a willingness to break the law, or a desire to control and dominate others.

Narcissistic managers are less likely to make major changes in their behaviour than are managers with other issues. They are also particularly likely to become outraged and vindictive if someone challenges their behaviour. Therefore, when you are dealing with a manager who is rigid or aggressive, it is important to know whether narcissism or other disorders lie underneath their destructive behaviour.

A milder variant of narcissistic managers are those with learned narcissism. They are not desperately trying to hide and shield fragile self-esteem arising from a troubled childhood. Rather, their success in some area has brought sufficient fame and fortune that they have been shielded from the normal consequences of behaving arrogantly and treating others poorly. Moreover, as people incessantly flatter them, they come to believe the glorifying compliments. Although somewhat grandiose and inconsiderate of others, these people have a conscience and can feel empathy for others; they simply do not realize the full impact of their behavior on others. People with learned narcissism are far more amenable to change than are those with narcissism resulting from problems early on in emotional development.

Coping with a narcissistic manager is very difficult for most people. You can’t make it a fun experience, but there are things you can do to make yourself less vulnerable to them.

If you are subordinate to a narcissistic manager:

• Avoid criticizing them
• Show admiration
• Don’t outshine them; play down your accomplishments and ambition
• Document your work
• Build relationships to a mentor
• Keep your eyes open for other positions
• Do not take their behaviour personally

 

[Silvanus]

He might not be qualified to setup and run specific studies in specific areas but being able to understand and read studies others have done can be done by pretty much any good doctor. Although the studies that have shown school transmissions aren't hard to do from a methodology standpoint, that's pretty easy and you don't need an expert to do that. It's getting the resources for the logistics of it all that would be troublesome. Now being able to explain why kids don't transmit a virus while others do would take an expert in the field to break down all the moving parts (immune system, virus, etc.). But we just need to know if X is true or false and not the why to make policy.

Did he actually run studies? All I can see about it is that he asked a bunch of other people and then wrote some op-eds. Can you link the studies he did?

You said scientific consensus is that schools should be closed. That means a majority of scientists say so, where is that majority? If you google "school study covid", most of the studies you find highly lean towards kids not transmitting. Mind you, it's not freaking 0 chance as you like to imply that I mean no kid will ever transmit the virus and link to an article of a known kid transmitting it to someone. It's highly unlikely of kids transmitting it to adults. Whereas we know that's not true of the flu because we have numbers that show flu transmissions drop during school breaks.

If you don't want people thinking you believe kids aren't at risk at all, perhaps you shouldn't say things like "kids don't transmit the virus".

I didn't dismiss your studies out of hand. I quoted parts of them and said it doesn't lead to a specific conclusion you're implying it does. That one study assumed kids transmit at 50% of 20 year-old or higher (IIRC) and based their model off of that. Yes, if kids did transmit at that rate, schools should be closed (that was the conclusion of that specific study). That study had nothing to with finding the transmission rate nor did they attempt to, that wasn't the point of their study/modeling. We have tons of open schools in the world that you can study so you don't need modeling or guess work.

You quoted a single sentence-fragment, assumed the number they used was wrong, and then used that to dismiss the entire model. You did the same kind of thing with the other various quotes and studies I provided in both threads on the pandemic.

Do you think parents would be cool with sending their kids back to school if the experts were saying it's not safe? Making something policy doesn't mean people will do it.

I very much doubt your average person (parent or not) is well versed in following scientific literature. They will tend to trust government guidelines, trusting that government guidelines are well-informed. After all, it's not the job of a scientist to form public policy; the scientist provides the information to the government, and the government then forms public policy.

 

[Silvanus]

I understand. You think it's important to contextualize all things Trump related with the assumption that Trump is secretly a mafia boss pulling everyone's strings with implied threats. Like, Fauci didn't say Trump threatened him with repercussions, he just said he felt uncomfortable contradicting the President, but that doesn't stop you from characterizing it as a threat, because you insert implied evil threats into everything he says.

That's on you.

Well, there's also the fact that he fired people for contradicting him.