Dr. Fauci “not convinced” coronavirus developed naturally

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,585
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I mean Marty Makary. Fuck Marty Makary, he's just a media rent-a-mouth with a medical degree.
Marty Makary is the former CDC director? I didn't even mention Marty in the post you're replying to. Although you really seem to not like people who've been right on just about everything for some reason.

Choice of words is obviously very important. Calling something a myth vs unlikely have 2 very different meanings.

Gee, let me think... a virus naturally evolves and passes to humans, or a Chinese lab both makes one evolve to infect humans and also flubs its lab safety. I wonder which is worst for China's reputation?
The virus leaking from the lab doesn't equate to it being man-made. And even if it was man-made, China's hands aren't the only hands in that pot. A virus coming about because of an inhumane disgusting wet market and one coming from a lab that many countries have, and the one that could happen anywhere is more racist? Pictures of Chinese eating bats is less racist than some nerdy scientist accident in a lab? I'd say the wet market theory also makes China even more liable (if you're gonna sanction China in some way) than the lab leak possibility because the wet market is a known vulnerability that most other countries don't have.

No. Virtually no-one can keep politics out of it. The sad, useless, pointless flapping of mouths of people to "keep politics out of it" are delusional and/or self-aggrandising posturing to pretend they aren't politicised themselves. But they are.

The CDC is an arm of government and politicised. The government is politicised (obviously). And all these people spouting their little opinions, from Joe Bloggs on the street through to doctors who do books, interviews and YouTube vids and so on, are themselves consciously or subconsciously politicised. They have political ideologies, they speak with and pick up ideas from people with political ideologies, they get their news and opinions from politicised media, etc.
I hate both democrats and republicans though I can't say that I'm 100% in keeping politics out of it (I try my best) but I couldn't care less what either side is saying.

... because the CDC has been attacked by anyone and everyone. And that is because the CDC has recommended things that people don't want to do, and every time it has done so, people don't like it and scrape around the internet for opinions that justify hating on the CDC and considering it incompetent. In many cases, this is politicised. One can consider the people attacking state capitol buildings for imposing mask mandates and closing shops. These guys aren't informed by science. They're informed by political ideology and a willingness for other people to die so they can continue to sell shit. So when the CDC says something they don't want, they call the CDC crap, irrespective of whether it is or not.

Everyone's a critic, eh? Talk is incredibly cheap when it's not your fucking job. It's like all those wankers who watch a pro sports game and think they know who to pick and what tactics to run better than the team coach/manager. Of course they don't. You can experience this sort of thing by getting a promotion. You might often wonder why the manager didn't just do this, or that. And then when you get the job and bring your idea forwards, quite a lot of the time you find out exactly why they hadn't done it: because you were actually just ignorant of something that made it impractical. Your predecessor, with experience and knowledge of doing the job you didn't have, was not.

So every time you watch a ZDogg MD or Marty Makary blowing hot air, hold that thought in your head: these guys don't actually know a huge amount of the stuff that it takes to run a successful public health campaign. If they were in that ball-clenchingly difficult position of having the lives and deaths of so many people hanging on their decisions, having to weigh up a huge number of factors that they are unaware of as a media gobshite, don't for a minute think they would necessarily come out with the same thing as they do on their social media posts.

The CDC and Fauci are by no means perfect. In many respects they "play safe", because that is their function. Fauci particularly has a sort of split loyalty: he must on the one hand advance good health policy, and on another retain the confidence of the executive. Hence Fauci's reply to a journalist who asked him why he put up with Trump's bullshit: because he's got a job to do, and he can't do it if he resigns / gets fired, at which point the President potentially gets another 100,000 Americans killed. This is the stuff of the real world, which ZDogg MD and Marty Makary don't have to worry about and don't think about, safe in their little media bubble where theories don't have to meet practicalities.

When we were talking about vaccines, and I said go get your vaccine, one of the things I'm aware of is the public health element that we want immunity, and the more immunised the better. I'm inclined to hold a tough line, to encourage people to get vaccinated. The more people have loopholes, the less people think vaccination is important, the lower the vaccine uptake, and the lower the community protection. The more people swan round saying "I'm not getting vaccinated because..." the more other people decide not to get vaccinated too. Thus in that sense, "following the science" doesn't necessarily achieve public health outcomes, because these sorts of public health outcomes are really about managing public opinions and the attitudes and activities of millions of people, many of whom can be perverse and obstructive. In much the same way, all the understanding in the world of how angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors reduce blood pressure doesn't convince the public to get more exercise and eat less. "Follow the science" is misunderstanding the task.

Thus whilst I do not have uncritical trust in Fauci and the CDC, I have a great deal of skepticism about the legion of twats criticising them.
So every time the CDC is attacked is because they say stuff people don't want to do? Who wanted to wear masks if you asked them say January of last year? It's because they say stuff that either doesn't make sense or is contradictory or is said in a way to "trick" people into doing something. Why can't you just say that if you have immunity, that masks aren't making you any safer but we have to wear masks still so we have the not immune wearing masks? It has to be an everyone or nobody thing, which is understandable logic. That's why they said vaccinated don't need masks anymore because we're at herd immunity so the not immune not wearing masks anymore (ignoring the guideline) isn't much of a deal anymore (+ the vulnerable are all vaccinated basically). That leads into the whole vaccinated people still needing to be so very careful messaging bullshit that only discouraged vaccination. Or the whole thing about not needing masks to save for health care workers was the cause for the mixed messaging that people called bullshit on. Of course, you have the CDC not saying the virus was airborne until last month of this year. How is that "playing it safe"? Playing it safe is the opposite of that, it's advising to wear a mask even though we're not sure if it works. If I want up-to-date info about a pandemic, I'm not listening to the CDC or if I want the actual reasons to do XYZ, I'm also not listening to the CDC.

Fuck those preening, self-publicising, social media, gobshite rent-a-mouths whose content is driven by a psychological need for attention and wanting more clicks and subscribers ($$$).
Zdogg doesn't really care about making money off social media (hence why he doesn't care that his videos get demonetized). I'm sure he wants to just make enough off it to make the time he puts in worth his while but outside of that he doesn't care. Vinay Prasad doesn't even a have a Youtube channel. It's like claiming Fauci or Paul Offit are "preening, self-publicising, social media, gobshite rent-a-mouths whose content is driven by a psychological need for attention and wanting more clicks and subscribers ($$$)" because they appear on Youtube videos.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,036
6,341
118
Country
United Kingdom
And there's no 100% definitive proof that the election results aren't legit either. The likelihood of the election results or Florida covid numbers being fudged are both very very very very unlikely. Everything that is coming out about the Jones' story is pointing very very very strongly in the direction that 1) she's lying and 2) the numbers weren't fudged nor have any reason to have been fudged. Have you given your password to Houseman and they are posting under your name? The accuser is supposed to supply the proof that something is wrong.
I think you may have lost sight of how this discussion started, in the other thread on Jones' claims. Of course the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. But that thread didn't just say we have no reason to believe her. It indicated that there was some kind of smoking gun; that we had proof against.

I pointed out that we didn't. We just had another op-ed giving their two cents. Nothing factual or definitive. And in response, for page after page, people have been arguing ad nauseum about how we shouldn't trust her and she's shady and whatever-else... as if that's relevant. I know. That's not being disputed. The thread claimed it had something definitive and it didn't. That's all.

He said PROBABLY but you can't decide to vaccinate kids based on a PROBABLY, which I'll show in the other thread (as your worst enemy will win if you're wrong). He also says you don't need kids vaccinated for herd immunity, but I guess you forget the things that someone says that don't agree with your beliefs.
You very much can decide to vaccinate kids based on a "probably". It's already happening in a number of countries. Science is a string of "probablies".

And no, I don't "forget" things someone says if they don't agree; I simply don't care about what a single for-hire researcher says. You're the one who imbues individual figures with overriding authority (if you like their argument), not me. I care about consensus. So, if some individual for-hire talking head says something I don't agree with, if it's not the general consensus, then that has pretty much zero impact on the validity of my argument. But if you cite an individual researcher as authoritative... and then ignore what that same researcher says if it's not in line with your opinion, then yeah, that's a huge hole in your consistency.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,036
6,341
118
Country
United Kingdom
Marty Makary is the former CDC director? I didn't even mention Marty in the post you're replying to. Although you really seem to not like people who've been right on just about everything for some reason.
You literally did. This is the post he replied to;

When 2 very respected people, former CDC Director (who got death threats for backing the lab theory) and Dr. Marty Makary (who's been right on just about everything regarding the pandemic) say it's most likely the virus did come from a lab, it's hardly a conspiracy theory.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,201
6,476
118
Marty Makary is the former CDC director? I didn't even mention Marty in the post you're replying to.
How do you debate anything when you can't remember what you wrote within the last 3 days?

Choice of words is obviously very important. Calling something a myth vs unlikely have 2 very different meanings.
I don't think you're quite getting this. The content of the email is irrelevant. The point is that it's just not an important email.

The virus leaking from the lab doesn't equate to it being man-made.
If that were a natural virus they'd found somewhere and stored in Wuhan that then accidentally leaked, wouldn't they just create a big reveal and thus end the damaging rumours against them (lying about the leak bit, obviously)? "Hey, we found this in a rat in Guangdong!" Super. That solves that, then.

I hate both democrats and republicans
Politics is a lot more than "Democrats and Republicans". Do you believe in any policy at all? Well, that's political then.

So every time the CDC is attacked is because they say stuff people don't want to do? Who wanted to wear masks if you asked them say January of last year? It's because they say stuff that either doesn't make sense or is contradictory or is said in a way to "trick" people into doing something.
Just about everything the CDC says makes sense - if you think about the remit and circumstances of the CDC.

Why can't you just say that if you have immunity...
Because I got about three sentences into this paragraph and it's a complex mush of "Do this, do that, except these guys, and those guys in these circumstances, and..." so that it's already failed as a public health policy.

Zdogg doesn't really care about making money off social media...
So he's in it for the ego, then.

Vinay Prasad doesn't even a have a Youtube channel.
No, just a podcast and a blog on an online magazine. Which is close enough.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,585
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I think you may have lost sight of how this discussion started, in the other thread on Jones' claims. Of course the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. But that thread didn't just say we have no reason to believe her. It indicated that there was some kind of smoking gun; that we had proof against.

I pointed out that we didn't. We just had another op-ed giving their two cents. Nothing factual or definitive. And in response, for page after page, people have been arguing ad nauseum about how we shouldn't trust her and she's shady and whatever-else... as if that's relevant. I know. That's not being disputed. The thread claimed it had something definitive and it didn't. That's all.
The smoking gun was that she never had any proof. I bet her whistleblower complaint is just something super mundane like Florida skipped like step 19 of 50 that really doesn't matter or her case is at best gonna be thrown out if she claimed the numbers were actually fudged, hopefully she gets punished for making a unsubstantiated claim.

You very much can decide to vaccinate kids based on a "probably". It's already happening in a number of countries. Science is a string of "probablies".

And no, I don't "forget" things someone says if they don't agree; I simply don't care about what a single for-hire researcher says. You're the one who imbues individual figures with overriding authority (if you like their argument), not me. I care about consensus. So, if some individual for-hire talking head says something I don't agree with, if it's not the general consensus, then that has pretty much zero impact on the validity of my argument. But if you cite an individual researcher as authoritative... and then ignore what that same researcher says if it's not in line with your opinion, then yeah, that's a huge hole in your consistency.
Who is vaccinating kids?

You literally did. This is the post he replied to;
How do you debate anything when you can't remember what you wrote within the last 3 days?
Uhh...?...?...?

No Marty in the comment he's replying to. I keep track of the conversation.

1623157102489.png
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,585
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
I don't think you're quite getting this. The content of the email is irrelevant. The point is that it's just not an important email.
Sounds more like it's your opinion that the content is irrelevant. Daszak orchestrated the letter to the Lancet, which caused the scientific community to stop looking at the lab leak as a possible theory.

If that were a natural virus they'd found somewhere and stored in Wuhan that then accidentally leaked, wouldn't they just create a big reveal and thus end the damaging rumours against them (lying about the leak bit, obviously)? "Hey, we found this in a rat in Guangdong!" Super. That solves that, then.
I don't know how easy it is to re-find a virus that was found in the wild, I'm sure it varies greatly depending on the virus.

Politics is a lot more than "Democrats and Republicans". Do you believe in any policy at all? Well, that's political then.
I'm aware of that, but the point is I don't care what either of them say. With regards to like power/electricity, I'm for nuclear vs fossil fuels (republicans) or green energy (democrats) because nuclear makes the most sense.

Just about everything the CDC says makes sense - if you think about the remit and circumstances of the CDC.
Masking outside never made any sense whatsoever. In fact, telling people that outside is basically the same only caused more infections because people then met inside vs outside. Like closing outdoor dining or yelling at people for being at the beach only forced more people inside together.

Because I got about three sentences into this paragraph and it's a complex mush of "Do this, do that, except these guys, and those guys in these circumstances, and..." so that it's already failed as a public health policy.
And that's different from the current mask policy? The current policy is vaccinated people don't need masks, all I said was to change a single word and the policy is immune people don't need masks.

So he's in it for the ego, then.

No, just a podcast and a blog on an online magazine. Which is close enough.
So everyone on any kind of media is in it for ego or money then...? Is saying anything to people ever then not for ego?

Again, every doctor that does anything online is bad? Why don't you actually attack their arguments vs making ad hominem attacks?
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,201
6,476
118
Sounds more like it's your opinion that the content is irrelevant. Daszak orchestrated the letter to the Lancet, which caused the scientific community to stop looking at the lab leak as a possible theory.
Nothing has stopped the scientific community looking at the lab leak as a possible theory. That's a ridiculous confection made up to create a conspiracy theory myth. A few guys writing a letter into a science journal has never ended any scientific debate in the history of mankind, and it didn't magically do so this time either. The scientific literature clearly entertains the possibility of a lab leak all throughout the period. The problem is that there's no strong scientific evidence to support it, so obviously they weren't writing many scientific articles promoting the hypothesis.

I think what the more conspiracy theory minded are really objecting to is that the scientific community weren't (and still aren't) telling the story they wanted. And herein lies the thing about people's complex relationship with science: they want science to confirm what they believe, but hate and turn against it when it doesn't. Hence dealing with that cognitive dissonance by making up bullshit stories to explain why they think they're being lied to..

I don't know how easy it is to re-find a virus that was found in the wild, I'm sure it varies greatly depending on the virus.
Firstly, they just need to say they found such-and-such a virus somewhere with high similarity - that is intrinsically good support of a natural origin. Then they send teams to the relevant place look for it.

Masking outside never made any sense whatsoever.
Masking outside was obviously a sensible precaution in the absence of evidence. And there is good reason to think masks are still a reasonable precaution in certain outdoor situations.

And that's different from the current mask policy? The current policy is vaccinated people don't need masks, all I said was to change a single word and the policy is immune people don't need masks.
Right. Because making the term "vaccinated" encourages people to get vaccinated. It is good practice to motivate people to get vaccinated for the good of public health.

So everyone on any kind of media is in it for ego or money then...? Is saying anything to people ever then not for ego?

Again, every doctor that does anything online is bad? Why don't you actually attack their arguments vs making ad hominem attacks?
These people are transparently pointless, twat, talking heads. Like Rhonda whoever the fuck she was on vitamin D. You know how people say the mainstream media are bad? Well, these wankers are a step down.

If you want an expert opinion, get a fucking expert. Not some bozo prostituting his qualifications because he likes the sound of his own voice.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,036
6,341
118
Country
United Kingdom
The smoking gun was that she never had any proof.
Do you appreciate the difference between 1) having no reason to believe an unsubstantiated claim, and 2) having proof that its not the case?

Who is vaccinating kids?

Uhh...?...?...?

No Marty in the comment he's replying to. I keep track of the conversation.

View attachment 3865
... follow the conversation back. This tangent directly results from you mentioning Makary 2 posts before.

No, you don't keep track. You've forgotten what you said.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,201
6,476
118
Uhh...?...?...?

No Marty in the comment he's replying to. I keep track of the conversation.
No, you don't. The conversation, in flow and stripping away the other stuff, goes:

P - When 2 very respected people, former CDC Director... and Dr. Marty Makary
A - Your ability to wildly overrate media-friendly doctors ahead of genuine experts is truly depressing.
P - The CDC director is just a media-friendly doctor when they get more intelligence about it than probably anyone else?
A - I mean Marty Makary.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,585
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Nothing has stopped the scientific community looking at the lab leak as a possible theory. That's a ridiculous confection made up to create a conspiracy theory myth. A few guys writing a letter into a science journal has never ended any scientific debate in the history of mankind, and it didn't magically do so this time either. The scientific literature clearly entertains the possibility of a lab leak all throughout the period. The problem is that there's no strong scientific evidence to support it, so obviously they weren't writing many scientific articles promoting the hypothesis.

I think what the more conspiracy theory minded are really objecting to is that the scientific community weren't (and still aren't) telling the story they wanted. And herein lies the thing about people's complex relationship with science: they want science to confirm what they believe, but hate and turn against it when it doesn't. Hence dealing with that cognitive dissonance by making up bullshit stories to explain why they think they're being lied to..
In the beginning, there was a lot of pressure against speaking up, because it was tied to conspiracies and Trump supporters,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University. “There was very little rational discussion going on in the beginning.

Firstly, they just need to say they found such-and-such a virus somewhere with high similarity - that is intrinsically good support of a natural origin. Then they send teams to the relevant place look for it.
I get that, but how easy is that to do? If it is pretty easy, why haven't they done that?

Masking outside was obviously a sensible precaution in the absence of evidence. And there is good reason to think masks are still a reasonable precaution in certain outdoor situations.
Not really, there were studies tracing back thousands of infections and only 1 transmission was found outside and that was very early on. Even now, documented outside transmissions are basically absent. Just having an indoor environment being decently ventilated drops the risk of infection by a lot let alone outside in completely open air. If you wanna have people wear masks in very crowded areas, I guess but there wasn't any of those type of events taking place anyway. People were legit creating paths on people lawns so they didn't walk past other people or wearing a mask when biking, that was beyond ridiculous and all caused by the fear-mongering messaging that usually has no basis in science.

Right. Because making the term "vaccinated" encourages people to get vaccinated. It is good practice to motivate people to get vaccinated for the good of public health.
And where's the consistency when you say vaccinated people still need to abide by restrictions, how is that encouraging vaccination? Not only is the messaging inconsistent but it's also just plain wrong quite often, that's why no one listens to it now. It was quite funny to see people saying "listen to the CDC for a year" then saying "don't listen to the CDC" when the CDC finally said something they didn't agree with.

These people are transparently pointless, twat, talking heads. Like Rhonda whoever the fuck she was on vitamin D. You know how people say the mainstream media are bad? Well, these wankers are a step down.

If you want an expert opinion, get a fucking expert. Not some bozo prostituting his qualifications because he likes the sound of his own voice.
Many of them are experts, far more than the "experts" that say stupid shit like we need 70-80% vaccinated for herd immunity when you need 70-80% IMMUNE for herd immunity.

Why do you keep making ad hominem attacks vs attacking the actual argument? Kinda funny how most of my "experts" are right far more often than not.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,585
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Do you appreciate the difference between 1) having no reason to believe an unsubstantiated claim, and 2) having proof that its not the case?
Yeah, but I don't get what point you're making. Many people think Jones' claim has at least some credence/substantiation to it when there is none at all, that is the smoking gun. It's kinda hard to prove your numbers are correct when they're correct. And nobody's probably even going to believe that proof because it will be super boring and mundane and they'll probably just be like "what's stopping you from making that up too?" like the whole election.

I meant kids under 12 obviously that we have no data on. And current data is pointing to more severe effects the younger you are and kids under 12 are obviously younger than 12 year olds. Who is currently vaccinating kids under 12?

... follow the conversation back. This tangent directly results from you mentioning Makary 2 posts before.

No, you don't keep track. You've forgotten what you said.
No, I fully kept track, that's why I asked squarely about the former CDC director since Agema doesn't like Marty and most people that are right most of the time. The CDC director and Marty are the only 2 that I've seen say the lab leak is the more likely scenario. Though I haven't really looked into it because I honestly don't care too much about the lab leak stuff so I'm sure there's plenty more with that opinion, I just don't care to find them. The thing I do care about a lot is the censoring of information that went along with this regardless of this issue or other issues, very reputable doctors/scientists are getting banned from saying many things and that's not good. Just normal people get banned from all kinds of sites (big and small) for just saying what the science says.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,419
5,676
118
Australia
In the beginning, there was a lot of pressure against speaking up, because it was tied to conspiracies and Trump supporters,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University. “There was very little rational discussion going on in the beginning.


I get that, but how easy is that to do? If it is pretty easy, why haven't they done that?


Not really, there were studies tracing back thousands of infections and only 1 transmission was found outside and that was very early on. Even now, documented outside transmissions are basically absent. Just having an indoor environment being decently ventilated drops the risk of infection by a lot let alone outside in completely open air. If you wanna have people wear masks in very crowded areas, I guess but there wasn't any of those type of events taking place anyway. People were legit creating paths on people lawns so they didn't walk past other people or wearing a mask when biking, that was beyond ridiculous and all caused by the fear-mongering messaging that usually has no basis in science.


And where's the consistency when you say vaccinated people still need to abide by restrictions, how is that encouraging vaccination? Not only is the messaging inconsistent but it's also just plain wrong quite often, that's why no one listens to it now. It was quite funny to see people saying "listen to the CDC for a year" then saying "don't listen to the CDC" when the CDC finally said something they didn't agree with.


Many of them are experts, far more than the "experts" that say stupid shit like we need 70-80% vaccinated for herd immunity when you need 70-80% IMMUNE for herd immunity.

Why do you keep making ad hominem attacks vs attacking the actual argument? Kinda funny how most of my "experts" are right far more often than not.
I don’t think Senpai is going to notice you. Not in the way you want.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,201
6,476
118
In the beginning, there was a lot of pressure against speaking up, because it was tied to conspiracies and Trump supporters,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University. “There was very little rational discussion going on in the beginning.
What you're complaining about here is that scientists weren't joining the clusterfuck writing into national newspapers and appearing on TV shows expounding grandiose claims on which they had no evidence. And all the better for it: what Iwasaki is telling us is that debate was political and toxic, and it was wise to not get embroiled in it. But in the scientific literature the origins of SARS-CoV-2 were under discussion and the lab leak hypothesis was in play, and that's what matters. No-one shut scientists up.

I get that, but how easy is that to do? If it is pretty easy, why haven't they done that?
Finding the precise link is very, very hard indeed. It's not like China has only a few animals to test. But if SARS-CoV-2 was a natural virus that leaked from the lab, China would merely need to show the evidence it was natural and that protects them from a metric shit-ton of criticism that they brewed it up experimentally.

Checking the place they found it is then the task of trying to impress on people it came from that natural reservoir rather than their lab.

Not really, there were studies tracing back thousands of infections and only 1 transmission was found outside
Fuck - do you remember nothing? Nothing at all? How do you remember to tie your own laces? We've already done this, and that is really NOT the correct interpretation of that paper.

And where's the consistency when you say vaccinated people still need to abide by restrictions, how is that encouraging vaccination? Not only is the messaging inconsistent but it's also just plain wrong quite often, that's why no one listens to it now. It was quite funny to see people saying "listen to the CDC for a year" then saying "don't listen to the CDC" when the CDC finally said something they didn't agree with.
The CDC has been "wrong" mostly in the opinions of know-nothings and dilettantes who don't properly understand what the CDC is there to do. It is consistent in trying to encourage a "safety first" approach to infection control. Because, obviously, the highest priority of the CDC is preventing the spread of disease and deaths of people.

The CDC however does not make policy, that's up to politicians. The CDC says "we recommend this" (as best evidence-based practice infection control), and then state governors decide whether they want to comply, or whether they would accept higher risk for other benefits. All as it should be.

And there's that bit where you hopelessly misguidedly accuse the CDC of being late to describe the virus as "airborne", which we established a few months ago was one part you not understanding what airborne meant in the technical context of viral transmission, and the other part you not understanding that the CDC needs to establish reasonable evidential grounds before it says something is officially the case. Like all the other times you have walked into a matter with an opinion and colossal ignorance, when corrected, you have simply repeated your lies ad nauseam instead.

Many of them are experts, far more than the "experts" that say stupid shit like we need 70-80% vaccinated for herd immunity when you need 70-80% IMMUNE for herd immunity.
And here again, you amply demonstrate that you have no understanding whatsoever of public health practicalities.

In your model, we need to find who is immune. We can't simply take an assumption of immunity from having the disease, as some people (particularly those with lesser symptoms) develop weak immune responses. Many people don't even know if they caught covid because they were asymptomatic, or they erroneously think they did because they mixed it up with some other respiratory infection which they assumed was covid but wasn't, etc. The only way to check whether someone is immune is do a series of tests - an antibody test might work, but antibodies can get low very quickly, despite some level of immunity potentially still existing via T/B cells. Can we rely on them to do it themselves? Let's remember, there's been a bustling trade in fake test certificates. So checking immunity with this sort of test is not only expensive and complex, but the laboratory capacity doesn't exist to do it on the scale of the whole country, so there's also the months of delay and cost to get it set up, and then try to make everyone come in have a test, at which point a load of them will need be vaccinated anyway.

So this a really fucking dumb idea on a national scale when we want to end the impact of a pandemic. But you know what we can do that is incredibly cheap, simple, straightforward and can be done now? Vaccinate everyone.

So whilst you and a bunch of twats chuck stupid ideas around (which basically come down to whiny anti-vaxxer sentiment) divorced from the real world, people like Fauci are thinking about what practical things get the job done, and what they say to encourage that to happen and in simple terms the public can readily grasp.

Why do you keep making ad hominem attacks vs attacking the actual argument? Kinda funny how most of my "experts" are right far more often than not.
They are not so much as right as saying what you want to hear, and in your world as you keep amply demonstrating, what you want to hear is the primary determinent of what you believe is true.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Avnger and Buyetyen

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,036
6,341
118
Country
United Kingdom
Yeah, but I don't get what point you're making. Many people think Jones' claim has at least some credence/substantiation to it when there is none at all, that is the smoking gun. It's kinda hard to prove your numbers are correct when they're correct. And nobody's probably even going to believe that proof because it will be super boring and mundane and they'll probably just be like "what's stopping you from making that up too?" like the whole election.
The point I'm been making-- that I've been making from the start-- was that the thread didn't merely say we have no reason to believe her. It acted as though an op-ed about why she's untrustworthy has proven anything.

I've reiterated that multiple times now. It's not my fault that people found that distinction so objectionable that they've now spent several pages' worth of posts arguing against that point just by restating over and over that we shouldn't trust her or her allegations. I know. But the thread said it had proof of something, then just posted an op-ed.

I meant kids under 12 obviously [...]
Well, no, you only started talking about a specific sub-set of children after I provided sources pointing to transmission among secondary school kids. Before that point you always just talked about how "kids have zero risk".


No, I fully kept track, that's why I asked squarely about the former CDC director since Agema doesn't like Marty and most people that are right most of the time.
You asked about him... in the same post, in the same sentence even, as Marty Makary. And then when someone questioned Makary's credibility, you asked why they were criticising the CDC director, because you'd forgotten you brought Makary up to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agema

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,201
6,476
118
Well, no, you only started talking about a specific sub-set of children after I provided sources pointing to transmission among secondary school kids. Before that point you always just talked about how "kids have zero risk".
Yes. It's easier to think you are "right" when you move the goalposts post hoc.

You asked about him... in the same post, in the same sentence even, as Marty Makary. And then when someone questioned Makary's credibility, you asked why they were criticising the CDC director, because you'd forgotten you brought Makary up to begin with.
Yes. It's easier to think you are "right" when you selectively ignore stuff, even though everyone can see you're ignoring stuff because it's all there on record.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,585
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
What you're complaining about here is that scientists weren't joining the clusterfuck writing into national newspapers and appearing on TV shows expounding grandiose claims on which they had no evidence. And all the better for it: what Iwasaki is telling us is that debate was political and toxic, and it was wise to not get embroiled in it. But in the scientific literature the origins of SARS-CoV-2 were under discussion and the lab leak hypothesis was in play, and that's what matters. No-one shut scientists up.
The article is literally about scientists and researches saying that they basically couldn't.

Finding the precise link is very, very hard indeed. It's not like China has only a few animals to test. But if SARS-CoV-2 was a natural virus that leaked from the lab, China would merely need to show the evidence it was natural and that protects them from a metric shit-ton of criticism that they brewed it up experimentally.

Checking the place they found it is then the task of trying to impress on people it came from that natural reservoir rather than their lab.
Ok

Fuck - do you remember nothing? Nothing at all? How do you remember to tie your own laces? We've already done this, and that is really NOT the correct interpretation of that paper.
That is literally the correct interpretation of the study and the study says it too " The transmission of respiratory infections such as SARS-CoV-2 from the infected to the susceptible is an indoor phenomenon." OMG, you were the one claiming like 10% of infections were outside based on a bullshit article that said less than 10% of infections were outside so that could be like 9% or could be like 0.01% too. It's like saying you gotta worry about shark attacks because less than 10% of swimmers will get attacked by sharks.

The CDC has been "wrong" mostly in the opinions of know-nothings and dilettantes who don't properly understand what the CDC is there to do. It is consistent in trying to encourage a "safety first" approach to infection control. Because, obviously, the highest priority of the CDC is preventing the spread of disease and deaths of people.

The CDC however does not make policy, that's up to politicians. The CDC says "we recommend this" (as best evidence-based practice infection control), and then state governors decide whether they want to comply, or whether they would accept higher risk for other benefits. All as it should be.

And there's that bit where you hopelessly misguidedly accuse the CDC of being late to describe the virus as "airborne", which we established a few months ago was one part you not understanding what airborne meant in the technical context of viral transmission, and the other part you not understanding that the CDC needs to establish reasonable evidential grounds before it says something is officially the case. Like all the other times you have walked into a matter with an opinion and colossal ignorance, when corrected, you have simply repeated your lies ad nauseam instead.
They haven't encouraged safety first whether it's not recommending vitamin d or saying masks aren't needed recently or not saying the virus is airborne (assume that since doctors are saying it and later figure it the technicalities). There is no consensus on what airborne is as experts can't even agree.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,585
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
And here again, you amply demonstrate that you have no understanding whatsoever of public health practicalities.

In your model, we need to find who is immune. We can't simply take an assumption of immunity from having the disease, as some people (particularly those with lesser symptoms) develop weak immune responses. Many people don't even know if they caught covid because they were asymptomatic, or they erroneously think they did because they mixed it up with some other respiratory infection which they assumed was covid but wasn't, etc. The only way to check whether someone is immune is do a series of tests - an antibody test might work, but antibodies can get low very quickly, despite some level of immunity potentially still existing via T/B cells. Can we rely on them to do it themselves? Let's remember, there's been a bustling trade in fake test certificates. So checking immunity with this sort of test is not only expensive and complex, but the laboratory capacity doesn't exist to do it on the scale of the whole country, so there's also the months of delay and cost to get it set up, and then try to make everyone come in have a test, at which point a load of them will need be vaccinated anyway.

So this a really fucking dumb idea on a national scale when we want to end the impact of a pandemic. But you know what we can do that is incredibly cheap, simple, straightforward and can be done now? Vaccinate everyone.

So whilst you and a bunch of twats chuck stupid ideas around (which basically come down to whiny anti-vaxxer sentiment) divorced from the real world, people like Fauci are thinking about what practical things get the job done, and what they say to encourage that to happen and in simple terms the public can readily grasp.
The article wasn't about public health policy, it was about when herd immunity will be achieved so you're basically modelling/guessing. If you don't figure in natural immunity into your guess, your guess is literally ignorant. You don't need exact numbers for your model/guess. And I also posted that people should be able to get tested for B/T cells to prove their immunity (if needed for something) as an option to prove immunity instead of vaccination.

They are not so much as right as saying what you want to hear, and in your world as you keep amply demonstrating, what you want to hear is the primary determinent of what you believe is true.
You're supposed to attack someone's argument to prove them wrong (or likely wrong if it's still up in the air) not attack their person. You've yet to attack their argument.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,585
825
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
The point I'm been making-- that I've been making from the start-- was that the thread didn't merely say we have no reason to believe her. It acted as though an op-ed about why she's untrustworthy has proven anything.

I've reiterated that multiple times now. It's not my fault that people found that distinction so objectionable that they've now spent several pages' worth of posts arguing against that point just by restating over and over that we shouldn't trust her or her allegations. I know. But the thread said it had proof of something, then just posted an op-ed.
To call that just an "op-ed" is disingenuous as that article has far more actual journalism that went into than 99.9% of articles out there. There's now 2 separate sources the uncovered the same stuff and the head of Florida's emergency response not only said Jones was running a disinformation campaign but also played her like a fiddle. Jones' claim of fudging numbers is as is close to as likely that the election was rigged at this point. If she actually does have something in her official whistleblower claim that isn't a lie, it's probably something as mundane as someone forgot to dot an "i" or cross a "t".

Well, no, you only started talking about a specific sub-set of children after I provided sources pointing to transmission among secondary school kids. Before that point you always just talked about how "kids have zero risk".
Most kids are under 12 so forcing vaccination of kids will largely be of that group obviously. I also obviously meant that group when I asked "who is vaccinating kids?" because I know 12+ are able to get vaccinations. Also Marty Makary just said yesterday that "The case to vaccinate kids is there, but it's not compelling right now."

I feel like you're combining 2 different discussions of schools being safe and whether or not to force vaccination on kids. The vaccines are only EUA so you'd need there to be an emergency situation in a group to force the vaccinations on them and I don't think anyone would cite that kids (all kids for this) are in an emergency situation when the flu is more deadly to them and we don't force that vaccination. Also, it's looking like the heart inflammation thing is a legit and could be worse in kids under 12 since it's affecting younger people more than older people. I really don't get how there is anywhere near close to a case for forcing vaccinations on kids RIGHT NOW.

I said this literally 4 months ago, I couldn't find my originating statement but this one is still 4 months old.
It noted one high school study in France with high attack rates and said there may be an age where school children start spreading like adults. I responded saying "maybe high school isn't safe" but you'd need more than one study obviously.

You asked about him... in the same post, in the same sentence even, as Marty Makary. And then when someone questioned Makary's credibility, you asked why they were criticising the CDC director, because you'd forgotten you brought Makary up to begin with.
I didn't forget I brought up Marty. If someone wants to dismiss Marty, then what about the CDC director? That's why I removed Marty from the question and thus the question had nothing to do with Marty. If I was grabbing lunch with someone and we wanted Mexican and I said "Taco Bell?" and they said "Nope" then I said "QDOBA?" and they said "I told you no fucking Taco Bell", how does that make any sense?

Also, Marty is a very well respected and reputable doctor. He's currently a very big part of fixing healthcare in America and will be your expert in court pro bono if a hospital is suing you over a medical bill and every case he has testified on has been thrown out.

Yes. It's easier to think you are "right" when you selectively ignore stuff, even though everyone can see you're ignoring stuff because it's all there on record.
Marty is an extremely well respected and reputable doctor.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,036
6,341
118
Country
United Kingdom
To call that just an "op-ed" is disingenuous as that article has far more actual journalism that went into than 99.9% of articles out there. There's now 2 separate sources the uncovered the same stuff and the head of Florida's emergency response not only said Jones was running a disinformation campaign but also played her like a fiddle. Jones' claim of fudging numbers is as is close to as likely that the election was rigged at this point. If she actually does have something in her official whistleblower claim that isn't a lie, it's probably something as mundane as someone forgot to dot an "i" or cross a "t".
Cool, I agree, we have no reason to trust her.

So what was the proof? Because that's a different claim.

Most kids are under 12 so forcing vaccination of kids will largely be of that group obviously.
😂

You must be able to see how weak this is. Must be.

I didn't forget I brought up Marty. If someone wants to dismiss Marty, then what about the CDC director? That's why I removed Marty from the question and thus the question had nothing to do with Marty. If I was grabbing lunch with someone and we wanted Mexican and I said "Taco Bell?" and they said "Nope" then I said "QDOBA?" and they said "I told you no fucking Taco Bell", how does that make any sense?
That's not what happened, though. You didn't "remove Marty from the question"; Agema responded directly to a post that mentioned Makary, calling him a "media-friendly doctor", and then you responded to that defensively acting as if Agema could only have been talking about the CDC director.

It's so transparently obvious that you just forgot, dude. I don't understand why you're fighting on this molehill.

Also, Marty is a very well respected and reputable doctor. He's currently a very big part of fixing healthcare in America and will be your expert in court pro bono if a hospital is suing you over a medical bill and every case he has testified on has been thrown out.
He's probably a perfectly able surgeon. He's also a media talking-head on topics completely outside his area of study or professional expertise, such as epidemiology.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,201
6,476
118
The article is literally about scientists and researches saying that they basically couldn't.
And yet despite you claiming they couldn't, a load of them did. Reality beats your claims.

That is literally the correct interpretation of the study
No. The study looks at a number of transmissions and reckoned there is only one it can reasonably confirm was from outside. In fact, the vast majority of the cases could not be confirmed one way or another. Furthermore, contextually, if I remember rightly this study was done in China at a point where China had heavily restricted outside gathering and activities, therefore a lot of the opportunity for external transmission was limited.

They haven't encouraged safety first whether it's not recommending vitamin d or saying masks aren't needed recently or not saying the virus is airborne (assume that since doctors are saying it and later figure it the technicalities).
The CDC already has vitamin D recommendations; these existed prior to covid-19 and are suitable for it according to the evidence.

There is no consensus on what airborne is as experts can't even agree.
Firstly, part of what you're looking at there is actually difference in terminology between different fields: medicine / virology and physics (aerosol science).

The CDC has definitions for the terminology it uses. You can go away and read them and if you want to make any sort of useful criticism, you should. Instead, you'd rather bug everyone here will ill-informed bullshit.