"Death and Lockdowns"
-
@aqua-letifer said in "Death and Lockdowns":
@doctor-phibes said in "Death and Lockdowns":
They're doing it because they believe it will save lives.
I have it on pretty good authority that taking to Facebook about plandemics, resharing "Be like Bob" memes, puffing your chest out about how masks are stupid, and taking absolutely no precautions while at the same time being smug about it, saves no lives at all. Some studies even suggest that assholes who do this actually put everyone around them at greater risk.
There are a lot of things that will shake out after all of the pandemic behavior is studied. Some things my mind is certainly open about:
- Mask efficacy. How effective are masks? Not in a healthcare setting, but among the general populance? I can stand five minutes in any public venue you can name - grocery store, church, etc. - where people congregate, *even with mandatory masking and social distancing *, and I can show you at least 10 violations of infection protocol that could lead to a possible infection. From the improper mask material to improper wearing of a mask to the improper usage of the mask. I can show you the multiple generation of infectious fomite surfaces by people who simply don't know any better.
Something is better than nothing, but how much better is it? I think it's a good question.
- Lockdown effects on the general adult populance. Many seniors in nursing homes (where the median time until death is under two years) begged administrators to let them see their family. Maybe that's a bad thing, but it certainly was not good for their mental health or their general health. Sometimes, sickness and death is not the worst thing that can happen to you.
As for people who are not in those situations, what have the lockdowns done to their mental health? How have the suicides or possible permanent mental damage tracked the progression of the disease and the subsequent lockdowns?
And what about those people who have missed cancer screenings or who ignored that slight angina, because they couldn't or wouldn't seek out access to healthcare, because they were too afraid of being infected? Or because the healthcare system didn't know how to properly respond when the pandemic started? How many lives will we lose?
- Children. The last year will be remembered as the year we found out distance learning doesn't work well for kids and it really sucks for low income kids. For the kids that needed education the worst, we have utterly, miserably failed them, because even after we knew better, we were too scared to reopen our schools in many cases.
And what about children's mental health? How bad have we screwed up a generation, because we were scared of what we didn't know?
Lots of questions to be answered...
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Mask efficacy.
These and other questions boil down to two things, which I think we keep interchanging:
- How effective are measures on a society level? If masks are finicky and the protocols are very easy to screw up, sure, you could argue that simply "having a mask on" might not be effective at all in slowing the spread.
- How effective are measures on a personal level? I researched which masks are being used in medical settings, bought some for myself, read up quite a bit about mask protocol, and asked a few doctors I knew about proper use because I’m not an infectious disease expert. I also double up. Because of all that, I feel reasonably sure that masks are working for me.
Lockdown effects on the general adult populance. Many seniors in nursing homes (where the median time until death is under two years) begged administrators to let them see their family. Maybe that's a bad thing, but it certainly was not good for their mental health or their general health. Sometimes, sickness and death is not the worst thing that can happen to you.
Agree. But this is directly connected to the above. They weren't able to see their families because the facilities were on lockdown. The lockdowns were a direct reaction to a spike in cases in their area. Cases spiked in their area because the community failed to slow the spread. Was that due to the nature of the virus, or due to too many people not giving a shit about masks/social distancing/etc? In other words, how avoidable were the lockdowns had we cared more about doing our part to protect public health?
And what about those people who have missed cancer screenings or who ignored that slight angina, because they couldn't or wouldn't seek out access to healthcare, because they were too afraid of being infected? Or because the healthcare system didn't know how to properly respond when the pandemic started? How many lives will we lose?
How many were lost to the combination of the pandemic and people not giving a shit about safety protocols? How would that compare to the above? That's what I'd want to see.
Children. The last year will be remembered as the year we found out distance learning doesn't work well for kids and it really sucks for low income kids. For the kids that needed education the worst, we have utterly, miserably failed them, because even after we knew better, we were too scared to reopen our schools in many cases.
And what about children's mental health?I take cold comfort in the fact that there's no easy answer. As I said previously, it's not like just letting the kids stay in school with teachers showing up for work every day doesn't create its own set of problems. Anyone who thinks there are obvious options out there that have no serious consequences can be immediately written off as a fool.
Kids' education is being affected. So is their mental health. People lost their jobs. Those living alone are having a seriously hard time of it. The elderly, too. Not to mention business owners around the world. It's pick your danger. That being said, sure, maybe we chose poorly.
How bad have we screwed up a generation, because we were scared of what we didn't know?
That's one important side of it. The other: look at all the shit we've figured out about the virus since its spread. "Mild flu-like symptoms." I remember seeing ads on YouTube sponsored by the government spouting this out as gospel. I remember people being turned away from doctor's offices because doctors didn't believe they still had symptoms months after infection. Droves of people were told long-haul symptoms were "all in their head." Now we know that the virus can and does cause lasting damage.
Pretty obvious that plenty of people have gone overboard with their alarmism regarding the virus, and plenty of others haven't taken it nearly seriously enough. It's going to take a long time to figure out what we should have done, but pretty much guaranteed we'll learn no lessons from this. We repeated much of the same mistakes we made in 1918.
Please love yourself.
-
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Mask efficacy.
These and other questions boil down to two things, which I think we keep interchanging:
- How effective are measures on a society level? If masks are finicky and the protocols are very easy to screw up, sure, you could argue that simply "having a mask on" might not be effective at all in slowing the spread.
- How effective are measures on a personal level? I researched which masks are being used in medical settings, bought some for myself, read up quite a bit about mask protocol, and asked a few doctors I knew about proper use because I’m not an infectious disease expert. I also double up. Because of all that, I feel reasonably sure that masks are working for me.
Lockdown effects on the general adult populance. Many seniors in nursing homes (where the median time until death is under two years) begged administrators to let them see their family. Maybe that's a bad thing, but it certainly was not good for their mental health or their general health. Sometimes, sickness and death is not the worst thing that can happen to you.
Agree. But this is directly connected to the above. They weren't able to see their families because the facilities were on lockdown. The lockdowns were a direct reaction to a spike in cases in their area. Cases spiked in their area because the community failed to slow the spread. Was that due to the nature of the virus, or due to too many people not giving a shit about masks/social distancing/etc? In other words, how avoidable were the lockdowns had we cared more about doing our part to protect public health?
And what about those people who have missed cancer screenings or who ignored that slight angina, because they couldn't or wouldn't seek out access to healthcare, because they were too afraid of being infected? Or because the healthcare system didn't know how to properly respond when the pandemic started? How many lives will we lose?
How many were lost to the combination of the pandemic and people not giving a shit about safety protocols? How would that compare to the above? That's what I'd want to see.
Children. The last year will be remembered as the year we found out distance learning doesn't work well for kids and it really sucks for low income kids. For the kids that needed education the worst, we have utterly, miserably failed them, because even after we knew better, we were too scared to reopen our schools in many cases.
And what about children's mental health?I take cold comfort in the fact that there's no easy answer. As I said previously, it's not like just letting the kids stay in school with teachers showing up for work every day doesn't create its own set of problems. Anyone who thinks there are obvious options out there that have no serious consequences can be immediately written off as a fool.
Kids' education is being affected. So is their mental health. People lost their jobs. Those living alone are having a seriously hard time of it. The elderly, too. Not to mention business owners around the world. It's pick your danger. That being said, sure, maybe we chose poorly.
How bad have we screwed up a generation, because we were scared of what we didn't know?
That's one important side of it. The other: look at all the shit we've figured out about the virus since its spread. "Mild flu-like symptoms." I remember seeing ads on YouTube sponsored by the government spouting this out as gospel. I remember people being turned away from doctor's offices because doctors didn't believe they still had symptoms months after infection. Droves of people were told long-haul symptoms were "all in their head." Now we know that the virus can and does cause lasting damage.
Pretty obvious that plenty of people have gone overboard with their alarmism regarding the virus, and plenty of others haven't taken it nearly seriously enough. It's going to take a long time to figure out what we should have done, but pretty much guaranteed we'll learn no lessons from this. We repeated much of the same mistakes we made in 1918.
@aqua-letifer said in "Death and Lockdowns":
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Mask efficacy.
These and other questions boil down to two things, which I think we keep interchanging:
- How effective are measures on a society level? If masks are finicky and the protocols are very easy to screw up, sure, you could argue that simply "having a mask on" might not be effective at all in slowing the spread.
- How effective are measures on a personal level? I researched which masks are being used in medical settings, bought some for myself, read up quite a bit about mask protocol, and asked a few doctors I knew about proper use because I’m not an infectious disease expert. I also double up. Because of all that, I feel reasonably sure that masks are working for me.
Lockdown effects on the general adult populance. Many seniors in nursing homes (where the median time until death is under two years) begged administrators to let them see their family. Maybe that's a bad thing, but it certainly was not good for their mental health or their general health. Sometimes, sickness and death is not the worst thing that can happen to you.
Agree. But this is directly connected to the above. They weren't able to see their families because the facilities were on lockdown. The lockdowns were a direct reaction to a spike in cases in their area. Cases spiked in their area because the community failed to slow the spread. Was that due to the nature of the virus, or due to too many people not giving a shit about masks/social distancing/etc? In other words, how avoidable were the lockdowns had we cared more about doing our part to protect public health?
And what about those people who have missed cancer screenings or who ignored that slight angina, because they couldn't or wouldn't seek out access to healthcare, because they were too afraid of being infected? Or because the healthcare system didn't know how to properly respond when the pandemic started? How many lives will we lose?
How many were lost to the combination of the pandemic and people not giving a shit about safety protocols? How would that compare to the above? That's what I'd want to see.
Children. The last year will be remembered as the year we found out distance learning doesn't work well for kids and it really sucks for low income kids. For the kids that needed education the worst, we have utterly, miserably failed them, because even after we knew better, we were too scared to reopen our schools in many cases.
And what about children's mental health?I take cold comfort in the fact that there's no easy answer. As I said previously, it's not like just letting the kids stay in school with teachers showing up for work every day doesn't create its own set of problems. Anyone who thinks there are obvious options out there that have no serious consequences can be immediately written off as a fool.
Kids' education is being affected. So is their mental health. People lost their jobs. Those living alone are having a seriously hard time of it. The elderly, too. Not to mention business owners around the world. It's pick your danger. That being said, sure, maybe we chose poorly.
How bad have we screwed up a generation, because we were scared of what we didn't know?
That's one important side of it. The other: look at all the shit we've figured out about the virus since its spread. "Mild flu-like symptoms." I remember seeing ads on YouTube sponsored by the government spouting this out as gospel. I remember people being turned away from doctor's offices because doctors didn't believe they still had symptoms months after infection. Droves of people were told long-haul symptoms were "all in their head." Now we know that the virus can and does cause lasting damage.
Pretty obvious that plenty of people have gone overboard with their alarmism regarding the virus, and plenty of others haven't taken it nearly seriously enough. It's going to take a long time to figure out what we should have done, but pretty much guaranteed we'll learn no lessons from this. We repeated much of the same mistakes we made in 1918.
Did we make mistakes?
Given what we knew, when we knew it, were mistakes made? And the following question is if the kowledge base changed, why didn't we change with it?
-
@aqua-letifer said in "Death and Lockdowns":
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Mask efficacy.
These and other questions boil down to two things, which I think we keep interchanging:
- How effective are measures on a society level? If masks are finicky and the protocols are very easy to screw up, sure, you could argue that simply "having a mask on" might not be effective at all in slowing the spread.
- How effective are measures on a personal level? I researched which masks are being used in medical settings, bought some for myself, read up quite a bit about mask protocol, and asked a few doctors I knew about proper use because I’m not an infectious disease expert. I also double up. Because of all that, I feel reasonably sure that masks are working for me.
Lockdown effects on the general adult populance. Many seniors in nursing homes (where the median time until death is under two years) begged administrators to let them see their family. Maybe that's a bad thing, but it certainly was not good for their mental health or their general health. Sometimes, sickness and death is not the worst thing that can happen to you.
Agree. But this is directly connected to the above. They weren't able to see their families because the facilities were on lockdown. The lockdowns were a direct reaction to a spike in cases in their area. Cases spiked in their area because the community failed to slow the spread. Was that due to the nature of the virus, or due to too many people not giving a shit about masks/social distancing/etc? In other words, how avoidable were the lockdowns had we cared more about doing our part to protect public health?
And what about those people who have missed cancer screenings or who ignored that slight angina, because they couldn't or wouldn't seek out access to healthcare, because they were too afraid of being infected? Or because the healthcare system didn't know how to properly respond when the pandemic started? How many lives will we lose?
How many were lost to the combination of the pandemic and people not giving a shit about safety protocols? How would that compare to the above? That's what I'd want to see.
Children. The last year will be remembered as the year we found out distance learning doesn't work well for kids and it really sucks for low income kids. For the kids that needed education the worst, we have utterly, miserably failed them, because even after we knew better, we were too scared to reopen our schools in many cases.
And what about children's mental health?I take cold comfort in the fact that there's no easy answer. As I said previously, it's not like just letting the kids stay in school with teachers showing up for work every day doesn't create its own set of problems. Anyone who thinks there are obvious options out there that have no serious consequences can be immediately written off as a fool.
Kids' education is being affected. So is their mental health. People lost their jobs. Those living alone are having a seriously hard time of it. The elderly, too. Not to mention business owners around the world. It's pick your danger. That being said, sure, maybe we chose poorly.
How bad have we screwed up a generation, because we were scared of what we didn't know?
That's one important side of it. The other: look at all the shit we've figured out about the virus since its spread. "Mild flu-like symptoms." I remember seeing ads on YouTube sponsored by the government spouting this out as gospel. I remember people being turned away from doctor's offices because doctors didn't believe they still had symptoms months after infection. Droves of people were told long-haul symptoms were "all in their head." Now we know that the virus can and does cause lasting damage.
Pretty obvious that plenty of people have gone overboard with their alarmism regarding the virus, and plenty of others haven't taken it nearly seriously enough. It's going to take a long time to figure out what we should have done, but pretty much guaranteed we'll learn no lessons from this. We repeated much of the same mistakes we made in 1918.
Did we make mistakes?
Given what we knew, when we knew it, were mistakes made? And the following question is if the kowledge base changed, why didn't we change with it?
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Did we make mistakes?
Hell yeah we did.
Given what we knew, when we knew it, were mistakes made? And the following question is if the kowledge base changed, why didn't we change with it?
Because we're stupid. We care more about doing whatever the hell we want than listening to experts and making good decisions.
Please love yourself.
-
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Mask efficacy.
These and other questions boil down to two things, which I think we keep interchanging:
- How effective are measures on a society level? If masks are finicky and the protocols are very easy to screw up, sure, you could argue that simply "having a mask on" might not be effective at all in slowing the spread.
- How effective are measures on a personal level? I researched which masks are being used in medical settings, bought some for myself, read up quite a bit about mask protocol, and asked a few doctors I knew about proper use because I’m not an infectious disease expert. I also double up. Because of all that, I feel reasonably sure that masks are working for me.
Lockdown effects on the general adult populance. Many seniors in nursing homes (where the median time until death is under two years) begged administrators to let them see their family. Maybe that's a bad thing, but it certainly was not good for their mental health or their general health. Sometimes, sickness and death is not the worst thing that can happen to you.
Agree. But this is directly connected to the above. They weren't able to see their families because the facilities were on lockdown. The lockdowns were a direct reaction to a spike in cases in their area. Cases spiked in their area because the community failed to slow the spread. Was that due to the nature of the virus, or due to too many people not giving a shit about masks/social distancing/etc? In other words, how avoidable were the lockdowns had we cared more about doing our part to protect public health?
And what about those people who have missed cancer screenings or who ignored that slight angina, because they couldn't or wouldn't seek out access to healthcare, because they were too afraid of being infected? Or because the healthcare system didn't know how to properly respond when the pandemic started? How many lives will we lose?
How many were lost to the combination of the pandemic and people not giving a shit about safety protocols? How would that compare to the above? That's what I'd want to see.
Children. The last year will be remembered as the year we found out distance learning doesn't work well for kids and it really sucks for low income kids. For the kids that needed education the worst, we have utterly, miserably failed them, because even after we knew better, we were too scared to reopen our schools in many cases.
And what about children's mental health?I take cold comfort in the fact that there's no easy answer. As I said previously, it's not like just letting the kids stay in school with teachers showing up for work every day doesn't create its own set of problems. Anyone who thinks there are obvious options out there that have no serious consequences can be immediately written off as a fool.
Kids' education is being affected. So is their mental health. People lost their jobs. Those living alone are having a seriously hard time of it. The elderly, too. Not to mention business owners around the world. It's pick your danger. That being said, sure, maybe we chose poorly.
How bad have we screwed up a generation, because we were scared of what we didn't know?
That's one important side of it. The other: look at all the shit we've figured out about the virus since its spread. "Mild flu-like symptoms." I remember seeing ads on YouTube sponsored by the government spouting this out as gospel. I remember people being turned away from doctor's offices because doctors didn't believe they still had symptoms months after infection. Droves of people were told long-haul symptoms were "all in their head." Now we know that the virus can and does cause lasting damage.
Pretty obvious that plenty of people have gone overboard with their alarmism regarding the virus, and plenty of others haven't taken it nearly seriously enough. It's going to take a long time to figure out what we should have done, but pretty much guaranteed we'll learn no lessons from this. We repeated much of the same mistakes we made in 1918.
@aqua-letifer said in "Death and Lockdowns":
"Mild flu-like symptoms." I remember seeing ads on YouTube sponsored by the government spouting this out as gospel.
For me, and millions of others, that was, and still is, gospel.
-
@aqua-letifer said in "Death and Lockdowns":
"Mild flu-like symptoms." I remember seeing ads on YouTube sponsored by the government spouting this out as gospel.
For me, and millions of others, that was, and still is, gospel.
-
Mild flu-like symptoms
Simply the facts of my case
I know others are different
So I am different too
bullshit
-
Mild flu-like symptoms
Simply the facts of my case
I know others are different
So I am different too
bullshit
-
Mild flu-like symptoms
Simply the facts of my case
I know others are different
So I am different too
bullshit
@copper said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Mild flu-like symptoms
Simply the facts of my case
I know others are different
So I am different tooYes, I get it. But to claim that your case is representative of everyone (ie gospel) is wrong. You, and millions of others are lucky. D2 was not.
-
I've wondered what the effect will be on children growing to adulthood, when there has been such a press to sterilize everything in the home and everywhere. I've seen classified staff with sprayers, it must kill every pathogen in any room or office. Everyone using hand sanitizers, stores running out of disinfectants, and so on.
Does the immune system need the calisthenics of numerous colds while growing up, to fight off viruses later in life?
-
No way
I'm not hung up on the possible meaning of the Gospel
Aqua is saying that mild flu-like symptoms turned out to be some kind of government mistake
That is not the case, mild flu-like symptoms, or less, is in fact the case for a good number of cases, probably most
If gospel means strictly everyone then I apologize I did not mean any harm to those with other symptoms
-
Perhaps a TV station will call on your experience for an interview. Just think you could be on RT as an expert on this matter.
-
@renauda said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Perhaps a TV station will call on your experience for an interview. Just think you could be on RT as an expert on this matter.
What a clever post!
-
My dad had cancer in the 1980's. He had a small operation, and then he was ok.
Cancer's no big deal. This is gospel.
And here's a smart post to go with the gospel. It's wearing a hat and everything.
Now, everybody needs to get back to work.
-
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Did we make mistakes?
Hell yeah we did.
Given what we knew, when we knew it, were mistakes made? And the following question is if the kowledge base changed, why didn't we change with it?
Because we're stupid. We care more about doing whatever the hell we want than listening to experts and making good decisions.
@aqua-letifer said in "Death and Lockdowns":
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Did we make mistakes?
Hell yeah we did.
Given what we knew, when we knew it, were mistakes made? And the following question is if the kowledge base changed, why didn't we change with it?
Because we're stupid. We care more about doing whatever the hell we want than listening to experts and making good decisions.
Is Fauci an expert?
-
@aqua-letifer said in "Death and Lockdowns":
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Did we make mistakes?
Hell yeah we did.
Given what we knew, when we knew it, were mistakes made? And the following question is if the kowledge base changed, why didn't we change with it?
Because we're stupid. We care more about doing whatever the hell we want than listening to experts and making good decisions.
Is Fauci an expert?
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Is Fauci an expert?
Maybe not, but that wasn't his role.
You had the media on one hand saying all doom and gloom, a lot of "well it could be" this or that, and on the other, you had Trump. I know you liked the guy, but it's a fact that plenty of Americans found his COVID messaging very underwhelming.
Why Fauci became the mouthpiece is exactly why conservatives voted for Trump: enough people, rightly or wrongly, felt like they were getting straight talk from him that they weren't getting anywhere else.
If most of the nation felt the media or Trump's messaging adequate, you or I wouldn't know who Fauci is.
-
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Is Fauci an expert?
Maybe not, but that wasn't his role.
You had the media on one hand saying all doom and gloom, a lot of "well it could be" this or that, and on the other, you had Trump. I know you liked the guy, but it's a fact that plenty of Americans found his COVID messaging very underwhelming.
Why Fauci became the mouthpiece is exactly why conservatives voted for Trump: enough people, rightly or wrongly, felt like they were getting straight talk from him that they weren't getting anywhere else.
If most of the nation felt the media or Trump's messaging adequate, you or I wouldn't know who Fauci is.
@aqua-letifer said in "Death and Lockdowns":
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Is Fauci an expert?
Maybe not, but that wasn't his role.
You had the media on one hand saying all doom and gloom, a lot of "well it could be" this or that, and on the other, you had Trump. I know you liked the guy, but it's a fact that plenty of Americans found his COVID messaging very underwhelming.
Why Fauci became the mouthpiece is exactly why conservatives voted for Trump: enough people, rightly or wrongly, felt like they were getting straight talk from him that they weren't getting anywhere else.
If most of the nation felt the media or Trump's messaging adequate, you or I wouldn't know who Fauci is.
Well, pick your Fauci advice:
A) No mask
B) One Mask
C)Two masks
D)All of the aboveIf you answered "D", well, Don Pardo, tell him what he's won!
-
@aqua-letifer said in "Death and Lockdowns":
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Is Fauci an expert?
Maybe not, but that wasn't his role.
You had the media on one hand saying all doom and gloom, a lot of "well it could be" this or that, and on the other, you had Trump. I know you liked the guy, but it's a fact that plenty of Americans found his COVID messaging very underwhelming.
Why Fauci became the mouthpiece is exactly why conservatives voted for Trump: enough people, rightly or wrongly, felt like they were getting straight talk from him that they weren't getting anywhere else.
If most of the nation felt the media or Trump's messaging adequate, you or I wouldn't know who Fauci is.
Well, pick your Fauci advice:
A) No mask
B) One Mask
C)Two masks
D)All of the aboveIf you answered "D", well, Don Pardo, tell him what he's won!
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Well, pick your Fauci advice:
A) No mask
B) One Mask
C)Two masks
D)All of the above
If you answered "D", well, Don Pardo, tell him what he's won!You do realize how science works, right? Backtracking, waffling, changing one's story and being for something before being against it is literally how scientists adapt to changing data? Are you gonna call all docs quacks because they no longer drill into temples to cure headaches?
-
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Well, pick your Fauci advice:
A) No mask
B) One Mask
C)Two masks
D)All of the above
If you answered "D", well, Don Pardo, tell him what he's won!You do realize how science works, right? Backtracking, waffling, changing one's story and being for something before being against it is literally how scientists adapt to changing data? Are you gonna call all docs quacks because they no longer drill into temples to cure headaches?
@aqua-letifer said in "Death and Lockdowns":
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Well, pick your Fauci advice:
A) No mask
B) One Mask
C)Two masks
D)All of the above
If you answered "D", well, Don Pardo, tell him what he's won!You do realize how science works, right? Backtracking, waffling, changing one's story and being for something before being against it is literally how scientists adapt to changing data? Are you gonna call all docs quacks because they no longer drill into temples to cure headaches?
No, I don't know how science works. I don't even know the process of treating people that have an unknown organism that is killing them.
Don't have a clue...
-
@aqua-letifer said in "Death and Lockdowns":
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
Well, pick your Fauci advice:
A) No mask
B) One Mask
C)Two masks
D)All of the above
If you answered "D", well, Don Pardo, tell him what he's won!You do realize how science works, right? Backtracking, waffling, changing one's story and being for something before being against it is literally how scientists adapt to changing data? Are you gonna call all docs quacks because they no longer drill into temples to cure headaches?
No, I don't know how science works. I don't even know the process of treating people that have an unknown organism that is killing them.
Don't have a clue...
@jolly said in "Death and Lockdowns":
No, I don't know how science works. I don't even know the process of treating people that have an unknown organism that is killing them.
Don't have a clue...That's what I'm saying. I know you know how science works. So why are you implying that Fauci "changed his story" when you know damn well he's trying to provide the best information he can as it becomes available?
I didn't say he's right about everything or that his messaging has been perfect. Those aren't the same as the above.
I also don't understand what gives with hating the guy and ginning up this weird narrative about him "backtracking."
