Covid-19 Discussion

I have no idea what question you are trying to answer with that.

Please explain how what is misinformation? The thing you just said? Why?

I already did. You even quoted my answer.

Wrong.

The Republican Party was spreading anti-vaccine garbage well before anyone knew who Dr. Fauci was, it was a highlight of both the 2012 debates and the 2016 debates. Modern GOP voters have a broken culture of irresponsibility and blind obedience to Trump so they're shamelessly trying to pin the blame on Dr. Fauci instead of holding their own leadership accountable for courting anti-scientific lunacy. If not Fauci, they'd be blaming Obama or immigrants or whatever.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-check-...

I think it's because of disinformation pushed online by irresponsible people who reject traditional Western medicine in favor of conspiracy peddling nonsense.

And it's amazing to me that people think everyone's going to take the time to go get and read every book they recommend by a conspiracy theorist before deciding what to think about it. Since I haven't read the book myself, I'm not going to tell you what to think about it, but I've heard enough from RFK Jr. and read enough about the book to decide I don't need to read anything further. And I should add about RFK Jr., I listened to Lex Fridman's 2.5 hour interview with him several months ago, and it was quite interesting. It's not like the man is a drooling idiot and has nothing insightful to say about any topic, but unfortunately there are a few areas where his ideas are...not as well-founded as others.

So if you want to convince people that his book has lots of valid things to say about Fauci, you're going to have to do better than "you should read his book". But I understand from earlier posts that you don't care that much, which is fine. You'll remain convinced that RFK Jr. is correct that Fauci is "a genuinely bad human being", and others will not be.

Well if the author is a moron that lies constantly and every review of the book says that this book is just this moron lying again, why would anyone even bother reading it?

you mean when Fauci said not to wear masks?

There's a lot people completely miss on the mask discussion, with regards to Fauci's comments. Let's go over it here, for the record.

There are two main reasons one might wear a mask:

1) as PPE (personal protective equipment), ie to stop themselves from being infected by others.
2) as source control, ie to stop themselves from infecting others.

Of course, some combination of the two reasons is possible as well.

Now in most cases, 2 is not that important, since if you are sick, the simplest recommendation is to just stay home (thus eliminating any need to wear a mask). So, primarily the consideration for whether or not to wear masks at the start of the pandemic was reason #1.

And here's the thing: it's always been pretty clear that masks aren't great at #1 (outside of N95+ masks). They aren't useless, mind you, but they aren't great.

Fauci's original controversial mask comments were given with only reason #1 in mind. When you read his comments in full and in context, this is clear. It's also evident by the timeline.

When these comments were made, it was not yet known that covid was transmitted very efficiently in the presymptomatic period (ie before one even knows they are sick) and in completely asymptomatic cases. Once it became known that this was true, reason #2 became extremely important. This is the reason that unviersal masking was always the recommendation, not just wear one if you want to protect yourself.

So, before discussing Fauci's comments about masks, make sure you know the context of what he was saying, when he was saying it, and why he was saying it.

Mask up!

I know the context. the guy in charge of infectious disease told people not to wear masks. then he told them to wear masks. understandably, those conflicting statements caused some trust issues.

were I tasked with stopping a pandemic, then I would have told people to mask up until we figure out whats going on. but I dont think competency is a requirement for Fauci's position. esp considering how awful he handled the AIDS pandemic.

how does context change things here?

I thought he knew it was a wuhan virus?

???

One possible mistake that I believe was pretty common in many countries was a lack of transparency around how certain they were about advice, especially early on. Like going back to what Lozen brought up about the 6 foot distancing - it simply made logical sense to me at the time that 6 feet wasn't some magical distance that had gone through some rigorous medical study that determined it was the perfect distance to keep everyone completely safe; it was what they thought was a sensible compromise between safety and practicality. But was that clearly communicated? Or masks in the very early days - I think there was a lot of hesitancy to tell everyone to wear masks immediately as there were concerns around the available supply, and hoarding. Also not clearly communicated. Now that's all very easy to say in hindsight, to look back now and consider that more transparency then may have meant a reduced loss of confidence in authorities. At the time, they were likely concerned that if you waver at all, some will take that as a signal that they can just ignore the advice and do whatever they want. Now, it seems like it may have been a mistake.

I remember when Fauci was recommending people wear 3 masks. ****ing idiot.

If you know the context, you know why he said both of those things and why they were consistent with what was known about the virus at the time. If you know the context, you would have absolutely no problem with his statements.

No, you wouldn't have. Because, the only way you would be tasked with stopping a pandemic would be if you were educated enough to know that masks don't do much to stop infection from a PPE standpoint. And you would be educated enough to know that they work pretty well for source control and would've switched to recommending them when the virus's propensity for spreading in pre- and asymptomatic people was discovered.

And this is why you were not tasked with stopping a pandemic.

You could try reading the post you responded to, where I very clearly answered that question.

Can you show where he recommended this? I'd be curious to see that.

masks do a lot to stop the spread. thats what Fauci even said!

I wouldn't be so hard on yourself - a lot of us misremember things now and then.

Yes, they do indeed, if everyone wears them. In this mode, they are controlling the potential source of the virus, rather than protecting a potential recipient.

Obviously they would've always worked this way, but the superior method to controlling by source was just stay at home if you're sick.

Again, until it was discovered that the virus spreads very well when you're not outwardly sick.

I know this is a tough concept to understand, but I'm sure you can get this.

I think this topic may be a little too advanced for you.

Fwiw I think I would take some advised from place where virus like covid happen frequently ( China and Asia area) .
They frequently uses mask as a default measure .
Doesn’t mean it’s always perfect but as general idea it just doesn’t sound like a bad idea anyway .
Like when I cough, I try to cough in my elbow even tho it doesn’t mean I won’t spread my virus otherwise but I’m pretty sure it’s better doing it then not doing it shrug.

The problem from idiots is they think if a measure isn’t 100% effective (like vaccine) then it’s a stupid requirement, not needed ….
So hey , mask not good 50% of the time means it’s totally useless .
U just can’t do nothing with those kind of people .

no I think its pretty simple.

I know you do. I do, too, for the record. It's just that we seem to have wildly different ideas of what simple actually is.

I will re-iterate that if you can't follow the conversation well enough to see why I was talking about staying home when you're sick, then this topic is just too advanced for you. If you believe it's not, then maybe try reading everything again more carefully, I don't know.

It's not complicated at all, so there's absolutely no reason you should be asking that question.

ok so stay home if you are sick. but then you say this

like the head of infectious disease should get a pass for not realizing this possibility?

you can just admit that he effed up. its not that hard.

You do know that pretty much 100% of diseases aside from covid either don't spread at all in the pre-symptomatic period or spread very inefficiently, right? Discovering that covid actually spread most efficiently a day or two before symptoms starts was a total game-changer.

So yes, it can be understood why no one, not just Fauci, was really considering that.

Your hindsight is impressive though.