Go back to previous topic
Forum nameGeneral Discussion
Topic subjectno surprise there
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13450579&mesg_id=13451737
13451737, no surprise there
Posted by Vex_id, Thu Jan-13-22 07:02 PM

>Just Dems looking for another scapegoat to what they think is
>overwhelming backlash of their handling of the virus or
>vaccine. Fauce has been fine and everything he said were true
>to the data in that MOMENT.

There's always a political element at play. But I think the 2022 midterms are more relevant than "dems looking for another scapegoat" -- but as to Fauci: we'll have to agree to disagree there. There's been a paternalistic dynamic to how he leads - to where he feels you really don't need to understand what's happening; you just need to take his word for it. That perhaps could work if he'd been more consistent (and accurate) in his messaging - and if he would be open to more nuance, encouraging scientific debate/exploration. But it's been a one-size fits all prescription that hasn't produced great results.

Whether it was initially don't
>mask or mask up. These were decisions made as they started to
>learn about the virus as more data came in every day.

With regards to his statement early on that "masks don't really do much" -- he later claimed that the only reason he said this was because he wanted to ensure health care workers had enough PPE. But that begs the question: shouldn't he be making recommendations solely on public health merits? If masks worked - and he knew they worked - how could he knowingly endanger millions of lives by lying to the public, when he knew that masks were effective at reducing transmission? Seems that he made a political calculation there, not a data-driven calculation.

But we've also come around to a more sensible understanding on masks. That is: that most of the masks being worn (and how they're being worn) do not have a significant enough impact on reducing transmission as was originally purported. There are only a few types of masks that are effective at stopping transmission, and there should've been far stronger efforts to ensure Americans had access to those masks than just a broad, vague mask mandate that didn't care if you wore a piece of cloth over your mouth or an N95.

Also - both he and Walensky repeatedly said that if you were vaccinated, covid-19 would "stop with you" because you wouldn't transmit the virus, and likely wouldn't even get the virus if vaccinated. Their claims on the vaccines fell flat, and the purported efficacy of the vaccines (to halt transmission) didn't bear fruit. There also hasn't been enough focus on treatments - be it monoclonal antibodies, anti-virals, or other methods to deal with symptomatic disease.

Yeah it's Twitter and Facebook's
>fault Americans are so easily manipulated by posts by bots
>that end up in the cycle of stupid that is society. If you
>most of the stupid information swirling on the internet then
>you must have also believed that Elivis was still alive in the
>90s and spotted all over the world because you read it in the
>National Enquirier at the check out line LOL foh.

There's more misinformation floating about now than ever - but that comes in all directions and flavors. Claiming that Covid vaccines don't work and present grave dangers is misinformation. But also - grossly overstating the risk of Covid-19 in kids (as Justice Sotomayor just egregiously did) is also misinformation. The question we need to ask is: why are we (as Americans) so poorly informed? Has legacy media done a good job at helping us to be literate of the issues/events occurring in our world? No, which is why you have droves of people now gathering their data/information from all corners of the internet.

This is why institutional integrity is so important. People are not losing faith in our institutions simply because they are stupid - as you purport - but it's also because institutions have objectively failed in important areas such that distrust is warranted.

>>The recent email leaks from Collins & Fauci (re: origin of
>>virus; Wuhan lab leak) cast serious doubts about whether
>>has been forthright with the public about gain-of-function
>>research (funded by taxpayers) and the origins of this
>....stop it. I know you are big into conspiracy theories. Stop
>it. There is no credible smoking gun on this yet. Stop acting
>like there is.

"Credible smoking gun" on what? We're simply talking about the leaked communications from Collins & Fauci where they refer to renowned, highly credible experts/scientists from Oxford, Harvard & Stanford as "fringe" simply because they had a different perspective on the pandemic.

We are also talking about emails where they clearly dissuade inquiry into the lab leak theory. Why would you prejudice any theory at the onset, particularly when (in this instance) it's just as viable for Sars-CoV-2 to be the product of a lab-leak as it is for it to be from zoonotic transmission from a wet market. There's nothing "conspiratorial" about wanting to investigate that. If the concern is on the science alone, you would encourage all investigation with urgency - as understanding the origin-point would help in developing therapeutics/vaccines/treatments.

So this idea (offered early on) that even referring to the possibility of it being a lab-leak was a "conspiracy theory" was a political calculation, not a scientific one. They even admitted this when the justification for silencing debate on the lab-leak theory was because it may threaten "regional harmony." Given that there is a link with EcoHealth, the CDC, and gain-of-function research in Wuhan -- it's absurd to *not* want to investigate whether it was leaked (intentionally or unintentionally).

Under Obama, gain-of-function research was largely deemed too dangerous - and it's extraordinarily controversial scientific research. If that was at all responsible for this pandemic, we need to know. It wasn't until Trump came into office (in 2017) when the fed lifted its ban gain-of-function studies.

>I can agree with this. I don't think Fauci should be removed
>but I think better communication needs to be implemented.
>Start acting like society is stupid and talk to them like they

Fauci has had his time. Succession planning is a huge problem in our national leadership. Collins stepped down, it's time for Fauci to move on. We need a fresh voice on this.

>It's still way early to say it's MILD.

I want to clarify on this. I wasn't referring to it as "mild" in the sense that it's not something to be concerned of. It's causing a lot of havoc. I'm speaking of relative severity in comparison to Delta - which was more severe by all metrics. So relative to Delta, it's mild. But it's a sizeable threat/risk. The sheer case numbers and transmissibility of it are alarming.

They even just started
>saying that maybe we should stop saying that altogether as new
>data is showing that Omicron is making kids a higher risk for
>diebetes now. The data is early but it's strong enough that
>it's being further looked at to be peer reviewed.

I saw that - and it's concerning. But there are also a lot of health changes happening, especially with younger children, that signal a general decline of overall health, and not necessarily related to the Covid virus itself. For example, there's a wild increase in pediatric obesity rates right now:


There are also concerns of the pandemic's effect on early childhood cognitive development:


>This acutally does mean you should get boosted with the
>current vaccine until the new one designed to work against
>Omicron and further mutations is released. It's a guessing
>game. But to say ths isn't persuasive datta to call for
>boosters is a stupid statement.

We'll see how the data plays out. It's very clear that being fully vaccinated mitigates your risk if you get Covid. If you're fully vaccinated (but not boosted) - you still retain a lot of the protection against Omicron as it pertains to severe disease. If you've had Covid and are vaccinated, you're even more protected.

The vaccines are leakier than they were purported to be re: preventing transmission. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. Variants emerge, and we need to be flexible in both our changing understanding of the virus and in our policy-making. I don't think we've done a good job at that for the most part.

Israel is an interesting case right now. They are one of (if not *the*) the most vaccinated/boosted nation on Earth right now - and they are even saying they need a reset as well, as their approach hasn't been able to stop the pandemic from roaring at record high rates.

Some scientists there have expressed concern about Israel trying to boost its way out of the pandemic:

"But some scientists warned that the plan could backfire, because too many shots might cause a sort of immune system fatigue, compromising the body’s ability to fight the coronavirus. A few members of the government’s advisory panel raised that concern with respect to the elderly, according to a written summary of the discussion obtained by The New York Times."

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/world/middleeast/israel-vaccine-4th-dose.html

>>We (hopefully) are trending towards the endemic phase of the
>>pandemic, which means our policy also needs to change. We
>>won't boost our way out of this.
>We are at where we are at because we MOSTLY boosted our way
>out of this. This wasn't the result of natural immunity or
>causes LOL. WTF are you even talking about.

lol TF? How have we "mostly boosted our way out of this?" A distinct minority of the world even has access to efficacious boosters. So the notion that we even have enough data to credit boosters for getting us out of anything is wildly premature.

But as to "wtf I'm talking about" - I'm directly referencing the chief of the World Health Organization, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - who said - word-for-word - "No country can boost its way out of the pandemic":


"Blanket booster programmes are likely to prolong the pandemic, rather than ending it, by diverting supply to countries that already have high levels of vaccination coverage, giving the virus more opportunity to spread and mutate,"

Tedros acknowledged that third doses might be necessary for at-risk groups, but said: “We do not want to see widespread use of boosters for healthy people who are fully vaccinated.” And he's right. It makes no sense to boost fully vaccinated people who are younger/healthy when so much of the world's population remains unvaccinated.

Even if you could boost every American - right now - it still will not solve the problem in a transient, inter-connected world. There has to be a global effort; wealthy nations cannot hoard booster shots and expect to make inroads in the global effort until there's more equity in efficacious vaccine distribution.