|
|
|
What will become of Parler?
- Thread starter Mad Mike
- Start date
Clearly he doesn't believe in something, just break it down till you figure out what it is.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
This is politics. Stand an intellectual in front of the proletariat and tell them partial truths, leave out anything they will question. It's neither a liberal thing or a PC thing - although you get a bit more from elitists than folksy folk.
Both.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Not fair. I know a zillion people in the medical community that would roll their eyes at this speech. Untruths? No. Half Truths? Maybe. Critical omissions? Certainly.
Go ask 100 doctors if a mask protects the wearer? If mask wearing creates a false sense of security that increases ones risk of infection? That only symptomatic people wearing masks protect society? None of these questions are 'new science', doctors have been wearing masks to protect against aerosol transmission for decades.
This politician, Tam, was simply deflecting from the issue of PPE and mask shortages. Shortages caused by Liberal mismanagement of Canadian stockpiles exacerbated by a recent order to destroy aging PPE stockpikes in advance of replenishing them.
pfbmgd
Well-known member
I get the facts every day from the provincial website . I can't figure out why people do not look at the facts themselves . All I see with the people here are media facts .
Not scared at all.
Just not incredibly naive.
He's not interested in understanding science, or how it changes. This time last year we knew virtually nothing at all about Covid19. Along the way, we've learned a lot. Things were said that were based on what we knew at that moment in time. But as we learned more, those things changed. That's how science works.
The problem is pfb wants to stop at the point in the process where things stopped agreeing with his preconceived views. So Tam and Fauci saying masks aren't needed is GREAT. Everything that happened from that moment on, not so much, because he doesn't agree with it anymore, so therefore, it's invalid. So instead, just sew doubt and latch onto that particular moment in time and refuse to move forward, science be damned.
Pretty sure if I ask 100 doctors about masks the reply would be “wear them”.
This is a little like dealing with Turbodish.
Argh!
Mad Mike
Well-known member
My point is would they have said that a year ago? Or did some breakthrough in science help us understand masks in the last year?
You should give yourself 3 days for uttering the Name That Shall Not Be Spoken.
yes..a better understanding of transmission.
No. Science better understood things, that's what changed.
When Covid first came along there was a question about how easily it was spread, and exactly HOW it was spread. In the early days touch (hand to mouth / eyes) was thought to be the primary method of transmission with mouth/vapor/sputum transmission being secondary. This was why there was such a freakout in the early days with people leaving their Amazon parcels untouched on their front porch for a week thinking the virus had to die, incessantly wiping down their groceries, wearing gloves everywhere (remember that stage?) thinking it made them invincible, etc.
Science taught us in the months following that touch transmission really wasn't a major route. It happens, sure, but the odds are low.
In the early days it was thought and understood (again, science learns and changes in situations like this) that the virus was not aerosolized which is why we were all told that social distancing was important, and mostly adequate.
As we learned more, we begun to learn that the virus could indeed travel further than initially thought by sputum and vapor (IE, think about your breath outside in the winter) travel. So masks became important all of a sudden to dampen and reduce that direct path of travel between people in the same vicinity, and hence, reduce spread..
We've since learned that the virus can indeed travel aerosolized, further strengthening the need for masks.
It's entirely disingenuous for ANYONE to say that "Well, a year ago they said we didn't need masks!" and try to translate that to today. In the 1500's mercury was given internally to treat syphillus. Since that time science has taught us that ingesting mercury is, uh, kind of a bad thing. We learned. Science taught us new things.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Almost ... sort of. The problem is science has not exactly done the greatest job of delivering Covid advice -- a lot of sketchy stuff. It started with the WHO scientists downplaying the initial risk and delaying the alarms to allow China to get a collar on the local epidemic. Subsequent direction from the ones we ought to trust, the likes of Tam Faucci, Birx have all been found to have delivered'spun' stuff - or have admitted to standing down when they should have spoken up when science was presented incorrectly.
So, if scientific community itself proves to be spinning things at the behest of politicians or for their own benefit... can we understand how some folks will have trouble believing them?
Don't confuse this with an anti-science rant. I'm all for evidence based decision making, and I generally trusts scientists to do and say the right thing. I have learned this trust needs to be earned, not granted.
Don't construe "spin" for "the science has changed" in many instances however.
Yes, there are pressures involved sometimes, and yes, sometimes things that seemed "spun" had ulterior motives, IE Fauci downplaying masks in the early stages probably less because he thought it wasn't wise anyways, and entirely because he knew that if he had went on TV and said "you must wear a mask to protect yourself and help stop spread" every mask on the face of the planet would have been snapped up within 60 minutes. That would have left a critical shortage for those who actually needed them most - first responders, and hospital workers. This has been well documented in the months since.
Yes, there are pressures involved sometimes, and yes, sometimes things that seemed "spun" had ulterior motives, IE Fauci downplaying masks in the early stages probably less because he thought it wasn't wise anyways, and entirely because he knew that if he had went on TV and said "you must wear a mask to protect yourself and help stop spread" every mask on the face of the planet would have been snapped up within 60 minutes. That would have left a critical shortage for those who actually needed them most - first responders, and hospital workers. This has been well documented in the months since.
You were directly asked by JC if you follow current scientific advice. You responsded with fluff and the flip flop.
I never said they didn't flip flop. I am saying that you are misrepresenting their flip flop as a reason to do as you please. Feel free to make up whatever reason you want for your actions....but it has been settled for a long time (8 months?) that mask wearing is beneficial. YES Tam and Fauci both changed their guidance...because they were worried of a run on masks that would deprive nurses of the supply. I guess my question is do you believe the evidence for mask wearing or not? If you don't then you don't follow science. If you want to add social dynamics into the equation and tell me that mask wearers are less prudent...that is an argument. But saying that you don't know what to believe because of early changes in recommended masks wearing is disingenuous and/or obtuse (had to look both up when I copied this rant from a neo-liberal website).
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Your post above is an example of how easy it is to drink the Kool Aid. Every medical practitioner since the beginning of masks wears one when in the presence of highly transmittable respiratory infections. We didn't have masks available when they told us 'we're not sure. If you were listening, every medical practitioner with a voice was screaming for PPE masks. Nothing learned there, we have known how masks protect for decades.
COVID is not new, been around in one form or another for a long time. Medical Practitioners & Scientists have known that these respiratory viruses spread through fomites and aerosols - exactly the same the same way as other respiratory viruses (Sars, Mers Rhinoviruses - common cold).
The mere fact that you believe the 'experts' just discovered the things in your post is not intended to be an insult, it's simply an example of how easy it is to miscommunicate to smart people.
agreed...but this is all well behind us. There has been no argument for advice since April? Stay away from others....wear a mask. Pretty cohesive from all but the cons for a long time. The virus hit NA one year ago....science has been in lockstep since two months in.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
The point is the spun science we heard early on was delivered by puppets scientists - those willing to stand at a podium with a politician's hand up their arse moving their lips.
So, how did China do 2 months in? They were following the science, they capped their losses early. The rest of us watched our scientists, starting at the WHO, do 2 months of political dancing, wiggling and dodging while the virus walked through our world.
|
|
|
|
|