Fauci does not follow science. "Science" follows Fauci. Which means it is not really "science"... it is dogma.
Nebby Covid
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
- Status
Masks and vaccines for kids.
I’m not sure for 99% of them, getting Covid, the natural antibodies and immunity isn’t better.
Ridiculously one-sided and utterly pointless post that will do nothing but (a) invite the board liberals to respond in kind which will be equally pointless and (b) get the thread locked as a result. Which, unless your intent was to get the thread shut down, will accomplish nothing of any value.
All ideologists have totalitarian tendencies where they seek to limit the freedoms proponents of other ideologies desire. It doesn't matter if they come from the left or the right or wherever. I bet you can think of several examples of conservative ideologists seeking to curtail certain freedoms that matter to liberals in this country, just as liberals seek to curtail certain freedoms that matter to conservatives.
If you cannot accept that reality, then you've been sipping at your chosen ideological well for too long without a break.
To somebody sitting in the middle, there is absolutely no difference between liberals and conservatives except the details of the ideologies themselves. And those details are largely fabricated nonsense that are far more about sowing division by generating a false sense of superiority (like the one you just displayed) and securing your vote, than about realistically provable or even achievable ideals.
Did you have any point to make other than them bad us good?
I am.
But I've never tried to coax anyone into getting their kids vaxxed. When our schools dropped masks last year, I rolled with it, without protest ..unlike the other side.
All of which is why I have no patience for others, especially those who never had kids, pretending that they know what's best for all kids, and their way is the only way. Fk that.
You haven't been paying attention. The party in power and MSM does it every day.
People who pay close attention have known this. But we still have politicians and government-sponsored commercials talking about getting vaccinated to stop the spread of the virus. A great irony is that such misinformation is tolerated, permitted and promoted by the social media tech overlords, which seem to be in the pocket of one side.
Maybe you misunderstood what I posted. I'm a huge proponent of science and the scientific process. Unfortunately, science has become corrupted, politicized and weaponized to the point that it is a very misused word.
You seem to value being in the middle, but how do you decide where the middle is? If both parties shifted left or right, would you move to remain in the middle? What if you moved to a different country where what is the middle here might be the left or the right there?
"I'm a huge proponent of science except for that fact that science is bad now" is not actually being a proponent of science. It's just throwing some bullshit into the first part of your post in order to try to justify the anti-science stuff in the second part. It's no different than the people who post "I'm not a political person but <political rant>" or "I'm not a right-wing/left-guy, but <typical right-wing/left-wing position>"
That's another problem. The extreme wings of the right and the left have made it virtually impossible to identify as being in the middle or as a centrist. If you don't buy the full panoply, you are on the other side, not the middle.
I'm not a huge baseball/softball stathead but those RBI / hits and runs scored / hits ratios seem huge.
yeah.. that's right.. you always claim to be in the middle.. or above it all. Right.
of course it is one-sided... that is my opinion.. the liberals are being violent, limiting freedoms, squelching political opposition using everything they can brownshirt tactics, big tech, the media, executive powers of government...
it is one-sided because ONE SIDE is doing it... actually doing it. And they often couple this with warning that the other side wants to do it... WHILE THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING IT.
Do you think that once they control everything with no chance of ever losing an election again that you will be allowed to sit in the middle? The middle is not their side. You will be an enemy... as will any of the useful idiots currently on their side who will one day wake up and start disagreeing with things the people in permanent power will do.
This is a more dangerous situation than Nazi Germany... because Nazi Germany had powerful opposition. Once this is done here.. and the UN's world organizations and China and the world's elites backing all of this are in lock-step agreement.... it is over. The idea of FREEDOM is over. STATE will be everything.
Damn straight it is one-sided and that side is freedom. And there are plenty of republicans playing for the other side.
OK, thanks for telling me what I am a proponent of. My entire career has been in science. For nearly the last 30 years, my work has involved parsing through experimental evidence and data to determine what the data and evidence support or does not support. But what we have witnessed in the last couple of years is really unfortunate and a corrosion of the scientific process.
That was my story back then, too. If the subject wasn't about kids, I had very low interest in the subject and high interesting in the nonsense instead. Read some of my posts - you'll see it.so that's your story and you're sticking with it lol
When exactly did you go full-blown nuckin futs?
Was it precipitated by a single event or more of a prolonged slide? It seemed pretty accute to me, but I don't follow your every post.
I'm not defending Fauci. Why would I?
I go by the preponderance of scientific research on stuff related to the pandemic. Not by what he or any other particular person says. And the research is occurring at an intense rate by a lot of folks at the moment (for obvious reasons). So the science is going to evolve rapidly.
Which is why I don't say too much about COVID-19 other than pushing back on stuff stated with certainty or stuff that is over-simplified.
Well I did a <10 second search and found your diatribe from May 2020 posted above. I'm not really interested in spending more time searching, so let's just agree to disagree lol.
Who has? And aren't we discussing it right now?
I see discussions taking place all over social media and in various car forums and in conservations with friends.
I'm telling you what your post expresses, not what your internal feelings or history are.
Why the mods of this very website! Or at least they try.
Take a breath friend.
Sure the "they" you referred to who are shutting it down are not the all-powerful rivals school board mods?
That is untrue with regard to omicron and only became true with delta once the 2-dose vaccinations were found to wane, which was always a risk and why boosted should now be considered fully vaxxed (just like we do for so many other viruses). Boosted people have the best immunity vs. omicron infection, while double-vaxxed have second best immunity and unvaccinated, but previously infected people have the least immunity, but still have moderate immunity (part 2 of the table below). The study below is the first one I've seen where it was actually a controlled population (all were health care workers tested regularly whether symptomatic or not, so variables around testing/symptoms weren't an issue like they are in most of the other datasets out there). And of course, unvaccinated, not previously infected people have, by far, the highest infection rates - and, by far, the highest rates of hospitalization and death.
For the record, I have always said that previous infection should be considered similar to vaccination with regard to protection against infection and thought such people should be exempted from vaccine requirements, although I also thought they should still get vaccinated since the immune response from infection is so highly variable. Plus, there have been some suggesting people should just get infected to get immunity, which is simply insane, as immunity derived from vaccination is extraordinarily safe, whereas immunite derived from infection is quite dangerous, especially for older people and those with comorbidities, but even for healthy people too, relative to vaccine risks.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...395/technical-briefing-34-14-january-2022.pdf
Last edited:
Okay, I wondered if I'd misunderstood because it didn't sound like you.
I agree science has been politicized. But science and scientists have also been unfairly attacked for a long time now.
Used to be that scientists expressed most stuff with a great deal of equivocation and uncertainty, because reality rarely supports certainty. I mean, there have always been the folks with IQs off the charts who cannot communicate, but there weren't trotted out in front of people often.
So anyway, people with agendas (i.e. politicians, funded by special interests) starting publicly attacking scientists who were soft and easily attacked targets because, to less intelligent folks and/or folks without the requisite educational and experiential background, certainty always sounds more right than uncertainty. And ~99.999 percent of people listening can only judge a scientific presentation by how it sounds, due to the lack of foundation for meaningfully deep understanding (i.e. the "you don't have the math for it" problem that occurs while explaining most scientific stuff to lay people).
Simple human nature dictated what happened next. Scientists started responding to the attacks, as we humans usually do when attacked, by adapting and being more belligerent, more certain-sounding, and burying their ever-present uncertainty in the metaphorical fine print. They fought back, essentially.
Which is pretty understandable to me. I would do the same thing if I were them. It's extremely frustrating to try to discuss a subject replete with immense complexity and nuance with people who cannot be bothered to consider complexity and nuance. And since most scientific subjects are complex and heavily nuanced, well... you get the point.
It's a vicious catch-22. If scientists express stuff to the public in appropriately cautious and qualified and nuanced ways, nobody will listen to them. And we'll be fvcked. If they instead overstate stuff, people will listen at first, but then, because scientific knowledge is forever evolving, people will eventually claim they lied or were idiots because they spoke with too much certainty. And we'll be fvcked.
This won't resolve itself until people get over their intense aversion to anything expressed in appropriately complex and uncertain terms. Which means probably never. So, yeah. We're fvcked. 😀
You realize the leanings of all the folks who run this site and who shut down all COVID discussion don't you?
Actually, from my perspective, both parties shift ideologically as necessary to ensure enough of a division to corral voters. So what you're asking about seems to happen all the time (when viewed over decades, at least).
I don't actually think of myself as "in the middle". I think of myself as extremely independent. Meaning I don't subscribe to any ideologically pure viewpoints at all and am therefore free to decide each issue on it's own merit. And virtually of my positions on issues are so nuanced as to be unrecognizable by people on both sides of the issue. I change my mind about stuff all the time as conditions change.
For example I'm entirely non-ideological about taxation. I think sometimes a tax cut is warranted and sometime a tax hike is warranted, all depending on ever-changing circumstances and the exact details.
I can and do vote for whomever I wish with no regard to party affiliation. I value balance in political power in Washington, so I'll sometime vote towards that goal with no consideration of the politician's positions on stuff. I prefer grid lock and forced compromise over dominance by either party in any branch of government.
People who align strongly with a party or ideology cannot do these things. They are bound tightly to the current set of litmus test positions expressed by their party leadership or their parents or friends. They cannot change their minds or they are flip-flopping.
I remember a day a few years back where, during the day, on the CE board, I had a bunch of strongly right-leaning folks angrily denouncing me as liberal. Then that night at a family dinner, my strongly left-leaning sister angrily denounced me as a conservative.
I figured I must be doing something right that day. 😀
I've posted this before. In a qoute attributed to "The Kingfish", Huey Long, when asked if facism would ever come to America.
"Of course we'll have it. But it will be called anti-facism".
"Of course we'll have it. But it will be called anti-facism".
Last edited:
Nope, I never once claimed to be "above" anything. I claim to be independent and nuanced and mostly moderate about political issues.
Y'all always supply the "above it" part which is your spin, not mine. If you feel independence of thought is a virtue, then I wouldn't disagree with you. But I can also see virtue in adherence to a common cause, too. Just so long as I'm free to mix and match all my chosen causes with complete disregard for what any party, or any ideological purity, or any other person thinks.
As for the rest, you'll have to argue it out with a liberal. I have zero interest in hopping on the ideological us versus them mouse-wheel to nowhere. Y'all (conservatives) and liberals have been at this blame game nonsense for decades, if not centuries, and have demonstrably achieved absolutely nothing but assuring that power swings back and forth with regularity.
I guess it's fun for you, otherwise why would anybody do it? But it's not fun for me because it never goes anywhere; it's just echo-chamber fodder.
Well said. GOR struggles with our language sometimes.
And with regard to Fauci, I criticized Fauci's early stance on masks, since I was on record, very early, advocating for masks to help reduce transmissions, way before the CDC and the Administration (as per below). Other than that situation, I don't think I've disagreed with much that Fauci has said. My views on the pandemic have evolved as the science has evolves and I've always offered up in-depth discussions and links to the primary research (not sourced from Fauci, usually, or from some non-scientisti's opinion on the research, which is what so many others do, especially from lame twitter feeds), despite what GOR says.
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...es-interventions-and-more.191275/post-4432618
https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...es-interventions-and-more.191275/post-4450962
what I posted was in reply to someone using a partial statement to make a point that was the complete opposite of what really happened.
As for pushing the vax to be released to soon
here's something I found about that
>President Donald Trump has pledged to “slash red tape like nobody has even done it before” to accelerate the development of a coronavirus vaccine. But his push could backfire if the government moves too fast, according to public health officials and scientists with decades of experience in the field.<
later in same article I found for my reply "
>The Trump administration has already allowed one vaccine maker to begin testing its coronavirus shot in people before completing standard safety testing in animals — normally the first step in the long process of determining a vaccine’s safety and efficacy.<
Yes I cherry picked those 2 parts of article to prove what Biden said wasn't so far fetched,
but out of respect to all that see this message, whether agree or disagree with my point
I must post whole article so everyone that wants to can make an honest evaluation and not think I'm hiding the parts of that article that don't fit my agenda .
(article)
Why the push for a quick coronavirus vaccine could backfire
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...ick-coronavirus-vaccine-could-backfire-139854
- Status
Similar threads
