Oso planning to go pro
"A strong leader who took the experts seriously might very well have gotten us to 90% or better compliance in closing and then opening up in a more scientifically sound manner...and that would have been much better than we got." who are these people you refer to as "experts"? i've been saying this all along. if we ran a montage of wjat the various "experts" have said over time, they were only expertly right until they were proven wrong. then it was the next man/woman up.that aside, dr fauci should know a little more than some with regards to this bat virus test as he was for it before he was against it, eyn'a? i think he' got some "splaining to dohttps://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741
that aside, dr fauci should know a little more than some with regards to this bat virus test as he was for it before he was against it, eyn'a? i think he' got some "splaining to dohttps://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741
How many times do you need to ask the same question?Public health experts (at places like CDC, Johns Hopkins and Mayo Clinic) have been consistent all along in calling for stay at home orders, and a slow return to normal only when the numbers are decreasing and adequate testing and contact tracing are available.Sure, there have been gradual changes in what we know about the virus and how to treat it, but the basic pandemic-fighting recommendations have been the same all along.
my point is gm, that the "experts" are not scrutinized enough. for example, i saw an interview with an doc on tv who was raising all of these alarm bells over the use of hydroxychlor. stating it was causing to big of risk with heart issues. then on another station, i see a doc who cited his actual uses of the drug with his patients, taking EKG, noting no changes in the QT intervals whatsoever, along the way, not seeing ANY heart issues. it's not an anecdotal story. i could probably find it if i had to. i am merely stating that once we latch onto someone, it seems they are Gospel. what they are finding is if hydroxychlor. is used early enough in the illness, it saves patients from getting to the point of needing venilators, saving hospital space and shortening thge duration of illness. many on this board and the media did not want to acknowledge the benefits of hydroxychlor, much less allow the "experts" to use it. so much so, to the point of disallowing it's use. so much for interfering with doctor-patient relationship and decisions.
From the NY Times morning brief:"Why has the United States failed to bring down its caseload as much as most other countries?The answer isn’t completely clear, given the complexity of the virus. But the leading suspect, many experts say, is the uneven nature of the U.S. response — like the shortage of tests so far and the mixed approach to social distancing.“The problem with the American response is that it’s so haphazard,” Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told me.
my point is gm, that the "experts" are not scrutinized enough.
Oh here you go again. Touting some "expert." But do we really know that Ashish Jha is really an "expert?" What about those two ER docs from Bakersfield? Who's to say that they don't know as much about public health as the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute?
You're right. I'm busted! There is simply NO way to discern if someone is an expert.There is one exception, as we know: the only ones we should trust are "healthcare professionals". They know all.
Rocket brain could care less who the experts are. He only knows of only one expert who of course is a functional idiot. His job is to defend the big brained genius.
There is really no reason for this.
"The problem with the American response is that it’s so haphazard,” Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told me.
Then scrutinize them! Look into who is being quoted and what their backgrounds are. Don't just believe everyone who has an "MD" after their name as having a equally informed view of the pandemic. And also realize that no expert is right 100% of the time.
Trump cheers on governors even as they ignore White House coronavirus guidelines in race to reopen https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-cheers-on-governors-even-as-they-ignore-white-house-coronavirus-guidelines-in-race-to-reopen/ar-BB13B6Rj?ocid=spartanntp"Trump’s light criticism of Georgia’s decision to begin opening up businesses including barbershops and bowling alleys before meeting White House benchmarks was short-lived. While the president said on April 23, he was “not happy” with Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) for the defying the guidelines, it took him only a week to deny his own remarks. “I didn’t say that,” Trump said Friday when his quote about Kemp was read back to him."Denying reality. Pure gaslighting. It will kill many thousands of Americans.
He's been called out on this before. He apologizes, but seemingly can't help himself.
This is the problem state after state will face.The president put out a well-thought-out, 3-phase plan that included several benchmarks. Many governors, mostly (or maybe all) from red states, started re-opening their states even though few (if any) of the benchmarks had been met. And the very president who put out the benchmarks is cheering them on for ignoring his benchmarks. Again ... wonderful leadership.Where do other states go from here? We can't stay "closed" forever. But it's quite possible the worst -- from a death-toll viewpoint, anyway -- is yet to come.I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions.
Agreed, but this is not a future tense issue. Most states have begun some version of a phase-one reopening, even though very few (perhaps none) meet the criteria for reopening (14-day downward trajectory, widespread and fast testing, comprehensive contact tracing capabilities).If your governor is just starting to consider reopening without meeting the criteria, he is acting prematurely...but far less prematurely than the governors of most states.
In many ways people are the sum of their experiences. Judging people stupid because their biases are different from yours says nothing about them and volumes about you. It doesn’t advance the discussion - it stops it in its tracks.
You’re basically excusing stupidity and ignorance because of “biases”. Specifically what “biases” are you referring to?These people at protests with guns that don’t have masks and are not practicing social distancing have no interest in any type of discussion. Their actions make that perfectly clear. And yes, those people are stunningly stupid.
They just want to buy seeds.
Again, what “biases” are you referring to? I’d genuinely like to know.
These people at protests with guns that don’t have masks and are not practicing social distancing have no interest in any type of discussion.