Coronovirus IV

[SheepDog4Life]

You probably also believe you're not f***ed 'in the unlikely event of a water landing' of your flight, too, because your seat cushion can serve as a flotation device. Just how would you characterize forcing people to adopt a prophylaxis that can at best be described as better than nothing, that will in no way serve the purpose they extol to the extent they are allowing the public to believe. Is it not analagous to allowing and encouraging people to believe that enacting gun free zones will keep them safe from guns?

You make our points for us. Please direct me to any government PSAs or regulations coaxing or directing people how to make and how to properly wear effective cloth masks. I'll wait

My response was to the first quote above, that "masks" are at best better than nothing, like "gun free zone signs", which I would submit are WORSE than nothing. That they are just to calm the masses and have no effective use. That is not correct:

ACS Nano: Filtration Efficiencies of Nanoscale Aerosol by Cloth Mask Materials Used to Slow the Spread of SARS-CoV-2
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252

As far as me defending the CDC directives on masks... or blindly following whatever their latest lowest common denominator edict is... I'd challenge you to find when I have ever done that! I still don't follow their recommendations, I use 3-ply disposable surgical masks with a yowie/tight garter over the top to seal air gaps.

'Certain fabric combinations and 3-ply surgical masks, worn to avoid leaks, are much better than 'better than nothing' but how many people are actually wearing such? A strap on inflatable life jacket would be much more effective in that 'unlikely' water landing scenario, too, but ...

I do. Those I care about do. Anyone who cares to listen and make a minimal attempt to educate themselves on the matter can as well. Just because many do not does not mean I'll follow those lemmings off a cliff.

Add to the chin mask wearers the contingent that simply do not "believe" in masks... combined these folks are the most likely to become infected and spread the virus... and make ensuring that I am wearing something as effective as reasonably possible doubly important.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Fox News: Blood thinners may increase coronavirus survival by 50%, decrease intubations 30%: Study
https://www.foxnews.com/health/bloo...ent-and-decrease-intubations-30-percent-study

 

[NKBJ]

And now we are back to my point of no standards diminishing the effectiveness and further limiting why we even do it...

About a quarter are wearing masks with vents to allow exhalation to get out...

Masks made of cheese cloth and also some with mouth holes are being marketed. Why aren't masks being marketed with a chain across them like the tee shirts in the Star Trek Roman Empire episode? Why haven't color coded masks been introduced to indicate what the public thinks about those who use the coercive power of government to force wearing them? Why not use the same "color revolution" tactics that have been used so successfully against people who fell into disfavor with those who suck at our public trough?
The possibilities (and fun) are almost limitless.

 

[jamil]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/depa...ates-issued-covid-19-orders-may-have-resulted

"Department of Justice Requesting Data From Governors of States that Issued COVID-19 Orders that May Have Resulted in Deaths of Elderly Nursing Home Residents
Data will help inform whether the Department of Justice will initiate investigations under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) regarding New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan’s response to COVID-19 in public nursing homes

Today the Justice Department requested COVID-19 data from the governors of states that issued orders which may have resulted in the deaths of thousands of elderly nursing home residents. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan required nursing homes to admit COVID-19 patients to their vulnerable populations, often without adequate testing. "

Good.

 

[T.Lex]

It's my understanding that Trump can't fire federal employees. He can fire appointees. And the president can't always fire appointees.

It isn't exactly that simple, but that's a fair rule of thumb.

Appointees at the HHS include (this isn't a complete list, but some that could be relevant):
Secretary
Deputy Secretary
General Counsel
Assistant Secretary (Financial Resources)
Assistant Secretary (Public Affairs)
Assistant Secretary (Health)
Surgeon General
Assistant Secretary (Planning and Evaluation)
Assistant Secretary (Preparedness and Response)
Assistant Secretary (Aging)
HHS Inspector General

Also, the Director of the CDC is an appointee (without confirmation by the Senate) and serves at the pleasure of the POTUS.

So, POTUS controls the leadership at the HHS and CDC.

If you think an appointee should be fired, make your case.

WTF? When did I even imply that? All I said was that it is Trump's CDC. It is. He has the aforementioned authority to relieve appointees at the HHS and CDC.

Just a few days ago weren't we talking about how it's okay that the CDC changes its mind often? The argument was made that the more that's learned about the virus, the more recommendations will adjust to the new information. So now is that no longer the case? Because it sounds an awful lot like you're saying that the reason the CDC changes its mind so much is because it's Trump's CDC. So what are you saying?

That the CDC has changed its mind on something important without offering any justification. Thus, it makes no sense.

 

[T.Lex]

Heya jamil - on a related note, I just remembered that Trump said at various times that we could be "testing too much." Here's an example from late July:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-read-manuals-you-can-test-too-much-coronavirus-axios-2020-7

Now, the CDC's guideline appears intended to not do as much testing as we were.

Kinda reminds me of Trump's opinion on bumpstocks and the ATF's ultimate decision on them.

He's the chief executive. He has the authority to move those needles. He appears to be using it.

 

[NKBJ]

The release of documents and videos showed the prior planning for the run of the bank bug, plugging in the digital ID, all of it.
The manipulations of the public had been planned out and are now being acted out.
So why would anyone entertain the thought that with the goals behind the various agendas, that the desired outcomes of "masking" were not worked out ahead of time? It's just a little bitty part in the totality of why the bug was engineered and released.
And people want to argue the efficaciousness of masks.

 

[jamil]

It isn't exactly that simple, but that's a fair rule of thumb.

Appointees at the HHS include (this isn't a complete list, but some that could be relevant):
Secretary
Deputy Secretary
General Counsel
Assistant Secretary (Financial Resources)
Assistant Secretary (Public Affairs)
Assistant Secretary (Health)
Surgeon General
Assistant Secretary (Planning and Evaluation)
Assistant Secretary (Preparedness and Response)
Assistant Secretary (Aging)
HHS Inspector General

Also, the Director of the CDC is an appointee (without confirmation by the Senate) and serves at the pleasure of the POTUS.

So, POTUS controls the leadership at the HHS and CDC.


WTF? When did I even imply that? All I said was that it is Trump's CDC. It is. He has the aforementioned authority to relieve appointees at the HHS and CDC.


That the CDC has changed its mind on something important without offering any justification. Thus, it makes no sense.

That you called it "Trump's" implies that you impugn Trump for what you think the CDC did wrong. So you either think it was at the direction of Trump, or that if not, Trump should have ordered something different. Somehow firing people got into the conversation. That's how we got there.

It's my take that the CDC is handling this whole thing incompetently. In terms of where the buck stops, I guess it's fair to say that ultimately Trump would have some responsibility in that. But to lay it at his feet in prefacing it as Trump's CDC, I think is at least a bit disingenuous. I sense that the CDC would be doing the same ass-covering **** under Obama, or under Biden, or whomever. They do what they do. Though I suspect the thing they're doing would be either with the blessing of or direction of a Democratic president.

 

[jamil]

Heya jamil - on a related note, I just remembered that Trump said at various times that we could be "testing too much." Here's an example from late July:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-read-manuals-you-can-test-too-much-coronavirus-axios-2020-7

Now, the CDC's guideline appears intended to not do as much testing as we were.

Kinda reminds me of Trump's opinion on bumpstocks and the ATF's ultimate decision on them.

He's the chief executive. He has the authority to move those needles. He appears to be using it.

So are you saying the CDC actually wants to test more, but the administration is ordering them to quietly say something else?

 

[jamil]

The release of documents and videos showed the prior planning for the run of the bank bug, plugging in the digital ID, all of it.
The manipulations of the public had been planned out and are now being acted out.
So why would anyone entertain the thought that with the goals behind the various agendas, that the desired outcomes of "masking" were not worked out ahead of time? It's just a little bitty part in the totality of why the bug was engineered and released.
And people want to argue the efficaciousness of masks.

Okay. I guess instead of arguing the efficaciousness [sic] of masks, we could argue instead.

Tin or aluminum? Which is more effacacious against boner drone rays. I think tin.

 

[SwikLS]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v3

preview PDF, page 22

 

[jamil]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v3

preview PDF, page 22

Of course, if it's true that infections are drastically over-counted as is the frequent contention on INGO, that would make all those rates proportionally higher. So we can't have it both ways.

 

[T.Lex]

That you called it "Trump's" implies that you impugn Trump for what you think the CDC did wrong. So you either think it was at the direction of Trump, or that if not, Trump should have ordered something different.

That's reading alot of binariness into an accurate label!

Saying Trump's CDC did something is no different than saying Trump's DHS did something. I didn't agree or disagree with the change, I just said it doesn't make sense. I don't know if testing more or testing less is the right thing, but the CDC isn't explaining the change.

Somehow firing people got into the conversation. That's how we got there.

Not by me.

It's my take that the CDC is handling this whole thing incompetently. In terms of where the buck stops, I guess it's fair to say that ultimately Trump would have some responsibility in that. But to lay it at his feet in prefacing it as Trump's CDC, I think is at least a bit disingenuous.

It is not that. I find the insulating of Trump from the actions of the agencies that he controls to be disingenuous. He is the elected leader. He is our president. This is on his watch.

I sense that the CDC would be doing the same ass-covering **** under Obama, or under Biden, or whomever. They do what they do. Though I suspect the thing they're doing would be either with the blessing of or direction of a Democratic president.

I believe I was equally as POTUS-labeling with Obama, particularly in foreign policy. And indeed, that is kinda my point. If Obama drew contempt for the Fast and Furious scheme of his DOJ, then Trump deserves the same treatment.

So are you saying the CDC actually wants to test more, but the administration is ordering them to quietly say something else?

I do not know what the CDC wants, other than what they say at any given time. Today's comments by Fauci suggest he doesn't understand the change either, so there is likely a cadre of people at the CDC who didn't want it.

I do not know what the political appointees ordered or not.

I do know that Trump expressed (several times) that we might be doing too much testing. Now, the CDC has updated guidelines that would lead to less testing. I don't think either of those statements is controversial

 

[Ingomike]

It isn't exactly that simple, but that's a fair rule of thumb.

Appointees at the HHS include (this isn't a complete list, but some that could be relevant):
Secretary
Deputy Secretary
General Counsel
Assistant Secretary (Financial Resources)
Assistant Secretary (Public Affairs)
Assistant Secretary (Health)
Surgeon General
Assistant Secretary (Planning and Evaluation)
Assistant Secretary (Preparedness and Response)
Assistant Secretary (Aging)
HHS Inspector General

Also, the Director of the CDC is an appointee (without confirmation by the Senate) and serves at the pleasure of the POTUS.

So, POTUS controls the leadership at the HHS and CDC.


WTF? When did I even imply that? All I said was that it is Trump's CDC. It is. He has the aforementioned authority to relieve appointees at the HHS and CDC.


That the CDC has changed its mind on something important without offering any justification. Thus, it makes no sense.

And as explained in the post to Foszone the tail cannot wag the dog. These agencies are About as much Trumps as they are mine.

 

[jamil]

That's reading alot of binariness into an accurate label!

Saying Trump's CDC did something is no different than saying Trump's DHS did something. I didn't agree or disagree with the change, I just said it doesn't make sense. I don't know if testing more or testing less is the right thing, but the CDC isn't explaining the change.


Not by me.



It is not that. I find the insulating of Trump from the actions of the agencies that he controls to be disingenuous. He is the elected leader. He is our president. This is on his watch.



I believe I was equally as POTUS-labeling with Obama, particularly in foreign policy. And indeed, that is kinda my point. If Obama drew contempt for the Fast and Furious scheme of his DOJ, then Trump deserves the same treatment.

I do not know what the CDC wants, other than what they say at any given time. Today's comments by Fauci suggest he doesn't understand the change either, so there is likely a cadre of people at the CDC who didn't want it.

I do not know what the political appointees ordered or not.

I do know that Trump expressed (several times) that we might be doing too much testing. Now, the CDC has updated guidelines that would lead to less testing. I don't think either of those statements is controversial

It's not insulating. If Trump ordered the CDC to do something untoward, then he should be held accountable. I'm just not seeing what he did or didn't do that's untoward. Saying "Trump's CDC" or whatever asserts a more active role into it than the facts in evidence imply. If a policy is to mandate agencies comply with something untoward, like, oh, maybe droning Americans and justifying it by labeling them as terrorists, then the policy maker has an active responsibility in that for ordering it. If the policy maker takes a more passive role, and just lets the CDC call its own shots, yeah, there's a passive responsibility in a "buck stops here" kind of way. I think if it's revealed that Trump ordered the CDC to modify its testing guidelines, then you get to call it Trump's CDC.

 

[T.Lex]

It's not insulating. If Trump ordered the CDC to do something untoward, then he should be held accountable. I'm just not seeing what he did or didn't do that's untoward. Saying "Trump's CDC" or whatever asserts a more active role into it than the facts in evidence imply. If a policy is to mandate agencies comply with something untoward, like, oh, maybe droning Americans and justifying it by labeling them as terrorists, then the policy maker has an active responsibility in that for ordering it. If the policy maker takes a more passive role, and just lets the CDC call its own shots, yeah, there's a passive responsibility in a "buck stops here" kind of way. I think if it's revealed that Trump ordered the CDC to modify its testing guidelines, then you get to call it Trump's CDC.

Ok.

But I don't look quite so anymore, eh?

 

[Ingomike]

That's reading alot of binariness into an accurate label!

Saying Trump's CDC did something is no different than saying Trump's DHS did something. I didn't agree or disagree with the change, I just said it doesn't make sense. I don't know if testing more or testing less is the right thing, but the CDC isn't explaining the change.


Not by me.



It is not that. I find the insulating of Trump from the actions of the agencies that he controls to be disingenuous. He is the elected leader. He is our president. This is on his watch.



I believe I was equally as POTUS-labeling with Obama, particularly in foreign policy. And indeed, that is kinda my point. If Obama drew contempt for the Fast and Furious scheme of his DOJ, then Trump deserves the same treatment.

I do not know what the CDC wants, other than what they say at any given time. Today's comments by Fauci suggest he doesn't understand the change either, so there is likely a cadre of people at the CDC who didn't want it.

I do not know what the political appointees ordered or not.

I do know that Trump expressed (several times) that we might be doing too much testing. Now, the CDC has updated guidelines that would lead to less testing. I don't think either of those statements is controversial

A President should be held accountable for his orders, not what an agency they inherited that is insulated and somewhat autonomous, that largely opposes them. That is the key difference you will not acknowledge, in example, that the justice department was fully onboard with Obama and doing what his AG wanted. Trump had the AG office go after him...

 

[Ingomike]

Saw this chart. Though correlation does not indicate causation, interesting nonetheless...

 

[chipbennett]

Fox News: Blood thinners may increase coronavirus survival by 50%, decrease intubations 30%: Study
https://www.foxnews.com/health/bloo...ent-and-decrease-intubations-30-percent-study

Great news, but terrible headline. Epidemiological (or retrospective observational) studies don't demonstrate causality, much less degree of efficacy. The percentages indicated represent degree to which a given metric is correlated to particular outcomes. (I know, I know; I get on this media-reporting-of-medical-study-data soapbox all the time...)

 

[chipbennett]

Saw this chart. Though correlation does not indicate causation, interesting nonetheless...

Not new, but worth pointing out again and again. True that correlation does not prove causation, but this is certainly part of the mounting evidence that politically biased decisions regarding HQC adversely impacted patients - i.e. that Orange Man Bad literally killed people.