Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 16, 2020, 02:25:34 PM
Bob,

Are you suggesting that the science on masks helping to prevent the spread of Covid is not proven science at this point?

Rich: No, but now that you mention masks, studies of the use of masks to protect against the FLU VIRUSES have almost uniformly established that masks play no significant role in preventing spread of the flu.

This fact may be a non sequitur as applied to a novel coronavirus, but it is one of the chief reasons, IMO, why Fauci first stated (generally speaking) that masks were not necessary.

Why he later changed his mind and decided to start recommending the wearing of masks is not clear to me.

Bob

Lenn: Sorry to hear about that, but there is no way to prove that he contracted the disease as a result of not wearing a mask.

It is also possible he engaged in other risky behavior (more risky than wearing a mask) which may have caused his death (in whole or in part).

I don't put much weight in isolated (anecdotal) examples cited to prove a much broader point.  They just aren't convincing, no matter which "side" posts them.

Bob

Quote from: LennG on July 15, 2020, 07:51:18 PM
You know Bob, I like you--even if you are a Republican.     

Lenn: As I have sought to emphasize, I have never been a member of any political party, nor have I ever given money to any party or candidate. Bob

Quote from: LennG on July 15, 2020, 12:39:17 PM
"The World Health Organization (WHO) was founded in 1948 as a special agency of the United Nations. With nearly two hundred member countries, the agency implements worldwide programs to prevent and eliminate disease. But the WHO

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 15, 2020, 10:30:19 AM
The CDC issued guidance (that Trump even labeled as his plan to open America) it was a roadmap on how to safely open up the nation.  There was other CDC guidance on how to safely open up that Trump censored (thanks to our watchdog media the document was available and I was able to download a copy).    When I used the term "rushed" I was using it in the context of states that violated the guidelines so they could open up quicker.

Rich: That seems about right, but I must ask.... is there no chance some states intentionally opened up slower by implementing more precautions than the guidelines suggested were necessary?  No need to answer that. I mention it only to point out that there is another side of the story.  If some states DID go slower, good for them.  If some went faster, it was because they believed it was in the best interest of their residents to do so.  The response to a public health crisis should not be determined in a vacuum that considers ONLY one type of "health."  That's why each state has a chief executive... to determine the over-all "best" solution.  It's not a clear-cut "science only" proposition, and again that is why I refuse to criticize any of them. Bob

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 15, 2020, 09:59:20 AM
No, Bob the rest of us simply listened to the actual experts who correctly told us not to rush to open things back up and said if we did cases would spike and you would have to start shutting things back down.

Rich: The word "rush" is an opinion, so there is no "science" in your statement, just politics.  IMO not a single state rushed to open things back up because every leader wanted the best for his or her people.  Bob

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 15, 2020, 10:00:58 AM
Really?!?!   Bob, I honestly think you might need to take a break my friend.   You are starting to see ghosts like Sam Darnold   

Rich: Condescending and demeaning. Bob

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 15, 2020, 09:57:38 AM
Not exactly, the right/GOP/Trump trotted out people that said what they wanted to hear and touted them as experts.

Rich: As did the left.  Bob

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 15, 2020, 09:48:06 AM
Is that because it's harder to doctor hospitalization numbers?

Always political.  What happened to the "truth" in science?  Is the amount of info we have on the virus only important if it helps Democrats?   Bob

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 15, 2020, 09:50:13 AM

More like the week before the game quarterbacking as you (or anyone) can go back and see that I was citing experts well before decisions were made that it was dangerous and people would be killed if you ignored the experts and the guidelines and rushed to open up.

Rich: And other experts said the opposite.  So what?  Bob

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 15, 2020, 09:39:22 AM
So how do you explain all the hospitals being full during the time of year when they are traditionally their most empty?

Rich: Non sequitur.  Completely unrelated to the point being made.  Also, hospital beds are now being occupied by numerous non-covid-related ELECTIVE procedures which require hospitalization.  Bob

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 15, 2020, 09:34:47 AM
"totalitarian response forcing all states to comply with one set of rules"

In environmental public health, we like to say that pollution doesn't respect town/county/state borders.   The same could be said of a virus.   The nations with successful responses to the virus had nationwide responses because that is how you handle this sort of outbreak.

I have been in public health for 17 years now and I have been through the H1N1 and Ebola outbreaks as well have spent all those years on emergency planning.

A nationwide has always been the US strategy (from the Bush years when I started through the Obama years) until Trump took office.   The CDC is our leading public health agency and they are the ones who are more than equipped to issue guidelines and procedures and updates to the states.   The states then take that information to form their own policies.  In previous outbreaks, some states may make guidelines that are more stringent than the CDC's but it was never seen that a state would be so reckless as to set standards that were laxer than the CDC.

It's sort of interesting, that just last night I was reading in my paper (I know cardinal sin reading a morning paper in the evening) that thanks to irresponsible states that followed Trump's urgings and ignored the exerts and rushed to open the explosion of cases has created a shortage of testing supplies.   Now, Covid tests in NJ are going from taking 2-4 days for the lab to process to more than 5 days to process.    Taking over 5 days to process kneecaps our state's effort to contain the disease by case investigation/contact tracing/isolation because all the spread you can get in those extra days.  If we had a proper nationwide response that wouldn't be an issue.   If we had a proper nationwide response, NY/NJ/CT wouldn't have 22 states on their list of states where you need to quarantine for 14 days after you return from them.

Rich: That's all Monday morning quarterbacking.  Trump's approach is, was and continues to be the approach required by the Constitution, which he swore to uphold and protect.  All powers not specified there are SPECIFICALLY reserved to the states.  There are public safety exceptions as you well know, but IMO it is up to the President as the top elected Federal official to determine when those exceptions apply.  In this case, IMO Trump's decision IMPROVED our ability to learn as quickly as possible about this novel microbe.  You can argue in retrospect that a nationwide approach might have been better, but you can also argue that it might have been WORSE.  Suppose all 50 states had followed religiously every statement made by Fauci that later proved to be incorrect (not picking on him, just using him as an example)?  Bob

Quote from: FL GMAN on July 15, 2020, 09:06:17 AM
Before everyone makes a judgement, you may have to wait. There is evidence of massive errors in Florida's reporting. They have discovered that many labs were not reporting any negative results which increases the positive percentage. They are also reporting that a significant number of sites are reporting 100% positive results. The Orlando hospital was being reported as a 98% positive rate when the reality was 9.4%. In addition the Florida death rate is nowhere near what happened in N.Y. nor does it correlate to the positive % being reported. This will come out in the next few days with the Governor possibly discussing today.

FL: Yes.  It's way too early in the "life" of a pandemic to start reaching any conclusions about anything.  To your point, however, I do believe a few of the labs have some explaining to do.  Bob

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 15, 2020, 08:41:58 AM
I know you said on a 1-10 scale that you were 9.9 certain that Trump was doing his very best to fight the virus.   Yet, we also know that the US has done the worst (of major nations) in handling the virus.   Which makes me wonder two things:

1) does that mean you think so little of Trump's abilities that you really do believe that he did the best HE could do in terms of dealing with this nation/world crisis?

2)  Is there anything you could hear or see that would sway you from your opinion that Donald Trump did his best to lead the nation during this major crisis and he never allowed thoughts of his re-election influence his actionsand decisions?

Rich: Your measure of determining that "the US has done the worst.... etc." ignores basic facts.  There were 50 responses (state by state) rather than one.  We can argue about whether a totalitarian response forcing all states to comply with one set of rules would have been better, but the correct comparison is to weigh each state's results with Germany.  Some did better.  Some did worse.  IMO with a novel virus, it was better to do what Trump did, which was to make recommendations and then leave it to the states.  That's the American way, and in addition, and importantly, it enabled us to learn which approaches worked best MUCH FASTER (and time was the key) so that each state would be free to copy what was working in other states and to avoid what was not working.  Bob

Quote from: MightyGiants on July 15, 2020, 08:24:52 AM
What information was specifically withheld and how do you know that to be true?   Also what role did Trump's failure to fill America's open seat on WHO's board contribute to communications issues?

Rich: I'm not going to answer.

I'm trying my best to avoid criticizing any of our country's ELECTED leaders as IMO they are all trying their best to discharge their sworn duties in a "no-win" situation.  To answer would require otherwise. 

If you don't see the connection between WHO and some elected leaders, look harder.  Then you'll be able to infer what I'm talking about (and, in any event, I think you already know!).

Bob