Jump to content

DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics


Recommended Posts

On 2/19/2021 at 11:42 PM, GRHorn said:

It’s the parents’ fault now? Am I taking crazy pills?

Tagging @Enchubben as well.

If a local school district, or the TEA, announced today that everything would be fully open and attendance would be in-person in the fall, you are taking crazy pills if you don't think a shitload of lawsuits will be immediately filed.   Because we have the TEA, I fully expect them to force districts to be 100% open in the fall as it is.

On 2/19/2021 at 11:42 PM, GRHorn said:

Let me help you out, since evidently you don’t have school age children.

Both of my kids are in school.  My wife has been in education (teaching, admin, etc.) for around 20 years.  You on the other hand, obviously don't know many other parents, or know anybody who teaches or works in education admin.

On 2/19/2021 at 11:42 PM, GRHorn said:

You open the school for those that want in person instruction. For those that don’t, they can do remote. It’s their choice, no liability. For each grade, some teachers handle in person. Some teachers handle the remote. As more kids move to in person because it’s safe, so do more teachers as needed. 

In a world where unicorns exist and we all shit cotton candy, that sounds great.  It's how we are doing things in Austin right now, and my wife and I are sending are kids to school, and she is working within a school.

But we live in a state where TEA determines how this all plays out.

And because it's the TEA, they will craft their policies in such a manner as they will leave the final decision up to districts, but they will force those districts to pay a massive financial penalty (that they can't afford) if they try and allow for a lot of students to remain remote in the fall.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • atomheartbevo

    2457

  • dcar00

    1657

  • Cheeseweasel

    1398

  • MNLonghornFUKM

    1256

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Against my better judgment and several beers deep, I have taken you up on this, potentially ending my streak of totally worthless posts. I have done 3 and 7 day averages only on the Worldometer data. 

Daughter’s home. A little PTSD, we’re picking up Whataburger to help.

Just try and imagine GreenspointTexas being the person to intubate you as you fight for your life against COVID-19. You’re laying there gasping for air while he chastises you for all the things you li

Posted Images

14 hours ago, GRHorn said:

I’m always caught off guard when I realize there’s people out there that don’t think the media is shit. 

Try having relatives who consider Fox News to be the gospel.  The things talked about in Social Dilemma (Netflix doc) can be applied beyond social media, and directly to the "news" media, both at the local and national levels. 

I'd like to think the covid stuff would have exposed this to more people, but it only reinforced something that has been shit for decades, with the added bonus that it amplified a lot of false information and/or contributed to the fatigue.  

It's interesting that the best and most accurate reporting early on, and the links are still there in the early pages of this thread, consisted of non-media folks who were compiling stats and information that gave a sense of where this all was headed.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Try having relatives who consider Fox News to be the gospel.  The things talked about in Social Dilemma (Netflix doc) can be applied beyond social media, and directly to the "news" media, both at the local and national levels. 

 

Or how about NBC News? 
 

This morning looking over a couple DeSantis articles I found this gem.

 

A lot of similar allegations as in the CBS article linked, but when I read it this small passage struck me.
 

Florida, according to the latest NBC News tally, has reported 1.84 million Covid-19 infections and nearly 30,000 deaths due to the coronavirus, some of the worst numbers in the nation.”

On an absolute basis sure. But what about per capita? They’ve had the 27th most cases and 28th most deaths. Is the author unaware of the distinction? Of course not. It’s just blatant misrepresentation of data for purposes of the article. It’s a small detail, but a crystal clear example of how legacy media cannot be trusted to provide news and data to the public or to interpret it justly. 
 

Tl;Dr 

Can any media can be trusted? We’re all fucked. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Tagging @Enchubben as well.

If a local school district, or the TEA, announced today that everything would be fully open and attendance would be in-person in the fall, you are taking crazy pills if you don't think a shitload of lawsuits will be immediately filed.   Because we have the TEA, I fully expect them to force districts to be 100% open in the fall as it is.

Both of my kids are in school.  My wife has been in education (teaching, admin, etc.) for around 20 years.  You on the other hand, obviously don't know many other parents, or know anybody who teaches or works in education admin.

In a world where unicorns exist and we all shit cotton candy, that sounds great.  It's how we are doing things in Austin right now, and my wife and I are sending are kids to school, and she is working within a school.

But we live in a state where TEA determines how this all plays out.

And because it's the TEA, they will craft their policies in such a manner as they will leave the final decision up to districts, but they will force those districts to pay a massive financial penalty (that they can't afford) if they try and allow for a lot of students to remain remote in the fall.

 

I wasn’t referring to education options next year. I was referring to opening tomorrow and it’s as simple as I stated. Lawsuits should not be a problem. 
 

I haven’t thought of how it will go next year or if remote will be completely scrapped. A lot depends on the variants and the next few months. 
 

I’m still available for consulting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

You too, anny, even if you're a fuckhead like a third of the time on here (queue spiderman.gif)

B: This entire thread has turned into the same 5 posters crying because their state subsidized babysitters won't watch their children for them fast enough for their liking. It's an awful circle jerk of emotional crybabies who are angry about the hardship of being forced to be around their children for extended periods of time.

A:  If you think the entire school discussion can be boiled down to subsidized day care and and parents sick of being around their children, you clearly don’t understand the issue from the perspective of a parent of school aged children. There are many facets and perspectives involved.

B: We're cool, but you're a fuck head 1/3 of the time.

A:

tenor.gif?itemid=11041516

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

I wasn’t referring to education options next year. I was referring to opening tomorrow and it’s as simple as I stated. Lawsuits should not be a problem. 

I haven’t thought of how it will go next year or if remote will be completely scrapped. A lot depends on the variants and the next few months. 

I was referencing the tweet about schools fully opening this fall, when many/most kids will still not be vaccinated.  Of course many districts want the option of not being full open in the fall, and letting parents make the choice, but I fully expect TEA to make it financially painful on schools that are not 100% open this fall.  TEA already fights tooth-and-nail when schools go remote for X amount of days.

And if the districts go fully open in the fall, per TEA, then yes, there will be a shitload of lawsuits.

If you want to be available for consulting, you could clean up by helping districts fight the TEA assholes, and/or helping Texas elect rational people to the TEA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, smoky said:

Should otherwise healthy kids be vaccinated?

This is a great question that’s complex and which we have zero data.

We know COVID is less serious for kids than seasonal flu.  The main argument to vaccinating kids would be to help end the pandemic quicker so kids aren’t spreading it to adults/others who are more likely to have severe disease.  But those higher risk adults will have already been vaccinated by the time kids are up for vaccinations.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Heme Doc said:

This is a great question that’s complex and which we have zero data.

We know COVID is less serious for kids than seasonal flu.  The main argument to vaccinating kids would be to help end the pandemic quicker so kids aren’t spreading it to adults/others who are more likely to have severe disease.  But those higher risk adults will have already been vaccinated by the time kids are up for vaccinations.   

And crucial to the question, we don't have any data yet on vaccine efficacy/safety in kids <16 years old.  The trials that include down to 12 yo will be complete 4Q2021, trials with elementary school aged not until at least 2022.  There will be no good clinical data to inform vaccination of most school aged children by school start Fall 2021. I haven't look at the pediatric study protocols, but given the low rate of symptomatic infection among children, those trials might struggle.  We are going to need to make decisions about Fall semester with the assumption that there are no vaccines available for kids. 

IMO:

Get all the teachers vaccinated.

Give parents the option between in home and virtual, as it is now, at least in my school district.

The real question in my mind is whether the schools will be able to continue with the pretty robust safety measures in place, or whether that starts to fade as teh adult population gets vaccinated over the summer and everything returns to some sense of normalcy.  I know that some posters can't connect the multiple layers safety protocols in place in schools to a qualitative assessment of their safety compared to say, bars and restaurants, but its pretty obvious to the rest of us that these measures are working, and working quite well.  If there is a press to lift these measures before kids are vaccinated, it's a bad setup imo. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

And if the districts go fully open in the fall, per TEA, then yes, there will be a shitload of lawsuits.

Exactly what would be the basis of the lawsuits? 

That the school is putting teachers in jeopardy by forcing them to teach in the classroom when study after study after study (including real world examples since August) shows that in-person school is not a source of Covid outbreak?  Or if a teacher contracts Covid 19 the school is responsible, when it will be virtually impossible to prove where the teacher contracted the disease?

People file lawsuits all the time - it doesn't mean they have merit.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Exactly what would be the basis of the lawsuits? 

That the school is putting teachers in jeopardy

We were talking about those parents who would be upset if the schools fully open. Most/all teachers and staff should be vaccinated by the summer, if not the end of spring.   

Many parents are currently keeping their kids home, and I could be wrong on TEA, but based on the last 10-11 months or so, I think the TEA will heavily penalize districts who are not fully open in the fall.   

Then again, quite a few districts did stand up to the TEA last year, so it very well could be a fuck around and find out kind of situation. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Should otherwise healthy kids be vaccinated?


I won't be vaccinating mine until they're adolescents if covid is even still a thing . They're basically in the zero risk group as is. My toddler is in day care in exurban Texas. He probably already had all of the strains of it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

We were talking about those parents who would be upset if the schools fully open. Most/all teachers and staff should be vaccinated by the summer, if not the end of spring.   

Many parents are currently keeping their kids home, and I could be wrong on TEA, but based on the last 10-11 months or so, I think the TEA will heavily penalize districts who are not fully open in the fall.   

Then again, quite a few districts did stand up to the TEA last year, so it very well could be a fuck around and find out kind of situation. 

 

Parents are keeping kids home because they are a ping pong ball being hit between teachers that are crying out their fears of teaching in person vs a district's policies of going in person.

I don't know anyone that is keeping their kid home from life. Even those that aren't going in person are still playing sports, doing a learning pod, seeing friends, having sleepovers etc

Next to no kids are hanging out solo in their house 100%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is an example of the mixed messaging here regarding vaccinations. So grandparents get vaccinated, but they still can’t see their grandkids? So people get it so they can be “safe” from Covid but just not with family contact? 
 


He doesn’t want to make some proclamation on Tv suddenly? Isn’t that what he does for a living? Most people that watch this have to be wondering what the fuck he’s talking about. Are there people that still listen to him?
 

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they’re are more uncertain about vaccine efficacy towards variants than they are letting on. In which case it’s a harder sell to get people to take the shot if it’s already greatly losing efficacy. He’s basically being dishonest either way. 

Edited by GRHorn
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I think this is an example of the mixed messaging here regarding vaccinations. So grandparents get vaccinated, but they still can’t see their grandkids? So people get it so they can be “safe” from Covid but just not with family contact? 
 


He doesn’t want to make some proclamation on Tv suddenly? Isn’t that what he does for a living? Most people that watch this have to be wondering what the fuck he’s talking about. Are there people that still listen to him?
 

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they’re are more uncertain about vaccine efficacy towards variants than they are letting on. In which case it’s a harder sell to get people to take the shot if it’s already greatly losing efficacy. He’s basically being dishonest either way. 

Did you actually watch the clip? He said there are going to be less strict recommendations for vaccinated people but he wanted to discuss with the team before they release anything. No, his job isn’t to go on TV and make unilateral proclamations in which he doesn’t know the answer to. Come on, dude. You’re being just like the media you’re roasting. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LurkingHorn said:

Did you actually watch the clip? He said there are going to be less strict recommendations for vaccinated people but he wanted to discuss with the team before they release anything. No, his job isn’t to go on TV and make unilateral proclamations in which he doesn’t know the answer to. Come on, dude. You’re being just like the media you’re roasting. 

Yes I did watch it. He doesn’t want to make any big proclamations. He sure seems to do that often. We’re also going on a couple months of data from people getting vaccinated. How much data does he need before saying it’s ok for vaccinated seniors to see their family? Again, why is he not sure about that?
 

If being vaccinated doesn’t even grant his blessing for you to be around your family, then how good is it?  It’s a bizarre clip. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I think this is an example of the mixed messaging here regarding vaccinations. So grandparents get vaccinated, but they still can’t see their grandkids? So people get it so they can be “safe” from Covid but just not with family contact? 
 


He doesn’t want to make some proclamation on Tv suddenly? Isn’t that what he does for a living? Most people that watch this have to be wondering what the fuck he’s talking about. Are there people that still listen to him?
 

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they’re are more uncertain about vaccine efficacy towards variants than they are letting on. In which case it’s a harder sell to get people to take the shot if it’s already greatly losing efficacy. He’s basically being dishonest either way. 

Is it okay to admit there is uncertainty about the variants but also know that the vaccines are amazing? I don’t understand why you need to have a black and white answer to a very complicated issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StruggleBus said:

I’m going back to normal life once fully vaccinated. And so is the rest of my extended family. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Just to go on record, I’m on this boat too. I just think the constant complaining about fauci is strange. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to go on record, I’m on this boat too. I just think the constant complaining about fauci is strange. 

because now he’s not going to make recommendations for grandparents to see grand kids until he talks to his team but 2 days ago he said vaccine will stop spread and protect the unvaccinated.



He does so many interviews a day he can’t keep his stories straight.
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:


because now he’s not going to make recommendations for grandparents to see grand kids until he talks to his team but 2 days ago he said vaccine will stop spread and protect the unvaccinated.

 

 

 


He does so many interviews a day he can’t keep his stories straight.

 

 

 

The vaccines will end the pandemic. That’s not the same thing as telling everybody they should go out tomorrow and pretend everything is back to normal. Can you seriously not see the difference there? And if that tweet is taking things out of context like the previous tweet shared from that account, I would recommend some of you try to follow other news sources along with the ones you frequent. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LurkingHorn said:

The vaccines will end the pandemic. That’s not the same thing as telling everybody they should go out tomorrow and pretend everything is back to normal. Can you seriously not see the difference there? And if that tweet is taking things out of context like the previous tweet shared from that account, I would recommend some of you try to follow other news sources along with the ones you frequent. 

Based on what long term studies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once I’m done with my course, I feel like my odds are sufficiently in my favor against a negative outcome that I won’t worry about where I go or who I’m around. 
but I have no problem wearing a mask in certain situations for a while longer until they confirm that the vaccinated aren’t carriers, or until everyone that wants the vaccine has gotten it and the only people to be infected are the god is my shield or the my immune system is strong and the it’s the flu people. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
The vaccines will end the pandemic. That’s not the same thing as telling everybody they should go out tomorrow and pretend everything is back to normal. Can you seriously not see the difference there? And if that tweet is taking things out of context like the previous tweet shared from that account, I would recommend some of you try to follow other news sources along with the ones you frequent. 

No I can’t seriously see the difference . If he’s telling us fully vaccinated people won’t spread the disease from my tweet(source NBC news), why not go on and say that he can recommend fully vaccinated grandparents to see their grand kids if they’re not going to catch it or spread it?
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:


No I can’t seriously see the difference . If he’s telling us fully vaccinated people won’t spread the disease from my tweet(source NBC news), why not go on and say that he can recommend fully vaccinated grandparents to see their grand kids if they’re not going to catch it or spread it?

I’m not sure what tweet your referring to, but maybe it’s this article from a few days ago: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1258142

He clearly says the results from these studies point to a positive direction. 
 

“There have been some studies that are pointing in a very favorable direction,” he said, adding that these studies will have to be corroborated by additional research.

Maybe we let the additional research happen before claiming he’s doing so many interviews he doesn’t know what he’s saying. Perhaps he has taken his statements to the next level and declared with 100% certainty that the vaccine completely stops transmission. If you can find that, I’ll definitely apologize and move on my merry way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

He’s definitely the master of maybes and we’ll sees. I mean he’s like 81, and is prodigy at answering shit. He just seems to be doing multiple interviews daily and the way he can grab a headline with one quote in one interview, can be the total opposite of a headline in another interview. Thus confusing the ilk of arm chair infectious disease experts like myself

Link to post
Share on other sites
He’s definitely the master of maybes and we’ll sees. I mean he’s like 81, and is prodigy at answering shit. He just seems to be doing multiple interviews daily and the way he can grab a headline with one quote in one interview, can be the total opposite of a headline in another interview. Thus confusing the ilk of arm chair infectious disease experts like myself

Fauci clearly is the villain here.
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Or how about NBC News? 
 

This morning looking over a couple DeSantis articles I found this gem.

 

A lot of similar allegations as in the CBS article linked, but when I read it this small passage struck me.
 

Florida, according to the latest NBC News tally, has reported 1.84 million Covid-19 infections and nearly 30,000 deaths due to the coronavirus, some of the worst numbers in the nation.”

On an absolute basis sure. But what about per capita? They’ve had the 27th most cases and 28th most deaths. Is the author unaware of the distinction? Of course not. It’s just blatant misrepresentation of data for purposes of the article. It’s a small detail, but a crystal clear example of how legacy media cannot be trusted to provide news and data to the public or to interpret it justly. 
 

Tl;Dr 

Can any media can be trusted? We’re all fucked. 

NBC - aren’t they the ones who staged & firebombed a pickup to illustrate how “dangerous” that model was?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Fauci is an over sharer. He needs to understand that providing nuanced information that requires critical thinking and more than 160 letters is confusing for a lot of people and that makes them angry.

What's Fauci's latest over /under on how many masks each person is to wear again?  Last I heard, it was 1.5.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DDD Dad said:


Fauci clearly is the villain here.

I wouldn’t call him a villain.
He did knowingly disseminate disinfo recently though. 
 

His problem is similar to a lot of our Covid heroes. They looked like (or were easily portrayed as) geniuses next to Trump. Now that he’s gone they look like what they are, typical bureaucrats with underwhelming levels of competency and moral standards.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

He’s definitely the master of maybes and we’ll sees. I mean he’s like 81, and is prodigy at answering shit. He just seems to be doing multiple interviews daily and the way he can grab a headline with one quote in one interview, can be the total opposite of a headline in another interview. Thus confusing the ilk of arm chair infectious disease experts like myself

This is not the argument you made. You claimed he said something he didn't and basically said he was being a hypocrite. You got called on it and now you appear to be upset that he's a "master of maybes". If you're argument is that he should take a step back from doing so many interviews so that the media doesn't always come up with a contradictory headline, I would agree with that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

His problem is similar to a lot of our Covid heroes. They looked like (or were easily portrayed as) geniuses next to Trump. Now that he’s gone they look like what they are, typical bureaucrats with underwhelming levels of competency and moral standards.  

 

 

Yeah, I think it's sort of a twofold problem.

The first is that a significant portion of our population does better getting information in small, black and white pieces without nuance. It's why stupid people get sucked into clickbait tweets and it's why Trump resonated with them. They are better at handling their leaders telling them to drink bleach and sticking with it than they are with the message changing as new information comes out. How stupid do you have to be to think that "we don't know yet" is in conflict with a more definitive statement a few weeks later?

But I do agree that Fauci is out his of element as a public figurehead and spokesperson. He's a scientist. He pontificates out loud instead of being consistent with a message. It can be confusing. He needs to learn when to stop talking, and he needs to learn that "we don't know yet, we're working on it" is an acceptable answer to most people. And the people to whom that's not an acceptable answer are irrelevant because no matter what he says, they will be angry partisan hacks. He is a TMI guy.

He is not a great "public persona at the front of an initiative". At all. They need to get him a spokesperson and have said person manage the message, and move him to more of a CTO role than CEO. He has gotten a lot of undue praise IMO. Great scientist I'm sure, not a great public figure.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

He did knowingly disseminate disinfo recently though. 

I think that's a harsh way to frame it. Fauci is a political animal at this point in his career. He frames whatever he is saying to shape behaviors at the moment to effect the public health goal he is trying to accomplish. See shifting sands on mask wearing, see moving the goal posts on herd immunity, see shiftiness post-vax activities and timeframe for return to normalcy. I get it, but I think that he is being less than forthright, and I think that it is counterproductive in the end due to the mixed messages.

The vaccine end game needs clear messaging, or it will fail. To Brad's point, people need manageable and consistent soundbites. People need to see light at the end of the tunnel. This "we're all gonna have to wear masks forever, I can't tell you that your vaccinated parents can see their grandchildren, the vaccine doesn't reduce transmission" coming from noisy megaphones across the spectrum is counterproductive to driving vaccine demand. Social media in particular is a cancer to the objective here, and frankly the noise from people with the degrees after their name are often more problematic than the right out "Bill Gates gonna alter my DNA!" nonsense. We are at a point were very soon we will shift from a supply constraint to a demand constraint in terms of large scale vaccination. A lot of the noise being blasted is not exactly inspiring to demand. 

Here is an example of concise and clear messaging to drive a singular point home, and shine light on the end of the tunnel.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that's a harsh way to frame it. Fauci is a political animal at this point in his career. He frames whatever he is saying to shape behaviors at the moment to effect the public health goal he is trying to accomplish. See shifting sands on mask wearing, see moving the goal posts on herd immunity, see shiftiness post-vax activities and timeframe for return to normalcy. I get it, but I think that he is being less than forthright, and I think that it is counterproductive in the end due to the mixed messages.

The vaccine end game needs clear messaging, or it will fail. To Brad's point, people need manageable and consistent soundbites. People need to see light at the end of the tunnel. This "we're all gonna have to wear masks forever, I can't tell you that your vaccinated parents can see their grandchildren, the vaccine doesn't reduce transmission" coming from noisy megaphones across the spectrum is counterproductive to driving vaccine demand. Social media in particular is a cancer to the objective here, and frankly the noise from people with the degrees after their name are often more problematic than the right out "Bill Gates gonna alter my DNA!" nonsense. We are at a point were very soon we will shift from a supply constraint to a demand constraint in terms of large scale vaccination. A lot of the noise being blasted is not exactly inspiring to demand. 

Here is an example of concise and clear messaging to drive a singular point home, and shine light on the end of the tunnel.

 

 

I feel like Fauci scored some points with the public, especially on the blue side of the spectrum, because he actually did do a pretty good job of walking the tightrope of dealing with Trump's bullshit while still mostly putting good scientific information out. He managed to walk the line and keep non-junk science at the forefront while not getting himself run out of town. 

But the fact of the matter is that now Trump is gone and there are probably a lot better candidates for Fauci's current role. 

 

I feel like it's kinda like Chuck Pagano with the colts. He came in, had a great first season but had to leave to fight cancer. He became sort of a folk hero there. But when he recovered and came back, it turns out he was just an okay football coach. Both handled extreme adversity situations well, but once they were operating under normalcy, turns out there are a lot of people that could do a better job. 

I think you can respect Fauci and what he's done while understanding that he is flawed. But of course the smooth brains on #bothsides have made him a political lightning rod.

Edited by BradInATX
Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Yeah, I think it's sort of a twofold problem.
The first is that a significant portion of our population does better getting information in small, black and white pieces without nuance. It's why stupid people get sucked into clickbait tweets and it's why Trump resonated with them. They are better at handling their leaders telling them to drink bleach and sticking with it than they are with the message changing as new information comes out. How stupid do you have to be to think that "we don't know yet" is in conflict with a more definitive statement a few weeks later?
But I do agree that Fauci is out his of element as a public figurehead and spokesperson. He's a scientist. He pontificates out loud instead of being consistent with a message. It can be confusing. He needs to learn when to stop talking, and he needs to learn that "we don't know yet, we're working on it" is an acceptable answer to most people. And the people to whom that's not an acceptable answer are irrelevant because no matter what he says, they will be angry partisan hacks. He is a TMI guy.
He is not a great "public persona at the front of an initiative". At all. They need to get him a spokesperson and have said person manage the message, and move him to more of a CTO role than CEO. He has gotten a lot of undue praise IMO. Great scientist I'm sure, not a great public figure.

Agree with this. A lot of scientific/analytical types are like that when talking about their area of expertise. Not necessarily the guy you want doing news interviews every day.

Still, the message with regard to behavior post-vaccine has pretty consistently been “Well, we just can’t know yet, so play it safe.” As more information comes out that message is starting to change. Fauci is not a pundit paid to have hot takes so he will be among the slowest to come around, because it’s more important he be right than first.

If you are looking to be aggrieved or are profoundly stupid you can take more from it than that, of course.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Social media in particular is a cancer to the objective here, and frankly the noise from people with the degrees after their name are often more problematic than the right out "Bill Gates gonna alter my DNA!" nonsense. We are at a point were very soon we will shift from a supply constraint to a demand constraint in terms of large scale vaccination. A lot of the noise being blasted is not exactly inspiring to demand. 

I've had several people ask me if I'm getting the vaccine, and a few of them are surprised when I say, "Hell, yeah, as soon as I'm on the list". Some people who I consider pretty intelligent (on both sides of the political aisle) have fallen for the Bill Gates/Big Pharma nonsense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:


Agree with this. A lot of scientific/analytical types are like that when talking about their area of expertise. Not necessarily the guy you want doing news interviews every day.

Still, the message with regard to behavior post-vaccine has pretty consistently been “Well, we just can’t know yet, so play it safe.” As more information comes out that message is starting to change. Fauci is not a pundit paid to have hot takes so he will be among the slowest to come around, because it’s more important he be right than first.

If you are looking to be aggrieved or are profoundly stupid you can take more from it than that, of course.

 

Yeah, and a lot of the problem is that the media loves to take nuanced answers and make them black or white, because that's what their readers respond to. 

"We don't know yet if the mRNA vaccines prevent transmission too" gets turned into "Fauci says mRNA vaccines don't stop transmission". 

But - that's the world we live in, and part of his job is to figure out how to message his stuff to avoid that. Biden knows how to do that. Trump knows how to do that. Most high-level CEOs know how to do that. Most scientists probably don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:


because now he’s not going to make recommendations for grandparents to see grand kids until he talks to his team but 2 days ago he said vaccine will stop spread and protect the unvaccinated.

 

 

 


He does so many interviews a day he can’t keep his stories straight.

 

 

 

you just aren't able to keep up with the nuance. Its difficult for people to understand someone as smart as he is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

But - that's the world we live in, and part of his job is to figure out how to message his stuff to avoid that. Biden knows how to do that. Trump knows how to do that. Most high-level CEOs know how to do that. Most scientists probably don't.

Very true. Ask an engineer about how safe a bridge is, and he'll hedge his answer. Fauci is hurting his cause more than he is helping at this point. He needs to let the Sunshine Pumpers be out there right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not the argument you made. You claimed he said something he didn't and basically said he was being a hypocrite. You got called on it and now you appear to be upset that he's a "master of maybes". If you're argument is that he should take a step back from doing so many interviews so that the media doesn't always come up with a contradictory headline, I would agree with that. 

So Fauci can assume one thing(vaccines will protect unvaccinated) but can’t answer if fully vaccinated Grand parents can safely see their grand kids? I mean what am I missing? You and Kaiser and DDD can insult ones intelligence because it’s an easy out, but in who’s eyes does a country’s perceived mouthpiece for this pandemic not see this hypocritical messaging? I get insulted because he talks too much. But gmr, Brad say he shouldn’t speak so much because he’s a scientist, and I’m the 5th grade drop out fucking moron that lacks critical thinking? Fuck off with your bullshit
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So Fauci can assume one thing(vaccines will protect unvaccinated) but can’t answer if fully vaccinated Grand parents can safely see their grand kids? I mean what am I missing? You and Kaiser and DDD can insult ones intelligence because it’s an easy out, but in who’s eyes does a country’s perceived mouthpiece for this pandemic not see this hypocritical messaging? I get insulted because he talks too much. But gmr, Brad say he shouldn’t speak so much because he’s a scientist, and I’m the 5th grade drop fucking moron that lacks critical thinking? Fuck off with your bullshit

If we say you’re right will you stop whining?
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:


So Fauci can assume one thing(vaccines will protect unvaccinated) but can’t answer if fully vaccinated Grand parents can safely see their grand kids? I mean what am I missing? You and Kaiser and DDD can insult ones intelligence because it’s an easy out, but in who’s eyes does a country’s perceived mouthpiece for this pandemic not see this hypocritical messaging? I get insulted because he talks too much. But gmr, Brad say he shouldn’t speak so much because he’s a scientist, and I’m the 5th grade drop fucking moron that lacks critical thinking? Fuck off with your bullshit

Where did I insult your intelligence? I did no such thing. You posted factually incorrect information and I called you out on it. That's the difference between your initial post and all the other posts you're referring to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...