Texas reopens to 100%, rescinds mask mandate
03-03-2021, 11:15 AM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: 767
Posts: 137
I’m honestly pretty surprised that saying “masks and social distancing work and should be continued” drew so much disagreement, but here we are 
https://dshs.texas.gov/news/releases/2021/20210226.aspx
From the Texas DSHS - 1.7 million fully vaccinated, so just under 6% of the state’s population of 29 mil, and 20% of adults over 65 fully vaccinated, but please go on
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...eadly-n1242340
^ Fauci disagreeing that COVID is similar to the flu
https://www.contagionlive.com/view/f...where-you-live
^ Fauci in July of last year making it clear that going back to school isn’t a simple decision, and depends on location.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...es-july-1.html
^ The top two states had the most relaxed policies and the worst case records. Updated 5 hours ago. Where are you getting your facts?
You mischaracterize a lot of what Fauci said. Much of what you describe as “flip flops” were more like cautiously endorsing something at first. It seems you think scientists are trying to deliberately misinform you but remember: this is a novel coronavirus. Not everything is as cut and dry as you would like. In March of last year, there was very little we knew about it. As scientists learn more and more, of course they are going to review and update - sometimes change entirely - their previous positions; that’s the only responsible thing to do when you’ve accumulated more knowledge about something. That doesn’t mean they are wrong or inconsistent; it means they are being responsible and giving people the most up-to-date information. You are looking at changing recommendations and seeing it as being unreliable, when the opposite is true.
So regardless of what has been said it the past, it would behoove everyone to go by the latest recommendations of the CDC that reflect the knowledge and findings of nearly an entire year of research: masks and social distancing work. Discrediting all the scientists’ work because they have changed their minds a few times is discarding all their research and work.
Did you get a chance to read the study I posted? ICI is ineffective because it’s too dangerous and unpredictable. Plenty of people will get COVID going about their daily lives, but counting on enough people to get it to supplement an already robust vaccination program is simply unethical - at best. We don’t even know about the long-term effects of the virus yet, or what differentiates seemingly healthy people who are asymptomatic from healthy people who have a serious reaction.
In concert with the previous study I linked, here’s another good article talking about why ICI is not a good idea, or a good supplement, to vaccines:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/h...-immunity.html
1) Sarcasm is often poorly conveyed over text. 2) Plenty of people have said the same things you did unsarcastically...how would I know?
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/director/publications
^ List of Fauci’s publications and articles. Not sure what you mean by “actually researched” something. Most senior level scientists aren’t the ones actually looking into a microscope even though they are in charge of the study itself. BTW, he is an employee of the federal government, not sure what “industry” you are referring to.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...tients-himself
^ Fauci studying and treating Ebola patients himself, 6 years ago at age 74.
From the Texas DSHS - 1.7 million fully vaccinated, so just under 6% of the state’s population of 29 mil, and 20% of adults over 65 fully vaccinated, but please go on
Which opinion of Fauci do you want us to listen to?
Or how bout on March 11 last year on national TV he said Covid is 10 times worse than the flu, but he published an article to his colleagues in the New England journal on March 26th that said it was similar to a severe flu season?
Or how bout on March 11 last year on national TV he said Covid is 10 times worse than the flu, but he published an article to his colleagues in the New England journal on March 26th that said it was similar to a severe flu season?
^ Fauci disagreeing that COVID is similar to the flu
So if we still need to shut down schools for Covid, then what is your argument that we should ever go back to school? Flu is deadlier in children (per the CDC) so if we need to listen to the science it sounds like we need to shut down schools for eternity. Flu will still be around.
^ Fauci in July of last year making it clear that going back to school isn’t a simple decision, and depends on location.
States went hardcore on those mandates in the summer and cases skyrocketed. The states with the most relaxed policies have been better statistically almost through the entirety of this thing.
^ The top two states had the most relaxed policies and the worst case records. Updated 5 hours ago. Where are you getting your facts?
You mischaracterize a lot of what Fauci said. Much of what you describe as “flip flops” were more like cautiously endorsing something at first. It seems you think scientists are trying to deliberately misinform you but remember: this is a novel coronavirus. Not everything is as cut and dry as you would like. In March of last year, there was very little we knew about it. As scientists learn more and more, of course they are going to review and update - sometimes change entirely - their previous positions; that’s the only responsible thing to do when you’ve accumulated more knowledge about something. That doesn’t mean they are wrong or inconsistent; it means they are being responsible and giving people the most up-to-date information. You are looking at changing recommendations and seeing it as being unreliable, when the opposite is true.
So regardless of what has been said it the past, it would behoove everyone to go by the latest recommendations of the CDC that reflect the knowledge and findings of nearly an entire year of research: masks and social distancing work. Discrediting all the scientists’ work because they have changed their minds a few times is discarding all their research and work.
This isn't about long term, or ICI replacing vaccination in the drive toward herd immunity - this is about ICI contributing to a reduction of infection in the near-term because it is additive to the percentage of vaccinated population as the vaccination campaign expands in the next three months.
In concert with the previous study I linked, here’s another good article talking about why ICI is not a good idea, or a good supplement, to vaccines:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/h...-immunity.html
1) Sarcasm is often poorly conveyed over text. 2) Plenty of people have said the same things you did unsarcastically...how would I know?
^ List of Fauci’s publications and articles. Not sure what you mean by “actually researched” something. Most senior level scientists aren’t the ones actually looking into a microscope even though they are in charge of the study itself. BTW, he is an employee of the federal government, not sure what “industry” you are referring to.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...tients-himself
^ Fauci studying and treating Ebola patients himself, 6 years ago at age 74.
03-03-2021, 11:23 AM
#132
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Pilot
Posts: 2,625
I’m honestly pretty surprised that saying “masks and social distancing work and should be continued” drew so much disagreement, but here we are
https://dshs.texas.gov/news/releases/2021/20210226.aspx
From the Texas DSHS - 1.7 million fully vaccinated, so just under 6% of the state’s population of 29 mil, and 20% of adults over 65 fully vaccinated, but please go on
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...eadly-n1242340
^ Fauci disagreeing that COVID is similar to the flu
https://www.contagionlive.com/view/f...where-you-live
^ Fauci in July of last year making it clear that going back to school isn’t a simple decision, and depends on location.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...es-july-1.html
^ The top two states had the most relaxed policies and the worst case records. Updated 5 hours ago. Where are you getting your facts?
You mischaracterize a lot of what Fauci said. Much of what you describe as “flip flops” were more like cautiously endorsing something at first. It seems you think scientists are trying to deliberately misinform you but remember: this is a novel coronavirus. Not everything is as cut and dry as you would like. In March of last year, there was very little we knew about it. As scientists learn more and more, of course they are going to review and update - sometimes change entirely - their previous positions; that’s the only responsible thing to do when you’ve accumulated more knowledge about something. That doesn’t mean they are wrong or inconsistent; it means they are being responsible and giving people the most up-to-date information. You are looking at changing recommendations and seeing it as being unreliable, when the opposite is true.
So regardless of what has been said it the past, it would behoove everyone to go by the latest recommendations of the CDC that reflect the knowledge and findings of nearly an entire year of research: masks and social distancing work. Discrediting all the scientists’ work because they have changed their minds a few times is discarding all their research and work.
Did you get a chance to read the study I posted? ICI is ineffective because it’s too dangerous and unpredictable. Plenty of people will get COVID going about their daily lives, but counting on enough people to get it to supplement an already robust vaccination program is simply unethical - at best. We don’t even know about the long-term effects of the virus yet, or what differentiates seemingly healthy people who are asymptomatic from healthy people who have a serious reaction.
In concert with the previous study I linked, here’s another good article talking about why ICI is not a good idea, or a good supplement, to vaccines:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/h...-immunity.html
1) Sarcasm is often poorly conveyed over text. 2) Plenty of people have said the same things you did unsarcastically...how would I know?
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/director/publications
^ List of Fauci’s publications and articles. Not sure what you mean by “actually researched” something. Most senior level scientists aren’t the ones actually looking into a microscope even though they are in charge of the study itself. BTW, he is an employee of the federal government, not sure what “industry” you are referring to.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...tients-himself
^ Fauci studying and treating Ebola patients himself, 6 years ago at age 74.
https://dshs.texas.gov/news/releases/2021/20210226.aspx
From the Texas DSHS - 1.7 million fully vaccinated, so just under 6% of the state’s population of 29 mil, and 20% of adults over 65 fully vaccinated, but please go on
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...eadly-n1242340
^ Fauci disagreeing that COVID is similar to the flu
https://www.contagionlive.com/view/f...where-you-live
^ Fauci in July of last year making it clear that going back to school isn’t a simple decision, and depends on location.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...es-july-1.html
^ The top two states had the most relaxed policies and the worst case records. Updated 5 hours ago. Where are you getting your facts?
You mischaracterize a lot of what Fauci said. Much of what you describe as “flip flops” were more like cautiously endorsing something at first. It seems you think scientists are trying to deliberately misinform you but remember: this is a novel coronavirus. Not everything is as cut and dry as you would like. In March of last year, there was very little we knew about it. As scientists learn more and more, of course they are going to review and update - sometimes change entirely - their previous positions; that’s the only responsible thing to do when you’ve accumulated more knowledge about something. That doesn’t mean they are wrong or inconsistent; it means they are being responsible and giving people the most up-to-date information. You are looking at changing recommendations and seeing it as being unreliable, when the opposite is true.
So regardless of what has been said it the past, it would behoove everyone to go by the latest recommendations of the CDC that reflect the knowledge and findings of nearly an entire year of research: masks and social distancing work. Discrediting all the scientists’ work because they have changed their minds a few times is discarding all their research and work.
Did you get a chance to read the study I posted? ICI is ineffective because it’s too dangerous and unpredictable. Plenty of people will get COVID going about their daily lives, but counting on enough people to get it to supplement an already robust vaccination program is simply unethical - at best. We don’t even know about the long-term effects of the virus yet, or what differentiates seemingly healthy people who are asymptomatic from healthy people who have a serious reaction.
In concert with the previous study I linked, here’s another good article talking about why ICI is not a good idea, or a good supplement, to vaccines:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/h...-immunity.html
1) Sarcasm is often poorly conveyed over text. 2) Plenty of people have said the same things you did unsarcastically...how would I know?
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/director/publications
^ List of Fauci’s publications and articles. Not sure what you mean by “actually researched” something. Most senior level scientists aren’t the ones actually looking into a microscope even though they are in charge of the study itself. BTW, he is an employee of the federal government, not sure what “industry” you are referring to.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015...tients-himself
^ Fauci studying and treating Ebola patients himself, 6 years ago at age 74.
03-03-2021, 11:23 AM
#133
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,609
Originally Posted by PlaneS
Did you get a chance to read the study I posted? ICI is ineffective because it’s too dangerous and unpredictable. Plenty of people will get COVID going about their daily lives, but counting on enough people to get it to supplement an already robust vaccination program is simply unethical - at best. We don’t even know about the long-term effects of the virus yet, or what differentiates seemingly healthy people who are asymptomatic from healthy people who have a serious reaction.
In concert with the previous study I linked, here’s another good article talking about why ICI is not a good idea, or a good supplement, to vaccines:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/h...-immunity.html
In concert with the previous study I linked, here’s another good article talking about why ICI is not a good idea, or a good supplement, to vaccines:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/h...-immunity.html
The LA Times story I linked to was written 24 Feb 2021; here's a direct link to the JAMA article (also published 24 Feb 21) that the LAT story is written about.
"The science" is changing as more data is gathered and more studies are done.
And AGAIN, we're not talking an either-or scenario. Nobody is claiming previously infected people don't need to be vaccinated. Everything you wrote about ICI being "dangerous and unpredictable" is superfluous because people with ICI *have already survived infection* and the immunity that previous infection confers cuts off potential vectors for disease spread almost as effectively as the vaccines do. Yes, ICI will wane and likely wane faster than vaccination-conferred immunity will...but for the purposes of breaking the pandemic in the US over the next three months as enough vaccine becomes available to vaccinate every adult ICI is going to help us get to "herd immunity" levels of transmission WELL BEFORE 70-85% of the population is vaccinated.
03-03-2021, 11:24 AM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,030
This is the root of it all. I mean 95% of the people just shrug it off as something we got to do, it doesn’t hurt anything it’s a pandemic. The rest bring out the tinfoil hats and graphs about not only that they don’t want to do it, which is fine, but they have to prove that it doesn’t work and they know better than the CDC. Do you know better than the CDC? I don’t. It’s puzzling for sure.
03-03-2021, 11:27 AM
#135
Banned
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: Pilot
Posts: 2,625
This is the root of it all. I mean 95% of the people just shrug it off as something we got to do, it doesn’t hurt anything it’s a pandemic. The rest bring out the tinfoil hats and graphs about not only that they don’t want to do it but they have to prove that it doesn’t work and they know better than the CDC. It’s puzzling for sure.
03-03-2021, 11:31 AM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
[QUOTE=PlaneS;3202220]IiBTW, he is an employee of the federal government, not sure what “industry” you are referring to.
Have you actually looked into Fauci, his employment history, organizations he’s on the board of or an advisor to, the books he’s written, the sources of his income?
From what you write it appears you’re just taking the standard media presentation of things.
In case you didn’t know it there is a whole industry whose purpose is to discover and develop vaccines and methodology for fighting the on-going battle with human viral infections. He isn’t just some humble US Government employee like he worked in a post office and he doesn’t don a lab coat, beside for pictures these days, and quietly work in a facility. He is the face, the political power of the industry he represents.
You really need to read and investigate more.
And, what are you so afraid of?
Have you actually looked into Fauci, his employment history, organizations he’s on the board of or an advisor to, the books he’s written, the sources of his income?
From what you write it appears you’re just taking the standard media presentation of things.
In case you didn’t know it there is a whole industry whose purpose is to discover and develop vaccines and methodology for fighting the on-going battle with human viral infections. He isn’t just some humble US Government employee like he worked in a post office and he doesn’t don a lab coat, beside for pictures these days, and quietly work in a facility. He is the face, the political power of the industry he represents.
You really need to read and investigate more.
And, what are you so afraid of?
03-03-2021, 11:31 AM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: 767
Posts: 137
The Lancet study you linked to was published 12 October 2020; the NYT article you linked to was written on 5 Dec 2020 and updated on 12 Jan 2021.
The LA Times story I linked to was written 24 Feb 2021; here's a direct link to the JAMA article (also published 24 Feb 21) that the LAT story is written about.
"The science" is changing as more data is gathered and more studies are done.
And AGAIN, we're not talking an either-or scenario. Nobody is claiming previously infected people don't need to be vaccinated. Everything you wrote about ICI being "dangerous and unpredictable" is superfluous because people with ICI *have already survived infection* and the immunity that previous infection confers cuts off potential vectors for disease spread almost as effectively as the vaccines do. Yes, ICI will wane and likely wane faster than vaccination-conferred immunity will...but for the purposes of breaking the pandemic in the US over the next three months as enough vaccine becomes available to vaccinate every adult ICI is going to help us get to "herd immunity" levels of transmission WELL BEFORE 70-85% of the population is vaccinated.
The LA Times story I linked to was written 24 Feb 2021; here's a direct link to the JAMA article (also published 24 Feb 21) that the LAT story is written about.
"The science" is changing as more data is gathered and more studies are done.
And AGAIN, we're not talking an either-or scenario. Nobody is claiming previously infected people don't need to be vaccinated. Everything you wrote about ICI being "dangerous and unpredictable" is superfluous because people with ICI *have already survived infection* and the immunity that previous infection confers cuts off potential vectors for disease spread almost as effectively as the vaccines do. Yes, ICI will wane and likely wane faster than vaccination-conferred immunity will...but for the purposes of breaking the pandemic in the US over the next three months as enough vaccine becomes available to vaccinate every adult ICI is going to help us get to "herd immunity" levels of transmission WELL BEFORE 70-85% of the population is vaccinated.
That. Is. It. It, in no way - and unlike the first study I posted, which you were quick to toss aside because it’s from last year
- addresses the use of ICI to stop the spread.It is not superfluous to mention that ICI is dangerous and unpredictable, because it is - if you read the article I posted from the NYT, you would see why I included that.
03-03-2021, 11:36 AM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: 767
Posts: 137
This is the root of it all. I mean 95% of the people just shrug it off as something we got to do, it doesn’t hurt anything it’s a pandemic. The rest bring out the tinfoil hats and graphs about not only that they don’t want to do it, which is fine, but they have to prove that it doesn’t work and they know better than the CDC. Do you know better than the CDC? I don’t. It’s puzzling for sure.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
