That I very much agree with! It really bugged me when that exact point was brought up . But I think the underlying logic was that asymptomatic spread of the virus was low, so therefore it would be only effective for those exposed to sick individuals.That’s pretty inconsistent messaging to me.
‘masks aren’t effective but if you buy them then our health care workers can’t get them.’
He was operating off of information oh hand. At the time of the video you posted common thinning was cloth masks would not help at all. They did not want N95 or surgical masks being horded so did not want people buying them up. Watch the below interview a it shows his sharp change in message as data showed cloth face coverings helped.I guess which people were you following? I was very struck by this statement by the Surgeon General (now since deleted, do you remember this one? It really affected how I was interpreting the mask debate at the time:
"Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!"
"When we learn better, we do better": Surgeon general defends reversal on face mask policy
"Once upon a time we prescribed cigarettes for asthmatics..."www.axios.com
He even double-downed here: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6137596907001#sp=show-clips
Even other non-medical governmental officials had similar statements including Azar:
I would also rewatch the Fauci interview with 60 Minutes that many people like to cite about his comments about mask wearing then. He clearly outlines his concerns about using masks that it isn't just a supply issue:
I'm sure he would love to take back those comments, but he clearly described that the supply was part of the issue and that masks may not be offering the protection that people think they may be getting and contaminating themselves. I think that was a consistent argument being made in addition to the supply issue. They were far more concerned about hospitalized COVID-19 patients transmitting it. Remember, nobody knew the extent of asymptomatic infection at the time, so it was presumed only the sick was transmitting. Therefore, put masks on those who are being exposed, while don't worry about people walking around with COVID-19 and spreading it because this isn't a major route the virus is transmitted. Turns out to be a very wrong assumption.
Agreed. That's exact the point I raised with Eski earlier in this thread, I included the links to data that really gave a mixed picture last March.He was operating off of information oh hand. At the time of the video you posted common thinning was cloth masks would not help at all. They did not want N95 or surgical masks being horded so did not want people buying them up. Watch the below interview a it shows his sharp change in message as data showed cloth face coverings helped.
Around late summer as data started to show masks could help reduce viral load and therefore actually help the person wearing the mask that messaging was pushed out. There has been no issue with Fauci messaging but he can only message based available data.
What Dr. Fauci wants you to know about face masks and staying home as virus spreads
As COVID-19 spreads across the country, there has been some debate over the need for government stay-at-home orders, whether Americans should be wearing mask...www.youtube.com
Ah sorry, missed that.Agreed. That's exact the point I raised with Eski earlier in this thread, I included the links to data that really gave a mixed picture last March.
The funny thing about the cartoon is that it doesn't address the "pilot" experts. Maybe they should have some like:"One pilot thinks the plane will fly better with 4 wings and 1 engine while another thinks it will fly better with 1 wing and 30 engines."I think there's a fundamental difference how to judge experts in different fields. People who claim to be experts in fields, for example, like politics, history, or investments that there is a blurred line between subjective and objective analysis (unless they say outright false statements like the sky is red, not blue). Look at people like Shelby Foote, who many see as the ultimate expert on the Civil War based on his involvement with the Ken Burns series. Many people don't realize is that he's very much a "Lost Causer" as he tends to overplay certain facts while dismissing others. There's a lot of interpretation in these fields that lends itself to offering many different viewpoints that are still grounded on some framework of evidence.
However, when talking about experts in science, mathematics, engineering, these fields are much more objective and concrete in conclusions. If you don't have evidence behind a statement, then your position is unjustified, and trying to extrapolate, correlate, or estimate will be called out as such. If people want to know if the COVID-19 vaccines are effective, the data is available and can be scrutinized by anyone. It would take tremendous amount of manipulation and ethical misconduct to massage the data in order to avoid concluding that the vaccines are ~95% effective. A randomized controlled trial is an incredibly powerful way to understand human health, but analogous testing methodologies aren't available in other fields. So I think that's why its difficult to judge some "experts," but its much easier in a field like infectious diseases and medicine.
Its also why the airline pilot cartoon is perfect. Would anybody trust anyone other than a pilot to land a plane? But then why do people suddenly distrust 100's of infectious disease experts when it comes to COVID-19?
Actually it is more like 'One pilot thinks that the plane will fly better with 4 wings and one engine and the other thinks we should ram it into the ground because flight is impossible and against gods will.' The problem is that we are being told we need to treat both theories equally.The funny thing about the cartoon is that it doesn't address the "pilot" experts. Maybe they should have some like:"One pilot thinks the plane will fly better with 4 wings and 1 engine while another thinks it will fly better with 1 wing and 30 engines."
Thanks for illustrating the anti-intellectualism that this pandemic has further revealed with your post. The New Yorker illustrates your mindset perfectly:
View attachment 38664
Since vaccination centers have been open for well over a month now with many handling thousands of individuals per day, can you share with us the hundreds of outbreaks that have occurred at these vaccination sites? What prominent scientific leaders, say Anthony Fauci, has advocated that the virus is "not more dangerous" than the flu?
when someone says "the sun is on the wrong damn side of the plane" you should absolutely check that.Old thread, but only recently heard about this particular case, and it strikes me as a weirdly direct counterpoint to that cartoon.
Varig Flight 254 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Where the pilots misunderstood the heading directions in their flight plan, and flew west instead of north, ending up running out of fuel over the depths of the Amazon and crashing into the jungle (some passengers were killed, the remainder trekked to safety through the jungle).
Significantly, by some accounts, some of the passengers had noticed the plane was flying the wrong way, because the sun was on the wrong side of the aircraft, but when one of them pointed this out, the cabin crew decided that the flight crew were the 'experts' and must know what they are doing, and so didn't question them about it.
These things bother me, because I spent so many decades having my suggestion about the cause of my health problems - and that it was probably something rare that doctors collectively didn't know about - dismissed out-of-hand again-and-again by the medical 'experts', only for it to eventually turn out I had been right all along.
You can never _entirely_ trust 'experts' of any kind. They all suffer from a tendency to overestimate their own expertise, and to neglect the 'unknown unknowns', and (being human beings) are usually influenced, consciously or not, by their perception of what is in their own self-interests.
Experts are wrong (often!) Cause they're human but the way to show that is to provide evidence or data: in your anecdote that is highlighted perfectly by the passengers saying "hey dipshit if we're going the right direction the sun should be over there!"
Thats a solid, immediately verifiable claim. The flight crew should've known better.
For vaccines, 99% of the claims are spurious bullshit. Calling this "the experts don't always know" is not at all the same thing.
This is very true - when I had cancer I went to one doctor for several months, knowing something was wrong with me, only to have them tell me it was just allergies or something. Then again, when I went to a second doctor he eyeball diagnosed me in about 3 minutes.Old thread, but only recently heard about this particular case, and it strikes me as a weirdly direct counterpoint to that cartoon.
Varig Flight 254 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Where the pilots misunderstood the heading directions in their flight plan, and flew west instead of north, ending up running out of fuel over the depths of the Amazon and crashing into the jungle (some passengers were killed, the remainder trekked to safety through the jungle).
Significantly, by some accounts, some of the passengers had noticed the plane was flying the wrong way, because the sun was on the wrong side of the aircraft, but when one of them pointed this out, the cabin crew decided that the flight crew were the 'experts' and must know what they are doing, and so didn't question them about it.
These things bother me, because I spent so many decades having my suggestion about the cause of my health problems - and that it was probably something rare that doctors collectively didn't know about - dismissed out-of-hand again-and-again by the medical 'experts', only for it to eventually turn out I had been right all along.
You can never _entirely_ trust 'experts' of any kind. They all suffer from a tendency to overestimate their own expertise, and to neglect the 'unknown unknowns', and (being human beings) are usually influenced, consciously or not, by their perception of what is in their own self-interests.