Fauci To Step Down in December After Decades of Public Service (npr.org) 304
Dr. Anthony Fauci, who played a critical role in steering humanity through the two pandemics of our time, AIDS and COVID-19, announced Monday he is stepping down from his role in the federal government. From a report: As of December, he will leave the position he's held for 38 years as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as well as his job as chief of the NIAID Laboratory of Immunoregulation, and his role as Chief Medical Advisor to President Joe Biden. The straight-talking scientist and physician was the government's top infectious disease doctor for decades, and one of the few scientists that many Americans knew by name.
Fauci, 81, served under seven U.S. presidents and helped lead the country through numerous health crises. He was instrumental in combatting the AIDS epidemic, starting as the youthful director of NIAID in the early 1980s. He also took center stage in a politically fraught response to the nation's COVID-19 pandemic, and he was both praised and assailed for his tell-it-like-it-is philosophy. Department of Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra, who took leadership of the agency a year into the COVID pandemic, said he relied on Fauci's counsel and praised him for "his ability to break down complex science in simple terms to the American people to save lives." In a statement, President Biden lauded and thanked Fauci for his service to the American people and public health. He said: Because of Dr. Fauci's many contributions to public health, lives here in the United States and around the world have been saved. As he leaves his position in the US Government, I know the American people and the entire world will continue to benefit from Dr. Fauci's expertise in whatever he does next. Whether you've met him personally or not, he has touched all Americans' lives with his work. I extend my deepest thanks for his public service. The United States of America is stronger, more resilient, and healthier because of him.
Fauci, 81, served under seven U.S. presidents and helped lead the country through numerous health crises. He was instrumental in combatting the AIDS epidemic, starting as the youthful director of NIAID in the early 1980s. He also took center stage in a politically fraught response to the nation's COVID-19 pandemic, and he was both praised and assailed for his tell-it-like-it-is philosophy. Department of Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra, who took leadership of the agency a year into the COVID pandemic, said he relied on Fauci's counsel and praised him for "his ability to break down complex science in simple terms to the American people to save lives." In a statement, President Biden lauded and thanked Fauci for his service to the American people and public health. He said: Because of Dr. Fauci's many contributions to public health, lives here in the United States and around the world have been saved. As he leaves his position in the US Government, I know the American people and the entire world will continue to benefit from Dr. Fauci's expertise in whatever he does next. Whether you've met him personally or not, he has touched all Americans' lives with his work. I extend my deepest thanks for his public service. The United States of America is stronger, more resilient, and healthier because of him.
Fauci deserved better than Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
The extremism of the Trump cult has required that any adherent must consider someone like Fauci the ultimate evil and that any appreciation for what he accomplished is "pathetic propaganda." Facts don't matter and there is no such thing as objectivity. That is the Trump cult way.
He absolutely cannot be a federal level bureaucrat who has worked diligently in his field for a half century, saving many people and most probably having made some mistakes in all that time. What irks me most is not that the right wing noise machine works to silence any praise or recognition from me or anyone else, but that they basically make any fair-minded critique of Fauci or objections to any decisions he might have made impossible. Anything negative or even non positive will be seized upon, taken out of context if necessary, and trumpeted as proof of the Trump world vision.
I'm really sick of it. Fauci did a good job overall under conditions less than ideal. He earned his pension many times over.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
St. Fauci bungled the Covid response repeatedly and eroded public trust in government health efforts in the process. I don't care what else he did, just about anyone else in the same position could have done the same given the same circumstances and funding. He lied to us, and the consequences will be with us for years to come.
Good riddance!
Re: (Score:2)
Despite being a "Bernie Bro" I'm guessing you also voted for Trump or at least support him. The CDC can only do so much without the rest of the government administration on board, and when Trump admin started hoarding PPE away from medical professionals and suggesting people inject bleach, there's only so much that can be done.
The people that whined about being told to not wear masks earlier (what they like) and then told to wear masks later (what they didn't like) would find some other reason to complain
Re: (Score:2)
Particularly amazing as the pandemic could have been the world handing Trump a "Rally 'round the flag" boost on a platter, if they had just played it right. The exact same situation could have played out with Trump held blameless if he hadn't been.. well Trump.
Instead he rubbed so many the wrong way, gave an impression of failing to take it seriously and plan around it, diminishing the influence of anyone with expertise, and as a consequence it soured opinion and the faithful Trump followers needed to blam
Re: (Score:2)
Just laying out facts as they happened.
Ahh. SuperKendall here to praise anything Trump did while ignoring everything Trump did to make the pandemic worse. Cherry picking facts has always been your modus operandi.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Never would have been (Score:5, Informative)
> Trump helped produced the vaccine in record time
> by easing regulations and acceptance, and
> providinging massive guaranteed orders.
And then he engaged in his usual sort of shenanigans by trying to restrict California... a state of 39 million people... to only 327,000 doses (That's *doses*, not vaccinations. So really he wanted to hold us to 163,500 worth.) of the vaccine because we had the intolerable audacity to not worship at his feet and vote for him (twice). This caused Newsom to have to beg, borrow, and plead for enough doses for the state... with such a paucity of success that many of us were literally MONTHS late getting vaccinated. I, for example, couldn't even get my first shot scheduled until goddamned APRIL. So spare me the blather about his "heroic efforts" or whatnot in "expediting" the vaccine. The existence of a vaccine means nothing when it's made unavailable. And he was cheerfully willing to let tens of millions of us here suffer and die.
Re: (Score:3)
There weren't enough vaccines for everyone. The only way you could get a vaccine in those early days was to be in a special group. If you wanted a vaccine before April, you would have to visit a place with anti-vaxers (like Fresno).
Re:Never would have been (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump helped produced the vaccine in record time by easing regulations and acceptance, and providinging massive guaranteed orders.
That's a pretty low bar - fast tracking a vaccine and placing orders are what I'd expect that from any administration during a pandemic. I don't think any regulations were "eased", just more resources into getting a fast approval.
We also saw the Trump admin hoarding PPE from medical professionals when they needed it most, saying the virus was a hoax, and promoting crackpot remedies, all of which hindered the country
Re: (Score:2)
Which vaccine is this that Trump produced in record time? Would that be Pfizer and Moderna which took not one cent of federal money to produce their vaccines and which where approved at basically the same time (few days apart) in other countries too?
So no you are not laying out facts as they happened you are making shit up to suit your narrative
It's not just Trump (Score:3)
It's similar to how Christian extremists have to treat the story of the great flood in the Bible as literal even though it's a painfully obvious that it's a myth even in the context of the Bible. It's about maintaining authority and control. Once the institution or an organization
Re: (Score:2)
It is cute that you pretend the Republicans aren't sharing the bed with Democrats when it comes to the Oil Orgies.
Remember kids (Score:4, Funny)
Authoritarian Science Fails (Score:4, Interesting)
Ultimately, Fauci for me represents the face of what I call authoritarian science, which is an oxymoron doomed to failure. Some of what he said was right, some of what he said was wrong. This is inevitable given a rapidly emerging threat like a pandemic and I don't fault him for occasionally being wrong or changing his views. What I fault him for is trying to ignore being wrong sometimes is inevitable and pressing a "I speak for science" authoritarian mandate approach, rather that taking the "this is what I believe, this is what we recommend, and here's why" approach.
Ultimately, I think people will rebel when they are asked to make sacrifices they don't understand and agree with and this rebellion is worse than giving them the choice and accepting many won't comply right away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Minor quibble: No one speaking with the authority of completed research should use the word "believe" in any of their discussion about the research. Belief is the acceptance for truth those things for which you have no evidence and when you equate belief with evidence-based prescription, you bring the value of the completed science down to that of religion, superstition, and conspiracy theory. The same goes for "I feel like..."
Instead, we should use "I think ..." or "the evidence points toward..." or "All t
Re:Authoritarian Science Fails (Score:5, Informative)
And chances are, he was also trying to mitigate the shortage of N95 masks that happened as well. He wanted those masks to go to medical staff who have to deal with the virus - because you don't want them getting sick and reducing your capacity to treat.
People complained - those who used N95 masks on the job had trouble getting them as well - and they were being hoarded like people were hoarding toilet paper.
It's one of those really tough calls to make - you want people to use proper masks, but you also don't want them to snap up all the supply for the essential workers who need it the most.
Re: (Score:3)
He doesn't? He has [wikipedia.org].
I hope your list of criticizing people he should have taken more seriously includes more than just Rand Paul.
A more accurate headline would read... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Fauci To Step Down in December After Decades of Corporate Service
Re: (Score:3)
Ha! What other shining paragons of ethics in government are you ready to embarrass yourself with such pathetic attempts at defense?
...one of the few scientists... (Score:3)
Bureaucrat who amassed power for decades, retires. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is the guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, a man who did his job in such an apolitical way for decades gets clobbered by a strangely heavily politicized pandemic scenario.
Besides, his musings on the origins are a moot point, his concern was what was happening right then, and the specifics of the origin hardly mattered for the job that was before him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is the guy... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know why people were so confused by all of that. There literally weren't enough masks for healthcare works at the time let alone for the population at large. It was simply triage. The most important people to keep safe during a pandemic are your healthcare/frontline workers. Up next are the elderly and very young, then more and more of the regular population. As mask capacity increased, surprise! Now we recommend everyone get it now that there are enough for everyone to have one.
So many people purposely get confused by all of this stuff as a way to somehow discredit the CDC which can't operate in simple black and white, yes or no situations.
There is definitely a crowd where nuance is lost in this country.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If he had not LIED about this and told the truth as to why masks were needed more by healthcare folks, ok...instead he LIED and said not necessary.
This stuck with folks as they heard this first and often felt they didn't need one.
He lied first that no mask were needed, then later lied that N95 weren't needed and that paper and cloth were just
Re:This is the guy... (Score:4, Insightful)
A lie works in the short term to get what you want, and sometimes its so important that it makes sense for an agency to lie, but lost trust can take decades to repair, so the lie better be damn important. This wasn't important enough.
CDC also for a while had a very misleading study on their site claiming that vaccines were more effetive than herd immunity. This study had terrible data bias issues, and disagreed with a more carefully done Israeli study. It was another lie to get people to get vaccines.
I (and many others) now assume that the CDC says whatever they think will get the correct reaction from the public, but have no compunctions about lying.
Re:This is the guy... (Score:4, Informative)
What the CDC said and what the Office of the President said were two different things which lead up to more confusion that ultimately lead to the issues you speak of.
First lets get some basics out the way:
1: Wearing a mask doesn't protect YOU.. it protects OTHERS against germs/pathogens/viruses that YOU have. (its why your doctor, dentist, surgeon, etc.. all wear masks when doing anything invasive (or semi-invasive).. They are not worried about YOUR germs, they are worried about them complicating the reason you are there in the first place.
2: Yes, the CDC did recommend SOME closures and isolation.. but if people DID what they are supposed to do, that closure would have been brief.. the same with vaccinations.. to complain about this is a little like a diabetic going to the doctor to complain about the only medication they can take for their condition, saying its useless and harping about the side effects, ignoring the fact that they are CONTINUING to eating constant junk food, sugar, candy, etc.. (exacerbating and prolonging the condition, which prolongs the medicine, which prolongs the suffering).. So while many other countries that did the same opened up internally quickly (not for international travel but businesses, etc...) the US (and those that followed the idiocy in the US) kept shooting itself in the foot which kept the problem going..
3: (related to #2), Vaccinations don't PREVENT disease.. they help quicker recovery time, and provide some protection against a disease (namely your body's ability to fight it (think military aid to Ukraine.. ultimately Ukraine must fight the enemy.. but aid helps.. and provided it done timely and in sufficient quantity, it can turn the tide.. done poorly and/or lacking in quantity needed.. it just prolongs the inevitable)
4: COVID, because of its zoological nature (zoological or cross species viruses tend to mutate more frequently and are more adaptable to environments because of the fact that they jump from species to species), is a relatively fast mutating virus and as such, the longer it sits in a population, the quicker infection rates become and the more virulent it can become.
5: Science is not a "do this one thing to cure all your ails" No such thing.. and anyone claiming such is at best misinformed, and at worst a liar. So the CDC (just like every other organization on the planet) has been researching this and reporting their findings as they go along.. Taking what many of us in IT SHOULD understand, which is incremental updates to show there is action going on.. (yes, ultimately you only care about the end result, but the boss wants to see "movement".. and in this context, the boss is the general public).. Now unfortunately just like in that same example, imagine if you had two services companies dealing with this issue at the same time.. The problem is neither companies fault, but they are racing to fix/address the issue.. one vendor is focused on providing updates and getting the problem fixed.. the other is intent on finding blame.. While blame is soothing (to some).. it doesn't FIX the problem... it just prolongs the effects.
The biggest "mistake" the CDC had was it depended on others to take their reporting/findings and work procedures/plans to deal with this... They are a data outlet.. their charter was never to come up with an action plan, but rather to do the research and draw conclusions from that research so they can inform those that DO come up with the action plan. But that went to an administration that was more intent on finding blame and/or using it as a tool to persecute others and turn it into a political touch.... Now of course when the dust settles, everyone is pointing fingers to the CDC saying "they screwed up".. well.. not really they didn't exceed their charter, they did their jobs, but people got in their heads that the CDC gave out an action plan when in fact, they provided some basic guidelines and the findings to support those guidelines (as what they are supposed to do)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry dstwins but you need to look some definitions and some information.
1:COVID was an airborne virus. The only masks that offered any protection were N95 KN95 or higher rating. The virus could slip through surgical, cloth, and other masks. Again unless the infected person was wearing an N95, KN95 or higher rating they may as well not wear anything at all. If non infected people wear wearing anything less than an N95 of KN95 they were useless. It would be like putting plastic wrap over your eyes t
Re:This is the guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically they lied with the 'Three Weeks To Flatten The Curve!'
It might have worked had half the country not actively worked against it.
Re: (Score:2)
We did flatten the curve, but then it became apparent that the virus was still spreading
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that with all the attention paid to that lab and the theories of whatever the fuck, absolutely zero actionable anything resulted. So I guess it's pretty easy to see how a guy focused on limiting the damage of a rapidly spreading pandemic would be dismissive of a conspiracy theory about the source, which has absolutely no bearing on treatment or limiting the spread.
TL;DR: it doesn't matter which direction the buffalo stampede came from, if it's stomping your town to shit. Fauci was (rightfully)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Asshole (Score:5, Insightful)
So youâ(TM)d rather an ideologue who never changed message even when presented with new data? No wonder the US is fucked.
Re: Asshole (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Asshole (Score:5, Insightful)
The "message" to the public when wanting to buy masks was STOP buying masks. NOT because it wasn't a sound medical recommendation to protect others, but because Fauci knew that hospitals were not stocked anywhere near the levels they needed. The public, immediately became cannon fodder. That is NOT the actions if someone who cares about "the data". He cared far more about presenting the approved Government message every time, regardless of harm.
Let me see if I understand you. Fauci asked the public to stop buying the masks that medical professionals need because they need them to treat the pandemic as well as general hygiene. Your conclusion is that he does not "care about the 'data'". That is your conclusion?/p>
Re: (Score:3)
No. The logical conclusion and ultimate finding will be more along the lines of corrupt city and government leaders displacing a decade or two worth of funds meant for building and managing emergency (pandemic) stockpiles for all levels in favor of lining pockets, as the organizations in charge of managing pandemics run their own internal investigations to find they're about as competent and efficient as the results proved they were.
But hey! How about a refreshing ice cream?...says the rest who want to b
Re: Asshole (Score:5, Insightful)
The "message" to the public when wanting to buy masks was STOP buying masks. NOT because it wasn't a sound medical recommendation to protect others, but because Fauci knew that hospitals were not stocked anywhere near the levels they needed.
Considering what happened to the toilet paper shelves in stores, he was 100% correct.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
8-Mar-20 People should not be walking around with masks." https://content.jwplatform.com... [jwplatform.com]
There's no reason to be walking around with a mask.
7-Apr-20 1 Mask
25-Jan-21 “If you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
8-Jul-21 "If you are vaccinated you have a very high degree of protection and do not need to wear a mask."
27-Jul-21 "If you are vaccinated in an indoo
Re: (Score:2)
8-Mar-20 People should not be walking around with masks." https://content.jwplatform.com... [jwplatform.com]
There's no reason to be walking around with a mask.
7-Apr-20 1 Mask
It was a new disease, that scientists were learning as we go is to be expected.
Now, he does deserve criticism for discouraging mask usage because he wanted to conserve them for healthcare workers without being clear about that. But that's not really the argument you're making.
25-Jan-21 “If you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
8-Jul-21 "If you are vaccinated you have a very high degree of protection and do not need to wear a mask."
27-Jul-21 "If you are vaccinated in an indoor setting you should still wear a mask."
10-Jan-22 "No cloth masks."
Remember COVID also evolved over the pandemic, changing the effectiveness of both vaccines and masks.
Retroactively you can always do better, and as I said he did try to spin the messaging at times which I think was a huge mistake, but
Re: (Score:2)
They of course realized it, but the question is how much that mattered.
The likelihood of viable droplets arriving in another person's respiratory system, how much viral load is associated with a certain level of disease, mitigating the spread through exhalation (which tends to go everywhere around the mask) versus mitigating risk in inhalation (which tends to have to go through the more desired path).
Further, the practicality. At some point the most confident solution was too scarce, so you make recommenda
Re: (Score:2)
versus mitigating risk in inhalation (which tends to have to go through the more desired path).
How does the INCOMING air know to not take the path of least resistance (sides)?
so you make recommendations being mindful of what is available to mitigate best you can.
The problem with a half-assed solution is that people with cloth masks now think, 'Ah-ha! I have a mask, I'll get close to people again because I am protected!" It was frightening how often I saw people wear masks, and then stand right next to each other, thus negating the masks entirely (since your breath is still going out the sides). Even worse, people HAD to get closer in some cases so that they could hear each other thro
Re: (Score:3)
How does the INCOMING air know to not take the path of least resistance (sides)?
At least my masks tended to close up due to the pressure differential. Sure, some air gets in around the sides until you take a breath in, but the breathing in creates a low pressure area that will at some point tend to close up the gaps. Versus exhalation where the pressure will tend to open up gaps.
Though probably the most concrete benefit is when a sneeze or cough is mitigated through a mask on the way out.
I don't think masks emboldened people to get closer, I think those people would mostly have been c
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think masks emboldened people to get closer
I saw it first-hand all the time at work. Just because you don't think it happened doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is do you believe those same people would have stayed away from each other if not for the availability and recommendation of masks? At least in my personal experience there were the people who took it seriously (reduced outings, wore a mask if they had to go out but remained wary of others) and the people who didn't take it seriously, that might have also worn masks because they were required to, but generally didn't shift their habits at all beyond the bare minimum required of them. I can't th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they would have chosen between the extremes of 'Stay at home' or 'Stand two feet away with a mask'. I think it gave them a feeling of, "Hey, I needed to stay six feet away before, but now with a mask I can chit-chat for half-an hour two feet away from someone." My favorite that I saw in line all the time was,
Clerk: "What? I can't hear you through your mask."
Customer: (pulls down mask and starts talking, but LEANS IN CLOSER WHILE DOING SO)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between the flow of air, and the ballistic trajectory of water droplets that are carrying viral particles.
Also: multi-layer cloth is better than the jack shit most people had at the time. Remember when you couldn't buy face masks at all of any variety or spec because shitbirds bought up every last mask in an attempt to profiteer? Don't let perfect be the enemy of better-than-nothing, etc. It's real easy to look back TWO YEARS and wag your finger, but you probably also know that the
Re: (Score:2)
It's real easy to look back TWO YEARS and wag your finger,
For fuck's sake, I realized how useless masks were two years ago. This isn't something I just thought of five minutes before posting.
multi-layer cloth is better than the jack shit most people had at the time.
Barely. And it was more than offset by people standing closer to each other, both because they thought the masks were a magic shield, and you couldn't actually hear each other through the masks if you were more than two feet apart. I was fine at my (noisy) factory not wearing a mask because then I could be heard from a distance. Once they forced masks on us, everybody had
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you realized how useless the single-layer cloth masks were and used a proper medical grade one, right?
Ha just kidding, I'm guessing you went the lazy route and just didn't wear one
Re: (Score:2)
They gave us medical grade masks at work. Glasses still fogged up. They aren't any more sealed on the sides than the cloth masks.
Ha just kidding, I'm guessing you went the lazy route and just didn't wear one
I only wore a mask when absolutely required to at work (and ignored the in-store mandates most of the time), and after 2-1/2 years of going to work, stores, etc., guess what? No COVID. Why? I knew basic precautions to take like limiting how close I got to other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you rather someone cough in your face with a cloth over it or nothing at all?
Covid Logic means that anything less than 100% effective is not effective at all, and I don't understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
Covid Logic means that anything less than 100% effective is not effective at all, and I don't understand it.
How about WAAAAAAAY less than 100%? I don't mind people wearing a mask, and there are probably situations where I might wear a mask. I just think the forcing everybody to wear one all the time no matter what is stupid for something that is about 10% effective, and cause
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Walk around and record for the next year how often someone 'Coughs in your face'
The thing is that coughs travels several meters so that "cough in the face" could be done by some one so far away that you didn't even notice. With masks, and even cloth masks, that distance is shortened substantially.
Re:Asshole (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Asshole (Score:5, Informative)
And clearly the evidence you completely ignore or try to manipulate says otherwise [cdc.gov].
Since we know facts are anathema to you and host of others and you won't bother to read the article, here is what the study says.
For those people who reported wearing masks, your chances of testing positive for covid were 56% lower if wearing a cloth mask than those who didn't wear a mask.
If you wore a surgical mask, the kind which fit more snugly abou the face, your chances of testing positive were 66% lower.
For those who wore the N95/KN95 masks, the chances of testing positive were 86% lower.
All of the above was for an indoor setting, where there were other people in close proximity.
But yeah, lowering your odds of contracting covid by over half clearly would have no effect on saving lives. None whatsoever.
Would you like to whine some more?
Re: (Score:2)
Since we know facts are anathema to you and host of others and you won't bother to read the article, here is what the study says.
For those people who reported wearing masks, your chances of testing positive for covid were 56% lower if wearing a cloth mask than those who didn't wear a mask.
If you wore a surgical mask, the kind which fit more snugly abou the face, your chances of testing positive were 66% lower.
For those who wore the N95/KN95 masks, the chances of testing positive were 86% lower.
Awwe how cute I love the infographic complete with the "not statistically significant" asterisk. If they had penciled in error bars it would span the whole range from efficacious to harmful for the cloth masks. They don't even try to account for obvious confounding variables within their power to attempt to control such as those wearing masks also taking other precautions such as social distancing, avoiding people.
"The findings in this report are subject to at least eight limitations. First, this study d
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like Florida's has more deaths even in the age-adjusted graph
Re: (Score:2)
There is barely any overall difference.
Re:Asshole (Score:5, Informative)
Your argument is silly and you should probably feel bad for trying to make it.
Viral infection is not zero sum, the more virus you are exposed to the more likely you are to get infected.
If to use your number a particular mask was only 10% effective and there were 100 million people infected which is about where we ended up at least, then it likely prevented infection of over 10 million people. Of those how many would have died or experienced long term symptoms?
Now lets modify the ridiculous assertion of 10% with 20/20 hindsight demonstrating a single cloth was 30% and triple layered and properly fit masks going as high as 60% with KN95 masks again properly fitted going even higher. Basically anything you put in front of your face, even the inside of your elbow is better than just blasting everything within 80 feet with your viral load.
Let's also remember that the virus in the beginning wasn't anywhere near as contagious as it is now so any mask then reducing any amount of viral exposure was a good thing. The reason masks are less effective now is because you're blasting out so much more virus than the original strains which is why the first tests had to go all the way in your nose versus the new tests which just have you swab your nostrils.
Re: (Score:2)
There are way to many confounders to compare California vs Florida and then try to come up with any conclusion regarding the efficacy of wearing masks. Which you know since you listed two such confounders in your post. Better is to look at the same state before a mask mandate, after it was lifted and then after it was reimposed again, and when you do that you see lower infection rates during the periods of the mask mandate vs periods of no mask mandate in the same region.
Even better is to look at the rates
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He changed his entire message every 2-8 weeks and then blamed misinformation when everything he said originally and eventually even was wrong. Exact representation of our government.
Huh? Your government never changes message, no matter how much new data is presented.
It's not what governments (or politicians) do.
Re:Asshole (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost like when you're trying to deal with a rapidly spreading and deadly novel virus, you might not instantly know everything you need to know from day one.
Also see: literally every other virus pandemic in the history of biological life.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone help anyone else? (Score:4, Insightful)
And why are you feeding the trolls and propagating the trash Subject?
The sad thing is that there should be a place for people who are more focused on helping people than they are focused on enriching themselves or on acquiring more political power. Too bad Dr Fauci is the first kind of person but he got in the way of the other kinds.
There's a moral here, but it seems to be a sad one.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a moral here, but it seems to be a sad one.
No good deed goes unpunished?
Re: (Score:2)
However if you simply keep scrolling you can read the entire article that the record keepers at congress did a terrible job in converting to a PDF.
I kept scrolling and I could not find what you are alluding to. Perhaps you would like to specify your claims with detail.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't read a PDF or use Google can't help ya bud. Not like it's not been in the news a million times.
So the answer is, no, you are not willing to specify any details of your accusations, Got it.
I guess your username is more descriptive than I thought.
So your response is an ad hominem attack instead of facts. Got it.
You can have the last response, hope you can find what you are looking for but I'm not Jeeves.
Rather than clarifying what you mean, your response is to shift the burden that I must parse out what is in your head. Got it.
Re:Clickbait (Score:5)
As you probably already know, it's just crap that was entered into the congressional record. You linked to that instead of the actual article in a pitiful attempt to give it more credibility than it deserves.
Oh, and it doesn't even support the claim that you made. This is pretty pathetic, even for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty hard to find evidence that any of that caused anything [washingtonpost.com], particularly since Ebright can't even link the research that he's misinterpreted to any genetic sequence in SARS-CoV-2.
Re: (Score:3)
Even now, it’s not clear whether the research funded by EcoHealth in China amounted to gain of function.
SuperKendall is lying. I'm shocked.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the key section that I would use as a basis for saying that SuperKendall is lying. It could be hard to "cause" the p
Re: (Score:2)
A conspiracy nutter, eh? I had zero respect for you before, but, somehow, I think even less of you now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ha yeah that's one of the funny ones!
I've seen people that think Fauci did everything from personally fund and manufacture COVID, to murder puppies. It's amazing how dumb some people are what ridiculous crap they'll believe.
At least the morons that complain he changed his advice when new research came out have some reason to be confused, but for a guy that was just trying to help stop a pandemic he sure got demonized because he didn't suggest people inject bleach
Re: (Score:3)
At least the morons that complain he changed his advice when new research came out have some reason to be confused,
This feels like standard politics. Everyone in politics is supposed to come up with an opinion and never waver no matter what happens, otherwise it's a flip-flopper. Most normal people just roll their eyes at these complaints. The snag is when this politics oriented viewpoint comes into contact with science. Science is inherently the bad guy in politics because it does change its mind, it looks at data rather than gut feelings, it tries to keep emotions at arms length (except in psychology).
So Fauci had
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yep. Good riddance. Fuck that lying, sack-of-shit motherfucker, and the pangolin he road in on.
I see you overdosed on horse dewormer again, or did you take a swig from the bleach bottle?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, we just ignore you, as usual.
Re: (Score:3)
and there's too much to say about this pathetic propaganda article and what lies behind it, so I just won't bother and I'll let the usual Slashdot psychos downvote me to oblivion. Enjoy.
Yeah, it's terrible that one of the top medical professionals on the planet is making $350k.
It's much better for that salary to be made by a mid-tier professional athlete (ie, not major leagues), a successful lawyer, or a Costco store manager [sfgate.com].
I understand that we don't want people going into government to chase money, but I find it weird how some people resent any government official making more than a normal middle class salary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that why it was rejected in the 1960s as a possible chemotherapy treatment because it was too toxic?
Re:All the thousands of people... (Score:4, Informative)
You really don't understand anything about medicine, do you? AZT was investigated in the 1960s as a chemotherapy candidate. The 1960s. You know, decades before AIDS was discovered. It was effective, but was way too toxic to be considered for actual use. It was then discovered later that it killed the AIDS virus in vitro. So out of desperation (and because it would make a crapton of money) it was rubber stamped as an AIDS treatment byt he FDA despite the fact that the testing had to be cut short since everyone taking it kept dying.
Just like you seem to be completely unaware of the anti-viral effects of antiparasitic medicines.
https://journals.asm.org/doi/1... [asm.org]
https://virologyj.biomedcentra... [biomedcentral.com]
Perhaps you shouldn't talk so sneeringly about what people do or do not know about drugs and their uses, mmmkay?
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to the recent covid outbreak, we were dealing with a new disease that seemed to spread easily and kill effectively. Ten years of slow, methodical drug development wasn't a viable plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you are still on about chloroquine. I though all the MAGA types had moved on to ivermectin. In any case you should not quit your day job.
Re:huh ... why not the universe? (Score:5, Informative)
While the government's response was basically shit, it doesn't help to have that response's hands tied by an administration that absolutely refused to admit there was a problem to begin with.
Remember how it was all going to magically disappear by Easter 2020, according to a particular head of state? Or any of the other horseshit claims that were counter to any logical advice or policy the government could have tried, which were blindly followed by the disciples and cultists of the previously mentioned ex-head of state?
What possible government policy do you think could have been enacted that would have resulted in better success, when you have ~30% of the population actively saying "no" because reasons? This thing was going to be fucked no matter who was trying to quarterback it, even if it was Jesus Christ himself.
Re: (Score:2)
indeed. i hinted at that already in my post. my intention wasn't really to smear fauci, just to mock the author's delirium of grandeur :-)
while we're at it, did you rtfa? did fauci find the cure to cancer in the end?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's pretty much it.