Why some people still don't want to wear mask?

[Flying Crane]

It seems like Facui is changing things but he really isn't. He's basing his responses on the actions that people take. If people do A, then the outcome is A. If people do B, then the outcome is B. If the people don't do A, then we are looking at possible outcomes of B,C,D, E,F. People think he keeps changing, but he's clearing working the. "what if scenarios" and the likely outcomes. He can't give a stable answer because that all depends on the action of the people.

I surprised that so many people miss that. He's always saying stuff like "if we continue to do A then we can expect outcome A. But, If we don't do that then we can expect outcome B." He's been correct on all of the scenarios that would cause an increase. Much of which is playing out in the U.S. now.

I also think that he would have been much clearer if he didn't have to dance around the politics and trying not to appear to be "going against" government leadership. I would rather that he tell it like it is. If it's terrible news, then it's just terrible news. Sometimes life is like that.

Yeah, it really is not that difficult to understand the information that Faucci is giving, and how this is playing out. Not rocket science by a long shot. I am shocked that people can’t seem to follow along.

The one misstep I will recognize was in the beginning when he and the others all said that people shouldn’t wear masks, that it won’t help, when in fact it would have helped, but they said that to try and preserve the limited supply for health professionals. They should have been up front about that, and it has harmed credibility because some people continue to cite that as an example of him simply “changing his mind”. Yes, that was a misstep. But that is the only one I will concede, but I also acknowledge the reasoning for it. Everything else was as you describe above, or based on a changing understanding of how the virus behaves. It is most definitely not just willy-nilly.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Therefore the binary argument even though it supports the argument that 2+2=4 is largely irrelevant.

Finally. And it's not irrelevant. It's a FACT. 2+2=4. If you are doing measurements of any type, then the logic 2+2=10 is going cause you a lot problems. In a lot of areas. That's why I told you FACTS matter. You can believe 2+2=10 all day long. You can't get the entire world to believe it and the the only thing they will be is Wrong.

The whole world can believe in the Flat Earth Model all they want, but when they start calculating other things then what they will discover is just a lot of wrong and impossibilities. Facts Matter.

No matter what type of math that you do. 2+2=4. Such simple things are the foundation of advance mathematics. If 2+2 doesn't = 4 then there's a lot of advanced math and calculations that are going to be screwed.

 

[Bruce7]

People do "use calculus" but I'm pretty sure they let the calculators do the heavy lifting. Where are we going with this?

When I work for Schlumberger and Baker the Engineers and Scientist used computers to do the heavy lifting , programing a computer to do very compicated work
requires the engineer to understand calculus. You have to have a true understanding of calculas as normal calculas formulas can not be programinto a computer.
Most programers now days don't know FORTRAN. You could do it in C but I think it would be harder.

 

[Steve]

There Are Two Kinds of People in the world - Greeks, and Everyone Else Who Wish They Was Greek.

 

[Bruce7]

Yeah, it really is not that difficult to understand the information that Faucci is giving, and how this is playing out. Not rocket science by a long shot. I am shocked that people can’t seem to follow along.

The one misstep I will recognize was in the beginning when he and the others all said that people shouldn’t wear masks, that it won’t help, when in fact it would have helped, but they said that to try and preserve the limited supply for health professionals. They should have been up front about that, and it has harmed credibility because some people continue to cite that as an example of him simply “changing his mind”. Yes, that was a misstep. But that is the only one I will concede, but I also acknowledge the reasoning for it. Everything else was as you describe above, or based on a changing understanding of how the virus behaves. It is most definitely not just willy-nilly.

IMO, He gives the best information he knows at that moment. Plus he tries not to be politcal. For example, he will not say the president is wrong, but will say don't put disifectant in your body. He has to walk a fine line.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The one misstep I will recognize was in the beginning when he and the others all said that people shouldn’t wear masks, that it won’t help, when in fact it would have helped, but they said that to try and preserve the limited supply for health professionals.

I don't think this is a misstep or a mistake. They knew in advance that they were short masks. That statement was said to keep people from rushing to the store and buying up masks. In other words it was a lie that was said to reduce the demand. But history has always shown that when government says "Don't worry about it" then you probably should be worried about it. "if they say mask won't help" then it probably will. That's the initial lie that is told to keep people from panicking. The U.S. government has always been known for that initial lie before the truth comes out.

They did the same thing with the drinking water in Flint Michigan. They always hope the lie will buy them time because they are not prepared.

I didn't buy it because, I watch the news and the one thing that I saw in every country was that they were wearing masks. Sort of like. "If everyone else is getting a mask then why don't I need one?" Then you see nurses wear masks. If masks don't protect then why did the nurses and doctors need one? This was played out in every country. When stuff like that doesn't add up, I do the opposite. Just like when they said there's enough food for everyone, then there wasn't. My family didn't suffer because we stocked up. We are stocked up for the fall and winter now. Not only with food but with other essentials, in the event that fall and winter will turn into a nightmare.

They were already extremely concerned that the outbreak was on the horizon. This is a video in January 2020

This is a report that they came out with in September 2019.
A WORLD AT RISK
Annual report on global preparednessfor health emergenciesGlobal Preparedness Monitoring Board
https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual_report/GPMB_annualreport_2019.pdf


When you look at all of the past stuff, there's no way that a person who studies viruses would think that a mask wouldn't help. Now the age thing, they botched big time. They didn't think that through at all. Tell half of the population that they will have mild symptoms and then tell the other half that they will die. There's no way to get those 2 groups on the same page after saying stuff like that. All of the sake of not making people panic and for thinking everyone is going to do the correct thing on their own, or have the same conclusion about the danger of the virus. Those guys where masks all the time. lol.

I'm going to let my computer read some of these things to me. Information of stuff that was scheduled to be addressed at the G7 over the years
G7 and G20 Background Books

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't think this is a misstep or a mistake. They knew in advance that they were short masks. That statement was said to keep people from rushing to the store and buying up masks. In other words it was a lie that was said to reduce the demand. But history has always shown that when government says "Don't worry about it" then you probably should be worried about it. "if they say mask won't help" then it probably will. That's the initial lie that is told to keep people from panicking. The U.S. government has always been known for that initial lie before the truth comes out.

They did the same thing with the drinking water in Flint Michigan. They always hope the lie will buy them time because they are not prepared.

I didn't buy it because, I watch the news and the one thing that I saw in every country was that they were wearing masks. Sort of like. "If everyone else is getting a mask then why don't I need one?" Then you see nurses wear masks. If masks don't protect then why did the nurses and doctors need one? This was played out in every country. When stuff like that doesn't add up, I do the opposite. Just like when they said there's enough food for everyone, then there wasn't. My family didn't suffer because we stocked up. We are stocked up for the fall and winter now. Not only with food but with other essentials, in the event that fall and winter will turn into a nightmare.

They were already extremely concerned that the outbreak was on the horizon. This is a video in January 2020

This is a report that they came out with in September 2019.
A WORLD AT RISK
Annual report on global preparednessfor health emergenciesGlobal Preparedness Monitoring Board
https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual_report/GPMB_annualreport_2019.pdf


When you look at all of the past stuff, there's no way that a person who studies viruses would think that a mask wouldn't help. Now the age thing, they botched big time. They didn't think that through at all. Tell half of the population that they will have mild symptoms and then tell the other half that they will die. There's no way to get those 2 groups on the same page after saying stuff like that. All of the sake of not making people panic and for thinking everyone is going to do the correct thing on their own, or have the same conclusion about the danger of the virus. Those guys where masks all the time. lol.

I'm going to let my computer read some of these things to me. Information of stuff that was scheduled to be addressed at the G7 over the years
G7 and G20 Background Books
View attachment 23126


View attachment 23125

I completely understand why it was done. But it was a mistake because it provides ammunition to those who want to pretend that Faucci is just changing his mind all the time, gives them an “example” that they can use to spread misinformation. That undermines confidence in the few people like Faucci who we can actually have confidence in. They should have been honest with the message: “ supplies are short, please let the medical professionals have them until we can secure a stockpile”. Simple.

It was a mistake in messaging, even though the intentions were good.

 

[Flying Crane]

You are correct, the age messaging was botched as well. And now those who want to deny the danger of the virus use that to keep up the misinformation that young people are safe, so we can open schools, we don’t need to worry about them, etc., all of which is dangerous misinformation.

The truth about younger people: yes, younger people tend to have an easier time with Covid. However, they can still become very sick, they can still die, and they can absolutely spread it to people who are more vulnerable and more likely to get seriously sick and die.

 

[EdwardA]

Come on, man. Did you read that article?

Actually, did you watch the video? His comments and demeanor are a bit different than what ABC wrote in the article.

 

[EdwardA]

Do you have some sources for this claim?

Faucci does change what he says, but he bases it on the current understanding of the virus, which changes. He doesn’t simply change what he says on a whim.

That's exactly what he's doing, saying stuff at whim.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Here's a fun puzzle to consider. You guys may already have heard it.

Three guys are traveling together, and their car breaks down. The mechanic says he can fix it for $300, so they each kick in $100. Mechanic fixes the car, and it actually takes him less time than he thought, so he gives a kid working at the garage $50 and sends him over to give it back to these guys. Kid think to himself, well, no way $50 gets split up equally, so I'll give them each $10 back and pocket the other $20.

All told, each of the guys paid $90, which totals up to $270. Plus the $20 the kid kept equals $290. What happened to the other $10?

Thanks for the chuckles on this one. I've never heard it before, but when you got to the. "What happened to the other $10" I was like Huh. What you talking about Wilis?" I hope more people try this. lol. Stuff like this gives insight on a lot of other things.

 

[Flying Crane]

That's exactly what he's doing, saying stuff at whim.

So...you don’t have a citation for your claim?

You are the one who is just making stuff up.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I completely understand why it was done. But it was a mistake because it provides ammunition to those who want to pretend that Faucci is just changing his mind all the time, gives them an “example” that they can use to spread misinformation. That undermines confidence in the few people like Faucci who we can actually have confidence in. They should have been honest with the message: “ supplies are short, please let the medical professionals have them until we can secure a stockpile”. Simple.

I feel the same way too. They should have started with that. I won't even lie, had I not been watching what was happening in other countries, I would have probably believed that too. I just figured whatever was happening to them would eventually happen to us. After all we are all humans.

But then again, if I factor who they have to work with to get things done. I can see the difficulty. Fauci doesn't have any power to command beyond the organization he works for. It's possible that they wanted to be straight forward, but other forces wanted to deny it. We often see similar story lines in movies where the scientist tries to give warnings, but the government waters down the message. There will be a time when the truth comes out. Should be entertaining either way. I'm not giving a pass to Fauci or the CDC, but I would have loved to hear what was going on in those behind the scenes meetings. I hope someone recorded it all. Like maybe they did their meetings on webex and someone made a recording lol.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You are correct, the age messaging was botched as well. And now those who want to deny the danger of the virus use that to keep up the misinformation that young people are safe, so we can open schools, we don’t need to worry about them, etc., all of which is dangerous misinformation.

The truth about younger people: yes, younger people tend to have an easier time with Covid. However, they can still become very sick, they can still die, and they can absolutely spread it to people who are more vulnerable and more likely to get seriously sick and die.

I saw this today and I was like. hmmmm. 7000 people who didn't have to have it.
"More than 7,000 college-age people in Missouri have tested positive for the coronavirus since classes resumed in mid-August, fueling spikes in confirmed cases in the state’s college towns, Gov. Mike Parson said Thursday." source: Parson: 7,000-plus Missouri college students test positive

7000 new opportunities to spread the virus to someone else.

 

[EdwardA]

You are correct, the age messaging was botched as well. And now those who want to deny the danger of the virus use that to keep up the misinformation that young people are safe, so we can open schools, we don’t need to worry about them, etc., all of which is dangerous misinformation.

The truth about younger people: yes, younger people tend to have an easier time with Covid. However, they can still become very sick, they can still die, and they can absolutely spread it to people who are more vulnerable and more likely to get seriously sick and die.

Here's one article on the amplification cycles.

Coronavirus tests are extremely sensitive. (That could be a problem, experts say.)

There hard to find on my phone, I can't use my computers at night.

 

[EdwardA]

I saw this today and I was like. hmmmm. 7000 people who didn't have to have it.
"More than 7,000 college-age people in Missouri have tested positive for the coronavirus since classes resumed in mid-August, fueling spikes in confirmed cases in the state’s college towns, Gov. Mike Parson said Thursday." source: Parson: 7,000-plus Missouri college students test positive

7000 new opportunities to spread the virus to someone else.

This article goes into, but it's only the NY Times.

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.

 

[Flying Crane]

Here's one article on the amplification cycles.

Coronavirus tests are extremely sensitive. (That could be a problem, experts say.)

There hard to find on my phone, I can't use my computers at night.

Interesting article, thank you.

Do you have a citation showing where Faucci demanded high amplification cycles in the face of knowing it was too many?

 

[JowGaWolf]

That's exactly what he's doing, saying stuff at whim.

That's not saying stuff on a whim. That's say stuff in the context of what is going on.

Let's take a look at martial arts.
You and I spar and I notice that you have 2 patterns. Every time you do pattern A you follow up with 2 punches. Every time you do pattern B you follow up with 1 punch and 1 kick.

The next wee, you and I have a big fight against each other. I get interviewed and they as me how I think things will go. My response is. If Edward continues to do pattern one, then I can expect 2 punches is the likely outcome. But if I can switch my stance, I can decrease the chance that Edward does pattern A. If I can do that then result is that Edward will have to rely on Pattern B. If Edward does Pattern B then I can follow up with something different than what I would do to deal with pattern A.

There's no one size fits all answer for me to give. My answers and outcomes will change based on what you do.

If people wear masks, then Fauci expects Outcome A, and as a result we can slow the rate of infection and the number of infections. If we do that then we can reopen. If people don't wear masks, then we can expect Outome B, and as a result we'll have to have another lockdown, and as a result C will happen.

Stuff that is done on a whim has no reason nor purpose. But people who deal with Pandemics have to run scenarios and they have to have an idea of where the paths of decisions will lead them. They have factor a wide range of possibilities and how to navigate those possibilities. This is why he rarely answers a question directly. If you ask him how many people are expected to die this fall, he would say "IF people do action A." then we'll see a reduction. "If people do option B there will be an increase."

He can't choose how people will act. He doesn't know how people will react. Will most people wear masks, or will most people complain about it? How many people in California will where the mask? How many people will follow the rules about no large gathering of people? The only way to get a specific action is to control what people do and when they do it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

This article goes into, but it's only the NY Times.

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.

From your source as I understand it.
"The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus." Testing has always been lacking as there as been a push not to use testing methods from other countries. There has been a government push for the U.S. to create their own testing. So that means we are doing things from scratch. There is also a government push to not work together with other countries to fight the virus.

There is also no standard of what qualifies as "relatively insignificant amounts of the virus" is.

"Most of these people are not likely to be contagious" Again.there's science standard of when someone is contagious or not, which is why you. Which is why people get automatically quarantined if they have been around someone who may have COVID-19.
"
This amounts to an enormous missed opportunity to learn more about the disease, some experts said.

“It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests — that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.

“It would be useful information to know if somebody’s positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load,” she added."

This is probably Dr. Fauci's view as well. It's the way that I think as well. Not saying I'm smart like them. But people are sick so it's better to get as much data while you can. Being able to detect someone who Asymptomatic is probably more important if you are trying to contain and prevent the spread. The idea way would be to do both, and try to figure out at what threshold someone is sick and what threshold identifies, asymptomatic and which identifies that they had it.

There still is a lot to learn. But this information would be important in answering questions like. How long does it stay in the body. Does it reactivate? Does it go dormant? We know very little about the virus so we need to data mine the heck out of it.

Just so you don't I'm way out there?

Doctor's Note: Can the coronavirus reactivate?
New research suggests the coronavirus may be able to lie dormant and later 'reawaken'. A doctor examines the evidence. Source: Doctor's Note: Can the coronavirus reactivate?

"Researchers suspect that, rather than these people having been reinfected, there may have been flaws in the testing process whereby low levels of the virus failed to be picked up when patients were discharged from the hospital." <- another reason why you may want to have a sensitive test.

"However, this latest data from the KCDC has thrown a new theory into the mix - that the virus can become dormant and, later, reactivate itself.

While our immune system is able to clear most pathogens, there are, indeed, some that lie dormant - "hidden" in our cells, not causing any illness.

The mechanism of reactivation occurs when that pathogen comes out of its sleeping phase and becomes active again, potentially replicating and spreading, causing illness."

 

[EdwardA]

These are only a couple articles, out of no telling how many... can't find them on google, but you can find them on duckduckgo and a couple other search engines. There is lots more coming out about this specific subject recently. I find info about details on the CDC website too, and then it disappears.

Lots of people have a lot to say about the subject, but aren't doing the digging to find the info. Admittedly, it's hard to find.

Who told the labs to run 40 cycles instead of the 30 cycles recommend by the designers of the test?

These two articles are fluffing the the real questions, but I only posted the two soft articles for a reason.