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

[dvcochran]

Facui isn't a political advisor.

When you claim that CNN, MSNBC, Dr.Fauci, or CDC say something, You don't need compare multiple sources of information.. You only need to show where on CNN, MSNBC, or CDC. they make the statement that you claim they did. If you say that Dr. Faucci made a ridiculous statement about something, then you only need to show where he's quoted in a reliable source or show a video of him actually saying it. Either one would work because news networks who were present could confirm the quotes.

Why would go to multiple sources to compare information? He either said it or he didn't. If he said it, then you should be able to find multiple evidence of him actually making statements. If he didn't say it, then you won't find such evidence. Which is why when you don't don't post a source, people assume that you don't know what you are talking about.
If you can quote the CDC, CNN, Dr.Fauci, or MSNBC and show the source of where they made the statements then there's no need to look at varying information from non-associated sources. When you see me actually use Kung Fu in a video then why would you go to some non-associated source in attempt to find inconsistencies. I can guarantee that if I make the same claims about my martial arts skills in an MMA forum (without videos), that youll see alot of inconsistencies of what people think vs what people have seen me do.

This is exactly what has been going on from you and steve with the links you have included. They are from all over the place.

Why would go to multiple sources to compare information?

Let me ask you this; if you use Youtube or another site for video information (any information for that matter) do you just take the first video you watch on the topic as fact? Of course not. On average half or more will be partly or completely wrong. You watch several different sources and determine the correct information. Just the way of information on the internet.

Sadly, " he either said it or he didn't" isn't reliable in this day and age. Once the spin doctors get hold of something it has a completely different meaning, even from the source. Just like in one of Steve's videos; it was a total strangers interpretation. Was it right or wrong? I have no idea.

 

[dvcochran]

I don't even understand this Fauci is not a political advisor. Fauci has never made statements about what is the best political approach. This is Fauci's career "Dr. Fauci was appointed director of NIAID in 1984. He oversees an extensive portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika. NIAID also supports research on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma and allergies." The only reason we see him in white house press conferences is because as go good leader and basically a good manager of things. You bring experts in to give their knowledge on things you don't know about.


There were only 2 things I needed to know. 1 it kills people, and 2 they don't know anything about it. So for me that just screams.. Do my best not to get it.

Sort of like how Timex (the watch company) used to use radioactive material in their watches. The knew what it does, but didn't know much about until after people started dying.
Mae Keane, One Of The Last 'Radium Girls,' Dies At 107

Science has a way of learning things the hard way.. So while they explore, I'm going to do my best not to get it.

Fauci is an adviser to politicians. It is that simple. His recommendations are being used at the highest levels. What else would you call him?

 

[dvcochran]

Case in point. You "watched a local news feed this morning". Which one? Can you share a link to this story you saw? I found a link to my local news channel without any problem at all.

And for what it's worth, when I searched for anything about stockpiling vaccines, I got some results from unknown websites that I didn't bother to check, and Fox Business (aka, Fox News). US stockpiling 3 different types of coronavirus vaccines through 'Operation Warp Speed'

Interestingly, the Fox News link included strikingly similar language you use above: "The U.S. has already manufactured and stockpiled "hundreds of thousands of doses" of coronavirus vaccines in the hopes that one will be effective in combating the virus, a senior administration official said Tuesday." (the embedded quotation marks were in the article, indicating that they are a quote, and so are not necessarily verified independently.)

So what is your point? You just made my point for me. A news affiliate reported the information. What more do you need?
I did not run with the first source of information however. It is all over the web if you know how to use it.
Another failed attempt to shadow the truth.

 

[dvcochran]

I'm presenting information. Other folks are, too. You're not. No one's doing anything "to" you.

No one is making you lie about your sources. No one is making you take increasingly severe positions that are clearly in conflict with the scientific community. No one is forcing you to do that. You're choosing to do that to yourself. Look, man. I get it. Your self image is pretty obvious, but you're acting like a victim here. You clearly consider yourself to be a man of integrity, but you're not acting with integrity now. You consider yourself to be a rational person who considers information, but you are clearly getting your information in some kind of a direct line from known propaganda outlets and fringe conspiracy theorists. When asked for sources, you get defensive and lash out.

I said once before that I think you could benefit from talking to a pro about some stuff. I still think that's true. You've got some huge blind spots, and a trained therapist can help you identify those and be a better person. There is no stigma (or should be no stigma) to this.

You are correct no one is making me lie because I simply am not. You post some of the most vague sources of information I have ever seen, many I have never heard of. I am telling you to research the main sources and you are afraid to do even that. It doesn't take a genius to see just who is looking long and deep for confirmation from where ever they can find it.
You are correct that I have to go to depths that I do not enjoy going in order to counter your crap. You seem to enjoy scary places void of integrity based on the stuff you post.
Propaganda is an accurate word for most of what you post. How is simply saying check the main news sources getting defensive and "lashing out"?

Dude. You are in no position to suggest counseling to anyone and I am pretty sure you know that. You have one of the scariest mentalities I have ever encountered so maybe it is you who needs the counseling? Possibly you have some form of PTSD that you need to vent?

 

[dvcochran]

If he goes there and can't find it, do you prefer he assume it doesn't exist, or do you want to point him to it, so he can include that information in his opinion?

I give him more credit than that. I am perplexed that anyone is finding the information hard to find.

 

[dvcochran]

If I'm looking for information that disagrees with what I think I know, why wouldn't I seek it from someone who says they have exactly that? Why refuse to help someone gather data? I'm truly confused.

Fair enough. It has do to with the "spoon fed" references made earlier.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

They keep trying to blame deaths on underlying causes. My guess "underlying causes" also include "Catching a cold," sore throat, bronchitis, the flu and other illnesses that people usually get in the winter. If this is accurate then look at the age groups that are most likely affected. Colds also cause respiratory issue. If my thought's about this are correct then we could see a large number of younger people die from COVID-19. Unfortunately no one has asked the question "What are my chances of beating COVID-19 if I have a cold"

View attachment 23102

I may be way off, as my understanding here is pretty thin, but I don't think it's possible - at least not very likely - to get two coronavirus infections at the same time. At least 4 of the major viruses responsible for the common cold are coronaviruses. The spike proteins are similar enough they likely bind to cells the same way, so would compete with each other. And there's some evidence that the antibodies for one may have some effect against the other - not for immunity, but for reducing the viral load, which generally translates to a less intense illness.

So recent exposure to a cold virus may actually reduce the severity of COVID-19. So far as I know, that's still all entirely hypothetical, and it's unlikely they'll figure a way to test it any time soon.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I give him more credit than that. I am perplexed that anyone is finding the information hard to find.

I haven't found it, unless I'm seeing the same thing you are, and simply seeing something different in the data.

 

[Steve]

At this point, @dvcochran , you're imploding. The first step to getting out of a self inflicted hole is to stop digging.

 

[JowGaWolf]

This is exactly what has been going on from you and steve with the links you have included. They are from all over the place.

Nope it's not the same thing. I'm not comparing multiple websites in order to see what inconsistencies between those websites. I've been using websites that have a history of being accurate and when they aren't accurate they have a history of identifying their inaccuracies, admitting it, and then correcting it. I didn't compare any of the resources to Fox news in order to find out what they had in common and what they don't have in common. That's not how I seek the truth about things. I don't go to Fox News or CNN to try to find out what the CDC says. I prefer to go straight to the CDC and get it directly from the source.

Most of the websites I posted were from reliable medical and health resources. CDC, John Hopkins, Harvard Medical and reliable news sources NPR, CNN ,and Time Magazine which are both known for their standard of seeking accuracy. They also will often post links to their sources as well so that people can dig deep into information if they so desire.

Steve has similar posts. He posted a screenshot that was made on Herman Cains tweeter account. He also posted a link from the BBC, FDA.gov, John Hopkins and another News source that I'm not familiar with. He didn't go to the CNN to post a FDA quote. He just went straight to the source.

When we post sources it's no longer about an Opinion. When I brought my Opinion into the mix, I made it clear that it was my thought. I didn't post any links that said you can can get a Cold and Covid-19 at the same time. That's clearly just my opinion or Theory about what I thought may be of serious concern. After I posted that it my own questioning made me wonder just how realistic is it to have a Cold and COVID-19 at the same time. I took a look at the same medical and news resources and was surprised that my concerns / worries were actually fairly accurately. I took what I know about Colds, Viruses, and the unpredictability of COVID-19 and that it acts like nothing the doctors have previously seen, which is why they say they don't know anything about it. If I don't know anything about a snake, then I'm going to treat it as something dangerous until I can learn more about it. I'm the same way with Viruses. It's better to be Cautious than Reckless. I rather be surprised to learn that something is harmless than to be surprised to learn that something is dangerous. But that's just me, and that's why I think of the Cold as being an "underlying illness." But I made it clear that this is my thinking. I didn't try to pass it off as FACT.

Let me ask you this; if you use Youtube or another site for video information (any information for that matter) do you just take the first video you watch on the topic as fact? Of course not. On average half or more will be partly or completely wrong. You watch several different sources and determine the correct information. Just the way of information on the internet.

Actually when I go to Youtube Videos I try to look for videos from reliable sources. I skipped over tons videos not because I was comparing what was in it. I skipped over them because it didn't say, BBC, CDC, JohnHopkins, or some other reliable resource. There was no comparison in involved. It's like buying Jewelry. If you want costume Jewelry then you walk past all of the real Jewelry stores. If you want real Jewelry then you past all of the costume jewelry stores..

If you go to a reliable video source on Youtube, then on average more than half of your information that you get will be partly or completely accurate. Provided that the organization deals with the information that you seek. I don't go to a medical site to learn about Kung Fu. To do so, doesn't make the medical site inaccurate. It just makes the medical site irrelevant to Kung Fu.

 

[dvcochran]

Nope it's not the same thing. I'm not comparing multiple websites in order to see what inconsistencies between those websites. I've been using websites that have a history of being accurate and when they aren't accurate they have a history of identifying their inaccuracies, admitting it, and then correcting it. I didn't compare any of the resources to Fox news in order to find out what they had in common and what they don't have in common. That's not how I seek the truth about things. I don't go to Fox News or CNN to try to find out what the CDC says. I prefer to go straight to the CDC and get it directly from the source.

Most of the websites I posted were from reliable medical and health resources. CDC, John Hopkins, Harvard Medical and reliable news sources NPR, CNN ,and Time Magazine which are both known for their standard of seeking accuracy. They also will often post links to their sources as well so that people can dig deep into information if they so desire.

Steve has similar posts. He posted a screenshot that was made on Herman Cains tweeter account. He also posted a link from the BBC, FDA.gov, John Hopkins and another News source that I'm not familiar with. He didn't go to the CNN to post a FDA quote. He just went straight to the source.

When we post sources it's no longer about an Opinion. When I brought my Opinion into the mix, I made it clear that it was my thought. I didn't post any links that said you can can get a Cold and Covid-19 at the same time. That's clearly just my opinion or Theory about what I thought may be of serious concern. After I posted that it my own questioning made me wonder just how realistic is it to have a Cold and COVID-19 at the same time. I took a look at the same medical and news resources and was surprised that my concerns / worries were actually fairly accurately. I took what I know about Colds, Viruses, and the unpredictability of COVID-19 and that it acts like nothing the doctors have previously seen, which is why they say they don't know anything about it. If I don't know anything about a snake, then I'm going to treat it as something dangerous until I can learn more about it. I'm the same way with Viruses. It's better to be Cautious than Reckless. I rather be surprised to learn that something is harmless than to be surprised to learn that something is dangerous. But that's just me, and that's why I think of the Cold as being an "underlying illness." But I made it clear that this is my thinking. I didn't try to pass it off as FACT.


Actually when I go to Youtube Videos I try to look for videos from reliable sources. I skipped over tons videos not because I was comparing what was in it. I skipped over them because it didn't say, BBC, CDC, JohnHopkins, or some other reliable resource. There was no comparison in involved. It's like buying Jewelry. If you want costume Jewelry then you walk past all of the real Jewelry stores. If you want real Jewelry then you past all of the costume jewelry stores..

If you go to a reliable video source on Youtube, then on average more than half of your information that you get will be partly or completely accurate. Provided that the organization deals with the information that you seek. I don't go to a medical site to learn about Kung Fu. To do so, doesn't make the medical site inaccurate. It just makes the medical site irrelevant to Kung Fu.

And that is the difference in opinion. I do not consider NPR or Time Magazine accurate sources. Time is down right unscrupulous.

If you are not fact checking from various sources and only using the same sources over and over you are doing exactly what the elderly gentleman Bruce7 mentioned was doing. You are getting your information in a vacuum. How is that accurate?

I admit I had to laugh at the jewelry analogy. Some of the worst junk jewelry out there is sold at the 'high end' jewelry stores. But I get your point.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You watch several different sources and determine the correct information. Just the way of information on the internet.

This deserves it's own section. This is not how you determine correct information. Neither you nor I have the knowledge or the experience of an epidemiologist to "Determine" what is correct information about a virus and pandemics. The only way you can even begin to do that is to work and study in the same field that they do. They are the experts of viral studies not us.

 

[dvcochran]

This deserves it's own section. This is not how you determine correct information. Neither you nor I have the knowledge or the experience of an epidemiologist to "Determine" what is correct information about a virus and pandemics. The only way you can even begin to do that is to work and study in the same field that they do. They are the experts of viral studies not us.

Yes, that is the best and only real way to determine a value, such as information. There is no 'one source'.
True enough; I wasn't talking about the virus specifically but more information in general. My use of Youtube and such is mostly control and automation related. Sources such as a manufacturer are good but often limited. Gleaning 'how to's' and how others have solved complex problems is more my normal search. There are few common sources.

I cannot help but feel we are saying much the same thing though. I originally suggested going direct to the CDC for reference but that did not seem good enough. So I suggested the common news feeds. That did not seem good enough either.

 

[dvcochran]

At this point, @dvcochran , you're imploding. The first step to getting out of a self inflicted hole is to stop digging.

Right behind you my man. And you do not know me so your opinion is, well nothing.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Fauci is an adviser to politicians. It is that simple. His recommendations are being used at the highest levels. What else would you call him?

Political Advisor Career
Source: Political Advisor Career Information and College Majors
"*A job as a Political Advisor falls under the broader career category of Political Scientists."

Job Description for Political Scientists : Study the origin, development, and operation of political systems. May study topics, such as public opinion, political decision-making, and ideology. May analyze the structure and operation of governments, as well as various political entities. May conduct public opinion surveys, analyze election results, or analyze public documents.

What Political Scientists do:

• Consult with and advise government officials, civic bodies, research agencies, the media, political parties, and others concerned with political issues.
• Evaluate programs and policies, and make related recommendations to institutions and organizations.
• Identify issues for research and analysis.
• Interpret and analyze policies, public issues, legislation, or the operations of governments, businesses, and organizations.
• Maintain current knowledge of government policy decisions.
• Provide media commentary or criticism related to public policy and political issues and events.
• Disseminate research results through academic publications, written reports, or public presentations.
• Forecast political, economic, and social trends.
• Teach political science.
• Collect, analyze, and interpret data such as election results and public opinion surveys, reporting on findings, recommendations, and conclusions.
• Develop and test theories, using information from interviews, newspapers, periodicals, case law, historical papers, polls, or statistical sources.
• Write drafts of legislative proposals, and prepare speeches, correspondence, and policy papers for governmental use.

Political Scientists
Source: Political Scientists : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
What Political Scientists Do
Political scientists study the origin, development, and operation of political systems.

Work Environment
Political scientists typically work full time in an office. They sometimes work additional hours to finish reports and meet deadlines.

How to Become a Political Scientist
Political scientists need a master’s degree or Ph.D. in political science, public administration, or a related field.


Doctor Faucis' Job Title
Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director
He oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika. NIAID also supports research on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma and allergies. The NIAID budget for fiscal year 2020 is an estimated $5.9 billion.

Dr. Fauci has advised six Presidents on HIV/AIDS and many other domestic and global health issues. He was one of the principal architects of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program that has saved millions of lives throughout the developing world.

 

[JowGaWolf]

And that is the difference in opinion. I do not consider NPR or Time Magazine accurate sources. Time is down right unscrupulous.

NPR is accurate enough to admit when they make a mistake and then to correct it. Not only that but they make their mistakes known as well as their corrections. That in itself shows how they feel about being accurate.
NPR Corrections : NPR

NPR's Ethics Handbook (Homepage https://www.npr.org/series/688409791/npr-ethics-handbook. It's a lot)

Parts from the handbook about accuracy
Accuracy

 

[Steve]

Political Advisor Career
Source: Political Advisor Career Information and College Majors
"*A job as a Political Advisor falls under the broader career category of Political Scientists."

Job Description for Political Scientists : Study the origin, development, and operation of political systems. May study topics, such as public opinion, political decision-making, and ideology. May analyze the structure and operation of governments, as well as various political entities. May conduct public opinion surveys, analyze election results, or analyze public documents.

What Political Scientists do:

• Consult with and advise government officials, civic bodies, research agencies, the media, political parties, and others concerned with political issues.
• Evaluate programs and policies, and make related recommendations to institutions and organizations.
• Identify issues for research and analysis.
• Interpret and analyze policies, public issues, legislation, or the operations of governments, businesses, and organizations.
• Maintain current knowledge of government policy decisions.
• Provide media commentary or criticism related to public policy and political issues and events.
• Disseminate research results through academic publications, written reports, or public presentations.
• Forecast political, economic, and social trends.
• Teach political science.
• Collect, analyze, and interpret data such as election results and public opinion surveys, reporting on findings, recommendations, and conclusions.
• Develop and test theories, using information from interviews, newspapers, periodicals, case law, historical papers, polls, or statistical sources.
• Write drafts of legislative proposals, and prepare speeches, correspondence, and policy papers for governmental use.

Political Scientists
Source: Political Scientists : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
What Political Scientists Do
Political scientists study the origin, development, and operation of political systems.

Work Environment
Political scientists typically work full time in an office. They sometimes work additional hours to finish reports and meet deadlines.

How to Become a Political Scientist
Political scientists need a master’s degree or Ph.D. in political science, public administration, or a related field.


Doctor Faucis' Job Title
Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director
He oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika. NIAID also supports research on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma and allergies. The NIAID budget for fiscal year 2020 is an estimated $5.9 billion.

Dr. Fauci has advised six Presidents on HIV/AIDS and many other domestic and global health issues. He was one of the principal architects of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program that has saved millions of lives throughout the developing world.

I'd call fauci a civil servant. He's someone who, for some reason, decided to make a career out of serving the public as a career federal employee.

Sometimes civil servants, particularly those who have risen to Senior Executive Service level positions, advise politicians. But there remains a clear difference between someone like KellyAnne Conway and Dr. Fauci.

 

[Steve]

Yes, that is the best and only real way to determine a value, such as information. There is no 'one source'.
True enough; I wasn't talking about the virus specifically but more information in general. My use of Youtube and such is mostly control and automation related. Sources such as a manufacturer are good but often limited. Gleaning 'how to's' and how others have solved complex problems is more my normal search. There are few common sources.

I cannot help but feel we are saying much the same thing though. I originally suggested going direct to the CDC for reference but that did not seem good enough. So I suggested the common news feeds. That did not seem good enough either.

But you didn't originally suggest going directly to the cdc. What you did was make up some malarkey about having seen the propaganda on the cdc site, and also reported on CNN and CNBC. Once again, you know folks can just go look and it's still there. Right?

I get the impression you're used to being the smartest guy in the room. But there are a lot of folks here at least as smart as you, and you're just not a very good liar.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you are not fact checking from various sources and only using the same sources over and over you are doing exactly what the elderly gentleman Bruce7 mentioned was doing. You are getting your information in a vacuum. How is that accurate?

This makes no sense at all.
"Fact checking from various sources." I've already posted multiple medical sources. A significant amount compared to what you have posted. For someone who claims that they look at multiple resources, you have posted very little of them. The reason they are same sources is because they are the reliable ones. As me about Teeth and Cavities and you'll get a complete new set of various resources.

"You are getting your information in a vacuum." Yeah because you get reliable Medical Sources from Medical and Health Organizations. It's reliable because that's what they do. So yes. It's a Medical and Health vacuum where only Medical and Health information exists.

 

[granfire]

I don't even understand this Fauci is not a political advisor. Fauci has never made statements about what is the best political approach. This is Fauci's career "Dr. Fauci was appointed director of NIAID in 1984. He oversees an extensive portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika. NIAID also supports research on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma and allergies." The only reason we see him in white house press conferences is because as go good leader and basically a good manager of things. You bring experts in to give their knowledge on things you don't know about.


There were only 2 things I needed to know. 1 it kills people, and 2 they don't know anything about it. So for me that just screams.. Do my best not to get it.

Sort of like how Timex (the watch company) used to use radioactive material in their watches. The knew what it does, but didn't know much about until after people started dying.
Mae Keane, One Of The Last 'Radium Girls,' Dies At 107

Science has a way of learning things the hard way.. So while they explore, I'm going to do my best not to get it.

Yeah Fauci is the anti of political advisor.
This is why there is an attempt to silence him, But hey, he is 80 some years old ( ) and can probably retire in peace.

The 2nd thing about the virus is the scary part.
I mean, once you are dead, your problems are over.
Surviving it can be the hard part, and I know of a couple of people who have been on a ventilator and barely survived (not COVID) but the lasting damages are severe!
Add to that what the virus can do, and we are back to your statement: heck no, I don't want to get it!