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

[JowGaWolf]

But there remains a clear difference between someone like KellyAnne Conway and Dr. Fauci.

People are using Political Advisor in the wrong way. Definitions matter lol.

The new guy Scott Atlas. Is a Policy Advisor so he's clower to the "Political Advisor" He's area of study is in government policy and healthcare. He is known for advising government officials in the area of creating Government Health Policies. He has no experience or focused study with viruses and pandemics. He worked as a radiologist. More specifically in Neuroradiology
source: Scott W. Atlas' Profile | Stanford Profiles
Here you can see how he talks about the policy and financial aspects of health issues. He also talk about technology and you hear him to talk about how "it's expensive"

This is Fauci before Covid. I thought showing Pre-covid videos of him and Atlas would really show the difference between the two and their areas of specialty. Right off the back you can tell what they really like to talk about. You can also get a good feel about what they do based on the questions that people ask them.

 

[JowGaWolf]

but the lasting damages are severe!

Yep and this would be considered the new information that they are now learning. Before they thought people were recovering like they normally do with a cold. Then a few months ago they learned that it has long lasting damage. Now they are trying to figure out just what type of long term damages people will be at risk for. If I had to guess about it. I would say they are keeping a close eye on the survivors of the virus, so they can gather as much information about any common symptoms that many of them may experience.

I think now they are looking for signs of long lasting neurological damage.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

Going to multiple sources is a good approach if you take certain steps. First, you have to look into the sources behind each. If a news story is the same or different on Fox and MSNBC doesn't determine whether it's accurate, nor who is right. Looking at the sources behind the story is the first step in determing those things. If we're looking at a well documented story (meaning there are reputable sources cited - in this case, scientific/medical sources), then we can start to look for truth. If no reputable sources are cited, then there's no way to determine whether that story has any grounding in fact.

And just because sources are cited, that doesn't ensure there's truth - that requires going a step deeper and examining the source. Someone recently told me they'd heard 95% of people put on ventilators died almost immediately, so ventilators were no longer a recommended protocol. I asked for a source, and they said, "go look it up!" So I did, and quickly determined they had not done so. The stories were easy to find, and easy to track back to early reporting out of Wuhan. There were three serious problems with that person's assertion:

1. None of the reputable sources (even reputable news sources) showed anyone saying ventilators weren't a recommended protocol. Someone had made that up at some point, and the person I was talking to simply parrotted it without analytical thought.
2. The original statistic was something closer to 85% (I've since forgotten the actual number).
3. The original statistic only included "resolved" cases - those cases where the subject had either died or been discharged. In other words, it didn't include anyone who was still in the hospital. Since this was very early in the outbreak, many cases that made it to a ventilator were still in the hospital.

So, this turned out to be a bad statistic, taken out of context and mis-quoted, and given a conclusion not in evidence. The person firmly believed I'd find exactly what they told me if I searched. Within 30 seconds, I'd found all of the information I listed above. And I found it by looking for what they'd told me was true, not by looking for opposition to it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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?

By that definitiion, extrapolating from your prior statement, literally everyone who has ever given advice to a politician should simply be ignored? That seems arbitrary. Dismiss opinions for reason, not simply because you can fit someone into a definition. I don't dismiss liberals' opinions because they are Democrats, nor conservatives' opinions because they're Republicans. Because doing either of those things would be abdicating any responsibility for analysis.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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!

And, unfortunately, there is evidence even moderate cases (not requiring hospitalization) have long-term effects.

 

[dvcochran]

By that definitiion, extrapolating from your prior statement, literally everyone who has ever given advice to a politician should simply be ignored? That seems arbitrary. Dismiss opinions for reason, not simply because you can fit someone into a definition. I don't dismiss liberals' opinions because they are Democrats, nor conservatives' opinions because they're Republicans. Because doing either of those things would be abdicating any responsibility for analysis.

Fully agree with the latter part of the post. As unsavory as it can be sometimes I research information from many sources and centers of opinion. As I have already said, I don't see how a person can truly have an unbiased opinion otherwise.

I feel I am being misunderstood on the first part. Someone said Fauci is not a political advisor. Who can deny he is in that position of his own choice? It doesn't matter whether he is an elected official or not. He is being used as a source of information. I never said I agree or disagree with his information just that his information is being used at the highest levels of politics.

 

[Steve]

Here's the thing. Most folks who work in government are apolitical. They may, and probably do, have individual political opinions, but their work and the work of the agency to which they belong, is not political or cannot be political (they aren't quite the same). It's just inherently apolitical. Talking about the Justice department, HUD, NOAA, FAA, FBI, CDC, etc. We can see this occurring in real time as people in the country are worried that the FDA will approve a vaccine that is not safe, bowing to political pressure.

They are being politicized for various reasons, and the ultimate result is that faith in the institution is eroding. And people like @dvcochran , who claim to be unbiased truth-seekers, but who are clearly and obviously peddling conspiracy theories and misinformation in some kind of a direct line from truly radical outlets, are complicit in this. It's very possible that @dvcochran is not sophisticated enough to know that he's being manipulated, but the result is the same. The American public doesn't know who or what to believe.

And then it becomes an after the fact proof. Step 1: Erode faith in an institution by claiming it is partisan. Step 2: Politicize the institution, undermining its ability to function effectively. Step 3: Point to it and say, "See? I was right." It is political, and we know it, because I politicized it.

So, bringing this all back to the topic at hand, the issue of masks is not something that should be politicized. But it has been, by people who are like and who influence people like @dvcochran. And it's indicative of a larger lack of curiosity and childish self centered behavior. In another thread, @dvcochran said very clearly that things that don't affect him personally aren't interesting to him. The context of the comment was in response to @Buka talking about the Catholic Church in Boston. I believe him. We have a group of people in this country who are incurious, spoonfed, and selfish, and they project these attributes onto everyone else. I don't know, like I said earlier, maybe they aren't sophisticated or self aware enough to see how easily manipulated they are. Honestly, that would be preferable to me than the alternative, that they are self aware and are doing this with intention.

 

[Steve]

Fully agree with the latter part of the post. As unsavory as it can be sometimes I research information from many sources and centers of opinion. As I have already said, I don't see how a person can truly have an unbiased opinion otherwise.

I feel I am being misunderstood on the first part. Someone said Fauci is not a political advisor. Who can deny he is in that position of his own choice? It doesn't matter whether he is an elected official or not. He is being used as a source of information. I never said I agree or disagree with his information just that his information is being used at the highest levels of politics.

This is such obvious bologna. You don't research anything, man. Come on. Who are you trying to kid? At the very most, you read or heard the talking point, then went to the CDC website looking for the very specific thing that you wanted to see, and called it a day. No one is fooled here. Just stop.

 

[granfire]

I feel I am being misunderstood on the first part. Someone said Fauci is not a political advisor. Who can deny he is in that position of his own choice? It doesn't matter whether he is an elected official or not. He is being used as a source of information. I never said I agree or disagree with his information just that his information is being used at the highest levels of politics.

Well, if you have a global pandemic, you have to use the regulatory powers of the government.
Other than that, he is not giving advice on politics. He is giving advice on infectious diseases.


As far as the 'use' of his information......one could only wish.
Seeing that the utterings of you-know-who created a situation where the good doctor has to fear for his and his family's safety.

 

[granfire]

Here's the thing. Most folks who work in government are apolitical. They may, and probably do, have individual political opinions, but their work and the work of the agency to which they belong, is not political or cannot be political (they aren't quite the same). It's just inherently apolitical. Talking about the Justice department, HUD, NOAA, FAA, FBI, CDC, etc. We can see this occurring in real time as people in the country are worried that the FDA will approve a vaccine that is not safe, bowing to political pressure.

They are being politicized for various reasons, and the ultimate result is that faith in the institution is eroding. And people like @dvcochran , who claim to be unbiased truth-seekers, but who are clearly and obviously peddling conspiracy theories and misinformation in some kind of a direct line from truly radical outlets, are complicit in this. It's very possible that @dvcochran is not sophisticated enough to know that he's being manipulated, but the result is the same. The American public doesn't know who or what to believe.

And then it becomes an after the fact proof. Step 1: Erode faith in an institution by claiming it is partisan. Step 2: Politicize the institution, undermining its ability to function effectively. Step 3: Point to it and say, "See? I was right." It is political, and we know it, because I politicized it.

So, bringing this all back to the topic at hand, the issue of masks is not something that should be politicized. But it has been, by people who are like and who influence people like @dvcochran. And it's indicative of a larger lack of curiosity and childish self centered behavior. In another thread, @dvcochran said very clearly that things that don't affect him personally aren't interesting to him. The context of the comment was in response to @Buka talking about the Catholic Church in Boston. I believe him. We have a group of people in this country who are incurious, spoonfed, and selfish, and they project these attributes onto everyone else. I don't know, like I said earlier, maybe they aren't sophisticated or self aware enough to see how easily manipulated they are. Honestly, that would be preferable to me than the alternative, that they are self aware and are doing this with intention.

well, we cultivated a disinterest in caring for our fellow humans. you know, our neighbors.
In Asian countries, it is common practice to wear a mask when you feel you are coming down with something.
In the US people g to parties, knowing they carry the virus, but because they don't feel sick, why should they stay home!

 

[dvcochran]

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.

Haha!!! I work with a bunch of nerdy engineers. I am Never the smartest guy in the room. I have zero problem understanding that every person is smarter than me at something. You have to learn their strengths and utilize them if needed. I haven't found your strength yet but have no doubt it is there.
I am used to being around people with enough sense and gumption that if something is mentioned, such as the CDC which I did mention, they have the initiative to check for themselves if they feel so lead. How is that so hard?

Looks like post #97 was the second time I asked if anyone has checked the CDC directly.

 

[dvcochran]

Going to multiple sources is a good approach if you take certain steps. First, you have to look into the sources behind each. If a news story is the same or different on Fox and MSNBC doesn't determine whether it's accurate, nor who is right. Looking at the sources behind the story is the first step in determing those things. If we're looking at a well documented story (meaning there are reputable sources cited - in this case, scientific/medical sources), then we can start to look for truth. If no reputable sources are cited, then there's no way to determine whether that story has any grounding in fact.

And just because sources are cited, that doesn't ensure there's truth - that requires going a step deeper and examining the source. Someone recently told me they'd heard 95% of people put on ventilators died almost immediately, so ventilators were no longer a recommended protocol. I asked for a source, and they said, "go look it up!" So I did, and quickly determined they had not done so. The stories were easy to find, and easy to track back to early reporting out of Wuhan. There were three serious problems with that person's assertion:

1. None of the reputable sources (even reputable news sources) showed anyone saying ventilators weren't a recommended protocol. Someone had made that up at some point, and the person I was talking to simply parrotted it without analytical thought.
2. The original statistic was something closer to 85% (I've since forgotten the actual number).
3. The original statistic only included "resolved" cases - those cases where the subject had either died or been discharged. In other words, it didn't include anyone who was still in the hospital. Since this was very early in the outbreak, many cases that made it to a ventilator were still in the hospital.

So, this turned out to be a bad statistic, taken out of context and mis-quoted, and given a conclusion not in evidence. The person firmly believed I'd find exactly what they told me if I searched. Within 30 seconds, I'd found all of the information I listed above. And I found it by looking for what they'd told me was true, not by looking for opposition to it.

Nail on the head. This is exactly what I have been saying. I hope your way of saying it is more digestible for folks. There comes a point in data mining where the source alone is not good enough for proof. You have to research the background information.
I understood from jump that my comments of "go find it for yourself" would get blowback. And for clarification I did not make the first 'spoon fed' comment which you disliked. I reacted to it in an effort to get people to look for and understand information from different sources. Simple as that. But there is a hole in that tact. There is still a reality where a person could spend days searching and still assimilate the information to confirm an opinion they had already made up in their mind.
I feel there is a Lot of that going on with some folks.

 

[dvcochran]

Here's the thing. Most folks who work in government are apolitical. They may, and probably do, have individual political opinions, but their work and the work of the agency to which they belong, is not political or cannot be political (they aren't quite the same). It's just inherently apolitical. Talking about the Justice department, HUD, NOAA, FAA, FBI, CDC, etc. We can see this occurring in real time as people in the country are worried that the FDA will approve a vaccine that is not safe, bowing to political pressure.

They are being politicized for various reasons, and the ultimate result is that faith in the institution is eroding. And people like @dvcochran , who claim to be unbiased truth-seekers, but who are clearly and obviously peddling conspiracy theories and misinformation in some kind of a direct line from truly radical outlets, are complicit in this. It's very possible that @dvcochran is not sophisticated enough to know that he's being manipulated, but the result is the same. The American public doesn't know who or what to believe.

And then it becomes an after the fact proof. Step 1: Erode faith in an institution by claiming it is partisan. Step 2: Politicize the institution, undermining its ability to function effectively. Step 3: Point to it and say, "See? I was right." It is political, and we know it, because I politicized it.

So, bringing this all back to the topic at hand, the issue of masks is not something that should be politicized. But it has been, by people who are like and who influence people like @dvcochran. And it's indicative of a larger lack of curiosity and childish self centered behavior. In another thread, @dvcochran said very clearly that things that don't affect him personally aren't interesting to him. The context of the comment was in response to @Buka talking about the Catholic Church in Boston. I believe him. We have a group of people in this country who are incurious, spoonfed, and selfish, and they project these attributes onto everyone else. I don't know, like I said earlier, maybe they aren't sophisticated or self aware enough to see how easily manipulated they are. Honestly, that would be preferable to me than the alternative, that they are self aware and are doing this with intention.

Keep trying Steve. You do not even realize you are making my point for me again.
All I can say is you live in a different world from the rest of us.

 

[dvcochran]

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

You do not think NPR is a biased 'news' source? Ye

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.

Dr. Fauci has advised six Presidents on HIV/AIDS and many other domestic and global health issues.

You Just said it yourself. How is this hard to understand?

 

[Steve]

I actually get weekly CDC news (i.e. from the CDC) in my email, and go to the CDC website a couple times each week. I think most people go to the site regularly. I think the idea you have that anyone HASN'T gone to the CDC website is illustrative of the point.

Edit: Just adding a screen shot of what the weekly email looks like. Anyone can subscribe on their site. Just a way to, you know, stay informed.

 

[Steve]

Keep trying Steve. You do not even realize you are making my point for me again.
All I can say is you live in a different world from the rest of us.

"Rest of us?" Dude. You're here on an island of your own. How do you not see that?

 

[jobo]

well virus apathy has swept the uk, the media keeps printing scare stories, but no one seems to care much at all.

people wandering round in masks is very very rare, possibly one in a 1000, may be much less than that.

the requirement to wear them in shops is clearly farcical, as there is no such in pubs and restraunts , there some conveluted rule that you can only sit with people of the same house hold, whoch is iniverally ignored, as is the contact tracing, requirment to leave you name and number, i looked at the book in one crowded bar, and there were 6 names in it, mickey mouse and donald duck were notable.
the bus requirment is the most conpkieded with at about 50%, vut then there seems also a strobg ethnic, bias towards wearing them, shops, its about 20%, also mostly thoose with non uk backgrounds

all in all, a farce of the highest order

 

[JowGaWolf]

And, unfortunately, there is evidence even moderate cases (not requiring hospitalization) have long-term effects.

I think of all the people who thought that they would just get it and recover because they are young. Now they may be in a situation where long term damage may have been done. What happens with that damage if they get COVID a second time? Does it get worse or will the person get something new?

 

[Steve]

well virus apathy has swept the uk, the media keeps printing scare stories, but no one seems to care much at all.

people wandering round in masks is very very rare, possibly one in a 1000, may be much less than that.

the requirement to wear them in shops is clearly farcical, as there is no such in pubs and restraunts , there some conveluted rule that you can only sit with people of the same house hold, whoch is iniverally ignored, as is the contact tracing, requirment to leave you name and number, i looked at the book in one crowded bar, and there were 6 names in it, mickey mouse and donald duck were notable.
the bus requirment is the most conpkieded with at about 50%, vut then there seems also a strobg ethnic, bias towards wearing them, shops, its about 20%, also mostly thoose with non uk backgrounds

all in all, a farce of the highest order

Not surprising that the cumulative deaths per million in the UK is among the highest in the world, and even higher than the USA. Almost 5k cases per million, and over 600 deaths per million. Looks like the number of cases is starting to go back up, too. Things seemed to have calmed down for a while, few deaths each day and cases being reported was flattening out. Hope we don't see any future spikes resulting from the apathy you mention above.

https://covid19.who.int/table

For anyone who wants to look at the information, you can find it at the link above. It hasn't been converted into hyper-partisan political talking points yet, so I expect @dvcochran has little reason to go there. Though, that said, there have been efforts to politicize the WHO in order to undermine their credibility with people like @dvcochran to groom them so that they can be more easily manipulated.

 

[Steve]

Just, to be clear, I'm not being critical of the UK. The challenges there seem to be similar.

In the USA, the cumulative deaths per million is a little lower, but it doesn't look like anything is really slowing down yet. Some current data below:

When I look at that spike in cases and deaths over the last 7 days, that concerns me, along with the fact that we're still losing about 1,000 people per day and will soon go over 200k deaths. That's not a milestone we want.