Offline
As tragic as kids getting this serious disease is, and I hope it turns out it isn't COVID related and is easier to stop, but maybe this will finally get people who are not taking this seriously to take it seriously.
COVID-19 Outbreak (Update: More than 2.9M cases and 132,313 deaths in US) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starterEeyore
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
As tragic as kids getting this serious disease is, and I hope it turns out it isn't COVID related and is easier to stop, but maybe this will finally get people who are not taking this seriously to take it seriously.
Infoman
You're a Towel!
Offline
Sometimes I wonder if we are reading the same quotes...
He says nothing about N95 specifically (just the overall practice of wearing a mask)...
He says...
"There's no reason to be walking around with a mask," infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci told 60 Minutes.
"While masks may block some droplets", Fauci said, "they do not provide the level of protection people think they do". Wearing a mask may also have unintended consequences: "People who wear masks tend to touch their face more often to adjust them, which can spread germs from their hands."
He is quite literally saying... Don't wear a mask... It may make things worse.... (This was in April)
He does go on later to say that...
But there is another risk to healthy people buying disposable masks as a precaution. The price of face masks is surging, and Prestige Ameritech, the nation's largest surgical mask manufacturer, is now struggling to keep up with the increased demand.
"It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it," Fauci said.
Added - For healthy people, both the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend they wear masks only when taking care of those who are sick or suspected of having the virus.
If what we are hearing today (everyone needs to wear a mask in public at all times) ... isn't a complete 180 from what we were told in April... I need to study geometry again. LOL
Offline
I think we read the same quotes but we interpret them differently.
At any rate, even if you assume he did flip flop, I don't see the issue. Everyone knows that this is a new disease by definition, they don't call it a Novel Coronavirus for nothing, so there isn't enough research out there to really come to definite conclusions on anything. So, doctors make educated guesses based on what evidence they do have. Sometimes later evidence changes that opinion. I mean, that's literally how science works in the first place.
If anything, to the extent that he did "flip flop", Fauci should be applauded for changing his recommendations in the light of new evidence instead of rigidly holding to a position because he doesn't want to be seen as having been wrong.
Last edited:
Infoman
You're a Towel!
Offline
Ha! That's fair....
Offline
Well, this is not good news for Louisiana. Looks like a big surge in positive cases today. It may just be due to the increased number of tests being reported and Tuesday often being a day when a backlog of tests are reported, but still worth keeping and eye on:
Edit: Damn, it's Wednesday. Apparently I lost track of days.
View: https://twitter.com/NOLAnews/status/1260616989476827136?s=20
Edit: Damn, it's Wednesday. Apparently I lost track of days.
View: https://twitter.com/NOLAnews/status/1260616989476827136?s=20
- Moderator
- #21,066
Online
If it became absolutely necessary, I do think society would adjust. While maybe a bit different in the 30s and 40s, people in the roaring 20s are the same people who lost pretty much everything during the great depression and they adjusted. Some better than others, but society adjusted, and again in the 40s during WWII they had to donate or give up possessions for the war effort. It's been a while since the last time we had to sacrifice in that way, but if Americans think it's for a worth cause, they'll do what they need to do for the most part.
- Admin
- #21,067
Offline
I think my earlier answer addressed what you're discussing.
In addition to what I said in that post, I see it more as him prioritizing who needs to be in a mask. His point was that healthy people wearing them wrong, or handling masks wrong, could more likely get themselves infected, by having a stronger sense of security than they would. One protection doesn't eliminate the needs to be cautious in other areas. i.e. hand washing still needs to be a major thing.
I think the "suspected to have covid" is the trickier part, since people can spread it without showing symptoms. So, everyone is possibly suspected. That's why you see a bigger push for masks in shared spaces. Less for personal protection, more for community protection.
And again, I believe more data on the aerolizing of the virus has come out pushing this further.
Offline
From my own point of view, I guess I just never took him seriously when he wouldn't recommend that the general public wear masks. I mean, it just never made sense to me that they could somehow help stop health care workers from getting sick, but not the general public. And, logically, if an N95 masks helps healthcare workers, then a less effective mask will still help to a lesser extent for the general public. And, it seemed clear to me from the context that he was just trying to make sure that as many masks as possible were available for healthcare workers. Ideally they should be wearing N95 masks, but early on (and maybe even now) they were having issues getting those and were being forced to wear whatever masks they could find.
I also looked to Asian cultures that have been wearing masks for years to stop from spreading disease to others and it was hard to take any statements to the contrary without skepticism. Especially when you read between the lines of what Fauci was saying.
Offline
I don't know that I'd use a fake name. I'm just saying that if I ate under those terms, that would be how I'd do it. And it would be obviously so as a form of protest. But I don't know that I'd do that, for some of the moral concerns mentioned. I'd probably just go to a restaurant in a neighboring parish honestly. Also, I have no love of crime cameras or traffic cameras so I don't see the point in using them as a justification for requiring a restaurant to provide my personal information to the city of New Orleans. The argument that existing privacy violations somehow justify this one is odd.
As for the census, I do participate as compelled by law. However, I'm sure you can see the difference between a census and the government compelling a private company to collect the personal information of their customers in order to operate. I'm under no misunderstandings about the current situation in which my privacy is near zero inasmuch as I use a phone or email or search engine (non pornographic of course). And the relationship between the government and the private companies that collect and sell that data are obviously a problem. But again, that doesn't justify the explicit compulsion of requiring private businesses to collect and provide customer data in order for them to operate. It's way over the line, even if the intention is good. Most tyrannical oversteps are justified to the public by seemingly good intention.
Concerning churches participating in logging for the mayor, I will not attend mass at a church that will require me to give information to the mayor of New Orleans. It was an immediate concern of mine. I'd be seriously troubled if the bishop tried to operate under those terms. It'd probably violate all sorts of canon law. If politicians press on the matter we will witness a serious gut check for the Church in which bishops will decide whether they are good little civil servants of the temporal order or apostles and ministers in the priesthood of Christ our Lord. I received the archdiocesan letter this morning and saw no mention of logging and it was obviously up to date on information. I'm eager to see what my parish says.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,485
- Reaction score
- 26,381
Offline
I think you are discounting the change in the attitude of our society
A manufacturing/production based society has a very different outlook for sacrificing for the good of others as compared to a consumer/consumption based society
FootballLady
Super Forum Fanatic
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 7,522
- Reaction score
- 15,718
- Age
- 47
Offline
I stumbled upon this poem by one of my favorites, Wendell Berry. He wrote in 2010 but I couldn't help but think it apropos. It's titled 'Questionnaire'
1. How much poison are you willing
to eat for the success of the free
market and global trade? Please
name your preferred poisons.
2. For the sake of goodness, how much
evil are you willing to do?
Fill in the following blanks
with the names of your favorite
evils and acts of hatred.
3. What sacrifices are you prepared
to make for culture and civilization?
Please list the monuments, shrines,
and works of art you would
most willingly destroy.
4. In the name of patriotism and
the flag, how much of our beloved
land are you willing to desecrate?
List in the following spaces
the mountains, rivers, towns, farms
you could most readily do without.
5. State briefly the ideas, ideals, or hopes,
the energy sources, the kinds of security,
for which you would kill a child.
Name, please, the children whom
you would be willing to kill.
1. How much poison are you willing
to eat for the success of the free
market and global trade? Please
name your preferred poisons.
2. For the sake of goodness, how much
evil are you willing to do?
Fill in the following blanks
with the names of your favorite
evils and acts of hatred.
3. What sacrifices are you prepared
to make for culture and civilization?
Please list the monuments, shrines,
and works of art you would
most willingly destroy.
4. In the name of patriotism and
the flag, how much of our beloved
land are you willing to desecrate?
List in the following spaces
the mountains, rivers, towns, farms
you could most readily do without.
5. State briefly the ideas, ideals, or hopes,
the energy sources, the kinds of security,
for which you would kill a child.
Name, please, the children whom
you would be willing to kill.
Offline
I think it's true that the messaging in March and into April was that masks weren't likely to be effective. I remember the US Surgeon General tweeting that people don't need to be buying masks. At that time there was also concern that demand for masks from the general public would limit supplies at hospitals.
But in the meantime, new research has been coming to light evidencing that the virus transmitted though the air much more easily than first anticipated. The R0 values are higher than previously thought, and a number of airflow analysis reports and investigations of mass infections (e.g. at the bio-tech conference in Boston in February or the choir practice in Washington state) have supported a revised view on the likely effectiveness of wearing a mask when around others . . . especially indoors. Also, we know that asymptomatic (or presymptomatic) infections are carrying sufficient viral load to be transmitting if the person is in public.
So we have a situation where mask supplies have increased and hospital need seems to be met. Contagiousness through the air is more potent than first believed. And asymptomatic infected people are in public. Makes sense to revise the view on masks.
Last edited:
Offline
I've pretty much so made my position clear on this several times so I won't belabor the point. But, I will say that I really don't see the difference between giving my personal information directly to the government in the Census and having a private company collect less information in a pandemic other than that the burden is placed on a private company to collect the data.
But, it's not like the government doesn't tell restaurants to do all kinds of things in the interest of public health and safety. They have to pass health and safety inspections to operate and are supposed to follow all sorts of sanitary rules set by the local government or they will be shut down. I mean, they have to have a Department of Health Certificate posted to even operate. I don't see this as any more of a burden on restaurants than any other health and safety rule. In fact, it's much less of a burden and for a much more important reason. But, I don't know, do you disagree with restaurants having to comply with Department of Health rules in order to operate?
Will you be boycotting restaurants in other parishes that comply with Department of Health guidelines? Or is it really that it is your personal information that they collect, not so much that the government is making them do it that really bothers you? And, if that's the case, then shouldn't you actually be boycotting the Census too?
And my point about the crime cameras etc. was that they could choose to get this information in a much more secretive and intrusive manner, instead of just having you write a name and number, not that the fact that there are already violations of privacy makes this justifiable. They are using a much less intrusive means here and that is really a central issue when the Courts decide if a Constitutional right is being impermissibly violated.
And apparently, I do want to belabor the point.
Last edited:
Offline
The only customer data that is being collected is the name, date and time that people have been at that company and contact information.
That data is held by the company for 21 days. Once that time period is up the data is no longer held by the company.
The only time the data is to be shared with the government is if it turns out that someone was infectious with COVID-19 at the time they were at the company. At that point the company provides the names and contact information of everyone else at that company at the same time that the infectious person was there. That information is then used to contact all of those people to let them know that they have been exposed to COVID-19.
We can't safely "re-open" the country without contact tracing, so this is necessary if we want to "re-open" the country safely.
How do you think this information can be used in a tyrannical and oppressive way against people?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2000
- Messages
- 27,312
- Reaction score
- 58,157
- Age
- 45
Offline
Hey Brennan - I'd like to hear more perspective on why this data collection concerns you. Just trying to understand why you, like many others, are so concerned about this. Maybe I am missing something. Heck, most restaurants I go to these days require a reservation, and I am already giving them this data.
From my viewpoint, the government already collects or has access to as much data on us as they need for any sort of deep state or privacy invasion conspiracy. Us giving them the assist here is simply about being able to quickly ascertain facts in the case of another outbreak, while also serving as a small mental reminder to people that life outside of the house is not to be treated like everything is fine and normal.
- Status