How Politics Hijacked Science and Religion

The Barbarian said:

You just had a hissy because CDC did that. And you've done it before. As we learned more about the disease, we got smarter at preventing it.

Click to expand...

Right. The Director of the CDC says, "Teachers don't need to be vaccinated to safely return to school", and LATER THAT SAME AFTERNOON, the press secretary says nope, and that's because they "learned more about the disease". If you say so.

The Barbarian said:

Masks turned out to offer only a little protection for the wearer, but offered pretty good protection for other people. And the recommendations changed to reflect the data.

Click to expand...

Holy revisionist history, Batman! When masks were first recommended, it was based on absolutely nothing. The propaganda was, "My mask protects you, your mask protects me", and it was literally everywhere. Observational "studies" were then done that "confirmed" what they told us. They ran with that for quite a while, until more "studies" were done that decided, actually, masks DO protect you too. But you say no. Turns out the electrostatic properties of masks are, apparently, only one way. Again, if you say so, but fewer people are buying this nonsense.

The mask "science" has been all over the map, again, not because we were "learning" anything, but because public health needed The Science™ to back them up, as the CDC Director said in her interview with Jake Tapper in February. That's probably why nearly 50% of Americans don't trust the CDC now, because they've lost credibility with their politically motivated "guidance".

The Barbarian said:

Surfaces turned out to be less important in spreading infection than they are for other viruses like influenza and the recommendations changed to reflect the data.

Each time deniers had a conniption as CDC and physicians used the data to update their recommendations.

Click to expand...

I am amazed that you still trust the CDC and their constant gaslighting. But, that is certainly your prerogative. Thankfully, more and more people are seeing that they're really nothing more than a politically motivated group that can be easily lobbied by unions and other stakeholders, which is sad, because the CDC was once a respected health organization. Their own actions throughout the pandemic, however, have exposed them for what they are.

Genuine question; can anyone point to a study of the efficacy of masking that includes the time period from October 2020 - January 2021?

Genuine question; can anyone point to any study that would suggest that masking outdoors is beneficial?

probinson said:

Right. The Director of the CDC says, "Teachers don't need to be vaccinated to safely return to school", and LATER THAT SAME AFTERNOON, the press secretary says nope, and that's because they "learned more about the disease".

Click to expand...

I get it. Someone in administration messed up. But it doesn't change the science.

Masks turned out to offer only a little protection for the wearer, but offered pretty good protection for other people. And the recommendations changed to reflect the data.

probinson said:

Holy revisionist history, Batman!

Click to expand...

Your revisionist history won't work for you. Let's take a look...

Researchers are rigorously testing masks and other PPE in EPA’s laboratories in Chapel Hill and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. They want to know how effectively different materials can filter out virus particles from the air, whether popular do-it-yourself mask modifications work, and which disinfection methods work well for masks and other types of PPE, like face shields and protective suits.


This information will help health care professionals and the public better identify the most effective products and allow hospital personnel to prioritize N95 respirators and identify alternatives during shortages. Two peer-reviewed articles in the Journal of American Medical Association along with one EPA Report, were published in 2020.
EPA Researchers Test Effectiveness of Face Masks, Disinfection Methods Against COVID-19 | US EPA

probinson said:

When masks were first recommended, it was based on absolutely nothing.

Click to expand...

See above. You've trusted people who abused your trust in them.

They ran with that for quite a while, until more "studies" were done that decided, actually, masks DO protect you too. But you say no.

Click to expand...

If you have to misrepresent what I said, to make a point, isn't that an important clue? I told you that masks offer only a little protection for the person wearing them, but offer more protection for other from the wearer.

Be careful.

probinson said:

The mask "science" has been all over the map, again, not because we were "learning" anything, but because public health needed The Science™ to back them up, as the CDC Director said in her interview with Jake Tapper in February. That's probably why nearly 50% of Americans don't trust the CDC now, because they've lost credibility with their politically motivated "guidance".

Click to expand...

In spite of all the political attacks by the far right, CDC is trusted more than you guys are. Would you like me to show you?

Turns out the electrostatic properties of masks are, apparently, only one way.

Click to expand...

That's what I showed you. For example, they filter out larger droplets. And the reduce the projection of air from the mouth. And so on.

probinson said:

Genuine question; can anyone point to a study of the efficacy of masking that includes the time period from October 2020 - January 2021?

Click to expand...

Yes, we know you like cherry-picking data, but the important thing is how the masks performed over the entire pandemic.

I looked at the data from April 2021, for the entire pandemic. It showed states with mask mandates averaged significantly lower infection rates than states without them.

That's the reality. If you want, you can do the same analysis right now. The data is there, but with the pandemic now winding down, you won't find significantly different results.

The Barbarian said:

I get it. Someone in administration messed up. But it doesn't change the science.

Click to expand...

"Messed up"? The Director of the CDC said, "There is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told reporters during a White House news briefing on Covid-19.

“Vaccinations of teachers is not a prerequisite for safely reopening schools,” she added.

What changed in The Science™ from that statement?

Looks like a management problem. You lost the argument on the science; so you're trying to salvage something by pointing to some kind of miscommunication.

We all get that. And if you want to argue that CDC management is still recovering from the Trump years, you're probably right.

Doesn't change the science, though.

The Barbarian said:

Masks turned out to offer only a little protection for the wearer, but offered pretty good protection for other people. And the recommendations changed to reflect the data.

Click to expand...

Absolutely false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The Barbarian said:

If you have to misrepresent what I said, to make a point, isn't that an important clue?

Click to expand...

You'd think so, but that is your modus operandi when talking with me.

The Barbarian said:

Looks like a management problem. You lost the argument on the science; so you're trying to salvage something by pointing to some kind of miscommunication.

Click to expand...

Huh? What miscommunication? The CDC director said that there was a growing body of evidence that vaccinations weren't needed for schools to open safely. What "science" do you think changed that caused this "miscommunication"?

I'm also rather amused that you're declaring yourself the "winner" regarding the argument on science. But then, that's par for the course for people who advocate for The Science™. Heck, Dr. Fauci even arrogantly said that attacks on him were attacks on science, so it's not all that surprising that you think you've won.

The Barbarian said:

We all get that.

Click to expand...

We? There are currently exactly three people here discussing this topic; you, me and Derek1234. Does it make you feel better to pretend that you speak for everyone? Power in numbers, I suppose, even if they are completely imaginary and made up.

On the other hand, polling shows that only half of Americans trust the CDC and the FDA because of their responses in the pandemic;
poll-finds-public-health-has-a-trust-problem

The Barbarian said:

And if you want to argue that CDC management is still recovering from the Trump years, you're probably right.

Click to expand...

Thank you for illustrating, once again, that science has been polluted by politics.

The Barbarian said:

Doesn't change the science, though.

Click to expand...

You mean The Science™, which is fluid not as data dictates, but as the political winds blow. And you're right. The Science™ can say whatever it wants. The Science™ is nothing more than a bludgeoning tool to silence any dissent. It is antithetical to actual science.

Speaking of trust in public health, how about the fact that 3 members of the FDA committee have already resigned over approval of Aduhelm for the treatment of Alzheimers?

Is this the same FDA that granted EUA for vaccinating children, despite the unusually high risks of myocarditis in that age group? Sure, we should trust these guys. Because they deal in The Science™!

Also, is anyone aware of any studies of the "unintended consequences" of mask wearing? This was the mantra when they were telling us NOT to wear masks, that there would be "unintended consequences" by people touching them, wearing them incorrectly, wearing them too long, not cleaning them, etc. Any studies that examine those "unintended consequences", or are we just supposed to memory hole that all of public health told us masking had these unintended consequences?

probinson said:

Hold on... now you're moving the goalposts. Children "who are sick" are not "asymptomatic", which is what we were discussing. There simply is no good evidence that asymptomatic children (healthy children?) are drivers of the pandemic.

Click to expand...

No. Maybe my shorthand was not clear enough. Children who were sick were 60% more likely to transmit the virus than adults who were sick. Children who are C19 positive but asymptomatic are only around half as likely as adults who are asymptomatic to transmit the virus. That is statistically highly significant, but in no way supports your contention that it rarely happens. Children can, and do, contract C19; and when they do, if they are asymptomatic, they're half as likely as adults to pass it on to others. That's a pretty big risk to address, and really not like your analogy of not driving cars because crashes rarely happen.

probinson said:

How would you suggest we do that and ensure it is not polluted by politics and societal pressures?

Click to expand...

By comparing interventions made in similar populations with similar environments and working out what worked and what appeared to have a negligible effect: vaccines, social distancing, hand sanitising, masking, lockdowns, dominant variants, other; and also to look at compliance. This is why Nepal and the US are poor comparators. You admitted you didn't know enough about Nepal to argue for or against extrapolating from here. Scientists should aim to eliminate outliers, account for variations, and identify the key pharmalogical and/or behavioural interventions that work.

There is no question that science and politics are intertwined. The exam question is whether it has been "hijacked". That's a long leap, unless we have strong a priori assumptions.

Derek1234 said:

No. Maybe my shorthand was not clear enough. Children who were sick were 60% more likely to transmit the virus than adults who were sick. Children who are C19 positive but asymptomatic are only around half as likely as adults who are asymptomatic to transmit the virus. That is statistically highly significant, but in no way supports your contention that it rarely happens. Children can, and do, contract C19; and when they do, if they are asymptomatic, they're half as likely as adults to pass it on to others. That's a pretty big risk to address, and really not like your analogy of not driving cars because crashes rarely happen.

Click to expand...

Are you an advocate of Zero-COVID? What I mean is, do you think COVID can be eradicated, or do you think that COVID will become endemic and we'll have to learn to live with it?

probinson said:

What "science" do you think changed that caused this "miscommunication"?

Click to expand...

As you probably know, Trump's appointees started messing with administration in CDC. I'm guessing that they are still getting over that.

probinson said:

I'm also rather amused that you're declaring yourself the "winner" regarding the argument on science.

Click to expand...

Data will do that. Your guys lost on the data. Find a way to live with it.

probinson said:

We? There are currently exactly three people here discussing this topic; you, me and Derek1234.

Click to expand...

People are watching. Not just here, but the American public. That's why, for example, when Gov. Abbot "opened up" things in Texas before it was safe, most Texans continued to wear masks until CDC scientists considered it to be safe to do without them. Go figure.

The deniers talk about The Science™, but everyone knows that their version is contaminated by political factors.

There are always the sheep who listen to your political stuff, but they're in the minority.

Derek1234 said:

By comparing interventions made in similar populations with similar environments and working out what worked and what appeared to have a negligible effect: vaccines, social distancing, hand sanitising, masking, lockdowns, dominant variants, other; and also to look at compliance. This is why Nepal and the US are poor comparators. You admitted you didn't know enough about Nepal to argue for or against extrapolating from here. Scientists should aim to eliminate outliers, account for variations, and identify the key pharmalogical and/or behavioural interventions that work.

Click to expand...

You keep using the word "worked". Can you define what that means? That seems like a good place to start to objectively determine what "worked" and what didn't.

Secondly, what if none of it "worked"? What if the advocates of focused protection were right, and nothing we did or can do can stop viral spread? What if our best option was to focus the protection where it was needed most, you know, like we did in EVERY other pandemic prior to this one? How could one even objectively analyze this, since focused protection was deemed reckless at the beginning of the pandemic by The Science™?

Thirdly, you don't even mention collateral damage, which has been one of the biggest failings of public health throughout this pandemic. Should scientists weigh the costs of "mitigation" against other consequences? What is "acceptable" in these cases? I posted this link yesterday that attempts to quantify a cost/beneift analysis of the response in the UK COVID-19 QALYs - Collateral Global.

Does it matter if suicides have increased? Mental health declines? Education losses? Missed diagnoses of other diseases due to COVID? Job losses? At what point does our "mitigation" become counter-productive? Any objective analysis on the efficacy of NPI's would include this collateral damage.

The Barbarian said:

As you probably know, Trump's appointees started messing with administration in CDC. I'm guessing that they are still getting over that.

Click to expand...

You mean like Jen Psaki did on school openings, throwing Dr. Walensky under the bus just hours after she said teachers didn't need to be vaccinated to open schools safely?

The Barbarian said:

Data will do that. Your guys lost on the data. Find a way to live with it.

Click to expand...

As you know, numbers don't lie, liars use numbers.

The Barbarian said:

People are watching. Not just here, but the American public.

Click to expand...

True. That's why half of America no longer trusts our public health agencies.

The Barbarian said:

That's why, for example, when Gov. Abbot "opened up" things in Texas before it was safe, most Texans continued to wear masks until CDC scientists considered it to be safe to do without them. Go figure.

Click to expand...

You really do live in an alternate reality. You do know that there was an outcry when the CDC said vaccinated people could go maskless, and that was right about the time people decided the CDC didn't know what they were talking about any more. Right? I mean, some people are STILL wearing masks despite having been vaccinated for months, and they state their intent is to continue to wear masks indefinitely regardless of what The Science™ says. Why? Because masks are nothing more than a talisman that makes people feel safer.

The Barbarian said:

The deniers talk about The Science™, but everyone knows that their version is contaminated by political factors.

Click to expand...

There it is again. "Everyone knows". You and your imaginary army.

The Barbarian said:

There are always the sheep who listen to your political stuff, but they're in the minority.

Click to expand...

Do you understand statistical terms? Polls show that HALF of Americans do not trust the CDC or the FDA. That's not a minority.

"Sheep". Priceless.

probinson said:

Also, is anyone aware of any studies of the "unintended consequences" of mask wearing?

Click to expand...

Uncomfortable. Especially in warm weather.

Makes Tucker Carlson hyperventilate when he sees people wearing them.

A few ignorant people claimed that it exposed one to harmful carbon dioxide, but thousands of people checked with oxymeters, and that one was debunked. So scaring gullible sheeple about carbon dioxide would be an unintended consequence

I'm not sure you could call improper fit, touching the mask, etc. To be "unintended consequences." That would be kinda like calling a canoe "unintended consequences" because it lacked a canopy. Imperfection is not an "unintended consequence."

The Barbarian said:

Uncomfortable. Especially in warm weather.

Makes Tucker Carlson hyperventilate when he sees people wearing them.

A few ignorant people claimed that it exposed one to harmful carbon dioxide, but thousands of people checked with oxymeters, and that one was debunked. So scaring gullible sheeple about carbon dioxide would be an unintended consequence

I'm not sure you could call improper fit, touching the mask, etc. To be "unintended consequences." That would be kinda like calling a canoe "unintended consequences" because it lacked a canopy. Imperfection is not an "unintended consequence."

Click to expand...

So, no studies then? Not even poorly constructed, non-peer reviewed preprints of observations? Thanks for confirming.

Still waiting for someone to show me the masking studies that include the time period October 2020 - January 2021.

Also still waiting for someone to show a study on the efficacy of outdoor masking.