So if two different people state the same fact, the first person is only stating a fact or do facts not become facts if you do not like who states them?
Technically, those are "findings", not really established "facts"; in science and other research fields there are generally distinctions between the two - regardless of how often people interchange the words - but that's just a nerdy, semantic thing to me, not singling you out by any means. I don't remember stating anywhere that I disbelieved what those "doctors" cherry-picked from the CDC data regarding transmission among children. However, considering the dubious backgrounds of some of those speakers, their reckless and speculative claims which defy reliable medical studies from numerous sources, and the fact (an actual "fact" in this case) that the entire production was staged by Breitbart, I would tend to be suspicious of most of what they were saying. Breitbart has been producing politically-charged disinformation for at least ten years (and caught at it many times); anything they release should be looked at with some suspicion if not disbelief. Would you tend to believe someone with such a history of generating purely misleading material?
Unfortunately, I am not entirely surprised. I could go on a long rant about Nigeria as a failed state and a poster girl for the Resource Curse that constantly sits on the edge of (another) civil war. I could also rant on about the mediocre quality of Nigerian doctors — we have three of them in town. But those topics are for another thread.
So if two different people state the same fact, the first person is only stating a fact or do facts not become facts if you do not like who states them?
didn't read the article but the problem is that high school kids and kindergarteners are vastly different but we're saying "open the schools" as though you are only capable of carrying covid once you have your diploma.
"According to the CDC, there are few reports of children being the driving force of transmission within families. It said that as of July 17, children and adolescents account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths.
"The best available evidence indicates that COVID-19 poses relatively low risks to school-aged children," the guidelines read."
The "quack doctors who basically said the same thing" were quoting (or cherry-picking) data gathered and/or published by the CDC and the WHO - most likely from the CDC's release from July 23. The article linked above was released a few days before Breitbart's bogus "news conference" occurred. Still, as you said, these are "guidelines" - school districts still ultimately decide on their plans in most places.
So if two different people state the same fact, the first person is only stating a fact or do facts not become facts if you do not like who states them?
"According to the CDC, there are few reports of children being the driving force of transmission within families. It said that as of July 17, children and adolescents account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths.
"The best available evidence indicates that COVID-19 poses relatively low risks to school-aged children," the guidelines read."
The "quack doctors who basically said the same thing" were quoting (or cherry-picking) data gathered and/or published by the CDC and the WHO - most likely from the CDC's release from July 23. The article linked above was released a few days before Breitbart's bogus "news conference" occurred. Still, as you said, these are "guidelines" - school districts still ultimately decide on their plans in most places.
So in other words you disagree with the CDC? I fully understand this and have not offered my personal opinion as of yet.
I think a one-size-fits all recommendation of back to school is not going to work.
My midmost teaches in the Alaskan bush. Kids live in small houses in multigeneration families with lots of old people. There are endemic problems with substance abuse and poor health and nutrition. The kids often struggle with English. Anything that gets transmitted at school immediately races thru the village. On the other hand they are very isolated during the school year—the only access is by air (which was shut down during the start of the outbreak) and ice road; the nearest town is 60 miles away. The response in their case need to be from the whole community, not just the school.
My sister-in-law teaches in upstate New York. They had a hell of a time at the start of the outbreak; she wrote a lot of condolence letters and lost one student. The school is modern and well-funded and the pandemic has largely run its course there, but they are taking no chances and zooming into the new school year.
Where I live infection, hospitalization, and death rates are quite low...as is mask use and concern among locals. Internet access isn't universal either (tho close to it; some families parked in the public library parking lot to get wifi for homework). Either way it's a tough call.
I'd much prefer the CDC offer best practices for schools that do re-open and publicize criteria for school boards to consider rather than a blanket recommendation that assumes every district has the resources to implement the necessary measures.
As always it's about risk, not certainty. We humans suck at intuitively assessing risk. We need to be guided by science here, something the CDC should be good at. If they are getting good at toeing a political line then people will have an incentive to disregard their advice, and that would be a lasting tragedy.
I tend to agree and at least around here, the local school districts are taking this custom by choice approach which I think is the prudent thing to do. The CDC only offers recommendations and guidelines but it is the state and local school districts that actually implement the policy so yea there are going to be hundreds of different approaches depending on where you are which is probably a good thing.
So in other words you disagree with the CDC? I fully understand this and have not offered my personal opinion as of yet.
I think a one-size-fits all recommendation of back to school is not going to work.
My midmost teaches in the Alaskan bush. Kids live in small houses in multigeneration families with lots of old people. There are endemic problems with substance abuse and poor health and nutrition. The kids often struggle with English. Anything that gets transmitted at school immediately races thru the village. On the other hand they are very isolated during the school yearâthe only access is by air (which was shut down during the start of the outbreak) and ice road; the nearest town is 60 miles away. The response in their case need to be from the whole community, not just the school.
My sister-in-law teaches in upstate New York. They had a hell of a time at the start of the outbreak; she wrote a lot of condolence letters and lost one student. The school is modern and well-funded and the pandemic has largely run its course there, but they are taking no chances and zooming into the new school year.
Where I live infection, hospitalization, and death rates are quite low...as is mask use and concern among locals. Internet access isn't universal either (tho close to it; some families parked in the public library parking lot to get wifi for homework). Either way it's a tough call.
I'd much prefer the CDC offer best practices for schools that do re-open and publicize criteria for school boards to consider rather than a blanket recommendation that assumes every district has the resources to implement the necessary measures.
As always it's about risk, not certainty. We humans suck at intuitively assessing risk. We need to be guided by science here, something the CDC should be good at. If they are getting good at toeing a political line then people will have an incentive to disregard their advice, and that would be a lasting tragedy.
"According to the CDC, there are few reports of children being the driving force of transmission within families. It said that as of July 17, children and adolescents account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths.
"The best available evidence indicates that COVID-19 poses relatively low risks to school-aged children," the guidelines read."
That COVID-19 poses a low risk to the health of individual children is uncontroversial. They catch it like everybody else but it seldom kills them. The difficulties lie in
The grown-ups they live with are more vulnerable, sometimes a LOT more vulnerable
Their teachers/custodians/administrators are grown-ups
What do you do when a kid comes down with it? Quarantine everyone s/he's had contact with? What if that's the whole school?
Kids are well-known germ monsters. They are a primary vector for the flu every year, and I remember my kids' grade school years as one bout of viral illness after another for the whole family.
If it were only about the kids it wouldn't be a tough call, but it ain't.
So in other words you disagree with the CDC? I fully understand this and have not offered my personal opinion as of yet.
"According to the CDC, there are few reports of children being the driving force of transmission within families. It said that as of July 17, children and adolescents account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths.
"The best available evidence indicates that COVID-19 poses relatively low risks to school-aged children," the guidelines read."
As of this morning, there are 303 children (minors) in FL hospitals with Covid-19.
Look on the bright side, if your kid dies, another 1,000 older people will have gone too. No risk...now get on the bus!
"According to the CDC, there are few reports of children being the driving force of transmission within families. It said that as of July 17, children and adolescents account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths.
"The best available evidence indicates that COVID-19 poses relatively low risks to school-aged children," the guidelines read."
That COVID-19 poses a low risk to the health of individual children is uncontroversial. They catch it like everybody else but it seldom kills them. The difficulties lie in
The grown-ups they live with are more vulnerable, sometimes a LOT more vulnerable
Their teachers/custodians/administrators are grown-ups
What do you do when a kid comes down with it? Quarantine everyone s/he's had contact with? What if that's the whole school?
Kids are well-known germ monsters. They are a primary vector for the flu every year, and I remember my kids' grade school years as one bout of viral illness after another for the whole family.
If it were only about the kids it wouldn't be a tough call, but it ain't.
"According to the CDC, there are few reports of children being the driving force of transmission within families. It said that as of July 17, children and adolescents account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths.
"The best available evidence indicates that COVID-19 poses relatively low risks to school-aged children," the guidelines read."
As of this morning, there are 303 children (minors) in FL hospitals with Covid-19.
Look on the bright side, if your kid dies, another 1,000 older people will have gone too. No risk...now get on the bus!
"According to the CDC, there are few reports of children being the driving force of transmission within families. It said that as of July 17, children and adolescents account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths.
"The best available evidence indicates that COVID-19 poses relatively low risks to school-aged children," the guidelines read."
So this is what has been deemed unfit to be seen. Too much for my little brain to handle.
What is the medical training of those who decided this is baseless and without merit ?
Are these not real doctors ? Are they not currently treating actual patients ?
A different point of view is not to be allowed any exposure, regardless eh ?
And what if they are right ? We will know the answer to that in the not too distant future with all of the testing underway.
It is not yet decided and keeping any public and honest discussion of this or other treatments from happening is motivated primarily by politics and lobbyists, not science as claimed.
Are these not legitimate doctors of medical sciences ?
I assume that they are all currently licensed.
I read the hit piece ole Agent Orange posted. Doesn't make what is said in the video untrue by what I saw watching the whole thing.
I'm tired of hearing the bullshit that decries (or pretends) the science is settled, because it isn't.
That is actually why I posted this, these are very educated people of science with a lot of experience and yet obviously some of what they have said is full of shit, but not all of it. Are they really so much different than the revered and respected educated professionals that have been flip flopping and waving in the wind with their confusing messaging almost like they really don't anymore than we do regarding covid? Personally common sense told me very early on that a virus they really don't know jack about but seems so contagious and deadly enough to take notice should be treated seriously and social distancing, washing your hands as much as possible and eventually wearing mask if you have to be around people (definition of which is the most flagrant abuse) is the prudent cause of action. The delay of wearing the mask for me was only because I was adamantly told by these professionals to not wear mask because you would be usurping badly needed supplies from our medical staff on the front lines and they would not help that much anyway. I was perplexed by this because I have always noticed Asians wearing mask during times like these and they have much more experience with this sort of thing and it seemed to make sense if this virus was so contagious. Then all of the sudden a mask was paramount for everyone and the supply issues were no more magically overnight and how could anyone think otherwise? Bottom line is, I never really paid much attention to what western "experts" say, on pandemics. I stick to common sense and the basic science of what I know about virus's behavior and act accordingly. You guys can argue about how to control others.
sirdroseph wrote: So this is what has been deemed unfit to be seen. Too much for my little brain to handle.
What is the medical training of those who decided this is baseless and without merit ?
Are these not real doctors ? Are they not currently treating actual patients ?
A different point of view is not to be allowed any exposure, regardless eh ?
And what if they are right ? We will know the answer to that in the not too distant future with all of the testing underway.
It is not yet decided and keeping any public and honest discussion of this or other treatments from happening is motivated primarily by politics and lobbyists, not science as claimed.
Are these not legitimate doctors of medical sciences ?
I assume that they are all currently licensed.
I read the hit piece ole Agent Orange posted. Doesn't make what is said in the video untrue by what I saw watching the whole thing.
I'm tired of hearing the bullshit that decries (or pretends) the science is settled, because it isn't.
President Trump lamented Anthony S. Fauciâs popularity amid the coronavirus pandemic and complained that he should be given equally high marks.
âWeâve done pretty much what he and others, Dr. Birx and others who are terrific, recommended,â Trump said, referring to Fauci. âAnd heâs got this high approval rating. So why donât I have a high approval rating with respect, and the administration, with respect to the virus?â
...
âIt sort of is curious. A man works for us, with us very closely ⦠and yet theyâre highly thought of,â Trump said. âBut nobody likes me. It can only be my personality, thatâs all.â
Because you're a total fucking waste of air, Donnie.
What are you going to whine about for the next four years?
That tweet you posted is from February 5, 2020. Before the coronavirus turned this country upside down and made crystal clear how incompetent and deluded Trump is.
But you seem just as keen on displaying your own shortcomings.
Admit it now, KK. The truth will set you free.
More fun with Douchebag Don: That press conference he gave was a doozy!
Trump defends sharing video on discredited drug and falsely claims much of U.S. is âcorona free.â
President Trump
returned to defending a discredited drug at a White House briefing
Tuesday evening in which he also made claims about the trajectory of the
virus that clash with his own administrationâs assessments and bemoaned his low approval ratings.
The president defended sharing a version of a video promoting the use of the drug hydroxychloroquine that was deleted Monday night by
Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, which all said that the video had
violated their policies on sharing misinformation about the virus.
He
claimed that âyou can look at large portions of our country â itâs
corona-free,â even as federal officials distributed a new report finding
that 21 states had outbreaks so severe that they were in the âred
zone.â Twenty-eight states were in the âyellow zone,â and only one
state, Vermont, was in the âgreen zone.â
... At the briefing Mr. Trump was asked about one of the speakers in the video, who identified herself as Dr. Stella Immanuel. She claimed âyou donât need masksâ to prevent the spread of the virus and spoke of treating hundreds of virus patients with hydroxychloroquine. He called her âimpressive.â
...
She was on air along with many other
doctors,â he said. âThey were big fans of hydroxychloroquine. And I
thought she was very impressive in the sense that from where she came â I
donât know which country she comes from â but
she says sheâs had tremendous success with hundreds of different
patients. And I thought her voice was an important voice, but I know
nothing about her.â
Dr. Immanuel has
drawn scrutiny for a series of religious sermons posted on her YouTube
channel, in which she linked medical conditions to sex with demons and
witches, as well as making references to alien DNA.
When
a reporter mentioned Dr. Immanuelâs background to the president,
including comments attributed to her that âdoctors make medicine using
DNA from aliens,â Mr. Trump responded, âI know nothing about her,â and
abruptly ended the briefing moments later.
President
Trump lamented Anthony S. Fauciâs popularity amid the coronavirus
pandemic and complained that he should be given equally high marks.
âWeâve
done pretty much what he and others, Dr. Birx and others who
are terrific, recommended,â Trump said, referring to Fauci. âAnd heâs
got this high approval rating. So why donât I have a high approval
rating with respect, and the administration, with respect to the virus?â
...
âIt sort of is curious. A man works for us, with us very closely ⦠and yet theyâre highly thought of,â Trump said. âBut nobody likes me. It can only be my personality, thatâs all.â
What does it tell us when a person is President of the United States and is jealous of the stature of someone else in his administration?
