Coronavirus COVID-19

[JohnStOnge]

Ok I looked at some Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) web pages to try to get a more precise understanding of what is going on.

First let me say that there is what appears to be a discrepancy between what I see on the page at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html and the graph. This is on the linked page:

More than 496 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through December 20, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 10,688 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

The graph indicates 21,002. I can't tell when the end point for the graph is, but even if it was on January 4 I don't think there is any way they would have 10,688 reports of death over more than a year through December 20 then have another 10,314 reported during the 15 days December 21 through January 4. It'd be interesting to find out what is going on with that.

I found a very plausible potential explanation for why one would expect to see more deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations reported. If you look at the page at https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html, you will see a reference to health care providers being required by law to report Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccinations. There is a link to the table. The table addresses a bunch of vaccines but does not include COVID-19 vaccines.

If you go to the table, which is at https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_ ... nation.pdf, you will see that providers are only required to report deaths associated with other vaccines if they occur in association with specific conditions For example: A death following the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine must be reported if it is associated with anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock, encephalopathy or encephalitis, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, or vasovagal syncope.

If you scroll down the https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html page you will find the circumstances under which deaths after COVID-19 vaccinated have to be reported. And it's a much broader wet of circumstances. Providers must report deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, period. They must report them whether the person reporting thinks the vaccine caused the death or not and there is no condition about the deaths being associated with specific conditions as there are for the other vaccines.

Add that to the fact that, though an anti vax movement has been around for a long time, the political opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines is unique and ANYBODY can report into the VAERS.

Again: The raw VAERS data do not show that the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous. People who claim that they do are either ignorant with respect to what the VAERS system is an how it works or they are intentionally misleading others.

[JohnStOnge]

Another example of misusing data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Here is a quote from the guide on interpreting (VAERS) data at https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html:



The COVID-19 pandemic is politically active thing so it makes sense that a bunch of people are reporting things. That's why the VAERS is active. But, so far, none of that has resulted in much in terms of actual evidence that the vaccines are causing adverse events. You can see what has actually been established at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html.

They had identified 19 deaths "causally associated" with COVID-19 vaccinations through December 20, 2021. All with the J&J.

This thing of misrepresenting what VAERS data indicate really needs to stop. It's one of the big things with the anti vax movement. And it's totally bogus.

After all the statements that have wound up false coming from the CDC, and you still trust what they have to say?

Let's see the autopsy results and lab test results on these deaths.

All cause mortality might give us some truth and only now is gaining a little traction in the conversation.

Here is what the page at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html has to say about investigation of deaths:

CDC and FDA clinicians review reports of death to VAERS including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records.

I think it's reasonable to assume that CDC and FDA also have statisticians looking at the data to determine whether or not the rates of death from given causes among the vaccinated exceed the baseline rates of death from each cause to an extent that can't reasonably be explained by chance.

BTW I erred in an earlier post in saying there have been 19 deaths identified as likely caused by COVID-19 vaccination. The number is actually 9. All J&J.

[SeattleGriz]

Ok I looked at some Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) web pages to try to get a more precise understanding of what is going on.

First let me say that there is what appears to be a discrepancy between what I see on the page at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html and the graph. This is on the linked page:

More than 496 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through December 20, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 10,688 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

The graph indicates 21,002. I can't tell when the end point for the graph is, but even if it was on January 4 I don't think there is any way they would have 10,688 reports of death over more than a year through December 20 then have another 10,314 reported during the 15 days December 21 through January 4. It'd be interesting to find out what is going on with that.

I found a very plausible potential explanation for why one would expect to see more deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations reported. If you look at the page at https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html, you will see a reference to health care providers being required by law to report Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccinations. There is a link to the table. The table addresses a bunch of vaccines but does not include COVID-19 vaccines.

If you go to the table, which is at https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_ ... nation.pdf, you will see that providers are only required to report deaths associated with other vaccines if they occur in association with specific conditions For example: A death following the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine must be reported if it is associated with anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock, encephalopathy or encephalitis, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, or vasovagal syncope.

If you scroll down the https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html page you will find the circumstances under which deaths after COVID-19 vaccinated have to be reported. And it's a much broader wet of circumstances. Providers must report deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, period. They must report them whether the person reporting thinks the vaccine caused the death or not and there is no condition about the deaths being associated with specific conditions as there are for the other vaccines.

Add that to the fact that, though an anti vax movement has been around for a long time, the political opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines is unique and ANYBODY can report into the VAERS.

Again: The raw VAERS data do not show that the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous. People who claim that they do are either ignorant with respect to what the VAERS system is an how it works or they are intentionally misleading others.

You realize that "anybody" only amounts to 7% of the total VAERS entries? The other 93% are from medical professionals.

Regardless, it's a shitty system the government put in place when they granted the pharmaceutical industry liability protection. It was supposed to assuage the people that shit was being accurately reported in regards to adverse events. Adverse events are notoriously under reported.

[JohnStOnge]

Ok I looked at some Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) web pages to try to get a more precise understanding of what is going on.

First let me say that there is what appears to be a discrepancy between what I see on the page at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html and the graph. This is on the linked page:



The graph indicates 21,002. I can't tell when the end point for the graph is, but even if it was on January 4 I don't think there is any way they would have 10,688 reports of death over more than a year through December 20 then have another 10,314 reported during the 15 days December 21 through January 4. It'd be interesting to find out what is going on with that.

I found a very plausible potential explanation for why one would expect to see more deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations reported. If you look at the page at https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html, you will see a reference to health care providers being required by law to report Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccinations. There is a link to the table. The table addresses a bunch of vaccines but does not include COVID-19 vaccines.

If you go to the table, which is at https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_ ... nation.pdf, you will see that providers are only required to report deaths associated with other vaccines if they occur in association with specific conditions For example: A death following the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine must be reported if it is associated with anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock, encephalopathy or encephalitis, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, or vasovagal syncope.

If you scroll down the https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html page you will find the circumstances under which deaths after COVID-19 vaccinated have to be reported. And it's a much broader wet of circumstances. Providers must report deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, period. They must report them whether the person reporting thinks the vaccine caused the death or not and there is no condition about the deaths being associated with specific conditions as there are for the other vaccines.

Add that to the fact that, though an anti vax movement has been around for a long time, the political opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines is unique and ANYBODY can report into the VAERS.

Again: The raw VAERS data do not show that the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous. People who claim that they do are either ignorant with respect to what the VAERS system is an how it works or they are intentionally misleading others.

You realize that "anybody" only amounts to 7% of the total VAERS entries? The other 93% are from medical professionals.

Regardless, it's a shitty system the government put in place when they granted the pharmaceutical industry liability protection. It was supposed to assuage the people that shit was being accurately reported in regards to adverse events. Adverse events are notoriously under reported.

It's just a system to contribute to looking for signals that something might be going on. If 93% of the reports are from medical professionals, that's fine. They are being told to use a much broader scope when reporting adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination than they are told to use when reporting adverse events after other vaccinations.

The point is that the VAERS data do not show that the COVID-19 vaccines are killing people, etc. This crap has been flying around social media for a while now and it is totally false. It should stop.

[JohnStOnge]

It has been established (and admitted to by Anthony Fauci) that the initial mask guidance was not a mistake. It was a “noble lie” perpetrated by the CDC to avoid a rush on N95 masks and PPD when hospitals needed them. e using Tapatalk

I do not think that is true. And yes I have seen articles like the one at https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauc ... oronavirus.

I don't doubt that mask shortage was a factor in things. But I know from looking at stuff early on that it was believed that masks provide limited protection for the wearer and the CDC was concerned that telling people to wear masks would provide a false sense of security so that they would not pay attention to other things like maintaining distance. And I know that Fauci always said that the primary purpose of wearing a mask was to prevent an infected individual from passing the virus to others.

[houndawg]

Very good. Now, for the Gold Star: What percentage is this number of the total number of deaths for the same population indicated in your meme?

This isn't a meme. It's a graph of CDC data.

Same question. Let me know if you need some help figuring percentage.

[houndawg]

Ok I looked at some Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) web pages to try to get a more precise understanding of what is going on.

First let me say that there is what appears to be a discrepancy between what I see on the page at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html and the graph. This is on the linked page:

More than 496 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through December 20, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 10,688 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

The graph indicates 21,002. I can't tell when the end point for the graph is, but even if it was on January 4 I don't think there is any way they would have 10,688 reports of death over more than a year through December 20 then have another 10,314 reported during the 15 days December 21 through January 4. It'd be interesting to find out what is going on with that.

I found a very plausible potential explanation for why one would expect to see more deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations reported. If you look at the page at https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html, you will see a reference to health care providers being required by law to report Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccinations. There is a link to the table. The table addresses a bunch of vaccines but does not include COVID-19 vaccines.

If you go to the table, which is at https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_ ... nation.pdf, you will see that providers are only required to report deaths associated with other vaccines if they occur in association with specific conditions For example: A death following the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine must be reported if it is associated with anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock, encephalopathy or encephalitis, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, or vasovagal syncope.

If you scroll down the https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html page you will find the circumstances under which deaths after COVID-19 vaccinated have to be reported. And it's a much broader wet of circumstances. Providers must report deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, period. They must report them whether the person reporting thinks the vaccine caused the death or not and there is no condition about the deaths being associated with specific conditions as there are for the other vaccines.

Add that to the fact that, though an anti vax movement has been around for a long time, the political opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines is unique and ANYBODY can report into the VAERS.

Again: The raw VAERS data do not show that the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous. People who claim that they do are either ignorant with respect to what the VAERS system is an how it works or they are intentionally misleading others.

Given its from SDHornet its likely both.

[AZGrizFan]

Ok I looked at some Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) web pages to try to get a more precise understanding of what is going on.

First let me say that there is what appears to be a discrepancy between what I see on the page at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html and the graph. This is on the linked page:

More than 496 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through December 20, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 10,688 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

The graph indicates 21,002. I can't tell when the end point for the graph is, but even if it was on January 4 I don't think there is any way they would have 10,688 reports of death over more than a year through December 20 then have another 10,314 reported during the 15 days December 21 through January 4. It'd be interesting to find out what is going on with that.

I found a very plausible potential explanation for why one would expect to see more deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations reported. If you look at the page at https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html, you will see a reference to health care providers being required by law to report Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccinations. There is a link to the table. The table addresses a bunch of vaccines but does not include COVID-19 vaccines.

If you go to the table, which is at https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_ ... nation.pdf, you will see that providers are only required to report deaths associated with other vaccines if they occur in association with specific conditions For example: A death following the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine must be reported if it is associated with anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock, encephalopathy or encephalitis, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, or vasovagal syncope.

If you scroll down the https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html page you will find the circumstances under which deaths after COVID-19 vaccinated have to be reported. And it's a much broader wet of circumstances. Providers must report deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, period. They must report them whether the person reporting thinks the vaccine caused the death or not and there is no condition about the deaths being associated with specific conditions as there are for the other vaccines.

Add that to the fact that, though an anti vax movement has been around for a long time, the political opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines is unique and ANYBODY can report into the VAERS.

Again: The raw VAERS data do not show that the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous. People who claim that they do are either ignorant with respect to what the VAERS system is an how it works or they are intentionally misleading others.

So, for 2 years you were fine with the authorities and hospitals reporting EVERY death, even if COVID had nothing to do with the death, as a COVID death and NOW you want them to parse out deaths CAUSED by the vaccine from all deaths AFTER the vaccine….

I have never, in my almost 60 years, seen ANYBODY (who isn’t getting paid for it) work SO fucking hard to spin data and facts in an attempt to support your opinion. It’s almost like you’re in the media.

[houndawg]

Ok I looked at some Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) web pages to try to get a more precise understanding of what is going on.

First let me say that there is what appears to be a discrepancy between what I see on the page at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html and the graph. This is on the linked page:



The graph indicates 21,002. I can't tell when the end point for the graph is, but even if it was on January 4 I don't think there is any way they would have 10,688 reports of death over more than a year through December 20 then have another 10,314 reported during the 15 days December 21 through January 4. It'd be interesting to find out what is going on with that.

I found a very plausible potential explanation for why one would expect to see more deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations reported. If you look at the page at https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html, you will see a reference to health care providers being required by law to report Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccinations. There is a link to the table. The table addresses a bunch of vaccines but does not include COVID-19 vaccines.

If you go to the table, which is at https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_ ... nation.pdf, you will see that providers are only required to report deaths associated with other vaccines if they occur in association with specific conditions For example: A death following the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine must be reported if it is associated with anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock, encephalopathy or encephalitis, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, or vasovagal syncope.

If you scroll down the https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html page you will find the circumstances under which deaths after COVID-19 vaccinated have to be reported. And it's a much broader wet of circumstances. Providers must report deaths after COVID-19 vaccination, period. They must report them whether the person reporting thinks the vaccine caused the death or not and there is no condition about the deaths being associated with specific conditions as there are for the other vaccines.

Add that to the fact that, though an anti vax movement has been around for a long time, the political opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines is unique and ANYBODY can report into the VAERS.

Again: The raw VAERS data do not show that the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous. People who claim that they do are either ignorant with respect to what the VAERS system is an how it works or they are intentionally misleading others.

So, for 2 years you were fine with the authorities and hospitals reporting EVERY death, even if COVID had nothing to do with the death, as a COVID death and NOW you want them to parse out deaths CAUSED by the vaccine from all deaths AFTER the vaccine….

I have never, in my almost 60 years, seen ANYBODY (who isn’t getting paid for it) work SO fucking hard to spin data and facts in an attempt to support your opinion. It’s almost like you’re in the media.

Vaccines are safe, Z. You aren't owning the libs by adopting the opposite position just because some libs said so.

In fact I'm a bit surprised that MAGAts haven't seen the false flag their getting owned by as we speak - its so obvious that the libs are trumpeting vaccination because they know that the red hat cunts will reflexively adopt the opposite position and refuse to be vaccinated. Right now across these United States we're seeing death rates in counties Trump won handily that are three times the rate of counties that Biden won handily - virtually all of them among the unvaccinated....there's more than one way to suppress the vote..

[AZGrizFan]

So, for 2 years you were fine with the authorities and hospitals reporting EVERY death, even if COVID had nothing to do with the death, as a COVID death and NOW you want them to parse out deaths CAUSED by the vaccine from all deaths AFTER the vaccine….

I have never, in my almost 60 years, seen ANYBODY (who isn’t getting paid for it) work SO fucking hard to spin data and facts in an attempt to support your opinion. It’s almost like you’re in the media.

Vaccines are safe, Z. You aren't owning the libs by adopting the opposite position just because some libs said so.

In fact I'm a bit surprised that MAGAts haven't seen the false flag their getting owned by as we speak - its so obvious that the libs are trumpeting vaccination because they know that the red hat cunts will reflexively adopt the opposite position and refuse to be vaccinated. Right now across these United States we're seeing death rates in counties Trump won handily that are three times the rate of counties that Biden won handily - virtually all of them among the unvaccinated....there's more than one way to suppress the vote..

My comment has nothing to do with getting vaccinated or not vaccinated. I am vaccinated. Not sure where your’e going with this.

[JohnStOnge]

So, for 2 years you were fine with the authorities and hospitals reporting EVERY death, even if COVID had nothing to do with the death, as a COVID death and NOW you want them to parse out deaths CAUSED by the vaccine from all deaths AFTER the vaccine….
.

With respect to the underlined statement: That is not what has been happening. You can see the guidance for reporting COVID-19 deaths at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf. In order for something to be counted as a COVID-19 death, COVID-19 has to be a factor in the death. At the top of page 2, you will see a section entitled "Certifying deaths due to COVID–19" that begins with "If COVID–19 played a role in the death..." That's the way it works.

I can't believe we are two years in now and STILL have people making the false statement you made in that underlined language. Deaths such that COVID-19 had "nothing to do with the death" are NOT counted as COVID-19 deaths. I will leave open the possibility that a tiny fraction may be counted as such by error since we have human beings making professional judgements. But the procedure for counting the deaths says COVID-19 has to play a role in the death for it to be counted as a COVID-19 death.

[JohnStOnge]

What that does is bolster the argument that conservatives are full of it when they dismiss Politifact as biased. The over arching problem is that fact checking, overall, does not work out well on balance for conservatives. So conservatives attach fact checkers in an effort to discredit them so they can keep making false statements and having people believe them.

Again: I AM a conservative philosophically. But what's happened in recent years with the conservative movement and all the bullshit/dishonesty (or maybe some of it is ignorance) is just awful.

[kalm]

Cases and hospitalizations up for kids…


https://www.khq.com/coronavirus/u-s-hos ... 2k-5yKMa04

[JohnStOnge]

It has been established (and admitted to by Anthony Fauci) that the initial mask guidance was not a mistake. It was a “noble lie” perpetrated by the CDC to avoid a rush on N95 masks and PPD when hospitals needed them.

I can’t believe you are re-litigating something that is not true.

Nevermind… yes, I can

I went back to document support for my initial response to this. It was not a lie. Public health officials always cited a mask shortage and the need to preserve them for health care personnel as a reason for them discouraging everybody to go out and buy masks. And they did change their position because of the realization that pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people could be spreading.

Here is an article with a timeline on mask guidance: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2 ... 9-pandemic.

Here is a key point in the timeline:

April 3, 2020
After insisting for weeks that healthy people did not need to wear masks in most circumstances, federal health officials change their guidance in response to a growing body of evidence that people who do not appear to be sick are playing an outsize role in the COVID-19 pandemic.

I'm pasting a video of a Fauci interview from March, 2020 (prior to the position change) below. Note that the very first thing he says in response to the interviewer's question about masks is:

The masks are important for someone who is infected to prevent them from infecting someone else.

I don't know if it's possible to find what was on the CDC page at the time but I remember reading it and that is consistent with what CDC was saying. It said people who had COVID-19 should wear masks. It did not say everybody else should. It actually said that, while perhaps offering some protection, masks could create a false sense of security so that well people wearing them would not pay as much attention to other measures they should be taking such as maintaining a six foot distance.

I also recall that I was having an on line conservation with a friend of mine in Austin. She said we needed to get everybody to wear mask and I was arguing the false sense of security thing. I looked up some existing research on using masks to control influenza and cited those while arguing that there was not strong evidence for using masks to protect the user. Here is an example of a quote from the abstract of one such paper (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092668/):

There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.

I think what you will see Fauci say in the video below is perfectly consistent with that situation with respect to the evidence. And notice that he states that the need to have masks available for health care workers is a reason for not recommending that everybody wear masks. As previously noted, that interview was in March, prior to the change in position. So it is not a situation where he said one thing before the change then another thing after. There is no lie involved. As the linked timeline indicates, the change was in response to a change in the understanding of the dynamics of the epidemic. Health officials always said infected people should wear masks to prevent transmission to others. But they did not at first think that people who had no symptoms could transmit the disease. Once they came to believe that was happening, it made sense to try to get widespread mask usage to cover people who showed no sign of illness but could transmit.

And even when they did that they did not ignore the potential for mask shortage. They did not tell everybody to run out and buy surgical masks or N-95 masks. They told people to use cloth masks that they could make for themselves.

[JohnStOnge]

I think the thing I just went through about Fauci and positions on masks bears upon a real problem that, unfortunately and again, is associated with the conservative movement. Fauci has not lied to anybody. He hasn't done anything dishonest or irresponsible. He is just one of the foremost infectious disease expert in the world who gives his honest opinion based on the information available to him at the time.

But we have people taking little snippets out of context all the time in an effort to discredit him. Someone takes little snips of things he says then spins the situation as though he can't be trusted. Then if you want to rebut it you have to take people through the history, etc. It's a lot easier to create an impression with a meme or an out of context snip than it is to take people through everything in context to show them that the impression is false. It's really bad because we SHOULD be listening to the guy. And these people who unfairly attack his credibility have succeeded in convincing a substantial proportion of the population that he can't be trusted.

What is the motivation for this? And why is it that it always seems to be conservatives that are doing this stupid crap?

And BTW, I am not taking a shot at anybody on this board when I say that stuff. I think that there are people on this board who have been taken in by this stuff. But they're not the ones sewing the seeds.

[Baldy]

What that does is bolster the argument that conservatives are full of it when they dismiss Politifact as biased. The over arching problem is that fact checking, overall, does not work out well on balance for conservatives. So conservatives attach fact checkers in an effort to discredit them so they can keep making false statements and having people believe them.

Again: I AM a conservative philosophically. But what's happened in recent years with the conservative movement and all the bullshit/dishonesty (or maybe some of it is ignorance) is just awful.

No, just like with the "Pants on Fire" check for Obama's "You can keep your plan" claim, there are just some stupid claims that PolitiFact isn't able to twist and fit around the Donk narrative.

It's that simple.

[SeattleGriz]

[89Hen]

Fauci has not lied to anybody.

Other than that he admitted he lied about masks early to keep there from being a run on them.

[BDKJMU]

lol. like they give two SHITS about actual facts to support their narrative.

What does this say about our SC Justices? Woefully uninformed on the topic.

Don’t they do anything to prep for cases? Where are they getting this nonsense about facts & numbers of Covid they were spewing out? Breyer’s 83, so he’s probably got early onset dementia, but that doesn’t explain the other 2.

[BDKJMU]

Even the WAPO gave her a bunch of Pinnochios..

And that was only 1 of 2 whoppers she said, the other being Omicron is just as deadly as Delta..

[BDKJMU]

Moderna CEO pushing for a 4th shot.
Of course he is $$$$$$$$$…

[BDKJMU]

It has been established (and admitted to by Anthony Fauci) that the initial mask guidance was not a mistake. It was a “noble lie” perpetrated by the CDC to avoid a rush on N95 masks and PPD when hospitals needed them.

I can’t believe you are re-litigating something that is not true.

Nevermind… yes, I can

I went back to document support for my initial response to this. It was not a lie. Public health officials always cited a mask shortage and the need to preserve them for health care personnel as a reason for them discouraging everybody to go out and buy masks. And they did change their position because of the realization that pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people could be spreading.

Here is an article with a timeline on mask guidance: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2 ... 9-pandemic.

Here is a key point in the timeline:

April 3, 2020
After insisting for weeks that healthy people did not need to wear masks in most circumstances, federal health officials change their guidance in response to a growing body of evidence that people who do not appear to be sick are playing an outsize role in the COVID-19 pandemic.

I'm pasting a video of a Fauci interview from March, 2020 (prior to the position change) below. Note that the very first thing he says in response to the interviewer's question about masks is:

The masks are important for someone who is infected to prevent them from infecting someone else.

I don't know if it's possible to find what was on the CDC page at the time but I remember reading it and that is consistent with what CDC was saying. It said people who had COVID-19 should wear masks. It did not say everybody else should. It actually said that, while perhaps offering some protection, masks could create a false sense of security so that well people wearing them would not pay as much attention to other measures they should be taking such as maintaining a six foot distance.

I also recall that I was having an on line conservation with a friend of mine in Austin. She said we needed to get everybody to wear mask and I was arguing the false sense of security thing. I looked up some existing research on using masks to control influenza and cited those while arguing that there was not strong evidence for using masks to protect the user. Here is an example of a quote from the abstract of one such paper (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092668/):

There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission. There are fewer data to support the use of masks or respirators to prevent becoming infected.

I think what you will see Fauci say in the video below is perfectly consistent with that situation with respect to the evidence. And notice that he states that the need to have masks available for health care workers is a reason for not recommending that everybody wear masks. As previously noted, that interview was in March, prior to the change in position. So it is not a situation where he said one thing before the change then another thing after. There is no lie involved. As the linked timeline indicates, the change was in response to a change in the understanding of the dynamics of the epidemic. Health officials always said infected people should wear masks to prevent transmission to others. But they did not at first think that people who had no symptoms could transmit the disease. Once they came to believe that was happening, it made sense to try to get widespread mask usage to cover people who showed no sign of illness but could transmit.

And even when they did that they did not ignore the potential for mask shortage. They did not tell everybody to run out and buy surgical masks or N-95 masks. They told people to use cloth masks that they could make for themselves.

TL/DR

[JohnStOnge]

Fauci has not lied to anybody.

Other than that he admitted he lied about masks early to keep there from being a run on them.

No, he did not admit that he lied about masks because he did not lie about masks. I just went through that. When he said masks are for preventing infected people from infecting others and that there wasn't much if any benefit in terms of protecting the wearer that was (and I think still is) the consensus opinion of the public health community. And he said before the recommendation was changed that keeping masks available for health care workers was a reason for not having everybody run out and buy masks. Him saying after the recommendation changed that they didn't want people running out and buying masks because they wanted to make sure they were available for health care personnel was completely consistent with what he said before the recommendation changed.

The change in recommendation was still consistent with the idea that infected people should wear masks to avoid transmitting to others. What changed is that they became convinced that people could be infected without anybody being able to tell so we had to assume anybody could be infectious at any time.

[BDKJMU]

I think the thing I just went through about Fauci and positions on masks bears upon a real problem that, unfortunately and again, is associated with the conservative movement. Fauci has not lied to anybody. He hasn't done anything dishonest or irresponsible. He is just one of the foremost infectious disease expert in the world who gives his honest opinion based on the information available to him at the time.

But we have people taking little snippets out of context all the time in an effort to discredit him. Someone takes little snips of things he says then spins the situation as though he can't be trusted. Then if you want to rebut it you have to take people through the history, etc. It's a lot easier to create an impression with a meme or an out of context snip than it is to take people through everything in context to show them that the impression is false. It's really bad because we SHOULD be listening to the guy. And these people who unfairly attack his credibility have succeeded in convincing a substantial proportion of the population that he can't be trusted.

What is the motivation for this? And why is it that it always seems to be conservatives that are doing this stupid crap?

And BTW, I am not taking a shot at anybody on this board when I say that stuff. I think that there are people on this board who have been taken in by this stuff. But they're not the ones sewing the seeds.

[AZGrizFan]

Other than that he admitted he lied about masks early to keep there from being a run on them.

No, he did not admit that he lied about masks because he did not lie about masks. I just went through that. When he said masks are for preventing infected people from infecting others and that there wasn't much if any benefit in terms of protecting the wearer that was (and I think still is) the consensus opinion of the public health community. And he said before the recommendation was changed that keeping masks available for health care workers was a reason for not having everybody run out and buy masks. Him saying after the recommendation changed that they didn't want people running out and buying masks because they wanted to make sure they were available for health care personnel was completely consistent with what he said before the recommendation changed.

The change in recommendation was still consistent with the idea that infected people should wear masks to avoid transmitting to others. What changed is that they became convinced that people could be infected without anybody being able to tell so we had to assume anybody could be infectious at any time.

No, it was not and he’s on record as having admitted it. The “run” on masks was feared regarding N95 masks…THAT is why he lied on purpose. And he’s admitted it openly.