The Trump Cabinet and key post thread (12 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Surely to be a clown show. We know that RFK certainly thinks he’s getting nominated for HHS, which includes FDA.

 

[TampaJoe]

One week after that testimony he appeared at the House Select Sub Committee and said “I never said I made anything up.”

I believe the accusation was that there was no science behind the 6 ft rule. His testimony supports that. He said he was unaware of any such studies. He said he believed there was some empirical evidence but he was vague about it.

We spent billions on setting up schools based on 6 ft rules and no study. We forced all kinds of businesses to operate on the 6 ft rule and no studies. At least no studies that our leading virologist could recall.

 

[coldseat]

I believe the accusation was that there was no science behind the 6 ft rule. His testimony supports that. He said he was unaware of any such studies. He said he believed there was some empirical evidence but he was vague about it.

We spent billions on setting up schools based on 6 ft rules and no study. We forced all kinds of businesses to operate on the 6 ft rule and no studies. At least no studies that our leading virologist could recall.

I can't belive you're so butt hurt over the 6 ft. rule that you're willing to belive Fauchi for some reason forced it upon the American public to hurt and repress us. How could it have possibly been that onorous to you? So you had to stand further away from people during a once in a lifetime pandemic. Big whoop.

It's so dystopian how so many have allowed propaganda to turn a mole hill into a mountain and turn a blind eye to everything Republicans doing to purposefully hurt people.

 

[MT15]

This is a great example of the type of BS that the right believes. RFK, Jr is misrepresenting a study, much like Fauci’s testimony was misrepresented-willfully in both cases.

 

[MT15]

I believe the accusation was that there was no science behind the 6 ft rule. His testimony supports that. He said he was unaware of any such studies. He said he believed there was some empirical evidence but he was vague about it.

We spent billions on setting up schools based on 6 ft rules and no study. We forced all kinds of businesses to operate on the 6 ft rule and no studies. At least no studies that our leading virologist could recall.

There originally was science behind it. Just because he couldn’t cite it while being grilled by malicious liars doesn’t mean there wasn’t science behind it.

I see you are backtracking now. You originally said he admitted he lied. Now that we see he did no such thing here you are toting those goalposts all over the place.

It will forever mystify me why people like you are so eager to be miserable little men, crying over a scientist who was going with the best information he had at the time and updating it as more information became available. Why be that way? Because you’re told to be that way. That is why.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I surely hope Dr. Cassidy holds true to his oath a doctor and votes no on RFK Jr., which is possible considering he's not high on Trump's list of people and will be primaried.

Republican committee chairman ‘struggling’ with RFK Jr. nomination | CNN Politics

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, explains why he is concerned about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. becoming the next secretary of Health and Human Services.

www.cnn.com

 

[faceman]

I surely hope Dr. Kennedy holds true to his oath a doctor and votes no on RFK Jr., which is possible considering he's not high on Trump's list of people and will be primaried.

Republican committee chairman ‘struggling’ with RFK Jr. nomination | CNN Politics

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, explains why he is concerned about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. becoming the next secretary of Health and Human Services.

www.cnn.com

Based on prior voting I'm not holding my breath

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I believe the accusation was that there was no science behind the 6 ft rule. His testimony supports that. He said he was unaware of any such studies. He said he believed there was some empirical evidence but he was vague about it.

We spent billions on setting up schools based on 6 ft rules and no study. We forced all kinds of businesses to operate on the 6 ft rule and no studies. At least no studies that our leading virologist could recall.

And as I showed you there is science behind the 6ft rule. I even linked one study. There are others. You seem to think that because Fauci could not remember exactly how they arrived at the number 4 years later during a hostile interview, even though he also said that they arrived at it empirically 2 sentences later, that this means it was just made up. Really? That's how you come to your conclusions. You watch a hostile interview, the person says he doesn't remember how they got to that number, says it was done empirically, and conclude that is the sum total of all knowledge we have on this matter and don't bother to do a 2 minute google search against published medical journals and think it was all made up? Really? Is that how you draw all your conclusions? That's ridiculous.

We had a global pandemic of a novel virus that killed over a million Americans and hospitalized over 3.5 million Americans. No full studies had been done b/c it was a NOVEL virus. They were using information based off of other similar viruses... and had to consistently revise guidance as they learned more. That's how it works.

This whole thing is disgusting honestly. And I'm not saying anyone, including Fauci, is above criticism. But this sort of dishonest criticism is disgusting. It prevents anyone from learning more and doing better next time. Instead, it just tells any public health professional to not make any recommendations at all because they will get burned for it in the future. It's dangerous and everyone participating in this nonsense ought to be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Dragon]

What's frustrating about this, is this information is not that hard to find. It's kind of disgusting the kind of lies that Americans are willing to believe about public health officials - people who peddle this nonsense ought to be ashamed of themselves.

They are lazy. They are used to just turning into Fox and getting all their "facts" presented in a simple way without having to do any thinking on their own...

 

[Dragon]

I believe the accusation was that there was no science behind the 6 ft rule. His testimony supports that. He said he was unaware of any such studies. He said he believed there was some empirical evidence but he was vague about it.

We spent billions on setting up schools based on 6 ft rules and no study. We forced all kinds of businesses to operate on the 6 ft rule and no studies. At least no studies that our leading virologist could recall.

You don’t wait to conduct a study in the middle of a pandemic—you act based on decades of experience. With 40 years of expertise, you make the best decisions possible. Similar infections had already been studied, leading to the six-foot guideline. How many more lives should be lost while waiting for yet another study to confirm what we already know?

 

[RobF]

They are lazy. They are used to just turning into Fox and getting all their "facts" presented in a simple way without having to do any thinking on their own...

And they really are doing zero thinking.

Because, what's the scenario they're imagining here? That no studies on viral transmission ranges have ever been carried out? That a group that includes medical experts and scientists were completely unaware of both the studies and their conclusions? That they just made up the entire concept of reducing viral transmission rates through distancing on the spot? That virus-laden droplets and aerosols don't actually dissipate over distance? Or they just made up the notion of distancing for, what, a laugh?

None of those is remotely plausible, given the obvious alternative; distance can reduce viral transmission, studies have been carried out, and six feet is a reasonable point for the goals of practical implementation and reducing viral transmission.

It's not just that the cherry-picked testimony doesn't support the notion at all when the full testimony and other context are taken into account, the basic premise doesn't even begin to hold up after even a moment's thought without any additional information at all.

I sometimes wonder if that's, counter-intuitively, how these idiotic notions sustain themselves; they're so idiotic, proponents of them find it less embarrassing to continue to pretend they're not than to acknowledge they mindlessly repeated something that ludicrous.

 

[Dragon]

And they really are doing zero thinking.

Because, what's the scenario they're imagining here? That no studies on viral transmission ranges have ever been carried out? That a group that includes medical experts and scientists were completely unaware of both the studies and their conclusions? That they just made up the entire concept of reducing viral transmission rates through distancing on the spot? That virus-laden droplets and aerosols don't actually dissipate over distance? Or they just made up the notion of distancing for, what, a laugh?

None of those is remotely plausible, given the obvious alternative; distance can reduce viral transmission, studies have been carried out, and six feet is a reasonable point for the goals of practical implementation and reducing viral transmission.

It's not just that the cherry-picked testimony doesn't support the notion at all when the full testimony and other context are taken into account, the basic premise doesn't even begin to hold up after even a moment's thought without any additional information at all.

I sometimes wonder if that's, counter-intuitively, how these idiotic notions sustain themselves; they're so idiotic, proponents of them find it less embarrassing to continue to pretend they're not than to acknowledge they mindlessly repeated something that ludicrous.

American society does not strongly foster critical thinking; it is far more authoritarian than Scandinavian society and likely more so than most northern European nations. Here, a parent would never simply tell a child to "obey" without explanation—instead, they would provide a reason. Similarly, teachers encourage students to question what they read and think critically about it. From early childhood, people are taught to examine facts and base their actions on them. This approach doesn’t always make parenting or teaching easy!
But it does produce adults who are much harder to manipulate or sway by a demagogue.

 

[MT15]

I surely hope Dr. Kennedy holds true to his oath a doctor and votes no on RFK Jr., which is possible considering he's not high on Trump's list of people and will be primaried.

Republican committee chairman ‘struggling’ with RFK Jr. nomination | CNN Politics

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, explains why he is concerned about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. becoming the next secretary of Health and Human Services.

www.cnn.com

There should be double digit GOP senators unwilling to confirm this psycho.

 

[Sendai]

They are lazy. They are used to just turning into Fox and getting all their "facts" presented in a simple way without having to do any thinking on their own...

Fox averages around 2.5 million viewers. In a nation of 330 million people that’s not a lot of influence.

 

[TampaJoe]

I believe the accusation was that there was no science behind the 6 ft rule. His testimony supports that. He said he was unaware of any such studies. He said he believed there was some empirical evidence but he was vague about it.

We spent billions on setting up schools based on 6 ft rules and no study. We forced all kinds of businesses to operate on the 6 ft rule and no studies. At least no studies that our leading virologist could recall.

LOL - I knew you were going to bring that up. It's popular in right wing circles who get their news from the same sources. If you read the full transcript he did not say that ... in fact he said it was based empirically. And again, we aren't limited to soundbites - we can actually see the research for ourselves.

Original guidance from the WHO was three feet based on work in the 1930's done by William Wells for tuberculosis. As time went on, flu, SARS, MERS all seemed to behave similarly enough to keep that rule. Then in 2003 when the new SARS pandemic hit, the New England Journal of Medicine did another study that suggested that 3 feet wasn't enough and that 6 feet is better (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa031349).

This is where the guidance came from. There was later evidence that the virus could travel even further.

Last I checked Jim, the 6 ft rule was used in schools and businesses across the country. Your justification for this is a study based on exposures in an aircraft. Yeah. That’s an apples to apples comparison. I’m guessing that packing people in a closed tube is not comparable to a classroom of kids or of people standing in line at Lowe’s or the grocery store

Good try. No cigar.

 

[RobF]

Fox averages around 2.5 million viewers. In a nation of 330 million people that’s not a lot of influence.

Are you kidding? That's the average number tuned in during prime time, it's not the same 2.5 million people watching at all times! The actual reach is a lot more than that. I mean, come on.

For those who'd like something more informed than someone googling "average Fox audience" and combining that with "nuh uh", here's a recent (last month) study from the Journal of Public Economics: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272724001920

Abstract:

This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the effect of Fox News Channel (FNC) on the mass public’s political preferences and voting behavior in the United States from 2000 to 2020. We show that FNC has shifted the ideology and partisan identity of Americans rightward. This shift has helped Republican candidates in elections across levels of U.S. government over the past decade. Our estimates suggests that an increase of 0.05 rating points in Fox News viewership, induced by exogenous changes in channel placement, has increased Republican vote shares by at least 0.5 percentage points in recent presidential, Senate, House, and gubernatorial elections. Our findings have broad implications for political behavior, elections, and the political process in the United States.​

 

[Dragon]

Last I checked Jim, the 6 ft rule was used in schools and businesses across the country. Your justification for this is a study based on exposures in an aircraft. Yeah. That’s an apples to apples comparison. I’m guessing that packing people in a closed tube is not comparable to a classroom of kids or of people standing in line at Lowe’s or the grocery store

Good try. No cigar.

So schools and offices are not enclosed spaces with Aircondition/recycled air went systems?

There has been plenty of research on this - I will find some more for you but the conditions are not too dissimilar to an aircraft

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Fox averages around 2.5 million viewers. In a nation of 330 million people that’s not a lot of influence.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Last I checked Jim, the 6 ft rule was used in schools and businesses across the country. Your justification for this is a study based on exposures in an aircraft. Yeah. That’s an apples to apples comparison. I’m guessing that packing people in a closed tube is not comparable to a classroom of kids or of people standing in line at Lowe’s or the grocery store

Good try. No cigar.

Oh good lord... Do you realize you are now shifting the goal post, and not even in an interesting way? You started off saying there was no research or scientific basis for the 6ft rule. I provided a very, very brief history of how the concept of creating distance to lower infection rates of airborne respiratory illnesses, and then gave a link to the first study I am aware of that increased that distance from 3 to 6 feet. And I mentioned there have been other studies as well. And the only thing you can come up with is that it was in an airplane? Really? Did it even occur to you to maybe spend 2 minutes of searching "evidence for distance to lower respiratory illness infection" and see what you can find? You might have run across this article with links to all sorts of studies that led to this line of thinking (https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-...tancing-rule-to-reduce-covid-19-transmission/)

But this is all besides the point, because at the heart of all this - the very premise we are engaging in is crap. Medical recommendations are not determined by our googling skills. Public health officials should not have to prove to @TampaJoe or @UncleTrvlingJim of each and every recommendation... that's just stupid. Good public health is created by setting up a process where experts review available research and make recommendations based on that. Which is roughly what we have... the process itself can always be improved, more honest criticism of our performance centers around the CDC being a bit too slow to adapt to changing information and being too cautious at times, neglecting other costs of isolation. But that is not what you are engaging in, at all.