Season Officially Suspended -- COVID-19/Coronavirus Talk

[Celtic Note]

I read it as he’s talking about smaller regional hospitals, like the ones I’ve been discussing. It’s a disaster for the local community if they shut their doors. One of the consequences of the Affordable Care Act was that the economics of scale are much stronger, and the pressures to consolidate into large healthcare entities are stronger. Unfortunately, small hospitals absorbed by national for-profit entities does not correlate with a higher standard of care. Decisions are made in the interest of a national shareholders. Not much incentive to sacrifice profit for better (but less profitable) services. Local communities have to be grateful for what they can get.

It seems I missed that part of the comment. I agree about community hospitals.

 

[Ranksu]

Belgium annonces full lockdown. Situation is critical. Reason is big population in small country and people are social.

Belgium:
Total Cases: 392,258 (+23,921 today)
Active Cases: 356,507
Critical Cases: 1,057
Deaths: 11,308 (+138 today)
Recoveries: 24,443
Total Tests: 4,823,283
Tests/1M Pop: 415,575

 

[ort]

Clearly Belgium is also in on this conspiracy to inflate the infections and death counts to make Trump look bad.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Clearly Belgium is also in on this conspiracy to inflate the infections and death counts to make Trump look bad.

Andrew Cuomo recently said that his nursing home debacle is a conspiracy theory and that Trump is responsible for every death. Can we just leave the politics out of it, both sides have been an absolute disaster. Congress still can't work together to get relief to people that need it.

And I agree a certain number of deaths are preventable, politicians on both sides are responsible for that, Trump and Cuomo included, but a significant amount of deaths were always inevitable.

 

[EastonBlues22]

And I’m not submitting my experience as “data” (to respond to other posts). That’s why I didn’t even mention it in my initial comment. But the notion fraud was occurring at all was challenged, and I think that’s naive based on what I’ve seen with my own eyes.

I'm not challenging the notion that it's happening. I'm challenging the position that the fact that it is happening, to one degree or another, means "the truth is obscured beyond hope of ferreting it out."

We have lots of data that largely agrees. Some of it depends on self-reporting by parties with a vested financial interest, and some doesn't. Your experiences might cast some measure of doubt on the former, but it doesn't on the latter. The fact that they largely agree in spite of your experiences might not mean anything conclusively, but it does potentially add some context to your concerns.

More importantly, what we're ultimately talking about is valuable data that can be used to help make important decisions. Implying that there are no numbers out there that can be trusted because of your anecdotal/personal experiences, no matter how pervasive or valid, only works to undermine the very scientific process that you value. How can one expect policy makers to make data driven decisions if they are hearing from people of authority in the field that the truth is hopelessly obscured, and that there is no data that can be trusted? Even spreading that message among the general populace only works to undermine any information being put forth by those doing their best to gather good data and leverage it to generate better outcomes.

You know you have my respect, and my friendship, but I think that's a position that needs to be challenged.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I read it as he’s talking about smaller regional hospitals, like the ones I’ve been discussing. It’s a disaster for the local community if they shut their doors. One of the consequences of the Affordable Care Act was that the economics of scale are much stronger, and the pressures to consolidate into large healthcare entities are stronger. Unfortunately, small hospitals absorbed by national for-profit entities does not correlate with a higher standard of care. Decisions are made in the interest of a national shareholders. Not much incentive to sacrifice profit for better (but less profitable) services. Local communities have to be grateful for what they can get.

I agree with the bolded part. The ACA had a number of failings that I detailed years ago; this was among them. It was a half-baked solution (if it was that good) to the existing problem of how to deliver affordable healthcare in this country to all, and still never addressed key issues that still exist and if anything have been further aggravated.

[An entire 10,000+ word rant about health care costs and the disincentives inherent in the system and the resulting impacts on health care for society as a whole omitted. Yes, I could go 10,000 words without much effort.]

That means when something like ... oh, say, a global pandemic happens, the "efficiency" from consolidation results in a lack of resources in locations that need help. Local hospitals no longer have the capability to handle everything they used to, critical care becomes more focused in fewer locations, and the risk of a single point of failure due to an avalanche of patients increases. That doesn't mean every location has to provide a full suite of services - obviously, that's inefficient (rural Missouri probably doesn't need a Level 1 trauma center capable of handling 50 people at once) - but corporate decision-making on consolidating services into fewer locations has potential consequences when the system gets taxed like we're seeing in a number of places now.

 

[SaintLouHaintBlue]

I'm not challenging the notion that it's happening. I'm challenging the position that the fact that it is happening, to one degree or another, means "the truth is obscured beyond hope of ferreting it out."

We have lots of data that largely agrees. Some of it depends on self-reporting by parties with a vested financial interest, and some doesn't. Your experiences might cast some measure of doubt on the former, but it doesn't on the latter. The fact that they largely agree in spite of your experiences might not mean anything conclusively, but it does potentially add some context to your concerns.

More importantly, what we're ultimately talking about is valuable data that can be used to help make important decisions. Implying that there are no numbers out there that can be trusted because of your anecdotal/personal experiences, no matter how pervasive or valid, only works to undermine the very scientific process that you value. How can one expect policy makers to make data driven decisions if they are hearing from people of authority in the field that the truth is hopelessly obscured, and that there is no data that can be trusted? Even spreading that message among the general populace only works to undermine any information being put forth by those doing their best to gather good data and leverage it to generate better outcomes.

You know you have my respect, and my friendship, but I think that's a position that needs to be challenged.

You are definitely correct that meaningful & descriptive data can be gleaned, even in this current climate. If one ones to be technical - the truth can always be uncovered - it's just a question of how much resources need to be put into uncovering it - and resources include people, time, money, labor (to name a few). Plus, there is the added layer of how far into peoples personal information one could (or should) go, and whose authority that should be.

I am a biomedical engineer by education. The school I graduated from was ranked higher than MIT (at the time of graduation).
If I could be said to have an expertise, it would be in the realm of design of tests/experiments, number crunching, data analysis, and drawing conclusions (reports, technical memorandums, presentations).
Drawing conclusions, and presenting the data concisely - was always of more interest to me than even the research part of things.
And..I've also been in situations where politics (company politics) and business sense have put a finger on the scale.

Politics aside, what I've learned from the business side of things, is that situations arise where a conclusion is needed subito. From a researcher's perspective, there are (almost) never enough hours in the day, never enough technology, never enough manpower on a project to do a thorough enough job to get "the result". Researchers love to research, but sometimes, for the greater good, what's needed is a balanced perspective of other business units - empathy. When one understands the value of his/her research in the context of a bigger picture, it's a lot easier to have the humility to cut bait, if the time calls for it.

Even in situations when there are "lots of data that largely agrees".. what does that mean? There can be chimeras in numbers; it can also be very easy to get "in the weeds" with numbers, when, all along, a better answer lies in something more practical.
You are describing a situation where a policy maker must be on top of the numbers, all of the time, in order to make sound decisions - in real time. To me, that reminds me of the frustrations of attempting to determine a starting lineup for fantasy football (which is why I do not play fantasy sports, for that very reason).

People also need to live life, and that needs to be respected. For example, my family will pass on "virtual thanksgiving", regardless of what data or policy makers say - because you only receive so much time to spend with family, and that will take precedence - thank you very much. We are all well aware of the benefits of washing hands, wearing masks, and distancing, so we really don't need anyone to tell us how those should be configured - but there is no substitute for seeing someone in person.

For some researchers, particularly the ones that are in position to affect policy, I sometimes wonder if things are playing out like a real life episode of the twilight zone - always chasing and crunching numbers, never enough hours of the day... and without the good sense of knowing when to stop - the final reports might as well say "all work and no play make Jack a dull boy".

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I'm not challenging the notion that it's happening. I'm challenging the position that the fact that it is happening, to one degree or another, means "the truth is obscured beyond hope of ferreting it out."

We have lots of data that largely agrees. Some of it depends on self-reporting by parties with a vested financial interest, and some doesn't. Your experiences might cast some measure of doubt on the former, but it doesn't on the latter. The fact that they largely agree in spite of your experiences might not mean anything conclusively, but it does potentially add some context to your concerns.

More importantly, what we're ultimately talking about is valuable data that can be used to help make important decisions. Implying that there are no numbers out there that can be trusted because of your anecdotal/personal experiences, no matter how pervasive or valid, only works to undermine the very scientific process that you value. How can one expect policy makers to make data driven decisions if they are hearing from people of authority in the field that the truth is hopelessly obscured, and that there is no data that can be trusted? Even spreading that message among the general populace only works to undermine any information being put forth by those doing their best to gather good data and leverage it to generate better outcomes.

You know you have my respect, and my friendship, but I think that's a position that needs to be challenged.

Eh, I’m not responsible for making policy. I really don’t put much value on my anonymous postings on a hockey forum having much impact on public perceptions. But the notion of sorting through the muck to find the confident truth is exhausting. I’m frustrated and make no pretense at hiding that. I’ve suffered a decent amount personally through this pandemic, which I won’t go into further here. There’s always someone with deeper and fresher wounds, and I don’t want to disrespect anyone who is mourning personally. I’m simply venting here just like everyone else, sprinkled with my personal views and understanding. For what little that’s worth. I quit posting much about the pandemic months ago because I concluded it wasn’t accomplishing anything.

I’ve seen several (but not all) of my professional organizations file off into partisan rhetoric, just like every other place you look online. Science as I understand it doesn’t fear dissenting opinions. Good science simply rebuts other hypotheses with data. The truth is self evident. But instead of that, I see people throwing around words like mud balls covered with the vernacular of science, while working their damnedest to silence other voices. Suppression of ideas is manifestly anti-science. It is EMINENTLY political. And seeing medical institutions embracing this approach saddens me. The most compelling defense of this practice is that the general public are too naive and stupid to understand the truth when presented with alternatives. You can probably understand why that explanation doesn’t cheer me up. (I also reject that reasoning.)

 

[SaintLouHaintBlue]

Eh, I’m not responsible for making policy. I really don’t put much value on my anonymous postings on a hockey forum having much impact on public perceptions. But the notion of sorting through the muck to find the confident truth is exhausting. I’m frustrated and make no pretense at hiding that. I’ve suffered a decent amount personally through this pandemic, which I won’t go into further here. There’s always someone with deeper and fresher wounds, and I don’t want to disrespect anyone who is mourning personally. I’m simply venting here just like everyone else, sprinkled with my personal views and understanding. For what little that’s worth. I quit posting much about the pandemic months ago because I concluded it wasn’t accomplishing anything.

I’ve seen several (but not all) of my professional organizations file off into partisan rhetoric, just like every other place you look online. Science as I understand it doesn’t fear dissenting opinions. Good science simply rebuts other hypotheses with data. The truth is self evident. But instead of that, I see people throwing around words like mud balls covered with the vernacular of science, while working their damnedest to silence other voices. Suppression of ideas is manifestly anti-science. It is EMINENTLY political. And seeing medical institutions embracing this approach saddens me. The most compelling defense of this practice is that the general public are too naive and stupid to understand the truth when presented with alternatives. You can probably understand why that explanation doesn’t cheer me up. (I also reject that reasoning.)

...For what it's worth, I've actually enjoyed reading your posts in this thread

 

[Celtic Note]

I agree with the bolded part. The ACA had a number of failings that I detailed years ago; this was among them. It was a half-baked solution (if it was that good) to the existing problem of how to deliver affordable healthcare in this country to all, and still never addressed key issues that still exist and if anything have been further aggravated.

[An entire 10,000+ word rant about health care costs and the disincentives inherent in the system and the resulting impacts on health care for society as a whole omitted. Yes, I could go 10,000 words without much effort.]

That means when something like ... oh, say, a global pandemic happens, the "efficiency" from consolidation results in a lack of resources in locations that need help. Local hospitals no longer have the capability to handle everything they used to, critical care becomes more focused in fewer locations, and the risk of a single point of failure due to an avalanche of patients increases. That doesn't mean every location has to provide a full suite of services - obviously, that's inefficient (rural Missouri probably doesn't need a Level 1 trauma center capable of handling 50 people at once) - but corporate decision-making on consolidating services into fewer locations has potential consequences when the system gets taxed like we're seeing in a number of places now.

Any major change to a system (healthcare or otherwise) is going to have major deficiencies when significantly modified, especially when rushed. It’s hard enough to predict outcomes when you change one significant variable or catalyst, but large scale changes that manipulate multiple catalysts? That’s a lot of finger crossing.

Ultimately, the system was broken before ACA. ACA fixed some items and broke others. Again, not particularly shocked given what I stated above.

The biggest problem is that we have two political parties that seem to bicker like two obstinate children and refuse to work together to rectify issues. They do this in the name of superiority/victory over the other to get votes or, possibly more important to them, campaign contributions that they can funnel into their pockets.

So we get half cooked (or most likely less) partisan “solutions” that they can flaunt like some trite victory medal. All the while our county actually moves backwards despite all the victories and progress claimed.

Honestly it seems like our corporate and political leadership is simply a greed train that is running us into the ground.


As an aside, you mentioned Level 1 trauma and I find it pretty crazy that Seattle has 1 level 1 trauma center that serves 4 states. How does that work on a geographic level? It seems response times would be a huge detriment in a system like that. I am not sure how other places fair on that front aside from a handful of other cities and states but that Seattle situation is dumbfounding to me.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Why can't we just quit wearing masks and go on like normal? This isn't that big of a deal, we can't live in fear, let's just live our lives.

I dunno, shit like one of my sisters getting exposed by one of her kids who's tested positive for COVID and who's running around because "it's no big deal, it's no worse than the flu if you get it but I don't have symptoms so there's nothing to worry about" who then tests positive for COVID herself and she also has the same mentality and she exposes all her kids - most of who also have the same mentality, and none of them can understand why I and one of my other sisters says STAY THE f*** AWAY FROM DAD [who's almost 81 and not in good shape] and the other sister has moved in to make sure none of them come around him.

Did I mention she's symptomatic and thinks "I've had the flu, I've gone out and it's no big deal" so she's still running around town like nothing is going on?

[Free guess on whether she's masking up or not.]

Just ...

 

[Xerloris]

These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing To Stop COVID

 

[BlueOil]

These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing To Stop COVID

In the end, it will be the loss of credibility in our scientific institutions, and the unnecessary division they have sowed among us, for which masks will be remembered.

if the language doesn't get you, the microsoft paint edited graphs surely will

 

[Klank Loves You]

These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing To Stop COVID

Honest question. If masks do not work, what do the scientists who advocate for mask wearing gain when people do wear masks?

 

[Celtic Note]

These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing To Stop COVID

1- The Federalist is a terrible source of information. Not only is it biased to an extreme, but it uses an excessive amount of loaded language and little true evidence. This would be like claiming Fox News or CNN are valuable sources of information. Clearly they are not.

2- Many of the links in that article are merely other op-Ed pieces or random user content. It’s as if the author wanted to make it seem like they did real research. Consider me unsurprised.

3- The charts are trying to illustrate that the masks had no effect on limiting the spread, but there was no consideration given to as to how high the infection rates would have been without them. The author can only truly arrive at the conclusion that masks didn’t stop the spikes all together. Well, it’s pretty well common knowledge (for anyone who has been paying attention) that masks are only one layer of our defense against the virus and similar ones. No intelligent person was claiming they were the magic bullet.

4- The cloth masks, since very early on, were said to be effective at limiting the spread by carriers, not protecting against carriers. The reason being, they are not good at filtering inhaled substances. One because the filter size is too small and two because the fit allows air to find gaps in coverage (air flow moves to the path of least resistance, i.e. the gaps). Masks of the cloth variety are somewhat useful at catching exhaled substances that are emitted in larger particle sizes. This includes sneezes, coughs and the bits of saliva we shoot from our mouths when speaking loudly. This is why, as has been said for a long time now, that masks do not protect the wearer so much as they protect against the wearer. (You should still cough or sneeze into your elbow as it is both another catchment layer and because you don’t generally touch things with it.) But, the asterisk has been, that cloth masks and most other ones are not 100% in that defense. They just help, which is clearly better than nothing. Which leads me to the false sense of security they provide because people cannot seem to listen or follow directions. Apparently, a mask allows you to be more cavalier with social distancing, if you even wear one at all or wear it correctly (looks over at person with nose hanging out). So, I wouldn’t be surprised by spikes occurring after masks are required. People generally are either not smart enough to understand why they are wearing them or to selfish to follow the guidance of health experts. Just one more item I am not surprised by.

4- Some masks do work more broadly. N95’s do work when worn appropriately, but our front line workers are in more dire need of them, so they were not promoted for mass use. So yeah, some common sense there.

5- This whole article screams two things to me. “I don’t want to wear a mask, so I will justify not wearing one in irrational ways.” And, “I have a visually obtrusive political bent, so I am going to try and weaponize this information”.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The only thing with masks that will always both me about this pandemic is how many leaders spoke about them early on. They made claims that masks would make you more likely to get COVID. Surgeon General and Fauci both lied on this and have admitted it. It was done to try and bulk supplies for front-line workers, but they failed to understand how those use different supply chains, and they could've advocated for mask use at the time and the need for other independent and businesses to manufacture masks. That eventually happened on its own and the consumer market has plenty of supply now, but I'll never understand the logic they used to lie about something that we've known for decades and decades, masks help against this type of virus.

 

[SaintLouHaintBlue]

One extra thing that masks do, besides what's usually mentioned (protecting "against the wearer", filtering droplets from speaking/coughing/sneezing) - is that they send a signal of a pandemic.
I believe I've seen it reported that - when large groups of people are wearing masks, it sends a subconscious reminder to be washing hands more frequently (etc.) more effectively than other means (such as simply just posting signs).

In my personal opinion, lack of cooperation should not be a surprise if people are not treated like adults in this whole equations, or if things are explained to people in ways that are condescending or patronizing. For whatever reason, some people's minds just seem to go straight to blanket requirements and lockdowns as a solution - and have quite obviously been there the whole time. That's probably where a lot of lock of cooperation comes from.

 

[Xerloris]

Honest question. If masks do not work, what do the scientists who advocate for mask wearing gain when people do wear masks?

Well we were told from the get go that masks did nothing at all. Fauci declared he lied about masks not working but now he totally is telling the truth and they do work just trust me. Considering he doesn't wear a mask when the camera's are turned off leads me to believe he's not telling the truth now. Actually most of the people telling everyone to wear a mask take theirs off as soon as they think cameras are turned off.

 

[Thallis]

Well we were told from the get go that masks did nothing at all. Fauci declared he lied about masks not working but now he totally is telling the truth and they do work just trust me. Considering he doesn't wear a mask when the camera's are turned off leads me to believe he's not telling the truth now. Actually most of the people telling everyone to wear a mask take theirs off as soon as they think cameras are turned off.

You don't have to trust him, trust the numerous peer reviewed studies that all come to the conclusion that it helps. This doesn't mean you wear it at all times, but it does mean you should wear it when you go out in public where you could be exposed to people that you don't know whether or not they or you yourself have been exposed.

Further, they didn't recommend masks in February, when we knew next to nothing about the virus. We didn't know how long the incubation period was, we didn't know asymptomatic people could spread the virus, we didn't know exactly how the virus spread. We know all of these things now and and pretty much all of them say wear a mask if you're around people if you don't know what they've been exposed to over the past 2 weeks.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Further, they didn't recommend masks in February, when we knew next to nothing about the virus. We didn't know how long the incubation period was, we didn't know asymptomatic people could spread the virus, we didn't know exactly how the virus spread. We know all of these things now and and pretty much all of them say wear a mask if you're around people if you don't know what they've been exposed to over the past 2 weeks.

Whoa, wait a minute ... you mean, it was something like "we had a limited amount of information and drew conclusions from what we had, then gathered more information and adjusted conclusions based on that new information, and continued to do so such that more recent conclusions were more likely to be accurate because they reflected more information?"

Like, say, how science has worked for centuries, works today, and will work in the coming centuries?

Naw, that's crazy talk.

 

[MissouriMook]

Whoa, wait a minute ... you mean, it was something like "we had a limited amount of information and drew conclusions from what we had, then gathered more information and adjusted conclusions based on that new information, and continued to do so such that more recent conclusions were more likely to be accurate because they reflected more information?"

Like, say, how science has worked for centuries, works today, and will work in the coming centuries?

Naw, that's crazy talk.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Even in situations when there are "lots of data that largely agrees".. what does that mean? There can be chimeras in numbers; it can also be very easy to get "in the weeds" with numbers, when, all along, a better answer lies in something more practical.
You are describing a situation where a policy maker must be on top of the numbers, all of the time, in order to make sound decisions - in real time. To me, that reminds me of the frustrations of attempting to determine a starting lineup for fantasy football (which is why I do not play fantasy sports, for that very reason).

People also need to live life, and that needs to be respected. For example, my family will pass on "virtual thanksgiving", regardless of what data or policy makers say - because you only receive so much time to spend with family, and that will take precedence - thank you very much. We are all well aware of the benefits of washing hands, wearing masks, and distancing, so we really don't need anyone to tell us how those should be configured - but there is no substitute for seeing someone in person.

For some researchers, particularly the ones that are in position to affect policy, I sometimes wonder if things are playing out like a real life episode of the twilight zone - always chasing and crunching numbers, never enough hours of the day... and without the good sense of knowing when to stop - the final reports might as well say "all work and no play make Jack a dull boy".

When I say "lots of data that largely agrees," what I mean is that we have numbers from multiple different sources, using multiple different methodologies, covering a significant number of data points, that is generally consistent. I agree that it's easy to pick at any given individual study or source, but as more and more data piles up (through replication and/or alternative methods of analysis), eventually we have a forest to work with instead of just a bunch of individual trees.

Yes, in a fluid situation like a pandemic, it's kind of a requirement to make sound decisions in real time using the most up-to-date information you have. And to be clear, I fully understand that there are a number of complex issues at play here, and I believe that policy makers should be listening to the information that all the relevant stakeholders (scientists, economists, social workers, supply chain experts, etc.) are presenting, and then taking that information and setting the best policies they can for the communities they are responsible for governing. If a person can't do that, then that person shouldn't be governing.

That said, I'm not advocating that people do more than they feel like they can (or should) do. Everyone has limits, and self-care is just as important as caring for the community. Those two things need to be balanced as well. We don't need to exhaust ourselves chasing the perfect number. There is no perfect number, just like there is no perfect policy. Luckily for us, neither is necessary to get through this. We just need to make good use of the best data we currently have available.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Eh, I’m not responsible for making policy. I really don’t put much value on my anonymous postings on a hockey forum having much impact on public perceptions. But the notion of sorting through the muck to find the confident truth is exhausting. I’m frustrated and make no pretense at hiding that. I’ve suffered a decent amount personally through this pandemic, which I won’t go into further here. There’s always someone with deeper and fresher wounds, and I don’t want to disrespect anyone who is mourning personally. I’m simply venting here just like everyone else, sprinkled with my personal views and understanding. For what little that’s worth. I quit posting much about the pandemic months ago because I concluded it wasn’t accomplishing anything.

I’ve seen several (but not all) of my professional organizations file off into partisan rhetoric, just like every other place you look online. Science as I understand it doesn’t fear dissenting opinions. Good science simply rebuts other hypotheses with data. The truth is self evident. But instead of that, I see people throwing around words like mud balls covered with the vernacular of science, while working their damnedest to silence other voices. Suppression of ideas is manifestly anti-science. It is EMINENTLY political. And seeing medical institutions embracing this approach saddens me. The most compelling defense of this practice is that the general public are too naive and stupid to understand the truth when presented with alternatives. You can probably understand why that explanation doesn’t cheer me up. (I also reject that reasoning.)

I think you might be underselling your potential influence in this particular space, and perhaps in your "real life" spheres of influence as well, but perhaps not. I certainly haven't taken much advantage over any influence I might have on this topic in this forum, in spite of being in a relevant profession and having the education to add to the discussion, so I fully admit to my own hypocrisy. I just can't bring myself to engage much with it here when its impact touches pretty much every aspect of my personal and professional life. It's just a constant negative drain, and I'd like there to be one place in my life where its touch is minimal. That place is here, because there isn't really anywhere else where it's possible.

Anyway, I can certainly empathize with your frustration, and the feeling of having little to no influence over the greater course of events, and with your suffering. You are definitely not alone on any of those fronts.

I'm also saddened by the politicization of this topic in particular, and of health care in general. I don't see any way to avoid that in the future given how diverse the opinions are about many health care topics are, but I do think we can potentially get back to the point where experts in their professional fields are viewed as important primary sources for public knowledge and policy determination instead of glorified pieces of flair that can be selectively paraded about or hidden away depending on whether or not what they have to say is what one wants to hear. That happens by demonstrating the value of their knowledge, and by supporting their voices (and the voices of those who would listen to them) instead supporting the voices of those who would suppress them, or even lapsing into apathy.

Easier said than done, obviously, but I think it's a fight worth fighting.

 

[Klank Loves You]

Well we were told from the get go that masks did nothing at all. Fauci declared he lied about masks not working but now he totally is telling the truth and they do work just trust me. Considering he doesn't wear a mask when the camera's are turned off leads me to believe he's not telling the truth now. Actually most of the people telling everyone to wear a mask take theirs off as soon as they think cameras are turned off.

You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. What do the scientists who tell people to wear masks gain when people wear masks?

 

[Blueston]

You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it. What do the scientists who tell people to wear masks gain when people wear masks?

They save lives.