Hmm... who to believe? One, a medical doctor who was the former commissioner of the FDA. Who is now a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Recognized by Fortune, Forbes, Time, Modern Healthcare for his leadership in healthcare. And awarded by the AMA for Outstanding Government Service. One who has written numerous articles on healthcare including COVID-19. One who is a regular contributor to the Wall Steet Journal, CNBC, and fox news. And has testified as an expert in front of the House and Senate. Or, some anonymous trump supporter on a basketball fan site, who believed the COVID-19 was a hoax, that it would soon go away, and now supports the believe that its being hyped by Democrats in order to win power away from trump and fellow republicans and as long as old and sick people are protected its all good. Hmm... tough choice, but I think I will go with the expert...
Scott Gottlieb was also a partner with NEA. I know those guys quite well. Not exactly anti-economy dudes.
Ok, that's fine, you can try to deflect from the content by trying to claim your source is such an expert, but surely you can understand that if the virus came and went through NY a few months ago, and there was limited testing at the time, then it's not a fair comparison to today in locations where there's more testing and the virus is only now coming through.
The comparison to Canada is so damning for us, and the sad part is that this resurgence could ruin the school year, hit the economy worse than before, and double-down on the nation’s mental health issues. Did y’all see Karen Hughes op-ed from a few days ago? I didn’t know she lived in Austin now but some say this influenced Abbott. Excerpt: “Yes, we enjoy personal freedom, but we can also choose to do something better for the common good. Wearing a mask should not be a political issue. Calls for masks are grounded not in politics but in lifesaving public health practices and the science behind how covid-19 spreads. Like too much else in our country, this issue has been politicized, egged on by a president whose inexplicable refusal to wear a mask sets a terrible example. Unfortunately, his actions gave cover for too many Republican governors to bow to the strident voices opposed to government restrictions on personal liberty, rather than calling on all of us to act on our personal responsibility to protect others. While wearing a mask is not a political issue, it is a moral one. The choice and stakes are clear: the minor inconvenience of donning a mask vs. potentially threatening other people’s lives. The options are not equal on any scale of duty, honor, citizenship, or service to God and others. Amid a deadly viral pandemic, wearing a mask is the only responsible course of action.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_ideas
Seven questions for you. Answer yes or no. 1. Do you care if any of your family members get Coronavirus? (Wife, children, parents, grandparents, aunt's, uncle's, cousins, in-laws or extended family) 2. Do you think the risk of anyone in your family being hospitalized for Covid-19 is nothing to worry about? 3. Do you care that if they were hospitalized that they would be isolated from you being there with them? 4. Do you believe that if they were hospitalized that they could not have the possibility of any further health complications afterwards? 5. Do you have anyone in your family who could be vulnerable to more serious complications if they were infected? 6. Do you have anyone in your family delaying medical treatment or testing because they think the risk of getting Coronavirus is worse than waiting? 7. Do you believe nobody in your family could actually die from Coronavirus if they got it?
"Deflect"? No, you are mistaken (again). I am drawing more attention to your post, by shining light on the two points being made. One, from an expert whose background and reputation is unassailable. And the other, from you. What, you don't think its reasonable to evaluate the source of information and opinion?
It's very reasonable to attack the source if you cannot attack the content. It's a nice escape path for you to avoid discussion.
That r squared value is pretty low. Furthermore there is at least one other alternative hypothesis that he is overlooking. For example, it might be that in countries with low-flu incidence the past few years, people take less precautions making them more susceptible to a pandemic.
can't vouch for any of this, just passing it along https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-safety-of-outdoor-air-for.html
Question for you - if you changed the work coronavirus to "car wreck", how would you answer? Would you also stop driving? Would you stop driving with others in the car?
My my... so sensitive in your increasing irrelevance. But here you are wrong again... I did attack the content by questioning the sources.
Sort of like how you avoid this discussion? "How big of a deal is it when people are asymptomatic?" - bigtexxxx Deaths are not the only thing that matters. HERE'S FACT, LOGIC, AND REASONING THAT YOU WILL CONTINUE TO HEAR UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT: According to Spain's antibody study, which was the largest and most well designed of similar types of studies, THE NUMBER OF ASYMPTOMATIC CASES out of a randomly selected group of 70,000 participants was 33.7%. https://amp.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/gjjxt4/337_of_subjects_with_antibodies_for_coronavirus/
Irrelevant questions for smalltexx. You should ask "Do you realize that your position might kill or turn off enough older voters in Florida so that your hero, the GOP President might not win reelection?
