On 1/4/22 10:30 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
(snip)
> The notion of "science" is incompatible
> with "alternative views". (snip)

> dk

I cannot believe you said that, Dan. Science, by definition, involves
the possibility that the current explanation of anything may be wrong.
Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth and to
push the party line, disagreement with which will get you ridiculed
and/or cancelled.

On 1/5/22 3:17 AM, Alan Dawes wrote:
> In article <tdKdnQNKrpJHPU78nZ2dnUU7-YfNnZ2d@supernews.com>,
> Frank Berger <frankdberger@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Today I was annoyed at having to wear a mask in the supermarket (revived
>> Baltimore County edict). I am thrice vaccinated and Covid-recovered. I
>> am walking mass of antibodies and ready-to-go T-cells. I am a danger to
>> nobody.
>
> This may well be true if delta was the main covid virus in your area but
> omicron is sufficiently different to mean that your antibodies and T-cells
> will need to significantly modify to be as effective. Where I live to the
> East of London, after 4 weeks omicron is the main covid 19 variant and
> many people who are triple vaccinated and/or have had an earlier version
> of covid are testing positive for the omicron variant often with no or few
> symptoms but they can still spread it. It spreads much more easily than
> previous versions so we have found it much more important to wear masks
> avoid crowded indoor spaces and keep our distance. Luckily omicron does
> seem to have "driven out" earlier variants and is not as good at attacking
> lung cells so the effects are not as dangerous.
>
> So please take the precautions so that you don't unknowingly get it and
> spread it.
>
> Alan
>

If omicron has driven out other variants and is far less serious, which
seems to be the case, one would think it a good thing to protect the
vulnerable and for the rest of the population to get it and achieve herd
immunity.

Bob Harper

On 1/5/22 7:12 PM, Owen wrote:
> On 1/5/22 9:26 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>
>>
>> Completely ridiculous. There may be one truth regarding a given
>> matter, that doesn't mean true scientists will be unanimous about what
>> it is.
>>
>
> Let's look at the recent record of previous scientific "truths:"
>
> * Covid is spread by physical contact
> * Hand washing and sanitizing are an important way to stop Covid
> * Covid can last up to 3 hours on surfaces
> * Masks are not effective and even can cause more problems
> * Stopping Covid means to avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth
> * Covid may be spread through the eyes
> * Covid is not spread through aerosal
> * It will take several years to create a vaccine
> * Covid originated in some bat soup in a market in Wuhan
>
>
> ...I could go on.
>
> Of course, "science is an ever evolving process." Which, if you think
> about it, it really means: "science is merely our best guess as to what
> the truth really is, we really don't know, and the program is liable to
> change at any moment."
>
> -Owen

Precisely.

Bob Harper

On 1/6/2022 8:05 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 1/5/22 3:17 AM, Alan Dawes wrote:
>> In article <tdKdnQNKrpJHPU78nZ2dnUU7-YfNnZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>     Frank Berger <frankdberger@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Today I was annoyed at having to wear a mask in the supermarket (revived
>>> Baltimore County edict).  I am thrice vaccinated and Covid-recovered.  I
>>> am walking mass of antibodies and ready-to-go T-cells.  I am a danger to
>>> nobody.
>>
>> This may well be true if delta was the main covid virus in your area but
>> omicron is sufficiently different to mean that your antibodies and T-cells
>> will need to significantly modify to be as effective. Where I live to the
>> East of London, after 4 weeks omicron is the main covid 19 variant and
>> many people who are triple vaccinated and/or have had an earlier version
>> of covid are testing positive for the omicron variant often with no or few
>> symptoms but they can still spread it. It spreads much more easily than
>> previous versions so we have found it much more important to wear masks
>> avoid crowded indoor spaces and keep our distance. Luckily omicron does
>> seem to have "driven out" earlier variants and is not as good at attacking
>> lung cells so the effects are not as dangerous.
>>
>> So please take the precautions so that you don't unknowingly get it and
>> spread it.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>
> If omicron has driven out other variants and is far less serious, which seems to be the case, one would think it a good thing to protect the vulnerable and for the rest of the population to get it and achieve herd immunity.
>
> Bob Harper

Personally, I am confused about Omicron. I have been unable to find definitive evidence that Omicron is less serious for unvaccinated people. Is It? So many people are being tested and so many more people are vaccinated and/or boosted, maybe that accounts for some of the reason that Omicron doesn't kill or hospitalize at the same rate as Delta.

From the point of view of the future, reaching herd immunity is a good thing. From the point of view of unvaccinated people now, getting Covid is still dangerous, whether less dangerous with Omicron, I hope so.

On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
> Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth and to
> push the party line, disagreement with which will get you ridiculed
> and/or cancelled.

No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far right. The person who has always denied the truth and continues to do so over the election was none other than yours sincerely, Mr Donald Trump.

With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.

On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 21:12:11 UTC+11, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
> > Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth and to
> > push the party line, disagreement with which will get you ridiculed
> > and/or cancelled.
> No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far right. The person who has always denied the truth and continues to do so over the election was none other than yours sincerely, Mr Donald Trump.
>
> With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.

Science will survive, but with the right wingnuts, democracy will not, because it doesn't suit them anymore..

Ray Hall, Taree

On 1/7/2022 5:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>> Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth and to
>> push the party line, disagreement with which will get you ridiculed
>> and/or cancelled.
>
> No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far right. The person who has always denied the truth and continues to do so over the election was none other than yours sincerely, Mr Donald Trump.
>
> With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.

Except that Fauci and Collins DID plot to suppress and discredit the work ("The Great Barrington Declaraion") of three prominent scientist/professors from MIT, Harvard and Stanford, rather than engage them openly in a "scientific" manner. Or don't you think that happened?

On 1/7/22 7:59 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 1/7/2022 5:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>>> Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth and to
>>> push the party line, disagreement with which will get you ridiculed
>>> and/or cancelled.
>>
>> No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the
>> pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far right. The
>> person who has always denied the truth and continues to do so over the
>> election was none other than yours sincerely, Mr Donald Trump.
>>
>> With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.
>
>
> Except that Fauci and Collins DID plot to suppress and discredit the
> work ("The Great Barrington Declaraion") of three prominent
> scientist/professors from MIT, Harvard and Stanford, rather than engage
> them openly in a "scientific" manner.  Or don't you think that happened?

This assumes "The Great Barrington Declaration" was scientific. Whatever
logic it contains has been superseded by the development of vaccines and
the abandonment of lockdown as a preventative measure.

Fauci and Collins have no power to "suppress" the Declaration and had no
responsibility to respond to a political statement in a "scientific"
manner as the principles of epidemiology already exist.

On 1/7/2022 10:43 AM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 1/7/22 7:59 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 1/7/2022 5:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>> Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth and to
>>>> push the party line, disagreement with which will get you ridiculed
>>>> and/or cancelled.
>>>
>>> No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far right. The person who has always denied the truth and continues to do so over the election was none other than yours sincerely, Mr Donald Trump.
>>>
>>> With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.
>>
>>
>> Except that Fauci and Collins DID plot to suppress and discredit the work ("The Great Barrington Declaraion") of three prominent scientist/professors from MIT, Harvard and Stanford, rather than engage them openly in a "scientific" manner.  Or don't you think that happened?
>
> This assumes "The Great Barrington Declaration" was scientific.

It was policy recommendation made by respected, professional infectious disease specialists. Whether those individuals were coming from a free-market, laissez-faire type ideology, I don't know. I do know, based on now-published e-mails between Fauci and Collins that they tried to suppress that viewpoint and publicly disrespected the authors. I don't understand how that is defensible.

> Whatever logic it contains has been superseded by the development of vaccines and the abandonment of lockdown as a preventative measure.

Whatever merit this statement has is utterly irrelevent to the question of Fauci's professionalism.

>
> Fauci and Collins have no power to "suppress" the Declaration and had no responsibility to respond to a political statement in a "scientific" manner as the principles of epidemiology already exist.

On 1/7/22 9:53 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 1/7/2022 10:43 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 1/7/22 7:59 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 1/7/2022 5:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>> Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth and to
>>>>> push the party line, disagreement with which will get you ridiculed
>>>>> and/or cancelled.
>>>>
>>>> No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the
>>>> pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far right.
>>>> The person who has always denied the truth and continues to do so
>>>> over the election was none other than yours sincerely, Mr Donald Trump.
>>>>
>>>> With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.
>>>
>>>
>>> Except that Fauci and Collins DID plot to suppress and discredit the
>>> work ("The Great Barrington Declaraion") of three prominent
>>> scientist/professors from MIT, Harvard and Stanford, rather than
>>> engage them openly in a "scientific" manner.  Or don't you think that
>>> happened?
>>
>> This assumes "The Great Barrington Declaration" was scientific.
>
> It was policy recommendation made by respected, professional infectious
> disease specialists.  Whether those individuals were coming from a
> free-market, laissez-faire type ideology, I don't know.  I do know,
> based on  now-published e-mails between Fauci and Collins that they
> tried to suppress that viewpoint and publicly disrespected the authors.
> I don't understand how that is defensible.

The list of "respected, professional infectious disease specialists"
does not include authors Jay Bhattacharya or Martin Kulldorff. Yes,
Bhattacharya is associated with Stanford's Hoover Institution and, yes,
the Declaration was sponsored by a libertarian think tank, AIER.

Characterizing an "open" declaration that a herd immunity proposal
eschewing public health measures goes against standard epidemiological
practice as "disrespect" is not scientific.

>> Whatever logic it contains has been superseded by the development of
>> vaccines and the abandonment of lockdown as a preventative measure.
>
> Whatever merit this statement has is utterly irrelevent to the question
> of Fauci's professionalism.

Which in turn is a personal and political question, not scientific.

>> Fauci and Collins have no power to "suppress" the Declaration and had
>> no responsibility to respond to a political statement in a
>> "scientific" manner as the principles of epidemiology already exist.

On 1/7/2022 11:28 AM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 1/7/22 9:53 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 1/7/2022 10:43 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>> On 1/7/22 7:59 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 1/7/2022 5:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>> Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth and to
>>>>>> push the party line, disagreement with which will get you ridiculed
>>>>>> and/or cancelled.
>>>>>
>>>>> No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far right. The person who has always denied the truth and continues to do so over the election was none other than yours sincerely, Mr Donald Trump.
>>>>>
>>>>> With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that Fauci and Collins DID plot to suppress and discredit the work ("The Great Barrington Declaraion") of three prominent scientist/professors from MIT, Harvard and Stanford, rather than engage them openly in a "scientific" manner.  Or don't you think that happened?
>>>
>>> This assumes "The Great Barrington Declaration" was scientific.
>>
>> It was policy recommendation made by respected, professional infectious disease specialists.  Whether those individuals were coming from a free-market, laissez-faire type ideology, I don't know.  I do know, based on  now-published e-mails between Fauci and Collins that they tried to suppress that viewpoint and publicly disrespected the authors. I don't understand how that is defensible.
>
> The list of "respected, professional infectious disease specialists" does not include authors Jay Bhattacharya or Martin Kulldorff. Yes, Bhattacharya is associated with Stanford's Hoover Institution and, yes, the Declaration was sponsored by a libertarian think tank, AIER.
>
> Characterizing an "open" declaration that a herd immunity proposal eschewing public health measures goes against standard epidemiological practice as "disrespect" is not scientific.

The authors have asserted that Fauci's characterization of the declaration as proposing or favoring "herd immunity" was false and misleading. It was, in fact, part of his attempt to discredit it.

>
>>> Whatever logic it contains has been superseded by the development of vaccines and the abandonment of lockdown as a preventative measure.
>>
>> Whatever merit this statement has is utterly irrelevent to the question of Fauci's professionalism.
>
> Which in turn is a personal and political question, not scientific.
>
>>> Fauci and Collins have no power to "suppress" the Declaration and had no responsibility to respond to a political statement in a "scientific" manner as the principles of epidemiology already exist.
>
>
>
>
>

On 1/7/22 10:39 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 1/7/2022 11:28 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 1/7/22 9:53 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 1/7/2022 10:43 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>> On 1/7/22 7:59 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> On 1/7/2022 5:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>> Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth
>>>>>>> and to
>>>>>>> push the party line, disagreement with which will get you ridiculed
>>>>>>> and/or cancelled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the
>>>>>> pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far right.
>>>>>> The person who has always denied the truth and continues to do so
>>>>>> over the election was none other than yours sincerely, Mr Donald
>>>>>> Trump.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that Fauci and Collins DID plot to suppress and discredit
>>>>> the work ("The Great Barrington Declaraion") of three prominent
>>>>> scientist/professors from MIT, Harvard and Stanford, rather than
>>>>> engage them openly in a "scientific" manner.  Or don't you think
>>>>> that happened?
>>>>
>>>> This assumes "The Great Barrington Declaration" was scientific.
>>>
>>> It was policy recommendation made by respected, professional
>>> infectious disease specialists.  Whether those individuals were
>>> coming from a free-market, laissez-faire type ideology, I don't
>>> know.  I do know, based on  now-published e-mails between Fauci and
>>> Collins that they tried to suppress that viewpoint and publicly
>>> disrespected the authors. I don't understand how that is defensible.
>>
>> The list of "respected, professional infectious disease specialists"
>> does not include authors Jay Bhattacharya or Martin Kulldorff. Yes,
>> Bhattacharya is associated with Stanford's Hoover Institution and,
>> yes, the Declaration was sponsored by a libertarian think tank, AIER.
>>
>> Characterizing an "open" declaration that a herd immunity proposal
>> eschewing public health measures goes against standard epidemiological
>> practice as "disrespect" is not scientific.
>
> The authors have asserted that Fauci's characterization of the
> declaration as proposing or favoring "herd immunity" was false and
> misleading.  It was, in fact, part of his attempt to discredit it.

Saying the Declaration doesn't favor herd immunity as it argues for
speeding its onset is misleading, especially when its inevitability is
not the certainty they imply.

The Declaration endorses hand-washing and staying home while sick in
order to "reduce the herd immunity threshold." I assume this means to
get more people sick so fewer remain who aren't immune.

Since lockdowns are over and are now politically unlikely, one would
expect herd immunity enthusiasts to put their support behind vaccines,
the safest and fastest way to achieve their goal.

On 1/7/2022 1:12 PM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 1/7/22 10:39 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 1/7/2022 11:28 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>> On 1/7/22 9:53 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 1/7/2022 10:43 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>>> On 1/7/22 7:59 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/7/2022 5:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>>> Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth and to
>>>>>>>> push the party line, disagreement with which will get you ridiculed
>>>>>>>> and/or cancelled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far right. The person who has always denied the truth and continues to do so over the election was none other than yours sincerely, Mr Donald Trump.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that Fauci and Collins DID plot to suppress and discredit the work ("The Great Barrington Declaraion") of three prominent scientist/professors from MIT, Harvard and Stanford, rather than engage them openly in a "scientific" manner.  Or don't you think that happened?
>>>>>
>>>>> This assumes "The Great Barrington Declaration" was scientific.
>>>>
>>>> It was policy recommendation made by respected, professional infectious disease specialists.  Whether those individuals were coming from a free-market, laissez-faire type ideology, I don't know.  I do know, based on  now-published e-mails between Fauci and Collins that they tried to suppress that viewpoint and publicly disrespected the authors. I don't understand how that is defensible.
>>>
>>> The list of "respected, professional infectious disease specialists" does not include authors Jay Bhattacharya or Martin Kulldorff. Yes, Bhattacharya is associated with Stanford's Hoover Institution and, yes, the Declaration was sponsored by a libertarian think tank, AIER.
>>>

The authors are

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist.
Dr. Martin Kuldorff, professor of Medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician and epidemiologist.
Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University (not MIT as I said before), an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Is there something obviously wrong with these guys' credentials that I am missing?

>>> Characterizing an "open" declaration that a herd immunity proposal eschewing public health measures goes against standard epidemiological practice as "disrespect" is not scientific.
>>
>> The authors have asserted that Fauci's characterization of the declaration as proposing or favoring "herd immunity" was false and misleading.  It was, in fact, part of his attempt to discredit it.
>
> Saying the Declaration doesn't favor herd immunity as it argues for speeding its onset is misleading, especially when its inevitability is not the certainty they imply.
>
> The Declaration endorses hand-washing and staying home while sick in order to "reduce the herd immunity threshold." I assume this means to get more people sick so fewer remain who aren't immune.
>
> Since lockdowns are over and are now politically unlikely, one would expect herd immunity enthusiasts to put their support behind vaccines, the safest and fastest way to achieve their goal.

You seem to be implying that the authors of the GBD are anti-vaccine. They are not. The Declaration was published before the development of vaccines.

It seems to me that the gist of the GBD is that since COVID is extremely dangerous statistically to a a couple of overlapping populations, the aged and the immuno-compromised, and not to anyone else, that policies of lockdowns, isolation, etc that seriously disrupt EVERYONE's lives (and in fact will kill some people) makes no sense and the alternative of devoting resources to protecting the vulnerable population is a preferred strategy. Examples given of such protection is using recovered Covid staff to take of the vulnerable to the extent possible, minimal rotating of such staff, self-quarantining of the vulnerable, frequent testing of staff and more I can't recall.

The question is not whether this policy view is correct or would have saved more lives and been better from a cost/benefit standpoint. The question is whether it, and the authors, should have been publicly ridiculed and (deliberately, I think) mischaracterized.

The GBD, if anyone besides the two of is interested can be found here:

https://gbdeclaration.org/

On 1/6/2022 8:52 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 1/6/2022 8:05 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>> On 1/5/22 3:17 AM, Alan Dawes wrote:
>>> In article <tdKdnQNKrpJHPU78nZ2dnUU7-YfNnZ2d@supernews.com>,
>>>     Frank Berger <frankdberger@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Today I was annoyed at having to wear a mask in the supermarket (revived
>>>> Baltimore County edict).  I am thrice vaccinated and Covid-recovered.  I
>>>> am walking mass of antibodies and ready-to-go T-cells.  I am a danger to
>>>> nobody.
>>>
>>> This may well be true if delta was the main covid virus in your area but
>>> omicron is sufficiently different to mean that your antibodies and T-cells
>>> will need to significantly modify to be as effective. Where I live to the
>>> East of London, after 4 weeks omicron is the main covid 19 variant and
>>> many people who are triple vaccinated and/or have had an earlier version
>>> of covid are testing positive for the omicron variant often with no or few
>>> symptoms but they can still spread it. It spreads much more easily than
>>> previous versions so we have found it much more important to wear masks
>>> avoid crowded indoor spaces and keep our distance. Luckily omicron does
>>> seem to have "driven out" earlier variants and is not as good at attacking
>>> lung cells so the effects are not as dangerous.
>>>
>>> So please take the precautions so that you don't unknowingly get it and
>>> spread it.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>
>> If omicron has driven out other variants and is far less serious, which seems to be the case, one would think it a good thing to protect the vulnerable and for the rest of the population to get it and achieve herd immunity.
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> Personally, I am confused about Omicron.  I have been unable to find definitive evidence that Omicron is less serious for unvaccinated people.  Is It?  So many people are being tested and so many more people are vaccinated and/or boosted, maybe that accounts for some of the reason that Omicron doesn't kill or hospitalize at the same rate as Delta.
>
> From the point of view of the future, reaching herd immunity is a good thing.  From the point of view of unvaccinated people now, getting Covid is still dangerous, whether less dangerous with Omicron, I hope so.

My daughter (a PA) cleared up some of my confusion. SINCE, nearly all hospital admissions are unvaccinated, AND Omicron has mostly replaced Delta, AND hospital staff are reporting that these patients have less severe symptoms, THEN we can conclude that OMICRON is less serious for the unvaccinated than Delta. Is this logic convincing?

What a surprise!

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-shortens-interval-booster-dose-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-five-months

dk

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 8:59:13 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> Except that Fauci and Collins DID plot to
> suppress and discredit the work ("The
> Great Barrington Declaraion") of three
> prominent scientist/professors from
> MIT, Harvard and Stanford, rather than
> engage them openly in a "scientific"
> manner.

Except that being a prominent scientist
in a pedigreed unifuckversity does not
make one right, or even any smarter
than the village idiot.

It is very clear you and your ilk are
taking sides in a debate that is way
above your heads and that is clearly
more political than "scientific".

dk

In article <27baabb9-4117-4d03-8323-a0581f088005n@googlegroups.com>,
Dan Koren <dan.koren@gmail.com> wrote:
>It is very clear you and your ilk are taking sides in a debate
>that is way above your heads and that is clearly more political
>than "scientific".

Indeed.

And this topic has more than run its course here.

On 1/7/2022 8:59 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 1/7/2022 5:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>>> Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth and to
>>> push the party line, disagreement with which will get you ridiculed
>>> and/or cancelled.
>>
>> No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the
>> pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far right. The
>> person who has always denied the truth and continues to do so over the
>> election was none other than yours sincerely, Mr Donald Trump.
>>
>> With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.
>
>
> Except that Fauci and Collins DID plot to suppress and discredit the
> work ("The Great Barrington Declaraion") of three prominent
> scientist/professors from MIT, Harvard and Stanford, rather than engage
> them openly in a "scientific" manner.  Or don't you think that happened?

The people behind the Great Barrington Declaration have agendas of their
own; they are hardly impartial arbiters of scientific "truth".

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95601

On 1/7/22 2:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>> Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth and to
>> push the party line, disagreement with which will get you ridiculed
>> and/or cancelled.
>
> No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far right. The person who has always denied the truth and continues to do so over the election was none other than yours sincerely, Mr Donald Trump.
>
> With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.

My goodness are you credulous.

Bob Harper

On 1/7/22 2:03 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 1/7/2022 1:12 PM, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 1/7/22 10:39 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> On 1/7/2022 11:28 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>> On 1/7/22 9:53 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>> On 1/7/2022 10:43 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/7/22 7:59 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/7/2022 5:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this truth
>>>>>>>>> and to
>>>>>>>>> push the party line, disagreement with which will get you
>>>>>>>>> ridiculed
>>>>>>>>> and/or cancelled.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the
>>>>>>>> pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far
>>>>>>>> right. The person who has always denied the truth and continues
>>>>>>>> to do so over the election was none other than yours sincerely,
>>>>>>>> Mr Donald Trump.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that Fauci and Collins DID plot to suppress and discredit
>>>>>>> the work ("The Great Barrington Declaraion") of three prominent
>>>>>>> scientist/professors from MIT, Harvard and Stanford, rather than
>>>>>>> engage them openly in a "scientific" manner.  Or don't you think
>>>>>>> that happened?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This assumes "The Great Barrington Declaration" was scientific.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was policy recommendation made by respected, professional
>>>>> infectious disease specialists.  Whether those individuals were
>>>>> coming from a free-market, laissez-faire type ideology, I don't
>>>>> know.  I do know, based on  now-published e-mails between Fauci and
>>>>> Collins that they tried to suppress that viewpoint and publicly
>>>>> disrespected the authors. I don't understand how that is defensible.
>>>>
>>>> The list of "respected, professional infectious disease specialists"
>>>> does not include authors Jay Bhattacharya or Martin Kulldorff. Yes,
>>>> Bhattacharya is associated with Stanford's Hoover Institution and,
>>>> yes, the Declaration was sponsored by a libertarian think tank, AIER.
>>>>
>
> The authors are
>
> Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a
> physician, epidemiologist, health economist.
> Dr. Martin Kuldorff, professor of Medicine at Harvard University, a
> biostatistician and epidemiologist.
> Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University (not MIT as I said
> before), an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine
> development and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
>
> Is there something obviously wrong with these guys' credentials that I
> am missing?

Yes. Gupta is an epidemiologist, Kulldorff is a statistician and
Bhattacharya is an MD with a PhD in economics.

>>>> Characterizing an "open" declaration that a herd immunity proposal
>>>> eschewing public health measures goes against standard
>>>> epidemiological practice as "disrespect" is not scientific.
>>>
>>> The authors have asserted that Fauci's characterization of the
>>> declaration as proposing or favoring "herd immunity" was false and
>>> misleading.  It was, in fact, part of his attempt to discredit it.
>>
>> Saying the Declaration doesn't favor herd immunity as it argues for
>> speeding its onset is misleading, especially when its inevitability is
>> not the certainty they imply.
>>
>> The Declaration endorses hand-washing and staying home while sick in
>> order to "reduce the herd immunity threshold." I assume this means to
>> get more people sick so fewer remain who aren't immune.
>>
>> Since lockdowns are over and are now politically unlikely, one would
>> expect herd immunity enthusiasts to put their support behind vaccines,
>> the safest and fastest way to achieve their goal.
>
> You seem to be implying that the authors of the GBD are anti-vaccine.
> They are not. The Declaration was published before the development of
> vaccines.

I say anyone advocating herd immunity should be for vaccinations as the
safest way to achieve it. Is it possible that Bhattacharya, for
instance, might be "for" vaccinations but argue in public in ways that
would undermine confidence in them? Or advocate personal choices for
what is a systemic risk?

> It seems to me that the gist of the GBD is that since COVID is extremely
> dangerous statistically to a a couple of overlapping populations, the
> aged and the immuno-compromised, and not to anyone else, that policies
> of lockdowns, isolation, etc that seriously disrupt EVERYONE's lives
> (and in fact will kill some people) makes no sense and the alternative
> of devoting resources to protecting the vulnerable population is a
> preferred strategy.  Examples given of such protection is using
> recovered Covid staff to take of the vulnerable to the extent possible,
> minimal rotating of such staff, self-quarantining of the vulnerable,
> frequent testing of staff and more I can't recall.

Did any of this happen? I haven't seen any of these put into practice in
place like Florida where Bhattacharya had the ear of the governor.

The same people drawn to the Declaration seem to be against mandating
vaccines for health care workers.

> The question is not whether this policy view is correct or would have
> saved more lives and been better from a cost/benefit standpoint.  The
> question is whether it, and the authors, should have been publicly
> ridiculed and (deliberately, I think) mischaracterized.

The herd immunity approach can be fairly characterized as "nonsense and
very dangerous" due to the high death toll adopting it would have caused.

However, the Declaration has essentially won the political contest over
lockdowns but without the common-sense protections it proposed.

> The GBD, if anyone besides the two of is interested can be found here:
>
> https://gbdeclaration.org/
>
>

On 1/8/2022 9:08 AM, mINE109 wrote:
> On 1/7/22 2:03 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 1/7/2022 1:12 PM, mINE109 wrote:
>>> On 1/7/22 10:39 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 1/7/2022 11:28 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>>> On 1/7/22 9:53 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/7/2022 10:43 AM, mINE109 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/7/22 7:59 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2022 5:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, 7 January 2022 at 01:01:27 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Our current public health 'experts' continue to deny this
>>>>>>>>>> truth and to
>>>>>>>>>> push the party line, disagreement with which will get you
>>>>>>>>>> ridiculed
>>>>>>>>>> and/or cancelled.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No - that was Donald Trump and all his stupid responses to the
>>>>>>>>> pandemic, which still exists in non mask wearing in the far
>>>>>>>>> right. The person who has always denied the truth and continues
>>>>>>>>> to do so over the election was none other than yours sincerely,
>>>>>>>>> Mr Donald Trump.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With Biden science and democracy actually has a hope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that Fauci and Collins DID plot to suppress and discredit
>>>>>>>> the work ("The Great Barrington Declaraion") of three prominent
>>>>>>>> scientist/professors from MIT, Harvard and Stanford, rather than
>>>>>>>> engage them openly in a "scientific" manner.  Or don't you think
>>>>>>>> that happened?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This assumes "The Great Barrington Declaration" was scientific.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was policy recommendation made by respected, professional
>>>>>> infectious disease specialists.  Whether those individuals were
>>>>>> coming from a free-market, laissez-faire type ideology, I don't
>>>>>> know.  I do know, based on  now-published e-mails between Fauci
>>>>>> and Collins that they tried to suppress that viewpoint and
>>>>>> publicly disrespected the authors. I don't understand how that is
>>>>>> defensible.
>>>>>
>>>>> The list of "respected, professional infectious disease
>>>>> specialists" does not include authors Jay Bhattacharya or Martin
>>>>> Kulldorff. Yes, Bhattacharya is associated with Stanford's Hoover
>>>>> Institution and, yes, the Declaration was sponsored by a
>>>>> libertarian think tank, AIER.
>>>>>
>>
>> The authors are
>>
>> Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School,
>> a physician, epidemiologist, health economist.
>> Dr. Martin Kuldorff, professor of Medicine at Harvard University, a
>> biostatistician and epidemiologist.
>> Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University (not MIT as I said
>> before), an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine
>> development and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
>>
>> Is there something obviously wrong with these guys' credentials that I
>> am missing?
>
> Yes. Gupta is an epidemiologist, Kulldorff is a statistician and
> Bhattacharya is an MD with a PhD in economics.
>
>>>>> Characterizing an "open" declaration that a herd immunity proposal
>>>>> eschewing public health measures goes against standard
>>>>> epidemiological practice as "disrespect" is not scientific.
>>>>
>>>> The authors have asserted that Fauci's characterization of the
>>>> declaration as proposing or favoring "herd immunity" was false and
>>>> misleading.  It was, in fact, part of his attempt to discredit it.
>>>
>>> Saying the Declaration doesn't favor herd immunity as it argues for
>>> speeding its onset is misleading, especially when its inevitability
>>> is not the certainty they imply.
>>>
>>> The Declaration endorses hand-washing and staying home while sick in
>>> order to "reduce the herd immunity threshold." I assume this means to
>>> get more people sick so fewer remain who aren't immune.
>>>
>>> Since lockdowns are over and are now politically unlikely, one would
>>> expect herd immunity enthusiasts to put their support behind
>>> vaccines, the safest and fastest way to achieve their goal.
>>
>> You seem to be implying that the authors of the GBD are anti-vaccine.
>> They are not. The Declaration was published before the development of
>> vaccines.
>
> I say anyone advocating herd immunity should be for vaccinations as the
> safest way to achieve it. Is it possible that Bhattacharya, for
> instance, might be "for" vaccinations but argue in public in ways that
> would undermine confidence in them? Or advocate personal choices for
> what is a systemic risk?
>
>> It seems to me that the gist of the GBD is that since COVID is
>> extremely dangerous statistically to a a couple of overlapping
>> populations, the aged and the immuno-compromised, and not to anyone
>> else, that policies of lockdowns, isolation, etc that seriously
>> disrupt EVERYONE's lives (and in fact will kill some people) makes no
>> sense and the alternative of devoting resources to protecting the
>> vulnerable population is a preferred strategy.  Examples given of such
>> protection is using recovered Covid staff to take of the vulnerable to
>> the extent possible, minimal rotating of such staff, self-quarantining
>> of the vulnerable, frequent testing of staff and more I can't recall.
>
> Did any of this happen? I haven't seen any of these put into practice in
> place like Florida where Bhattacharya had the ear of the governor.
>
> The same people drawn to the Declaration seem to be against mandating
> vaccines for health care workers.

No kidding!

>
>> The question is not whether this policy view is correct or would have
>> saved more lives and been better from a cost/benefit standpoint.  The
>> question is whether it, and the authors, should have been publicly
>> ridiculed and (deliberately, I think) mischaracterized.
>
> The herd immunity approach can be fairly characterized as "nonsense and
> very dangerous" due to the high death toll adopting it would have caused.
>
> However, the Declaration has essentially won the political contest over
> lockdowns but without the common-sense protections it proposed.
>
>> The GBD, if anyone besides the two of is interested can be found here:
>>
>> https://gbdeclaration.org/
>>
>>
>

On 1/7/2022 7:39 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 8:59:13 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>> Except that Fauci and Collins DID plot to
>> suppress and discredit the work ("The
>> Great Barrington Declaraion") of three
>> prominent scientist/professors from
>> MIT, Harvard and Stanford, rather than
>> engage them openly in a "scientific"
>> manner.
>
> Except that being a prominent scientist
> in a pedigreed unifuckversity does not
> make one right, or even any smarter
> than the village idiot.
>

If you read what I wrote you would see I was not talking about whether they were right.

> It is very clear you and your ilk are
> taking sides in a debate that is way
> above your heads and that is clearly
> more political than "scientific".
>
> dk

If by "taking sides" you mean that the authors shouldn't have been ridiculed and plotted against by Fauci and Collins, then you are correct. IF I find their arguments persuasive and it is not because I share a general political outlook with any of them. If I am not qualified to judge the merits of their argument then virtually nobody in RMCR is either.

Check out what happened last week in L.A. County. This news item received very little press coverage. Jacaranda is a long-running chamber music series in progressive, wealthy, white Santa Monica, Calif. (like Pasadena, the vaxx rate there is north of 85 percent of all eligible citizens). Patrick Scott, Jacaranda’s Artistic Director, in a press release, 1/4/2022:

<< On the eve of Jacaranda’s announcement of its plan to honor LA County’s Director of Public Health Dr. Barbara Ferrer for her strong leadership with a concert entitled “Gratitude,” the pandemic surge makes proceeding any further untenable. Due to the rise of Covid cases, health care worker uncertainty, and an abundance of caution for public safety, the scheduled January 22, 2:00 p.m. Santa Monica concert is canceled.

We have made a painful decision to cancel our second concert of the Turning Points season. We were thrilled to have assembled so much extraordinary talent from our community, and eager to applaud these local heroes for all the help they have given daily during this pandemic. Due to the high transmissibility of the Omicron variant, and concerns about breakthrough cases among the vaccinated, we feel that this is the right and only course of action. >>

https://www.jacarandamusic.org/home [announcement front-and-center on home page]

Venue was to be Barnum Hall on the campus of Santa Monica H.S., which seats approx. 500-600 or so.

A few days later Dr. Ferrer and the 5-person L.A. County Board of Supervisors—responsible for the well-being of 10,000,000 citizens—proclaimed the annual tribute to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), the National Football League's Super Bowl, scheduled for second week of February, _must go on_ as planned.

By the by, Dr. Ferrer's PhD is in 'Equity of Communities', but she has _no problemo_ inviting 80,000 spectators + tens of thousands more venue workers, caterers, broadcasters, hangers-on, gamblers, pickpockets, drug dealers, prostitutes, etc., to Inglewood, a low-income majority Black city where the game will be held at the new $5 billion edifice to white supremacy, SoFi Stadium. Mouth-breathers barfing and fighting in crowded stands and midways? COME ON DOWN! Monteverdi for spiritual enrichment and moral uplight? No way, José. Good job, Babs.

'Gratitude'
-Pärt: Tabula Rasa
-José Pablo Moncayo: Huapango
-Monteverdi: Thanksgiving Processional & Vespers of 1610

Movses Pogossian & Varty Manouelian, violins; Gloria Cheng, piano; UCLA Camarades String Orchestra, Mark Alan Hilt, conductor & organ; Mariachi Sol de Mexico & Mariachi Reyna de Los Angeles; Jose Hernandez, conductor; Jacaranda Chamber Singers; Los Angeles Children’s Chorus; Agave Baroque, Aaron Westman, director; Tesserae Baroque, Alex Opsahl, director; Ryan Dudenbostel, conductor

Original note (you cannot make this stuff up):
<< By mid-January, LA County will have reached community immunity together – turning the corner on the pandemic after two years of concerted cooperative effort by countless good-hearted people. Jacaranda celebrates this enormous achievement with an ambitiously scaled concert at Santa Monica’s historic Barnum Hall – the fruit of the US Works Progress Administration that gave creative people work during the Depression. Arvo Pärt’s transcendent Tabula Rasa (Clean Slate) opens with UCLA Camarades made up of top students from around the world with favorite Jacaranda soloists. The combined forces of twenty-four male and female Mariachis will play rousing music by Jose Moncayo during intermission. A processional back into the hall, written in 1632 for a similar occasion when the plague in Venice Italy finally ended, will lead to glorious highlights from Claudio Monteverdi’s Vespers of 1610 by the combined forces of leading Baroque ensembles, children and adult choruses, and eight vocal soloists. >>

On 1/9/2022 1:34 AM, Oscar wrote:
> Check out what happened last week in L.A. County. This news item received very little press coverage. Jacaranda is a long-running chamber music series in progressive, wealthy, white Santa Monica, Calif. (like Pasadena, the vaxx rate there is north of 85 percent of all eligible citizens). Patrick Scott, Jacaranda’s Artistic Director, in a press release, 1/4/2022:
>
> << On the eve of Jacaranda’s announcement of its plan to honor LA County’s Director of Public Health Dr. Barbara Ferrer for her strong leadership with a concert entitled “Gratitude,” the pandemic surge makes proceeding any further untenable. Due to the rise of Covid cases, health care worker uncertainty, and an abundance of caution for public safety, the scheduled January 22, 2:00 p.m. Santa Monica concert is canceled.
>
> We have made a painful decision to cancel our second concert of the Turning Points season. We were thrilled to have assembled so much extraordinary talent from our community, and eager to applaud these local heroes for all the help they have given daily during this pandemic. Due to the high transmissibility of the Omicron variant, and concerns about breakthrough cases among the vaccinated, we feel that this is the right and only course of action. >>
>
> https://www.jacarandamusic.org/home [announcement front-and-center on home page]
>
> Venue was to be Barnum Hall on the campus of Santa Monica H.S., which seats approx. 500-600 or so.
>
> A few days later Dr. Ferrer and the 5-person L.A. County Board of Supervisors—responsible for the well-being of 10,000,000 citizens—proclaimed the annual tribute to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), the National Football League's Super Bowl, scheduled for second week of February, _must go on_ as planned.
>
> By the by, Dr. Ferrer's PhD is in 'Equity of Communities', but she has _no problemo_ inviting 80,000 spectators + tens of thousands more venue workers, caterers, broadcasters, hangers-on, gamblers, pickpockets, drug dealers, prostitutes, etc., to Inglewood, a low-income majority Black city where the game will be held at the new $5 billion edifice to white supremacy, SoFi Stadium. Mouth-breathers barfing and fighting in crowded stands and midways? COME ON DOWN! Monteverdi for spiritual enrichment and moral uplight? No way, José. Good job, Babs.
>
> 'Gratitude'
> -Pärt: Tabula Rasa
> -José Pablo Moncayo: Huapango
> -Monteverdi: Thanksgiving Processional & Vespers of 1610
>
> Movses Pogossian & Varty Manouelian, violins; Gloria Cheng, piano; UCLA Camarades String Orchestra, Mark Alan Hilt, conductor & organ; Mariachi Sol de Mexico & Mariachi Reyna de Los Angeles; Jose Hernandez, conductor; Jacaranda Chamber Singers; Los Angeles Children’s Chorus; Agave Baroque, Aaron Westman, director; Tesserae Baroque, Alex Opsahl, director; Ryan Dudenbostel, conductor
>
> Original note (you cannot make this stuff up):
> << By mid-January, LA County will have reached community immunity together – turning the corner on the pandemic after two years of concerted cooperative effort by countless good-hearted people. Jacaranda celebrates this enormous achievement with an ambitiously scaled concert at Santa Monica’s historic Barnum Hall – the fruit of the US Works Progress Administration that gave creative people work during the Depression. Arvo Pärt’s transcendent Tabula Rasa (Clean Slate) opens with UCLA Camarades made up of top students from around the world with favorite Jacaranda soloists. The combined forces of twenty-four male and female Mariachis will play rousing music by Jose Moncayo during intermission. A processional back into the hall, written in 1632 for a similar occasion when the plague in Venice Italy finally ended, will lead to glorious highlights from Claudio Monteverdi’s Vespers of 1610 by the combined forces of leading Baroque ensembles, children and adult choruses, and eight vocal soloists. >>

I noticed that in the free skate portion of the U.S. Ladies' championship Friday night, two skaters including one of the favorites, tested positive and were eliminated from the competition. The announcer said, I think, that neither skater had symptoms. Even if infectious (which itself is doubtful), how many people could a skater infect all alone on an ice rink? The NFL has solved this problem (and the millions of dollars it was costing in canceled games) by ceasing automatic testing. It would be funny, except it isn't.

On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 14:13:54 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> I noticed that in the free skate portion of the U.S. Ladies' championship Friday night, two skaters including one of the favorites, tested positive and were eliminated from the competition. The announcer said, I think, that neither skater had symptoms. Even if infectious (which itself is doubtful), how many people could a skater infect all alone on an ice rink? The NFL has solved this problem (and the millions of dollars it was costing in canceled games) by ceasing automatic testing. It would be funny, except it isn't..>>

If they attempted to treat each case (of millions) on its individual merits there would be absolute chaos. There's not enough staff to even man hospitals and emergency teams. How could you possibly expect staff to devote time to assessing individual cases? It's a complete non-starter.

The same thing is going on with Jjokovic in Australia. And the government is quite rightly saying "we have one set of rules and they apply to everyone".