Quote: @StickyBun said:
Having said this: I'm done. Open up the f$%king country. Its time to smartly, step by step, get this economy going again.
I get it and share the sentiment with caveats.
As long as the country realizes every state is different and will need to have it's own timeline...Look at the curves for MN vs WI - there are stark differences yet we're geographically on top of each other.
The Federal Guidelines seem prudent and a good guide - not sure how many states have had 2 straight weeks of declining new Covid 19 cases as of today though?
In the end, it won't matter one bit what the politico or science says. The virus will dictate when, where and for how long we can open until there is a vaccine.
If we dont do it right? This s hit is going to get even uglier and more tragic. Where we won't be asking are more people dying than usual? SMH
Lots more people than today are going to be visiting freshly dug gravesites and then can spend the rest of the day wondering where their next meal's coming from.
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
@ StickyBun said:
Having said this: I'm done. Open up the f$%king country. Its time to smartly, step by step, get this economy going again.
I get it and share the sentiment with caveats.
As long as the country realizes every state is different and will need to have it's own timeline...Look at the curves for MN vs WI - there are stark differences yet we're geographically on top of each other.
The Federal Guidelines seem prudent and a good guide - not sure how many states have had 2 straight weeks of declining new Covid 19 cases as of today though?
In the end, it won't matter one bit what the politico or science says. The virus will dictate when, where and for how long we can open until there is a vaccine.
If we dont do it right? This s hit is going to get even uglier and more tragic. Where we won't be asking are more people dying than usual? SMH
Lots more people than today are going to be visiting freshly dug gravesites and then can spend the rest of the day wondering where their next meal's coming from.
I think we'll get to a point on the other side of the curve--we might be close to it now in most states--where there's just enough herd immunity, mask usage, distancing and COVID treatments that we can begin to re-open the economy with the knowledge that there will be a tolerable rise in cases and deaths. If it spikes, no. But there is a measure of rise I think we'll be willing to accept to get people working again.
Quote: @Skodin said:
@ medaille said:
I’m out of the loop on what people are saying about Fauci.
I think the only correct response is to assume all people in
Washington are likely corrupt and well versed at legalese where they make
persuasive sounding statements that are based on half truths and preying on
your biases. I think non-sociopathic
people probably struggle with having a long career in Washington and it self-selects
for the most corruptible of the candidates.
I think you need to make them show their work before believing each
specific statement they make.
I have a strong faith in the scientific method over long
periods of time, but I’m skeptical of most scientific claims. It’s just too easy to do bad science, there’s
financial and career incentives towards rapidly churning out new scientific
claims, the peer review process isn’t adequate, and the science that gets to us
comes via a sensationalistic media.
I think it’s a fallacy to put your trust in “experts” when
they could just as easily be salespeople for whoever’s paying them. I think far too often we’re asked to believe
experts at face value, while they give us the version that’s too dumbed down to
verify. I think people should put ignore
all experts, and instead focus on the ideas and just figure out for themselves
what the best ideas are. In terms of
politics we need to stop paying attention to who is delivering the message, and
pay attention to the individual policies.
I think experts should be focused on helping us to understand what’s
going on, so that we can make informed decisions, and less focused on telling
us what to do.
Where does the line of questioning of truth or institutions stop then? Do you not take your doctor, dentist, accountant, lawyer’s advice when given to you? Do you prefer that people ignore those “expert” opinions and just do what they want? Really? Have you not see the poor judgement we as a society have when it comes to facts/truth, being objective instead of a constant barrage of subjective?
...
trust in their opinion and their honesty about what they do and do not
know.
I don't think you should blindly trust your doctor, dentist, accountant or lawyer. I don't think you should blanket ignore "experts" and just do whatever you want. I don't think that you should assume that experts are telling you the completely unbiased truth, or that they are smarter than you and you should distrust yourself.
I think the proper relationship between expert and layperson is that of an educator or mentor. The expert should help you see things clearly, and shine light on things you may not have considered or where you are misthinking.
I think a lot of people use experts in a different manner. They assume everyone is dumb and wrong and experts are smart and right. You have a conversation between two lay people with differing opinions, and one person says "Well an expert (that agrees with me) says you're wrong". It's a way of saying "You're dumb and I don't want to talk about this anymore". If an expert is brought into a conversation as a means of squashing an opponents viewpoint, it's being used as a weapon, and is being used wrong. If an expert is brought into a conversation as a means of bringing new perspectives and opening up interesting dialogue that enriches both participants it's being used correctly.
I think there's a difference between experts in the terms of what their relationship to you looks like in terms of time. My grandparents live in a small town. They developed relationships with their doctors over time and there is a built in level of trust that has happened over many interactions, and they can trust their intuition that their doctor cares for them because they know each other. I don't have a primary doctor here in the twin cities. All of my doctor experiences here look like this: A variety of non-doctors collect information about me. The doctor comes in the room looks at the information, takes 3 minutes, makes a proclamation and leaves. I'm a blip in their day, someone who's name they don't remember 10 minutes later.
My hometown dentist filled every cavity with mercury amalgam fillings. Dentists and experts have decided that Mercury Amalgam is a hazardous substance before it's put in your body and after it's taken out of your body subject to special care in it's handling. When it's in your body, it's not hazardous, and in fact it's perfectly safe. Later, after listening to different experts and experts across the internet, I've come to believe that Mercury Amalgam is also toxic within the body, which I think is the common sense take on the matter. My new dentist, I have a lot more faith in. I can see the care and consideration they put into their work, whereas my childhood dentist I think was more just going through the motions. They're both "experts", but one I trust and one I don't. Is it because one agrees with me and satisfies by cognitive biases and the other didn't? Maybe, but I think even a layperson can tell the difference between an expert caring about them and one who treats them as a commodity or beneath them.
I don't think anyone should blindly trust Fauci's honesty or opinion. I don't think he should be blindly distrusted. I think he should be used as a source of information and a primary resource to go to when you need clarification.
One thing I can’t unsee anymore is how people will readily
talk about experts and we should have faith in experts when the conversation
centers around experts they agree with, but as soon as the conversation centers
around the experts they don’t agree with the expert isn’t an expert anymore,
but a shill for someone else, or a quack, or not a real . Just look at your facebook feed right now,
and find all the examples of “experts” claiming things and then the otherside
trivializing their credentials and worthiness to be an expert, but than also
posting some crap article that parrots their opinion, has an “expert” in it
that tells you what to think, but not why they think it. The news article will be 2 pages long and
there will be 98% the authors opinion, supported by about 2-3 partial quotes,
where the expert is mostly just name dropped for the sake of bolstering their
opinion.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ StickyBun said:
Having said this: I'm done. Open up the f$%king country. Its time to smartly, step by step, get this economy going again.
I get it and share the sentiment with caveats.
As long as the country realizes every state is different and will need to have it's own timeline...Look at the curves for MN vs WI - there are stark differences yet we're geographically on top of each other.
The Federal Guidelines seem prudent and a good guide - not sure how many states have had 2 straight weeks of declining new Covid 19 cases as of today though?
In the end, it won't matter one bit what the politico or science says. The virus will dictate when, where and for how long we can open until there is a vaccine.
If we dont do it right? This s hit is going to get even uglier and more tragic. Where we won't be asking are more people dying than usual? SMH
Lots more people than today are going to be visiting freshly dug gravesites and then can spend the rest of the day wondering where their next meal's coming from.
I think we'll get to a point on the other side of the curve--we might be close to it now in most states--where there's just enough herd immunity, mask usage, distancing and COVID treatments that we can begin to re-open the economy with the knowledge that there will be a tolerable rise in cases and deaths. If it spikes, no. But there is a measure of rise I think we'll be willing to accept to get people working again.
i will be curious to find out how much other reported causes of death drop in relation to the covid deaths. or average deaths go up or down over a given period of time against historical averages in relation to how given areas handled their responses and in what timeline in relation to the break outs both locally and nationally.
Quote: @medaille said:
@ Skodin said:
@ medaille said:
I’m out of the loop on what people are saying about Fauci.
I think the only correct response is to assume all people in
Washington are likely corrupt and well versed at legalese where they make
persuasive sounding statements that are based on half truths and preying on
your biases. I think non-sociopathic
people probably struggle with having a long career in Washington and it self-selects
for the most corruptible of the candidates.
I think you need to make them show their work before believing each
specific statement they make.
I have a strong faith in the scientific method over long
periods of time, but I’m skeptical of most scientific claims. It’s just too easy to do bad science, there’s
financial and career incentives towards rapidly churning out new scientific
claims, the peer review process isn’t adequate, and the science that gets to us
comes via a sensationalistic media.
I think it’s a fallacy to put your trust in “experts” when
they could just as easily be salespeople for whoever’s paying them. I think far too often we’re asked to believe
experts at face value, while they give us the version that’s too dumbed down to
verify. I think people should put ignore
all experts, and instead focus on the ideas and just figure out for themselves
what the best ideas are. In terms of
politics we need to stop paying attention to who is delivering the message, and
pay attention to the individual policies.
I think experts should be focused on helping us to understand what’s
going on, so that we can make informed decisions, and less focused on telling
us what to do.
Where does the line of questioning of truth or institutions stop then? Do you not take your doctor, dentist, accountant, lawyer’s advice when given to you? Do you prefer that people ignore those “expert” opinions and just do what they want? Really? Have you not see the poor judgement we as a society have when it comes to facts/truth, being objective instead of a constant barrage of subjective?
...
trust in their opinion and their honesty about what they do and do not
know.
I don't think you should blindly trust your doctor, dentist, accountant or lawyer. I don't think you should blanket ignore "experts" and just do whatever you want. I don't think that you should assume that experts are telling you the completely unbiased truth, or that they are smarter than you and you should distrust yourself.
I think the proper relationship between expert and layperson is that of an educator or mentor. The expert should help you see things clearly, and shine light on things you may not have considered or where you are misthinking.
I think a lot of people use experts in a different manner. They assume everyone is dumb and wrong and experts are smart and right. You have a conversation between two lay people with differing opinions, and one person says "Well an expert (that agrees with me) says you're wrong". It's a way of saying "You're dumb and I don't want to talk about this anymore". If an expert is brought into a conversation as a means of squashing an opponents viewpoint, it's being used as a weapon, and is being used wrong. If an expert is brought into a conversation as a means of bringing new perspectives and opening up interesting dialogue that enriches both participants it's being used correctly.
I think there's a difference between experts in the terms of what their relationship to you looks like in terms of time. My grandparents live in a small town. They developed relationships with their doctors over time and there is a built in level of trust that has happened over many interactions, and they can trust their intuition that their doctor cares for them because they know each other. I don't have a primary doctor here in the twin cities. All of my doctor experiences here look like this: A variety of non-doctors collect information about me. The doctor comes in the room looks at the information, takes 3 minutes, makes a proclamation and leaves. I'm a blip in their day, someone who's name they don't remember 10 minutes later.
My hometown dentist filled every cavity with mercury amalgam fillings. Dentists and experts have decided that Mercury Amalgam is a hazardous substance before it's put in your body and after it's taken out of your body subject to special care in it's handling. When it's in your body, it's not hazardous, and in fact it's perfectly safe. Later, after listening to different experts and experts across the internet, I've come to believe that Mercury Amalgam is also toxic within the body, which I think is the common sense take on the matter. My new dentist, I have a lot more faith in. I can see the care and consideration they put into their work, whereas my childhood dentist I think was more just going through the motions. They're both "experts", but one I trust and one I don't. Is it because one agrees with me and satisfies by cognitive biases and the other didn't? Maybe, but I think even a layperson can tell the difference between an expert caring about them and one who treats them as a commodity or beneath them.
I don't think anyone should blindly trust Fauci's honesty or opinion. I don't think he should be blindly distrusted. I think he should be used as a source of information and a primary resource to go to when you need clarification.
I think you nail it with the concept of what the doctor (expert) cares about. Our family doctor knows us, knows our children, our extensive medical history and treats us according to that. Therefore we have that trust relationship. Other doctors check the box and get paid. Now some have been working to become trusted after an intense discussion about our medical history, so kudos to those who still care about the patient and are willing to work on trust.
But to the point, I trust "experts" to the point of trusting what they care about. And that goes for internet experts as well at a different level. If they care more about notoriety, fame, fortune... then I don't trust them. I will hear their points, but if I can see their motives, that factors into the weight of their opinion.
Fauci being part of DC for 25-30 years, I have a pretty good idea that his motives are not pure, scientific, concern for people.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ medaille said:
@ Skodin said:
@ medaille said:
I’m out of the loop on what people are saying about Fauci.
I think the only correct response is to assume all people in
Washington are likely corrupt and well versed at legalese where they make
persuasive sounding statements that are based on half truths and preying on
your biases. I think non-sociopathic
people probably struggle with having a long career in Washington and it self-selects
for the most corruptible of the candidates.
I think you need to make them show their work before believing each
specific statement they make.
I have a strong faith in the scientific method over long
periods of time, but I’m skeptical of most scientific claims. It’s just too easy to do bad science, there’s
financial and career incentives towards rapidly churning out new scientific
claims, the peer review process isn’t adequate, and the science that gets to us
comes via a sensationalistic media.
I think it’s a fallacy to put your trust in “experts” when
they could just as easily be salespeople for whoever’s paying them. I think far too often we’re asked to believe
experts at face value, while they give us the version that’s too dumbed down to
verify. I think people should put ignore
all experts, and instead focus on the ideas and just figure out for themselves
what the best ideas are. In terms of
politics we need to stop paying attention to who is delivering the message, and
pay attention to the individual policies.
I think experts should be focused on helping us to understand what’s
going on, so that we can make informed decisions, and less focused on telling
us what to do.
Where does the line of questioning of truth or institutions stop then? Do you not take your doctor, dentist, accountant, lawyer’s advice when given to you? Do you prefer that people ignore those “expert” opinions and just do what they want? Really? Have you not see the poor judgement we as a society have when it comes to facts/truth, being objective instead of a constant barrage of subjective?
...
trust in their opinion and their honesty about what they do and do not
know.
I don't think you should blindly trust your doctor, dentist, accountant or lawyer. I don't think you should blanket ignore "experts" and just do whatever you want. I don't think that you should assume that experts are telling you the completely unbiased truth, or that they are smarter than you and you should distrust yourself.
I think the proper relationship between expert and layperson is that of an educator or mentor. The expert should help you see things clearly, and shine light on things you may not have considered or where you are misthinking.
I think a lot of people use experts in a different manner. They assume everyone is dumb and wrong and experts are smart and right. You have a conversation between two lay people with differing opinions, and one person says "Well an expert (that agrees with me) says you're wrong". It's a way of saying "You're dumb and I don't want to talk about this anymore". If an expert is brought into a conversation as a means of squashing an opponents viewpoint, it's being used as a weapon, and is being used wrong. If an expert is brought into a conversation as a means of bringing new perspectives and opening up interesting dialogue that enriches both participants it's being used correctly.
I think there's a difference between experts in the terms of what their relationship to you looks like in terms of time. My grandparents live in a small town. They developed relationships with their doctors over time and there is a built in level of trust that has happened over many interactions, and they can trust their intuition that their doctor cares for them because they know each other. I don't have a primary doctor here in the twin cities. All of my doctor experiences here look like this: A variety of non-doctors collect information about me. The doctor comes in the room looks at the information, takes 3 minutes, makes a proclamation and leaves. I'm a blip in their day, someone who's name they don't remember 10 minutes later.
My hometown dentist filled every cavity with mercury amalgam fillings. Dentists and experts have decided that Mercury Amalgam is a hazardous substance before it's put in your body and after it's taken out of your body subject to special care in it's handling. When it's in your body, it's not hazardous, and in fact it's perfectly safe. Later, after listening to different experts and experts across the internet, I've come to believe that Mercury Amalgam is also toxic within the body, which I think is the common sense take on the matter. My new dentist, I have a lot more faith in. I can see the care and consideration they put into their work, whereas my childhood dentist I think was more just going through the motions. They're both "experts", but one I trust and one I don't. Is it because one agrees with me and satisfies by cognitive biases and the other didn't? Maybe, but I think even a layperson can tell the difference between an expert caring about them and one who treats them as a commodity or beneath them.
I don't think anyone should blindly trust Fauci's honesty or opinion. I don't think he should be blindly distrusted. I think he should be used as a source of information and a primary resource to go to when you need clarification.
I think you nail it with the concept of what the doctor (expert) cares about. Our family doctor knows us, knows our children, our extensive medical history and treats us according to that. Therefore we have that trust relationship. Other doctors check the box and get paid. Now some have been working to become trusted after an intense discussion about our medical history, so kudos to those who still care about the patient and are willing to work on trust.
But to the point, I trust "experts" to the point of trusting what they care about. And that goes for internet experts as well at a different level. If they care more about notoriety, fame, fortune... then I don't trust them. I will hear their points, but if I can see their motives, that factors into the weight of their opinion.
Fauci being part of DC for 25-30 years, I have a pretty good idea that his motives are not pure, scientific, concern for people.
in fairness to the medical professionals, I imagine its hard for them to see patients as we want to be seen when they know if they dont keep the bill low enough and push enough of us through that the clinic will lose money or the insurance companies will just drop them from their network of approved facilities. I just went for my annual check up and cant wait to see how much more it is this year now that my doctors clinic isnt in the United "circle of trust".
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
I think you nail it with the concept of what the doctor (expert) cares about. Our family doctor knows us, knows our children, our extensive medical history and treats us according to that. Therefore we have that trust relationship. Other doctors check the box and get paid. Now some have been working to become trusted after an intense discussion about our medical history, so kudos to those who still care about the patient and are willing to work on trust.
But to the point, I trust "experts" to the point of trusting what they care about. And that goes for internet experts as well at a different level. If they care more about notoriety, fame, fortune... then I don't trust them. I will hear their points, but if I can see their motives, that factors into the weight of their opinion.
Fauci being part of DC for 25-30 years, I have a pretty good idea that his motives are not pure, scientific, concern for people.
in fairness to the medical professionals, I imagine its hard for them to see patients as we want to be seen when they know if they dont keep the bill low enough and push enough of us through that the clinic will lose money or the insurance companies will just drop them from their network of approved facilities. I just went for my annual check up and cant wait to see how much more it is this year now that my doctors clinic isnt in the United "circle of trust".
I agree, I have talked with many friends who were private doctors and the push to treat us like cattle isn't necessarily coming from them. Just using doctors and the trust as an example of experts.
Sorry Greed but first using “Plandemic” as a source and then using the Faucci Bill Gates angle is looney fucking tunes. My girlfriend has been in healthcare for 15 years and it’s maddening to read the amount if idiots that believe any of the shit from Plandemic.
Plandemic is fucking nonsense, debunked horse shit. I am not even going to go into that one because it would be 10 pages of debunking everything.
Secondly, Gates. Largest philanthropist in the country and a real billionaire unlike Trump, who steals from his own charity. But you think this is a “follow the money” type scenario from one of the world’s most charitable human beings.
Well do your research and follow the money. First off when Fauci did have to register a patent for a discovery of a vaccination back in early 2000’s, per federal law, he was in fact paid for it. Over the next 10-15 years he made total royalties of $46,000. If I remember correctly he donated it to charity.
So these 2 evil masterminds who are not motivated by greed, but genuinely want to help people, are going to try and fuck over the American people for financial gain?
BULLSHIT.
Sorry but just because we all know that’s what Trump would do, doesn’t mean that’s everyone else’s motivations.
It’s a virus, something we have never seen before. Very hard to predict, the speed, the transmission, the mortality rate. Has Fauci been wrong in some early hypotheses and predictions? Absolutely. Does that mean we should stop trusting him, or make him less qualified to be in his position? Fuck no.
The speed at which some of you latch onto unproven conspiracy theories from disgraced nutjobs and question the actions of dedicated scientists is fucking amazing. We can’t get half of you to believe in the science and research behind climate change, but you can watch one wackadoodle with a youtube video throwing Fauci under the bus and you’re all in.
God help us.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
Sorry Greed but first using “Plandemic” as a source and then using the Faucci Bill Gates angle is looney fucking tunes. My girlfriend has been in healthcare for 15 years and it’s maddening to read the amount if idiots that believe any of the shit from Plandemic.
Plandemic is fucking nonsense, debunked horse shit. I am not even going to go into that one because it would be 10 pages of debunking everything.
Secondly, Gates. Largest philanthropist in the country and a real billionaire unlike Trump, who steals from his own charity. But you think this is a “follow the money” type scenario from one of the world’s most charitable human beings.
Well do your research and follow the money. First off when Fauci did have to register a patent for a discovery of a vaccination back in early 2000’s, per federal law, he was in fact paid for it. Over the next 10-15 years he made total royalties of $46,000. If I remember correctly he donated it to charity.
So these 2 evil masterminds who are not motivated by greed, but genuinely want to help people, are going to try and fuck over the American people for financial gain?
BULLSHIT.
Sorry but just because we all know that’s what Trump would do, doesn’t mean that’s everyone else’s motivations.
It’s a virus, something we have never seen before. Very hard to predict, the speed, the transmission, the mortality rate. Has Fauci been wrong in some early hypotheses and predictions? Absolutely. Does that mean we should stop trusting him, or make him less qualified to be in his position? Fuck no.
The speed at which some of you latch onto unproven conspiracy theories from disgraced nutjobs and question the actions of dedicated scientists is fucking amazing. We can’t get half of you to believe in the science and research behind climate change, but you can watch one wackadoodle with a youtube video throwing Fauci under the bus and you’re all in.
God help us.
i have no idea what video you would be talking about, I question Fauci because he is a guy making some questionable statements and in a position of power. I dont take Trumps speak as gospel and I dont take Faucis either.
I do think its funny that you call it climate change... what happened to man made global warming? oh yeah, the science changed as the data came in so they renamed the cause hoping that nobody would notice and they could keep pulling people into their money grab. its easy for bold "science" to be right unless you look back at the countless failed bold predictions. I dont think bringing up climate change in this discussion is really helping your argument as to why support Fauci.
|
