Second wave of COVID-19?

[mellowyellowgirl]

Sushi shop vs entire race of people... that’s a tough choice!


I find your logic odd. It would only work if everyone in the world had protested. For those of us who didn’t protest out of an abundance of caution, your blanketed logic does not apply.

BTW, most of the world did not protest.

People are allowed to protect themselves from this virus. They should be able to do so without judgment.

And they can. No one said they can't.

The protestors, if they catch the virus will bring in back to their suburbs and families who will then pass it on at the supermarket etc

Same with the beach goers etc

Same with the sushi store owners

So why do we need to close everyone down if 20,000 people congregated in Sydney CBD? Shouldn't those 20,000 people seed enough disease all over Sydney?

Why does the sushi store in Sydney need to close (well they aren't closed anymore but you get my drift) if 20,000 people are out there potentially spreading disease to all parts of NSW?

 

[OoohShiny]

77.9 million people in the US have high blood pressure, the deadliest preexisting condition to combine with COVID.

34.2 million people have diabetes, the second deadliest.

That’s over 100 million people, give or take, that are at great risk for dying of COVID. That’s a third of our society. If one in every three people are at great risk for dying of COVID, it seems very logical to me to to take a cautious approach.

If a third of society is at risk from a virus due to poor health and/or lifestyle choices, I'm not sure it's the virus that is the issue

 

[missy]

If a third of society is at risk from a virus due to poor health and/or lifestyle choices, I'm not sure it's the virus that is the issue

So let me understand your POV. Too bad for these people? Do we, as a society, owe them anything? Or do we not care about our fellow human beings? I’m just trying to understand your reasoning. Because, regardless of poor choices made by some, they don’t deserve to die. Not when we can take measures to keep them safer. IMO.

And there are many, through no fault of their own who are at increased risk. Where’s the humanity?

I, for one, give a darn.
It shouldn’t be every man/woman for themselves.

 

[MRBXXXFVVS1]

If a third of society is at risk from a virus due to poor health and/or lifestyle choices, I'm not sure it's the virus that is the issue

I respectfully disagree. A lot of people have poor health as a result of genetics or factors outside of their control.

Even people who make poor lifestyle choices deserve the right to be safe and live.

 

[Niffler75]

My health is not as good as it could be. I have a genetic condition but a healthy lifestyle. My genetics are not my choice. It means Covid would not be a walk in the park for me.
Please let's not assume those with 'poor health' have a choice over it. We do our best! Thanks!

 

[YadaYadaYada]

@OoohShiny, normally I agree with much of what you share but your outlook about people with pre-existing conditions is very depressing because if you feel that way there is probably a good percentage of others who do as well. Those people could be people in power who can decide who gets saved and who doesn't.

Not everyone who has health conditions that make them more susceptible to COVID can immediately do something about it. I am overweight and up until the pandemic was taking Metformin for insulin resistance as a result of a hormonal imbalance, I stopped taking it when there was some evidence that taking that type of medication could actually make one more suceptible to getting sick or make recovery from the virus worse. Since stopping it my weight has gotten worse but either way, I was more suceptible.

My husband is on diabetic and high blood pressure medication, both conditions run in his family. Our oldest son is asthmatic and so it goes but he is normal weight. The point is we are not worth less than those who do not have these health conditions, we are worth saving, we should not be looked at as a problem that needs fixing.

Maybe we should start looking at the quality of food in the U.S. as well as the abundant prescribing of antibiotics which can have a devastating effect on gut health. Let's consider looking at the root of some of these health conditions as the real problem.

 

[lyra]

Yeah. My diabetes was caused not by my diet, but a combination of genetics and a particular medication that was known to be a risk factor. I'm still on that medication as it was deemed more helpful than not. My grandfather and great aunt and others on my father's side were skinny type 2 diabetics. Not type 1 which is okay according to public judgement. I'm average weight.

I have a few autoimmune disorders. I guess I'm dispensible, even though they are also genetic by nature, and both of my daughters also have the positive gene that indicates the likelihood of certain disorders. I'm ultra high risk because my medication is chemotherapy.

 

[Cerulean]

If a third of society is at risk from a virus due to poor health and/or lifestyle choices, I'm not sure it's the virus that is the issue

This is not only a really uncharitable viewpoint, but it is frankly really out of touch with public and community health in the USA at least, I know little about other countries by comparison.

Also, nothing I said in my earlier posts was in support of this view (you weren't responding to me, but I also wanted to clarify).

Casting blame for systemic and pervasive health issues (which I believe are a national crisis) and attributing high risk because of some sort of moral failure or lack of self control on behalf of the individual (which is what I suspect you might be implying, as that is usually the thoughtless justification for this type of rhetoric) is endlessly frustrating and a woefully sparse point of view. It is similar to the rhetoric "people are poor because they are lazy and it is a choice."

Food deserts, processed food availability (our entire fast food culture), racial and financial inequality, lack of health literacy, poor mental health care, lack of insurance, lack of access to transportation, family and community support - all contribute to poorer health outcomes and higher risk of chronic diseases (ie diabetes) and obesity-related illnesses.

If it was just a failure of individual self-control, it wouldn't be systemic. Period.

And beyond that, even if I were to accept your view, which I adamantly don't, perfectly healthy young people have died from COVID-19. Around 1/4 of people hospitalized due to COVID-19 were under 50. This is not just a virus that is harmful to the elderly and sickly.

Mortality for pregnant women is up too, as is miscarriage. Families lost sisters, wives and daughters who bled out and died during labor due to COVID-19 (and who were undiagnosed until an autopsy revealed lungs full of blood clots) - *** EDITED to remove a bit of spiciness - not trying to upset anyone

Keep this vitriol to yourself and certainly refrain from delivering it so cheekily. Sorry for being SO feisty and littering this thread with negativity. This attitude is just so detrimental and just downright disrespectful and people deserve better than your misplaced judgment.

 

[missy]

It bears repeating. This is NOT the flu. This is more severe than the flu. Like it or not that is a fact.

Here’s Why COVID-19 Is Much Worse Than the Flu

Experts note that COVID-19 has a higher hospitalization rate as well as a higher death rate than the flu. It’s also more infectious, and there’s no vaccine yet.

www.healthline.com

And also keep in mind that we might possibly be dealing with both influenza and Covid 19 at the same time this autumn. There might be overlap.

AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

"Over 400,000 COVID-19 deaths were reported worldwide by 6 June, including over 109,000 in the United States. The actual death count is almost certainly higher, and we are still in the early phase of the pandemic. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that influenza has killed 12,000 to 61,000 each season over the past decade. Will there be a perfect storm of COVID-19 and influenza during the 2020–2021 season?"

 

[OoohShiny]

Well, that tongue-in-cheek comment unintentionally generated some responses...


I was tilting at the pre-/mis-conception and/or stereotype held by some that the USA is a nation of people with obesity and poor health induced through poor life choices.

To be clear, I am in no way supportive of such a simplistic and uninformed viewpoint, and my intention was not to 'spew vitriol' on that basis.

Please note that I wrote 'poor health and/or lifestyle choices' without stating that the former was caused by the latter; the 'wink' smiley did perhaps suggest that was the slant that should be given to it, but the issues mentioned in the following posts are all important in the discussion around health in the USA.


I fully accept that some people unfortunately have no control over what their body does - we are blessed/cursed by the way we are made up genetically, and it seems fair to say that the cards are not dealt equally.

I do think it is also fair to say that there is a sizeable (pun intended?) portion of the population (across the world) that does not consider the impacts of what they fuel their body with - either through unknowing ignorance or through sheer bloody-minded refusal to think ahead and/or accept consequences.

And, of course, there are those whose life choices are constrained by circumstances outside of their control.


In the second instance, and as referenced by @YadaYadaYada, education about food and physical health needs to be vastly improved, so that people can make good choices about what they eat. Such an education being more widespread could also lead to pressure on food manufacturers/providers, such that the quality of food coming down the chain became better overall - which would benefit those putting the pressure on and also those who pay no attention to food quality (because the latter would be eating better unknowingly).

In the situation where an individual is deliberately making poor choices, I would argue that someone actively choosing to knowingly consume a lot of unhealthy food should be prepared to accept the consequences of that choice, in the same way that those who smoke should be prepared to accept that their risk of a wide range of terrible, life-shortening illnesses is massively increased.

I think it is an interesting conversation over how far healthcare should cater for those this situation - for example, should the NHS in the UK be funding gastric bands or similar procedures for those who have no physical ailments other than self-caused obesity? Should they be funding cancer care for those that have smoked? Should they be funding emergency care for those undertaking high-risk leisure activities, such as those usually excluded from holiday insurance cover unless additional premiums are paid? Answers to such questions need to be decided at a societal level, although I fear that 'Big Business' and politicians are holding the reins in reality.


With regards to those whose life choices are constrained by their situation, including poverty, discrimination, crime and other factors, IMVHO the USA urgently needs to sort itself out - in the 21st century we should not have thousands of people (seemingly often of the BAME socio-economic groups) living in tents on the street or living in accommodation but in endless poverty, and failing to gain an education that will enable them to secure a career and income that supports a healthy, fulfilling and beneficial life. It is disgraceful that such groups seem to be consistently let down by 'the government' and 'punished' by laws and regulations seemingly designed to 'catch them out', and much greater study and effort needs to be put into understanding why this situation persists in what is apparently the richest Developed World nation (ignoring the insane US debt...).

The (lack of) availability of quality food for a reasonable cost feeds into this ongoing situation. If you have low income and large outgoings to just get by each month, especially if you have a family to feed, who is going to buy a small basket of organic fresh foods when, for the same money, one can buy a whole trolley's worth of highly processed, artificial, filling but nutritionally empty food? And why are food companies in the US allowed to fill their products with trans-fats, e-numbers, unsustainably-sourced palm oil and sugar, rather than quality ingredients? I understand that in the free market economy companies are able to target whichever socioeconomic sectors they wish, but the fact that some sectors of society rely on this junk food to just exist should be far higher up the list of concerns than it currently is.



I fear that by this point (if you have got this far) I am at risk of landing in 'he doth protest too much' territory.

For the avoidance of any doubt, and as a TL;DR...:

I am of the opinion that the fact that the USA (in particular) has such a high (and growing) number of people with poor health should be of much greater concern than it currently is to those in power and in 'big business'. It needs to be urgently investigated and remediated/mitigated where possible, instead of being ignored/perpetuated, seemingly in order to make money out of those suffering (especially in terms of poverty and medical health issues) and to maintain a status quo that means the disadvantaged are not able to 'rise up' and challenge those in power.

The leaders of a nation should do their best to ensure the health of their population is as good as it can be and, therefore, lower the risk to individuals when this virus or any other virus/disease strikes, or even just when there is a 'bad flu year' (for example).

 

[Cerulean]

id? Answers to such questions need to be decided at a societal level, although I fear that 'Big Business' and politicians are holding the reins in reality.


With regards to those whose life choices are constrained by their situation, including poverty, discrimination, crime and other factors, IMVHO the USA urgently needs to sort itself out - in the 21st century we should not have thousands of people (seemingly often of the BAME socio-economic groups) living in tents on the street or living in accommodation but in endless poverty, and failing to gain an education that will enable them to secure a career and income that supports a healthy, fulfilling and beneficial life. It is disgraceful that such groups seem to be consistently let down by 'the government' and 'punished' by laws and regulations seemingly designed to 'catch them out', and much greater study and effort needs to be

I'm sorry but to be honest, I don't know what you expected making the comment you did. This isn't a light topic. This is a public board where people are likely to be deeply impacted by these topics. But I am glad you responded with the thought and detail that you did and clarified.

I can agree with MANY of your points with a resounding YES, especially around food supply/education/adjustments to resource allocation - it is a travesty that many people don't even possess rudimentary nutritional knowledge, and food quality is what it is. These issues unfurled after decades I imagine....and poverty and deep disenfranchisement...undeniable. COVID-19 has done a great job of exposing every crack in our global infrastructure. Whether we sit up, take notice, and do something about it remains to be seen.

But on the same hand, some of the societal issues you are describing about disenfranchisement are hardly unique to the USA, although the USA is ripe for deserved criticism. I could easily flip through the history books and find staggering representations of the same ugly tendency humans have always had to let neglected masses rot beyond the castle walls, and people who are happy to be complicit as long as their coffers were filled.

I think your post still conveys a lack of understanding of obesity and "lifestyle choices" or maybe we will just disagree. You are still not treating obesity (as an example) like a medically diagnosable disease, that in some instances, requires surgical intervention. Being sick doesn't always look the way we want it to and certainly doesn't elicit empathy as long as we can tie it back to individual responsibility, right? Ahh but, we know that smoking is an addiction, just as binge eating is an eating disorder (both of which are in the DSM) just as obesity is a deeply complex disease with high rates of relapse and comorbidities, and it is an extremely difficult one to treat as it impacts metabolic, neurochemical and psychological wellbeing and health. You are right to note, the USA has a medical crisis on its hands that we should take VERY serious and that is highlighted and underscored by the coronavirus pandemic. And yet, we lack the discourse around treating these as medical issues and default to a moralistic argument that has more in common with Judeo-Christian ideologies than scientifically-based research. We believe that something is wrong with the person if they are overweight, and it is inexplicable to us unless they are somehow among the disenfranchised populations we've referenced. I grew up middle class. Was well educated. And was obese starting from the age of 13. I lost over 150lbs in my mid 20s because I was privileged enough to qualify for a surgical procedure, and I can guarantee you, it was no triumph over morals or mere self control that did it. It demanded multi-factorical and serious medical intervention and support.

And even if you'd prefer to hold individuals culpable for having been overweight in the first place (I take no offense, and am not implying that YOU do at all, but posing it as a possibility), or if someone harms themselves while thrill seeking, develops cancer while smoking, etc. - it is turtles all the way down. IS someone who is sexually active more or less deserving of being HIV positive? What if they only have had 1 partner? What about 10, or 100? Where does free will stop and fate take over? I believe that we should all endeavor to seek to improve peoples lives and prevent unneeded suffering, and come to peoples aid when they ask for it without questioning whether or not we should, or if they really deserve it. The Hippocratic Oath seems to mirror these sentiments. But medical ethics is complicated and hospitals can't account for or control deep societal issues.

But...whether someone protested without a mask, went to the beach against recommendations when everyone else kept doing what they were told and resented that they couldn't frolic in the sunshine, or did EVERYTHING RIGHT and got sick anyways, I like to think that COVID-19 isn't an act of punishment for anybody.

Sorry for jacking the thread. This will be the last of my long rants. Clearly I have been thinking about these topics a lot

 

[Tekate]

Hmm living with seasonal flu, but there is usually a vaccine every year, which for oldsters such as myself it's usually less than 10% effective as at my age my immune system isn't all that great. So in addition to flu every year people over 55 will have to worry about Covid-19 too.

AMA guidelines for physicians to open up:

COVID-19: A physician guide to keeping your practice open

Download the PDF that outlines best practices that should be in place at the federal, state and local levels before and after reopening during COVID-19.

www.ama-assn.org

Now it says in the first bullet for opening up:

. minimal risk of community transmission based on sustained evidence of a downward trend in new cases and fatalities

Texas has had more cases than ever but yet doctors offices are open for business, seems very disconcerting.

Herd immunity is a long way away, but a great idea.

Since this disease affects oldsters much much more than younger people I personally Americans think - too bad, I truly do. If this affected 0-35 it would be quite different. It also seems blood type has some influence on how serious an infection someone gets whether they are young or old, Vit D, we just don't know. Vascular changes in some young people have ruined some lives. It's all about priorities.

We'll live with COVID just as we do with seasonal flu. Those who are at greater risk for becoming seriously ill will need to take greater precaution, just like they should every flu season or in other times of viral/bacterial outbreaks. More densely populated areas will be hotspots, as usual, and the vast majority of areas will not see a lot of change. The number of cases isn't a thing... there will always be cases... more cases = greater immunity, which is a good thing. What matters are cases that require more serious intervention, like hospitalization, and those resulting in death.

What I do believe, however, is that the American people (as well as employers) will be much less willing to participate in another shut down, especially if it negatively affects their finances to a large extent. In the majority of areas, there have not been that many cases which resulted in death or even required hospitalization, but many people in less affected areas have literally lost their livelihoods... never to recover.

I work with a ton of different physicians and other medical professionals, all of whom agree that the complete (and continued) shutdown, as well as the majority of continued restrictions are overkill, and, in large part, unnecessary. Even experts in the field have admitted this, but the damage is done. Businesses are now worried about public perception, and lots of people still worry they'll "catch Covid-19 and die" if they leave their homes. Very sad.

 

[Arcadian]

I was reading a news story about a woman who was 20 years old, healthy, and she had to get a double lung transplant because covid-19 messed up her lungs.

Coronavirus survivor in US receives double lung transplant

Surgeons in Chicago have given a new set of lungs to a young woman with severe lung damage from the coronavirus.

apnews.com

I've read about people in their 30s and 40's, healthy, healthy weight, athletes, no known preexisting conditions that have ruined kidneys and vascular systems.

The virus isn't one size fits all.

 

[Niffler75]

@Arcadian The pictures of the poor lady's lungs and the effects of the virus are pretty horrendous!

 

[msop04]

I find the last comments you made quite interesting. I work in healthcare too, at a consulting firm, and I have not heard a whisper from a single health care system client of ours that restrictions were overkill. My intention isn't to be argumentative, but this was genuinely the first I had heard anything like this at all and we interact with clinical, operations, innovation/strategy teams, supply chain, you name it.

The perception issue - definitely. Hospitals have absolutely been gutted financially. Anything they made a margin on was essentially halted, all while their overheads for huge amounts of PPE skyrocketed, they had to redesign their patient flow, waiting rooms, buy ad-hoc technology... It is a mess...

The majority of providers who commented were "old school" (aged 60+)... they said that what Fauci was saying (originally, before he changed his stance) went against what they'd been taught. That said, the younger docs tended to agree, but weren't as vocal. They all agreed the precautions weren't a "one size fits all" thing, and that those established for the majority of areas was overkill... commenting that the complete shutdown would hurt citizens much more financially than anything, which it did and continues to do.

 

[Cerulean]

The majority of providers who commented were "old school" (aged 60+)... they said that what Fauci was saying (originally, before he changed his stance) went against what they'd been taught. That said, the younger docs tended to agree, but weren't as vocal. They all agreed the precautions weren't a "one size fits all" thing, and that those established for the majority of areas was overkill... commenting that the complete shutdown would hurt citizens much more financially than anything, which it did and continues to do.

Interesting. Definitely understand resistance to a "one size fits all" - it wouldn't make sense to treat it that way...it varies a lot by location which is why this situation has produced a kind of apex of states rights. As it frankly should.

Although we are undeniably seeing an uptick in cases in 14 states that opened to early mostly all across the sunbelt, who knows if it is or isn't a 2nd wave...and frankly the USA has been more laissez-faire about restrictions (certainly at a federal level) than many other nations because we have to, in order to uphold constitutional rights. We should roll back opening the moment the data indicates that we should.

Who knows what will come. I was just surprised, as I haven't heard anything like from young or old from anybody stateside, let alone from foreign countries.

 

[msop04]

Interesting. Definitely understand resistance to a "one size fits all" - it wouldn't make sense to treat it that way...it varies a lot by location which is why this situation has produced a kind of apex of states rights. As it frankly should.

Although we are undeniably seeing an uptick in cases in 14 states that opened to early mostly all across the sunbelt, who knows if it is or isn't a 2nd wave...and frankly the USA has been more laissez-faire about restrictions (certainly at a federal level) than many other nations because we have to, in order to uphold constitutional rights. We should roll back opening the moment the data indicates that we should.

Who knows what will come. I was just surprised, as I haven't heard anything like from young or old from anybody stateside, let alone from foreign countries.

I agree that it should be a handled differently, depending on that state's (or that area's) situation. I admire the governor of South Dakota. Her state had much fewer cases/hospitalizations/deaths, so she did not shut everything down. She used common sense to weigh the pros and cons of what a shutdown would mean for her citizens and made the decision that it was not necessary. South Dakotans kept their jobs and life carried on for the most part. Their economy wasn't ruined unnecessarily.

I'm just glad that so many medical professionals and experts in the field (who have nothing to gain and a lot to lose) have spoken out, challenging Fauci and others who wanted such extreme measures and complete shutdown for everyone. We are not "all in this together." Each state/area has its own situation, so the "cure" doesn't need to be worse than the problem. What's the point of shutting down, if we don't have anything to come back to??

Of course there will be more cases... larger numbers of people are being tested, because there are more testing kits available, there are few to no restrictions in order to get tested, and people are finally allowed to be around each other. That's common sense. The vast majority of those who test positive will be fine. The number of cases shouldn't be the headline, as so many are asymptomatic or have milder symptoms. The majority of those with no symptoms will never get tested anyway. More cases isn't necessarily a bad thing; it means we're getting closer to herd immunity. The number of cases that result in hospitalization or death and treatment is what we need to be focusing on.

 

[Tekate]

But do you agree that the number of cases of people who will be fine can infect others if they do not take precautions?

I agree that each state has to set their own rules. Problem is when we cross states lines I think.

I do not think MANY medical professional spoke out against Fauci, I am wondering what you are basing that on? I cannot find a lot of info on this.. Thanks.

Arizona governor backtracks on mask rules as Covid-19 cases surge.

Arizona governor backtracks on mask rules as Covid-19 cases surge

Doug Ducey will stop blocking mayors from requiring masks but stops short of issuing statewide regulation

www.theguardian.com

Fauci: why the public wasn't told to wear masks when the coronavirus pandemic began

Fauci: why the public wasn’t told to wear masks when the coronavirus pandemic began

The infectious disease expert also discussed why they are necessary.

thehill.com

I think Covid-19 has ruined the economy, and I don't now if any President could have changed that, what could have changed is a plan for pandemics, hopefully our government puts a plan in place for the next one.

I agree that it should be a handled differently, depending on that state's (or that area's) situation. I admire the governor of South Dakota. Her state had much fewer cases/hospitalizations/deaths, so she did not shut everything down. She used common sense to weigh the pros and cons of what a shutdown would mean for her citizens and made the decision that it was not necessary. South Dakotans kept their jobs and life carried on for the most part. Their economy wasn't ruined unnecessarily.

I'm just glad that so many medical professionals and experts in the field (who have nothing to gain and a lot to lose) have spoken out, challenging Fauci and others who wanted such extreme measures and complete shutdown for everyone. We are not "all in this together." Each state/area has its own situation, so the "cure" doesn't need to be worse than the problem. What's the point of shutting down, if we don't have anything to come back to??

Of course there will be more cases... larger numbers of people are being tested, because there are more testing kits available, there are few to no restrictions in order to get tested, and people are finally allowed to be around each other. That's common sense. The vast majority of those who test positive will be fine. The number of cases shouldn't be the headline, as so many are asymptomatic or have milder symptoms. The majority of those with no symptoms will never get tested anyway. More cases isn't necessarily a bad thing; it means we're getting closer to herd immunity. The number of cases that result in hospitalization or death and treatment is what we need to be focusing on.

 

[YadaYadaYada]

Ugh, sometimes I wonder if our governor has anything between his ears.

He does not want to extend the additional $600 federal unemployment benefit because he feels it discourages people from returning to work. In his words the state is nearly fully open or will be by that time so everyone needs to get back to work.

Except, not all summer camps are operating and thenones that are have reduced capacity to watch children over the summer so parents can work. Also because companies have lost so much money they will not be hiring everyone back, some companies have completely closed, hence fewer or no job to return to. Must be nice to not have to worry about where your next meal is coming from or how you will pay your bills for the month.

 

[msop04]

But do you agree that the number of cases of people who will be fine can infect others if they do not take precautions?

I agree that each state has to set their own rules. Problem is when we cross states lines I think.

I do not think MANY medical professional spoke out against Fauci, I am wondering what you are basing that on? I cannot find a lot of info on this.. Thanks.

Arizona governor backtracks on mask rules as Covid-19 cases surge.

Arizona governor backtracks on mask rules as Covid-19 cases surge

Doug Ducey will stop blocking mayors from requiring masks but stops short of issuing statewide regulation

www.theguardian.com

Fauci: why the public wasn't told to wear masks when the coronavirus pandemic began

Fauci: why the public wasn’t told to wear masks when the coronavirus pandemic began

The infectious disease expert also discussed why they are necessary.

thehill.com

I think Covid-19 has ruined the economy, and I don't now if any President could have changed that, what could have changed is a plan for pandemics, hopefully our government puts a plan in place for the next one.

There weren't thousands who spoke out, but there were many... you probably didn't catch many of their posts, tweets, or videos, as they were censored and/or taken down.

 

[natasha-cupcake]

I wanted to make a comment about the article linked above, where Dr. Fauci discusses his "evolved" view on public masking. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I'm going to say it. In my opinion, Dr. Fauci is a liar and a fraud. I'm going to preface this by saying that I used to have respect for him, but I no longer do. In my opinion, he does not actually believe that ubiquitous mask wearing for the general public is effective in stopping/slowing the spread of the virus. His previous recommendations/statements clearly stated that masks did not work to slow/stop the spread of virus and were not necessary for the general public. His current stance is a complete 180 degree turn, and is, in reality, a stunning admission to either a previous lie, or a current one.

If he really believes that "masks work", then he was lying to all of use when he told us they were not necessary. And if he believes that masks DO work and ARE an important tool to stop/slow the spread, what a monstrous lie that would have been! What kind of public health official exposes the public to increased danger with a convenient lie, even if if that lie was to save masks for health care workers? If he truly believed/believes that masks work, he would have told us back then to wear homemade masks and save the manufactured ones for healthcare workers.

Either he was lying then, or he's lying now. He's outed himself as a manipulator and, at this point, I don't know how I'm supposed to believe anything he says.

 

[jaaron]

There weren't thousands who spoke out, but there were many... you probably didn't catch many of their posts, tweets, or videos, as they were censored and/or taken down.

Out of curiosity, where did they appear, and by whom were they taken down? It's really hard these days--almost impossible in fact, with the Wayback Machine and people who screenshot, to make something disappear. I've seen lots of stuff from Karol Sikora, who is a bit of an outlier, and whose predictions were utterly wrong, but whose public posts have certainly not been censored or removed from any platforms. Other than Plandemic, I'm curious about what was removed.

 

[autumngems]

We definitely have an uptick in cases here due to beaches opening up and all the tourist influx.

Just found out they closed one of the buildings on our base because several of the cleaning ladies has COVID. They closed it down to clean for 3 days, but have not tested any of the regular staff that work there. They have put them in other areas to work so if they DO have it they are out spreading it. A couple of those staff members are still going in and out of the affected building. They ae trying to play it down like it's nothing, we are cleaning.
Scared

 

[Tekate]

Whew...! I'll look to see what I can find about the censoring, I hate that.

There weren't thousands who spoke out, but there were many... you probably didn't catch many of their posts, tweets, or videos, as they were censored and/or taken down.

 

[Tekate]

. Scientists don't know 1/2 about how Covid-19 will affect us long term, do people have immunity after having it? they are saying maybe not today!

Outdated Fauci Video on Face Masks Shared Out of Context - FactCheck.org

An outdated video clip of Dr. Anthony Fauci is circulating on social media -- giving the false impression he is currently advising the public not to wear face masks. Fauci, like other health officials, recommends wearing a cloth face covering when distances of at least six feet can’t be maintained.

www.factcheck.org

On April 3, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reversed its earlier position on the use of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and announced that it was now recommending that people should wear face coverings in public, citing new studies on the transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19.

“We now know from recent studies that a significant portion of individuals with coronavirus lack symptoms (‘asymptomatic’) and that even those who eventually develop symptoms (‘pre-symptomatic’) can transmit the virus to others before showing symptoms,” the CDC said in its announcement. “In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.”


You have to do what is best for you and your loved ones really, whatever you think it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/13/spate-new-research-supports-wearing-masks-control-coronavirus-spread/

Four months of discord about the coronavirus epidemic have transformed the cloth mask into a potent political symbol, touted by Democrats as a key part of communal responsibility, labeled by some GOP leaders as a sign of government overreach and as a scarlet letter pinned on the weak.

But as partisan interests sew symbolism and controversy into masks, scientists are trying to provide answers about how effectively those masks prevent transmission of the coronavirus, and what role they should play in efforts to limit the pathogen’s spread.
Several new studies published this month support wearing masks to curb the transmission of the novel coronavirus. The broadest, a review funded by the World Health Organization and published in the journal Lancet, concluded that data from 172 observational studies indicate wearing face masks reduces the risk of coronavirus infection.
“Our findings suggest, in multiple ways, that the use of masks is highly protective in health-care and community settings,” said the author of the review, Holger Schünemann, an epidemiologist and physician

You surely can be disappointed in Fauci because he is the head, but scientists I guess do the best they can with information they have on hand.

If you are young and in good health and don't wear a mask you probably will get Covid-19, but most probably you will be symptom-less but you could infect someone unintentionally, it's all about chances, luck and fate.

I wanted to make a comment about the article linked above, where Dr. Fauci discusses his "evolved" view on public masking. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I'm going to say it. In my opinion, Dr. Fauci is a liar and a fraud. I'm going to preface this by saying that I used to have respect for him, but I no longer do. In my opinion, he does not actually believe that ubiquitous mask wearing for the general public is effective in stopping/slowing the spread of the virus. His previous recommendations/statements clearly stated that masks did not work to slow/stop the spread of virus and were not necessary for the general public. His current stance is a complete 180 degree turn, and is, in reality, a stunning admission to either a previous lie, or a current one.

If he really believes that "masks work", then he was lying to all of use when he told us they were not necessary. And if he believes that masks DO work and ARE an important tool to stop/slow the spread, what a monstrous lie that would have been! What kind of public health official exposes the public to increased danger with a convenient lie, even if if that lie was to save masks for health care workers? If he truly believed/believes that masks work, he would have told us back then to wear homemade masks and save the manufactured ones for healthcare workers.

Either he was lying then, or he's lying now. He's outed himself as a manipulator and, at this point, I don't know how I'm supposed to believe anything he says.

 

[Matata]

If you are young and in good health and don't wear a mask you probably will get Covid-19, but most probably you will be symptom-less but you could infect someone unintentionally, it's all about chances, luck and fate.

This is playing out in my area now. We did great keeping cases low until 2nd phase reopening then BOOM, lots of new cases all in the 20-49 age group. We've had no deaths yet from covid in my area since this began but the younger people here are getting sick and several have been hospitalized. They're losing at Russian roulette.

 

[Tekate]

@Matata I live in Texas, we opened back up and man we are in trouble, hospitals starting to fill up. I mean seriously my mother - an old Irish woman - said "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cures, girlie" and that is how I feel about masks, what's the harm in wearing a mask? none, annoying I know, but it protects you and me. I have to shrug at times, what can one do? hope for the best I guess.

This is playing out in my area now. We did great keeping cases low until 2nd phase reopening then BOOM, lots of new cases all in the 20-49 age group. We've had no deaths yet from covid in my area since this began but the younger people here are getting sick and several have been hospitalized. They're losing at Russian roulette.

 

[MRBXXXFVVS1]

The Rich Have Stopped Spending And That Has Tanked The Economy

While retail sales bounced back in May after a deep drop in March and April, the wealthiest Americans are not spending as freely as they did before the pandemic. And that could limit the recovery.

www.npr.org

 

[Dancing Fire]

He does not want to extend the additional $600 federal unemployment benefit because he feels it discourages people from returning to work. In his words the state is nearly fully open or will be by that time so everyone needs to get back to work.

That's true...why work if you receive more $$$ for staying home?

 

[MRBXXXFVVS1]

Federal benefits should only apply to those unemployed or underemployed, with a maximum of what their prior income was. That way the budget could be stretched out for a longer period of time to help those who need it the most.