1. A helpful guide to addressing these changing recommendations:

   If you find yourself in a conversation with someone saying “follow the science” ask them the following questions:

   1. Was the previous recommendation based on scientific studies?
   2. Since the new recommendation conflicts with the old one, is the new recommendation based on scientific studies?

   Assuming both answers are “yes:” Which set of studies was flawed, and how? Knowing what you know now (about scientific studies being capable of producing incorrect results), how does that change how you view the experts?

   Assuming either answer is “no:” Why was the recommendation made without data to back it up? What other recommendations have been made on this basis? How would you know?

   I have a Twitter screenshot somewhere from late 2019. It goes something like this:

   IQ120: I don’t trust science because I understand how it works

   2

   1. Well obviously I should have remembered you can’t put greater-than or less-than symbols in comments when HTML is enabled 🙂

      That should read:
      I have a Twitter screenshot somewhere from late 2019. It goes something like this:

      IQ Less than 100: I don’t trust science because I don’t understand how it works
      IQ between 100 and 120: I F*CKING LOVE SCIENCE
      IQ Greater than 120: I don’t trust science because I understand how it works

   2. If anyone ever says they are following the science, they do not understand science at all, and you can immediately dismiss anything they are saying. And, yes, that includes Fauxi. I do not care how many degrees you have, if you actually think science proves anything, you are wrong.

      Science does not “prove” anything. What science does is provide the best possible guess based on current evidence and observations. The science is NEVER settled. Science is the process of constantly asking and questioning.

      Science is not “This is a fact”
      Science is: “Prove it”

      2

      1. That’s precisely right. For example, a “law of physics” is not what the words suggest; instead, it is a concise summary of what has been observed. Or more precisely, that plus a forecast of what will be observed in certainly experiments that haven’t been done yet but can be. And that last point is critical: it means that the “law” stands only so long as there is no experimental evidence contradicting it. The moment that evidence appears (if adequately supported) a new law has to be created. Examples: Newton’s law of gravitation was replaced by Einstein’s; quantum mechanics replaced various earlier models of light and atomic structure.

         3

2. And/or they are manufacturing the justification to send kids and teachers back to school.

   1

   1. Why would they do that, given that they are in the pockets of the teacher unions and don’t care about the welfare of children?
      A week or so ago Fauci stated in a TV interview (I’m not sure where) that the current recommendations for what to do once vaccinated are not based on science but on gut feel, or words to that effect. In other words, they are based on what his political bosses told him to say.

      3

      1. Because people can’t have their kids home all day when they have to work or go to work with the things are heading back towards that going to start happening. In addition lots of teachers unions are being giant pains in the asses, so if the CDC says it, its got to be ok.

         2

         1. Yes, agreed, but my point is that the teachers’ unions have all the power, so that all the considerations you mentioned that justify sending kids back to school are pooh-poohed by the authorities to avoid having that happen as long as possible. Keeping the malingering unions happy is far more important than worrying about major damage to lots of children, in their estimation.

            1

            1. An my point is that having the CDC say it is ok pulls the rug right out from under any argument the union can make.

               1

3. Uh, the data said masks did nothing so the data of 3-6 feet will show it did nothing

   2

4. Dr. Fauxi lost me (RN for 40+ years, mid-level for 15 years: and, yes, there is considerable overlap) with his “masks are useless” idiocy.

   All those years nursing in Da City, and my TB skin test is *STILL* negative!

   “Masks are useless”, my…uh, ear!

   1

   1. Depends on the mask, and how it’s used, though, does it not?

      1

      1. Boris: correct, crappy mask, improperly employed will provide an illusion of protection.

         *But*, that is not what Fauxi said. My ex wife, an infection control nurse, was frequently all over her staff ref handwashing and, yes, proper mask wearing.

         Which is different from “useless”.

         I will grant you all the Gilligans warming their chins, while breathing through their unmasked nostrils.

         1

         1. Yes, but we were told to stay away from N95 masks because those were reserved for professionals. Right?

            1

            1. Yep, Fauxi and/ or his surrogates did say that.

               And part of that is properly laid at the feet of hospital administration that never considered the possibility that JIT inventory might fizzle out.

               Like, big ass snow storms.

               Or a hurricane

               Or an ice storm.

               Or a chinese engineered virus.

               Or anything else that “could never happen!”

               And therefore had functionally zero “rainy day” supplies.

Comments are closed.