jdub27

Sure. I also think conspiracy theories have the ability to spread inaccurate/dangerous information which can be harmful as well. Their freedom of speech was not suppressed as you stated. Spreading their "opinions" on YouTube or Facebook is not a right and their videos clearly violated the T&C's of the platform, just like many other videos have (from both sides of the politcal spectrum). The government didn't take down their videos and they are free to distribute it on their own. The Bakersfield docs used their profession to present their case in a way that wasn't honest, particularly with the data they used. I'm not saying that some of their points don't have merit and that some of things they said weren't accurate (even the wrost conspiracy theories use factual info to get people to buy in), but by using their standing as doctors and not disclosing their reasoning or being clear about the data they used and instead citing it is "science", they intentionally mislead people under the guise of being medical experts, not business owners concerned for their well-being (which they have every right to be, but went about it the wrong way).

You'll have to excuse my confusion as you qualified them as having "legit credentials". The reasons both of those videos were removed are easily found, with their "facts" challenged (with citations). In the case of the Bakersfield docs, they cited unproven/unreviewed research to push their agenda (their own financial well-being) but tried passing it off as medical advice. A simple Google search of Mikovits will show she's a decade or two past having "legit credentials". Their removal from YouTube is not a suppression of free speech. Their videos violate the terms and conditions of where they were posted. Free speech doesn't allow you to post whatever you want, wherever you want. They are still free to promote their messages on their own platforms.

Just curious if you're referring to the Bakersfield doctors or Judy Mikovits (Plandemic) as those being "suppressed"?

"if the caregiver get sick".......So what happens when caregivers are in the window where they are contagious but not yet showing any symptoms or end up being completely asymptomatic but are still carrying and shedding the virus? Point being, you can't just claim isolating the vulnerable and those who need care will be a simple fix.

Honest question because no one I've asked has a good answer: Where do the caretakers (and their families) who are responsible to take care of the sick/vulnerable population who are quarantined fit in?

I'd disagree with that. It isn't recommendations from epidemiologists that is causing them to open things up right now, it the continuous mounting of collateral damage. I guess that would be the logical conclusion that would show how they ended up an asymptomatic carrier, but it doesn't change the end result or the point: Unless you are going to isolate all caregivers, then isolating the vulnerable doesn't really work for the exact same reason. If it was a true lockdown, than anyone who was exposed to someone who worked at LM would have also been quarantined. Instead, they only required the workers to be quarantined (which was questionably followed by more than a few) and those that lived with them had no restrictions and were able to continue to be exposed to others. I'm not saying what is right or wrong in the scenario, just making the point that claiming the simple solution to just "isolate the vulnerable" is not answer nor is "keep everyone locked down for months at a time". It has to be somewhere in the middle and with the understanding that lives will be lost no matter which direction things go.

Terrible situation but the whole thing is what pokes a giant hole in those who think the sole answer is as simple as "isolate the vulnerable" and everyone else can go back to living life like normal. It is significantly more complicated than that.

Residual effects are being taken into account as new decisions continue to be made. But there are people who are using to studies like the say all restrictions should be dropped and life should be back to normal. Again, my comment wasn't directed anyone specifically, just a personal anecdote I've noticed among vocal people among various forms of social media. "You're expert is an idiot because I don't believe him, but mine knows what he's talking about because it aligns with what I believe". More of a comment on the larger problems with the divides going on in today's world, when I would venture to guess the more silent majority falls somewhere in the middle.

This isn't directed at you but it just reminded me of something I've seen a ton of on social media that makes me chuckle: People rail on the experts (CDC/WHO/etc) and their models for being inaccurate but then in their next breath, turn around a cite something like this. Just further proves that people only believe experts when it is convenient for their confirmation bias. The CDC/WHO models said millions "could" die if steps weren't taken. This study says that suicides "could" increase 32% in Michigan due to the handling of CoVid19. Both are possible outcomes given the data input into a model, which improve with time and more information available.

Considering the increase in the overall death rate across the globe over the last 2 months, I think someone might have eventually figured out there was something out of the ordinary going on beyond a "really bad flu season" especially as things started ramping up in the spring when the flu season is winding down. And while the answer will never be known, the current death total is with various levels of preventative action across the globe from severe lockdowns to increased social distancing, so it is tough to know what would have happened if there extra steps would have been taken. But that's just my 2 cents.

Now I'm just curious: When you say you won't tolerate it, are you just going to avoid stores/places that require them or are you going to openly defy their requirements? I'm not a fan of them personally but if I need groceries and Hugo's requires customers to wear a mask.....well I guess I'll wear one. As for your second point, doesn't it make sense as things start opening back up, as most people have been pushing for, that updated requirements about continuing to be cautious be put in place while that happens and they continue to test the waters on what effect opening up has on the curve? To me, it appears they are slowly throttling up with the theory that if they open up full bore and their is a significant spike, you can't put that back in the tube.

If the how the two were acquired and subsequently spread were even in the same zip code, your comparison might make sense. They aren't and it doesn't. People are free to choose to do what they want (unless of course you want to visit an establishment that has their own requirements), but pretending there isn't actual reasoning that backs why wearing masks can help is a strange stance to take.

This is already in place.

I didn't dispute that he could shoot (41% in 18/19 before the line moved back and 37.5% this past season in limited action ). He also couldn't create his own shot and depended on others to get him the ball and even then "sure fire thing to put he ball in the basket" is a pretty strong. Brown had a better 3pt percentage than him in 2018/19 and he was on par with Walters in 2019/20. Every team needs a deep threat but those players have needed to evolve in to a "3 and D" player to see more minutes. Like I said, I wish him well and wish it would have worked out. But I'm going to give Sather a pretty big benefit of the doubt considering his history of running a program among other factors.

GATHERING INFORMATION TO HELP MAKE FUTURE DECISIONS IS A BAD IDEA!!!! Turns out typing in all caps doesn't actually make it true. Yes, antibody testing is going to be incredibly important, but until they are actual able to be accurate (which they currently are struggling with), gathering information on who is currently infected is one of the few things they can do to help limit the spread. Yes, it obviously measures a specific point in time, but it allows those who are positive to take proper steps and also give those they know they have been in contact with knowledge that they also need to take some precautions. Local example: No testing means LM Glasfiber is still open and their employees didn't spend the last 2 weeks at home instead of at work and out in the community, buying groceries and other essntials. And those who had been in contact with them can't get tested to see if they are also carrying the virus, spreading it further, instead of finding out if they need to take further precautions to stop spreading it.

If you get "defense or whatever" then you should understand that when you consistently give up more points than you are responsible for helping the team score....well, that's bad. Not arguing his shooting ability but particularly in Sather's system, you need to be able to play some defense. He did not handle his injury in the way they he should of and members of his "inner circle" weren't shy about their opinions with commentary about the program. I feel like Sather has been pretty clear in his expectations and is also fair with people about them. Best of luck to him, having ND kids do well is always good for the University and the team but parting ways was the correct decision for both sides. Hopefully he grows from this and does well at SUU.

Youtube commented on that as well. Not the first video that has been pulled under similar guidelines but most likely the one that has generated the most buzz. I'm sure there is still plenty that should be removed under the same guidelines from both points of view.

This is the likely reason: https://www.dailynews.com/2020/04/28/california-doctors-with-dubious-covid-conclusions-debunked/

I guess I expect a bit more from the President during an official press conference. Maybe better spots to spitball possible random medical solutions but just my opinion. People are stupid and listen to random things the President says (regardless of party). Call it Darwinism and people will do what they do, but understand the power of the pulpit.

So was the comment out of context or was it said sarcastically? Or it should be ignored like your infer. So many messages on how to take an exact quote from the president. It's ok to criticize people for making mistakes and also approving of proper decisions. People on both sides would be better off accepting that idea.

Not sure where your think my stance and beliefs sit but this changes me opinion zero in either way. But I'm sure there are those on both sides who have their opinions on how those people's death cause being changed will be politicized. But congrats on them being able to be removed from the numerator I guess? I'm told a number of around 0.3% is an insignificant amount so it shouldn't matter

So something like what then? Please clear it up since the White House and President haven't decided which actual defense they are going with. First he was taken out of context and now he claims he was being sarcastic. I literally don't have an issue with what he said. He was clearly just rambling about info he had recently gotten and was thinking outloud and took it a bit far. But the fact that he can't just admit that and the people who defend him to no end is as laughable as the media that covers him is.

Well, now he's come out admitted he said it but he was being sarcastic. His words were literally "I see that the disinfectant knocks it out in a minute, is there a way we can do something like that, an injection inside,". And I would think there is a difference between advancing out of the box ideas vs. pondering such things as the President in a national press briefing. As was mentioned previously, Birx looked horrified at where his random train of thought was going. I would also say that the media played it up much worse than it was but I'm not sure who's worse....Trump not being able to admit when he's wrong or has made a mistake or the other side, including many media members, who criticizes every single breath he takes even when he does the right thing. Absolutely maddening.

On one hand, it is amazing that people would be dumb enough to actually inject disinfectants of any sort into themselves and need to be told not to do it. On the other hand, it is equally amazing the President would literally ponder a comment like that outloud during a press briefing and suggest it is something the medical community might want to look into: "I see that the disinfectant knocks it out in a minute, is there a way we can do something like that, an injection inside, almost a cleaning, because you see it gets inside the lungs, and it does a tremendous number of… are you going to test that … you're going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting."

Not sure which specific study you're referring to, but at least one or two of those studies are being scrutinized quite a bit for how poor the methodolgy used was.