The CDC doesn't require an N95 mask.?ÿ If you choose to wear a mask it seems smart to wear one that works for the intended purpose.?ÿ
This isn't about science, or what the CDC knows.?ÿ
This isn't about science, or what the CDC knows.?ÿ
I've tried all day to think of what "this" is about and the only thing I can see is politics. I must be wrong 'cause that is not allowed here.
Well, I guess there are couple more choices, preferring pseudo-science quackery or the nitwittery of substituting one's civic duty with something to do with "freedom."
JMHO
?ÿ
?ÿ
Gene it's about if the CDC has authority to do what they've done. Not politics, in this case it's about the law. It's going to be appealed in which case we shall see what the courts say.?ÿ
The U.S. Justice Dept. said after the judge's ruling that they would appeal the decision if the CDC determines they are still needed for travel.
No disrespect to others here, but none of you are epidemiologists so your layperson notions of what is proper (even if you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express) do not rise to the level of the science-based determinations of the CDC.
?ÿ
Yep.
Except the CDC isn't guided by science. We knew that back in the 80's with AIDS and all the rest. They even dabble in gun control, as a means to use their power to reduce the number of weapons.?ÿ This isn't a political comment, I make no assertion as to whether this is good or bad, but the CDC in public opinion and in fact lost the faith of the American public that they are making "science-based determinations".
I have no way to change it, nor am I advocating change. (That would move to P&R.)
So, even if they WERE making pure science decisions (which seems unlikely) they have long ago spent any trust they have with the public, at least those that are paying attention. (FWIW, I believe that the CDC is only trying to do what is best for the greatest number of people and is not nefarious, but that is irrelevant here.)
It is, however, instructive to all of us that purport to be "experts" and make "science-based determinations", which includes all surveyors. The decisions we make, the way we communicate them, and our professional integrity and actions all build or tear down trust. That trust isn't just about us, but the whole industry. People are more and more not trusting experts as they delve deeper and deeper into the lack of humility.
No disrespect to others here, but none of you are epidemiologists so your layperson notions of what is proper (even if you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express) do not rise to the level of the science-based determinations of the CDC.
BTW, I talked my wife into a vaccine because it was supposed to protect others, I parroted the CDC lines. It did not help my opinion of them to find out that they were lying to me, and so I misled my wife. It may have been good for her to get the vaccine, but it is not good to be the victim of naked manipulation.
I just wish more Americans used the pandemic to improve their overall health.?ÿ All the arguments concerning the efficacy of masks, social distancing, ivermectin etc. are superfluous if you're overweight, don't get out in the sun much, smoke, drink more than occasionally, or in generally don't do much in the form of exercise.?ÿ?ÿ
People are more and more not trusting experts as they delve deeper and deeper into the lack of humility.
Regardless of the topic, this is the new dangerous reality we live in, where the truth no longer matters, just your ability to influence the?ÿ lemmings.
?ÿ
@dmyhill Being vaccinated does help to protect others. Just because it is not 100% effective at preventing you from transmitting the virus to others does not mean it doesn't help protect others. If no one were vaccinated there would be much more spread of the virus than there is currently.
IMHO this thread has trespassed into the territory of politics so I will end my participation with this reply.
Being a simple country boy from the Nebraska Sandhills my plainspoken nature will not be well received by some posters to this thread, but so be it.
Based solely on what has been posted to this thread, some posters are plainly ignorant of what science is. Science provides the most probable answer* to a given set of facts and the current understanding of the natural phenomenon being investigated. Change the fact set and/or change/improve your understanding of the physical phenomenon and the answer will change accordingly.
The other thing that has been missing in the "discussion" so far is how important critical reading/reasoning is to making informed decisions. Let us face it, decisions on whether to be vaccinated, what PPE to wear, social distancing, etc. during this pandemic are in part based on what level of risk we are willing to accept.
Otherwise, you are free to ignore science and listen to Joe Rogan and Aaron Rogers ('cause both are highly educated laymen epidemiologists); or you can take the advise of a former government official who recommended drinking bleach, inserting light fixtures in randomly selected body orifices and gulping down copious amounts of an equine dewormer to cure COVID-19.
As for the U.S. district court judge's decision, if her ruling is upheld, mayhem will ensue. To any jurist other than her (The ABA appears to have been right when they gave her a "Not Qualified" rating) the law in this area is settled. However if her ruling is upheld, laws such as those against yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater will need to be overturned. Public safety will no longer be regarded as a compelling state interest.
* Not too unlike a surveyor determining a corner's position based upon the best available evidence, is it?
