163

I think his argument is the reason there are so many bad outcomes of COVID is because of the weight of the patients who die from it. 80% are obese, so therefore if you lose weight you would have less of a chance to die from it.

But that doesn’t take into account that 73 percent of adult Americans are overweight to begin with, so this proportion of deaths seems very appropriate, especially since overweight people tend to have diabetes or hypertension. And those things may be more responsible for poor outcomes than the weight itself. There is a different between correlation and causation, I don’t think weight is causative going by the numbers here.

164

It was based on studies done on the average distance of matter exposed by a sneeze or cough. There was so much more that should have been looked at. The amount of virus expelled, the size of droplets over space, how long droplets hung in the air.

Back in the spring, a year ago, we all kind of knew that these things were just guesses…like sanitizing surfaces, and everything we touched. We were given guidance that was best practices for the time the guidance was given. I haven’t sanitized my desk since Hell, September.

A lot of this was based on influenza data. And it does not appear this virus works like the flu virus or not as well.

But isn’t it really easy to sit back and second guess, when even Scott Gottlieb, who I actually think has been pretty on top of things, was touting the same policies.

So Scott Gottlieb…who are you crapping???

165

That is actually not that big a deal, if a patient has done some research it is a good starter for a conversation. Typically they are going to be more compliant with treatment regimens once they buy into it as well. If a family member starts interfering with your treatment, that is typically where things go pear shaped.

And never mention you have a lawyer to your doctor, that is usually grounds to deny treating the patient in the future on elective procedures.

167

Exciting. You have documentation showing health organizations and leaders deciding they would arbitrarily use military drill and ceremony distancing? Not close or normal interval. No science at all, just randomly decided on double arm interval.

1 Like
168

My interpretation (and yes, it is an interpretation) is that there was a relatively quick call for social distancing, but mask recommendations lagged too long. Social distancing was a quick and relatively easy recommendation based on prior data, including other coronavirus models. However, when new data on COVID transmission became available, the mask recommendations lagged too far behind.

So, I don’t necessarily think he was upset with the 6 feet recommendation, he was upset other recommendations were too slow to be released.

169

No.
…

170

Dr. Grauci needs to tell me how many fully vaccinated people have been hospitalized for Covid.

That would be some useful info.

171

Let people remove their masks after vaccination. That is also based on science.

172

Yep

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30245-9/fulltext

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2#change-history

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69286-3

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2271-3

173

No. That respiratory diseases are transmitted by respiration and that cloth face diapers filter respiration is not “new data”.

174
  1. Initial assumption was that COVID spread through respiratory droplets, with substantially decreased risk of transmission over 2 meters.
  2. Recommendation for social distancing was given.
  3. New information became available that while respiratory droplets are the primary means of COVID spread in close contact situations, aerosol spread also occurs.
  4. Data was already available showing regular surgical masks greatly decrease spread when worn by those infected with aerosol transmitted respiratory viruses but there was a delay in mask recommendations.
175

Honestly, what are we paying the folks at the CDC for if they didn’t figure that out long ago?

176

Initial horse feathers. He told you why he did it and said he would do it again.

177

Did you listen to the clip? Guessing not.

178

10 times.

179

Maybe you’ll get it on #11.

180

Oh I got it the first time. The other 9 were to confirm the balls on the elf.

181

Really?

From the clip:

The six foot distancing requirement has probably been the single costliest mitigation tactic that we’ve employed and as a result of covid in response to covid and it really wasn’t based on clear science. We implemented it early on based on assumption that coronavirus was going to spread like influenza and there been some prior research that flu spread predominantly through droplets and if you stayed 6 feet apart from people it reduce droplet transmission.

From the clip:

We’ve subsequently learned that covid Corona virus is spreading through aerosols not just droplets so probably 6 feet isn’t as effective as it would be if this was purely droplet transmission.

From the clip:

I think the fact that we’ve over relied on a flu based model caused us to under appreciate the role of aerosol transmission. It probably costs it caused us to overestimate contaminated surfaces as sources of spread. It probably caused us to underestimate the utility of high quality masks and reducing transmission. It probably caused us to overestimate the impact of distancing six feet. We should have re adjudicated this much earlier. I think there is there’s nothing wrong with having followed that flu based model and been wrong but we should have been evaluating this along the way.

182

Yep, really. You can accept the lie if you want to. Have a nice day.

184

[quote=“SottoVoce, post:179, topic:238616”]

That’s a pretty nasty edge there dude. Ease up.