CSNbbs

Pelosi vs. Birx

Does this count as not listening to the experts?

From the same people who complain about 'leadership'.

"Democrats have largely turned on Birx after a thinly sourced article in The New York Times criticized her for defending President Trump..."

presented here for the left wingers who are way too busy to get the facts when they don't make the blue side look good.

New York Times, huh?

(08-03-2020 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]"Democrats have largely turned on Birx after a thinly sourced article in The New York Times criticized her for defending President Trump..."

presented here for the left wingers who are way too busy to get the facts when they don't make the blue side look good.

New York Times, huh?

Just to be clear, the article that was posted references a closed door meeting, which relied on similar unnamed sources. Pelosi went on TV Sunday and basically confirmed the quote from the unnamed source.

So it's a pretty good example of how these unnamed sources are likely factual. Or did Fox/AP not consider the unnamed sources about the closed door meeting from a Politico roundup to be similarly "thinly sourced?"

(08-03-2020 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-03-2020 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]"Democrats have largely turned on Birx after a thinly sourced article in The New York Times criticized her for defending President Trump..."

presented here for the left wingers who are way too busy to get the facts when they don't make the blue side look good.

New York Times, huh?

Just to be clear, the article that was posted references a closed door meeting, which relied on similar unnamed sources. Pelosi went on TV Sunday and basically confirmed the quote from the unnamed source.

So it's a pretty good example of how these unnamed sources are likely factual. Or did Fox/AP not consider the unnamed sources about the closed door meeting from a Politico roundup to be similarly "thinly sourced?"

- Was she the unnamed source so is she merely confirming her own story? It seems at least probable... more in a bit...
- Even if she is confirming 'this' source... this demonstrates absolutely nothing about any other unnamed source or conversation. Jessie Smollett's actions prove nothing about any other claims... and the truth of other claims don't make his true.

I believe this comment was made... by Pelosi. How is she any less 'partisan' than anyone else?

- Fox/AP names three people involved in the conversation and gives a play by play of the conversation... Pelosi said: Muchnich said: Meadows said:... so it seems at least plausible that the 'source' is Pelosi... or someone on her team... It gives a first-hand account of a conversation among three well known, named people. That seems pretty well sourced to me. It would be redundant to say that 'Pelosi said that she said this... and then Meadows said that he said this... that just seems silly.

The 'thinly sourced article' being referred to provides almost no sources for anything it says... Did you read it? It mostly talks about 'some opinions' without any specific references to any of them... and it quotes two, relatively unknown people and gives their opinions... and only one of them is really directly addressing Birx.... though even their 'Titanic' comment doesn't really have anything to do with anything other than perhaps being a clever quip. It's therefore thinly sourced. That doesn't make it 'right' FTR, it just means it's a thinly sourced article on the topic.

Just got word that one of my cousins (actually a cousin of my father), 98 years old, has just succumbed to the virus. She was in a nursing home down in the Rio Grande Valley.

(08-03-2020 09:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Just got word that one of my cousins (actually a cousin of my father), 98 years old, has just succumbed to the virus. She was in a nursing home down in the Rio Grande Valley.

I'm sorry for your loss, OO.

I have a cousin in SA on Hospice, not due to COVID... and they won't let the family really see him except through the window.

As you might guess, most people I know and deal with are on the older side, yet this is the first time Covid has touched my life with death. My cousin Jose called with the news yesterday morning. Guess who is now the oldest family member on that branch(my father's side)? Me.



Death is a part of life, yet I am always reminded of Donne's Requiem.


No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

The part about any man's death seems particularly apropos in this age of animosity and strife.

Russia gets there first

Maybe. Of course, they may be premature with this, skipping the months of trials the US insists on.

It's science

These people are experts.

(08-11-2020 07:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]It's science

These people are experts.

Not sure I follow your quote. What do you mean exactly?

I remember hearing early on that buffs/neck gaiters were likely not as effective as alternative non-N95 masks (like cotton ones). It's interesting that this research suggests they may actually be a net negative.

I found this quote hit the nail on the head with the difficulty of communicating science with the general public, which very often doesn't do well when results are not presented in a definitive manner that is very specific.

Quote:“We’re very careful not to over-claim here,” he said. “We are not going to try to say our evidence is that this is the thread count you should use on the sheet for the two-ply cotton mask that you’re making.

But the broad take-home picture — that masks do work in cutting down transmission and that some masks that you can easily get are better than others — potentially has value in protecting everybody and getting us out of this awful situation

(08-11-2020 07:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 07:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]It's science

These people are experts.

Not sure I follow your quote. What do you mean exactly?

I remember hearing early on that buffs/neck gaiters were likely not as effective as alternative non-N95 masks (like cotton ones). It's interesting that this research suggests they may actually be a net negative.

I found this quote hit the nail on the head with the difficulty of communicating science with the general public, which very often doesn't do well when results are not presented in a definitive manner that is very specific.

Quote:“We’re very careful not to over-claim here,” he said. “We are not going to try to say our evidence is that this is the thread count you should use on the sheet for the two-ply cotton mask that you’re making.

But the broad take-home picture — that masks do work in cutting down transmission and that some masks that you can easily get are better than others — potentially has value in protecting everybody and getting us out of this awful situation

What do "I" mean? I am not quoted in the article.

If you have been paying attention (a 50/50 preposition, I think), you will remember that I advocate the wearing of masks. It's just common sense, IMO. In fact, I wore mine twice yesterday - once to the doctor and once to the post office(yes, I still get mail the old fashioned way). I expect to wear it again to the grocery store today. I hope you are wearing yours as you work.

(08-11-2020 07:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 07:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 07:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]It's science

These people are experts.

Not sure I follow your quote. What do you mean exactly?

I remember hearing early on that buffs/neck gaiters were likely not as effective as alternative non-N95 masks (like cotton ones). It's interesting that this research suggests they may actually be a net negative.

I found this quote hit the nail on the head with the difficulty of communicating science with the general public, which very often doesn't do well when results are not presented in a definitive manner that is very specific.

Quote:“We’re very careful not to over-claim here,” he said. “We are not going to try to say our evidence is that this is the thread count you should use on the sheet for the two-ply cotton mask that you’re making.

But the broad take-home picture — that masks do work in cutting down transmission and that some masks that you can easily get are better than others — potentially has value in protecting everybody and getting us out of this awful situation

What do "I" mean? I am not quoted in the article.

If you have been paying attention (a 50/50 preposition, I think), you will remember that I advocate the wearing of masks. It's just common sense, IMO. In fact, I wore mine twice yesterday - once to the doctor and once to the post office(yes, I still get mail the old fashioned way). I expect to wear it again to the grocery store today. I hope you are wearing yours as you work.

Yeah - you said "These people are experts." I was wondering what you meant by that (sorry, I wrote "quote" instead of "comment").

(08-11-2020 08:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 07:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 07:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 07:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]It's science

These people are experts.

Not sure I follow your quote. What do you mean exactly?

I remember hearing early on that buffs/neck gaiters were likely not as effective as alternative non-N95 masks (like cotton ones). It's interesting that this research suggests they may actually be a net negative.

I found this quote hit the nail on the head with the difficulty of communicating science with the general public, which very often doesn't do well when results are not presented in a definitive manner that is very specific.

Quote:“We’re very careful not to over-claim here,” he said. “We are not going to try to say our evidence is that this is the thread count you should use on the sheet for the two-ply cotton mask that you’re making.

But the broad take-home picture — that masks do work in cutting down transmission and that some masks that you can easily get are better than others — potentially has value in protecting everybody and getting us out of this awful situation

What do "I" mean? I am not quoted in the article.

If you have been paying attention (a 50/50 preposition, I think), you will remember that I advocate the wearing of masks. It's just common sense, IMO. In fact, I wore mine twice yesterday - once to the doctor and once to the post office(yes, I still get mail the old fashioned way). I expect to wear it again to the grocery store today. I hope you are wearing yours as you work.

Yeah - you said "These people are experts." I was wondering what you meant by that (sorry, I wrote "quote" instead of "comment").

Are they not? Is that your point?

(08-11-2020 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 07:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 07:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 07:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]It's science

These people are experts.

Not sure I follow your quote. What do you mean exactly?

I remember hearing early on that buffs/neck gaiters were likely not as effective as alternative non-N95 masks (like cotton ones). It's interesting that this research suggests they may actually be a net negative.

I found this quote hit the nail on the head with the difficulty of communicating science with the general public, which very often doesn't do well when results are not presented in a definitive manner that is very specific.

Quote:“We’re very careful not to over-claim here,” he said. “We are not going to try to say our evidence is that this is the thread count you should use on the sheet for the two-ply cotton mask that you’re making.

But the broad take-home picture — that masks do work in cutting down transmission and that some masks that you can easily get are better than others — potentially has value in protecting everybody and getting us out of this awful situation

What do "I" mean? I am not quoted in the article.

If you have been paying attention (a 50/50 preposition, I think), you will remember that I advocate the wearing of masks. It's just common sense, IMO. In fact, I wore mine twice yesterday - once to the doctor and once to the post office(yes, I still get mail the old fashioned way). I expect to wear it again to the grocery store today. I hope you are wearing yours as you work.

Yeah - you said "These people are experts." I was wondering what you meant by that (sorry, I wrote "quote" instead of "comment").

Are they not? Is that your point?

This board doesn't make it easy to understand inflection/tone. It wasn't clear if you were just pointing out that these scientists were experts, so we should listen to them. Or their findings were bunk and you were being sarcastic by calling them experts.

That's why I was asking you what your point was - you left a rather cryptic comment.

I thought I did a good job explaining my comment in full - their research confirms some initial thoughts on buffs that I have heard, and I think they do a good job communicating the conclusions of their study.

(08-11-2020 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 07:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 07:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure I follow your quote. What do you mean exactly?

I remember hearing early on that buffs/neck gaiters were likely not as effective as alternative non-N95 masks (like cotton ones). It's interesting that this research suggests they may actually be a net negative.

I found this quote hit the nail on the head with the difficulty of communicating science with the general public, which very often doesn't do well when results are not presented in a definitive manner that is very specific.

What do "I" mean? I am not quoted in the article.

If you have been paying attention (a 50/50 preposition, I think), you will remember that I advocate the wearing of masks. It's just common sense, IMO. In fact, I wore mine twice yesterday - once to the doctor and once to the post office(yes, I still get mail the old fashioned way). I expect to wear it again to the grocery store today. I hope you are wearing yours as you work.

Yeah - you said "These people are experts." I was wondering what you meant by that (sorry, I wrote "quote" instead of "comment").

Are they not? Is that your point?

This board doesn't make it easy to understand inflection/tone. It wasn't clear if you were just pointing out that these scientists were experts, so we should listen to them. Or their findings were bunk and you were being sarcastic by calling them experts.

That's why I was asking you what your point was - you left a rather cryptic comment.

I thought I did a good job explaining my comment in full - their research confirms some initial thoughts on buffs that I have heard, and I think they do a good job communicating the conclusions of their study.

I share Lad's confusion re: OO's comment about "experts". His subsequent comments haven't shed additional light on it for me.

(08-11-2020 08:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 07:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]What do "I" mean? I am not quoted in the article.

If you have been paying attention (a 50/50 preposition, I think), you will remember that I advocate the wearing of masks. It's just common sense, IMO. In fact, I wore mine twice yesterday - once to the doctor and once to the post office(yes, I still get mail the old fashioned way). I expect to wear it again to the grocery store today. I hope you are wearing yours as you work.

Yeah - you said "These people are experts." I was wondering what you meant by that (sorry, I wrote "quote" instead of "comment").

Are they not? Is that your point?

This board doesn't make it easy to understand inflection/tone. It wasn't clear if you were just pointing out that these scientists were experts, so we should listen to them. Or their findings were bunk and you were being sarcastic by calling them experts.

That's why I was asking you what your point was - you left a rather cryptic comment.

I thought I did a good job explaining my comment in full - their research confirms some initial thoughts on buffs that I have heard, and I think they do a good job communicating the conclusions of their study.

I share Lad's confusion re: OO's comment about "experts". His subsequent comments haven't shed additional light on it for me.

Welcome back, 93. I hope your absence has been to a heavy work load and not anything more dire.

So much suspicion. Is this normal for leftists? I quote the experts and y'all begin to doubt. It's like I said "Good Day" and your immediate response is "What did he mean by that?" Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. A famous expert doctor said that, I believe. Or maybe a President. I'm not sure.

Of course, scientists and doctors are experts. Every single one of them. Would it have made it better had I not said they were experts?

(08-11-2020 08:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah - you said "These people are experts." I was wondering what you meant by that (sorry, I wrote "quote" instead of "comment").

Are they not? Is that your point?

This board doesn't make it easy to understand inflection/tone. It wasn't clear if you were just pointing out that these scientists were experts, so we should listen to them. Or their findings were bunk and you were being sarcastic by calling them experts.

That's why I was asking you what your point was - you left a rather cryptic comment.

I thought I did a good job explaining my comment in full - their research confirms some initial thoughts on buffs that I have heard, and I think they do a good job communicating the conclusions of their study.

I share Lad's confusion re: OO's comment about "experts". His subsequent comments haven't shed additional light on it for me.

Welcome back, 93. I hope your absence has been to a heavy work load and not anything more dire.

So much suspicion. Is this normal for leftists? I quote the experts and y'all begin to doubt. It's like I said "Good Day" and your immediate response is "What did he mean by that?" Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. A famous expert doctor said that, I believe. Or maybe a President. I'm not sure.

Of course, scientists and doctors are experts. Every single one of them. Would it have made it better had I not said they were experts?

Cool - just seemed like you were alluding to some grander meaning than just pointing out that the people conducting the study were experts.

And given that plenty of posts on this board have derided experts and scientific studies, it really wasn't clear if you were implying anything with the statement. I was looking for clarification, and you've let me know there was no implication. Thanks

(08-11-2020 08:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-11-2020 08:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah - you said "These people are experts." I was wondering what you meant by that (sorry, I wrote "quote" instead of "comment").

Are they not? Is that your point?

This board doesn't make it easy to understand inflection/tone. It wasn't clear if you were just pointing out that these scientists were experts, so we should listen to them. Or their findings were bunk and you were being sarcastic by calling them experts.

That's why I was asking you what your point was - you left a rather cryptic comment.

I thought I did a good job explaining my comment in full - their research confirms some initial thoughts on buffs that I have heard, and I think they do a good job communicating the conclusions of their study.

I share Lad's confusion re: OO's comment about "experts". His subsequent comments haven't shed additional light on it for me.

Welcome back, 93. I hope your absence has been to a heavy work load and not anything more dire.

Thanks. Long road trip to cooler climes for a couple weeks.

Quote:So much suspicion. Is this normal for leftists? I quote the experts and y'all begin to doubt. It's like I said "Good Day" and your immediate response is "What did he mean by that?" Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. A famous expert doctor said that, I believe. Or maybe a President. I'm not sure.

Of course, scientists and doctors are experts. Every single one of them. Would it have made it better had I not said they were experts?

Agree with Lad's response. I wasn't clear that you were simply passing along this information without comment. Now I've got it.

Geopolitical consultant George Friedman (formerly founder of STRATFOR) has written a new book, "The Storm Before the Calm," in which he writes of a current struggle in the USA between expertise and common sense, a struggle that he expects to come to a head within the next decade.

I think academics seem to favor theory and expertise, whereas the "real world" seems to favor practice and common sense. As an example, expertise says a tomato is a fruit, common sense says you don't put a tomato in a fruit salad. Or in the words of that great philosopher, Lawrence Peter Berra, "In theory, theory works well in practice; in practice, it doesn't."

In the case of CV-19, I think that struggle has been evident. The experts have been wrong a surprising amount of time--understandable in a way, since this is such a novel virus about which nobody was really an expert until we developed more information. We had a lot of public health bureaucrats running things, with little or no representation from actual responders, like practicing physicians, local emergency responders, and commercial providers, and we got a very bureaucratic response. The much ballyhooed "Roadmap" was almost entirely oriented toward bureaucratic response. I think the people in charge were out of touch with the actual providers, to too great an extent, and that caused problems.

Where I think Trump did well was taking a lot of the response away from the experts and giving more of it to state, local, and private interests. He did it too late, but at least he did it eventually. Where I think he did poorly was relying too much on experts for too long.

The big problem that this exposed--as did Katrina, Maria, the BP blowout, and countless other events--is that we have no standing or standby emergency response capability--be it hurricane, earthquake, wildfire, tornado, medical, environmental, or any other emergency. We seem to assume that they will never happen, so we don't need to be prepared. They do, and we do. Right now, everything is ad hoc, and as a result we always seem to get off to a slow start. We can't afford to maintain a standing capability 24/7/365, but we can afford to have a standby capability identified, trained, equipped, and ready to go. I would repurpose the primary mission of the National Guard from a backup Army reserve to civil defense and emergency response.

FWIW, I think Lad and 93 come down on the expertise side, and OO and Tanq and Hambone and I come down on the common sense side of that divide.