There are no digs. The personnel stuff is because I'm fed up with the BS you and others throw ardour at anyone who presents something slightly different than your world view, and is met with outrage without any foundation in fact. My default is to look widely for expert advice, objective information and base my posts on the best science has to offer in the moment. There are no politics in that, no agenda, just trying to understand.
This is objective information I'm getting from sources that are verified. How do you explain what Fauci said in this interview?
Have a look. One week to have 60% less deaths in this phase. Two weeks earlier to have 90% less. Even if there is some error margin in those projections, I'd certainly take 40-50% less deaths. Wouldn't you?
I posted Fauci's own comments quite a while back. CNN asked a hypothetical question, then used his answer far, far out of context. You cite an NYT article which compounds the same untruth. When one lies and the other swears to it, well, I guess you are right - that's verified!
You present the hypothetical as though fact. I presented that which has actually happened and you call it "without any foundation in fact".
I did use those as examples, but it's easy to find the interview where he is responding to the NY Times article and confirms recommendations were given in late Feb.
Fauci does not deny when asked that he recommended social distancing guidelines in late February. He says they made a health recommendation. "Sometimes it's taken, sometimes it's not."
He was clearly saying the Science team had made a recommendation.
This is a larger version of the original quoted interview. Here is the interview:
By the third week of February, advisers had drafted a list of measures they believed would soon be necessary, like school closures, sports and concert cancellations and stay-at-home orders, but the president did not embrace them until mid-March.
Dr. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, said on Sunday that earlier imposition of such policies would have made a difference.
“I mean, obviously, you could logically say that if you had a process that was ongoing and you started mitigation earlier, you could have saved lives,” he said on “State of the Union” on CNN. “Obviously, no one is going to deny that. But what goes into those kinds of decisions is complicated. But you’re right. Obviously, if we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different. But there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down.”
It was 2nd week of March, that my parents home shutdown fully. But over the preceding weeks they had instituted a stronger and stronger precautions. They had formed an ad-hoc communication network about the virus in February with the other homes in the area. They acted faster than the State Govt. The lockdown is also far more comprehensive than the State's.
Still, even with acting early, the death toll in my county is predominantly in senior homes. Some of the homes were relying upon help from the state which was planned for but never implemented as the state focused primarily on hospitals.
Interestingly enough, on March 3rd this was what the WHO was saying:
To summarize, COVID-19 spreads less efficiently than flu, transmission does not appear to be driven by people who are not sick, it causes more severe illness than flu, there are not yet any vaccines or therapeutics, and it can be contained
< Message edited by Lowpe -- 5/10/2020 9:30:58 PM >