leh-nerd skin-erd

That's beautiful.

Wait...we can all...do better...by ourselves? 😏 Or...we can all do better by ourselves!😇

Boozer

Oh gosh no, I feel like I was pretty clear on that in my reply. I would say my experiences tend toward thoughts centered on leadership and human behavior. The problem with Faucci wasn't his genius in virology, epidemiology, infectious disease or medicine--he was uniquely qualified to speak at length about the nature of the virus and it's potential. The problem was his inability to inspire or articulate key message points on a consistent basis, and thus creating confusion on the pandemic mitigation side of the ledger. When the political factions are at war, and you're the person in the hot seat, its best to stand up and take charge. He didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't. Seems to me if the world is at risk, and he wasn't up to the challenge, surely there must have been another person to step into that role, understanding of course that would have neutered him in some respects. To be candid, it seems like the same problem you had with your suggestion and the CEO response. If the plan was to save lives, it actually sounds sort of...sad... that it was scuttled due to concerns about the likability of the CEO, shrugged shoulders and "not how it works". Maybe next time, skip the email and call the guy, Doc. Better yet, a face to face meeting can pay dividends.

People were scared everywhere. Early on (like maybe a day or two before the lockdowns were mandated) I met with a gentleman I know who was healthy on a Tuesday, and a friend shared a Fb post from his wife on that Saturday that he was in the hospital on copious amounts of oxygen. I thought I had killed my entire family. He survived, thankfully. By the nature of their inaction, the flood gates were opened, Frank. That's exactly my point. People do not gather in large groups without coming from somewhere--they drive in cars, take public transportation, use bathrooms, shop at the 7-11, buy takeout, sit down in the occasional restaurant, sleep indoors, cohabitate, travel through airports and bus terminals and so on. If I know this, surely 'they' know this. As a leader, who the *&^% keeps their mouth shut in this scenario? Well-meaning people complied with the lockdowns orders, Frank. They were the compliant. This isn't a conspiracy, Frank, history reveals how this played out. I don't even fault protestors--they were generally young and like most, likely felt they safe. Still...Mass gatherings during a virus with the potential to kill millions. Silence from leadership. The future VP spread fear about vaccinations, Frank. Imagine how well we might have done without abdication of responsibility during those crucial summer months in 2020.

Thank you for the kind words. I always appreciate your perspective on things.

No, I've never been in a meeting in a health system exec suite. I have, however, met and interacted with executives from Fortune 50 companies, a substantial number of wealthy and powerful people, a former governor of NY, and some high-ranking folks in NYS government. On the other hand, I've met with people struggling to get by, those solidly in the middle class, people who were were subsequently the victim of violent crime, reformed criminals, and in at least one case, a guy caught up in a murder for hire scheme. My experiences are diverse, and my opinions shaped by my experience. I'm happy to leave it at an impasse on Faucci's role in all this. We'll not agree, and that's fine.

Thanks for the measured response. I get your perspective and believe it or not, I attempt to be reasonable in my assessment of the parties involved. I initially thought Andrew Cuomo was doing a good job handling NY--I mean, who really wants to be a position where the world is at a tipping point? As I said, I followed the rules, followed protocol, masked up, maintained distance and avoided people at risk. I listened to Faucci, listened to the science, closed my office to walk in clients, paid for my employees to work remotely, and so on. I got vaxxed when I could...vaxxed/vaxxed/boosted. I watched the democrats attempting to blow up the Trumpian response knowing full well that Republiacns would have done their level best to blow up a Dem response under the same scenario. That said...a glass is half-full ideology does not preclude me from calling out obvious and systemic hypocrisy, nor the fallout that surely follows. Quite the opposite, in fact, my job is to protect and guide my family in spite of my own shortcomings. I've said a lot on this issue, but it comes down to this: Those leaders (medical, cultural, political) who called for lockdowns while looking the other way on social protests/inaug/etc were either grossly incompetent, and should not be trusted in the future; or Those same leaders knew more than they lead on, continued to support lockdowns for the compliant long after they knew they were unnecessary, and should not be trusted in the future; They knew the virus would spread and desired the transmission and death that would follow for political reasons, and obviously should not be trusted in the future; I'm open to other glass-half-full explanations, but being an optimist and belief in humanity as a whole does not negate the necessity of applying critical thinking skills to something a scenario like this. Big picture--when the next pandemic hits, there is ample blame to be laid at the feet of 'leaders' for the cynicism that surely follows.

Again, I’ll repeat myself. When people are told to hunker down, stay home and shelter in place, under threat of arrest or detainment if they choose to go to church, it is completely reasonable and understandable when they see people completely and repeatedly violate said protocol that they get suspicious. In fact, it’s the people that don’t go “Huh, that’s odd!” that reveal on some level how authoritarian regimes take hold. The virus oddly seemed to hover a lot over the right types of gatherings. The Biden inauguration is a fine example of that, and there were many more.

There are a lot of people out there, we certainly agree on that.

What exactly is this an example of—apathy? I’ll give you a better example by changing the facts slightly. You call the the CEO, you tell him that the certain actions of the public pose a massive threat to the citizens of the county. You believe that because the science tells you so, and you preach a lockdown mentality to every patient you encounter. You suggest in the same video docs getting shots and speaking poignantly about how the virus spreads, that mass gatherings are guaranteed to cause spread, suffering and death on a global scale. The CEO says, “I don’t know, it seems like a lot of work. I don’t think it’s the role of the medical profession to spread the word about virus, transmission and death.” You say “Yeah, it’s the politicians job anyway.”

Sure, a virus is burning through the planet, Trump has been accused of being an agent of Russia, his opponents routinely dismiss his commentary, his opponents $hittalk the vax developed on his watch, and the man you describe as the foremost expert on infectious disease—including one he should have had intimate familiarity with due to his association with the lab—uses his thin-white-coat-line pass to avoid responsibility. Docs close ranks for other docs, but this is silly. He was a huge part of the COVID problem, and the reason people are cynical of the entire thing to this day. That goes for Dems, Rs, and independents.

I don’t think you’re stupid, I don’t think you’re insane, I think you’re naive and easy to influence. I think you’re like the kid in the Pink Floyd song told he can’t have his pudding if he doesn’t eat the meat first. I think you’re like, damn, that makes sense. “The British spy thing….”, I have to admit I have no idea what you’re saying here. You’re saying it’s acceptable to work with foreign nationals to mislead the public and spread election misinformation so long as….what, an investigation was already underway when the malfeasance was discovered? What on earth…. I can’t keep posting Mueller’s words. You’re making up a narrative that doesn’t exist to suit your bias.

Sure you are, you’ve done it a couple times lately. Doctors are too busy to help out on the community…they’re overworked and exhausted….blah blah blah. A gifted doctor—and you, your colleagues and our boy @Doc may well fall into that category. I understand that, you’re like most folks who claim that others don’t know how tough things are for you. It’s natural. Still, many are average, having average conversations, providing average service and ***** average work. That’s not even a reflection on the medial profession, it’s just the way life works. I like my doctor, and have been generally very healthy over my life time, but it wouldn’t take much of a nudge to get me to a new provider. My guy seems hard to reach, hard to see, and rescheduled me a few times to the point it got frustrating. Now, you’re in the Faucci camp, that’s fine. Lots of people are. I can only tell you from my perspective that the cynicism that followed his handling of the pandemic is warranted if you don’t call in the “doctors used to be revered” category. I’ll ask you this—-why would I trust him without verifying when he was completely impotent and tepid on mass gatherings and the spread of the virus? As for Faucci and his brilliance, no argument from me at all. He’s obviously an accomplished human being, and with that likely comes a healthy degree of narcissism. You want to put him on a pedestal above reproach, go ahead and kneel. All I can tell you is that a man universally revered for his brilliance in his field should have been using his platform to say: ”I understand why you’re gathering and protesting, but for the love of humanity, each gathering comes at tremendous cost to your friends, neighbors and family members. You are literally killing people—-children, parents, grandparents and so many more. Let’s come together by staying apart.”. He didn’t, leaders in the political realm didn’t, and people can smell even distinguished old scientist bs a mile away. As for his knowledge on infectious disease, you’re probably right, but there are serious concerns for all his knowledge that he and his &$@7ed up basic protocol. Maybe job one should be to ensure that said infectious diseases stay contained? I learned that watching World War Z.

It’s only uncertain to those not certain. For those who know what they know, certainty is assured. In other words, it’s like everything else in life. 🤷🏼‍♂️

I complied, trusted the recommendations generally, but there were obvious challenges as time went on. We received information on how to act/behave/conduct ourselves to protect the greater good, then found out those truly in the know often completely disregarded the directives for the rest of us. What was the most troubling in my opinion was the approach to managing protests and mass gatherings. That is to say, the lack of any sensible, consistent advice or guidance from scientists or the political leaders that they counseled with. So, 58 year old healthy male and his 56 year old healthy wife, looking to get together with their mid-twenties children from different households, and some additional family members was cause for grave concern of death, disease, and spread...but 20,000 people gathering together in cities and towns across the country week after week barely raised an eyebrow. I guess my question is always “Where the 🤬were the leading scientists and Faucci-types screaming from the rooftops that that sort of behavior was certainly leading to mass spread, illness and death”? You’re the science guy, and I understand you taking up the cause for your colleagues, but there was a major disconnect between what the public was told, the actions of key players, and the reality that we lived through. The medical community deserves a share of the blame for the distrust that surely follows. When you consider the ties between Wuhan, Faucci and his crew at NIAID, and the US government, naturally people are cynical.

Ah, the “laws are hard” and “Dems went soft” cat weighs in. If you’re speaking of the Clinton campaign and the foreign national, I agree with you. It’s apparently perfectly legal to work in unison with factions hostile to our republic, media sources, members of the IC and the outgoing admin to spread false and defamatory information about the opposition. I assume that sort of thing is quite common among traditional politicians, and members of the d and r party forged an uneasy alliance to look the other way. In fact, it’s probably similar to the situationally not so serious law about classified documents. If you’re speaking about Trump, the law while stained, tarnished and damaged along the way, worked itself out. These sir, are the facts that matter.

Oh crap, did you just gaslight me? (I’m not angry if you did, I just don’t know what it means).

But your eyes and ears didn't tell you anything, the democrats leaders you trusted without question (and select media members) told you where to look, what to hear, and how to think. You're thinking you came to some grand conclusion on your own, and that's really the problem. I assumed initially that the dems had something on Trump. I truly could not believe a political party would use another Joseph McCarthy Red Scare to try and influence an election. I didn't believe people could be duped again, and certainly not in such large numbers. When Trump declared he and his team were spied upon, I thought he was making it up and found it outrageous. I was wrong. Eventually it became crystal clear it was a bogus investigation established under bogus circumstances, and in spite of the full weight of the government crashing down upon everyone on Team Trump, we would end up here: The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.” The problem in the end isn't your eyes and ears, it's your capacity to see past your own innate bias and willingness to be mislead. Anyway, time to move on.

Again, Tibs, this is what was published in the report, perhaps after the word salad Old Man Mueller and his team cooked up to get you all hot and bothered about the fact that he was unable to hang illegal action on Trump. What he did say, though was pretty interesting indeed. The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

I don't know all the hip new phrases you internet kids use. I was mocking you for mentioning Mueller in support of your claims, then explaining why what he actually said in his report wasn't true.

Good Lord, you have every right to crown yourself King of Crazy Conspiracy Mountain. Here’s what you should suppose: Suppose you read Mueller’s report as it relates to collusion and conspiring again, and this time, read it for comprehension. It is….what it is. The goal was to run an investigation into non-existent “crimes” and get Team Trump on obstruction. That is to say, telling the American people that defending yourself against bogus charges is the real crime.

Let’s drill down on that though—as we see @Tiberius has created a whole separate narrative on what Mueller said and did. It’s a figment of his imagination, but it suits his point of view. It’s not that they are ignorant to the facts as you laid them out, it’s that in furtherance of their political leanings, they convince themselves that it’s ok because everyone does it.

This was your chance--right here, and you came up small in a big moment. While I distrust both Mueller and his motives, let's ee this through.....Mueller exposed Russia....and? Here, I'll help you help yourself: https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/ The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.” That the Russians attempted to influence American culture and impact the outcome of the elections is not in dispute. If you've been paying attention over the past few decades---and I'm not certain you have or can--that's nothing new. It's not groundbreaking intel, and if you're naive enough to be drawn in by the fact that nations pry/attempt to shape outcomes in other nations, that's on you (again). You're being confronted with facts, and when the facts don't match your narratives, you resort to spouting gibberish. Be better.

That's it boyo, dig in deep and pull that mud over your eyes. Putin. Trump. and Mueller, too. Mueller was in on it for sure. This is you: 🙈🙉🙊