[conspire] (forw) Not quite getting it

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Texx (texxgadget at gmail.com):

> Some of what you said, I will have to debate in private because I dont
> want to start a flame war here.  There is a lot of stuff that is
> branded as "junk science" because it doesnt come out of big pharma and
> I will debate you in private on those points.
> 
> Cloroquin, I agree with you on and am very dubious about it.
> Poisonings noted.

It's always worthwhile considering a-priori unlikely possibilities.
(Colloidal silver, on the other hand, we can point and laugh at the
proponents.)

> Im dubious of getting all my info from one source (You have preached
> that)

Certainly.  However, in this case, the competent data mainly comes from
the WHO, CDC, and from teams of medical researchers relying on data from
them (and to a limited degree on independent, competent lab data).  Who
_are_ the authorities on the subject, because nobody else has had time
to develop deep knowledge at all.

The Imperial College London report merely traced out the obvious
math-based implications (exponential growth) of the data model derived
from China and South Korea's experience.  As someone with a math degree,
I can vouch for the mathematical basis of the working group's report
being completely sound, and (speaking as a long-time student of
science-based medicine) I found its extrapolation of the three policy
options and their results convincing -- and so have many other informed
commenters.

> There is this chicken vs the egg thing.
> Lots will die to be sure.
> When the economy tanks, even more will die even if they dont get sick.

One problem at a time, then.  Let's avoid megadeaths for the next few
months as the first step.  (I think California may manage this.  Much 
of the rest of the United States, I fear may be heading towards
tragedy.)

While we are not dying, we can perhaps figure out newer and
life-preserving ways of working.

One of the strengths of the United States is that its culture has always 
(at least in the past) been resilient and adaptable -- partly
compensating for its weakness of tending to sit around and waste time
until rather late in a crisis.


> On a lighter note, there is recent quote from Anthony Fauci about not being
> able to throw Trump to the ground when he mis speaks.
> I notice that hes the only one in the government who can contradict the
> president without getting fired.

I would speculate that there are four reasons why Dr. Fauci keeps his
job.  

(1) Unlike, say, John F. Kelly and H.R. McMaster, Dr. Fauci is always
diplomatic in never _directly_ contradicting the Toddler-in-Chief, and
avoiding direct conflict.  Instead, Fauci just calmly explains known
fact, and the Toddler doesn't perceive challenge to his authority (and
also probably doesn't follow 80% of what Fauci says).  

(2) Unlike those two now-fired advisors, he's in a specialised field
divorced from West Wing backstabbing.  None of the factions and vicious
political hacks have it in for him.

(3) He's the most famously qualified person for the job in the entire
country, and 79 years old, which means he's in a position to just laugh
at the notion of heading off into comfortable retirement just because
the Toddler threw a tantrum and dismissed him as Director of NIAID.  
(I mean, for gosh sakes, he's held that post since appointment under
Ronald Reagan in 1984.  He's practically a national monument in
himself.)

(4) Because his qualifications are unique, the Toddler knows he's merely
blast a hole in his own foot if he were to fire Fauci.