What Happened: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on 19 Months of COVID

[dneal]

First, I would ask (even plead) that those who have strong or absolute opinions on this subject, those who do not have or do not want to spend time watching or listening to a YouTube video, and/or those who have only snide and sarcastic comments to offer - could you please refrain from responding and just move on to another thread or topic?

There is evidence that people are capable of discussing this topic reasonably, THIS THREAD (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/30970-Questioning-Conventional-Wisdom-The-virus) being an example.

A recent Uncommon Knowledge episode reviewing the past 19 months of COVID came to my attention (roughly a week old at the time of this posting). Some can view it from an "I told you so" perspective, but that's a petty viewpoint. Instead, it is beneficial to review what we did and didn't know as opposed to what we now know (remaining cognizant of the many "unknowns" that now exist); to guide future decision making.

There is a dearth of information in this video that can serve that purpose.

The episode is roughly an hour. It does not require watching, and you can listen while you go about your day. Morning rituals, exercising, driving to work, etc... there are many opportunities one can take advantage of.

In the past, some have asked for a "transcript"; and I have accommodated when I could. There are too many sub-topics in this discussion for me to do that now, and I might in the future as I have time to dedicate to it. However, if you click the LINK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG7XZ2JXZqY), you will see an icon with three dots at the lower right (usually next to "save"). Clicking those dots will give you an option to display a transcript, which is far from perfect as it is the collection of closed captions; but it is better than nothing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG7XZ2JXZqY

[Chuck Naill]

If you are going to post such, at least provide a balanced set of information.
"The World Health Organization (WHO) and numerous academic and public-health bodies have stated that the proposed strategy is dangerous and lacks a sound scientific basis.[8][9] They say that it would be challenging to shield all those who are medically vulnerable, leading to a large number of avoidable deaths among both older people and younger people with pre-existing health conditions,[10][11] and they warn that the long-term effects of COVID-19 are still not fully understood.[9][12] Moreover, the WHO says that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity.[9][12] They say the more likely outcome would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination.[11] The American Public Health Association and 13 other public-health groups in the United States warned in a joint open letter that the Great Barrington Declaration "ignores sound public health expertise" despite public health experts agreeing "better balance must be found between protecting public health and helping the economy."[8]

The Great Barrington Declaration was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian free market think tank associated with climate change denial.[13][14][15"

Otherwise, you a cupable of spreading misinformation or at least incomplete information.

If masks were ineffective, surgeons and scrub nurses would not need to scrub up. If vaccines were only a personal option, like which underarm deodorant to use, we would continue to have people living in iron lungs from poliovirus.

If you don't want a vaccine, don't ask for an ICU bed.

[dneal]

*sigh*

[Bold2013]

I would be curious to hear if prior vaccines were pushed so vehemently as this one.

Never heard people up in arms about flu shots, mmr, hepatitis, or tetanus. Well I guess there was some mild heat over the Gardasil vaccine…

[dneal]

Peter Robinson does politicize the conversation, but Dr. Bhattacharya avoids that generally and keeps to a context of public health policy. That's the "idea" in the piece. Not vaccines. He states he thinks vaccines are a good thing. He states that he was vaccinated (although he did contract COVID some months after that).

The interview begins with a review of his March 2020 WSJ article, advancing a hypothesis (based on his experience with H1N1) that the virus was much more prevalent than we suspected. His questions revolved around true mortality rate, and effectiveness of "lockdown" policies.

Peter introduces the criticism Dr. Bhattacharya, Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff and Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta received from the "Great Barrington Declaration", which simply advocated a more targeted response of protecting the more vulnerable. An example is multi-generational households where a younger member might have contracted COVID. Government paid hotel rooms should have been provided for the older (and more vulnerable) member(s) of the home. This is a lesson we probably should have learned from Italy. There is nothing new with the policy advocated, and it is the "standard" in dealing with these types of situations. It was mischaracterized, and he describes what "herd immunity" actually is.

If dealing with an outbreak that hasn't spread widely, quarantines and contact tracing are appropriate. But when the prevalence, or spread, is as wide as COVID had become once we detected it; "lockdowns" do not work. The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak. That is why you change your focus to the most vulnerable. Another key factor is that we know (and have for a long time) that risk increases exponentially with age. So where Fauci mischaracterized and mocked the approach with "you don't 'let it rip'...", the rebuttal is basically that the CDC and WHO "let it drip..."

Dr. Bhattacharya describes the impacts to multiple other populations. Children's education. People delaying (and dying from) an assortment of issues ranging from cancer to diabetes. Domestic abuse which declined strangely, but perhaps not so strangely when schools are one of the fundamental routes it is detected. He goes on, citing increased suicide rates and other problems with the "lockdown" approach.

That is really only for the developed world. The impact to the third world in particular, resulting from second and third order economic impacts; are horrifying. Even in first world countries, lockdown policies disproportionately impacted the poor. The affluent could withstand the lockdown, because they could telecommute or simply had enough money. The poor still went to their "essential" jobs stocking shelves, delivering packages (stuffed at Amazon warehouses), etc... They simply could not afford to stay home. Other poor in foodservice industries and other "non-essential" jobs were further impoverished.

Public health policy, he asserts, is political science. Politicians must weigh benefits and consequences within the totality of the circumstances, yet it was handed off to people who are paid to have a single focus. We should have a wider view in the future.

Lastly, they address how the choices undermined public trust and confidence. That's the problem with the CDC's changing mask guidance, for example. The flip-flopping alone is detrimental to confidence, but we now know the reason we were told not to wear them (before we were) was intentionally deceptive - no matter how noble the reason (mask availability). We still do not have real data on mask effectiveness, even though we've had a year and a half to examine it. That's a shame in and of itself, but Dr. Bhattacharya notes that it is precisely the lack of data that prompts divisiveness.

There is more, but you would have to watch or listen.

[Chuck Naill]

I never remember, in the US, an issue with vaccines until Andrew Wakefiled's debunked MMR/Autism link information. Unfortunately, it seems to have influenced Evangelicals most. It occured in my own family where a mother told a daughter God told her ,the grandmother, to tell her, the children's mother, not to let her children get the chicken pox vaccine. You'd think God would have communicated directly with the mother of the children!!

[Chuck Naill]

Peter Robinson does politicize the conversation, but Dr. Bhattacharya avoids that generally and keeps to a context of public health policy. That's the "idea" in the piece. Not vaccines. He states he thinks vaccines are a good thing. He states that he was vaccinated (although he did contract COVID some months after that).

The interview begins with a review of his March 2020 WSJ article, advancing a hypothesis (based on his experience with H1N1) that the virus was much more prevalent than we suspected. His questions revolved around true mortality rate, and effectiveness of "lockdown" policies.

Peter introduces the criticism Dr. Bhattacharya, Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff and Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta received from the "Great Barrington Declaration", which simply advocated a more targeted response of protecting the more vulnerable. An example is multi-generational households where a younger member might have contracted COVID. Government paid hotel rooms should have been provided for the older (and more vulnerable) member(s) of the home. This is a lesson we probably should have learned from Italy. There is nothing new with the policy advocated, and it is the "standard" in dealing with these types of situations. It was mischaracterized, and he describes what "herd immunity" actually is.

If dealing with an outbreak that hasn't spread widely, quarantines and contact tracing are appropriate. But when the prevalence, or spread, is as wide as COVID had become once we detected it; "lockdowns" do not work. The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak. That is why you change your focus to the most vulnerable. Another key factor is that we know (and have for a long time) that risk increases exponentially with age. So where Fauci mischaracterized and mocked the approach with "you don't 'let it rip'...", the rebuttal is basically that the CDC and WHO "let it drip..."

Dr. Bhattacharya describes the impacts to multiple other populations. Children's education. People delaying (and dying from) an assortment of issues ranging from cancer to diabetes. Domestic abuse which declined strangely, but perhaps not so strangely when schools are one of the fundamental routes it is detected. He goes on, citing increased suicide rates and other problems with the "lockdown" approach.

That is really only for the developed world. The impact to the third world in particular, resulting from second and third order economic impacts; are horrifying. Even in first world countries, lockdown policies disproportionately impacted the poor. The affluent could withstand the lockdown, because they could telecommute or simply had enough money. The poor still went to their "essential" jobs stocking shelves, delivering packages (stuffed at Amazon warehouses), etc... They simply could not afford to stay home. Other poor in foodservice industries and other "non-essential" jobs were further impoverished.

Public health policy, he asserts, is political science. Politicians must weigh benefits and consequences within the totality of the circumstances, yet it was handed off to people who are paid to have a single focus. We should have a wider view in the future.

Lastly, they address how the choices undermined public trust and confidence. That's the problem with the CDC's changing mask guidance, for example. The flip-flopping alone is detrimental to confidence, but we now know the reason we were told not to wear them (before we were) was intentionally deceptive - no matter how noble the reason (mask availability). We still do not have real data on mask effectiveness, even though we've had a year and a half to examine it. That's a shame in and of itself, but Dr. Bhattacharya notes that it is precisely the lack of data that prompts divisiveness.

There is more, but you would have to watch or listen.

What should have been done, "D"? Lets say you were in charge in December 2019 and heard of the Chinese novel virus being transmitted person to person and very infective, different from SARS. Pretend you are an epidemiologist/infectios disease expert. Pretend you have no concern who is running for president, which should be easy as a non participant.

[dneal]

Watch or listen to the video, if you want to know.

[Chuck Naill]

Oh, you are a part of the video. Which one is you?

[dneal]

*sigh*

[kazoolaw]

Oh, you are a part of the video. Which one is you?

Chuck, did you watch the video?
That's a "yes" or a " no."

[Chuck Naill]

Oh, you are a part of the video. Which one is you?


Chuck, did you watch the video?
That's a "yes" or a " no."


Did you, that’s also a yea or no question.

[kazoolaw]

Oh, you are a part of the video. Which one is you?


Chuck, did you watch the video?
That's a "yes" or a " no."


Did you, that’s also a yea or no question.
Chuck, why your evasion?
Yes, I did.
Now your response, please.

[Chuck Naill]

Oh, you are a part of the video. Which one is you?


Chuck, did you watch the video?
That's a "yes" or a " no."


Did you, that’s also a yea or no question.
Chuck, why your evasion?
Yes, I did.
Now your response, please.


I doubt you invested in an hour long video.

[Bold2013]

I never remember, in the US, an issue with vaccines until Andrew Wakefiled's debunked MMR/Autism link information. Unfortunately, it seems to have influenced Evangelicals most. It occured in my own family where a mother told a daughter God told her ,the grandmother, to tell her, the children's mother, not to let her children get the chicken pox vaccine. You'd think God would have communicated directly with the mother of the children!!

Another good example. Covid has a much larger divide but it is too early to say how long it will persist. Thanks

[Chuck Naill]

It is possible that had the experts been allowed to have the stage, a lock down would have been averted. Sticking your finger in a hole doesn’t work after the dam fails .

[Chuck Naill]

February 2020, the stock market tanks and Trump is in India. He had no idea. Not because he was being I formed but because he had what he thought were more important matters to address.

[Chuck Naill]

Thing is, most of us can remember February and March 2020. We can remember the stock market tanking. We can remember the Pence being out as the Czar. Given all that we lived through. Why is a Monday quarterback even necessary?

[kazoolaw]

Oh, you are a part of the video. Which one is you?


Chuck, did you watch the video?
That's a "yes" or a " no."


Did you, that’s also a yea or no question.
Chuck, why your evasion?
Yes, I did.
Now your response, please.


I doubt you invested in an hour long video.

And now we now your comments aren't based on the video.
The Trump/India/stock market comment is unrelated to the topic.
Taking the discussion off track looks like sabotage after a while.

[Chuck Naill]

If you knew anything or was sober in February 2020, you would know how relevant it is.

No offense, but your a lazy poster. Very little energy and effort. More troll like. I’ve read your posts on other forums. Same there as well .

[dneal]

No offense, but your a lazy poster. Very little energy and effort. More troll like. I’ve read your posts on other forums. Same there as well .

If one reads that sentence with the affectations of speech that Trump exhibits, it's an interesting and quite humorous parallel. "Yuuuuuge" even.

[kazoolaw]

If you knew anything or was sober in February 2020, you would know how relevant it is.

No offense, but your a lazy poster. Very little energy and effort. More troll like. I’ve read your posts on other forums. Same there as well .

Chuck, do you remember the topic?

[Chuck Naill]

If you knew anything or was sober in February 2020, you would know how relevant it is.

No offense, but your a lazy poster. Very little energy and effort. More troll like. I’ve read your posts on other forums. Same there as well .

Chuck, do you remember the topic?


Do you remember February 2020?

[Chuck Naill]

Darrell Neal, have you ever made a post that was not a defense of you decisions? I don’t even waste my time. When’s the last time you had an original idea?

[dneal]

Chuck, perhaps you could stop wasting your time in this thread? Many would be appreciative, I'm sure.

[kazoolaw]

February 2020: Fauci says no need to change lifestyle
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/12/dr_anthony_fauci_at_this_time_there_is_no_need_to_ change_your_habits_over_coronavirus.html#!
Fauci says masks ineffective
https://summit.news/2021/06/02/in-february-2020-email-fauci-wrote-face-masks-not-effective-in-keeping-out-virus/
Fauci says: ""If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't really do much to protect you," he said. "People start saying, 'Should I start wearing a mask?' Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask." (emphasis added)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/17/nih-disease-official-anthony-fauci-risk-of-coronavirus-in-u-s-is-minuscule-skip-mask-and-wash-hands/4787209002/
Fauci said the mortality rate may be "considerably less than 1%" and "clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387

February 2020: yes, I remember it well.

[Chip]

One mark of intelligence and common sense is the willingness to change one's opinions (and advice) according to a changing set of circumstances.

Or, as Emerson put it: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. . ."

Here are a couple current graphs (real deaths, real consequences) from the NY Times:

https://i.imgur.com/ZsAqWFq.jpg

[dneal]

I'm not sure what the vaccinated case rate has to do with the thread, but thanks for getting the Emerson quote correct.

[Chuck Naill]

Masks and physical distance are all we had. Are masks effective. Sure they are. Why would respirators and N95 masks be sold at Home Depot? PPE are medical standards. Are they effective by themselves, no. As with life, it is the combination of consistency and combinations that lead to health and success. It is amazing I have to point this out to two people here. They’d rather dismiss Fauci than get a vaccine, wear a facial barrier, and keep a safe distance. But, as soon as they get sick, they had better have an ICU bed ready and waiting. To hell with the children they may infect with their reckless behaviors.

[Bold2013]

Can we just love/respect our neighbor who may think this pandemic response was overkill (regardless if they are right or not)? Can we respect people’s freedom to not get the vaccine? Can we listen to someone’s opinions instead of rushing to response?

[dneal]

Can we just love/respect our neighbor who may think this pandemic response was overkill (regardless if they are right or not)? Can we respect people’s freedom to not get the vaccine? Can we listen to someone’s opinions instead of rushing to response?

In today's divisive and tribal society, where zealots of all stripes shout their truths at the non-believers? Probably not.

“The easy confidence with which I know another man's [belief] is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” - Mark Twain, paraphrased.

[Chuck Naill]

Can we just love/respect our neighbor who may think this pandemic response was overkill (regardless if they are right or not)? Can we respect people’s freedom to not get the vaccine? Can we listen to someone’s opinions instead of rushing to response?

That is an option. Not an evidenced based one, but certainly an option.

Freedom is an Interesting concept. Do I give you the freedom to ruin my family’s wellness? Do I say I have the freedom to live as I please while expecting others to come to the rescue? That’s not an intelligent or respectful way to love.

If you think Jesus’ teaching applicable, love your neighbor as you love yourself. Darrell once got mad as hell when I suggested he shouldn’t demand an ICU after exercising his freedom to avoid the cure. Was he loving? Was he respectful.

If I purchase another human being, is my freedom more important than the slaves freedom.

I can tell you haven’t given this much thought.

[Chuck Naill]

I realize some read books here. Ask yourself if Trump was loving and kind dealing with the “p” word.

The fact is, few read. It’s easier to listen. The idea that the loving thing to do during a pandemic is to just let people do what they want is insane. Better is to tell the truth, protect, and restrict if necessary. I mean, you can’t save some from themselves. Not that you necessarily want to, but if it means others are better off, so be it.

[Chuck Naill]

Look up “trial by combat” and who said it on January 6. How’s that for loving?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Can we just love/respect our neighbor who may think this pandemic response was overkill (regardless if they are right or not)? Can we respect people’s freedom to not get the vaccine? Can we listen to someone’s opinions instead of rushing to response?

Bolded part - the answer, from the perspective of society, is no if it can be shown that unvaccinated people put others at unnecessary and avoidable risk of serious illness or death.

Frankly speaking, it astounds me that people take a stand on vaccinations when there are so many other restrictions that they accept without question. I don't know quite what to make of the age we live in.

[Bold2013]

I can tell you haven’t given this much thought.[/QUOTE]

Exactly

[Bold2013]

I just think freedom is more valuable and life prompting for my neighbor and I in the long run.

The vaccine is significantly protective for those of us who chose so we won’t be effected by our neighbors decisions. I think we can live in harmony.

If only there was a vaccine for fear…

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Essentially, not taking the vaccine as a member of a society is a selfish act, taking the vaccine is an act of social solidarity. [based on being able to have the vaccine, exceptions expected]

[TSherbs]

I just think freedom is more valuable and life prompting for my neighbor and I in the long run.

The vaccine is significantly protective for those of us who chose so we won’t be effected by our neighbors decisions. I think we can live in harmony.

If only there was a vaccine for fear…"Fear" isn't what killed 700,000 Americans and reduced life expectancy by 1.5 years over just 12 months.

"Freedom" is not more "life prompting" (whatever that means) for the dead.

[Bold2013]

Life promoting.

[kazoolaw]

Essentially, not taking the vaccine as a member of a society is a selfish act, taking the vaccine is an act of social solidarity. [based on being able to have the vaccine, exceptions expected]

And on which side of your fence are those who were vaccinated and contracted covid?

[kazoolaw]

One mark of intelligence and common sense is the willingness to change one's opinions (and advice) according to a changing set of circumstances.

Didn't think speaking without knowing was a sign of wisdom, or science, in the first instance.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Essentially, not taking the vaccine as a member of a society is a selfish act, taking the vaccine is an act of social solidarity. [based on being able to have the vaccine, exceptions expected]

And on which side of your fence are those who were vaccinated and contracted covid?



Kind of misses the underlying point, which is that vaccinated people are less likely to contract COVID and therefore less likely to be a spreader. And I did note that there would be exceptions, but you just breezed by that in your haste to have a go.

[Chip]

I just think freedom is more valuable and life prompting for my neighbor and I in the long run.

Do you have the freedom to avoid your taxes?

Do you have the freedom to drive drunk and/or not use a seatbelt?

Do folks in the military have the freedom to disobey orders they don't like or that are inconvenient?

Do you have the freedom to build a bonfire and shoot off fireworks where there's a red flag fire ban?

Do bankers have the freedom to use the deposits of their customers to buy yachts, drugs, fast cars, and hookers?

Your notion of freedom seems both vague and childish.

[TSherbs]

And on which side of your fence are those who were vaccinated and contracted covid?


That's a pretty small group, and they tended to be less often seriously ill. Not sure what you mean with this. No vaccine offers perfect protection (which you know).

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

Do you have the freedom to avoid your taxes?

Do you have the freedom to drive drunk and/or not use a seatbelt?

Do folks in the military have the freedom to disobey orders they don't like or that are inconvenient?

Do you have the freedom to build a bonfire and shoot off fireworks where there's a red flag fire ban?

Do bankers have the freedom to use the deposits of their customers to buy yachts, drugs, fast cars, and hookers?


Yes, one has all those freedoms. However, there are consequences for exercising them because there are laws that make them illegal.

You have simply listed a series of false analogies, and offered perhaps merely a "vague and childish" rebuttal.

Perhaps you're willing to change your opinion.

[Bold2013]

No wonder everyone wants to be a banker

[TSherbs]

Life promoting.Fine.

So how is 700,000 American dead a form of "promoting life"?

[kazoolaw]

Essentially, not taking the vaccine as a member of a society is a selfish act, taking the vaccine is an act of social solidarity. [based on being able to have the vaccine, exceptions expected]

And on which side of your fence are those who were vaccinated and contracted covid?



Kind of misses the underlying point, which is that vaccinated people are less likely to contract COVID and therefore less likely to be a spreader. And I did note that there would be exceptions, but you just breezed by that in your haste to have a go.

Gosh, no EoC.
You're statement of "solidarity" makes public health into another us/them dichotomy. I would think that your Post 29 in the barriers topic would have lead you to consider some of Dr. Jay B's points about how not to do public health. Why are people vaccine resistant? The Tuskegee experiment? Testing of AIDS drugs on minors without independent advocates? Not acknowledging that the vaccines won't eliminate the disease? People making statements that we won't know how the vaccine effects children until we give it to enough children? Do Americans have a different attitude about government dictates than New Zealanders (is that a term?) and if so will dictates work? Do posers, who dictate masking and social distancing, having large parties without masks or social distancing promote solidarity for thee but not for me? What does announcing "social solidarity" do to restore the credibility of the US public health system?
Perhaps one would say that all those vaccine resisters prize their independence too highly. If they do, they still can be reached; insisting they must submit to some social movement hasn't worked so far.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

You're reading things into my opinion which, I will state, are just not there.

Why are people vaccine-resistant today? Simple - Andrew Wakefield. Before his fraudulent attempt to make a personal profit by sowing misinformation about vaccines there was no 'organised' or 'coherent' anti-vaccine movement of any real note (some fringe stuff mainly). Now we have this growing wave of ill-informed people standing against a vaccine at the worst imaginable time - during a dangerous pandemic. The Tuskegee experiment, testing AIDS drugs, and so on have not had anything like the same impact as the lies of Wakefield. The man deserves a lengthy jail sentence, possibly should be the subject of some human experimentation! :)

My opinion is based on two things:

1. My understanding is that as a member of a society I have certain obligations to that society. That is how I feel about it, others may feel differently.

2. My background in health sciences very strongly positions me on the side of vaccines and the evidence that I've seen/read/heard/experienced regarding them.


As to the method of applying public health measures or increasing public confidence in governments, that varies from place to place, even from group to group within place, so I can't presume to suggest anything.

[Chip]

Yes, one has all those freedoms. However, there are consequences for exercising them because there are laws that make them illegal.

You have simply listed a series of false analogies, and offered perhaps merely a "vague and childish" rebuttal.

Perhaps you're willing to change your opinion.

In each instance, the supposed freedom has great potential to harm not just the person exercising it, but others as well. In most cases, the consequences suffered by innocent others outweigh those resting on the person exercising the alleged freedom.

For instance, cheating on your taxes means you're not paying your share for public services and infrastructure, that you're using: roads, bridges, schools, fire departments, etc.

Driving drunk can lead to an auto accident in which you and innocent others are killed or badly injured. Not wearing a setbelt means your injuries will be worse, a burden on your family and the health care system, insurance, etc.

If you don't follow military orders, there could be a gap in the defensive effort and your unit could be wiped out.

Building fires and using fireworks creates not only damage to public and private lands, forests, and animals, but puts firefighters at risk (I was a wildland firefighter for years).

The banking bit is so obvious that even you must get it.

Not being vaccinated means you can spread the virus to innocent people who had no say in your exercise of an illusory freedom. Some might get very sick or die. Regardless of their politics, they will burden the health care system and add to the stress of workers, who likewise had no say.

You might look up the word psychopath. Your definition of freedom seems to accord rather well.

[dneal]

You're conflating freedom with ethics and responsibility, which is not surprising given that you couldn't follow the notion in the Fortitude thread either.

You are free to shout "fire" in a movie theater. That doesn't mean you should, and that doesn't mean you won't be punished for it.

Similarly, you have missed or ignored the point of this thread; choosing to blather typical echo-chamber nonsense. The actions of government officials, in concert with a large portion of the media; undermined trust. It was a failure of public health policy and communication, and it continues; perhaps for the reasons Dr. Bhattacharya lays out. Instead, certain little-minded hobgoblins consistently shout "get the vaccine", "mandates", etc... and wonder why their excoriations are not persuasive. Those same hobgoblins tend to fixate on personalities.

[Chuck Naill]

I know here that hospitials were overrun with adults who chose to exercise their freedom and unvaccinated children. The stress on supplies of monoclonial antibodies, equipment, rooms for others, and the staff who worked long hours and days without a break was caused by people choosing freedom.
"The latest American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) report shows that 22 children died from COVID-19 across the US during the week ending October 7, bringing the country’s official pediatric death toll to 542 since May 2020."
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/10/13/scho-o13.html

The more glaring selfishness is not chosing to take the vaccine. These same people refused to wear a mask and keep at a distance.

[dneal]

Why do you suppose people were (or are) exhibiting this behavior? What is prompting all the skepticism?

[kazoolaw]

Bolded words are my comments




You're reading things into my opinion which, I will state, are just not there.
You don't identify what I'm reading into and what's not there. This is what you said: Essentially, not taking the vaccine as a member of a society is a selfish act, taking the vaccine is an act of social solidarity. Vaccinated=solid. No vax=selfish. You're on one side or the other.

Why are people vaccine-resistant today? Simple - Andrew Wakefield. Before his fraudulent attempt to make a personal profit by sowing misinformation about vaccines there was no 'organised' or 'coherent' anti-vaccine movement of any real note (some fringe stuff mainly). Now we have this growing wave of ill-informed people standing against a vaccine at the worst imaginable time - during a dangerous pandemic. The Tuskegee experiment, testing AIDS drugs, and so on have not had anything like the same impact as the lies of Wakefield.
Had to look up Wakefield: have never heard his name in conversation. If you're talking about the pre-covid anti-vaxxers most folks here thought they were unbalanced. What areas have you canvassed as to the relative effect of Wakefield vs Tuskegee & AIDS testing & and having to vaccinate to find out the effect on children? And, knowing they are all factors to one degree or another, what would your background in health sciences suggest would lower the barrier to participation in vaccination? The man deserves a lengthy jail sentence, possibly should be the subject of some human experimentation! :)

My opinion is based on two things:

1. My understanding is that as a member of a society I have certain obligations to that society. That is how I feel about it, others may feel differently. Of course.

2. My background in health sciences very strongly positions me on the side of vaccines and the evidence that I've seen/read/heard/experienced regarding them. But we're not discussing your position, but moving the position of people who haven't been vaccinated.


As to the method of applying public health measures or increasing public confidence in governments, that varies from place to place, even from group to group within place, so I can't presume to suggest anything.Wouldn't you at least suggest trying to find the reasons for resistance? Would you agree that calling people selfish is unlikely to win friends, influence people, and get them vaccinated?

[Chuck Naill]

Had to look up Wakefield???? Seriously, were you raised in a closet? Why are you even on this thread? LOL!!

[Chip]

You're conflating freedom with ethics and responsibility, which is not surprising given that you couldn't follow the notion in the Fortitude thread either.
You are free to shout "fire" in a movie theater. That doesn't mean you should, and that doesn't mean you won't be punished for it.

One characteristic of a psychopath is the inability to feel the effect of their actions on others, focusing only on the likelihood of being caught and punished.

My inability to follow your thinking does not reveal any mental or moral problems on my part.

Check?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

@kazoolaw, I offered my opinion, it is what it is and I feel no need to pick it apart for discussion or to defend it. The tone of your responses is poor, and inclines me not to engage with posts of that ilk other than to point out your boorish behaviour.

This is just a conversation not a forensic clinic.

[dneal]

You're conflating freedom with ethics and responsibility, which is not surprising given that you couldn't follow the notion in the Fortitude thread either.
You are free to shout "fire" in a movie theater. That doesn't mean you should, and that doesn't mean you won't be punished for it.

One characteristic of a psychopath is the inability to feel the effect of their actions on others, focusing only on the likelihood of being caught and punished.

My inability to follow your thinking does not reveal any mental or moral problems on my part.

Check?

You can't follow a topic, you can't grasp basic logic nor distinguish two different principles at play. But you can assert that someone you have never met is a psychopath. While you're thumbing through the DSM, see if you can find "delusional"

Check, indeed.

[TSherbs]

dneal, perhaps you might try asking a question that promotes engagement rather than disputation.

I rechecked your initial post, and I can't find any question in it. What did you see as the purpose of this thread? My guess is that without a question that asks people to work in parallel, any thread like this will simply devolve into disputatious acrimony, despite your requests for something else.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Would you agree that calling people selfish is unlikely to win friends, influence people, and get them vaccinated?[/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Is the purpose of this thread to suggest methods of persuading vax_reluctant people to get vaxxed? If so, I missed that request.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

@TSherbs - The thread is about a conversation with a man who is an M.D., Ph.D. (Economics), and professor of health policy at Stanford. One of the topics in the conversation is indeed how to persuade people to comply with public health recommendations, and how not to do it.

--edit--

I didn't see your last post on the preceding page.

Although the first sentence is a question, or more specifically a request that was obviously ignored; I didn't ask a specific question because I was curious what people would take away from the interview. It is similar to the thread linked in the OP, where a discussion between rational people took place. I was hoping we could bring that sort of decorum back. Apparently not.

[Chuck Naill]

The thread had but one purpose, to justify Darrell’s inaction. It was never to discuss anything.

The people on the video didn’t have professional responsibility for protecting people. Hindsight is 20/20.

The foremost issue is, now that you know millions have died, what action will you take? Each of answers that question for ourselves.

[dneal]

Chuck, my name isn't Darrell, but if it makes you happy or helps with your frequent confusion; I'm fine with it.

--edit--

Addressing TSherbs' post below, it really doesn't bother me. If it's a cheap-shot, it's too obtuse to be witty.

Anyway Chuck, if you could spell it "Dar-El", I would appreciate it. I already changed my avatar in anticipation.

[TSherbs]

@TSherbs - The thread is about a conversation with a man who is an M.D., Ph.D. (Economics), and professor of health policy at Stanford. One of the topics in the conversation is indeed how to persuade people to comply with public health recommendations, and how not to do it.

--edit--

I didn't see your last post on the preceding page.

Although the first sentence is a question, or more specifically a request that was obviously ignored; I didn't ask a specific question because I was curious what people would take away from the interview. It is similar to the thread linked in the OP, where a discussion between rational people took place. I was hoping we could bring that sort of decorum back. Apparently not.The interview was an hour long. You need to focus the discussion on just a few topics (one or two) with a question that asks for advice or help or recommendation, etc. Otherwise, as I said, you will likely end up with disputation.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

I'll watch any 3-minute segment of this that you choose as long as you ask a question more specific than "What do you think of that?"

You can pick the 3 minute segment (that's about a page of text). I can't stand video interviews and I don't watch them. But in this case, if you want, I'll watch if you pick it. If you notice, I never respond to video clips. Really not my jam...

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The fundamental thrust of this kind of thread - based on the posts of a couple of prominent participants - is: My appeal to authority is better than your appeal to authority.

[TSherbs]

The thread had but one purpose, to justify Darrell’s inaction. It was never to discuss anything.

....

Chuck, I have backed you up a lot. And I have called dneal aspersions to his face. But this name thing of yours seems like a petty cheap shot. It comes out of nowhere at times. Anyway, I even have to remind myself who you mean. It's kind of confusing.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

The fundamental thrust of this kind of thread - based on the posts of a couple of prominent participants - is: My appeal to authority is better than your appeal to authority.


While that is an argument one could advance, the linked thread demonstrates the counter argument. Also, an appeal to authority isn't a logical fallacy when the authority is an actual authority on the topic. It is a credible competing viewpoint. Listening and discussing competing viewpoints rationally and respectfully is simply a variation of the Socratic method, Hegelian synthesis, etc...

[kazoolaw]

@kazoolaw, I offered my opinion, it is what it is and I feel no need to pick it apart for discussion or to defend it. The tone of your responses is poor, and inclines me not to engage with posts of that ilk other than to point out your boorish behaviour.

This is just a conversation not a forensic clinic.

Never seen a person so anxious to disassociate from his own posts as you are.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Never seen a person so keen to pick fights on a forum as you.

[Chip]

You can't follow a topic, you can't grasp basic logic nor distinguish two different principles at play. But you can assert that someone you have never met is a psychopath.

That I don't quite get a lot of what you post is not the result of any deficiency on my part. Simply put, you spew a lot of loony BS.

I do recall posting some characteristic symptoms shown by psychopaths. I don't remember calling you one.

But if the shoe fits. . .

[ethernautrix]

Do you have the freedom to avoid your taxes?

Do you have the freedom to drive drunk and/or not use a seatbelt?

Do folks in the military have the freedom to disobey orders they don't like or that are inconvenient?

Do you have the freedom to build a bonfire and shoot off fireworks where there's a red flag fire ban?

Do bankers have the freedom to use the deposits of their customers to buy yachts, drugs, fast cars, and hookers?


Yes, one has all those freedoms. However, there are consequences for exercising them because there are laws that make them illegal.

This is almost exactly my knee-jerk response word for word when I read Chip's questions. Of course, people can do what they want, but there are theoretical consequences (one has to be caught first and then be held accountable (which doesn't always follow)).

So, the question is, then, what are the potential consequences for not getting vaccinated?

But also! what are the potential consequences of getting vaccinated? Since becoming fully vaccinated does not necessarily mean "fully protected," as Heather and Bret of DarkHorse Podcast discuss in this 15-minute clip (YouTube):


https://youtu.be/NmSslcBBNJQ

Heather cites a couple of studies about the efficacy of being fully vaccinated (in a Singapore study, the Delta variant was found in only 8% of unvaccinated covid cases; 92% presumably spread amongst the vaccinated to varying degrees (after one shot, after both, after two weeks thereof, which is when one is considered fully vaccinated). Within two-to-three months after being fully vaccinated, protection wanes.

I've heard the proposition that getting vaccinated prevents worse effects of covid, but that's presuming that most people will suffer worse effects when the percentage is actually very low. (Of course, no one wants to be in that end of the bell curve.)

Should free citizens in free countries "be allowed" to assess the risk for themselves (while showing good etiquette by wearing masks and maintaining physical distance and frequently washing their hands)?

I, for instance, analogically, always buckle up in a car and keep my seatbelt fastened on an airplane but I don't usually wear a bicycle helmet. In the latter case, I observed that drivers seemed to view my helmet as a dome of protection and would pass me with less space than when I didn't wear a helmet. Not a scientific study, and I understand that drivers aren't the only hazard that could topple me over my handlebar, but I weigh the potential risk and consequence and accept the responsibility, which I don't say lightly.

Of course, head injuries and broken collar bones aren't contagious, so how is the responsible citizen to make good decisions for him- or herself in light of potential consequences to him- or herself or others, probably both?

What is the risk?

Can anyone say for certain what is the risk?

Did it not raise anyone else's eyebrows that politicians demanded of citizens stringent restrictions that they themselves did not follow? Did anyone else think, "Huh, what do they know? They have much more information than I do, so...maybe this isn't as bad as they're spinning it." (Are we allowed to have such thoughts in an environment of [cue scene of Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers at the end, spoiler alert]?)

Does anyone else wonder, in light of (as mentioned in this or other threads) Tuskegee? Or how the government instructed servicemen to observe atomic bomb testing in the Nevada desert? Did the government know what the consequences of that would be? I'll say, No. No, they did not. EXACTLY. The government didn't know... and how did they find out? Did all the decision-makers stand in the desert and see the retina-searing flash of explosion and feel the heat of that radiation winds?

Nope!

Is it immoral to ask, Follow the money (question implied)?

Anyway, I only started to watch (listen to) the video Not-Darrell (and Not-Dave/David, haha) linked to in his OP, and now Łapa is crying for a walk, so I'll have to listen to it later.

But I want to know, is it possible to ask questions without the knee-jerk, chest-thumping, righteous indignation beat-down that tries to pass for discourse these days? Cos "You're stupid" is not a convincing point.

Also, I'll concede that I don't know what Heather and Bret's collective reputation is and I didn't look up the studies they cited (which is more important than reputation, as that seems to be dictated by mob rule rather than conscientious inquiry), and if there are studies that contradict these findings, for sure link to them (or studies that support them!).

[dneal]

I'll watch any 3-minute segment of this that you choose as long as you ask a question more specific than "What do you think of that?"

You can pick the 3 minute segment (that's about a page of text). I can't stand video interviews and I don't watch them. But in this case, if you want, I'll watch if you pick it. If you notice, I never respond to video clips. Really not my jam...


I'll type the pertinent text from YouTube's transcription (editing as best I can for clarity), but the portion begins at approximately 30:37 and goes to 32:45 (less than 3 min!) if you want to watch.

Dr. Bhattacharya is cited from a presentation he gave last year:

"In the last 20 years we've lifted one billion people worldwide out of poverty. This year we are reversing that progress and an estimated 130 million people will starve. Another result of the lockdowns is that people stopped bringing their children in for immunizations against diseases like diphtheria, whooping cough, and polio. Eighty million children worldwide are now at risk of these diseases."

He continues: 100 million people have been thrown into poverty. Tens of millions of people have been thrown into starvation, dire food insecurity as a consequence of the lockdowns worldwide, especially in Africa.

Peter Robinson: So meaning that when the western world - which is the rich world - contracts its economy, when we shut down our economy, you're ok if you live in Pacific Palisades but if you live somewhere in Africa, when the world economy shrinks; the poor and very poor are exposed and in the rudest way their lives themselves become at risk.

Dr. B.: We spent the last two decades or more developing systems of trade and globalization that effectively were promises to poor countries, that changed their economies to rely on these systems; and overnight we violated those promises so it's not surprising that the greatest harm from lockdowns have happened in poor countries around the world. I'll just give you another statistic about children. It was estimated in March of this past year - the UN put out reports estimating that nearly 250,000 children had died of starvation as a consequence of the economic dislocation from lockdowns in South Asia alone. The harm to children is incalculable from this.

This is not merely conjecture, and links to the WHO and UNICEF are at the bottom of this post. The UNICEF site is particularly diverse and informative.

So my question is essentially the same as the one I asked a year and a half ago: Is “shut everything down” necessarily the only reasonable method of mitigating risk?

We have the benefit of hindsight now. While it may be 20/20 (and it's certainly not in this case), the virus and "lockdown" policies remain. These are true moral dilemmas, and won't go away with glib rhetorical dismissal. People are going to die. How do we minimize that? or maybe how do we not exacerbate it?

UNICEF COVID-19 and Children Data Hub (https://data.unicef.org/covid-19-and-children/)
UN Report: Pandemic year marked by spike in world hunger. (https://www.who.int/news/item/12-07-2021-un-report-pandemic-year-marked-by-spike-in-world-hunger)

[dneal]

@Ethernautrix - Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein are biologists with a focus on evolutionary biology. Bret was the victim of the "Evergreen College" issue. They are both now visiting professors at Princeton. Bret's brother is Eric Weinstein, mathematical physicist.

[dneal]

You can't follow a topic, you can't grasp basic logic nor distinguish two different principles at play. But you can assert that someone you have never met is a psychopath.

That I don't quite get a lot of what you post is not the result of any deficiency on my part. Simply put, you spew a lot of loony BS.

See last third of quote in signature.


I do recall posting some characteristic symptoms shown by psychopaths. I don't remember calling you one.

But if the shoe fits. . .

Implied or insinuated then, if you prefer; not that it matters to me really.

What I do find curious is that a self-proclaimed "writer" merely regurgitates the same material. That's not a particularly beneficial trait in that career field, I suspect. I am sure that it is boring.

[TSherbs]

So my question is essentially the same as the one I asked a year and a half ago: Is “shut everything down” necessarily the only reasonable method of mitigating risk?



UNICEF COVID-19 and Children Data Hub (https://data.unicef.org/covid-19-and-children/)
UN Report: Pandemic year marked by spike in world hunger. (https://www.who.int/news/item/12-07-2021-un-report-pandemic-year-marked-by-spike-in-world-hunger)

My guess is that we will not due similar total lockdowns (to the extent that they actually were "total": my town in Maine kept nearly all of its stores open except for a week or so). We'll likely keep schools open, too, but we gamble with children's lives less (and this ethic I agree with).

So, yes, there are likely other reasonable approaches to lockdowns, which I think is why we did not undergo them as the D-variant peaked.

[TSherbs]

Can anyone say for certain what is the risk?



Of vaccination? Yes, these statistics, generally speaking, are known.

But "for certain"? No, of course not. Risk is a generalized statistical pattern over a population, not a guarantee of accuracy for each individual. There is a "risk," also generally calculable, for a population if it chooses not to vaccinate. This risk isn't precise, but it is somewhat predictable.

[Chuck Naill]

Authors of "I Alone Can Fix It" interviewed on Fresh Air today. FYI.

[Chuck Naill]

A shut down is a reasonable strategy in 2020. Over time we saw thousands die from going to church services and ignoring science. Not being flippant. but you can't prevent free people from performing acts that will kill them. It is sad, but not really. If someone chooses to take the chance, you don't mourn the same as when people die from pancreatic CA.

[TSherbs]

A shut down is a reasonable strategy in 2020...

The question is a matter of degree. We are likely, with our next Corona virus of equal lethality, to have a more targeted approach. In part, not because we made poor choices in April 2020 (I don't believe that we did) but because we have more insight and a better set of protocols and products at the ready.

Hopefully.





Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

PS: Both Trump and Biden should have made a cabinet-level department for managing pandemics.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

A shut down is a reasonable strategy in 2020...

The question is a matter of degree. We are likely, with our next Corona virus of equal lethality, to have a more targeted approach. In part, not because we made poor choices in April 2020 (I don't believe that we did) but because we have more insight and a better set of protocols and products at the ready.

Hopefully.





Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

How to handle a pandemic is nothing new. If I remember, this one surprised the experts in how easily it spread human to human. Any reasonable person would have done what Fauci recommended. I would and I suspect you would.

[dneal]

PS: Both Trump and Biden should have made a cabinet-level department for managing pandemics.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

There is one. Health and Human Services. The budget for HHS is over $1T (yes, trillion).

[Chip]

My spouse has a painful shoulder joint that makes everyday tasks such as taking a dish from a cupboard a trial. Driving and many other routine activities cause her distress. Based on x-rays and an MRI, her doc recommended surgery, asap. We live in a remote spot and the nearest source of medical expertise is Fort Collins, CO.

But, owing to an overload of COVID cases, the hospitals have ceased all elective surgery and some are on the verge of turning away all patients except acute emergencies (auto accidents). Most are short of critical staff members. Over 90% of the hospital cases of COVID are unvaccinated folks (who are now enjoying the fruit of their alleged freedom at the end of a ventilator tube).

The governor ended a mask advisory some time ago and restaurants, bars, etc. are packed. Despite calls to reinstate some measures, he has refused.

So— thanks to the boneheads who won't get the vaccine or use commonsense precautions (masks, avoid indoor crowds) my wife is in pain every day with no help in sight.

[dneal]

64663


https://data.greatfallstribune.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/wyoming/56/

[TSherbs]

PS: Both Trump and Biden should have made a cabinet-level department for managing pandemics.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

There is one. Health and Human Services. The budget for HHS is over $1T (yes, trillion).Yeah, that's not what I mean. That Dept has enough other things to do.

And give them more money.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

If a trillion dollar bureaucracy that has a CDC and NIH can’t handle this, I don’t see how piling on another would; but I’m happy to hear the rationale.

[TSherbs]

If a trillion dollar bureaucracy that has a CDC and NIH can’t handle this, I don’t see how piling on another would; but I’m happy to hear the rationale.Gosh, no. I'm not going to make an argument about it. I'm not interested in debate on this at all. Other people can dispute if they'd like. I'm just sharing a position.

Like this one: we will likely avoid total shutdowns in the future, as long as the next pandemic is not more lethal, or otherwise injurious.

But I'm not interested in arguing about it or trying to persuade. It's just my guess.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

.

So— thanks to the boneheads who won't get the vaccine or use commonsense precautions (masks, avoid indoor crowds) my wife is in pain every day with no help in sight.

I'm sorry to hear this, Chip.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

If a trillion dollar bureaucracy that has a CDC and NIH can’t handle this, I don’t see how piling on another would; but I’m happy to hear the rationale.Gosh, no. I'm not going to make an argument about it. I'm not interested in debate on this at all. Other people can dispute if they'd like. I'm just sharing a position.

Like this one: we will likely avoid total shutdowns in the future, as long as the next pandemic is not more lethal, or otherwise injurious.

But I'm not interested in arguing about it or trying to persuade. It's just my guess.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Good, 'cause me neither... ;)

[Chip]

[QUOTE=Chip;342472]
I'm sorry to hear this, Chip.

Nice that someone has a heart.

[Chip]

So you don't know the difference between Colorado and Wyoming. It's not just a matter of available beds. Very few of those Wyoming hospitals can do shoulder reconstruction.

https://i.imgur.com/apxodcW.jpg

And you're so blindly stupid that you can't read a map. What do those red and brown symbols mean?

Do you need a hint?

[dneal]

For those who don’t know geography, the interactive map shows northern Colorado too.

64679

Also, hospitals don’t do shoulder reconstruction surgery. Surgeons do. The hospital is the building.

--edit--

For the perpetually lazy, 14%, 29% etc... are also "below 60%". A selection:

64678

[dneal]

Back on topic, the hospital capacity "issue" is another example of the "let it drip" strategy that is failing 19 months later.

Had the two-week "flatten the curve" approach been used as we were told, that time would have been used to prepare for the surge that would follow, and do additional things like mobilize military hospital capacity. Instead, and as we were told in the beginning; we've "flattened the curve" and extended it to 19 months (so far).

--edit--

Chip - Sniping aside, I am very sympathetic to people with excruciating shoulder pain, having experienced adhesive capsulitis in each shoulder. If someone is telling you there is only one surgeon or one hospital that can do shoulder surgery, or that there is only one hospital available (that doesn't have the capacity to take care of your wife); you might look around for another doctor. That's why I posted the link.

[Chip]

You know nothing about Wyoming and your aggressive stupidity has worn out my patience.

I'm done with you.

[Chuck Naill]

You know nothing about Wyoming and your aggressive stupidity has worn out my patience.

I'm done with you.
I’ve backed you many times,’but your disrespectful nature is not welcome…..just kidding!!😂😂

Well stated.
👍👍

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Saw this late. My sympathies for your wife, Chip. Chronic pain is not easy to live with, and I hope you can find a solution sooner rather than later.

The other guy's statement about hospitals not performing surgery is just the most ridiculous pedantry for a well understood phrase. Aggressive stupidity is a good way of putting it.

[dneal]

You know nothing about Wyoming and your aggressive stupidity has worn out my patience.

I'm done with you.

You said this, and that you put me on ignore, some time ago. Yet here you are regurgitating the same shit, again. Seems to be a trend with you.

[dneal]

Saw this late. My sympathies for your wife, Chip. Chronic pain is not easy to live with, and I hope you can find a solution sooner rather than later.

The other guy's statement about hospitals not performing surgery is just the most ridiculous pedantry for a well understood phrase. Aggressive stupidity is a good way of putting it.

Feel free to post your experience with the U.S. healthcare system. While you’re at it, you can do the same for the medical credentials you only allude to in other posts. Scrubbing bedpans in a hospital counts as “working in health care” too.

The point is that there are clearly multiple hospitals with capacity in Chip’s part of the country. He’s not as limited as he claims. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s full of shit; just like the invented stories in the news about Oklahoma hospitals being overrun with ivermectin overdoses. If my wife were in the situation he describes, I would find somewhere to take her instead of complaining - but that’s because I’m not a psychopath. Chip’s story and penchant for projection leaves me wondering about him though.

[TSherbs]

... Chip’s story and penchant for projection leaves me wondering about him though.

To be fair, on these threads you accuse nearly everyone that you disagree with of this at some point.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

Then perhaps those I respond to in such manner should stop, so I don't have so many opportunities to point it out.

[TSherbs]

Nevermind

[Chuck Naill]

Then @tsherbs can brag he “backs”…..lol😂

[TSherbs]

Then @tsherbs can brag he “backs”…..lol[emoji23]??

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Then @tsherbs can brag he “backs”…..lol[emoji23]??

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Really?

[TSherbs]

Then @tsherbs can brag he “backs”…..lol[emoji23]??

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Really?Chuck, what are you talking about?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Then @tsherbs can brag he “backs”…..lol[emoji23]??

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Really?Chuck, what are you talking about?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I can't remember...LOL!!