Co-vid 19: What Is and Isn't Known, Discussion and Debate

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wonder if we could have success in getting asymptomatic people to focus on keeping their mouths closed when in public? 

Somehow I can't see that happening.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

Interesting article coming from you.

Not really.  You've rather persistently misread and presumed my intentions in this thread.

Quote

Because of the intense polarization in our country, a great many Americans now see the life-and-death decisions of the coronavirus as political choices rather than medical ones.

I think politicians, news media, and even some in the healthcare profession have materially contributed to the politicization of the COVID issue.

Quote

In the absence of a unifying narrative and competent national leadership, Americans have to choose whom to believe as they make decisions about how to live: the scientists and the public-health experts, whose advice will necessarily change as they learn more about the virus, treatment, and risks? Or President Donald Trump and his acolytes, who suggest that masks and social distancing are unnecessary or “optional”?

See?

When I read headlines like "Over 1,000 health professionals sign a letter saying, Don't shut down protests using coronavirus concerns as an excuse," and "N.Y.C. Mayor Threatens 'Jewish Community' With Arrests Over Coronavirus Violations" and many, many others, I tend to get a bit skeptical about the simplistic (and plainly politicized) juxtapostion of "scientists and {} public-health experts" versus "President Donald Trump and his acolytes."

Quote

How to resolve this dissonance? People could avoid the crowds, parties, and bars and wear a mask.

That's what I'm doing.

Quote

Although it’s difficult, changing our minds is not impossible. The challenge is to find a way to live with uncertainty, make the most informed decisions we can, and modify them when the scientific evidence dictates—as our leading researchers are already doing. Admitting we were wrong requires some self-reflection—which involves living with the dissonance for a while rather than jumping immediately to a self-justification.

This nasty, mysterious virus will require us all to change our minds as scientists learn more, and we may have to give up some practices and beliefs about it that we now feel sure of. The alternative will be to double down, ignore the error, and wait, as Trump is waiting, for the “miracle” of the virus disappearing.

For me, the open letter excusing protesters/rioters from social distancting, etc. really tarnished the credibility of the "experts."  A lot.

So did this (to a lesser extent, though, since I get that medical advice can and should evolve):

Quote

Dr. Anthony Fauci said Friday the reason the public was advised not to wear masks at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic was that there were too few to go around.

In an interview with the financial-news site TheStreet, Fauci, the US government's foremost infectious-diseases expert, was asked about the changing government advice on wearing masks.

In January through March, as the spread of the disease became more and more serious, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actively discouraged the use of masks among the general public.

By early April, simple cloth face coverings were recommended for the general public, instead of protective personal equipment such as surgical and N95 masks, The New York Times reported.

Fauci's comments echo those of Surgeon General Jerome Adams on March 2, when he said that the increased demand for masks was putting medical professionals at risk.

A few days earlier, he tweeted that masks were "not effective in preventing" COVID-19 in the general public, saying, "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!" He later reversed his advice.

Fauci explained the early advice against masks by saying: "The public-health community — and many people were saying this — were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply."

N95 masks are higher-grade equipment than ordinary masks and mainly used by medical workers.

He added that the government did not want healthcare workers "to be without the equipment that they needed ... We were afraid that that would deter away the people who really needed it."

The government also knows more about the effectiveness of different types of masks than it did at the beginning, he said.

"Now we have masks, and we know that you don't need an N95 if you're an ordinary person in the street," he said. "We also know that simple cloth coverings that many people have can work as well as a mask in many cases."

Fauci acknowledged the appearance of a contradiction in the government's public-health advice but denied this was the case. "Actually the circumstances have changed," he said. "That's the reason why."

It's understandable that the general public could get whiplash from "the experts" going from "STOP BUYING MASKS!" to "masks should be mandatory." 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 14, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Somehow I can't see that happening.

Getting them to wear masks in public isn't happening either though.

Edited July 14, 2020 by bluebell

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  You've rather persistently misread and presumed my intentions in this thread.

I think politicians, news media, and even some in the healthcare profession have materially contributed to the politicization of the COVID issue.

See?

When I read headlines like "Over 1,000 health professionals sign a letter saying, Don't shut down protests using coronavirus concerns as an excuse," and "N.Y.C. Mayor Threatens 'Jewish Community' With Arrests Over Coronavirus Violations" and many, many others, I tend to get a bit skeptical about the simplistic (and plainly politicized) juxtapostion of "scientists and {} public-health experts" versus "President Donald Trump and his acolytes."

That's what I'm doing.

The open letter excusing protesters/rioters from social distancting, etc. really tarnished the credibility of the "experts."  A lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your articles speak for themselves and tend to have a specific theme of downplaying the severity of the virus, keeping the economy open, and right leaning political agenda..  This one stood out from the rest.  I personally found it interesting coming from you. 

You seem to be arguing against your own link.  Interesting.

Edited July 14, 2020 by pogi

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Getting them to wear masks in public isn't happening either though.

When has it ever worked, though, to get people to keep their mouths closed? 🤷‍♂️

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

This doesn't address aerosols however.  I think our time is better spent convincing people about the efficacy of masks rather than teaching the less efficacious nose breathing (which most people do anyway when not talking). 

Is trying to convince people to wear masks working though?  People in utah are having "I refuse to wear a mask!" protests now.  The more masks are pushed, the more people seem to be pushing back.

And it's not about teaching nose breathing, it's about looking at the situation pragmatically.  If you can't convince someone to wear a mask (which is often because they view the mask as a visual representation of them supporting specific political or idealogical positions) then is it easier and still somewhat effective to say "fine, don't wear a mask but at least keep your mouth shut in public spaces, that will help."?  

[smac97]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Your articles speak for themselves

But they don't necessarily speak for me.  Can you appreciate that distinction?

Quote

and tend to have a specific theme of downplaying the severity of the virus, keeping the economy open, and right leaning political agenda.

Golly!  No politicization going on here!

Yet again, I am taking the virus seriously.  I am trying to contextualize it.  

Quote

This one stood out from the rest.  I personally found it interesting coming from you. 

Because you persist in materially misconstruing and distorting my motives and intentions in this thread.

Quote

You seem to be arguing against your own link.  Interesting.

Yes.  As I have said (a couple of times now, I think), posting a link doesn't mean I agree with its contents.

I had understood you are in the healthcare field.  Your continued politicization of comments in this thread has lessened my willingness to take you seriously.

If you want to understand my position, you can ask me.  No need to resort to politicization and mindreading.

-Smac

Edited July 14, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

When has it ever worked, though, to get people to keep their mouths closed? 🤷‍♂️

True (), but most of the people that I know who refuse to wear masks aren't evil people and actually do care about others, they just view their choice not to mask up as the lesser o two evils.  

When people see wearing a mask as a political statement  (and many seem to), then convincing them to keep their mouths shut for the safety of others is going to be easier than convincing them to wear a a visual representation of political and ideological beliefs they don't agree for the safety of others.

[pogi]

Just now, bluebell said:

Is trying to convince people to wear masks working though?  People in utah are having "I refuse to wear a mask!" protests now.  The more masks are pushed, the more people seem to be pushing back.

And it's not about teaching nose breathing, it's about looking at the situation pragmatically.  If you can't convince someone to wear a mask (which is often because they view the mask as a visual representation of them supporting specific political or idealogical positions) then is it easier and still somewhat effective to say "fine, don't wear a mask but at least keep your mouth shut in public spaces, that will help."?  

I appreciate trying to find pragmatic compromises and approaches when the ideal just isn't working.  I just don't think it would reduce risk of transmission and could have the opposite effect of giving the appearance of approval to not wear masks.  I am convinced however, that science, reason, religion, law, and good ol' fashioned peer pressure will win out in the end.  The foundation of anti-maskers are tumbling.  It is my understanding that the anti-mask mobs have shut down in the face of mounting peer pressure. 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I am convinced however, that science, reason, religion, law, and good ol' fashioned peer pressure will win out in the end. 

Either that or Darwin.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Your articles speak for themselves and tend to have a specific theme of downplaying the severity of the virus, keeping the economy open, and right leaning political agenda..  This one stood out from the rest.  I personally found it interesting coming from you. 

You seem to be arguing against your own link.  Interesting.

I've read Smac's posts as him providing different perspectives and information on the topic, not necessarily that he agrees with all the information he shares.  It's refreshing when someone will post relevant information that they don't agree with and which doesn't support their beliefs, for the sake of being thorough in their sharing of information.  

Smac is much better at doing that than I am.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I appreciate trying to find pragmatic compromises and approaches when the ideal just isn't working.  I just don't think it would reduce risk of transmission and could have the opposite effect of giving the appearance of approval to not wear masks.  I am convinced however, that science, reason, religion, law, and good ol' fashioned peer pressure will win out in the end.  The foundation of anti-maskers are tumbling.  It is my understanding that the anti-mask mobs have shut down in the face of mounting peer pressure. 

Bullying and peer pressure definitely does have an impact on forcing compliance.  I do think bullying can get us into a 'law of unintended consequences' situation that eventually makes things worse and not better though sometimes.  Forcing compliance against people's beliefs can work, but it often creates anger that festers.  That's not a problem if the angry are in small numbers but if they aren't....

Hopefully reason will win the day.

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But they don't necessarily speak for me.  Can you comprehend that distinction?

Golly!  No politicization going here!  

Tet again, I am taking the virus seriously.  I am trying to contextualize it.  

Because you persist in materially misconstruing and distorting my posts in this thread.

Yes.  As I have said (a couple of times now, I think), posting a link doesn't mean I agree with its contents.

I had understood you are in the healthcare field.  Your continued politicization of comments in this thread has lessened my willingness to take you seriously.

-Smac

You say that you are trying to contextualize the virus, but you keep posting political material (even when it is contrary to your own position ) and hyper inflammatory posts such as "if anyone really prioritizes children...", etc.

Will you please do us all a HUGE favor and not just data dump without contextualizing and explaining your intentions and position on each link to avoid confusion. 

Quote

Golly!  No politicization going here!  

Actually, I am just pointing out your politicization, as in 2 of your links are highly political (and 1 interestingly is in opposition of your own position).

Quote

But they don't necessarily speak for me.  Can you comprehend that distinction?

You claim that they don't speak for you but you admit that you are trying to speak through them by "contextualizing".   Make up your mind.  Are these truly mindless, aimless, non-biased data dumps, or are you trying to say something.  If you have something to say, then say it already! 

Edited July 14, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've read Smac's posts as him providing different perspectives and information on the topic, not necessarily that he agrees with all the information he shares.  It's refreshing when someone will post relevant information that they don't agree with and which doesn't support their beliefs, for the sake of being thorough in their sharing of information.  

Smac is much better at doing that than I am.

I wonder if he actually read the link.   He states that he is trying to contextualize the virus.  How does this link do that exactly?  The link is highly political and contrary to his own political position. Without any commentary or explanation, why shouldn't I find that interesting?  I am still curious as to why he posted it. It's super annoying when he just posts a bunch of links without any explanation or context. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by pogi

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You say that you are trying to contextualize the virus, but you keep posting political material (even when it is contrary to your own position ) and hyper inflammatory posts such as "if anyone really prioritizes children...", etc.

And you continue to ignore what I am saying.

And you continue to impute motives and intentions onto me.

Quote

Will you please do us all a HUGE favor and not just data dump without contextualizing and explaining your intentions and position on each link to avoid confusion. 

I have clarified and explained my perspective many times.

I would ask you to do me a huge favor and stop presuming to tell me what my motives are, but you just can't seem to stop yourself.

Quote

Actually, I am just pointing out your politicization, as in 2 of your links are highly political (and 1 interestingly is in opposition of your own position).

And again, just because I post a story does not mean I agree with its contents.

COVID has become hugely politicized (you yourself are doing it), so it's hard to avoid that altogether.  But Calm has asked that we avoid politics in this thread, and I am trying to follow her guidelines.  And yet here you are . . . 

Quote

You claim that they don't speak for you but you admit that you are trying to speak through them by "contextualizing".

No, I have not said that I am "trying to speak through them."  

Again, you are imputing motives and intentions onto me.  As you apparently can't help personalizing this thread by making it about me, I'll report you to the mods and let them figure it out.

Quote

Make up your mind.  Are these truly mindless, aimless, non-biased data dumps, or are you trying to say something. 

I'm contextualizing COVID by providing links to varying viewpoints and arguments about it.

(Aristotle apparently never said this, but the sentiment is nevertheless apt.)

Quote

If you have something to say, then say it already! 

I've said quite a bit in this thread.  But I want to talk about COVID, whereas you persist in commenting about me.

It's annoying.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 14, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

I wonder if he actually read the link.   He states that he is trying to contextualize the virus.  How does this link do that exactly?  The link is highly political and contrary to his own political position. Without any commentary or explanation, why shouldn't I find that interesting?  I am still curious as to why he posted it. It's super annoying when he just posts a bunch of links without any explanation or context. 

I didn't say you shouldn't find it interesting; I was just speaking to the idea that putting up a link that disagreed with him meant he was arguing against himself.  Often I appreciate the links he puts up (and that they, like you said earlier, "speak for themselves" and don't necessarily need to be explained) but I can see how others could find that annoying.  

Regardless, when a poster becomes difficult for me to deal with (because of my own issues) I put them on ignore so that I'm not tempted to respond anymore.  Perhaps that is a solution for you so you don't have to deal with what you view as annoying.  

Edited July 14, 2020 by bluebell

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

I wonder if he actually read the link.  

No need to wonder.  You could just ask.

Yes, I read the link.  That's why I posted it.

Quote

He states that he is trying to contextualize the virus.  How does this link do that exactly?  The link is highly political and contrary to his own political position.

I'm a lawyer, and lawyering has affected my writing style.  Lawyers contextualize and discuss opposing perspectives and viewpoints all the time.  Not because they agree with all such perspectives/viewpoints, but because sifting through them, comparing and contrasting them, helps gain more accurate picture of things.

Judges in civil matters do this all the time, particularly where a litigant's argument is vague, or else is presented in a long, meandering way.  The judge will listen, and then say "Okay, so your position is . . .", followed with a more concise and precise summary of the litigant's position.

However, the judge isn't doing this to adopt the litigant's position, but to ensure that he has correctly understood it.  Having summarized the litigant's position, and having secured from the litigant a confirmation of the accuracy of that summary, the judge can then proceed to render a decision on the dispute.

Lawyers also utilize this rhetorical device.  Sometimes during a deposition, sometimes during oral argument.  This sort of thing relates to a Latin term, arguendo:

Quote

Arguendo is a Latin legal term meaning for the sake of argument. "Assuming, arguendo, that ..." and similar phrases are used in courtroom settings and academic legal settings, and occasionally in other domains, to designate provisional and unendorsed assumptions that will be made at the beginning of an argument in order to explore their implications.

Assuming arguendo allows an attorney to examine the conclusions of premises without admitting that these premises—often the asserted facts of the opposing party—could be true.

A criminal defense attorney may say, "if, arguendo, my client stole the internet data and password, then saving a life would have justified stealing it," thus suggesting that determining the client's guilt or innocence is pointless because they would cause identical legal effects.

Particularly in an appellate court, a judge may ask an attorney what the effects of a different set of assumptions, made arguendo, about the facts governing a situation might be. Asking these questions is especially useful in exploring whether different fact patterns might limit the proper scope of a possible holding in a given case.

I seek to understand the COVID pandemic by contexualizing it.  That means reading different perspectives on it, and perhaps even sharing some of those perspectives here.

Does that mean I agree with all of those perspectives?  No.  

Does it mean that I disagree with all of them?  Again, no.

So how is a reader supposed to understand my perspective?  Well, they could resort to mindreading, personalizing this thread, and cheap shots, or . . . they could just ask me.

Quote

Without any commentary or explanation, why shouldn't I find that interesting?

If you don't find it interesting, nobody is insisting that you read or respond to anything I post.

I, for one, would prefer that you just skip my posts, as you seem incapable of refraining from cheap shots, personalizing this thread, politicizing it, etc.

Quote

I am still curious as to why he posted it. It's super annoying when he just posts a bunch of links without any explanation or context. 

For the love of pete.

From the OP: "So I am starting a thread that questions which arise from a thread or elsewhere can be discussed.  I am opened to anything Covid being discussed here as long as it isn't taking the original topic with it..."

The topic is COVID.  No me.  Not my politics.  Not my motives and intentions.  COVID.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 14, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I didn't say you shouldn't find it interesting; I was just speaking to the idea that putting up a link that disagreed with him meant he was arguing against himself.  Often I appreciate the links he puts up (and that they, like you said earlier, "speak for themselves" and don't necessarily need to be explained) but I can see how others could find that annoying.  

Regardless, when a poster becomes difficult for me to deal with (because of my own issues) I put them on ignore so that I'm not tempted to respond anymore.  Perhaps that is a solution for you so you don't have to deal with what you view as annoying.  

Yes!  Pogi, given your unwillingness/inability to refrain from personalizing my posts in this thread, please put me on ignore.  Please stop responding to my posts.

I am posting articles that have a variety of perspectives on COVID (except the political stuff, which is hard to avoid, but I'm doing what I can).  That is what I understood Calm was asking for when she started this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

From Dan Peterson's blog:

And this (same link): Deseret News:  “The first (maybe) COVID-19 trial vaccine recipient says it’s successful (so far): David Rach became the first person injected with a COVID-19 trial. Here’s what he’s been going through”

It was a double blind study.  The guy doesn't even know if he had the vaccine or not.  

Quote

Of course, Rach said he’s not sure he even received the actual vaccine or a saline vaccine since it’s a “double-blind trial,” according to WJLA.

But, he said, he had a slight reaction to the second dose so he believes he’s been vaccinated.

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Rain

[pogi]

Ok, lets look at everything you have said about these data dumps and lets see if we can figure out what you are overall trying to say:

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

From Dan Peterson's blog:

And this (same link):

The New York Times (dated 7/14/2020)

From The Federalist (there is some political content in here, but please don't discuss it in this thread) :

From CNS News:

From Just The News:

Fox News:

Thanks,

-Smac

Ummm?

On 7/7/2020 at 10:26 AM, smac97 said:

Hmm:

The article has some political commentary (which is hard to avoid these days, as COVID has become extremely politicized).  Per Calm's request, I am only quoting non-political elements of the article, and ask that any responses be restricted to those elements.

Thanks,

-Smac

Still not quite sure.

On 7/3/2020 at 10:12 AM, smac97 said:

A few items:

1. LA Mayor Garcetti admits 'connection' between coronavirus outbreak and protests, after downplaying link

2. Another experimental covid-19 vaccine has shown promising early results

3. CA Gov Newsom Shuts Down Majority of State’s Wineries for 4th of July – But Not His Own

4. Hydroxychloroquine lowers COVID-19 death rate, Henry Ford Health study finds

5. Mask Wars: While facemasks can’t hurt in the fight against Covid-19, the outrage directed at skeptics is excessive.

6. Modelers Were ‘Astronomically Wrong’ in COVID-19 Predictions, Says Leading Epidemiologist—and the World Is Paying the Price (emphases added) :

7. The Real Reason Behind Allowing the Protests During COVID-19

Thanks,

-Smac

You got me there!

On 6/30/2020 at 6:56 AM, smac97 said:

1. Wall Street Journal:

2. TheWeek.com:

3. AP News:

4. StudyFinds.org:

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, at least you said "thanks".

On 6/30/2020 at 10:23 AM, smac97 said:

Hmm:

The entire article is worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

nothing to see here from your mouth.

On 6/28/2020 at 7:26 PM, smac97 said:

A few articles I've come across.

1. Reason.com:

The entire article seems to be worth a read.  Lots of data.  Lots of tough issues.

2. CBS News:

Oi.

3. WBIR:

So a sudden increase in reported COVID cases could be attributed to a change in how they are counted, perhaps as opposed to being attributed to insufficient public adherence to social distancing and other guidelines.

4. Breaking911.com:

5. OC Register:

Even if the mandate about masks is an example of governmental overreach, I think we should wear them anyway.  The infringement on our civil liberties is pretty small.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok, we have something here!  You are in favor of masks.  Awesome!  

On 6/29/2020 at 1:23 PM, smac97 said:

A few more news items:

1. PJ Media:

2. DailyCaller.com:

3. Bloomberg:

4. Don Surber:

5. Instapundit:

Social distancing?  Yes.

Wearing masks?  Yes.

A lockdown that obliterated the economy, destroying trillions of dollars in wealth, tens of thousands of businesses, tens of millions of jobs, and causing untold numbers of forthcoming evictions, foreclosures, repossessions of cars, etc.?  Well....

Thanks,

-Smac

Still on board with masks, and commentary on shutdowns. 

On 6/26/2020 at 9:28 AM, smac97 said:

An article by Ted Noel, MD:

Hmm.

Well?  Is wearing a mask just an update on tossing salt over one's left shoulder?

Again, hmm.

So should we still wear masks, just in case they might help?  Perhaps not:

The Law of Unintended Consequences.  Bummer.

Can any appreciable percentage of the U.S. populace hope to be properly fitted with an N95 respirator mask, and also have the means to re-sterilize it every four hours?

What about the "received wisdom" of forcing people to say indoors to contain the spread of COVID?  Well...

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Spencer

EDIT TO ADD: It looks like Dr. Noel is something of a political partisan.  Snopes reports that he presumed to diagnose Hillary Clinton as having Parkinson's even though he never examined her.  I understood that to be a fairly serious breach of medical ethics.  So perhaps his conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt.

I guess, masks our out the window!  I am happy to that these are in reverse order and you have changed your views. 

On 6/26/2020 at 9:42 AM, smac97 said:

Potential news from Israel (and Italy):

Thanks,

-Smac

You lost me there.

On 6/27/2020 at 9:38 AM, smac97 said:

 

ok?

On 6/25/2020 at 10:21 PM, smac97 said:

From Instapundit:

nope. 

When you have something to say.  please participate.  At least provide some context. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok, lets look at everything you have said about these data dumps and lets see if we can figure out what you are overall trying to say:

Ummm?

Still not quite sure.

You got me there!

Well, at least you said "thanks".

nothing to see here from your mouth.

Ok, we have something here!  You are in favor of masks.  Awesome!  

Still on board with masks, and commentary on shutdowns. 

I guess, masks our out the window!  I am happy to that these are in reverse order and you have changed your views. 

You lost me there.

ok?

nope. 

When you have something to say.  please participate.  At least provide some context. 

Pogi, I've reported you to the mods.  And I'm asking that you stop responding to my posts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm a lawyer, and lawyering has affected my writing style.  Lawyers contextualize and discuss opposing perspectives and viewpoints all the time.  

You aren't contextualizing or discussing anything you post.  

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

I'm a lawyer, and lawyering has affected my writing style.  Lawyers contextualize and discuss opposing perspectives and viewpoints all the time.  

You aren't contextualizing or discussing anything you post.  

I am contextualizing COVID by providing varying perspectives about it.

How much I discuss it is not really that significant.  I'm not an expert in healthcare.

Again, lawyers do this all the time.  My job in, say, writing a motion for summary judgment is to organize and present the facts and the legal authorities that should be used when reviewing those facts.  My personal opinion is a very minor part of the equation.

Again, why don't you just skip over my posts?  Why are you so fixated on personalizing this thread?  It's not about me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pogi, I've reported you to the mods.  And I'm asking that you stop responding to my posts.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have reported you too.  You keep making political dumps with highly-inflammatory links after Calm has asked you not too.  You are not participating in discussion and debate, but rather you are hiding behind links without context.  I feel like I have a lot to offer this thread, but you keep distracting it with political headlines.   If I want to see political headlines I will check the news.  This is not the place for it.  This is a place for discussion and debate.   

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have reported you too.  You keep making political dumps with highly-inflammatory links after Calm has asked you not too. 

Bull.

Moreover, Calm has previously asked that I modify my contributions, and I have.  She started this thread.  She gets to determine its scope.

It sounds like you are trying to shout me down.

Quote

You are not participating in discussion and debate, but rather you are hiding behind links without context. 

I am participating by providing links that are relevant to COVID.

I am contexualizing COVID by providing links to articles that have varying viewpoints and emphases on it.  And, per Calm's request, I am not quoting any of the "politics" in these links, and I have asked that others refrain from doing so.

• Here: "The article has some political commentary (which is hard to avoid these days, as COVID has become extremely politicized).  Per Calm's request, I am only quoting non-political elements of the article, and ask that any responses be restricted to those elements."  (Calm responded: "Thanks, Smac.  Appreciate that.")
• Here: "From The Federalist (there is some political content in here, but please don't discuss it in this thread)..."

I would really like to participate in ways other than fending off your constant effort to personalize this thread by talking about me rather than about COVID.

Quote

I feel like I have a lot to offer this thread, but you keep distracting it with political headlines.  

Then by all means, put me on "ignore."  Quit trying to censor me.

-Smac

Edited July 14, 2020 by smac97