3 ms·

It seems that the policies of maintaining a 6-foot distance and masking for children were not based on scientific data. Please correct me if I am misinterpretin

It seems that the policies of maintaining a 6-foot distance and masking for children were not based on scientific data. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting this testimony.

b0sk 2y ago
Given that there were absolutely no widespread studies at that point, they had to go on priors. And the 6 ft guidelines was based on the belief that if COVID spread mainly through droplets (which was the most likely theory at that point). The children aspect was again based on limited information available at that point. With all the data now, we see that COVID affected older and less healthier population. They had no idea at that point, conclusively so always erred on the side of caution. All this house investigation is a Republican witch-hunt.
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  > With all the data now, we see that COVID affected older and less healthier population. That was always going to be the case. Less old and healthy people were carriers.
- Jimmc414 2y ago
  This is not a political topic. We have a right to have questions answered about a significant event.
  - nevermore24 2y ago
    As long as you're asking those questions in good faith, sure.
    - TMWNN 2y ago
      Whether a question is valid and worthy of exploration has nothing to do with whether the listener deems the intention behind it to be "correct". The preposterous notion that certain questions are part of a sinister "'Just asking questions' rhetorical device" and must be ignored long ago became, like "dogwhistle", the first resort of those that don't want the statement/question dealt with at all.
  - stahtops 2y ago
    [flagged]
- b0sk 2y ago
  And what the general population doesn't get about public health officials is they are only concerned with "how to save lives", "how to stop the spread" and "how to not overwhelm the health system". Given the choice of widespread admittance of children to hospitals vs inconveniencing them with masks, they'd always choose the latter option. With the benefit of hindsight, there are always things to blame but this investigation is a hackjob.
- coding123 2y ago
  Yes yes don't ask questions. It's not gain of function it's mess with function or whatever Fauci barfs up for the day.
- someuser2345 2y ago
  He should not be punished for the 6ft guidelines or the mask mandates (I agree that it's better to be safe than sorry). However, Fauci did promote the idea that the lab leak theory was a racist conspiracy theory, and he denied that the NIH was funding gain of function research in China.
philipwhiuk 2y ago
There are plenty of studies that provide evidence that distance reduces the spread of COVID-like diseases. There is not '6 feet is safe, 5 feet is not' because it is about probabilistic particle movement in air.
gnicholas 2y ago
The 6-foot distance was revealed as a fiction several years ago. [1] The rules for child masking in other countries demonstrates fairly well that there was not a strong scientific basis. 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-s...
- b0sk 2y ago
  The article doesn't conflict with what I stated. It's a probabilistic estimate based on the prior that COVID spread like flu. The further you go the less your chances of catching. Because you can't convey probability effectively to public (you confuse them), you convey an arbitrary number.
stahtops 2y ago
Just curious, if you had to estimate- about how many decisions do you make each day where you reference a scientific study? The primary takeaway from this transcript is that republicans decided to waste another 14 hours of Fauci’s time.
- gnicholas 2y ago
  People are free to make their own decisions on the basis of unscientific thinking. The issue is when decisions are made for you, and you’re told there is a scientific basis, and there isn’t.
  - stahtops 2y ago
    So 4 years later you’re going to tell me that you believe we would have reduced covid infections by gathering closely together indoors with no masks?
    - gnicholas 2y ago
      Terrific false dichotomy — bravo. The post I was responding to was critiquing the prior post on the grounds that people make decisions without a scientific basis all the time. My point was that people are free to make these decisions, but that governmental mandates should be held to a higher standard. I of course would not have said that we could have reduced covid infections by following the steps you suggest. But governmental mandates need to take into account both sides of the ledger. If having kids in school could have prevented massive learning loss and not resulted in significant additional deaths/hospitalizations, then that's something worth considering.
      - stahtops 2y ago
        Ok so you admit that social distancing and masks help reduce the spread of covid-19. That’s great to hear. What do you and Jim expect to learn from a scientific study? That 12 feet is better than 6 feet? I’d like to hear from each of you what you hope to learn, and why you think it would have been worth intentionally infecting people with covid-19, as that’s what would be required for a conclusive scientific study.
burkaman 2y ago
I don't think you're misinterpreting the testimony but I do think you're drawing too strong of a conclusion. The fact that one official couldn't remember a scientific basis during a 14 hour interview doesn't mean there wasn't one.
veidr 2y ago
You are. When there's an active pandemic killing thousands (would become a million, just in this (outlier bad at responding to it) country), "science" doesn't require having a peer-reviewed ten-year old study that has been published in Nature and survived challenges. In such circumstances, just being familiar with the latest related science, and the fundamental concept of science, qualifies you to take your best (informed) guess. Making kids wear masks made sense in absence of data that showed it wasn't effective, because it's been so effective with other, similarly airborne-transmissible diseases. > The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation forced on Americans by federal health officials was arbitrary and not based on science. Again, "we could wait to conduct studies whether 4 feet is good enough, or 9 feet is required; or we could take our best shot since thousands of people are dying each day", and base our decisions on scientific data previously collected, in extremely similar pandemic/transmissible-disease contexts, even if it might imperfectly match the present scenario.
- insickness 2y ago
  This is a slippery slope. These policies had a vast affect on the lives of millions of people. Business were shut down. Schools were closed. People were instructed to stay in their homes for years. Simply saying, "Well, we made our best guess," is absolutely not acceptable. When the government curbs human rights, they have an obligation to weigh and justify the costs with scientific evidence.
  - blackbear_ 2y ago
    What is your suggested approach when there is no (reliable) scientific evidence for any course of action and not enough time to gather such (reliable) evidence? Note that not taking any action is also a decision that, in your framework, requires supporting evidence.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      Not taking action doesn't require supporting evidence, and insickness didn't propose a framework in which it does. There is at any moment an infinite number of things you could choose to not be doing. You can't collect evidence for not doing those things, as the amount of evidence required would also be infinite.

It seems that the policies of maintaining a 6-foot distance and masking for children were not based on scientific data. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting this testimony.

b0sk 2y ago

Given that there were absolutely no widespread studies at that point, they had to go on priors. And the 6 ft guidelines was based on the belief that if COVID spread mainly through droplets (which was the most likely theory at that point). The children aspect was again based on limited information available at that point. With all the data now, we see that COVID affected older and less healthier population. They had no idea at that point, conclusively so always erred on the side of caution. All this house investigation is a Republican witch-hunt.

philipwhiuk 2y ago
> With all the data now, we see that COVID affected older and less healthier population. That was always going to be the case. Less old and healthy people were carriers.
Jimmc414 2y ago
This is not a political topic. We have a right to have questions answered about a significant event.
- nevermore24 2y ago
  As long as you're asking those questions in good faith, sure.
  - TMWNN 2y ago
    Whether a question is valid and worthy of exploration has nothing to do with whether the listener deems the intention behind it to be "correct". The preposterous notion that certain questions are part of a sinister "'Just asking questions' rhetorical device" and must be ignored long ago became, like "dogwhistle", the first resort of those that don't want the statement/question dealt with at all.
- stahtops 2y ago
  [flagged]
b0sk 2y ago
And what the general population doesn't get about public health officials is they are only concerned with "how to save lives", "how to stop the spread" and "how to not overwhelm the health system". Given the choice of widespread admittance of children to hospitals vs inconveniencing them with masks, they'd always choose the latter option. With the benefit of hindsight, there are always things to blame but this investigation is a hackjob.
coding123 2y ago
Yes yes don't ask questions. It's not gain of function it's mess with function or whatever Fauci barfs up for the day.
someuser2345 2y ago
He should not be punished for the 6ft guidelines or the mask mandates (I agree that it's better to be safe than sorry). However, Fauci did promote the idea that the lab leak theory was a racist conspiracy theory, and he denied that the NIH was funding gain of function research in China.

philipwhiuk 2y ago

There are plenty of studies that provide evidence that distance reduces the spread of COVID-like diseases. There is not '6 feet is safe, 5 feet is not' because it is about probabilistic particle movement in air.

gnicholas 2y ago

The 6-foot distance was revealed as a fiction several years ago. [1] The rules for child masking in other countries demonstrates fairly well that there was not a strong scientific basis. 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-s...

b0sk 2y ago
The article doesn't conflict with what I stated. It's a probabilistic estimate based on the prior that COVID spread like flu. The further you go the less your chances of catching. Because you can't convey probability effectively to public (you confuse them), you convey an arbitrary number.

stahtops 2y ago

Just curious, if you had to estimate- about how many decisions do you make each day where you reference a scientific study? The primary takeaway from this transcript is that republicans decided to waste another 14 hours of Fauci’s time.

gnicholas 2y ago
People are free to make their own decisions on the basis of unscientific thinking. The issue is when decisions are made for you, and you’re told there is a scientific basis, and there isn’t.
- stahtops 2y ago
  So 4 years later you’re going to tell me that you believe we would have reduced covid infections by gathering closely together indoors with no masks?
  - gnicholas 2y ago
    Terrific false dichotomy — bravo. The post I was responding to was critiquing the prior post on the grounds that people make decisions without a scientific basis all the time. My point was that people are free to make these decisions, but that governmental mandates should be held to a higher standard. I of course would not have said that we could have reduced covid infections by following the steps you suggest. But governmental mandates need to take into account both sides of the ledger. If having kids in school could have prevented massive learning loss and not resulted in significant additional deaths/hospitalizations, then that's something worth considering.
    - stahtops 2y ago
      Ok so you admit that social distancing and masks help reduce the spread of covid-19. That’s great to hear. What do you and Jim expect to learn from a scientific study? That 12 feet is better than 6 feet? I’d like to hear from each of you what you hope to learn, and why you think it would have been worth intentionally infecting people with covid-19, as that’s what would be required for a conclusive scientific study.

burkaman 2y ago

I don't think you're misinterpreting the testimony but I do think you're drawing too strong of a conclusion. The fact that one official couldn't remember a scientific basis during a 14 hour interview doesn't mean there wasn't one.

veidr 2y ago

You are. When there's an active pandemic killing thousands (would become a million, just in this (outlier bad at responding to it) country), "science" doesn't require having a peer-reviewed ten-year old study that has been published in Nature and survived challenges. In such circumstances, just being familiar with the latest related science, and the fundamental concept of science, qualifies you to take your best (informed) guess. Making kids wear masks made sense in absence of data that showed it wasn't effective, because it's been so effective with other, similarly airborne-transmissible diseases. > The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation forced on Americans by federal health officials was arbitrary and not based on science. Again, "we could wait to conduct studies whether 4 feet is good enough, or 9 feet is required; or we could take our best shot since thousands of people are dying each day", and base our decisions on scientific data previously collected, in extremely similar pandemic/transmissible-disease contexts, even if it might imperfectly match the present scenario.

insickness 2y ago
This is a slippery slope. These policies had a vast affect on the lives of millions of people. Business were shut down. Schools were closed. People were instructed to stay in their homes for years. Simply saying, "Well, we made our best guess," is absolutely not acceptable. When the government curbs human rights, they have an obligation to weigh and justify the costs with scientific evidence.
- blackbear_ 2y ago
  What is your suggested approach when there is no (reliable) scientific evidence for any course of action and not enough time to gather such (reliable) evidence? Note that not taking any action is also a decision that, in your framework, requires supporting evidence.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Not taking action doesn't require supporting evidence, and insickness didn't propose a framework in which it does. There is at any moment an infinite number of things you could choose to not be doing. You can't collect evidence for not doing those things, as the amount of evidence required would also be infinite.