"CDC Gives Limited Freedoms To Fully Vaccinated"

outside shooter

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Oct 23, 2001
19,570
7,047
113
All CDC guidance is with approval of the Democratic Party officials.

Hilarious, after a 4 year period where no government scientist could talk to the press without a POTUS seal of approval, and every publication from every department was edited to remove any reference to climate change.

Now, turn on your TV and there they are, scientists, no longer being prepped megaphones for a micromanaging dictator-wannabe.
 

Courtsensetwo

Hall of Famer
Oct 16, 2004
25,902
11,705
113
Hilarious, after a 4 year period where no government scientist could talk to the press without a POTUS seal of approval, and every publication from every department was edited to remove any reference to climate change.

Now, turn on your TV and there they are, scientists, no longer being prepped megaphones for a micromanaging dictator-wannabe.

Yabutt
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmac76

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
47,298
19,882
113
Duckburg
Just like your posts are always trying to throw crap at dems and try to create scandals where there are none to be found.

You have no room to talk when it comes to being partisan.

"whatabout" and "partisan" are different

one requires a bare minimum of intellect

the other is proof of lack thereof
 
  • Like
Reactions: jet812

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
Hilarious, after a 4 year period where no government scientist could talk to the press without a POTUS seal of approval, and every publication from every department was edited to remove any reference to climate change.

Now, turn on your TV and there they are, scientists, no longer being prepped megaphones for a micromanaging dictator-wannabe.
Lmao “scientists” with labs shutdown due to negligence; tests that were never operational; data that’s still worthless to this day; software for vaccine rollout states refuse to use. Yeah. Scientists....

Where are the hearings on this outfit’s endless blunders?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier

bawlmer

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2010
5,881
4,225
113
Actually just the opposite. Covid relief is “tucked away” into a Democratic spending wish list. There is no democratic process at work with this bill.
Which brings me back to my original point, we have the Congress we deserve. Americans like getting stuff without paying for it especially when it comes to government. It will take leadership like we haven't seen in quite a while to get us back to change that. And there's no guarantee that will happen.
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
No, it was a specific and appropriate response to a specific claim that scientist's are under control and guidance of the democratic party.

Why do I bother, though? Does one really hope to change flat Earth believers?
there is nothing more flat earther than you defending the cdc. anyone with any sense should take everything coming out of the cdc with skeptism. scientists bwahahahahah. there should be hearings, but instead they'll likely be budget increases for cdc and total disregard for the agency's ineptitude.

1. mask messaging was a total joke.
2. 2 out of 3 atlanta labs that created covid test kits violated their own manufacturing standards resulting in the agency sending out tests that didn't work.
3. cdc didn't have procedures/data necessary to track covid at the advent so no tracing
4. cdc misrepresented covid test data lumping together tests for active and recovered
5. cdc still doesn't have clear data on cases or deaths
6. cdc and schools reopening has been a joke
7. states are refusing to use the cdc's VAMS so literally from start to finish the cdc has F'd up it's covid response.

scientists....
 
Last edited:

outside shooter

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Oct 23, 2001
19,570
7,047
113
links to me "defending" the CDC, please?

I pointed out what their job is, to offer guidance, rather than the ridiculous notion that they are there to parse out freedoms.

I made no analysis of whether they are well-run or not, spend money wisely or not, could do things better than they do, or not.

If I offered such analysis, I think you'd agree with that analysis.

I have a much higher opinion of the NIH, Fauci, et al., however. I don't think we can make blanket statements about what "scientists" are "all" like, though I would offer up that most, even in academia, are traditionally pretty apolitical.
 

Bulk VanderHuge

All-American
Dec 20, 2017
6,843
8,246
113
The Southern Sun
links to me "defending" the CDC, please?

I pointed out what their job is, to offer guidance, rather than the ridiculous notion that they are there to parse out freedoms.

I made no analysis of whether they are well-run or not, spend money wisely or not, could do things better than they do, or not.

If I offered such analysis, I think you'd agree with that analysis.

I have a much higher opinion of the NIH, Fauci, et al., however. I don't think we can make blanket statements about what "scientists" are "all" like, though I would offer up that most, even in academia, are traditionally pretty apolitical.
I think that we can all agree that the only apolitical party in the whole pandemic journey of 2020 was President Donald Trump.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
tenor.gif
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
links to me "defending" the CDC, please?

I pointed out what their job is, to offer guidance, rather than the ridiculous notion that they are there to parse out freedoms.

I made no analysis of whether they are well-run or not, spend money wisely or not, could do things better than they do, or not.

If I offered such analysis, I think you'd agree with that analysis.

I have a much higher opinion of the NIH, Fauci, et al., however. I don't think we can make blanket statements about what "scientists" are "all" like, though I would offer up that most, even in academia, are traditionally pretty apolitical.
your quote: "The CDC gives recommendations for safe behavior, made on the basis of current science. Period."

if you replaced current with junk we'd agree
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
Not one of your better takes. It's not "junk" science just because you don't like it. It's not even "junk" science just because it might turn out later to be incorrect.
The term "junk science" refers to inaccurate data and the analysis of data that is used to skew opinions or push an agenda. Masks. Schools. Junk science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,479
29,677
113
Margaritaville
The term "junk science" refers to inaccurate data and the analysis of data that is used to skew opinions or push an agenda.
The term "junk science" can be used to refer to a lot of things that pass for actual science, but either way, it's not fair to use the phrase in this context. The CDC makes its recommendations based on actual science, not junk science.

Now, whether or not you think their recommendations are reasonable in light of said science is a different matter. That's really a policy question that people will naturally disagree on. But to throw around the phrase "junk science" is to say that the underlying science itself is somehow fraudulent, and that's baloney.
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
The term "junk science" can be used to refer to a lot of things that pass for actual science, but either way, it's not fair to use the phrase in this context. The CDC makes its recommendations based on actual science, not junk science.

Now, whether or not you think their recommendations are reasonable in light of said science is a different matter. That's really a policy question that people will naturally disagree on. But to throw around the phrase "junk science" is to say that the underlying science itself is somehow fraudulent, and that's baloney.
Disagree. Their recommendations on certain topics were agenda based. Predicated on inaccurate data etc. junk science
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,479
29,677
113
Margaritaville
Disagree. Their recommendations on certain topics were agenda based
Your accusation may or may not be true, but even if it is, my point stands. The process for making recommendations is not science, junk or otherwise, and it is unfair to throw that phrase around. It undermines the legitimacy of actual science, which you shouldn't want to do, even if you disagree with the CDC as to where that science leads us.
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
Your accusation may or may not be true, but even if it is, my point stands. The process for making recommendations is not science, junk or otherwise, and it is unfair to throw that phrase around. It undermines the legitimacy of actual science, which you shouldn't want to do, even if you disagree with the CDC as to where that science leads us.
Then you’re getting into semantics as to the meaning of junk science. If you use the definition I pulled it fits the cdc’s actions in several areas from conflating data, to making politically motivated recommendations.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,479
29,677
113
Margaritaville
Then you’re getting into semantics as to the meaning of junk science. If you use the definition I pulled it fits the cdc’s actions in several areas from conflating data, to making politically motivated recommendations.
It's more than semantics. You need to distinguish between actually doing science and making policy recommendations on the basis of said science. If the underlying science itself is fraudulent, then by all means, call it junk science. But when you use the phrase to attack the policy-making part of the equation, you are dangerously undermining the value of the underlying science itself. Throwing around the "junk science" accusation has real world effects.

Can you provide any examples of the researchers cited by the CDC falsifying data or analysis in order to reach a specific conclusion? If yes, then those specific studies could be called "junk science." If not, then it would be better to drop the phrase, and stick to criticizing the CDC's deliberative process, rather than overbroadly attacking the "science."
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
It's more than semantics. You need to distinguish between actually doing science and making policy recommendations on the basis of said science. If the underlying science itself is fraudulent, then by all means, call it junk science. But when you use the phrase to attack the policy-making part of the equation, you are dangerously undermining the value of the underlying science itself. Throwing around the "junk science" accusation has real world effects.

Can you provide any examples of the researchers cited by the CDC falsifying data or analysis in order to reach a specific conclusion? If yes, then those specific studies could be called "junk science." If not, then it would be better to drop the phrase, and stick to criticizing the CDC's deliberative process, rather than overbroadly attacking the "science."
Again semantics. You are adding fraudulent and falsifying. The term I quoted in the definition is inaccurate. Not fraudulent or falsified.

Dangerous is the list of F ups associated with them
 
Last edited:

bigmac76

All-American
Dec 23, 2003
6,331
307
83
633977_manx1_missing-the-point-gif.gif


Click your heels three times and repeat:

"Not everything is about Donald Trump ... not EVERYthing is about Donald Trump ... NOT everything is about Donald Trump"

Now - look around.

What do you see?

Did you make it back to Kansas?
633977_manx1_missing-the-point-gif.gif


Click your heels three times and repeat:

"Not everything is about Donald Trump ... not EVERYthing is about Donald Trump ... NOT everything is about Donald Trump"

Now - look around.

What do you see?

Did you make it back to Kansas?
Former President Trump's name isn't mentioned in my post?
You mentioned it 3 times in your short reply :)
Reach much?
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,479
29,677
113
Margaritaville
Again semantics. You are adding fraudulent and falsifying. The term I quoted in the definition is inaccurate. Not fraudulent or falsified.

Dangerous is the list of F ups associated with them
Again, more than semantics. I was giving you credit for limiting your definition to inaccurate data and being used to push an agenda. I didn't realize you were including as junk science simply inaccurate data. No one reasonable would use the term in such a way. Data can be inaccurate for a number of reasons, such as faulty equipment, mistakes in measurement or record-keeping, etc., none of which should ever be lumped in with "junk science." When you do lump all these things together, you act to undermine the validity of actual science.
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
Again, more than semantics. I was giving you credit for limiting your definition to inaccurate data and being used to push an agenda. I didn't realize you were including as junk science simply inaccurate data. No one reasonable would use the term in such a way. Data can be inaccurate for a number of reasons, such as faulty equipment, mistakes in measurement or record-keeping, etc., none of which should ever be lumped in with "junk science." When you do lump all these things together, you act to undermine the validity of actual science.
It’s all subject to opinion and again semantics. Hell a perfect example is their testing double masks on mannequins and making a determination based on same as opposed to actual humans. My own dr shared that with me.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,479
29,677
113
Margaritaville
Its not only inaccurate data. It’s faulty methodology resulting in inaccurate data then making all encompassing politically motivated recommendations. It’s all subject to opinion and again semantics. Hell a perfect example is their testing double masks on mannequins and making a determination based on same as opposed to actual humans.
Now you're conflating the research with the policy-making process again. This is the exact thing I am trying to warn about. By using the phrase "junk science" over-broadly, you are confusing many different parts of the process, some of which are entirely unrelated to each other, and dismissing all of them because of perceived faults at one end.

Again, I asked if you could provide any examples of faulty research cited by the CDC. Not the recommendations, but the research itself. Provide some examples of the actual researchers engaging in "faulty methodology resulting in inaccurate data then making all encompassing politically motivated recommendations." Can you?
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
Now you're conflating the research with the policy-making process again. This is the exact thing I am trying to warn about. By using the phrase "junk science" over-broadly, you are confusing many different parts of the process, some of which are entirely unrelated to each other, and dismissing all of them because of perceived faults at one end.

Again, I asked if you could provide any examples of faulty research cited by the CDC. Not the recommendations, but the research itself. Provide some examples of the actual researchers engaging in "faulty methodology resulting in inaccurate data then making all encompassing politically motivated recommendations." Can you?
Again it's semantics re your definition of junk science. you want (require) the scientific process be separated from the policy recommendation. That's not the case: inaccurate data and the analysis of data that is used to push an agenda is junk science.

okay masks. a polarizing political issue. now the cdc endorses double-masking. double masking can block more than 90 percent of viral particles. they based their conclusion by testing two masks on a dummy. okay great so maybe this is true. the results are accurate. on a dummy. so their analysis of this data on a dummy is used to push an agenda: masks. we have no idea what the cdc's results mean when real people wear a double mask in their daily life.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,479
29,677
113
Margaritaville
That's not the case: inaccurate data and the analysis of data that is used to push an agenda is junk science.
okay great so maybe this is true. the results are accurate. on a dummy. so their analysis of this data on a dummy is used to push an agenda: masks.
The example you cite is literally incompatible with the point you think you are making. Yet again, your problem is with the supposed pushing of an agenda, but you are inaccurately extending that criticism to cover the data itself.
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
The example you cite is literally incompatible with the point you think you are making. Yet again, your problem is with the supposed pushing of an agenda, but you are inaccurately extending that criticism to cover the data itself.
[/QUOTE]
"the analysis of data that is used to push an agenda."

Data - double masks used on dummies is more beneficial than single masks on dummies. That in and of itself is fine.

Adding we recommend you wear two masks: agenda. because in truth we have no idea how beneficial it is on humans. analyzing the data to push an agenda.

use plain english. i'm watching an unbelievable champions league game at the moment so don't i don't want to focus too much
 

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
36,674
7,483
113
No, it was a specific and appropriate response to a specific claim that scientist's are under control and guidance of the democratic party.

Why do I bother, though? Does one really hope to change flat Earth believers?

You aren’t getting this. Science in a test tube or in a lab doesn’t mean anything to the population. You have to apply science to the real world. When the CDC director said it’s safe to reopen schools, and then the White House climbed all over her and marginalized her scientific opinion by saying “she was speaking for herself,” Democratic politics (teacher unions for those of you in Rio Linda) took over. We heard Biden say that he will follow the science. Well, we now know that science is subject to political review.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,479
29,677
113
Margaritaville
"the analysis of data that is used to push an agenda."

Data - double masks used on dummies is more beneficial than single masks on dummies. That in and of itself is fine.

Adding we recommend you wear two masks: agenda. because in truth we have no idea how beneficial it is on humans. analyzing the data to push an agenda.

use plain english. i'm watching an unbelievable champions league game at the moment so don't i don't want to focus too much
I thought I was plain. By lumping everything together as "junk science," you are undermining the part that you say "in and of itself is fine." The part you actually have a complaint with isn't even science, junk or otherwise. It's simply the interpretation of science for purposes of policy-making.

What I'm really saying is when you are criticizing bad policy-makers, don't accuse them of doing bad science when they aren't even doing science at all, because by doing so, you inadvertently lower faith in the science itself, which isn't actually at fault.
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
I thought I was plain. By lumping everything together as "junk science," you are undermining the part that you say "in and of itself is fine." The part you actually have a complaint with isn't even science, junk or otherwise. It's simply the interpretation of science for purposes of policy-making.

What I'm really saying is when you are criticizing bad policy-makers, don't accuse them of doing bad science when they aren't even doing science at all, because by doing so, you inadvertently lower faith in the science itself, which isn't actually at fault.
that's where we're engaging in semantics. the interpretation of data to further CERTAIN policy making is junk science. using dummies instead of humans to ensure a result that furthers an agenda is junk science
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,479
29,677
113
Margaritaville
that's where we're engaging in semantics. the interpretation of data to further CERTAIN policy making is junk science. using dummies instead of humans to ensure a result that furthers an agenda is junk science
I have explained multiple times why it's more important than semantics. Do you honestly not understand what I'm saying, or do you simply think it's a stupid point?
 

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
I have explained multiple times why it's more important than semantics. Do you honestly not understand what I'm saying, or do you simply think it's a stupid point?
we're just disconnected. I suspect we disagree as to the meaning of junk science. think when you litigate. whatever industry you're litigating against will have loads of commissioned studies. how rollovers occur for instance. largely junk science from the industry. they analyze data to push an agenda. The cdc has had honest mistakes, negligent mistakes, and engaged in junk science imo to push an agenda. As to the latter how do we know if policy is good when the predicate for same is sullied
 
Last edited:

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
56,479
29,677
113
Margaritaville
we're just disconnected. think when you litigate. whatever industry you're litigating against will have loads of commissioned studies. how rollovers occur for instance. largely junk science from the industry. they analyze data to push an agenda.
No, on that point, we connect. I'm with you there. I'm trying to stress the importance of not conflating bad policy with bad science. Bad policy often comes from good science, but by dismissing it as "junk science," you undermine good science. It's a dangerous habit to get into. So, I'm really not trying to argue semantics here; just trying to offer what I think is an important caution about using a loaded phrase to glibly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66

mcmurtry66

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2019
7,966
5,965
113
No, on that point, we connect. I'm with you there. I'm trying to stress the importance of not conflating bad policy with bad science. Bad policy often comes from good science, but by dismissing it as "junk science," you undermine good science. It's a dangerous habit to get into. So, I'm really not trying to argue semantics here; just trying to offer what I think is an important caution about using a loaded phrase to glibly.
Read my edit.
 
Last edited:

jet812

All-Big Ten
Feb 28, 2008
3,597
2,243
113
It’s all subject to opinion and again semantics. Hell a perfect example is their testing double masks on mannequins and making a determination based on same as opposed to actual humans. My own dr shared that with me.
Yes, but he said no one reasonable, so you must be wrong...🙄
 

Courtsensetwo

Hall of Famer
Oct 16, 2004
25,902
11,705
113
No, it was a specific and appropriate response to a specific claim that scientist's are under control and guidance of the democratic party.

Why do I bother, though? Does one really hope to change flat Earth believers?

The elusive "Hidden Response"

A Yabutt denial that closes with a yabutt.

well played Sir.