This Is Why Fauci Isn't President and Why He Doesn't Make The Decisions

[Bralowe]

But he's out there blabbing to CNN/MSNBC on the daily

This does expose his obvious political agenda

[duenor]

But he's out there blabbing to CNN/MSNBC on the daily

Any governmental epidemiologist like Fauci has a specific purpose in a pandemic - to study a disease and report the nature and risk of that disease - and epidemiologists are simply one source of input to decision makers and to the people of the United States, for whom they serve

[larkja]

What we really need to be focusing on is the death rate. I would think we would want people to catch the virus so we build up an immunity and this thing goes away. The more we shelter, the more "waves" we're going to have. What we don't want is for people to die from it.

It seems as if the therapeutics to combat the virus are much better now, which means that 99.4% survival rate is actually higher now than in the beginning.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

You are arguing the differences between AUS and USA. I don't dispute that they are different, but that isn't the point I was making. You post suggests disbelief regarding Fauci's assertion that the US is still in its first wave of COVID19. The graphs depict the difference between a nation (ours) which has been unable to suppress its first wave and thus remains in it, and one which did suppress the first wave (AUS). I could have chosen a number of other similar countries - UK, France, Italy, etc. Alternatively, I could have chosen a nation like Brazil, which like the US remains in its first wave.

As I said, this is what happens when you parse out a tiny piece of something, then entirely ignore the context.

Where in the OP did I dispute Fauci's assertion that the US is still in its first wave? In fact, I added the portion where another infectious disease physician "echoed Fauci's declaration of an elongated first wave."

My argument is exactly what I said; i.e., that Fauci is incapable of nuance or, more accurately, incapable of seeing the U.S. as anything but a single entity, with little, if any, differences based on region, population, etc. Thus, his 'answers' are almost universally one-size-fits-all, blanket options which cannot be implemented or implemented meaningfully on a national basis and are not necessarily relevant to individual regions within the country. This has been part of the tension between he and Trump from the beginning. As you say...

Any governmental epidemiologist like Fauci has a specific purpose in a pandemic - to study a disease and report the nature and risk of that disease...

Their duty to 'report' is not so much to We the People, but to those who make the decisions. What duty they have to report to We the People is factual, not speculative; something we've already extensively discussed.

...and epidemiologists are simply one source of input to decision makers and to the people of the United States, for whom they serve

Instead, Fauci has been consistently presenting speculation or as he phrases it, his opinion. The problem is, his opinion is just that... his opinion and it is, as you note, ONE piece of input. Worse. His 'opinion' is almost always couched in criticism that "they" (whomever "they" are at that moment) aren't adhering to his opinion on how things should be done. Just like here...

So... He's out 'suggesting' that Trump isn't doing his job, despite the fact that meeting with and following Fauci's input specifically isn't necessarily his job. In fact, Trump is actually doing exactly his job; i.e., not necessarily meeting with the 'experts' himself, but allowing his selected group to meet with them, then sift through and communicate the necessary information to him. Did he say, outright, that Trump wasn't doing his job? No. But, as I've now noted with you, context is important and the context of Fauci's statement is quite clear, doesn't have to be parsed or 'read into,' and doesn't need much by way of 'interpretation;' i.e., the underlying 'message' being that Trump is not meeting with me or heeding me specifically, thus he's out-of-touch with what you term "the nature and risk of that disease."

Unsurprisingly, that's been your underlying message as well throughout the threads; i.e., that the Government (and Trump specifically) should have done X, Y, and Z to be 'correctly' handling things. The problem is that, as you correctly indicate, Fauci is just one source of input and many other experts (e.g., 'sources of input') disagree with him. A major part of that disagreement stems from exactly what I indicated in the OP... Fauci views the U.S. as a single entity rather than a grouping of unique regions. The problem is those unique attributes, in many ways, negate many of the 'advantages' of the approach he advocates, not to mention hindering the ability to implement such an approach.

The 'criticism' I have in his arguing that it's 'semantics' to say it's still the first wave vs. a second or third wave is in what I quoted from the second physician in the article. While she was also looking nationwide, the reality is that you have to recognize: "" For those hung up on a 'national view,' that means that some states may, in fact, be in their second or third wave, even if the 'national view' doesn't necessarily indicate such given that you've thrown every region and the entirety of the population into a single pot. As I put it in the OP...

At least she acknowledges that each region (at least if you view a "State" as a region) is unique and the overall numbers don't necessarily reflect that uniqueness. It's also critical to note that she's acknowledging, intentionally or not, that the blanket policies (and pronouncements) being pushed appear to be based on something other than actual science.

You then throw out comparison graphs between countries... countries which are uniquely different from each other and don't necessarily represent valid similarities, just in terms of the diversity involved from a population dispersion/density aspect, let alone the cultural/social/economic differences. As a result, any such graphs are of limited value and utility in terms of providing insight into dealing with the virus in THIS country, a country which, in many ways which matter, is decidedly unique; something you acknowledge while calling for upending the entire economy to producing nothing but... and universal mask wearing (while noting that not everyone is going to comply, negating the impact of mask wearing) and criticizing Trump for not 'listening' or doing what YOU think is best.

Put another way, you are, once again, parsing and deflecting to argue a strawman. As I said to you, several months ago, rather than parsing out a single piece of it, read the entirety and try to absorb it. I know you 'lionize' Fauci and take it as a personal affront any time the least criticism is levied against him. But, Fauci has a series of issues which has progressively put him in a position where he is becoming useless as both the spokesman and "the" person to be deferred to regarding this disease. It's also why Fauci is not the decision-maker, Trump is; i.e., one has to have a much broader and nuanced view than Fauci has repeatedly demonstrated he's capable of achieving.

[Scota4570]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/faq-surveillance.html

"Case" means little. Read the link. It has a lot of answers to things we argue about here. Pay particular attention to how a "case is defined". It is ridiculious.

Per the CDC themselves:

"Why are we seeing a rise in cases?"

The rise in the number of COVID-19 cases reflects the rapid community spread of COVID-19 in many U.S. states, territories and communities. Community spread means people have been infected with the virus in an area, including some who are not sure how or where they became infected. Also, the number of cases of COVID-19 being reported in the United States is rising due to increased laboratory testing and reporting across the country.

The only part of that that actually means anything is "due to increased laboratory testing".

[sd_shooter]

If I'm reading the referenced PDF file correctly, per section A1 all it takes for a covid positive diagnosis: Patient tells doctor on a zoom call that they have a cough. Or, they can have a headache _and_ sore throat, that's also 'covid.'

Sounds rather cold-like

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...veillance.html

"Case" means little. Read the link. It has a lot of answers to things we argue about here. Pay particular attention to how a "case is defined". It is ridiculious.

Per the CDC themselves:

"Why are we seeing a rise in cases?"

The rise in the number of COVID-19 cases reflects the rapid community spread of COVID-19 in many U.S. states, territories and communities. Community spread means people have been infected with the virus in an area, including some who are not sure how or where they became infected. Also, the number of cases of COVID-19 being reported in the United States is rising due to increased laboratory testing and reporting across the country.

The only part of that that actually means anything is "due to increased laboratory testing".

[Scota4570]

Yes!

According to the CDC criteria a hangover could be counted as a covid case. Having a headache and myalgia (muscle soreness) meets the criterial, so, a hangover meets the clinical cor a covid case.

"At least two of the following symptoms: fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s)"