Speyside2 wrote:Bucky, much of the early science was all we had. For instance when science supported droplets as the only airborne way to catch it masks made sense. Mandating was an absolute contradiction with our rights. When we learned areosol was the primary form of transmission the masking made no sense. It was logical to say a new vaccine was a solution.. Once it was clear we knew that the primary danger was from whole body inflammation and congestion there was a very valid treatment that was never discussed, using antiflamitores and decongestants. For instance the lungs are not damaged by the virus itself, rather inflamed capillaries in the lungs bursting.
My point is this, science when done properly is amazing. When science is weaponized for political gain, or net profit gain is pure evil. Also, using those here I consider inaccurate, as I am one of those.
I agree, you can only go on the data you have at the time. With that said, many conclusions based on early data were taken and presented as fact and scripture. Every Tom, D!ck and Harry were doing experiments and writing papers and got their 5 minutes of fame on places like the Today Show. As with many studies, the results are only valid within the boundaries and conditions in which the study was done. In the researchers defense they do use qualifiers like "it can be shown that..." and "based on the conditions used in the study we found signs of..." and "
XYZ has been detected..." and so on.
These qualifiers are not digested by the general public. What they hear is what MSM and glamor experts and politicians present as truth and gospel.
For example, read this
https://www.houstonmethodist.org/blog/articles/2020/mar/how-long-can-coronavirus-survive-on-surfaces/ What hits the news wire is this:
"
The new coronavirus seems to be able to survive the longest on plastic and stainless steel — potentially as long as three days on these surfaces. It can also live on cardboard for up to 24 hours.This is what people hear and the fear has been seeded.
What ends up on the cutting room floor is this:
"But while surface-to-person transmission of the new coronavirus is definitely possible, the likelihood sharply reduces with time. The same laboratory study also found that the virus degrades relatively rapidly on surfaces — as quickly as just a few hours in some cases. In fact, at the end of the three-day mark, less than 0.1% of the starting virus material could be detected on plastic."Let's look at a Today Show article
https://www.today.com/health/how-long-does-coronavirus-live-surfaces-how-disinfect-kill-viruses-t175738Excerpt:
How long does coronavirus live on surfaces?
Coronaviruses found on surfaces and objects "naturally die within hours to days," with warmer temperatures and exposure to sunlight reducing that time, according to the CDC.
But in the fall of 2020, Australian researchers reported the virus that causes COVID-19 can survive on paper money, glass and stainless steel for up to four weeks, much longer than the flu virus.
At about room temperature, the study found the virus "was extremely robust, surviving for 28 days on smooth surfaces such as glass found on mobile phone screens and plastic banknotes."
The research involved drying virus in "artificial mucus" on different surfaces and at concentrations similar to those reported in samples from infected patients. The experiments were done in the dark to remove the effect of ultraviolet light, which can quickly inactivate the virus.Which part of this presentation do you think the common person's ears perk up log in their memory banks, and freak out about? The part that COVID can (there's that qualifier again) survive on... and was "extremely robust for 28 days on surfaces such as glass found on mobile phones..."
OR the part where the research was done using "artificial mucus" and the experiments were done in the dark to remove the effect of ultraviolet light which can quickly inactivate the virus.
I agree that I'm cherry picking. But the MSM, the "experts", and the politicians cherry pick much more so.
Why put in the part of cell phone contamination as an example? Because that's what the average person can relate to.
The part of using artificial mucus and lack of UV light in the study so as to feed the virus in a laboratory controlled environment and isolate it from a natural real world environment. Those critical points of the study/experiment is not digested by the average Joe and Jane watching the Today Show.
Again, I get it. To do real research, you have to be able to control the conditions (variables) where you can, collect results. Adjust the conditions, collect results... and so on.
One of my major issues with this topic is the findings on preliminary studies have been stated as facts. As new findings come with more time and research, the "experts" and politicians were still oubling down. However, lately they've been slowly moving into another direction to back off a bit. Not because of science but because election time in on the horizon.
