dermdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

We should have ended "restrictions" last year. That in no way is proof of claiming "covid is over"

---

I guess that depends on what you mean by "over". In some respects it will never be "over" unless we eradicate the virus and that is an improbable outcome. The more reasonable interpretation of the phrase "covid is over" is a view where the perceived threat is low enough (for instance, equal to the threat of the seasonal flu) that governments will end all their restrictions.

---

So have you compared results of strict distancing and mask states with lax distancing and mask states?

Thanks

---

IMHO that would be an off topic debate about the effectiveness of various types of restrictions.

---

Okay. So if you believe that, how can you logically come to the conclusion that I said Covid was over simply because I believed that masks and social distancing did not help that much so it was time to relax government regs.

How, using logic, does that become "Covid is over"?

That is an almost surreal jump to a conclusion, would you agree?

---

dermdoc said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

"
Allegation 2: at least 3 different times in 2Q/3Q 2020 stated "covid is over"

The second link implies that you had some support for the idea of ending COVID prevention restrictions in September 2020.

Pretty far short? No. I would say they are close to the mark."

Yes, you did. Own it.

---

Yep.

---

dermdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

"
Allegation 2: at least 3 different times in 2Q/3Q 2020 stated "covid is over"

The second link implies that you had some support for the idea of ending COVID prevention restrictions in September 2020.

Pretty far short? No. I would say they are close to the mark."

Yes, you did. Own it.

---

Yep.

---

If you honestly believe that (and I'm really not sure how you came to that conclusion) then you should read the letter you linked in your other OP. It goes far beyond simply questioning the effectiveness of masks and social distancing.

---

Please point out where anywhere in that letter that states or even implies "COVID is over.

You are coming to an unstated conclusion based on your biases.

Thanks.

---

dermdoc said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

We should have ended "restrictions" last year. That in no way is proof of claiming "covid is over"

---

I guess that depends on what you mean by "over". In some respects it will never be "over" unless we eradicate the virus and that is an improbable outcome. The more reasonable interpretation of the phrase "covid is over" is a view where the perceived threat is low enough (for instance, equal to the threat of the seasonal flu) that governments will end all their restrictions.

---

So have you compared results of strict distancing and mask states with lax distancing and mask states?

Thanks

---

IMHO that would be an off topic debate about the effectiveness of various types of restrictions.

---

Maybe when folks said "Covid is over" what they meant was "Covid is over as a public health emergency" or even "it's clear that we overreacted and we need to quit acting like this is a plague."

Covid, with regards to lockdowns and mandates, should have been over last summer (never should have started but that's a different discussion).

You cannot unlink Covid from the response to Covid.

---

Respectfully disagree.

COVID is a disease and to say it "is over" as a doc means it has been eradicated which it has not. And I might add is far from what these fine docs were saying.

They were saying the government measures were doing little and may actually be harmful.

Would you keep taking a medicine if it wasn't doing any good? And might be more harm than good?

Just to "feel better" by "doing something"?

People do not like truth when it shows that they or the government have no control over a disease.

---

waitwhat? said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

We should have ended "restrictions" last year. That in no way is proof of claiming "covid is over"

---

I guess that depends on what you mean by "over". In some respects it will never be "over" unless we eradicate the virus and that is an improbable outcome. The more reasonable interpretation of the phrase "covid is over" is a view where the perceived threat is low enough (for instance, equal to the threat of the seasonal flu) that governments will end all their restrictions.

---

So have you compared results of strict distancing and mask states with lax distancing and mask states?

Thanks

---

IMHO that would be an off topic debate about the effectiveness of various types of restrictions.

---

Maybe when folks said "Covid is over" what they meant was "Covid is over as a public health emergency" or even "it's clear that we overreacted and we need to quit acting like this is a plague."

Covid, with regards to lockdowns and mandates, should have been over last summer (never should have started but that's a different discussion).

You cannot unlink Covid from the response to Covid.

---

Respectfully disagree.

COVID is a disease and to say it "is over" as a doc means it has been eradicated which it has not. And I might add is far from what these fine docs were saying.

They were saying the government measures were doing little and may actually be harmful.

Would you keep taking a medicine if it wasn't doing any good? And might be more harm than good?

Just to "feel better" by "doing something"?

People do not like truth when it shows that they or the government have no control over a disease.

---

Fair enough. I'm not a doctor and don't hold that view. I mean that most of us non-doctors view life as pre-Covid, Covid, and post-Covid, but aren't referring to the disease itself, rather the response to it.

I think our disagreement is mostly semantics.

---

waitwhat? said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

We should have ended "restrictions" last year. That in no way is proof of claiming "covid is over"

---

I guess that depends on what you mean by "over". In some respects it will never be "over" unless we eradicate the virus and that is an improbable outcome. The more reasonable interpretation of the phrase "covid is over" is a view where the perceived threat is low enough (for instance, equal to the threat of the seasonal flu) that governments will end all their restrictions.

---

So have you compared results of strict distancing and mask states with lax distancing and mask states?

Thanks

---

IMHO that would be an off topic debate about the effectiveness of various types of restrictions.

---

Maybe when folks said "Covid is over" what they meant was "Covid is over as a public health emergency" or even "it's clear that we overreacted and we need to quit acting like this is a plague."

Covid, with regards to lockdowns and mandates, should have been over last summer (never should have started but that's a different discussion).

You cannot unlink Covid from the response to Covid.

---

Respectfully disagree.

COVID is a disease and to say it "is over" as a doc means it has been eradicated which it has not. And I might add is far from what these fine docs were saying.

They were saying the government measures were doing little and may actually be harmful.

Would you keep taking a medicine if it wasn't doing any good? And might be more harm than good?

Just to "feel better" by "doing something"?

People do not like truth when it shows that they or the government have no control over a disease.

---

Fair enough. I'm not a doctor and don't hold that view. I mean that most of us non-doctors view life as pre-Covid, Covid, and post-Covid, but aren't referring to the disease itself, rather the response to it.

I think our disagreement is mostly semantics.

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

We should have ended "restrictions" last year. That in no way is proof of claiming "covid is over"

---

I guess that depends on what you mean by "over". In some respects it will never be "over" unless we eradicate the virus and that is an improbable outcome. The more reasonable interpretation of the phrase "covid is over" is a view where the perceived threat is low enough (for instance, equal to the threat of the seasonal flu) that governments will end all their restrictions.

---

So have you compared results of strict distancing and mask states with lax distancing and mask states?

Thanks

---

IMHO that would be an off topic debate about the effectiveness of various types of restrictions.

---

Maybe when folks said "Covid is over" what they meant was "Covid is over as a public health emergency" or even "it's clear that we overreacted and we need to quit acting like this is a plague."

Covid, with regards to lockdowns and mandates, should have been over last summer (never should have started but that's a different discussion).

You cannot unlink Covid from the response to Covid.

---

Respectfully disagree.

COVID is a disease and to say it "is over" as a doc means it has been eradicated which it has not. And I might add is far from what these fine docs were saying.

They were saying the government measures were doing little and may actually be harmful.

Would you keep taking a medicine if it wasn't doing any good? And might be more harm than good?

Just to "feel better" by "doing something"?

People do not like truth when it shows that they or the government have no control over a disease.

---

Fair enough. I'm not a doctor and don't hold that view. I mean that most of us non-doctors view life as pre-Covid, Covid, and post-Covid, but aren't referring to the disease itself, rather the response to it.

I think our disagreement is mostly semantics.

---

I think the person that authored the accusations believes the same but away we go down the illogical path.

---

dermdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

We should have ended "restrictions" last year. That in no way is proof of claiming "covid is over"

---

I guess that depends on what you mean by "over". In some respects it will never be "over" unless we eradicate the virus and that is an improbable outcome. The more reasonable interpretation of the phrase "covid is over" is a view where the perceived threat is low enough (for instance, equal to the threat of the seasonal flu) that governments will end all their restrictions.

---

So have you compared results of strict distancing and mask states with lax distancing and mask states?

Thanks

---

IMHO that would be an off topic debate about the effectiveness of various types of restrictions.

---

Maybe when folks said "Covid is over" what they meant was "Covid is over as a public health emergency" or even "it's clear that we overreacted and we need to quit acting like this is a plague."

Covid, with regards to lockdowns and mandates, should have been over last summer (never should have started but that's a different discussion).

You cannot unlink Covid from the response to Covid.

---

Respectfully disagree.

COVID is a disease and to say it "is over" as a doc means it has been eradicated which it has not. And I might add is far from what these fine docs were saying.

They were saying the government measures were doing little and may actually be harmful.

Would you keep taking a medicine if it wasn't doing any good? And might be more harm than good?

Just to "feel better" by "doing something"?

People do not like truth when it shows that they or the government have no control over a disease.

---

Fair enough. I'm not a doctor and don't hold that view. I mean that most of us non-doctors view life as pre-Covid, Covid, and post-Covid, but aren't referring to the disease itself, rather the response to it.

I think our disagreement is mostly semantics.

---

I think the person that authored the accusations believes the same but away we go down the illogical path.

---

Fair enough. But why make the accusations then?

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

We should have ended "restrictions" last year. That in no way is proof of claiming "covid is over"

---

I guess that depends on what you mean by "over". In some respects it will never be "over" unless we eradicate the virus and that is an improbable outcome. The more reasonable interpretation of the phrase "covid is over" is a view where the perceived threat is low enough (for instance, equal to the threat of the seasonal flu) that governments will end all their restrictions.

---

So have you compared results of strict distancing and mask states with lax distancing and mask states?

Thanks

---

IMHO that would be an off topic debate about the effectiveness of various types of restrictions.

---

Maybe when folks said "Covid is over" what they meant was "Covid is over as a public health emergency" or even "it's clear that we overreacted and we need to quit acting like this is a plague."

Covid, with regards to lockdowns and mandates, should have been over last summer (never should have started but that's a different discussion).

You cannot unlink Covid from the response to Covid.

---

Respectfully disagree.

COVID is a disease and to say it "is over" as a doc means it has been eradicated which it has not. And I might add is far from what these fine docs were saying.

They were saying the government measures were doing little and may actually be harmful.

Would you keep taking a medicine if it wasn't doing any good? And might be more harm than good?

Just to "feel better" by "doing something"?

People do not like truth when it shows that they or the government have no control over a disease.

---

Fair enough. I'm not a doctor and don't hold that view. I mean that most of us non-doctors view life as pre-Covid, Covid, and post-Covid, but aren't referring to the disease itself, rather the response to it.

I think our disagreement is mostly semantics.

---

I think the person that authored the accusations believes the same but away we go down the illogical path.

---

Fair enough. But why make the accusations then?

---

I didn't make the accusation but think, based on my interpretation of the author's intent and your posting history, it is a reasonable accusation.

---

Quote:

---

I believe I said that American hospitals would not be over run. And we would not not run out of vents. And that the death count would be between 50k-100k(still way too many), mortality rate would be between 0.3% and 0.5%, correct? And those quotes can be pulled up unlike your baseless accusations. Please correct me if I am wrong.

---

dermdoc said:

---

And I am guilty of the same.

But let's just be honest here.

I never posted anything I was accused of.

Everything is projected from a letter where I merely said it was a letter worth reading.

The accusations are about 90% based on "my posting history". And a personal dislike of me.

Sums it up nicely.

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

We should have ended "restrictions" last year. That in no way is proof of claiming "covid is over"

---

How do you reason with views like this?

It is completely illogical.

---

A 20 second forum search:

[img]https://ibb.co/kxZQtbQ][/img]


[img]https://ibb.co/LNzV03z][/img]

This is usually the part after bringing up the Aggie Code of Honor (or like last time when I said not all men's basketball season ticket holders were paying full listed seat donation and you demanded an apology for such slanderous statements... before you realized whoops you were wrong) that you crawfish with something like "agree to disagree".

It's kind of your schtick.

---