Dr. Birx expresses worry over Americans 'parroting' Trump misinformation

The Trumparrots...

Dr. Birx expresses worry over Americans 'parroting' Trump misinformation

Dr. Deborah Birx said she was concerned about the large numbers of Americans who "parrot" incorrect public health claims they have heard from President Donald Trump during an interview on NBC News’ "Meet the Press."

In response to a question about Trump and other administration officials flouting rules and downplaying the threat posed by the virus, Birx, the coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, noted that in her travels around the country she hears "community members parroting back" similar talking points, "parroting back that masks don’t work, parroting back we should work towards herd immunity, parroting back that gatherings don’t result in super-spreading events."

The top infectious disease expert said it is "our job is to constantly say, ‘those are myths.'"

Birx also expressed frustration with Sun Belt leaders for inaction, arguing that "not only do we know what works" but that "governors and mayors used those tools to stem the tide in the spring and the summer,” actions they are now avoiding amid a worse surge of the virus.

Birx’s comments come as the USA enters another brutal wave of the pandemic. While governments and pharmaceutical companies prepare to deploy coronavirus vaccines across the country, more than 2,000 Americans on average are dying each day.

"This is not just the worst public health event, this is the worst event that this country will face," Birx, a career public health bureaucrat who worked as U.S. global AIDS coordinator under President Barack Obama, warned.

Birx also expressed optimism, noting "we know what behaviors will change the spread and we know how to change those behaviors," contending that it is a matter of public resolve in the face of the disease.

"Only we can save us from this current surge. And we know precisely what to do."

– Matthew Brown 

------------        ------------        ------------        ------------        ------------        
------------        ------------        ------------        ------------        ------------   
------------        ------------        ------------        ------------        ------------   

At this stage, the US may well achieve herd immunity - even without a vaccine.

Many people are asymptomatic, meaning they do not even know they have had Covid.
It is estimated that perhaps only 10-20% of Covid cases are even reported.

The US is now over 200,000 "reported" cases per day. 
365 days x 200,000 = 73 million cases in one year.

So if only 20% of cases are reported, the US could achieve herd immunity in less than one year. 
73 million x 5 (reported + unreported cases)  = 365 million cases in one year. (The whole US population). 

By that time everyone would have had Covid, and herd immunity would be achieved (Assuming people did not start getting infected for a second time). Also, new people are born every day, giving the virus new hosts to remain within the herd.   

Saarkie, this might be a wee bit of a beat-up ..... since his overwhelming election defeat he barely mentions the pandemic, concentrating instead on the 'we wuz robbed' rhetoric.

Georgian Goppies are now terrified that he's doing more harm than good & endangering their chances in the Senate runoffs......

You mean the Dr Birx who never had a word to say when Trump was  a possibility for re- election. But now her job is safe she is worried about peoples’ health.

You Lefties have great values.

Well, as the saying goes..."You live by the....."

Have a look at the latest Trump rally in GA.....none of the people sitting behind him social distanced and none were wearing masks......go on tell me they're not the dumbest bunch of people on the planet.

Masks don’t work....the Danish study everybody is ignoring proves that.

Interesting that "everybody" is ignoring the Danish study.

The Danish study who's chief author still concludes that its worth wearing masks...that study?

Yes that study that nobody wanted to publish because it was inconvenient and which is now being explained away ......but the facts are pretty clear:

openhagen, Denmark (November 18, 2020) -- A randomized trial of more than 6,000 participants in Denmark adds new evidence to what is known about whether masks protect the wearer from SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect but others are not wearing masks. The DANMASK-19 trial randomized participants to follow those public health measures with or without an additional recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home. Mask use outside of hospitals was uncommon in Denmark at the time. After 1 month of follow-up, 1.8% of participants in the mask group and 2.1% in the control group developed infection. While the evidence excludes a large personal protective effect of mask wearing, it weakly supports lesser degrees of protection, and cannot definitively exclude no effect. The findings are published in Annals of Internal Medicine. 

Researchers from Copenhagen University Hospital recruited 6,024 adults who spent at least 3 hours per day outside their homes, whose occupations did not require masks, and who did not have a previous known diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomized into the mask group or the control group and those in the mask group were given a supply of surgical masks. All participants completed weekly surveys and antibody tests with PCR testing if COVID-19 symptoms developed, and at 1 month. At the conclusion of the trial, infection rates were similar between the two groups

.....

So Masks don’t protect the wearer. Best argument is they give outward protection.....but that’s a hard argument to make if they don’t prevent particles flowing in when  breathing pressure is lower. 

The point is there NO proper scientific study which proves masks work, the big scientific studies which supposedly were going to prove this have never seen the light of day,...so  what we are left with is anecdotal support of the kind that left the media howling in the case of hcq.  

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/danish-study-doesnt-prove-masks-dont-work-against-the-coronavirus/

Surprise.....he’s googled up somebody who believes in masks. Another fact check....as if calling it a fact check gives it any credence. Grow up sonny.

Although using science to dispute the scientific consensus is ironic.

There will always be a medical or scientific person that will give a response that is so far from the prevailing scientific thought on a topic.  

Forcing kids to inhale their own CO2 for the whole school day is cruel and probably does more harm than good. 

It's not a practical all day solution. I wear mine only if I have to and take it off as soon as I'm away from people. Can't imagine being in a job where I'll have to wear one all day .

Although using science to dispute the scientific consensus is ironic.

There will always be a medical or scientific person that will give a response that is so far from the prevailing scientific thought on a topic. 

He's not using science to dispute the scientific consensus, he's deliberately misrepresenting science to dispute it.

The Danish study is a legit scientific study, it just doesn't prove that Mozart claims it does.

"The real irony is the randomized test finds against masks....but the New Left Wing has no problem switching to anecdotal evidence. "

It didn't find against masks. Go and actually read the study. A typical right winger attempt to try to politicize the science. The evidence for wearing masks is far more than anecdotal.

"Yes spectacles do  cloud up and I worry that all those little virus particles I’d be blowing away are stuck in the mask in an ideal place to infect me."

A tip in life, try not to worry about things for which there is no evidence. Your feelings don't qualify as evidence.

"It would be much more comforting if the science backed up this primitive form of protection."

We all know you won't accept the science no matter how overwhelming it is, if it doesn't confirm to your political views.

"Forcing kids to inhale their own CO2 for the whole school day is cruel and probably does more harm than good. "

There is no evidence to support that.

"It's not a practical all day solution. I wear mine only if I have to and take it off as soon as I'm away from people. Can't imagine being in a job where I'll have to wear one all day."

I'd prefer not have to wear a mask myself when I'm out and about, having my glasses fog up is a pain, but to me its only a minor inconvenience. The complaining about mask wearing is like school kids complaining about wearing ties (OMG, its choking me, I can't breath)...totally exaggerated. By all means if you have a medical reason to not wear a mask, don't wear a mask, otherwise just man up and put it on when its required.

Not simple logic, simplistic logic.

The Danish study shows 1.8% of people with masks got the disease/ 2.1% of people without masks got the disease.....statistically, given the sample size it means both groups came from a similar probability distribution. Which is to say masks don’t protect the wearer.

They struggled to find a publication to record these findings. And of course, if any of these mask studies had shown that masks work, it would be the lead article in the Lancet.

With such a small statistical difference of results between the 2 variables, this would not prove any argument whatever horse was backed. 

"The Danish study shows 1.8% of people with masks got the disease/ 2.1% of people without masks got the disease.....statistically, given the sample size it means both groups came from a similar probability distribution. Which is to say masks don’t protect the wearer."

You just parrot the same lines over and over. Like your arguments on climate change, you just cherry pick certain data points to support your arguments. Care to explain why the authors of the study haven't come to the same conclusion as you and they recommend the wearing of face masks?

"They struggled to find a publication to record these findings. And of course, if any of these mask studies had shown that masks work, it would be the lead article in the Lancet."

Three Journals rejected the study before a fourth published it, since I've never submitted a study to a scientific journal before I wouldn't know how common or uncommon that is and I suspect you don't either. Perhaps the first three Journals found the study did not stand up to scrutiny, do Journals have to agree to publish every study submitted to them?. After all flaws with the study have been pointed out already. Perhaps the Journals knew that people like yourself would deliberately misconstrue the findings to support their political view and where therefore reluctant to publish it. Also the author's of the study believed their comments about Journals not being brave enough to publish the study was taken a bit out of context, suggesting they don't support the narrative that implies the study wasn't being published for political reasons.

I don’t cherry pick certain data points....I cherry pick the only data point . Those are the only randomized trial results we have. The rest is anecdotal that you are lapping up like the brain washed groupie you are.

 And Shark you are right the difference is too small to say they come from different data sets......which is the point......there is no difference for the wearer if you have a mask or not.

"I don’t cherry pick certain data points....I cherry pick the only data point. Those are the only randomized trial results we have. The rest is anecdotal that you are lapping up like the brain washed groupie you are."

Rubbish, you're selectively picking data from a study to support your argument and ignoring the parts of the study you don't like, while also dismissing other research on the subject as anecdotal because the findings don't support your political views.

You can name call all you want, it doesn't help you're arguments or hide your dishonesty.

Now once again I'll ask you, can you explain how the authors of the study haven't come to the same conclusion as you and they still recommend wearing masks?

Stav, you're wasting your time. A Trumpanzee can't change his mind. 

Doesn't matter how many times you explain to this drunken old fool that wearing a mask protects the people around you, he'll still come along and start blathering on about how masks don't protect the wearer . . . as he's done on this thread already.

Just have a laugh and be thankful you're not a slack-jawed half-wit like Moffie.

Okay let’s see, here’s the short form report of the study, let’s see what data I left out:

openhagen, Denmark (November 18, 2020) -- A randomized trial of more than 6,000 participants in Denmark adds new evidence to what is known about whether masks protect the wearer from SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect but others are not wearing masks. The DANMASK-19 trial randomized participants to follow those public health measures with or without an additional recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home. Mask use outside of hospitals was uncommon in Denmark at the time. After 1 month of follow-up, 1.8% of participants in the mask group and 2.1% in the control group developed infection. While the evidence excludes a large personal protective effect of mask wearing, it weakly supports lesser degrees of protection, and cannot definitively exclude no effect. The findings are published in Annals of Internal Medicine. 

Researchers from Copenhagen University Hospital recruited 6,024 adults who spent at least 3 hours per day outside their homes, whose occupations did not require masks, and who did not have a previous known diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomized into the mask group or the control group and those in the mask group were given a supply of surgical masks. All participants completed weekly surveys and antibody tests with PCR testing if COVID-19 symptoms developed, and at 1 month. At the conclusion of the trial, infection rates were similar between the two groups

..................

Copenhagen......good it was done in a first world country.

November the 18th.....pretty neutral I’d say

6024 participants.....a very good sample size for medical research

A randomized trial with both groups, with and without masks, told to follow public health prodedures...excellent.

Participants were given all the kit they needed, tested and surveyed weekly...nice.

After 1 month we get 1.8% with Covid who wore masks....2.1% of those who never wore masks.  The study doesn’t indicate wide protective support for masks, but cannot rule out any effect. But of course it can’t rule in  any effect either.

Sorry I can’t find anything in there of substance I should have reported. Over to you...,...Google away!

According to the study authors, their findings offer evidence about the degree of protection mask wearers can anticipate in a setting where others are not wearing masks and where other public health measures, including social distancing, are in effect. The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control (transmission from an infected person to others) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. 

The editors of Annals of Internal Medicine chose to publish the DANMASK-19 trial because it is a well-designed study tha t provides an important piece of evidence to understand the puzzle of how to control the COVID-19 pandemic. They also note that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control recently updated their guidance to acknowledge that masks, when worn by all, may reduce transmission by both source control and personal protection. They say that the DANMASK-19 trial does not conflict with these guidelines, but shows that any contribution to risk reduction through personal protection is likely to be less than through source control.

Even your cherry picked section of the report contradicts your claim that masks don't work

"While the evidence excludes a large personal protective effect of mask wearing, it weakly supports lesser degrees of protection, and cannot definitively exclude no effect. The findings are published in Annals of Internal Medicine. "

The study doesn’t indicate wide protective support for masks.

Which is not the same as mask don't work which is what you have been saying. Yes the may not be very effective at reducing the infection rate of Corona virus, but even a small reduction would make mask wearing worth while. In the US only if masks resulted in a 1% reduction in the rate of transmission that would likely see hundreds of thousands less cases, tens of thousands less hospitalizations and thousands of less deaths.

"but cannot rule out any effect. But of course it can’t rule in  any effect either."

Nice attempt at false equivalence.

Seriously what's the down side of wearing a mask?. Are you that much of a snow flake you can't handle even minor discomfort or inconvenience.

And again I'll ask, how come the authors of the study have come to the opposite conclusion you have?

Another hysterical hissy fit......so let me address your 2 highlighted issues:

1  The 3rd party protection issue. I actually addressed it above where I said: 

So Masks don’t protect the wearer. Best argument is they give outward protection.....but that’s a hard argument to make if they don’t prevent particles flowing in when  breathing pressure is lower. 

2 You can’t definitely exclude an effect.....what they are referring to is the confidence interval around the finding. Nothing is  conclusive in statistical experiments ....things don’t work at 95% confidence level or perhaps 99% confidence level.

That’s not an out for the failed intervention....like masks in this instance. I don’t know what confidence interval they used....but if you said there’s a 1 % chance masks work you wouldn’t be far wrong.

And if masks work 1% of the time the number of US deaths might be down by 3000. Not an insignificant number, but not one that changes the extent of the US epidemic.

So to imply as you Lefties do that It’s dereliction  of duty not to make masks mandatory is nonsense.

What’s the downside. False sense of security is the most obvious....people taking risks because the feel protected. And if you were one of the greens keepers at golf clubs wearing masks in the summer heat you might list inconvenience. For people who have breathing issues this can actually be serious and frequent touching of masks can spread germs.

The ultimate mask, one that really works is a plastic bag over your head sealed at the neck.That will protect you from Covid but you want benefit for too long. And if that’s not what you have in mind the more ‘protection’ you want the closer you get to the plastic bag.

People should wear masks if they want and institutions should demand it in their spaces if their customers feel safer that way. 

But all this crusading about a piece of cloth that still leaves you steaming up your sun glasses is just the latest Lefty control mechanism....it won’t change anything.

Oh dear....why did I ‘only post the entirety of the short report of the study’. Gee that’s a puzzle, maybe because I thought anybody who wanted to read the long report could Google it.

Why did the authors hedge their findings.....gosh, maybe because they were subject to withering criticism for not toeing the line by your masters....so they couldn’t change the numbers but said nice things about masks.

As for face masks working as a prevention to others and not the wearer....I’ll believe that when they do a randomized proper study that proves it. So far we have none.

All theoretical, anecdotal bs which contradicts the only randomized study and what the ‘experts’ were saying in March. And contradicts common sense.....with much greater air pressure going out , escaping the gaps in all masks and fogging up glasses.