Nah, I don't pretend to know more than the top experts in the field. As with the Taubes discussion in another thread, I will accept the experts' views that there is misrepresentation going on to suit a chosen narrative. And I will put more stock in the objectivity of renowned experts in the field who have dedicated their lives to their chosen profession. I will let you get into the weeds (and the mud) of the also-rans. It's a judgment thing.
Nothing wrong with using your own judgment to live your life. We all do that every day. But if you encounter someone who has different judgment and your intent is to change their mind, then you have to provide the data to do so. If you don't care (which seems to be your consensus here) and you're content with live and let live (or agree to disagree) then this isn't a problem. But GWB is intent on pushing a position and when I see that this position does not fit what I believe, I challenge for information. If information is not provided, then we get into it. If it is provided, we can debate the numbers. But editorials will meet with snark for the same reason you enjoy a good "drive by" as you called it!
Are you suggesting that you or your second- or third-tier experts understand the science better than Fauci? I don't expect to change your mind. And wouldn't it be a bit cheeky of me to try to out-explain, say, Faucci or others of similar stature in the field? If their explanations and conclusions do not satisfactorily convince you, then I have little inclination to try.
The question isn't who understands data better than others. The question is how to separate an obvious political narrative from the actual science. People who claim to be "of science" should welcome dissent and different opinions and discuss them when they are presented to make sure they have the right information. They shouldn't attempt to simply discredit the source, or slander or perform a hit job simply because the information runs counter to their own personal vested interest or belief. So when I see that, I naturally become suspicious to intent. Faucci has an obvious political interest - you don't become part of 6 administrations without being a political animal of some sort. But I've not attacked Faucci all that much in any of my posts, have I? I mean, other than to point out the obvious political angle he has.
Really? I would think it's the other way around. If he were political, then he would have been replaced with each subsequent administration. His science is above politics. Yours, perhaps not so much. And do you really believe Fauci is playing with people's lives the way Trump is? For what, political gain at the expense of professional credibility? And that's why he is the most highly regarded expert in the field by his peers? How do you connect those incongruous dots? And for Fauci to do so, that is, play with people's lives for political gain, then he would have to be as much of a sociopath as Trump. In which case, they would likely get along; understand each other.
It would be much easier to discuss this stuff with you if you weren't trying to make your little passive aggressive comments. I think I'm being very polite with you, wouldn't you agree?
I can appreciate that. But you put little snarky comments in there that immediately get me into confrontational mode. Perhaps the issue is on my side. But when you say things like "yours, not so much". We know I am not an epidemiologist. Neither one of us is. Unless you are advocating that we should accept everything that comes from government without question simply because we are not experts in the topic (and I don't believe you are), it is not about being an expert. It is about challenging the narrative we believe to be in question, and why.
If Fauci were in any way controversial among his peers, then I might want to dig deeper. But that is not the case. You talked about data in an earlier post. Statistics can be stretched and tortured out of all proportion and context. For example, I think it is being done by the silver bullet gurus every day in the nutritional field, with their principal objective being the selling of books, getting online views, and making money. That is why I choose to hitch my wagon to someone whose credentials and reputation are beyond reproach. Therefore, when an unknow or controversial figure proposes to reinterpret the data in a markedly different manner, my guard goes up. There are too many such characters for me to even consider giving them equal (or any) weight. It's really quite the time saver. But it hinges critically on choosing the right expert to trust.
But he is. You're just not willing to accept the peers to compare him with - discounting anyone and everyone that might make comments to the contrary for a reason you have determined to be sufficient. That's exactly the issue I'm talking about. I will listen to anyone (within reason) who has a qualification attached to their analysis that goes contrary to my belief. Once I rule out that the analysis is wrong because of something, or there is an inconsistency in the data because of something - OR in the case where I am unable to do so but experts I believe regularly have confronted this data and ruled as to why so I am able to make a judgment call, then I rule them out. If I am unable to do so, I accept that the data they are providing warrants further investigation - until it doesn't. This requires effort. I won't lie. The easier path is simply to discount it. But we don't get smarter and wiser doing it that way. Precisely. Can't argue any of this and just said the same thing (prior to reading this paragraph). it does save time. And I do rely on experts. But if the data isn't explicitly countered and is challenged with new data, I have no choice but to consider it. I just don't discount it. This doesn't save time, but is the right way to follow the Scientific Method, isn't it? I know you know this, but I'm going to post the definition google provides and highlight the key areas. The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation.