MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 10:51 am
On the news last night they were interviewing a group of nurses as they stood in the parking lot of the hospital, watching the fly over in their honor. They could not have been any happier, any more appreciative of the gesture. They loved it.
That’s why they do it. Not to satisfy the internet nutties.
I know I am going to regret prolonging this agony (feeling like Dr. Strangelove trying to keep his hand from rising to a Heil-salute) - what percentage of nurses do you think saw the flyover?
Of course, the self-selected group they interviewed on teevee were going to be happy - they were the few miniscule number who could peel off work and bothered enough to come out to the parking lot to view the Potemkin spectacle. Of course they are going to be happy. The remaining 99.99999999999999% are too busy taking care of sick people. For every one of the nurses who was happy and appreciative of the gesture I can point to a large multiple whose response will be some form of "F#$#-off and leave alone while I am trying to work. While you are at it shove the F-18's up your behind and get me some clean masks, gloves and gowns"
Simulators are great. Nothing is like the real thing for preparation. At least thats true in everything Ive done, Im not a bomber pilot though.
It's also the case that simulator work doesn't do a lot for the folks whose jobs are more on the maintenance and logistics side of things. Fine enough for pilots and weapons systems operators, but leaves a big gap.
jfish: note emphasized sections of my post. I realize that a lot of preparedness goes into these sophisticated people and machines. However, gallivanting all over the country wasting all sorts of resources is the best of use, especially now. Again, as I said in my last sentence, do we really need x number of flyovers when <x, at their home bases, would suffice??
Feral found the tweet which best described the situation.
They have a whole section of the Gulf of Mexico where other air traffic is subject to military airspace that they can flyover in. And they do.
Just had an hour and a half Zoom meeting with John M. Barry. Obviously he shared some interesting stuff.
Have two other meetings today and will report back with a synopsis of the Barry meeting when I get a chance.
MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 10:51 am
On the news last night they were interviewing a group of nurses as they stood in the parking lot of the hospital, watching the fly over in their honor. They could not have been any happier, any more appreciative of the gesture. They loved it.
That’s why they do it. Not to satisfy the internet nutties.
Come on Mich. I may be dumb but I'm not as dumb as you think I am.
I am sincerely happy that the nurses "couldn't not have been any happier" about a flyover.
I would hope they would be happier seeing a COVID-19 patient recover and leave the hospital but who the fuck am I to judge what should make a nurse happy?
I'm wondering, did you turn in to the other news station/s that interviewed the other group of nurses who had no fucking interest in watching the flyover and thought it was a waste of time?
I assume you're able to comprehend my hypothetical/philosophical question.
I think 99 chimed in on what his wife feels about flyovers "honoring" health care workers and first responders. Go ahead and ignore her - because...... she doesn't matter. Am I right?
* EDIT
Damn! I just read zsn's response. Much better than mine.
Last edited by Deleted User 289 on Wed May 13, 2020 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yes Trad, that's who I was referring to.
Reason was, I was on the meeting with him and a Tulane alum who happens to be "politically affiliated". It was basically a Q&A. Have a meeting at noon and then at 2:00 but will give a recap at around 3:00. Barry was not nearly as biased as someone such as HD would like to assume he would be.
One or two flyovers might be okay, but is it wise during the COVID crisis to do a whole national tour of them? These are dangerous maneuvers that require individual pilots that are a trained part of the squadron. In a time when we don't know who will test positive next, doesn't it endanger the lives of the whole group when pilots may fly when they are not feeling well?
Ok, so I took 3 long pages of notes on the John M. Barry Q&A session.
Unfortunately I didn't have the opportunity to ask him about HD's accusation of "Fauci’s strings are being pulled by the one world government cabal. He’s a lying, conniving piece of garbage who is selling out his country" - but he did slightly hit on it. I'll get to that later on.
A lot of what he was asked about was the correlation between 1918 "flu" and 2020 - due to that's (1918 flu) what he spent 7 years researching.
Explained similarities (very few) and differences in terms of the "diseases" and how they were handled. Fascinating in terms of 1918 but I don't think anyone on here really cares about it right now.
In terms of what he said about right now..... In no particular order.
Stats don't matter when YOU are hit with the virus.
Not just a pulmonary disease. Which is what we were led to believe at the onset.
Cardio and intestinal disease as well.
Believes 95% of Americans are susceptible, between 60% and 80% will get it.
If went uncontrolled and untreated, has little doubt millions would die. It's real.
CDC wasn't transparent in terms of masks. Believes (like most of us) they didn't suggest masks due to the lack of masks and the need for medical workers to have them. Used the phrase comprehensible but incomprehensible a couple of times in the conversation. I seem to recall he might have used it here as well.
In a crisis, truth and transparency are key. All about trust.
Politically - Made a bold statement. Said be believes Trump would most likely be re-elected if he had been honest and transparent from the start. Didn't say he felt Trump would not be re-elected but said it would have been a good thing for his re-election. Went against his own self interests in that regard and doesn't understand why Trump and his advisors chose to go the other route.
He did call out the media but made a specific point of saying Fox News bears at least some blame and responsibility for the spread of the virus. They know their viewers are easily manipulated (as are CNN's) and they downplayed the virus for two months.
Was asked about the cost of future health - in terms of "normality" being halted.
For example, the past few months and the next few months, many less people being routinely screened for cancer, lack of checkups/physicals, preventive care, etc. Said it's going to matter. No shocker there.
Originally wrote his "op ed" piece for the Washington Post in Mid January and it didn't run until January 31st. Was in no way bragging when discussing it but he was on it right away and felt we all needed to know what the fuck was going on and what could/would continue to go on.
The virus spreads. That's simple. We know that. People wrongly assuming if a particular area hasn't been hit - it won't get hit. It will go wherever people take it to.
At least 70something vaccine trials going on right now. Believes there will be multiple "winners" and vaccines. That's great but we will need 100s of millions if not billions of vaccines to eradicate the virus and it's "impossible" for that to happen by the fall.
We will have to deal with "unintended consequences".
There hasn't been "a good plan" or if there has been, it's been poorly executed.
Lack of leadership. Many people (from the top to the bottom) have not done this before.
No experience.
Need guidance from those who have experience - and not stubbornness.
Common sense should have kicked in since day 1.
Part of leadership is preparedness - to the best of one's ability. Being pro-active at the very start of a crisis.
2005 Bush asked for (and got?) a 7 billion dollar vaccine development budget.
It's not about blaming others. It's about you being pro-active when you see/hear/know a problem exists.
Mentioned Fauci. Didn't seem "enamored" with him but pointed out Fauci is an "expert" in his field. Lot of people doubt him, don't believe him, are anti Fauci, but none of them know more than Fauci knows.
Obvious but needs to be admitted and reiterated - We don't know the unknown unknowns.
He's not sure why the "original Chinese data" did not include children.
Right now we are seeing unprecedented scientific cooperation between countries.
Not sure of the exact percentage but believes between 30% and 40% of COVID-19 related hospitalizations in NYC were people under the age of 40. Not sure why that would be.
Absolutely (obviously) this virus has lead to political division. Many factors from the top of government to small town municipalities. One of his main concerns is when budget pressure/s kick/s in, public health resources get stripped.
Positive - Believes COVID-19 doesn't mutate as quickly as the "common flu".
Believes we will "solve" this virus.
Negative - In the future, there are millions of viruses that could - and "some" will "jump species". Not sure if/when we will see something worse in the near future. Obviously, it's possible.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 5:10 pm
lol...i've said at least half of those things
maybe i should write a book
I don't believe he's ever claimed to be anything more than an opinion on THIS virus.
In terms of his knowledge regarding what he did write a book about (1918-20 "flu"), I'm extremely confident he's a hell of a lot more knowledgable than you are.
But hey, maybe you should take your time and write a book about COVID-19. Like him, you might win a bunch of awards and accolades and then be asked to be on the Infectious Disease Board of Experts and an advisor to the World Health Organization. I figure if we have 4 more years of Trump you could probably be of great service to him - and out country. I say, go for it! For all of our sakes!
Feral wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 5:27 pm
Thanks for the review, Gutter!
You're welcome. It's very abbreviated and as I basically said to Trad, it's not much more than his opinions - mixed in with a few "numbers" that may or may not be factual.
It was the 1918 stuff he talked about that I found most interesting. Things such as, most people don't realize Wilson didn't ever mention the flu in a public address to the American people. Granted, there were very few ways the media could relay the President's words back then.
The average age of a person who died from the 1918 flu was 28 years old.
Grandma wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 6:56 pm
It was the 1918 stuff he talked about that I found most interesting. Things such as, most people don't realize Wilson didn't ever mention the flu in a public address to the American people. Granted, there were very few ways the media could relay the President's words back then.
The average age of a person who died from the 1918 flu was 28 years old.
Part of the reason for this was because there was extensive press censorship due to The War (the reason why that flu was knows as the Spanish Flu rather than Kansas or Michigan Flu).
The average age of the person who died in 1918 was 28 years because it is quite likely that the average age of the population in 1918 was around that, given that the life expectancy was not much more than twice that. Just shows that the 1918 flu was not "selective" the way SARS-CoV-2 is
Grandma wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 6:56 pm
It was the 1918 stuff he talked about that I found most interesting. Things such as, most people don't realize Wilson didn't ever mention the flu in a public address to the American people. Granted, there were very few ways the media could relay the President's words back then.
The average age of a person who died from the 1918 flu was 28 years old.
Part of the reason for this was because there was extensive press censorship due to The War (the reason why that flu was knows as the Spanish Flu rather than Kansas or Michigan Flu).
The average age of the person who died in 1918 was 28 years because it is quite likely that the average age of the population in 1918 was around that, given that the life expectancy was not much more than twice that. Just shows that the 1918 flu was not "selective" the way SARS-CoV-2 is
