I’m not picking on ABC, even if it may sometimes seem like it. The group of lib-nuts is just another cog in the machine, but damn if they aren’t all playing the same tune. Over the last week, I gave seen MSNBC, CNN, and NBC making the same argument “how will we get them back in masks?”
ABC is just one, but it happens to be the one we’re going to talk about today because… This woman’s expressions are deeply disturbing. Martha Raddatz invited Doctor Michael Osterholm to fret over how the left will ever get people back in masks now that the CDC has finally been put back in the box. The two mainly stressed over how they can get the public to trust them again.
MARTHA RADDATZ: The overall mask mandate is totally confusing, especially this week, mandates are lifted. Mandates returned, reinstated. Lifted again. You told “The New York Times” this week that public health advice has been way off the mark. All along, about mask protection. So what do you see as the best guidance?
DR. MICHAEL OSTERHOLM (DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE RESEARCH & POLICY): Well, it is off. First of all, let me be really clear. I am very, very strongly supportive of respiratory protection. Someone can do a great deal to protect themselves and protect others if they’re using an N95 respirator but this virus is transported by what we call aerosol, these very fine particles that float into the air. It’s like smoke, it’s like perfume and you have to have a high-quality respiratory protection device to protect yourself. What happens on airplanes today, is really more just check a box, it is not effective. Why? Because first of all, you have most people not wearing an N95, they’re wearing a face cloth covering or even a surgical mask which is not effective in reducing transmission.
Then when you get on board, if you’re eating or drinking you don’t have to have something on your face, and then finally about a quarter of all people wear it underneath their nose which is like closing only three of the five-screen doors on your submarine. And so that from that perspective, it really isn’t all that effective. And so I think that what we want to do is stop talking about masking and talking about effective respiratory protection.
RADDATZ: And how do you do that? You talk about flying. I flew across the country this week. About a fifth of the people maybe had a mask on, the others seemed jubilant that they didn’t have to wear a mask. So how do you really return to that or advise people? They seem done with it!
OSTERHOLM: Well, first of all, the U.S. public is done with the pandemic. Even though the virus is not done with us and we have to recognize that in public health. You know, you can’t swim against a tide of this magnitude so what is it that we can do? Well, we have to have credibility, and, again, what has happened has this has become really a philosophical and political issue, not a science issue. So in the media at the very outset is one of the problems. They keep talking about masks. That’s like talking about the difference between a condom that’s intact and a condom that has a hundred holes in it. But it’s a condom! No, there is very different effectiveness using these different approaches so from my perspective I would say particularly if you’re an immunocompromised individual, someone who’s at serious risk of illness and serious illness, you need to wear that N95 respirator. If everybody can do that they would keep it on through the duration of the flight, not wear it underneath their nose then that would be a very effective way to have a mandate but what we’re doing now is we are literally just basically addressing a political issue, not a science issue.
I wish I could just save them all time and collectively tell them, “you can’t”. The public is over being lied to, pressed into fear and hatred. We all just want to live and govern ourselves how we see fit. The CDC lies and withheld information—You can’t come back from that without a full restructuring, in my opinion.
Leave a Comment