[teejers1]

Point of parliamentary inquiry:  what if the guy had said "I think this virus is going to run its course no matter what and that the US should not shut down its economy and "overreact" to it.   And that will cost additional lives, but it is a better policy option than shutting down the economy and unemploying millions, saddling the taxpayer with untold billions of additional debt, and leading to other damage of Americans (psychological and otherwise) that is impossible to tally?" 

Would the guy (a) be heartless, (b) have his priorities wrong, © be "wrong," or (d) be a tool?*  

I could see disagreeing with the guy; I could see vehemently disagreeing with him; I'm not sure he would be 'wrong' or 'a tool.'  He just would have a different viewpoint on the pandemic and response to same.  

*  IIRC, a poster here questioned the wisdom of shut down on those grounds, and was roundly chastised in these parts.  I think time (and results, particularly in the US) has made his position more reasonable not less.  But I'm sure others here disagree (perhaps vehemently).

How about you stick to the actual argument instead of pretending this is purely about a lockdown position, making us pretend we are against it, and that's the only thing to discuss?  He dramatically downplayed the threat of virus, used a study that was widely criticized, championed the idea that we'd have 10k death max, and continues to this day to downplay the need for large-scale testing because of the asymptomatic spread.  He has no expertise in the critical areas needed to champion the US against this virus.  Yet he was appointed to the task force and was there instead of Fauci so they could get someone to say what Trump wants to hear and has a MD and works at Stanford.  That's what I thought a "tool" was in the day, but apparently there's a very precise definition for that word that offends people more than the crappy federal leadership highlighted by the appointment of Atlas.
[/quote]

How about you answer the question?

(I actually agree that this guy probably fits the definition of a tool; I was just wondering if you would use that term to describe others whose policy approach to Covid you might disagree with?  It actually was a point of parliamentary clarification.).

[teejers1]

Point of parliamentary inquiry:  what if the guy had said "I think this virus is going to run its course no matter what and that the US should not shut down its economy and "overreact" to it.   And that will cost additional lives, but it is a better policy option than shutting down the economy and unemploying millions, saddling the taxpayer with untold billions of additional debt, and leading to other damage of Americans (psychological and otherwise) that is impossible to tally?" 

Would the guy (a) be heartless, (b) have his priorities wrong, © be "wrong," or (d) be a tool?*  

I could see disagreeing with the guy; I could see vehemently disagreeing with him; I'm not sure he would be 'wrong' or 'a tool.'  He just would have a different viewpoint on the pandemic and response to same.  

*  IIRC, a poster here questioned the wisdom of shut down on those grounds, and was roundly chastised in these parts.  I think time (and results, particularly in the US) has made his position more reasonable not less.  But I'm sure others here disagree (perhaps vehemently).

How about you stick to the actual argument instead of pretending this is purely about a lockdown position, making us pretend we are against it, and that's the only thing to discuss?  He dramatically downplayed the threat of virus, used a study that was widely criticized, championed the idea that we'd have 10k death max, and continues to this day to downplay the need for large-scale testing because of the asymptomatic spread.  He has no expertise in the critical areas needed to champion the US against this virus.  Yet he was appointed to the task force and was there instead of Fauci so they could get someone to say what Trump wants to hear and has a MD and works at Stanford.  That's what I thought a "tool" was in the day, but apparently there's a very precise definition for that word that offends people more than the crappy federal leadership highlighted by the appointment of Atlas.
[/quote]

How about you answer the question?

(I actually agree that this guy probably fits the definition of a tool; I was just wondering if you would use that term to describe others whose policy approach to Covid you might disagree with?  It actually was a point of parliamentary clarification.).