THREAD: I'm been sitting on this cognitive dissonance for going on two years now, so here's a little thread. As my regulars know, our son has cystic fibrosis. As a result, "normal" things can be extremely dangerous to him, such as naturally occuring bacteria in soil, water, 1/
2/ and colds, flu, etc. When kids w/ CF exposed to bacteria, they often colonize it in their lungs for life, which starts a loop of inflamation, infection, inflamation, etc. Some CF bacterias are extremely dangerous & lead to quick decline possibly death & prevent transplants.
3/ And CFers need to be very careful of exposure to other CFers b/c they cross contaminate each other. So as could be expected, doctors offices & hospitals are riskier for them. We did our research & therefore about 2 years before the CF Foundation recommended masking at
4/ hospital settngs we would have DS (but not us unless we were sick) where a mask for appointments. After CF Foundation recommended masks we researched more to determine best type & determined from scientific research n-95 made sense.
5/ About 5 years ago, DS wore his n95 mask when he saw his GI specialist & in the office notes the doctor noted he was wearing a mask. There was no reason to do that expect as a "judgement" that it was inappropriate. Yet now I'm watching all the medical experts telling kids
6/ to mask up all the time for something that is 1/100th as dangerous to the kids as hospital-borne bacteria is to DS & DS getting sick likely means hospitalization, surgical procedure to install PIC line, 3 weeks of IV antibiotics & 4 x day of airway clearance & inhalled meds.
7/7 Yes, we were cautious and still anxious but my goodness not a fraction of what I'm seeing the entire world do now under the guise of fighting COVID. I'm talking huge cognitive dissonance.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Trikafta mini-update: DS has been on Trikafta for just about 2 months. Before his lungs have been so healthy (thank you God), he hasn't noticed any real changes. We'll know more when he does his annual Xray if the minimal lung inflamation has decreased & re nasal polyps & 1
2/ whether he still colonizes staph, which he has since 2 weeks old. BUT the huge yippee is his GI issues which have always been the worst--worst his CF doctor has seen. Since he was ~1 year horrible problems, daily
3/ stomach pain w/ me basically rocking him all day other than meals & treatments, one obstruction hospitalization. Things stable for about 4 years after we found solution which requires 6 full doses of Miralax per day, plus 2 shots of milk of mag per day & senna ~3 per week.
6/ On the other hand, if I include Feb, Mar, Apr, May, and June AND the total of those months the graph looks like this:
7/ But note, a "total" column appears AND the total for Title 8 skyrockets too. At first I thought this was just some interns silly mistake, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how @CNN and @brikeilarcnn could accidently create the graph they did.
8/8 They've been ignoring the question so far, so maybe you all can ask them to provide the data they used to create this graph: Or maybe @brianstelter can help me out here?
I still haven't gotten any clarification and don't see a correction from either @CNN or @brikeilarcnn. Did some number crunching. Here's another interesting graph.
3/ I'm happy to share my calculations if anyone wants to double check them, as I don't quite have the staff or budget of say @cnn or @brikeilarcnn to double check to make sure I don't make a mistake, say by
2/ Abbott and states likely can do some things, but just not the E.O. I also agree w/ points re fed government failing. But bottom line, as a matter of constitutional law, thefederalist.com/2021/08/04/tex…
3/ he is wrong. Suprmacy Clause preempts THIS E.O. It's not even a close question. And you'll note, other than conclusory statements, there is no discussion of legal standards or analysis in his piece. Rather than fight over this, which court has already stayed, lets:
So, in reading some of briefing in Dobbs, something strikes me. The Court will have to confront actual science this time that establishes human life already exists pre-viability. Court can lie, pretend it doesn't matter to "avoid question," or accept reality. 1/
2/ If Court does #3, challenge for Court will be to access (invent) constitutional principle re when state can allow or disallow destruction of human life. But that is a moral or philosophical question that justices neither can nor should answer.
3/ And if Court attempts to "punt," saying since different moral/philosophical beliefs on this question so we must defer to moms' view, the Court IS deciding what moral/philosophical position wins.