Mike Rowe's letter to fan regarding COVID

Status
Not open for further replies.

JoeFreedom

New member
Part 1:

The fan’s letter:

“Mike. In a recent post, you said you’ve been to Tennessee and Georgia, giving speeches and filming for your new show. Before that, you were on the road shooting for Dirty Jobs. Is it really so important to film a television show in the midst of pandemic? Is it responsible of you to encourage this kind of behavior when infection rates are spiking? Don’t you watch the news? More and more cases every day – aren’t you concerned?

Darlene Gabon

Mike’s response:

“Hi Darlene

Of course, I’m concerned. I’m just not petrified.

On March 15th, the day after my part of the country was locked down, I posted a link to an interview with Dr. Michael Osterholm. I’m posting it again, because I believe you and everyone else in the country would benefit from listening carefully to what he has to say. [https://bit.ly/2WLOM6o]

Dr. Osterholm is the Director of Infectious Disease Research and Policy. This is the same epidemiologist who ten years ago, predicted a coronavirus would come from China and turn our country upside down. In his book “Deadliest Enemies,” he anticipated the utterly irresponsible way in which the media would report on the situation, the completely opportunistic and shamelessly political way our leaders would likely react, and the unprecedented chaos and confusion that would arise from all the mixed messages from the medical community. His resume is unexampled, [Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH | CIDRAP] and his analysis of the situation is the most logical and persuasive of any I’d heard so far. He’s also the only expert I know of who hasn’t walked back his numbers, reconsidered his position, or moved the goalposts with regard to what we must do, what we can do, and what he expects to happen next. I say all of this because Dr. Osterholm publicly predicted – in early March – that we could conservatively see over 100 million COVID cases in this country, with a very strong possibility of 480,000 fatalities – even if we successfully “flattened the curve.”

It took me a few weeks to accept this scenario, because 480,000 fatalities is a frightening number, and [a] lot of other experts were saying lots of conflicting things. But eventually, I came to the conclusion that Dr. Osterholm was probably correct, and quickly navigated the four stages of grief that usually precede acceptance – denial, anger, bargaining, and depression. By late April, I had come to accept Dr. Osterholm’s predictions as a matter of fact. Since then, I’ve had three full months to come to terms with the fact that, a) I am probably going to get COVID-19 at some point, b), I am almost certainly going to survive it, and c), I might very well give it to someone else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 2:

I hope that doesn’t sound blasé, or glib, or fatalistic, or selfish. Four-hundred eighty thousand deaths is an obvious tragedy, and I’m deeply sympathetic to all who have been impacted thus far. I’m also very concerned for my parents, and everyone else in a high risk category. But when Dr. Osterholm says that COVID can be slowed but not stopped, I believe him. When he says a vaccine will not necessarily hasten herd immunity, I believe him. And when he says that people have confused “flattening the curve” with “eliminating the virus,” I believe him.

Thus, for the last three months, I’ve been operating from the assumption that this is a year-round virus that’s eventually going to infect 100 million people and kill roughly 1/2 of one percent of those infected, conservatively. I’ve accepted those numbers. Unfortunately, millions of others have not. Many people have no sense of where this is headed, and I understand why. They’ve been betrayed by a hysterical media that insists on covering each new reported case as if it were the first case. Every headline today drips with dread, as the next doomed hotspot approaches the next “grim milestone.” And so, for a lot of people, everyday is Groundhogs [sic] Day. They’re paralyzed by the rising numbers because the numbers have no context. They don’t know where it will end. But Dr. Osterholm says he does, and I’m persuaded that he’s correct. He might be wrong, and frankly, I hope he is, but either way, he’s presented us with a set of projections based on a logical analysis, and accepting those projections has allowed me to move past denial, anger, bargaining, and depression, and get on with my life with a better understanding of what the risks really are.
 
Part 3:

Fact is, we the people can accept almost anything if we’re given the facts, and enough time to get evaluate the risk and make our own decisions. Last year in this country, there were six million traffic accidents and 36,000 fatalities. Tragic, for sure. But imagine for a moment if no one had ever died from a car accident. Imagine if this year, America endured six million traffic accidents and 36,000 fatalities…for the first time ever. Now, imagine if these accidents and fatalities – over 16,000 and 90 per day respectively – imagine if they were reported upon like every new incidence of COVID. What would that do to our willingness to drive? For a while, I suspect it would keep us all off the roads, right? I mean, six million accidents out of the blue is a lot to process, and 36,000 deaths is scary – especially if you don’t know how high that number could get. It would take us a while to access the risk, before we blindly hopped into our cars again. Eventually though – after getting some context and perspective – we’d be able to evaluate the relative danger of operating a motor vehicle. Then, we could decide for ourselves when to drive, where to drive, and how much to drive. And so we do.

Again, don’t misunderstand. I’m not ignoring COVID, or downplaying COVID, or pretending the risks at hand aren’t real. Nor am I comparing COVID cases to car accidents – I’m simply comparing the fear of each to the other, and the fear that always accompanies uncertainty. I don’t want to get this disease or give it to someone else, any more than I want to be in a car car wreck that injures someone else. But I’ve accepted certain things about the pandemic, and now, I’ve gotten used to the risk as I understand it. I take precautions. I get tested as often as I can, and if I can’t physically distance, I wear a mask – especially around higher risk people. Likewise, I wear a seatbelt, obey the speed limits, and check my mirrors before changing lanes. Yes – I’m aware that we’d all be a lot safer if we kept our cars in the garage. I’m also aware we’d be a lot safer if we all kept ourselves in the house. But that’s not why cars, or people, exist.

Anyway Darlene, that’s a long way of saying that I have accepted Dr. Osterholm’s numbers, and now, after three months of acceptance, I’ve made a decision on how I wish to live my life. Sooner or later, you will too. We all will.

Mike
 
Mike Rowe is truly a down-to-earth guy. In addition to his discussions about COVID, Rowe is right on target in that he recognizes the need (and financial rewards) for careers in manual labor.
 
The fact that the opinion of a television host, narrator, and former opera singer is given comparable weight to the medical experts, infectious disease experts, epidemiology experts, just shows how far the anti-science bias has taken over much of population. Very sad.
 
Ah, couldn’t wait for your response to attack Mike’s character and claim the message anti-science.
I’m not attacking Mike’s character at all - merely his competence to opine on matters outside of his wheelhouse. And yes, giving equal credence to his medical advice as you would give to a team of doctors is anti-science.
 
Last edited:
The fact that the opinion of a television host, narrator, and former opera singer is given comparable weight to the medical experts, infectious disease experts, epidemiology experts, just shows how far the anti-science bias has taken over much of population. Very sad.
All the more so in an election year where the speculations about Covid-19 and politics (like mail-in voting) are very intertwined.
Again, don’t misunderstand. I’m not ignoring COVID, or downplaying COVID, or pretending the risks at hand aren’t real. Nor am I comparing COVID cases to car accidents – I’m simply comparing the fear of each to the other, and the fear that always accompanies uncertainty.
Isaiah 41: 10

10 Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.

Psalms 91

91 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

2 I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.

3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.

4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

5 Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;

6 Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.
 
Last edited:
Well, how lovely of “Dr. Rowe” to accept that he’ll get this and give it to others, some of whom will probably die. I used to watch this guy’s show —but that’s it.
 
Leafy’s Logic:

Mike is not a scientist.
Mike makes a statement on science.
All statements Mike makes on science are wrong.

Such that, if Mike made a statement on math, that 2+2=4 he must be wrong, because he is not a mathematician. And only mathematician’s with the mostest longest credentials must be allowed to weigh in.
 
Leafy’s Logic:

Mike is not a scientist.
Mike makes a statement on science.
All statements Mike makes on science are wrong.
Let’s correct that logic:
Mike is not a scientist.
Mike makes statements on science.
If Mike’s statements are in direct contradiction to medical experts, they should be disregarded in favor of said experts. And if Mike makes statements in agreement with those experts, that should also mean nothing in particular. It probably just shows he pays attention in that case.
 
Why would anyone care what Mike Rowe’s views are on COVID? He’s a TV presenter, not a policymaker or a health expert. I don’t look to him or any celebrity as a role model for my personal behavior. Especially a wall of text that long. I could see making a 2 sentence soundbyte response but not a whole essay.
 
Last edited:
Confirmation bias.
TL;DR
Rowe probably makes some good points.

Nonetheless, the fact is that physical distancing and mask wearing reduce the number of people who get sick.
 
In fairness, he responded to a fan’s question, and treated her question respectfully. If one doesn’t care what Mike Rowe has to say, they can simply not read it.

I am sure lots of folks have written long letters on a variety of subjects to people I don’t know much or care much about. Meh.
 
If it was a letter just to her, then why is it getting circulated around like a proclamation to the general public? Sounds to me like this went beyond a response to a fan and turned into soapbox time.

But you can be assured I took your advice and didn’t read it. Stopped after the first couple lines and just kept scrolling down to see how long it was.
 
Then why should I care what Dr. Fauci says about the economy, mental health or any other subject besides infectious disease?
 
That’s an excellent question because I pay no attention to him either.

Bottom line is I really don’t need to be told to cover my nose and mouth when there’s a virus going around, or to stay away from crowds when there’s a virus going around, or wash my hands, etc. I am able to make reasonable decisions on my own as a thinking adult.

I suppose I could grudgingly admit that Fauci at least has some background in the subject and it is his job, whereas MIke Rowe is not a medical or public health expert.
 
Last edited:
True, but perhaps the fault then lies with the girl asking him the question. Why was she doing that?

Why does anyone who sees anything they see amiss comment or ask a question for that matter? If I see someone without a mask (I never do around here), why would I ask them about it if they are just some random joe in the street.
 
Again, don’t misunderstand. I’m not ignoring COVID, or downplaying COVID, or pretending the risks at hand aren’t real. Nor am I comparing COVID cases to car accidents – I’m simply comparing the fear of each to the other, and the fear that always accompanies uncertainty. I don’t want to get this disease or give it to someone else, any more than I want to be in a car car wreck that injures someone else. But I’ve accepted certain things about the pandemic, and now, I’ve gotten used to the risk as I understand it. I take precautions. I get tested as often as I can, and if I can’t physically distance, I wear a mask – especially around higher risk people.
Imagine that. Common sense. Putting fear into perspective. Accepting the uncertainty. Taking reasonable precautions to protect oneself and others. Getting on with life instead of hiding at home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top