Coronavirus

[Red]

People can believe whatever the hell they want to believe. Ain’t gonna kill me to break out my N-95 if I feel like it. I have not worn any mask in many months. I’ll likely get another booster in the Fall, been a long time since last booster. Don’t give a damn if somebody says masks are useless, in a declarative, “I can not be mistaken” way. Who cares…

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/23/health/masks-covid-surge-wellness/index.html

“Other high-risk groups include people with diabetes, cancer, chronic liver, kidney or lung disease, organ or stem cell transplants, HIV or other immunocompromising conditions, a history of heart disease or stroke, dementia or mental health issues.

“If you’re a caregiver for somebody who is at increased risk of complication following infection, then I think you should also consider putting a mask on in public places,” said Reiner, a professor at the George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences.

“And since the masks that are most effective are N95 that are now readily available, that’s the kind of mask you should wear,” he added”.

Masks are effective but here's how a study from a respected group was misinterpreted to say they weren't

Experts said a Cochrane review study seemed to imply masks don't work against COVID spread, but it was misinterpreted and was actually looking at mask interventions.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I will continue to listen to the recommendations of experts who spend their lives studying virus

Very wise unless you are listening to a recommendation you only heard because it was broadcast by an entity who paid for the message. Funny thing how work product tends to conform to stakeholder requests.

 

[fishonjazz]

As one of the elderly ill, I often wore masks long before Covid to protect my lungs from outdoor winter air. I will also wear them indoors when I feel it is necessary. A common cold leaves me very ill for weeks, and I will do whatever I can to avoid that. If it protects me a little from Covid and the flu, so much the better.

I will be having a covid vaccine when I have my flu shot. Maybe even the RSV vaccine.

Ya its weird how people think masks were first invented/used when covid showed up.

 

[fishonjazz]

Wearing a mask is neither a service nor a shield. There has been no measurable benefit since Delta. Environments with mandated universal masking and comparable environments where no one masks have identical transmission rates. With regards to modern variants of COVID, it is a virtue signal only. It offers the same amount of protection against COVID transmission as a yard sign that reads "In this house, we believe: Black Lives Matter, Science is Real, Love is Love..."

See the difference between a mask and a shirt or sign is that at least a mask makes sense. It has logic and common sense to it. Like if I take a drag on a cigarette and blow out the smoke without a mask it goes farther than if I blow out smoke with a mask on. If someone else blows smoke into my face and im not wearing a mask then more of that smoke will enter my body than if I was wearing a mask. Same thing if I take a drink of water and try to spit the water out with a mask on vs without a mask. Doctors wear masks. Dentists wear masks. I wear a mask when I ride my bike to work because it keeps air from coming into my mouth and throat and drying it out. Also helps to keep car exhaust fumes from going in my nose. Also wearing a mask lessons the smell of the cows on the meat farm I ride past.


Wearing a shirt or having a sign does none of that stuff.

Also, your post seems to imply that there was a measurable benefit to wearing a mask prior to delta. So sometimes masks are measurably beneficial according to yourself.

 

[fishonjazz]

Very wise unless you are listening to a recommendation you only heard because it was broadcast by an entity who paid for the message. Funny thing how work product tends to conform to stakeholder requests.

Ya, for instance my oldest brother is an expert in microbiology (actually trains the secret service and has met trump and obama personally) and although he is a hardcore republican (was also the bishop in his church ward) he was/is very pro vaccine due to his understanding of the process they are created and how they work.

 

[Red]

Wearing a mask is neither a service nor a shield. There has been no measurable benefit since Delta. Environments with mandated universal masking and comparable environments where no one masks have identical transmission rates. With regards to modern variants of COVID, it is a virtue signal only. It offers the same amount of protection against COVID transmission as a yard sign that reads "In this house, we believe: Black Lives Matter, Science is Real, Love is Love..."

We have been warned, for several decades, that dangerous and widespread pandemics would be a real danger in the 21st century. The Covid pandemic may have been the worst such pandemic since the Spanish flu of 1918. I’m not certain if that’s a fact or not, but many died in this pandemic.

We live in the modern era, in which the world is comprised of nation-states. One would expect the central governments of nation-states to take an active role in marshaling resources and responses to a pandemic. Our first president under Covid, Trump, preferred the states take responsibility. Of course local response is critical. But a coordinated federal response was also appropriate, and to be expected. And he did at least speed vaccine production.

Safe to say, mistakes were made. And we should learn from them, since there may be more pandemics down the line.

I think we were hurt in our overall response, as a nation, because conspiracy theorizing, politicization, distrust of federal government agencies, all played a role in basically questioning our responses to the pandemic. If the response among many citizens, upon witnessing a federal response is “hey, wait a minute, what the hell are they up to here?!”, then that’s probably going to mean a less than smooth response from the public overall.

I’ll offer this generalization, so, like any generalization, it’s likely unfair to a point, but: I find that the thrust of your response to the pandemic has been a belief that the response represents the imposition of authoritarian, freedom-stealing, directives handed down by a government seeking to control. To me, it seems like you see the legacy of the response being the federal government trying to increase some control over its citizens lives. And not simply trying to do the best we can to deal with the worst pandemic in a hundred years. That’s the sense I get of your approach to the Coronavirus pandemic overall. That we should be more concerned with efforts by the federal government and government agencies to control our lives, and not so much the disease that same government is making every….honest……effort to help its citizens survive.

 

[fishonjazz]

We have been warned, for several decades, that dangerous and widespread pandemics would be a real danger in the 21st century. The Covid pandemic may have been the worst such pandemic since the Spanish flu of 1918. I’m not certain if that’s a fact or not, but many died in this pandemic.

We live in the modern era, in which the world is comprised of nation-states. One would expect the central governments of nation-states to take an active role in marshaling resources and responses to a pandemic. Our first president under Covid, Trump, preferred the states take responsibility. Of course local response is critical. But a coordinated federal response was also appropriate, and to be expected. And he did at least speed vaccine production.

Safe to say, mistakes were made. And we should learn from them, since there may be more pandemics down the line.

I think we were hurt in our overall response, as a nation, because conspiracy theorizing, politicization, distrust of federal government agencies, all played a role in basically questioning our responses to the pandemic. If the response among many citizens, upon witnessing a federal response is “hey, wait a minute, what the hell are they up to here?!”, then that’s probably going to mean a less than smooth response from the public overall.

I’ll offer this generalization, so, like any generalization, it’s likely unfair to a point, but: I find that the thrust of your response to the pandemic has been a belief that the response represents the imposition of authoritarian, freedom-stealing, directives handed down by a government seeking to control. To me, it seems like you see the legacy of the response being the federal government trying to increase some control over its citizens lives. And not simply trying to do the best we can to deal with the worst pandemic in a hundred years. That’s the sense I get of your approach to the Coronavirus pandemic overall. That we should be more concerned with efforts by the federal government and government agencies to control our lives, and not so much the disease that same government is making every….honest……effort to help its citizens survive.

Yep. I fear a worse, much more deadly pandemic arriving in the future and 40% of the population not listening to anything health officials have to say and we end up with an extremely devastating number of deaths simply due to the thinking that our own health officials and government are the enemy.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

your post seems to imply that there was a measurable benefit to wearing a mask prior to delta. So sometimes masks are measurably beneficial according to yourself.

Not only implies, but outright states that masks had a measurable benefit prior to Delta. They did. The protection they offered wasn't perfect but it was something and every little bit helped. Then COVID started to evolve to become more transmissible. That transmissiblity isn't only a measure of how effective a pathogen is at evading the immune system but is instead a measure of how effective a pathogen is at evading everything including masks. COVID doesn't hang in the air as a virus all by itself, but is instead contained in a tiny droplet of water. As COVID has evolved, it has been able to be suspended by ever smaller droplets. The modern variants are able to suspend in droplets so tiny that N95 masks don't stop them and the droplets are so light that they stay aloft forever. It is an evolutionary advantage that has outcompeted the original COVID to the point that no one gets sick from the original type any more but it also has made ineffective some of the countermeasures, like masks, that used to be beneficial against the early strains.

We know this because we have data. Some try to explain away the data, as in Red's pieces above, but it is always the same song and dance. "Um...sure the data shows a lack of effectiveness but that is because everyone is wearing masks wrong and masks themselves are totally effective but we can't prove it against modern variants so look at this old study that showed the effectiveness of masks against earlier strains."

If wearing a mask gives you piece of mind, then wear a mask. If you think masking is silly then don't wear one. Either way, with modern variants, your odds of getting COVID are the same. There are certain items and routines I hold to have some power of luckiness when it comes to my kid's athletic events even though my logical mind knows they don't change the laws of physics, statistics, or random chance but come playoff time they are there always. I get it. You do you.

 

[infection]

Yep. I fear a worse, much more deadly pandemic arriving in the future and 40% of the population not listening to anything health officials have to say and we end up with an extremely devastating number of deaths simply due to the thinking that our own health officials and government are the enemy.

As I stated on March 16, 2020, this would be a consequence of immediately appealing to scare tactics and political division to enhance adherence. And note here that none of these arguments were post hoc but rather all a priori as March 16th was the day "15 days to slow the spread" [a post hoc misnomer of the century] was announced.

The economic impact will be huge, and I'm really worried about that. This will also force us to look at many things and perhaps make decisions that we've never thought about before. I think an adequate appraisal of the situation is called for, because I think the hysteria is going to have some serious unintended consequences. Obviously there's a huge range of possibilities that can happen, so saying 'have an adequate appraisal' is somewhat of a silly notion. But people out there feeling justified in fomenting fear so that people will "take it seriously" is so incredibly short-sighted. I will grant that many people propagating the fear genuinely believe it. With regard to fear, I'm not talking about taking precautionary measures such as closing schools, working from home, limiting contact, not going out, etc. I'm talking about needless conjecture that has no basis. Something like the idea that's been passed around that 'because the federal government waited, millions will die.' There an idea that if you're not out there subscribing to this thought process, that you're not taking this serious enough and do not understand the gravity of the situation.

I've long believed that there's a certain level of arrogance about the comfort of our current situations. We live in huge outlier of human history. Because we're accustomed to this, we believe this is how things always will be, and we think issues like this are a thing of the past, so we forget how fragile and delicate numerous issues are just because we've lived in times of relative comfort. I was in residency when Ebola started to break out. I wasn't thinking the sky was falling, but I thought it was interesting when people were so invested in dismissing it as a possible threat. I think there was also a lot of subtle cultural elitism / racism involved in this dismissive attitude to the idea of us not being able to have a breakout here as we're watching it happen across West and Central Africa. And keep in mind this is something with a mortality rate up to 90%, and people were saying "yeah, the flu kills a ton. Go get a flu shot." Ebola was luckily contained. At one point the CDC had estimated that over the course of a few months the number of Ebola cases could reach 1.4 million. There's a particular poster here who has rated this current outbreak as a 10. If you go back to the Ebola thread from 2014, this same person's concern about Ebola after the first case in the US was a 0. They thought it was political media hysteria.

But I digress. The idea that we're somehow immune from an absolute catastrophe happening has been silly. And I think with anything untested that we don't have data on, you have to exhibit some real caution in making declarations of something being safe when it's never been tested. So, to be fair, we don't know exactly what will happen with COVID-19. And yes, the comparison with influenza may not be the best. But I do think it's important for us to assess our underlying assumptions. Yes, we don't have any immunity to corona as we do influenza, so there's concern that it can spread more. The CDC currently estimates that there have been 22,000-55,000 influenza deaths in the US alone from October 1 - March 7. There have currently been 7,000 deaths world-wide from corona. China's rate has slowed drastically, if the numbers are to be believed. Yes, they've done some pretty intense quarantines, but also consider that they had absolutely no lead time on this and Wuhan has a population of 8-9 million, and about 18 million in the metropolitan area. China has had 3,213 deaths, again if the numbers are to be believed, and this is stabilizing.

On the other hand, yes. We have to make sure that this doesn't spread so far and wide that it collapses our healthcare system. That's a real concern. Most of that concern comes from watching what's happening with Italy, and it's stated that we're about 11 days behind them, but we're only referencing total numbers. It's important to note that Italy has 1/5 the population we do, that we have 3x the amount of critical care beds, and that their population's median age is nearly 10 years higher. We don't know what will happen here, and it's important to look at what's happening elsewhere, but we also need to look at it from more than one simplistic angle, regardless of which side that data falls on.

Yes, we need to take this seriously. Yes, we need to exhibit cautions as prevention is much easier than cures, even if you overdo it. But no, making claims about millions dying as a result of delayed action not only has no basis, but is not actually helpful. Think beyond this current crisis and think to the next time another infectious disease, or other public health crisis, arises that carries with it an even larger burden of mobidity and mortality. How effective will the short-term strategy of now translate then? Yes, we need to get people to take it seriously. No, beating people over the head with hysterics will not get them to take it seriously, but will do far, far more damage for the public good and trust the next time a crisis comes along.

tl;dr none of us have any idea what will happen, despite referencing evidence that may lean one way or the other. It's better to be cautious than be sorry, but if you feel people aren't taking something serious enough, simply ratcheting up the fear isn't actually going to change those peoples' behaviors, and in fact may drive them the other way. But you yourself may feel better, even though you have not helped with any change. Try a different approach, because I'd like everyone to be more cautious, too, and I recognize that your behavior "helping" isn't really accomplishing that.

But I've digressed again from my original point. We're going to have to reevaluate many things we've never looked at. Like, many would argue that if we need to have the world shut down for 6-8 months to save 50k lives, then it's worth it. I'm not going to attempt to put any value on life, but if we're quickly determining that if something like that is necessary and that's what we should do, then we'd also have to ask ourselves the question if we should be shutting down the roads so we don't have 40k automobile fatalities each year. That's, again, not an implication of what should or shouldn't be done, but it's important for us to look at some larger applications and scenarios when we're trying to process what the long-term solution to something like this would be in a vacuum.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

There was no way to avoid it being "politicized" or anything. No matter what level of caution the health officials placed on Covid, there would still be people having to be against it and make it a side vs side thing. That's just the world we live in.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I find that the thrust of your response to the pandemic has been a belief that the response represents the imposition of authoritarian, freedom-stealing, directives handed down by a government seeking to control. To me, it seems like you see the legacy of the response being the federal government trying to increase some control over its citizens lives. And not simply trying to do the best we can to deal with the worst pandemic in a hundred years.

I have a deep mistrust of anyone who says they need to take away liberty for your own safety to the extend they did in early 2020.

 

[infection]

There was no way to avoid it being "politicized" or anything. No matter what level of caution the health officials placed on Covid, there would still be people having to be against it and make it a side vs side thing. That's just the world we live in.

And there's a fairly big difference between that being a natural response vs. leaning into it. For instance, "because the government waited [a few days], millions of people will die." There's also a term that was oft-repeated that you don't hear anymore, "it didn't have to be like this."

ETA: oh, and the idea that Red brings up of people being skeptical about government who's "trying their best" didn't seem to apply to "they delayed and millions will die as a result" or the calls of every governor who didn't ______ (implement mask mandate, shut down sooner, mandate whatever). That seems to be an aptly appropriate reason to criticize government and not say "oh, well they're doing their best."

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

And there's a fairly big difference between that being a natural response vs. leaning into it. For instance, "because the government waited [a few days], millions of people will die." There's also a term that was oft-repeated that you don't hear anymore, "it didn't have to be like this."

ETA: oh, and the idea that Red brings up of people being skeptical about government who's "trying their best" didn't seem to apply to "they delayed and millions will die as a result" or the calls of every governor who didn't ______ (implement mask mandate, shut down sooner, mandate whatever). That seems to be an aptly appropriate reason to criticize government and not say "oh, well they're doing their best."

I get what you're saying and agree to an extent, but people just want to bitch and complain and have something to be against.

Like if the gov said thousands instead of millions, I dont think it would have caused that much of a difference in the perception from those who are so against it.

 

[fishonjazz]

Not only implies, but outright states that masks had a measurable benefit prior to Delta. They did. The protection they offered wasn't perfect but it was something and every little bit helped. Then COVID started to evolve to become more transmissible. That transmissiblity isn't only a measure of how effective a pathogen is at evading the immune system but is instead a measure of how effective a pathogen is at evading everything including masks. COVID doesn't hang in the air as a virus all by itself, but is instead contained in a tiny droplet of water. As COVID has evolved, it has been able to be suspended by ever smaller droplets. The modern variants are able to suspend in droplets so tiny that N95 masks don't stop them and the droplets are so light that they stay aloft forever. It is an evolutionary advantage that has outcompeted the original COVID to the point that no one gets sick from the original type any more but it also has made ineffective some of the countermeasures, like masks, that used to be beneficial against the early strains.

We know this because we have data. Some try to explain away the data, as in Red's pieces above, but it is always the same song and dance. "Um...sure the data shows a lack of effectiveness but that is because everyone is wearing masks wrong and masks themselves are totally effective but we can't prove it against modern variants so look at this old study that showed the effectiveness of masks against earlier strains."

If wearing a mask gives you piece of mind, then wear a mask. If you think masking is silly then don't wear one. Either way, with modern variants, your odds of getting COVID are the same. There are certain items and routines I hold to have some power of luckiness when it comes to my kid's athletic events even though my logical mind knows they don't change the laws of physics, statistics, or random chance but come playoff time they are there always. I get it. You do you.

Ooooohhhhhhh but how can you trust the data? Dont know who is paying for the data right? What kind of agenda they have right? Also, you say with modern variants odds are the same. Yet you dont know if my co worker is the first to get a brand new variant that a mask would be extra extra good against.

 

[fishonjazz]

As I stated on March 16, 2020, this would be a consequence of immediately appealing to scare tactics and political division to enhance adherence. And note here that none of these arguments were post hoc but rather all a priori as March 16th was the day "15 days to slow the spread" [a post hoc misnomer of the century] was announced.

From your post: It's better to be cautious than be sorry, but if you feel people aren't taking something serious enough, simply ratcheting up the fear isn't actually going to change those peoples' behaviors, and in fact may drive them the other way. But you yourself may feel better, even though you have not helped with any change. Try a different approach, because I'd like everyone to be more cautious, too, and I recognize that your behavior "helping" isn't really accomplishing that.

What is the different approach that would make people be more cautious?

 

[Red]

In the day and era, in which we live, I am not surprised that the default response, for many, may be “pandemics are an opportunity absolutely ripe for central governments in nation states to lean more authoritarian in tone, and policy, stripping citizens of their rights and freedoms”. I’m not at all surprised, and I should think, nobody should be surprised, unless one were living under a rock in our recent history, that such interpretations are prevalent in an era rife with disinformation, alternative facts, and actually, rejection of received wisdom and authority in many eras of human knowledge: in history/prehistory and the explosion of pseudoarchaeology, science in general, with scientists pegged as “elites that cannot be trusted”, in medicine, obviously, in religion, in virtually all areas where “experts” exist, but must not be trusted. If one thinks this overall development is not playing a role in “the dumbing down of citizens”, and is part of the psychological and cultural substrate that encourages rejection of “authoritative sources”, well, I just think one would not be paying attention.

This is not to say that any and all criticisms of the response of governments, government agencies, and medical science toward the Covid pandemic are worthless. To a large degree, however, I believe it’s likely more people died due to listening to misinformation. I do not know to what degree something similar happened in 1918, be interesting to look into, there must have been some conspiratorial thoughts by some at that time.

Anyway, really just pointing out some of the trends, now, in the present era, that are conducive to rejection of “received wisdom” and “expert authority”. Those trends are a part of the rejection response to government actions in the pandemic, because many are conditioned now to respond that way. And really, I’ve been wary of the dangers of “alternative facts” all around anyway. Reason why I felt the Big Lie was so damaging. Hard to remove severe distrust once it’s taken hold. But I’m not saying don’t examine anything, don’t think for yourself, don’t use your discriminating intelligence, etc….

 

[fishonjazz]

Again a mask being better than nothing just seems like common sense and logic to me. It's a barrier between your inhalations and exhalations. If one of the ways the virus gets into the body is via the mouth when we inhale then having a barrier there would be better than nothing.
It's like trump wall. Most of the people he wanted to stop from coming to America weren't coming to America where he put the wall. And those who wanted to come in through that wall could use ladders to climb over, could dig under, or cut/break through.
But it was still a barrier and my common sense and logic would tell me that it would stop some people

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Ooooohhhhhhh but how can you trust the data? Dont know who is paying for the data right? What kind of agenda they have right?

Usually it is easy to see. If my local school district is touting the opinion of an expert they have under contract who happens to be saying the school district's actions were justified, I don't take that any differently than my local school district's legal expert, whom they have paid to be their lawyer, saying the school district's actions were justified.

Trump's lawyers say he is innocent and his acts were justified. Do you believe them? They are legal experts.

Paid experts will say all kinds of stuff for their clients. With regards to judging the data coming from studies related to COVID, I am married to a scientist in a related field. I know her agenda and her level of competence.

 

[fishonjazz]

Usually it is easy to see. If my local school district is touting the opinion of an expert they have under contract who happens to be saying the school district's actions were justified, I don't take that any differently than my local school district's legal expert, whom they have paid to be their lawyer, saying the school district's actions were justified.

Trump's lawyers say he is innocent. Do you believe them? They are legal experts.

Paid experts will say all kinds of stuff for their clients. With regards to judging the data coming from studies related to COVID, I am married to a scientist in a related field. I know her agenda and her level of competence.

The fact you are married to her lets me know her agenda as well. Thanks for the admission.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I am not surprised that the default response, for many, may be “pandemics are an opportunity absolutely ripe for central governments in nation states to lean more authoritarian in tone, and policy, stripping citizens of their rights and freedoms”. I’m not at all surprised, and I should think, nobody should be surprised, unless one were living under a rock in our recent history, that such interpretations are prevalent in an era rife with disinformation, alternative facts, and actually, rejection of received wisdom and authority in many eras of human knowledge: in history/prehistory and the explosion of pseudoarchaeology, science in general, with scientists pegged as “elites that cannot be trusted”, in medicine, obviously, in religion, in virtually all areas where “experts” exist, but must not be trusted. If one thinks this overall development is not playing a role in “the dumbing down of citizens”, and is part of the psychological and cultural substrate that encourages rejection of “authoritative sources”, well, I just think one would not be paying attention.

Trump's lawyers say he is innocent and his acts were justified. Do you believe them? They are legal experts.