|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
@ClutZ: But that all depends on where you draw the line on “worth it.” Lots of places *have* had bars and restaurants open to varying degrees this year, presumably because they decided the risk was low enough. I thought that was crazy, and I’m not going to a bar or restaurant this year regardless of whether they’re “open,” but whatever people’s cut-off for it being “worth it” to open bars and restaurants, other interventions are the way to get there.
I do think it’s more straightforward to say “we should wear masks because they reduce transmission” - the direct benefit - rather than “we should wear masks because they’ll make it more likely we can reopen restaurants and bars” - an indirect and probabilistic benefit. But it’s not *fallacious.*
@Slydie: I’m not gonna pretend to be well-versed in the latest mask efficacy studies, but it seems a pretty hard thing to study to me. Vaccine phase 3 studies have to enroll huge numbers of patients to detect efficacy and you’d expect the effect there to be pretty large (thus requiring a smaller N to detect it). Didn’t someone post a N>1000 study the other day with the 95% CI ranging from ~45% reduction to ~25% *increase*?
But everything we know about transmission mechanisms would suggest efficacy, there’s apparently (from what public health experts say) preliminary data favoring efficacy, and again, the cost rarely rises above annoyance. Even if it only reduces transmission by 10% it still seems like an easy win compared to most other more intrusive interventions.
@Danglars: yeah Gavin’s dinner was dumb and he shouldn’t have done it. FWIW I also live in CA and don’t like Gavin Newsom much. But the reason we should do these interventions isn’t because the government tells you to, or because other people are doing it, it’s because they’re the right thing to do. Social distancing helps other people.
I’m guessing you wouldn’t base your standard for moral behavior on the behavior of Democratic politicians in any other context; why is “Gavin Newsom does it so I can too” good enough for you here?
|
On November 21 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:
@ClutZ: But that all depends on where you draw the line on “worth it.” Lots of places *have* had bars and restaurants open to varying degrees this year, presumably because they decided the risk was low enough. I thought that was crazy, and I’m not going to a bar or restaurant this year regardless of whether they’re “open,” but whatever people’s cut-off for it being “worth it” to open bars and restaurants, other interventions are the way to get there.
I do think it’s more straightforward to say “we should wear masks because they reduce transmission” - the direct benefit - rather than “we should wear masks because they’ll make it more likely we can reopen restaurants and bars” - an indirect and probabilistic benefit. But it’s not *fallacious.*
I'm not against being open. Its an acceptable strategy. I'm not against saying in April, "we will close restaurants and other high risk activities until there is a vaccine that has been deployed to XXX% of the population." I am against strategies that pretend to be something other than what they are, and I am against doing low/negative value interventions (purely in deaths prevented sense) while not doing high value ones. Lastly, I don't agree with the sentiment of masks being low cost. I think they are mid cost. I'd rather close all restaurants and concert venues.
|
You’d rather the government shut down people’s livelihoods than wear PPE? I mean, okay, then run that up the flag pole and see who joins your cause. I expect most people (especially people with businesses!) would rather everybody wear masks.
Edit: Out of curiosity: do you just find masks that annoying to wear? Do you have some kind of respiratory condition? Obviously masks are cheap, and I doubt you’re talking about environmental impact or something, so why do you dislike them so much?
|
On November 21 2020 06:44 ChristianS wrote:
You’d rather the government shut down people’s livelihoods than wear PPE? I mean, okay, then run that up the flag pole and see who joins your cause. I expect most people (especially people with businesses!) would rather everybody wear masks.
Edit: Out of curiosity: do you just find masks that annoying to wear? Do you have some kind of respiratory condition? Obviously masks are cheap, and I doubt you’re talking about environmental impact or something, so why do you dislike them so much?
I do find them annoying to wear. I find it annoying when other people wear them. And I find it increases antisocial activity, including, at least, armed robbery, and likely murder.
As for Restaurants vs. PPE, its not really a choice, because PPE doesn't get you restaurants, so that is a non sequitur. But, if I'm being told to reform society going forward, I'm going to choose to eliminate something I find to be a burden on my life (obviously I'm in a huge minority here), that is, going out to overpriced dinners that are inferior to my home cooking.
|
On November 21 2020 07:05 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 06:44 ChristianS wrote:
You’d rather the government shut down people’s livelihoods than wear PPE? I mean, okay, then run that up the flag pole and see who joins your cause. I expect most people (especially people with businesses!) would rather everybody wear masks.
Edit: Out of curiosity: do you just find masks that annoying to wear? Do you have some kind of respiratory condition? Obviously masks are cheap, and I doubt you’re talking about environmental impact or something, so why do you dislike them so much? I do find them annoying to wear. I find it annoying when other people wear them. And I find it increases antisocial activity, including, at least, armed robbery, and likely murder. As for Restaurants vs. PPE, its not really a choice, because PPE doesn't get you restaurants, so that is a non sequitur. But, if I'm being told to reform society going forward, I'm going to choose to eliminate something I find to be a burden on my life (obviously I'm in a huge minority here), that is, going out to overpriced dinners that are inferior to my home cooking.
I'm gonna need some giant fucking statistics on that particular claim.
Armed robbery very well may be going up, but I suspect that that may be far more related to 1/10 people in the US going hungry right now than it has to do with masks.
Surgical (and normal ones for covid) face masks don't really disguise you that much.
What we do know is that lockdowns are associated with an increase in domestic violence. The increase definitely isn't great enough to justify avoiding them, but just another reason to toss on the pile to avoid them. I'm baffled by the murder claim, purely because people are around each other less now, so there are certainly less opportunities for murders to happen (a casual search found nothing on that statistic vis a viz mask orders and murders. Checking it, murders are up in some cities this year but violent crime is still down overall. Interestingly, we have the same number of shootings but more deaths : this suggests that it could be crowded hospitals causing it).
Here's a study where mask usage and covid was examined. They studied why deaths were so much lower in Asia than the US and concluded that masks were a large part of it. 95% mask usage dropped mortality growth from 62.1% per week to 15.8% per week.
The statistical significance is extremely good: >99.9% chance of correlation.
Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed. Results. In univariate analyses, the prevalence of smoking, per-capita gross domestic product, urbanization, and colder average country temperature were positively associated with coronavirus-related mortality. In a multivariable analysis of 196 countries, the duration of infection in the country, and the proportion of the population 60 years of age or older were positively associated with per-capita mortality, while duration of mask-wearing by the public was negatively associated with mortality (all p<0.001). International travel restrictions and a lower prevalence of obesity were independently associated with mortality in a model which controlled for testing policy. Internal lockdown requirements and viral testing policies and levels were not associated with mortality. The association of contact tracing policy with mortality approached statistical significance (p=0.06). In countries with cultural norms or government policies supporting public mask-wearing, per-capita coronavirus mortality increased on average by just 15.8% each week, as compared with 62.1% each week in remaining countries. Conclusions. Societal norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public, as well as international travel controls, are independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19.
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v5
It's not the preferred double blind type of scientific study, but the only ones of those we have right now are pretty mediocre/inconclusive (the one talked about a while back that was on a population with a super low rate of infection is the best I know of).
|
On November 21 2020 07:05 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 06:44 ChristianS wrote:
You’d rather the government shut down people’s livelihoods than wear PPE? I mean, okay, then run that up the flag pole and see who joins your cause. I expect most people (especially people with businesses!) would rather everybody wear masks.
Edit: Out of curiosity: do you just find masks that annoying to wear? Do you have some kind of respiratory condition? Obviously masks are cheap, and I doubt you’re talking about environmental impact or something, so why do you dislike them so much? I do find them annoying to wear. I find it annoying when other people wear them. And I find it increases antisocial activity, including, at least, armed robbery, and likely murder. As for Restaurants vs. PPE, its not really a choice, because PPE doesn't get you restaurants, so that is a non sequitur. But, if I'm being told to reform society going forward, I'm going to choose to eliminate something I find to be a burden on my life (obviously I'm in a huge minority here), that is, going out to overpriced dinners that are inferior to my home cooking.
So it's a comfort thing for you. You don't want to put up with a 30-60 minutes of being uncomfortable whenever you go out.
But it somehow also bothers you when other people wear it and you think it increases crime? And you want to talk about non sequitur...
|
Woah, didn’t expect this to become “masks promote murder.”
One thing that sucks about a pandemic, politically speaking, is that it makes everything everyone’s business as to how “worthwhile” it is. There’s a kind of libertarian concept nearly everyone agrees to in normal times that everybody should be able to do what they want unless and until it meaningfully harms someone else. What constitutes meaningful harm is still controversial, of course, but there’s lots of behavior I might dislike or not understand, but I wouldn’t dream of calling for government intervention to prevent it. E.g.: I find the musical “Cats” confounding and vaguely creepy, and don’t know why anybody likes it, but would never dream of publicly advocating against it. I’ll just not go if I don’t want to.
But in a pandemic, mere social interaction constitutes a meaningful harm. And the more interaction we do, the more prevalent the disease, meaning the risk is more than linear with interactions. If I engage in unnecessary risks, it doesn’t just harm me; it makes all your risks (necessary or not) higher. Under ordinary circumstances I’d be fine with Justin Bieber having a concert, even if I don’t like Justin Bieber; now, Beliebers having a concert makes it more dangerous for me to go to work or to the grocery store, and whether this concert is “worth it” and should be allowed to proceed becomes a public question. We generally settle such public questions by some kind of majoritarian rule, meaning if the people’s chosen representatives (usually at least partially in reaction to public opinion) decide the concert is not worth it, it will not proceed.
That sucks. Not because that specific concert is such a loss, but because an underlying ethic of tolerance allows everyone to coexist and feel like members in good standing of the community despite huge differences in values and lifestyles. I’d still far prefer an “honor system” where everyone makes a good-faith effort to reduce unnecessary risks and everyone gets to stay out of each others’ business as much as possible. But like all honor systems that leaves too much room for bad actors to take advantage, so some enforcement is necessary.
With that in mind, I’m really grateful to, for example, the Mormon church for largely ceasing in-person Sunday sacrament meetings. I know a lot of Mormons, I know how much those meetings (and especially congregational hymns) mean to them, and they didn’t stop because the government told them to; they just didn’t want their church to cause unnecessary suffering to others. The lack of willingness to make that kind of good-faith sacrifice for society’s benefit is probably the biggest reason we’ve done so poorly in dealing with this pandemic.
|
On November 21 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:
@ClutZ: But that all depends on where you draw the line on “worth it.” Lots of places *have* had bars and restaurants open to varying degrees this year, presumably because they decided the risk was low enough. I thought that was crazy, and I’m not going to a bar or restaurant this year regardless of whether they’re “open,” but whatever people’s cut-off for it being “worth it” to open bars and restaurants, other interventions are the way to get there.
I do think it’s more straightforward to say “we should wear masks because they reduce transmission” - the direct benefit - rather than “we should wear masks because they’ll make it more likely we can reopen restaurants and bars” - an indirect and probabilistic benefit. But it’s not *fallacious.*
@Slydie: I’m not gonna pretend to be well-versed in the latest mask efficacy studies, but it seems a pretty hard thing to study to me. Vaccine phase 3 studies have to enroll huge numbers of patients to detect efficacy and you’d expect the effect there to be pretty large (thus requiring a smaller N to detect it). Didn’t someone post a N>1000 study the other day with the 95% CI ranging from ~45% reduction to ~25% *increase*?
But everything we know about transmission mechanisms would suggest efficacy, there’s apparently (from what public health experts say) preliminary data favoring efficacy, and again, the cost rarely rises above annoyance. Even if it only reduces transmission by 10% it still seems like an easy win compared to most other more intrusive interventions.
@Danglars: yeah Gavin’s dinner was dumb and he shouldn’t have done it. FWIW I also live in CA and don’t like Gavin Newsom much. But the reason we should do these interventions isn’t because the government tells you to, or because other people are doing it, it’s because they’re the right thing to do. Social distancing helps other people.
I’m guessing you wouldn’t base your standard for moral behavior on the behavior of Democratic politicians in any other context; why is “Gavin Newsom does it so I can too” good enough for you here?
The family regs are over-restrictive, and I’ll be making my decisions on that appraisal, not the fact that major politicians and media have been acting like the pandemics over for months now. clutZ has already done a good job in this thread explaining thoughts I share on the lack of a plan and the rest, if you were wondering.
|
I mean, idk what regs you’re referring to. I also don’t know your Thanksgiving plans so I’m not saying you’re being irresponsible. I’ll probably go see my parents on Thanksgiving, FWIW, and in general try to base my behavior on my best understanding of underlying risks to myself and others rather than compliance with specific guidelines.
But you clearly think the behavior of individual politicians and media figures is a really important variable in how seriously people will take precautionary behavior, and you seem to think that’s justified. Why? Since when is elites engaging in immoral behavior a good excuse for everybody to stop doing what’s right?
|
On November 21 2020 07:05 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 06:44 ChristianS wrote:
You’d rather the government shut down people’s livelihoods than wear PPE? I mean, okay, then run that up the flag pole and see who joins your cause. I expect most people (especially people with businesses!) would rather everybody wear masks.
Edit: Out of curiosity: do you just find masks that annoying to wear? Do you have some kind of respiratory condition? Obviously masks are cheap, and I doubt you’re talking about environmental impact or something, so why do you dislike them so much? I do find them annoying to wear. I find it annoying when other people wear them. And I find it increases antisocial activity, including, at least, armed robbery, and likely murder.
As for Restaurants vs. PPE, its not really a choice, because PPE doesn't get you restaurants, so that is a non sequitur. But, if I'm being told to reform society going forward, I'm going to choose to eliminate something I find to be a burden on my life (obviously I'm in a huge minority here), that is, going out to overpriced dinners that are inferior to my home cooking.
Just the other day, I saw someone strangling a baby with a mask, and have encountered hundreds of people with images of penises on their masks, which causes me to be conflicted between looking at a penis or them not wearing a mask. Masks are super dangerous.
...seriously, though. Do you have -anything- to back this up, or is this "I was thinking about reasons masks might be bad and realized that people who rob banks in movies ALSO wear masks"?
|
On November 21 2020 12:00 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, idk what regs you’re referring to. I also don’t know your Thanksgiving plans so I’m not saying you’re being irresponsible. I’ll probably go see my parents on Thanksgiving, FWIW, and in general try to base my behavior on my best understanding of underlying risks to myself and others rather than compliance with specific guidelines.
But you clearly think the behavior of individual politicians and media figures is a really important variable in how seriously people will take precautionary behavior, and you seem to think that’s justified. Why? Since when is elites engaging in immoral behavior a good excuse for everybody to stop doing what’s right?
I would suggest you google Governor Newsom’s orders in regard to thanksgiving. That will help you discover the regs Im taking about.
If the people issuing the regulations refuse to personally abide by them, then decide for yourself what level of adherence makes sense regarding the pandemic. It’s not actually a hard issue to grasp. The experts and political elites are acting like it’s not a big deal, so don’t take their mandates as necessary and serious. You’re acting like I don’t think the next step is evaluating what risk is present while setting your own level of precaution.
|
On November 21 2020 07:29 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 07:05 cLutZ wrote:On November 21 2020 06:44 ChristianS wrote:
You’d rather the government shut down people’s livelihoods than wear PPE? I mean, okay, then run that up the flag pole and see who joins your cause. I expect most people (especially people with businesses!) would rather everybody wear masks.
Edit: Out of curiosity: do you just find masks that annoying to wear? Do you have some kind of respiratory condition? Obviously masks are cheap, and I doubt you’re talking about environmental impact or something, so why do you dislike them so much? I do find them annoying to wear. I find it annoying when other people wear them. And I find it increases antisocial activity, including, at least, armed robbery, and likely murder. As for Restaurants vs. PPE, its not really a choice, because PPE doesn't get you restaurants, so that is a non sequitur. But, if I'm being told to reform society going forward, I'm going to choose to eliminate something I find to be a burden on my life (obviously I'm in a huge minority here), that is, going out to overpriced dinners that are inferior to my home cooking. So it's a comfort thing for you. You don't want to put up with a 30-60 minutes of being uncomfortable whenever you go out. But it somehow also bothers you when other people wear it and you think it increases crime? And you want to talk about non sequitur...
Quite frankly, I find this sort of reasoning bizarre. Life is a series of 30-60 minute spells. Sum enough bad ones up and you've made a person's life quite unpleasant. Me, I quite liked grocery shopping pre-masks. on a scale that goes from -10 to +10 I'd say it was like a 2-3. On the big shopping days I'll drive to the store, but most other days I'd go for a walk to the store with a backpack after work and pick some fresh stuff to make. Now backpacks are universally banned here (because backpack+mask = shoplifting), now its like a -2. So going is like having an unpaid part time job.
Here's another one: The Gym. I really like the gym, its like a 6, plus it keeps me healthy. With masks, easily -4. I don't really find the alternatives to be anything above a -1 either. So now I lose a great experience, and have to choose between losing time right now, through a bad task, or time at the end of my life to heart disease.
Now iterate that over 365 Million people. That's gotta be that many lost hours every few days. Lowball 700 Million hours a week. Thats about 80k years of additional unhappiness a week.
|
That math assumes everyone else dislikes masks as much as you though. That seems unlikely to me, but idk? I got used to wearing PPE at work a while ago, I think the masks are more annoying than safety glasses but less annoying than gloves and waay less annoying than a glovebox.
I’m sorry to hear that though. I’ve been pretty lucky I guess with pandemic measures not really interfering with my pastimes that much. I probably like the grocery store a little better now if anything, and most of my hobbies are at home or outdoors.
|
While one of my friends finds the mask thing awful, I think for a lot of people it's really not that big a deal.
Once I got into the habit of actually remembering the thing I'd say it's had close to 0 impact on my comfort and experience of life overall (and I wear glasses and have new piercings which both interact unfavorably with the mask).
I've gone running and climbing with it. It's really not that bad for something that does a lot to mitigate me spraying potentially infected spittle everywhere. Really it's the absolute bare minimum, we probably should be avoiding things like the gym until vaccinations arrive in all honesty.
|
On November 21 2020 12:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 12:00 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, idk what regs you’re referring to. I also don’t know your Thanksgiving plans so I’m not saying you’re being irresponsible. I’ll probably go see my parents on Thanksgiving, FWIW, and in general try to base my behavior on my best understanding of underlying risks to myself and others rather than compliance with specific guidelines.
But you clearly think the behavior of individual politicians and media figures is a really important variable in how seriously people will take precautionary behavior, and you seem to think that’s justified. Why? Since when is elites engaging in immoral behavior a good excuse for everybody to stop doing what’s right? I would suggest you google Governor Newsom’s orders in regard to thanksgiving. That will help you discover the regs Im taking about. If the people issuing the regulations refuse to personally abide by lthem, then decide for yourself what level of adherence makes sense regarding the pandemic. It’s not actually a hard issue to grasp. The experts and political elites are acting like it’s not a big deal, so don’t take their mandates as necessary and serious. You’re acting like I don’t think the next step is evaluating what risk is present while setting your own level of precaution.
You bring something in the thread. Claim something. Don't produce the context you are referring to and tell people to give it a Google. Say I did exactly that and have read about the governor.
I still don't know anything about your gripes with the regulations he set about.
Maybe stop being obtuse and forthright tell us what's bothering you with the regs.
|
On November 21 2020 19:50 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 12:52 Danglars wrote:On November 21 2020 12:00 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, idk what regs you’re referring to. I also don’t know your Thanksgiving plans so I’m not saying you’re being irresponsible. I’ll probably go see my parents on Thanksgiving, FWIW, and in general try to base my behavior on my best understanding of underlying risks to myself and others rather than compliance with specific guidelines.
But you clearly think the behavior of individual politicians and media figures is a really important variable in how seriously people will take precautionary behavior, and you seem to think that’s justified. Why? Since when is elites engaging in immoral behavior a good excuse for everybody to stop doing what’s right? I would suggest you google Governor Newsom’s orders in regard to thanksgiving. That will help you discover the regs Im taking about. If the people issuing the regulations refuse to personally abide by lthem, then decide for yourself what level of adherence makes sense regarding the pandemic. It’s not actually a hard issue to grasp. The experts and political elites are acting like it’s not a big deal, so don’t take their mandates as necessary and serious. You’re acting like I don’t think the next step is evaluating what risk is present while setting your own level of precaution. You bring something in the thread. Claim something. Don't produce the context you are referring to and tell people to give it a Google. Say I did exactly that and have read about the governor. I still don't know anything about your gripes with the regulations he set about. Maybe stop being obtuse and forthright tell us what's bothering you with the regs.
Read my previous two posts before that one, and offer something constructive in regards to what I said about California and Newsom. It sounds like you’re missing important context, like my first claim and what it was based on. No googling necessary there, just reading.
|
You're referring to hypocrisy or that the measures are not based on data? Still unclear what you re criticising.
|
On November 21 2020 20:40 Artisreal wrote:
You're referring to hypocrisy or that the measures are not based on data? Still unclear what you re criticising.
The hypocrisy of public officials treating their mandates unseriously when it comes to their private lives hits both, essentially. But yes, my post that spawned some replies focused on the hypocrisy and I’d direct your attention there instead of reply chains if you wish to make constructive comments. It’s got the juicy, specific citations and what I think their consequences will be for my state.
|
On November 21 2020 20:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 20:40 Artisreal wrote:
You're referring to hypocrisy or that the measures are not based on data? Still unclear what you re criticising. The hypocrisy of public officials treating their mandates unseriously when it comes to their private lives hits both, essentially. But yes, my post that spawned some replies focused on the hypocrisy and I’d direct your attention there instead of reply chains if you wish to make constructive comments. It’s got the juicy, specific citations and what I think their consequences will be for my state.
People advocating for policy not following policy because they are shitbags doesn't indicate the policy is bad. It only indicates the people are bad. No one is defending Newsom and him not following his own policy is not evidence his policy is bad.
|
Focusing on the hypocrisy of others to excuse oneself is a very human thing to do.
Still the wrong thing but human nonetheless.
I really do think that the rules shouldn't be followed blindly. But the consequences of one's actions have to be thoroughly evaluated in light of the current circumstances.
We have to think for ourselves whether the e.g. mental or financial toll is bearable. And whether we can live with the consequences of killing other people if we refuse to listen to FACTS.
Face covering
Avoid crowded places
Clean hands regularly
Two metre distance
Self isolate and book a test if you have symptoms.
- Scottish government
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
