|
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. |
On December 21 2021 12:06 dudeman001 wrote:
I guess a fundamental difference between our perspectives is you trust the FDA/CDC and I don't. Not in a conspiratorial way, but in a "these people look incompetent" way. US policy seems to be an all in vaccine-or-bust strategy without adequate transparency or data backing up that it'll work. Meanwhile other strategies seem to be working but the US agencies haven't shown any interest in figuring out what we could improve or changing from the vaccine at all cost mentality. It feels like a political strategy rather than a scientific one by now.
I don't think it's been vaccine-or-bust. We've had massive amounts of enforcement on masks, social distancing, limiting capacity of stores and restaurants, vaccines, and other protocols. (1) What do you think we should try that we haven't already, and (2) what evidence is there that your alternative suggestion would be effective? And also, since you championed the importance of rights earlier on, I'm interested in learning (3) how your suggestion would be less of a restriction or burden than a few days out of the year to get one or two shots and deal with the mild side-effects of a vaccine.
|
On December 21 2021 12:04 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 11:21 dudeman001 wrote:
That is a very fair concern, and if we were earlier in the pandemic I might agree with you. Back when covid started, every country was doing different things and it was kinda like a bunch of experiments were going on to find out who made the best approach. Well 2 years later we're finding that some countries utterly crushed it and a vaccine mandate was never part of the solution. I think there is enough evidence that there is a path out of the pandemic that doesn't rely on a vaccine mandate, and therefore enacting it is not a precedent worth setting. Which countries have crushed it and how have they done so? I’m a bit skeptical of cross-country comparisons as there’s just too many other variables to factor in. There are different climactic conditions, population densities, social and cultural norms and poverty to all factor in, countries that are nexuses for international travel and some that get little etc. It’s difficult to filter out that noise. Anyway I don’t think the bar is society not functioning, but a level of degradation in it functioning, commensurate with the ease of what part I’m being asked to play, commensurate with a link in outcomes with what thing I’m being asked to do. For example, despite me viewing Covid seriously, I would personally be against a requisitioning of me for 60 hours a week in some military/civilian service manning the hospitals. It would seem excessive, I’m not qualified etc or particular functional as a human being so would be of limited use. If there were something like ‘Super Covid’ where medical personnel where incapacitated en masse then maybe. In the case of vaccines the threat to society is, relatively large and the imposition on me is, almost nothing, and what I’m being asked to do has a demonstrable, direct effect on the problem that necessitates asking me
From what I've gathered in the past Bangladesh, Japan, India, Egypt, Cambodia, El Salvador at the very least all seem to have daily infection rates at 1 in 60,000 or better. Vaccination rates vary wildly from 17% to 80%. I'm not thoroughly versed in each country's total strategy, but the gist I get is aggressive prophylaxis/early treatment to routinely reduce overall viral load in the population. Compared to US where most early treatment once diagnosed as positive seems to amount to "stay at home and see how you feel" which is an odd regimen for how dangerous covid is.
On December 21 2021 12:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 12:06 dudeman001 wrote:
I guess a fundamental difference between our perspectives is you trust the FDA/CDC and I don't. Not in a conspiratorial way, but in a "these people look incompetent" way. US policy seems to be an all in vaccine-or-bust strategy without adequate transparency or data backing up that it'll work. Meanwhile other strategies seem to be working but the US agencies haven't shown any interest in figuring out what we could improve or changing from the vaccine at all cost mentality. It feels like a political strategy rather than a scientific one by now. What is the scientific strategy you are after?
Protocols based on unassailable scientific research that, when replicated in practice, bears similar results. Ideally a protocol that reduces transmission to the point of viral extinction, i.e. spread is reduced to <1 per new case. If you have evidence that the vaccines accomplish this I'm all ears, but I haven't encountered any.
On December 21 2021 12:25 WombaT wrote:
I'm sure there are a multitude of factors that help contribute to the stability of a country during a pandemic, but I'm not sure if all of them can be replicated by other countries due to geopolitical or other differences between countries. I also don't know enough about India, Japan, or Bangladesh to comment on how they've achieved significantly more success than the United States. That being said, the CDC and FDA and other expert authorities do maintain that vaccinations are the most effective way to assist in the fight against coronavirus, and while your request has already been addressed by others, it bears repeating that asking the vaccine to be the "only" solution or to be some magically perfect answer to the pandemic is completely unreasonable, even if it's the best shot (pun intended) we have at surviving this virus.
With the relative poverty, and especially in India the vastness of the place and many areas in rural isolation in combination with that, I find it hard to believe that India or Bangladesh can possibly test/track Covid cases to the degree say, the US can.
And in my crude understanding of Narendra Modi he can pull off the kind of shit Trump only wishes he could. Whether that clear ability extends in motivation to fudge Covid numbers I don’t know.
Japan I have few pet theories on other than the almost stereotypical ‘Asians are good with masks and disease compliance’ one. I’d be interested if anyone had anything more concrete.
There is a pretty glaring omission in most lists I see of countries who have their shit together, which is China, or countries under the Chinese sphere of influence. There may be some instructive lessons there too :p
As I said, I don’t like country to country comparisons because they’re mostly, well, bullshit unless the person making them has really attempted to account for differences, or has some plausible overall theories beyond the exact one they’re looking to prove. As I mostly browse TL on phone, the effort of actually dragging and copy pasting sources etc is something I’m too lazy to do, so I thank the rest of you for that.
I seem to recall Sweden used to be the gold standard held up, and proof herd immunity was the way to go until well, it wasn’t and even Anders Tegnell, for a time probably the world’s most famous epidemiologist (unless that’s Fauci’s actual procession) on the internet reevaluated his position and whatnot.
Note I say re-evaluate and not something derogatory like ‘backpedaling’, with all the negative connotations there. Which is fine, in the era when vaccines where an ‘if’ not a ‘when’, it was a reasonable strategy to pursue. From what I crudely understand the here immunity threshold vs serious health implications incurred was too high a barrier to breach.
I used to look at Sweden as having solved it ironically by doing nothing, but this year it seems they still got hit by waves albeit manageable ones. Some form of intervention appears to be necessary.
|
On December 21 2021 12:29 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 12:10 JimmiC wrote:On December 21 2021 12:06 dudeman001 wrote:
I guess a fundamental difference between our perspectives is you trust the FDA/CDC and I don't. Not in a conspiratorial way, but in a "these people look incompetent" way. US policy seems to be an all in vaccine-or-bust strategy without adequate transparency or data backing up that it'll work. Meanwhile other strategies seem to be working but the US agencies haven't shown any interest in figuring out what we could improve or changing from the vaccine at all cost mentality. It feels like a political strategy rather than a scientific one by now. What is the scientific strategy you are after? Protocols based on unassailable scientific research that, when replicated in practice, bears similar results. Ideally a protocol that reduces transmission to the point of viral extinction, i.e. spread is reduced to <1 per new case. If you have evidence that the vaccines accomplish this I'm all ears, but I haven't encountered any.
I think this is another example of you having too high standards/expectations, and it's not realistic or practical to take no action in the mean time, and the vaccines are currently our best bet. Here you've tautologically asserted that a magic bullet that can eliminate the pandemic would be our best bet against the pandemic. Sure, obviously. That's not to say there can't be a better alternative to vaccines that's eventually discovered, but it's pretty clear that your ideal solution isn't actually a thing we're aware of, right now.
|
|
|
I swear if this ends up as an ivermectin thing I'm not going to stop laughing for an hour.
|
On December 21 2021 12:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 12:06 dudeman001 wrote:
I guess a fundamental difference between our perspectives is you trust the FDA/CDC and I don't. Not in a conspiratorial way, but in a "these people look incompetent" way. US policy seems to be an all in vaccine-or-bust strategy without adequate transparency or data backing up that it'll work. Meanwhile other strategies seem to be working but the US agencies haven't shown any interest in figuring out what we could improve or changing from the vaccine at all cost mentality. It feels like a political strategy rather than a scientific one by now. I don't think it's been vaccine-or-bust. We've had massive amounts of enforcement on masks, social distancing, limiting capacity of stores and restaurants, vaccines, and other protocols. (1) What do you think we should try that we haven't already, and (2) what evidence is there that your alternative suggestion would be effective? And also, since you championed the importance of rights earlier on, I'm interested in learning (3) how your suggestion would be less of a restriction or burden than a few days out of the year to get one or two shots and deal with the mild side-effects of a vaccine.
True, USA has implemented everything you've mentioned as some stage. Is there evidence that any/all of those combined do enough to stop the virus? To me it feels like we've been repeating the mask/social distance/vaccinate mantra for a while and the virus keeps plowing through us like they did nothing.
Last clinical study I looked regarding masking showed I think 11% transmission reduction for surgical masks, no difference regarding cloth masks. N95 appears to be much more effective, yet mask policies in the US don't make any distinction. Again, feels like the people in charge are ignorant or incompetent.
As for 3), good question. I'm not sure to be honest. I like to think that if US or anywhere else implements a policy with 100% transparency, is open to criticism from the scientific community, and just treats adults like adults that most people will accept the measures. Like at the start of the pandemic we got "2 weeks to flatten the curve." Many people didn't like it, but we all sucked it up because we all want to do our part. Lately though it's edicts from on high, without transparency on how those decisions were made, or where the scientific data is, with any criticism labeled as anti-vaxx conspiracy. That's not how a strong scientific strategy is achieved.
|
On December 21 2021 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I swear if this ends up as an ivermectin thing I'm not going to stop laughing for an hour.
If ivermectin or monoclonal antibodies or the vaccine or whatever turns out to be the solution I don't really care which it is. That's not how science works, there is an answer and it's the job of scientists to find it dispassionately. Since I joined the thread I've been strictly talking vaccine and if you have data that shows that these vaccines are robust enough to stop the pandemic then show me. But I haven't seen that the vaccine has the mechanism to stop the pandemic and large populations across the world are figuring out how to stop it regardless of vaccination rate, so if you have a solution I'm all ears.
|
Northern Ireland25435 Posts
Dagnabbit did nobody enjoy my alien analogy? I try to come up with the worst analogies possible in my posting and I thought I’d really peaked there.
@dudeman, even if such a thing were possible, I’m unsure it’s feasible, or ethical.
There are unfathomable amount of variables, human deception etc to factor into any kind of ‘black box’ analysis to causally prove some of this stuff on a population wide basis.
There are ways you could do so, I don’t presume they’d be popular.
1. Until it is given the go ahead as a ‘tourist’ destination, requisition Mohdoo IslandTM and perform controlled, monitored experiments with ‘volunteers’ either deliberately infected with Covid or given a placebo and ‘volunteers’ given vaccines and placebos, or masking or distancing and monitor them closely and see what happens.
2. Some kind of big data tracking project, using people’s various devices movement, information etc, and crunching all that into models, Covid positives, how proximity worked, vaccine status etc.
Taken to extreme levels you could collect an absurd amount of data, and useful data at that. For example, day 3 of 5 11 hour shifts in work with a mask, I usually unlock my phone with Face ID. This does not work for obvious reasons, but one could log my habits of almost always opening my phone with my visage outside of being in this one location, and surmise in my times in this location I am masked.
I think that’s borderline technically feasible, if not absolutely feasible. The issue wouldn’t be the actually data analysis it would be the collection of said data for that purpose which I don’t think many would go for.
TLDR unless you can figure out what is happening in the system through direct observation, of some kind, you’re only analysing the results and trying to figure out what caused them.
I actually think really invasive levels of data collection and proper parsing (with anonymised abstraction) could be used for many genuinely beneficial reasons for years, and people REALLY don’t like the idea just off the bat.
Previously I had (conceptually) applied it to ideas like a managed commute pattern to stagger people’s working and optimise traffic flow, but something like Covid seemed of more import.
Even my friends who demand a lateral flow for a private social gathering really don’t like the idea.
I just don’t see how you can prove what works or what doesn’t (beyond an obvious point) without observing the moving parts.
We have a lot of data on what’s happening, not why, and often not when. Beyond some clear data points, such as vaccines obviously being beneficial.
You could find out a lot of cool and important shit if only you could get the data, but anyway I’ve rambled on long enough!
|
Northern Ireland25435 Posts
On December 21 2021 12:55 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I swear if this ends up as an ivermectin thing I'm not going to stop laughing for an hour. If ivermectin or monoclonal antibodies or the vaccine or whatever turns out to be the solution I don't really care which it is. That's not how science works, there is an answer and it's the job of scientists to find it dispassionately. Since I joined the thread I've been strictly talking vaccine and if you have data that shows that these vaccines are robust enough to stop the pandemic then show me. But I haven't seen that the vaccine has the mechanism to stop the pandemic and large populations across the world are figuring out how to stop it regardless of vaccination rate, so if you have a solution I'm all ears.
Nobody is claiming (here, specifically) that you’ll stop the pandemic that way.
If you break your leg, you get it stuck in a cast and given a pair of crutches to walk on. Neither of those actually heal your leg, but you can get around
There still are other sensible things that you might do, such as not walking on your broken leg 7 minutes after you’re out of the ER to not end up straight back in. Or doing the recommended exercises.
For sake of argument let’s say, ultimately the mitigation factor is going to be herd immunity, in this analogy your bones knitting back together.
You still have to do the housekeeping and the other sensible stuff in the interim, be it vaccines or be it distancing or whatever to make it all manageable on a macro level if we’re talking huge populations.
Alternatively there may be no ultimate solution that works, and we’ll cross that bridge and adapt.
I wholly reject, by the way, the idea that all these poorer countries have ‘solved’ Covid because, if they had we in the West would just emulate them and save a fuckload of money and hassle.
It’s not just life and libery these measures impinge on, it’s a vast amount of economic activity. If a country that can’t give universal healthcare to its citizens can shell out bucketloads in Covid assistance, I don’t see why they’d be doing that if obviously better alternatives were available.
|
On December 21 2021 12:55 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 12:45 Sermokala wrote:
I swear if this ends up as an ivermectin thing I'm not going to stop laughing for an hour. If ivermectin or monoclonal antibodies or the vaccine or whatever turns out to be the solution I don't really care which it is. That's not how science works, there is an answer and it's the job of scientists to find it dispassionately. Since I joined the thread I've been strictly talking vaccine and if you have data that shows that these vaccines are robust enough to stop the pandemic then show me. But I haven't seen that the vaccine has the mechanism to stop the pandemic and large populations across the world are figuring out how to stop it regardless of vaccination rate, so if you have a solution I'm all ears.
OH, great. So until we find your magical solution (if we ever do) we just wait, right? Instead of doing what we know at least helps even if it does not solve the problem entirely.
Seems like a reasonable position to me. I am sure India has solved covid.
|
On December 21 2021 13:02 WombaT wrote:
Dagnabbit did nobody enjoy my alien analogy? I try to come up with the worst analogies possible in my posting and I thought I’d really peaked there.
I did. It was absurd and nonsensical, but I enjoyed it! But is Ripley Ivermectin in this analogy? 
Anyway, just to chip in on India having "solved" Covid. Even if we accept that they have (they haven't), they have done so with some of the most draconian measures in the world in terms of travel and work restrictions on their population. I am a bit boggled by people claiming the government forcing them to get a vaccine is unacceptable government overreach point to India as a shining beacon of how it should be done. More to the point, as this article succinctly put it, India didn't beat Covid, Covid beat India. India's official numbers look good, but they are clearly underreporting, as the Economist quite neatly points out with this interactive graph: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates (probably behind a paywall, but ourworldindata reports on this here: https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid#estimated-excess-mortality-from-the-economist with a link to a non-paywalled version of the graph).
In other words, India's rosy numbers for their deathrate are horribly wrong, and their actual deathrate for Covid is considerably higher than in the US (where official deaths and excess deaths are quite near each other). India hasn't beaten Covid, they have simply suffered the consequences of not doing anything. The silver lining is that most of the population now has natural immunity, but what we know even less about than the excess deaths is what % of the Indian population is suffering long-term effects from Covid.
I guess one thing we'll see soon enough in India is whether natural immunity imparted by getting the delta variant offers better protection to omicron than the vaccines do.
In any case, I think India is a clear sign on what *not* to do rather than a beacon of shining hope.
|
On December 21 2021 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 02:10 pmh wrote:On December 21 2021 01:26 WombaT wrote:On December 20 2021 09:54 pmh wrote:
The best way forward for society as a whole i would not dare to say. Maybe public expectations should be lowerd.The public has never fully realized the scope of this pandemic and messages from authoritys have been to optimistic in general (for which there are definitely some arguments so i can understand that).
We dont have all that many options other then continue with the current strategy and hope that at one point things will get better. If this is actually realistic and how long this would take i would not dare to say either but it could be that we are somewhat close.
The unvaxed are definitely not helping but blaming them is pointless i think. It only increases polarization which isnt particulary helpfull in a situation like this. The problem is also bigger then a certain percentage of the population beeing unvaxed. Many people thought they where good with 2 vaccinations and now everyone does need a booster which cant be done in time because of logistical issues. The unvaxed will still get their protection from infection eventually. I think people forget that we live a rather rarefied existence, especially in the West. We haven’t fully conquered all that nature can throw at us. We aren’t guaranteed a certain standard of living, it’s what we carve out. I don’t blame anti-vaxxers for things dragging on as it seems patently clear that vaccination alone may not cut it. I do think many of their rationales and sometimes underlying motivations are stupid, while vaccination isn’t the golden goose solution, not vaccinating certainly doesn’t bloody help. In addition many, albeit not all don’t exactly adhere to the additional behaviours that help on top of/instead of vaccination. It’s been years since I’ve heard calls to seek to avoid polarisation in all sorts of domains. Sometimes seeking some common ground would absolutely be prudent, sometimes we’re getting into the fallacy of moderation territory. This isn’t to say people aren’t guilty of pious or overly divisive rhetoric that isn’t especially helpful, that frequently also comes from a position of a total lack of understanding or knowledge themselves, or that genuine objections to other things get lumped in as ‘anti-vax’ Without adding a million additional caveats I’m not talking about folks in this thread, but in the environs outside. They’re, absolutely full of shite in myriad mysterious and muddled ways. The only way to have a discussion that doesn’t become poisonous and polarised is not to have it at all. Which isn’t reducing polarisation because ultimately you’re just letting a group of people do what they want, which antagonises the other ‘pole’ anyway. It’s ‘don’t tell me what to do’ taken to such preposterous realms it can only come from a humongous anti-authority streak or plain selfishness, and given some of the crossover into some of their politics, they are only anti-authority when it’s not their bloke. If the government mandated people not to jump in a fire some of these folks would be making giant pyres and triple jumping in holding hands. Yes i do agree. All this is very much true. A prudent strategy to properly adrees this i dont really see unfortunatly. Trying to force the issue has proven to not be very effective. People only dig in more,heels in the sand. The effect of any sort of polarization spreads out like oil,also increasing polarization in other areas. This effect is particulary strong in the USA where every single issue has become polarized mostly along partizan lines. Maybe ignoring and accepting the issue to some extend isnt the worst solution at this point. Simply repeating the message and advices from scientists in a friendly and open manner without directly attacking the unvaxxed on a personal level. As direct pressure only increases resistance. Eventually people will come around if you aproach them this way. At least thats what i hope and also think. This has been the general aproach in most western nations so far so i do think we are doing the right thing when it comes to this. Its mostly the public itself which does become more hostile towards the other side, which i think is not helping. The other option would be to force vaccinations and make them mandatory,this isnt the worst solution for dealing with the pandemic and some countries have resorted to this already. But doing so does go against some of the principles on which our society is build,it does come with collateral damage. For some people this will work.They will take the vaccine and simply stop caring about having been forced to take it. With other people it will backfire and they will be even less willing to comply. In the end it might not be the worst solution as the group which will simply accept it is probably a lot bigger then the group which will resist even more. But it would be much better for the future if this could be avoided all together. Direct pressure does not increase resistance. Every data point we have has shown vaccine mandates increase vaccination rates. People being mad about it is a great price to pay for having a functional hospital system.
Yes,it will work for most people. I did mention this in the last paragraph of my post. Most people will simply take the vaccine and forget about it if it is mandated for certain activitys.
My comment was not so much aimed at government policy but more at the public discussion on social media and the like (which this website is also a part of). The hostility towards anti-vax in the public discussion i think is not helping. It increases polarization and makes people dig in more while it will not convince many people. After all its just a discussion by random people on the internet and not a policy from the government.
I do think the best aproach in the public discussion is to simply ignore the antivax crowd completely. Mentioning all the negative effects of antivax and making good arguments is perfectly fine (and i do think helpfull as well) but dont engage in a direct discussion with the more radical anti-vax elements. They need that discussion and the fight around it as they do benefit from any type of polarization. The discussion in some ways makes their position more relevant,because apearently it is worth discussing. By avoiding any direct discussion their position becomes less relevant,and with that also less attractive.
Aproaching polarization in this way,simply avoiding the public discussion all together,i think is a valid aproach for dealing with it from a pragmatic point of vieuw. If only because the alternative has proven to not be very efficient and might even work counter productive. Its an aproach to extreme elements of polarization general. I dont claim it is the perfect aproach as ignoring it does come with certain risks as well.
And again just to be sure:this goes for the public discussion and not government policy. It also doesnt mean you should not stand up against certain elements. You should stand up and speak out against that was is wrong but keep it general without a direct discussion with the other side. As said above:i do think this could be an efficient way of dealing with polarization in general. Its a bit difficult to explain what i mean exactly and i am not sure my message is clear. It is more a general psycholigical thing.
Like for example there is this one kid in school,he fights and argues with everyone. As long as people respond to him he is validated in his behaviour. When people start to ignore him completely it becomes more difficult.
Not sure if this gets the message across but this is sort of what i meant to say.
|
On December 21 2021 12:50 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 12:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 12:06 dudeman001 wrote:
I guess a fundamental difference between our perspectives is you trust the FDA/CDC and I don't. Not in a conspiratorial way, but in a "these people look incompetent" way. US policy seems to be an all in vaccine-or-bust strategy without adequate transparency or data backing up that it'll work. Meanwhile other strategies seem to be working but the US agencies haven't shown any interest in figuring out what we could improve or changing from the vaccine at all cost mentality. It feels like a political strategy rather than a scientific one by now. I don't think it's been vaccine-or-bust. We've had massive amounts of enforcement on masks, social distancing, limiting capacity of stores and restaurants, vaccines, and other protocols. (1) What do you think we should try that we haven't already, and (2) what evidence is there that your alternative suggestion would be effective? And also, since you championed the importance of rights earlier on, I'm interested in learning (3) how your suggestion would be less of a restriction or burden than a few days out of the year to get one or two shots and deal with the mild side-effects of a vaccine. True, USA has implemented everything you've mentioned as some stage. Is there evidence that any/all of those combined do enough to stop the virus? To me it feels like we've been repeating the mask/social distance/vaccinate mantra for a while and the virus keeps plowing through us like they did nothing. Last clinical study I looked regarding masking showed I think 11% transmission reduction for surgical masks, no difference regarding cloth masks. N95 appears to be much more effective, yet mask policies in the US don't make any distinction. Again, feels like the people in charge are ignorant or incompetent. As for 3), good question. I'm not sure to be honest. I like to think that if US or anywhere else implements a policy with 100% transparency, is open to criticism from the scientific community, and just treats adults like adults that most people will accept the measures. Like at the start of the pandemic we got "2 weeks to flatten the curve." Many people didn't like it, but we all sucked it up because we all want to do our part. Lately though it's edicts from on high, without transparency on how those decisions were made, or where the scientific data is, with any criticism labeled as anti-vaxx conspiracy. That's not how a strong scientific strategy is achieved.
All of those things did not "stop the virus" insofar as the pandemic still persists, but what is the alternative? Because the only alternative I can think of is to *not* promote all those various ideas, each of which contribute to lessening the impact of the pandemic, and instead things would have been much worse.
And I don't think I received an answer to (1), despite you consistently pointing out that we need to be doing something else. What is that "something else"? What's the magic bullet that makes this whole pandemic disappear, and how do we convince people who don't trust the scientists or data to contribute to society by taking/eating/using that magic bullet? You keep pointing out that we're not doing enough, while also holding the position that we're already infringing on too many liberties, so I'm confused as to what actual changes you think we should be making to beat coronavirus.
|
On December 21 2021 20:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 12:50 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 12:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 12:06 dudeman001 wrote:
I guess a fundamental difference between our perspectives is you trust the FDA/CDC and I don't. Not in a conspiratorial way, but in a "these people look incompetent" way. US policy seems to be an all in vaccine-or-bust strategy without adequate transparency or data backing up that it'll work. Meanwhile other strategies seem to be working but the US agencies haven't shown any interest in figuring out what we could improve or changing from the vaccine at all cost mentality. It feels like a political strategy rather than a scientific one by now. I don't think it's been vaccine-or-bust. We've had massive amounts of enforcement on masks, social distancing, limiting capacity of stores and restaurants, vaccines, and other protocols. (1) What do you think we should try that we haven't already, and (2) what evidence is there that your alternative suggestion would be effective? And also, since you championed the importance of rights earlier on, I'm interested in learning (3) how your suggestion would be less of a restriction or burden than a few days out of the year to get one or two shots and deal with the mild side-effects of a vaccine. True, USA has implemented everything you've mentioned as some stage. Is there evidence that any/all of those combined do enough to stop the virus? To me it feels like we've been repeating the mask/social distance/vaccinate mantra for a while and the virus keeps plowing through us like they did nothing. Last clinical study I looked regarding masking showed I think 11% transmission reduction for surgical masks, no difference regarding cloth masks. N95 appears to be much more effective, yet mask policies in the US don't make any distinction. Again, feels like the people in charge are ignorant or incompetent. As for 3), good question. I'm not sure to be honest. I like to think that if US or anywhere else implements a policy with 100% transparency, is open to criticism from the scientific community, and just treats adults like adults that most people will accept the measures. Like at the start of the pandemic we got "2 weeks to flatten the curve." Many people didn't like it, but we all sucked it up because we all want to do our part. Lately though it's edicts from on high, without transparency on how those decisions were made, or where the scientific data is, with any criticism labeled as anti-vaxx conspiracy. That's not how a strong scientific strategy is achieved. All of those things did not "stop the virus" insofar as the pandemic still persists, but what is the alternative? Because the only alternative I can think of is to *not* promote all those various ideas, each of which contribute to lessening the impact of the pandemic, and instead things would have been much worse. And I don't think I received an answer to (1), despite you consistently pointing out that we need to be doing something else. What is that "something else"? What's the magic bullet that makes this whole pandemic disappear, and how do we convince people who don't trust the scientists or data to contribute to society by taking/eating/using that magic bullet? You keep pointing out that we're not doing enough, while also holding the position that we're already infringing on too many liberties, so I'm confused as to what actual changes you think we should be making to beat coronavirus.
The irony is that the only long-term solution is herd immunity, and trying to limit the spread will only delay that. The question should be what level of hospitalizations and deaths are acceptable on the way to herd immunity. Denmark and Norway have implemented strict restrictions despite only a few hundred hospitals nation wide. Some very critical questions are being asked, and the support of the restrictions is dwindling.
|
On December 21 2021 22:00 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 20:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 12:50 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 12:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 12:06 dudeman001 wrote:
I guess a fundamental difference between our perspectives is you trust the FDA/CDC and I don't. Not in a conspiratorial way, but in a "these people look incompetent" way. US policy seems to be an all in vaccine-or-bust strategy without adequate transparency or data backing up that it'll work. Meanwhile other strategies seem to be working but the US agencies haven't shown any interest in figuring out what we could improve or changing from the vaccine at all cost mentality. It feels like a political strategy rather than a scientific one by now. I don't think it's been vaccine-or-bust. We've had massive amounts of enforcement on masks, social distancing, limiting capacity of stores and restaurants, vaccines, and other protocols. (1) What do you think we should try that we haven't already, and (2) what evidence is there that your alternative suggestion would be effective? And also, since you championed the importance of rights earlier on, I'm interested in learning (3) how your suggestion would be less of a restriction or burden than a few days out of the year to get one or two shots and deal with the mild side-effects of a vaccine. True, USA has implemented everything you've mentioned as some stage. Is there evidence that any/all of those combined do enough to stop the virus? To me it feels like we've been repeating the mask/social distance/vaccinate mantra for a while and the virus keeps plowing through us like they did nothing. Last clinical study I looked regarding masking showed I think 11% transmission reduction for surgical masks, no difference regarding cloth masks. N95 appears to be much more effective, yet mask policies in the US don't make any distinction. Again, feels like the people in charge are ignorant or incompetent. As for 3), good question. I'm not sure to be honest. I like to think that if US or anywhere else implements a policy with 100% transparency, is open to criticism from the scientific community, and just treats adults like adults that most people will accept the measures. Like at the start of the pandemic we got "2 weeks to flatten the curve." Many people didn't like it, but we all sucked it up because we all want to do our part. Lately though it's edicts from on high, without transparency on how those decisions were made, or where the scientific data is, with any criticism labeled as anti-vaxx conspiracy. That's not how a strong scientific strategy is achieved. All of those things did not "stop the virus" insofar as the pandemic still persists, but what is the alternative? Because the only alternative I can think of is to *not* promote all those various ideas, each of which contribute to lessening the impact of the pandemic, and instead things would have been much worse. And I don't think I received an answer to (1), despite you consistently pointing out that we need to be doing something else. What is that "something else"? What's the magic bullet that makes this whole pandemic disappear, and how do we convince people who don't trust the scientists or data to contribute to society by taking/eating/using that magic bullet? You keep pointing out that we're not doing enough, while also holding the position that we're already infringing on too many liberties, so I'm confused as to what actual changes you think we should be making to beat coronavirus. The irony is that the only long-term solution is herd immunity, and trying to limit the spread will only delay that. The question should be what level of hospitalizations and deaths are acceptable on the way to herd immunity. Denmark and Norway have implemented strict restrictions despite only a few hundred hospitals nation wide. Some very critical questions are being asked, and the support of the restrictions is dwindling.
It only delays herd immunity if those people aren't being vaccinated. For the sake of everyone, I'd much rather have the remaining individuals become vaccinated instead of infected.
|
|
|
Also its not even clear if herd immunity will work since theres the possibility of reinfection after several months. It makes you wonder if well ever be out of this.
|
|
|
On December 21 2021 22:00 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2021 20:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 12:50 dudeman001 wrote:On December 21 2021 12:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 21 2021 12:06 dudeman001 wrote:
I guess a fundamental difference between our perspectives is you trust the FDA/CDC and I don't. Not in a conspiratorial way, but in a "these people look incompetent" way. US policy seems to be an all in vaccine-or-bust strategy without adequate transparency or data backing up that it'll work. Meanwhile other strategies seem to be working but the US agencies haven't shown any interest in figuring out what we could improve or changing from the vaccine at all cost mentality. It feels like a political strategy rather than a scientific one by now. I don't think it's been vaccine-or-bust. We've had massive amounts of enforcement on masks, social distancing, limiting capacity of stores and restaurants, vaccines, and other protocols. (1) What do you think we should try that we haven't already, and (2) what evidence is there that your alternative suggestion would be effective? And also, since you championed the importance of rights earlier on, I'm interested in learning (3) how your suggestion would be less of a restriction or burden than a few days out of the year to get one or two shots and deal with the mild side-effects of a vaccine. True, USA has implemented everything you've mentioned as some stage. Is there evidence that any/all of those combined do enough to stop the virus? To me it feels like we've been repeating the mask/social distance/vaccinate mantra for a while and the virus keeps plowing through us like they did nothing. Last clinical study I looked regarding masking showed I think 11% transmission reduction for surgical masks, no difference regarding cloth masks. N95 appears to be much more effective, yet mask policies in the US don't make any distinction. Again, feels like the people in charge are ignorant or incompetent. As for 3), good question. I'm not sure to be honest. I like to think that if US or anywhere else implements a policy with 100% transparency, is open to criticism from the scientific community, and just treats adults like adults that most people will accept the measures. Like at the start of the pandemic we got "2 weeks to flatten the curve." Many people didn't like it, but we all sucked it up because we all want to do our part. Lately though it's edicts from on high, without transparency on how those decisions were made, or where the scientific data is, with any criticism labeled as anti-vaxx conspiracy. That's not how a strong scientific strategy is achieved. All of those things did not "stop the virus" insofar as the pandemic still persists, but what is the alternative? Because the only alternative I can think of is to *not* promote all those various ideas, each of which contribute to lessening the impact of the pandemic, and instead things would have been much worse. And I don't think I received an answer to (1), despite you consistently pointing out that we need to be doing something else. What is that "something else"? What's the magic bullet that makes this whole pandemic disappear, and how do we convince people who don't trust the scientists or data to contribute to society by taking/eating/using that magic bullet? You keep pointing out that we're not doing enough, while also holding the position that we're already infringing on too many liberties, so I'm confused as to what actual changes you think we should be making to beat coronavirus. The irony is that the only long-term solution is herd immunity, and trying to limit the spread will only delay that. The question should be what level of hospitalizations and deaths are acceptable on the way to herd immunity. Denmark and Norway have implemented strict restrictions despite only a few hundred hospitals nation wide. Some very critical questions are being asked, and the support of the restrictions is dwindling. People who have had Covid can get it again and people who get it naturally are not better protected then those who have been vaccinated.
Letting the virus run free as much as possible is not a long term solution. And certainly not a better one then vaccinating everyone, and the latter leads to MASSIVELY less deaths and long term complications.
|
Why has some parts of Asia been spared from higher COVID deaths? One possible theory is due to demographics - the population is younger, and the elderly mainly consist of healthy resilient folks. It's possible that Asians tend to have a healthier lifestyle and diet (less junk food and vices). Another possibility is that the wonders of Western healthcare have created a substrata of vulnerable elderly folks on constant need of medical support (whilst their Asian equivalents have the misfortune of just dying out). Maybe climate also is a factor - flu-like diseases is less virulent near the tropics (seasonal flu jabs is unheard of).
So it's not entirely wrong to believe that COVID is more dangerous to certain communities than others, whether for factors within or beyond our control.
It's rather unfortunate that there's hardly media coverage (or even many scientific studies) on China's approach. Yes, there's a lot of international political tension, and data may be hard to find. Still, I don't see any Western government making serious effort to engage. We like to talk about putting the pandemic above politics on a domestic level (Democrats v Republican). It's just sad not more is being done at an international level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
