Quote:
Originally Posted by MuseChaser
Do you find any of the responses to the virus that have taken place socially destructive?
|
Yes. Pretending it's not an issue. Creating rules preventing places from enforcing safe-guards (anti-mask-mandate stuff). Insisting on "getting back to normal" when it's not time. I'm appalled at the behavior of some governors; I was equally appalled at the CDC "no mask if you're vaxxed" guideline earlier this year. Social organization and collaboration is what has allowed 'humans' to do some pretty amazing things; in this case, these actions are ignoring the health of that society as a whole. Like favoring an injury and pretending it's not there can lead to other injuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuseChaser
Being proven "safe" and being proven effective are two very different things. Some countermeasures are safe, some are debateably not. Some countermeasures are useless, some have a small degree of effectiveness, and some are very effective. You simply can't make blanket statements like that. For a countermeasure to be worth implementing, much less mandated, it needs to be proven to be very safe and at least significantly effective. I am NOT saying the vaccine(s) do not meet that bar. Masks, plexiglass barriers, specific distancing guidelines...there is room for debate there.
|
Sure. I wasn't trying to be specific because it didn't seem needed. It's not a countermeasure if it isn't effective; social awareness (time and distance stuff), vaccines, and masks are all safe AND effective. Especially used together.
Plexiglass barriers work for some things; it turns out they're not a very helpful answer in this case - but that's only come to light as we've learned more about transmission, and the inconvenience is relatively low; they DO work for other things. So a reasonable deployment early on, I think - and not particularly onerous and certainly not dangerous, so... eh. Though not everywhere bothered with well-engineered installations so there are probably places where they are outright bad.
And distancing measure, etc; the problem here is a social one. Guidelines have to be SIMPLE and EASY. Very few people are going to go through a 10-step safety checklist every time. So they're generalized and miss an awful lot in an attempt to mitigate issues broadly. Like my statements, there's an awful lot of detail missing but it's not really the point. The general blanket statement still holds true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuseChaser
The whole POINT of most responses to Covid has been to "prolong" the "fallout" ... "flatten the curve"...spread it out over time so as n9t to overwhelm the health care system. It would have been brutal and I'm not suggesting that doing nothing should even have been consiidered as an option, but if we HAD done nothing this would have all been over a year ago. Our responses have prolonged the fallout. Hopefully, in the prolonging of it, we have also minimized the fallout. THAT should be the goal.
As far as the debate over accurate recording of data, regardless of how heart-breaking or distasteful that process may be, that's how science works. If we are more interested in feelings than accuracy, then our research and conclusions will always be flawed, at least in areas where data is important...and I can't think of a branch of science where it isn't.
|
Sure. We needed time. All sorts of things were thrown at the problem to see if they worked. We've learned. We've built better answers. And we've messed up too.
The problem is no longer the same, at least in the US. We have alternatives to some of the more severe restrictions (stay at home, etc are indeed restrictive and problematic and VERY much lack balance, but they bought some time when we had no better ideas how to find it). They're being ignored. We still need time, because this is clearly a worldwide problem - but there is no reason for emergency rooms to be over capacity with covid patients at this time, here.
Debating is fine. Continued analysis is good. Adapting and updating are indeed part of the scientific process. Are numbers high or low? Not sure. All of the data I've taken time to look at (and I admit, I gave up some time ago) pointed to probable under-counting, but I'm open to being wrong.
The PROBLEM here is how it's being used to confirm questionable and outright false ideas.
So a stay-at-home order NOW is NOT being done for the same reason it was before (the hoped-for outcome is the same - a reduction in pressure on the system and a flattening of the curve); Previously it was because we had no other options. NOW? It's because a huge swath of our society believes their opinion is worth as much as a whole mountain of data. NOW? Those people are responsible for prolonging this thing they've been incredibly loud complaining about. Creating their own misery and refusing to acknowledge it. Gaslighting themselves (and of course, others).