COVID Developments and News

[dragoontwo]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Not 100% sure, other than those that are not fully vaccinated only have a low additional protection level (only about 50 to 60%) although it does reduce the likelihood of death or hospitalization and it would be complicated by when you got your first (and even second) shot as you are not considered fully vaccinated until 14 days after the second shot.

Here's one article I read that covers it.

I just think it would be an interesting data point to track. it wouldn't require anymore input data as they're already collecting it. It would be interesting to see the data on the "half" vaxed, full and non.

[MuseChaser]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

..
What we do know if roughly 650k+ have died, which is around 0.2% of the US population, and the death toll is most likely short of the true death toll. ...

But we do not, in any way shape or form, "know (that)...the death toll is most likely short of the true death toll (from Covid)" .. if that is, indeed, what you are stating. There are VERY strong arguments that the "true death toll" from Covid is, practically speaking, much lower than some figures mentioned. That discussion has taken place many times over on this forum already, and it would be pointless to rehash it. Suffice it to say that, hopefully, we can agree there is enough uncertainty that we can not unequivocally state that we "know" the death toll is higher... or lower... than any given figure.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

... It isn’t a lot, but I think my point is that we shouldn’t be dismissive about the severity of this virus.

We shouldn't be dismissive of facts. The virus has a severe and sometimes lethal personal impact on a very small minority of the population. No one is dismissing that, and the suffering that causes for families with loved ones afflicted. The virus also has the capability to overwhelm health care facilities, mostly in densely populated areas, and that can indeed be a severe problem as it not only impacts those afflicted with the virus, but those needing every other form of health care that can't be provided efficiently if hospitals are overwhelmed. I don't believe anyone is dismissive of either of those issues.

What I do find people dismissing is the fact that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, having the virus is a non-event. If one has symptoms or has reason to believe they've been exposed, get tested and self-isolate until you get the results. If positive, self-quarantine. Take precautions that make sense to you; avoid dense gatherings especially indoors and get the vaccine if you're comfortable with doing so. In reality, all the things any responsible person would do for any other flu. That's it.

The article on the Columbia site to which I had previously linked estimates that on December 31, 2020 in the U.S., one out of approx 130 people was currently infected and contagious.. 0.77%. Depending upon how many people one contacts in a given day, that can either be a completely insignificant risk/amount, or can be quite significant. Then, there's the fact that coming in contact with an infected person does not mean you will become infected... just that it's possible. THEN, there's the fact that, if you do become infected, chances are greater, by far, that you will experience little or no discomfort than that you will become gravely ill or pass away. By FAR.

Soo... let's not dismiss the fact that the chances of coming in contact with a person who is currently contagious can be quite low to begin with, unless you work or frequent congested populous environments. Then let's not dismiss the fact that contact does not equal automatic infection. Then let's not dismiss the fact that infection does not equal intense suffering or a death sentence.

Of course we should also not dismiss the widely known and accepted fact that individuals who are mothers, fathers, and people's loved ones can and do suffer greatly and pass away either directly from Covid even when otherwise healthy (although that is EXTREMELY rare), or from Covid's exacerbation of comorbidities, which is the overwhelming majority of deaths attributed to Covid. I am NOT, nor have I ever, suggesting/suggested, that we should not be cognizant of the risk we may present to others who ARE at risk for severe complications, nor should we discourage anyone from taking precautions THEY feel are justified for their own comfort, regardless of whether or not those precautions have scientifically debatable effectiveness.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by dragoontwo

I just think it would be an interesting data point to track. it wouldn't require anymore input data as they're already collecting it. It would be interesting to see the data on the "half" vaxed, full and non.

Yea, I agree.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

But we do not, in any way shape or form, "know (that)...the death toll is most likely short of the true death toll (from Covid)" .. if that is, indeed, what you are stating. There are VERY strong arguments that the "true death toll" from Covid is, practically speaking, much lower than some figures mentioned. That discussion has taken place many times over on this forum already, and it would be pointless to rehash it. Suffice it to say that, hopefully, we can agree there is enough uncertainty that we can not unequivocally state that we "know" the death toll is higher... or lower... than any given figure.

All Cause Mortality data suggests the death toll is higher. We have much more evidence to suggest deaths are undercounted than attributed to COVID incorrectly. We know this unequivocally for many areas around the world like India, and we know it to be true here too. PCR tests are only accurate to around 65% because of collecting and testing errors, even though the tests have an accuracy of 98% at the academic level. This alone suggests there will be a huge number of false negatives. We know of SNFs and officials who have covered up thousands of COVID deaths like Cuomo. There has been a number of publications and studies doing analysis on the differences between All Cause Mortality and reported deaths (see below).

In the face of this evidence, I often hear the corollary, which is the assumption that deaths would be inappropriately attributed to COVID instead of a different cause or someone posts a few anecdotal cases that have been report, yet I haven't seen any studies or shown any data to suggest the exceptions are prolific. Again, the evidence suggests we are far undercounting. Do you have a study that estimates the number of deaths that are inappropriately attributed to COVID?

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c...ess_deaths.htm

From May 2021:

Estimation of excess mortality due to COVID-19

http://www.healthdata.org/special-an...ovid-19-deaths

See tables below, and note that some countries have no data, or for areas like India, their adjusted estimate is still likely low given the ridiculously low data that is available in rural areas where most deaths regularly go unreported.

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

We shouldn't be dismissive of facts. The virus has a severe and sometimes lethal personal impact on a very small minority of the population. No one is dismissing that, and the suffering that causes for families with loved ones afflicted. The virus also has the capability to overwhelm health care facilities, mostly in densely populated areas, and that can indeed be a severe problem as it not only impacts those afflicted with the virus, but those needing every other form of health care that can't be provided efficiently if hospitals are overwhelmed. I don't believe anyone is dismissive of either of those issues.

What I do find people dismissing is the fact that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, having the virus is a non-event. If one has symptoms or has reason to believe they've been exposed, get tested and self-isolate until you get the results. If positive, self-quarantine. Take precautions that make sense to you; avoid dense gatherings especially indoors and get the vaccine if you're comfortable with doing so. In reality, all the things any responsible person would do for any other flu. That's it.

The article on the Columbia site to which I had previously linked estimates that on December 31, 2020 in the U.S., one out of approx 130 people was currently infected and contagious.. 0.77%. Depending upon how many people one contacts in a given day, that can either be a completely insignificant risk/amount, or can be quite significant. Then, there's the fact that coming in contact with an infected person does not mean you will become infected... just that it's possible. THEN, there's the fact that, if you do become infected, chances are greater, by far, that you will experience little or no discomfort than that you will become gravely ill or pass away. By FAR.

Soo... let's not dismiss the fact that the chances of coming in contact with a person who is currently contagious can be quite low to begin with, unless you work or frequent congested populous environments. Then let's not dismiss the fact that contact does not equal automatic infection. Then let's not dismiss the fact that infection does not equal intense suffering or a death sentence.

Of course we should also not dismiss the widely known and accepted fact that individuals who are mothers, fathers, and people's loved ones can and do suffer greatly and pass away either directly from Covid even when otherwise healthy (although that is EXTREMELY rare), or from Covid's exacerbation of comorbidities, which is the overwhelming majority of deaths attributed to Covid. I am NOT, nor have I ever, suggesting/suggested, that we should not be cognizant of the risk we may present to others who ARE at risk for severe complications, nor should we discourage anyone from taking precautions THEY feel are justified for their own comfort, regardless of whether or not those precautions have scientifically debatable effectiveness.

This has been another ongoing debate: how do we effectively frame the severity of this virus?

We can discuss death rates by age. We can talk about hospital rates by age. We discuss the studies that discuss long term complications and damage done to those who have asymptomatic cases all the way to the those who have severe cases. We know one of the biggest threats from people who have COVID is that they may have low oxygen saturation and can be acutely unaware, and we know there are objective damage that this virus has to people of all ages. For many people, the evidence is strong to suggest they don't ever want to get this virus, irregardless of their perceived severity. They might survive COVID or not be hospitalized, but they don't want other effects that have been reported in survivors.

There are the other groups of people that understand this virus will mutate and can potentially mutate to effect younger people like we have seen with the Spanish Flu and other pandemics.

With an average death toll of around 35k (estimated; measure is much less) per year for the flu, this pandemic has killed in a year and a half what the flu does (with vaccines) in twenty years. When we isolate the fact that the flu overwhelming kills 80+ and not so much 50-80 year olds, this twenty year statistic is closer to fifty years for that younger group. We can try to downplay the severity or risk for the individual or for the youth, but it ignores the larger effect. It also ignores the potential this virus has to mutate into new variants. It ignores the potential this virus has to cause long term damage to the body, and it ignores the statistics not really reported like we know 650k have died, but how many have been hospitalized because of COVID? Based on your estimations that severity doesn't equal deaths, it is likely that millions have been hospitalized with COVID.

How are we going to get out of this situation? Vaccines and better treatments. Post all the data you want, and I always welcome data because I am not trying to subvert data, but the larger message doesn't change that this is a destructive virus, and the only way to move past this pandemic is through vaccinations. My point of commenting on the data is to give context. The biggest context is that the severity of the Delta variant is likely much higher given the data that we are seeing, and the 0.3% mortality doesn't really speak to the full destructive nature of this virus. For most people, the difference of 0.8% to 0.3% doesn't mean much. It doesn't mean much for those who don't want a vaccine, and it doesn't mean much for those who have had a vaccine or who maintain social distancing measures and precautions. That is all I am saying: "Cool [data]. Although, I don’t really know if it matters at this point."

[cjd]

Wish I could find the study behind this BBC article. Very light summary, really.

To summarize the summary: complications from the vaccines are shared with the virus, but significantly lower Risk from the vaccine. Risk of blood clots, for example, is nearly 200 times higher from the virus than the AZ vaccine. Thats the biggest gap, a few others are listed.

[cjd]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

We shouldn't be dismissive of facts. The virus has a severe and sometimes lethal personal impact on a very small minority of the population. No one is dismissing that, and the suffering that causes for families with loved ones afflicted. The virus also has the capability to overwhelm health care facilities, mostly in densely populated areas, and that can indeed be a severe problem as it not only impacts those afflicted with the virus, but those needing every other form of health care that can't be provided efficiently if hospitals are overwhelmed. I don't believe anyone is dismissive of either of those issues.

These are socially destructive. Yet in refusing proven safe (if sometimes inconvenient) countermeasures, a large group are in fact dismissing facts. In doing so, they are making all the fallout that much more prolonged while railing against that very thing.
Debating whether we're counting deaths right is just... I don't even have the words.

[MuseChaser]

Originally Posted by cjd

These are socially destructive. .

Do you find any of the responses to the virus that have taken place socially destructive?

Originally Posted by cjd

Yet in refusing proven safe (if sometimes inconvenient) countermeasures, a large group are in fact dismissing facts.

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.

Originally Posted by cjd

In doing so, they are making all the fallout that much more prolonged while railing against that very thing.
Debating whether we're counting deaths right is just... I don't even have the words.

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.

[Atmo]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

Soo... let's not dismiss the fact that the chances of coming in contact with a person who is currently contagious can be quite low to begin with, unless you work or frequent congested populous environments. Then let's not dismiss the fact that contact does not equal automatic infection. Then let's not dismiss the fact that infection does not equal intense suffering or a death sentence.

And the fact that the vaccination rate of those actually working in a hospital environment is lower than expected, in some states about half of the staff choosing to skip vaccinations. It's also being reported that some front line health care workers are choosing to resign instead of complying with political edicts in those states mandating vaccinations. Curious to say the least and will have unintended consequences.

Speaking of facts, there still isn't agreement that the substances being put into people fits the CDC definition of a vaccine, among other questionable assumptions. An MD speaks to some of those facts:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._is_going.html

[spike021]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

Soo... let's not dismiss the fact that the chances of coming in contact with a person who is currently contagious can be quite low to begin with, unless you work or frequent congested populous environments. Then let's not dismiss the fact that contact does not equal automatic infection. Then let's not dismiss the fact that infection does not equal intense suffering or a death sentence.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e2.htm

Basically, a teacher who was infected came to school and shed the virus off on their students, those students then brought it back home to their relatives.

The school required teachers and students to mask while indoors; interviews with parents of infected students suggested that students’ adherence to masking and distancing guidelines in line with CDC recommendations (3) was high in class. However, the teacher was reportedly unmasked on occasions when reading aloud in class.

On May 22, students in a another classroom, who differed in age by 3 years from the students in the class with the index case and who were also ineligible for vaccination began to experience symptoms. The two classrooms were separated by a large outdoor courtyard with lunch tables that were blocked off from use with yellow tape. All classrooms had portable high-efficiency particulate air filters and doors and windows were left open. Fourteen of 18 students in this separate grade received testing; six tests had positive results. Investigation revealed that one student in this grade hosted a sleepover on May 21 with two classmates from the same grade. All three of these students experienced symptoms after the sleepover and received positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Among infected students in this class, test dates ranged from May 24 to June 1; symptom onset occurred during May 22–31.

In addition to the documented infections in the two initial grades, cases were identified in one student each from four other grades. Three patients were symptomatic; dates for testing were May 30 or June 2. These four students were siblings of three students with cases in the index patient’s class, and exposure was assumed to have occurred in their respective homes. In addition to the teacher and 22 infected students, four parents of students with cases were also infected, for a total of 27 cases (23 confirmed by RT-PCR and four by antigen testing) (Figure 2). Among the five infected adults, one parent and the teacher were unvaccinated; the others were fully vaccinated. The vaccinated adults and one unvaccinated adult were symptomatic with fever, chills, cough, headache, and loss of smell. No other school staff members reported becoming ill. No persons infected in this outbreak were hospitalized. This activity was reviewed by Marin County and was conducted consistent with applicable law.

And because I know you'll mention it:

let's not dismiss the fact that the chances of coming in contact with a person who is currently contagious can be quite low to begin with, unless you work or frequent congested populous environments.

None of the parents were in the classroom with the infected patient here.

So how exactly does it matter that the chances are low unless you are in a congested environment?

What about grandparents (theorizing here) who are legal guardians of said children or immunocompromised parents who would be home a majority of the time, yet are exposed because just one teacher had some symptoms and decided not only to continue coming into one environment, but also removing their mask to read aloud (which you can do just fine while wearing a mask)?

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by cjd

These are socially destructive. Yet in refusing proven safe (if sometimes inconvenient) countermeasures, a large group are in fact dismissing facts. In doing so, they are making all the fallout that much more prolonged while railing against that very thing.
Debating whether we're counting deaths right is just... I don't even have the words.

i was just talking about this with my dad. of the people that i know that are 'recent' non-vaxxers(so ignoring the people that were anti-vax pre-covid), all of them are heavy facebook users.

i was telling my dad i'd like to see something charted showing the relationship between those that are heavy social media users, and anti-vax. i think there's a lot of correlation that these people are getting sucked into a digital feedback loop of their own doing, and not even realizing it. i know that i barely get any new youtube recommendations anymore, and by those standards, have essentially reached the 'end' of youtube in a very short while-- which should be technically impossible given the size and scope of youtube as a video platform...

Originally Posted by spike021

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e2.htm

Basically, a teacher who was infected came to school and shed the virus off on their students, those students then brought it back home to their relatives.





And because I know you'll mention it:



None of the parents were in the classroom with the infected patient here.

So how exactly does it matter that the chances are low unless you are in a congested environment?

What about grandparents (theorizing here) who are legal guardians of said children or immunocompromised parents who would be home a majority of the time, yet are exposed because just one teacher had some symptoms and decided not only to continue coming into one environment, but also removing their mask to read aloud (which you can do just fine while wearing a mask)?

another different tangent-- i was extremely surprised at how fast and hard schools pushed for in-person learning again. there were a few articles discussing how it's the only real way that many for-profit educational facilities could justify their current pricing structure. it was really an interesting discussion topic, but then it almost seemed like those articles got buried by other stuff, almost intentionally.

i especially understand grade schools going back to in-person due to the great number of issues with kids(transport, supervision, attention, area to work, scheduling to name a few), but anything of the higher-education stuff, where it's capable adults participating, i just don't see the point.

it seemed like collegiate courses were initially transitioning to a online format that would make ease-of-access a priority, and encourage even those in lesser job/financial positions to participate and gain the benefit of a degree program. but as soon as they could, they went back to the status quo...

[wbradley]

MuseChaser alluded a few pages back that one shouldn't be dismissive of Ivermectin as a therapeutic treatment for Covid19.
Yesterday I read an article where a prison doctor tried to make 20 inmates take Ivermectin without them knowing. He was fired.
Then I read about an anti vax activist that promoted Ivermectin use, who sadly has passed from Covid19.
I'd be dismissive of using Ivermectin. In fact I don't even see any connection between it and treating any of the Covid19 symptoms or acting on the virus itself in any way. Won't work on the common cold either, which is also a corona virus.

[cjd]

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.

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.

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).

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by cjd

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.

i feel it's important to note here that locale plays a part. i don't know exactly how new york is reacting overall, but indiana especially is treating this very lax, and is almost siding with the anti-vax more than the vax. in my area on the border, it's really creating a number of hostilities towards anyone that supports the vaccine, or businesses that require masks. being near chicago, we experienced a significant 'white flight' over the last number of years where everyone moved to indiana to get away from chicago's county taxes. as such, there's a lot of crossing between the state lines, and many consider themselves 'part of chicago', but live in indiana. chicago just re-enacted the mask rules, and it's creating quite a stir. the towns surrounding me were some of the first to repeal the mask rules, specifically from heavy anti-vax mobs(very much a "WELL THEY DID IT, WHY CAN'T WE" mentality everywhere here), and a lot of it has to do with being on the edge of 2 states with very different problems, and concepts of dealing with it, but with people attempting to ignore all of that and have an expectation of doing everything exactly the same across the state line.

[MuseChaser]

In response to my question regarding seeing any other social destructiveness due to our response to the vaccine, you wrote..

Originally Posted by cjd

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.

....

What about preventing young children from seeing facial expressions, which at that age (and some would say at any age) plays a larger part in communication than the actual words spoken, not to mention healthy childhood development? Crippling economies? Preventing families from seeing their loved ones, especially if they are suffering and at times when that human contact would do the most good? Relying on technology and tiny constant hits of dopamine for peer-to-peer interaction and comfort rather than face-to-face, human interaction with hugs, hearty handclasps, and other expressions of caring much more powerful than words endemic to our species? Further isolating those already struggling with emotional isolation? All of this stuff is very, VERY real, very harmful, and also very socially destructive.

I'm assuming by now pretty much everyone, at some point, has noticed and/or wondered why they don't seem to hear quite as well when they wear a mask and other folks are more difficult to understand. It's not an illusion, but it's not caused by your hearing being affected. It's the result of not being able to see each other's lips move and see each other's expressions. Context is a HUGE part of what we say, and that context is framed by facial expression. On top of that, even those with the most acute hearing still innately use all senses at their disposal when communicating, and reading each others lips is a part of that. Yes, it's not strictly necessary (radio, spoken books, etc), but the visual does aid in comprehension and the desire to pay attention closely.

We are experiencing a great deal of social destruction; on this we agree. Some is caused by the virus itself; we agree on that, too. I hope you can agree that a significant amount is caused by our decisions in how we react to the virus. We may not agree on whether or not that price is worth it, or which causes more destruction.