COVID Developments and News

[Capt Spaulding]

Reading the latest round of discussion suggests to me that all sides are pretty well entrenched. Speaking personally, I know I am. I have read multiple studies by recognized actors in the scientific world and find the work compelling. Nothing, however, is certain. But to acknowledge that is sometimes fraught. Many who wish to dismiss the conclusions resulting from scientific enquiry will seize upon the uncertainty inherent in the process to challenge those conclusions and substitute pseudo-scientific silliness they find supportive of their biases.

Mask efficacy provides an example of this. Earlyish in the pandemic a number of studies were published, including one in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) extolling the virtues of mask wearing. Fairly quickly, a group of scholars called on PNAS to retract the article. They cited methodological concerns with the study and the credentials of some of the authors as reasons. They did not really contest the basic findings that masks were among the most effective means of limiting the spread of the virus.

In January of 2021 another article in PNAS presented a meta-analysis of the state of research on mask wearing – (https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118) again concluding that mask wearing is among, if not the, most effective means of preventing virus transmission. And yet, voices continue to frame the question of masking as a subject of debate. In August of 2021 that question seem quite well settled. But. these questioners cite the inherent fallibility of science as a justification for doing so.

While enlightened skepticism of all things is necessary – in these cases, ideology has overwhelmed enlightenment. It seems to me these people are simply looking to be seen as anti-intellectual or anti-elitist, or they are just plain argumentative. It is reminiscent of Groucho Marx’s definition of politics – “the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, incorrectly diagnosing it, and misapplying the wrong remedies.”

Other voices raise questions about the efficacy of addressing the pandemic at all. From some quarters we hear things like, “it we had done nothing at all. It would all be over now.” These claims are so loaded with unsubstantiated assumptions that they must collapse of their own weight. They are invariably made in the complete absence of evidence with no attempt to define either their terms or the assumptions that underlie them.

Many to most of these strike me similarly to many of the “questioners” on outlets such as faux news. They repeat questions that have been answered many times over – not because they have not been answered, but because the process of questioning has become an end in itself. They no longer care about the answers, unless those answers play into a particular narrative. So, they belabor the questioning, and eventually find someone, somewhere to provide they answer they preordained before they asked. They are asked, not with any eye toward an answer, which they already “know,” but with the goal of entertaining, arousing and confusing a particular audience.

It's working.

[MuseChaser]

Originally Posted by soundman98

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.

One of my sons lives in Indiana, and has made similar points, indicating that my frame of reference and experiences as a New York Stater may not encompass his differing experiences in Indiana. Having visited him there a few months ago, there is some truth to that statement; the attitudes and personal choices were not the same as where I live.

I do think that assigning the term "anti-vaxxer" to anyone who is not in favor of the government requiring/mandating the vaccine or other government mandates is unjust, unfair, and counterproductive. No one I know is "anti-vaccine," meaning they are against the vaccine and wish to deny it from others. I know folks who are overly cautious/fearful of the possible side effects so decided not to get the vaccine, and folks who are skeptical of it's effectiveness (especially compared to natural immunity once you've had Covid and recovered) who decided not to get the vaccine, and lots of folks like me who decided to get the vaccine after having read enough to come to the conclusion that it's safety, efficacy, and yes, comfort to others because I got it, are benefit enough to warrant getting it. I am against a governmental mandate, not the vaccine. That describes EVERYONE I know personally, and I would wager the vast majority of those I do not personally know, who is being described as "anti-vaxxer." We are not.

Additionally, as with almost all things, there is a continuum. In the discussion here, and in almost all things in society these days, the issue(s) seem always to be framed in an "US or THEM!" binary choice. Do or Die. Right or Wrong. With Me 100% or My Enemy. Life is just NOT like that... or at least hasn't been for most of my life prior to recent history... and never SHOULD be like that. I've tried as nicely as I can to show that we all of some common ground in these discussions, and that I appreciate and understand other viewpoints.

Forcing one's will upon others never ends well. It doesn't even end well if you try to force your will upon a dog.... and dogs generally WANT to please you. Think about how you (not @soundman98 but just in general) would feel if legislation was being pushed to forbid you from wearing a mask because others felt the mask was threatening due to hiding your identity or harbored germs. They'd have a point... but you wouldn't stand for it, and you shouldn't. Likewise, those in favor of masks should not be free to force their will upon everyone else because THEY feel better about it. Many studies and recommendations can be cited in favor of masks... and studies and recommendations can be cited about the relative ineffectiveness of masks, the physical health detriments of masks (ESPECIALLY for young children who simply can not keep them in place, keep their hands off of them, and are constantly leaking snot) especially the amount of bacteria than can accumulate over a school day, and the developmental and social setbacks of wearing masks. One should read, make one's choices, be respected for one's choices, and allow others to do the same. If other's choices are not acceptable to you, then yes, debate, lobby, cajole, recommend, by all means. Force others by law to conform to your choices? No, I can't support that. I wouldn't support it if the government wanted to force everyone to conform to MY choices.

[TylerLieberman]

^one of the best responses in all 13 or however many of these threads so far.

[MuseChaser]

Masks and children...

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3021/rr-6

On mask mandates in general ...

https://www.city-journal.org/do-we-n...it_nosession=1

On masking children ..

https://www.city-journal.org/masking...it_nosession=1

https://www.wsj.com/articles/masks-c...dc-11628432716

Yes, the City Journal and Wall Street Journal links are opinion pieces, but they cite evidence within the articles for their opinions.

Life just isn't simple. For every drug, there are side effects. For every Covid-related precaution or mandate, there are side effects. Ignoring those side effects doesn't make them go away. Cancer cures smoking, and a tourniquet around a neck may stop a scalp gash from bleeding... but at what cost?

We can't simply consider the costs of Covid. We HAVE to consider the costs of our responses.

[cjd]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

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.

You're talking about CHANGE here, not destruction.

Lack of facial expression can certainly be a challenge - it certainly is for the deaf. But their answer wasn't "take the mask off" it was "here, let's make masks which help us see what's going on". As for kids and social issues; the pandemic is NOT the cause - we have MASSIVE social problems around raising children and communication and all sorts of things. They're not because the expressions formed by the mouth and nose are not visible.

Not being able to see loved ones? Really. I've seen MORE of my family - we just never realized we could get together regularly remotely and enjoy it. Is it the same? nope. Why did it take this event for us to try? That's a really good question. Though it's only been the last couple years that it's been viable (the tech has improved). And it's not for everyone.

Crippling economies? I have yet to see substantial data on this either way. However, what I have seen points to our inability to create an environment where our citizens are successful finally having a light shone on it. Don't tell the richest people (who, by the way, got FAR richer FAR faster due to the pandemic) that the *economy* is crippled. The not-so-rich are absolutely in a MUCH WORSE place, but this was just a small nudge. They were already in a rather bad place.
Also, it has exposed supply-chain problems and poor decisions implemented to squeeze every bit of wealth out of the system as possible. The pandemic was not the cause. It exposed the problems. "Made in America" has sure ground to a halt without regular shipments of goods from overseas. That should tell you something.

In fact, I think all your assertions here were already problems and the pandemic just amplified them a bit, more or less.

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

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.

First - nope. But I've always been relatively blind to expression/body language. I've had to learn it, and still struggle. I'm definitely not alone in this, but just like extroverts insist introverts really DO want to go to that party, "normies" insist this is natural and obvious. It's not. It's easier for some than others to learn, sure. And learning to read the expressions hidden by a mask certainly means you need to use a different set of cues.
Third - there are OTHER reasons it can be hard to understand, exacerbated by masks indeed. The frequencies we use to distinguish the sound being made and translate that into words are indeed hindered by face coverings. An awful lot of people have VERY poorly trained ears and therefore struggle. This is the other reason I think I haven't struggled here; I DO have trained ears. There are some studies on this I believe (musicians vs non-musicians, etc.)

Second - plenty of places in the world where face coverings are normal - especially in the desert. This means that a learned set of skills are now less useful. It's absolutely a challenge. It is not socially destructive.
A car related example: there's has been this odd contention that sim racing doesn't translate because it doesn't FEEL the same. Drivers who learned their skills on a live track with physics and gravity tugging at them STRUGGLE to translate their skills to sims (relatively speaking). Know what? That largely does NOT hold true the other way. Why? All those physical indicators of what's going on? There are also VISUAL indicators, and often before the physical one! You get there. You adapt. That is, in fact, one of the things that has made humans what we are.

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

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.

Our decisions, absolutely. WHICH decisions are destructive though? Easy. When they're selfish behaviors at odds with what is best for the group ("I don't want to wear a mask in the store.") they're anti-social behaviors; the worst are socially destructive. Of course, there could be a selfish behavior which DOES help the group ("I want to wear a mask to reduce the chance of getting seriously ill").
So the easiest options are those things which are both selfishly beneficial AND socially beneficial. Then again, masks fall into that category and are a contentious issue.

[wbradley]

Unlike MuseChaser, I don't believe in allowing people to make their own decisions.

If I am operating a business I don't want unmasked people coming in to potentially expose myself and my employees. Any I don't want to lose business because a similar business down the street doesn't require masks for entry. If the government mandates it, less problems for people out earning a living.
There is no argument against masks except that they cost money. They do no harm. They are inexpensive. Very few people cannot tolerate one medically. Even if it's proven later masks did nothing, what did we lose? The cost, or kids chance to see their teacher's pornstache?

Why insist on going bareback? (I had to repeat that expression).

[MuseChaser]

Originally Posted by wbradley

Unlike MuseChaser, I don't believe in allowing people to make their own decisions.
.

That is a fundamental difference between us, granted. My country was founded as a great experiment with that as one of its principal tenets. Those that don't value that ability will probably never understand what it means to have that ability. I don't fault you for not valuing it... if I do fault you for something, I guess it's for not allowing ME to value it without being castigated for it.

Originally Posted by wbradley

If I am operating a business I don't want unmasked people coming in to potentially expose myself and my employees. Any I don't want to lose business because a similar business down the street doesn't require masks for entry. If the government mandates it, less problems for people out earning a living..

Why stop there? Why not let the government control all business, commerce, service, every aspect of society, and just dole out whatever it feels is the appropriate amount of food, shelter, and clothing for every citizen? Everyone would be safe and equal. Utopia. Seriously... if your decision to require masks for entry into your place of business is the preferred policy of your customers, you'll do fine. If it's not, and they prefer a business without that policy, why should the government act to promote your business to the detriment of what customers want? Because the government knows best? When in history has that ever been true? I seem to have read an article recently about Trudeau running into a little issue himself, disregarding the wishes of many Canadians....

https://www.foxnews.com/world/trudea...rs-coronavirus

Originally Posted by wbradley

There is no argument against masks except that they cost money. They do no harm. They are inexpensive. Very few people cannot tolerate one medically. Even if it's proven later masks did nothing, what did we lose? The cost, or kids chance to see their teacher's pornstache?
....

You are making statements that are unproven. There is a distinct possiblity that masks do, indeed, do some harm. I've very recently posted a sampling of the many studies and opinions stating that very thing. What else should we mandate, on the basis that it probably will do no harm? School uniforms? Haircut length? The amount of hours a motivated person should be allowed to work by choice? I'm sorry, but the bar needs to be much, MUCH higher than possibly effective and "do no harm." The bar needs to be "proven effective, and absolutely necessary beyond reasonable doubt."

[wbradley]

Well, MuseChaser you can stew on that last thought.

MY governent mandates mask wearing in public to protect employees if not everyone else. I'm still free to spend as much time as I want at my sister's beautiful home in Scottsdale , in fact I might buy one as well. There's nothing anti-American about masking.

Regards to demonstrations or protests here against Trudeau, that is an extreme rarity and not characteristic of how most Canadians have handled this pandemic or any other life changing events in world history.

Freedom to risk other people's safety. Because you aren't convinced stopping flying spit from people's mouths or coughs or sneezes from the path of least resistance makes any difference. No, you're more of the belief the masks are harming people somehow even though I haven't seen a piece of substantiated evidence to indicate there is any merit whatsoever to that belief.

The proof that a mask is harming people would need to far outweight the probability that a mask might help, At least it might help and it leaves less to chance where human safety is concerned.

A mask mandate does not create legal precedent for your government to mandate all kinds of unrelated things for no reason. I suppose you also think people have the right to be armed in case they need to resist their government. Antique law, long overdue for amendment.

If you don't want to wear a mask stay away from the public, do your grocery and all shopping online and adjust to mostly outdoor activity outside your home except within your trusted circle. Or suffer the injurious experience of wearing a mask so you can pick your own fruits and vegetables at the supermarket.

[Lantanafrs2]

Originally Posted by wbradley

Unlike MuseChaser, I don't believe in allowing people to make their own decisions.

If I am operating a business I don't want unmasked people coming in to potentially expose myself and my employees. Any I don't want to lose business because a similar business down the street doesn't require masks for entry. If the government mandates it, less problems for people out earning a living.
There is no argument against masks except that they cost money. They do no harm. They are inexpensive. Very few people cannot tolerate one medically. Even if it's proven later masks did nothing, what did we lose? The cost, or kids chance to see their teacher's pornstache?

Why insist on going bareback? (I had to repeat that expression).

You certainly belong where you are

[wbradley]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

You certainly belong where you are

What about the large percentage of Americans who feel the same way I do? Where do they belong in your world?

[Teseo]

TLDR;

I work at large Hospitals (yes, two jobs) and both say the community will get 3rd shot. We are know with immune suppressive patients 1st, health care providers, people 65+ then the rest.

Good luck everyone

[Lantanafrs2]

Originally Posted by wbradley

What about the large percentage of Americans who feel the same way I do? Where do they belong in your world?

It's not my world. Its Gods world.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

That is a fundamental difference between us, granted. My country was founded as a great experiment with that as one of its principal tenets. Those that don't value that ability will probably never understand what it means to have that ability. I don't fault you for not valuing it... if I do fault you for something, I guess it's for not allowing ME to value it without being castigated for it.

What is your opinion of George Washington informing Congress and then ordering mass inoculations of all service men in order to avoid the small pox epidemic? Clearly, he must not understand the importance of liberties and what the country stands for, right?

https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/GW&sm...oculation.html

Businesses: Both the Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have ruled that businesses may lawfully require workers to get a COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of coming to the workplace.

Federal and state governments: States have long had the constitutional authority to mandate vaccinations, which the Supreme Court has upheld twice, first in 1905 and then in 1922. The federal government, however, has limited power to mandate vaccines. It can only require them to prevent transmission of a dangerous infectious disease across state lines or international borders. The federal government has never sought to require nationwide vaccinations, and the courts probably would not allow it. To date, all state government mandates have been for fully approved vaccines. Thus, it is likely cities and states would wait to mandate COVID-19 vaccines until they are fully licensed. But when governments act as employers, they would be in a similar legal position as businesses. Thus, federal and state worker COVID-19 vaccine mandates are fully lawful even under an EUA.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...solid-science/

Do you think a mandatory military draft is also a violation of your liberties or do you believe it is a condition of citizenship to this country that when your country requires your assistance with an enemy, whether foreign or domestic, you are obligated to serve your country? This virus is that enemy, and it has killed 650k of your countrymen. How would our founding fathers answer this question? Consider that.

[wbradley]

Hey, I used to read Scientific American when I still had hopes for a career in academia. Good for the learned as well as for learning.