Some New Science on Virus Transmission on Airplanes

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The question is, did Hegel address the phenomenon, and (if so) how; not which words he used to describe it (or not)?

You really want to know? Cool. Intellectual curiosity is in short supply around here This will take a few hours of my time, but Gord -- absolutely worth it.

Short answer to your question: No. Hegel was a philosopher. Cognitive dissonance is a concept from a different field -- Behavioral Psychology, something I never studied beyond high school, and certainly never taught in, but it's a field I have had a lot of contact with over the years (as my mother and stepfather were psychologists, and I worked as my stepfather's research assistant for several summers) so maybe picked up something by osmosis.

"Cognitive dissonance" is one of those terms which is much misused by laymen. The term originated with Leon Festinger in 1957, and is a theory of behavior (N.B. not of cognition!!!) which posits that much of human behavior is driven by the avoidance of discomfort caused by disharmony between one's thoughts, feelings, or values, and one's behavior. The focus is on the mechanism of the formation of behavior -- Behavioral Psychology is an attempt (failed, in my opinion, but that's a different conversation) to explain human behavior in terms which can be explained in scientific frames, with theories which can be tested with the scientific method -- an attempt to make these things something "scientific" in the sense of the natural sciences (an eerie parallel with Marx BTW). The concept of "cognitive dissonance" is almost universally misunderstood by journalists and laymen, who misuse the term to refer to any inconsistent behavior, or even inconsistent thinking, which is not at all what this is about (it's about behavior). The term is commonly used in snide, high-sounding insults -- basically impugning the cognitive ability of someone. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Festinger or any serious thought. This is the mode in which the concept entered this thread -- as a high sounding insult, with no other content.

Hegel, on the other hand, is a philospher, not a psychologist at all (in fact Psychology as a Wissenschaft did not exist in Hegel's time) and was little concerned with human behavior, so although psychology and philosophy are related (philosophy is the "bones" of psychology, if you will, sort of like math is to physics), any connection between Hegel and Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance is fairly attenuated. Hegel's work is quite wide ranging, and some of his works are considered basic works in modern Philosophy. The thought of Hegel is a fascinating world; you could spend a whole lifetime knocking around in it. He did major work in ontology (the study of existence, being, reality -- also called "general metaphysics"), and epistimology (the study of what we can know and how we know), but his greatest influence is in the field of ontology, where he is considered to be the father of the whole modern strain of Idealism, which is the idea that existence is fundamentally spiritual or incorporeal -- that is, not material, that the material world is not the primary or authentic state of existence, but is a manifestation of the spiritual or idealist world. The opposite of Idealism is Materialism, which holds that it is rather the material world which is the foundation of reality, and Hegel was profoundly opposed to Empiricism, the idea that knowledge is only available through sensory experience (the foundation of natural sciences; what we nowadays consider the "scientific" point of view -- Hegel was contra). Note that "what is real" and "how do we experience reality" are two different questions, and so there are two different kinds of Idealism -- Hegel is a metaphysical Idealist, and Kant on the other hand is an epistemological Idealist -- Kant believed that we have direct knowledge of our own inner world and ideas, but our knowledge of the material world is indirect and mediated, such that there is not even any way to be entirely sure what exists independently of our own imagination -- Wow! (something BTW I felt strongly from early childhood, and which I believe to be objectively true -- to be honest, Kant is more profound than Hegel, he was just an even worse writer Which is saying something).

Hegel's writing (and thinking) is exceptionally densely woven (almost unreadable in English; far easier to read in German where you can at least identify parts of speech ), which has led to a multitude of different interpretations of his work, to such an extent that what we think of as "Hegel" is perhaps less the work and thought of Georg Wilhelm himself, as it is the work and thought of successive generations of interpreters of Hegel, some of them trying to harmonize Hegel with Kant. One of those was Karl Marx.

Any connection between Hegel and the theory of cognitive dissonance would have to come through Hegel's "Phänomenologie des Geistes" ("Phenomenology of the Mind") (which is an unusual work of Philosophy in that it is structured like a novel, with consciousness itself as the protagonist). There is a lot in there about the nature of self-awareness, and this at least superficially has a slight intersection with the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.

MORE TO FOLLOW TOMORROW

[valhalla360]

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/me...02-Dooling.pdf

Interesting presentation on prioritization (It doesn't appear to exactly match the current plan)

They do differentiate Those in "Long Term Care Facilities" from general elderly with the general elderly falling behind "essential workers" (non medical staff). LTCF is only about 3million individuals.

They also indicate that more impact is had from vaccinating LTCF workers as opposed to residents...which would imply they are presuming the vaccine helps stop spread and doesn't just protect the person vaccinated.

There is also a little discussion of a "multiplier effect". Unfortunately, it's not a very wordy document but seems to imply an assumption that those vaccinated will help break the chain of transmission.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/me...02-Dooling.pdf

Interesting presentation on prioritization (It doesn't appear to exactly match the current plan)

They do differentiate Those in "Long Term Care Facilities" from general elderly with the general elderly falling behind "essential workers" (non medical staff). LTCF is only about 3million individuals.

They also indicate that more impact is had from vaccinating LTCF workers as opposed to residents...which would imply they are presuming the vaccine helps stop spread and doesn't just protect the person vaccinated.

There is also a little discussion of a "multiplier effect". Unfortunately, it's not a very wordy document but seems to imply an assumption that those vaccinated will help break the chain of transmission.

It has been asserted in various threads that either the vaccine will definitely not prevent transmission, or that there is no expectation that it will. But I have not been able to find anything which indicates that this is what the scientists believe.


On the contrary I read a number of statements which say something like -- "we don't know exactly by how much, but almost all vaccines stop transmission to some extent, so it would be very surprising if these vaccines don't have at least some effect on transmission."


The Turkish guy who with his wife runs the German company which developed on of the vaccines, said that he expects that this vaccine will be at least 50% effective in stopping transmission.



All this is consistent with all these plans which assume that the vaccine will have some effect on transmission.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It has been asserted in various threads that either the vaccine will definitely not prevent transmission, or that there is no expectation that it will. But I have not been able to find anything which indicates that this is what the scientists believe.

On the contrary I read a number of statements which say something like -- "we don't know exactly by how much, but almost all vaccines stop transmission to some extent, so it would be very surprising if these vaccines don't have at least some effect on transmission."

The Turkish guy who with his wife runs the German company which developed on of the vaccines, said that he expects that this vaccine will be at least 50% effective in stopping transmission.

All this is consistent with all these plans which assume that the vaccine will have some effect on transmission.

Where infection = bad thing (live fungus/bacteria/virus) got into body tissues so as to reproduce:
-No vaccine prevents infection from that which it provides protection.
-No vaccine can 100% prevent transmission.

So always a matter of degrees. I'm not going to get into it here, and it should not dragged in, but sometimes vaccines can increase transmission and/or worsen things in rare situations. This is easily googled and I suggest irresponsible to bring up here beyond this message. I only say this because it's data going in the other direction.

As has been stipulated well by Goboatingnow up-thread, under the circumstances the default and sound logic is to assume that "transmission is not adequately squelched" when/where there is manifest mortality and morbidity in the community.

Put differently, the "but there's no evidence that the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission" logic is a non-starter.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Where infection = bad thing (live fungus/bacteria/virus) got into body tissues so as to reproduce:
-No vaccine prevents infection from that which it provides protection.
-No vaccine can 100% prevent transmission.

So always a matter of degrees. I'm not going to get into it here, and it should not dragged in, but sometimes vaccines can increase transmission and/or worsen things in rare situations. This is easily googled and I suggest irresponsible to bring up here beyond this message. I only say this because it's data going in the other direction.

As has been stipulated well by Goboatingnow up-thread, under the circumstances the default and sound logic is to assume that "transmission is not adequately squelched" when/where there is manifest mortality and morbidity in the community.

Put differently, the "but there's no evidence that the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission" logic is a non-starter.

There isn’t trial data on transmission , but the scientific community suggests that there will be a degree of prevention

Until we see what that is the current application policies make sense . That’s the only point I make.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

There isn’t trial data on transmission , but the scientific community suggests that there will be a degree of prevention

Until we see what that is the current application policies make sense . That’s the only point I make.

Agreed.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Where infection = bad thing (live fungus/bacteria/virus) got into body tissues so as to reproduce:
-No vaccine prevents infection from that which it provides protection.
-No vaccine can 100% prevent transmission.

So always a matter of degrees. I'm not going to get into it here, and it should not dragged in, but sometimes vaccines can increase transmission and/or worsen things in rare situations. This is easily googled and I suggest irresponsible to bring up here beyond this message. I only say this because it's data going in the other direction.

As has been stipulated well by Goboatingnow up-thread, under the circumstances the default and sound logic is to assume that "transmission is not adequately squelched" when/where there is manifest mortality and morbidity in the community.

Put differently, the "but there's no evidence that the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission" logic is a non-starter.

Sounds more or less reasonable, but then why does ALL of the vaccination planning assume suppression of transmission?


The end purpose of vaccination is to STOP the pandemic, after all.


The CDC materials on prioritization of vaccination specifically say that vaccinating workers in long term care facilities will prevent more death, than vaccinating the residents. Doesn't that seem to contradict these propositions?

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...why does ALL of the vaccination planning assume suppression of transmission?

It's safe to assume that a vaccine will suppress transmission on the individual level, but perhaps paradoxically this may not significantly decrease aggregate suppression of transmission, particularly/specifically in a circumstance with high disease prevalence and low vaccination rates.

There are stacks of "matter of degrees here" that I suggest are not intuitive. For example 9/10 people might have reduced shedding (with infection after vaccination), but the 10th guy who didn't get a jab and got sick can be a superspreader, causing oodles of infections.

Immediately the retort is "yeah, but don't count that 10th guy" where the computer responds "um, you didn't have enough vaccine to go around.....the 9/10 guys were never gonna be superspreaders anyway.....and community transmission hasn't budged much because of your 9/10 didn't shed success story." Or heck, #10 got the jab, but still shed a little, where shortly downstream of him was an un-vaccination superspreader. <---it's impossible to know this stuff and by the time we get enough info to make better models this ideally will be in the rearview mirror.

The end purpose of vaccination is to STOP the pandemic, after all.

Such that, arguably, 1 of 2 things best accomplishes this:
1) reducing deaths
2) reducing transmission in the community
where the target may not be equally clear to all observers.

The CDC materials on prioritization of vaccination specifically say that vaccinating workers in long term care facilities will prevent more death, than vaccinating the residents. Doesn't that seem to contradict these propositions?

I couldn't find the specific guidance of "NH workers before residents" but it seems reasonable. Most NH residents don't go where you get Covid....it's brought to them. Going the other way, NH workers, like other healthcare workers, can drag stuff from an infected NH into the public. I dare say NH pay is relatively low with a lot of staff that, compared to a hospital, are not as "diligent where it counts." Several other factors come to mind, but in reality all of this ought to be academic soon.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Singularity

It's safe to assume that a vaccine will suppress transmission on the individual level, but perhaps paradoxically this may not significantly decrease aggregate suppression of transmission, particularly/specifically in a circumstance with high disease prevalence and low vaccination rates.

There are stacks of "matter of degrees here" that I suggest are not intuitive. For example 9/10 people might have reduced shedding (with infection after vaccination), but the 10th guy who didn't get a jab and got sick can be a superspreader, causing oodles of infections.

Immediately the retort is "yeah, but don't count that 10th guy" where the computer responds "um, you didn't have enough vaccine to go around.....the 9/10 guys were never gonna be superspreaders anyway.....and community transmission hasn't budged much because of your 9/10 didn't shed success story." Or heck, #10 got the jab, but still shed a little, where shortly downstream of him was an un-vaccination superspreader. <---it's impossible to know this stuff and by the time we get enough info to make better models this ideally will be in the rearview mirror.
Such that, arguably, 1 of 2 things best accomplishes this:
1) reducing deaths
2) reducing transmission in the community
where the target may not be equally clear to all observers.
I couldn't find the specific guidance of "NH workers before residents" but it seems reasonable. Most NH residents don't go where you get Covid....it's brought to them. Going the other way, NH workers, like other healthcare workers, can drag stuff from an infected NH into the public. I dare say NH pay is relatively low with a lot of staff that, compared to a hospital, are not as "diligent where it counts." Several other factors come to mind, but in reality all of this ought to be academic soon.

I see you really struggling to justify the idea that it won't reduce transmission but you need to explain it a little better beyond it's paradoxical.

If 9 out of 10 people are immune and not transmitting the disease (or at transmitting at reduced rates due to the vaccine), each individual of those 9 is just as likely to have been a potential super spreader (though blocked from transmitting to some degree due to the vaccine). Sure the 10th non-vaccinated guy is also a potential super spreader but that's true with or without a vaccine. So on the net, as we vaccinate, spread will slow down due to the reduction in transmission.

Assuming the priority groups are chosen wisely, they will be targeting those most likely to be super spreaders and saving those least likely to be super spreaders for last. So the 10th guy is possibly a super spreader but far less likely than any of the other 9.

[goboatingnow]

ACIP December 13 doc recommends both health care workers AnD nursing home residents be vaccinated first.

This is similar to most of Europe’s strategy also

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I see you really struggling to justify the idea that it won't reduce transmission but you need to explain it a little better beyond it's paradoxical.

If 9 out of 10 people are immune and not transmitting the disease (or at transmitting at reduced rates due to the vaccine), each individual of those 9 is just as likely to have been a potential super spreader (though blocked from transmitting to some degree due to the vaccine). Sure the 10th non-vaccinated guy is also a potential super spreader but that's true with or without a vaccine. So on the net, as we vaccinate, spread will slow down due to the reduction in transmission.

Assumingthe priority groups are chosen wisely, they will be targeting those most likely to be super spreaders and saving those least likely to be super spreaders for last. So the 10th guy is possibly a super spreader but far less likely than any of the other 9.

I and others have multiple, emphasize multiple times explained that the "assuming the priority groups are chosen wisely" is not possible. Wise = knowing what/where/when/how. Are you trolling?

Tell us....please tell the world how you've figured out who the 1 to 2 superspreaders out of 10 people will be. While you're at it, go ahead and take over the world with your methodology of determining pareto distributions in chaotic systems.

Of course everyone agrees that if we knew precisely who they were, it'd be a top priority. But even then, if "economic recovery = people going out buying stuff, jobs increasing" then it's still debatable if principally targeting superspreaders will more better bring about economic recovery when death counts are still up on the news.

My apologies if I'm read as rude, but this is tedious. It's been explained multiple times multiple ways. And some point I'm wondering if you're trolling for fun.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Tell us....please tell the world how you've figured out who the 1 to 2 superspreaders out of 10 people will be.

I offer without substantiation that superspreaders fall into one of two categories: those who truly shed more virus than the average person and stupid people. Stupid people eschew masks and distancing, go to large gatherings, and in general behave in ways that run counter to societal good and to their own well-being.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...The CDC materials on prioritization of vaccination specifically say that vaccinating workers in long term care facilities will prevent more death, than vaccinating the residents. Doesn't that seem to contradict these propositions?

Further on this, and I couldn't find methodology for the model below, but I'd suggest that the staff of nursing homes generally do more dirty work, more patient contact time, less educated, and frankly more likely have pre-existing conditions themselves, less healthy population vs hospital staff population.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/me...08-Dooling.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/me...06-Slayton.pdf

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

I offer without substantiation that superspreaders fall into one of two categories: those who truly shed more virus than the average person and stupid people. Stupid people eschew masks and distancing, go to large gatherings, and in general behave in ways that run counter to societal good and to their own well-being.

I hear you, but as it is...even conscientious folks have issues, or take the occasional bad risk of this/that. If you haven't read Typhoid Mary's story in a while, it has some interesting dynamics that we're facing today. Issues of restricting liberty, how she supposedly went back to cooking to make more money (not exactly bank-robbery, but she wasn't subsidized when forced to do more menial labor).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

I offer without substantiation that superspreaders fall into one of two categories: those who truly shed more virus than the average person and stupid people. Stupid people eschew masks and distancing, go to large gatherings, and in general behave in ways that run counter to societal good and to their own well-being.

Potential superspreaders might also be that small number of people who because of their work have a great deal more social contact than other people. Have you heard of the 80/20 rule? Can't remember where I read this; I'll try to find.

Tram conductors, taxi drivers, waiters, personnel in shops, hairdressers, sex workers, that sort of thing. Apparently 20% of people have 80% of close contact with other people.