U.S. to close..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Maybe because if you give inconsistent responses, people stop believing what you say.

Nothing changed on the ground. The science didn't change. Cloth masks were always easy to fashion. It would have been easy to prohibit sale of N95 masks to non-medical institutions if supply was the concern.

Might want to go read "the boy who cried wolf".

Well, but it's unfair and unrealistic to expect governments to have the perfect program already in mind from the beginning of a chaotic phenomenon like this.


How can they make effective policy if they can't change their minds about things as better data comes in?



I personally wouldn't trust any health authority that pretended to have always known all along the right combination of measures. I would much rather see them honestly admit that this didn't work so well, wasn't worth it, and that on the contrary we need to be doing more of, with frequent critical evaluations and revisions as experience is gained and data comes in.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Maybe because if you give inconsistent responses, people stop believing what you say.

Nothing changed on the ground. The science didn't change. Cloth masks were always easy to fashion. It would have been easy to prohibit sale of N95 masks to non-medical institutions if supply was the concern.

Might want to go read "the boy who cried wolf".

Where am i being inconsistent , I merely stated that public health advice in my experience has not been consistent , and that is to be expected as the pandemic continued and real data has accumulated and views and feedback changed public opinion

I specially made the point that around here mask advice initially was NOT based on ppe shortages , as health orientated ppe supply chains are not normally publicly accessible. There were health staff ppe shortages but nothing to do with the general public buying masks.

The main advice against masks early on was that application errors would render them ineffective

Here the public actually called for mask wearing rather then the other way around. The phone in radio shows where full of “ X country is using masks and look how effective they are” , why isn’t our gov mandating masks etc , sadly gov ministers listen to radio shows it seems )

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I think worldwide the mask message changed. But then much advice around COVID was changed as the pandemic developed

So what. Who said advice has to be consistent. The message changed over time based on what was happening on the ground

Mask wearing advice tends to have been modified because of the apparent success of many mask wearing nations early on in the pandemic , in Europe the Czech Republic was held up as a poster boy.

Hence mask advice began to morph from pure science based advice to “ look at what they are doing )

The second wave has largely shown mask wearing is as expected, largely useless and certainly here advice has largely remained static. ( even though many businesses have made such wearing mandatory even though it’s not a legal requirement )

There's quite a fine line between the scientific method and the exercise of "monkey see, monkey do." The former often follows the latter to parse if it's correct that the other monkeys indeed are better off, and how it's so. Also, the scientific method too often brings us excellent results that years later we come to understand that our cause-effect understand was wrong...i.e. we got good results for completely different reasons than we previously understood (e.g. certain antibiotics acting as anti-inflammatory drugs for respiratory disease where we understood previously that they only worked by killing bugs).

Otherwise, as Covid expansion is largely super-spreader driven, you've got to get a lot of people doing their best, including masks, to control things. So to say masks are 'largely useless' is to say that wearing a seatbelt is largely useless (because most people are never violently thrown around the inside of their car). The "Number Needed to Treat" (NNT) concept is helpful here. How many people have to do ABC to get results XYZ. From this perspective the NNT for mask use is high, and that's just the way it is, but it's not useless...it's one of the few tools we have.

Indeed there's also the risk compensation thing, something like where "people who wear a seatbelt might drive faster", but this is debatable into infinity. Generally speaking, people prone to consciously being meticulous about best practices....do just that, where practices is plural.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is not "what we now find." As far as I've read from the research so far, the question remains inconclusive. We don't know if, or more likely how much, the vaccine actually helps kill the SARS-CoV-2 virus. But it still helps prevent the onset of Covid-19 (which is the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2). And therefore it definitely limits transmission.


I fear this as well. As I've said from the outset, I am very concerned about the lessons "the powers that be" are learning. And I don't just mean governments. But in our already increasingly authoritarian "free" societies, power is already far too concentrated. And power rarely gives up power.

So yes, I'm with you on this.

I think his point was people on this thread are claiming the vaccine won't limit transmission...if true, his point is correct but anyone with the slightest understanding knows is false.

Also, the vaccine doesn't "kill" the virus. It teaches the body how to kill the virus...and do so before it proliferates in large enough numbers to create a massive reaction in the body. The only question is how much effect it has on transmission...not if it has an impact.

In full agreement with your last paragraph. Our leaders (not limited to a single party or even a single country) are in "do as I say, not as I do mode" and are happily testing the limits of what they can get away with in the name of the virus.

[goboatingnow]

I said “ largely useless “ , ie there is some benefit but small

I’m not against masks , by the way , I wear mine as required ( which was in greece recently , all the time by law)

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

Am I understanding this correctly? We were told that we had to get the vaccine to stop the disease. Yet we now find that the vaccine doesn't stop the spreading the disease but only the disease showing symptoms to the one getting the vaccine. So the "vaccine passports" for travel, work, inclusion into society (as Mike puts it) are a non-starter. There is very little benefit to those that aren't at risk (front line health care workers, elderly, and those already with serious health issues). I'm at almost zero risk from the disease itself, so the vaccine is almost useless for me (and with a risk of serious side effects I'll not be taking it).



I'm starting to think that the lockdowns, travel restrictions, etc will never go away. The goal posts to this fight just keep being moved. And the powers to be wonder why they are getting pushback?

I think you are being pessimistic

There is compelling evidence that the vaccines are effective at preventing the disease . There isn’t the same data to answer whether the transmission is also blocked , but the scientific community is very positive

There is nobody at “ zero risk “ , we have people badly sick in hospital from 16 upwards.

Once we have widespread vaccination , the virus runs out of hosts to replicate itself , hence while transmission may or may not be blocked , the pandemic will go away.

No “ powers that be “ in any sort of responsible country , want these restrictions to continue. All our emergency laws here have various forms of sunset clause in them

In fact the police specifically asked that no new powers be given to them enforcement of covid restrictions , they are quite comfortable in simply asking people at checkpoints to comply with “ the advise “.

I see no grand bill gates conspiracy stuff going on here.

Push back has been very very limited here( largely a few well known contrarians ) in fact if public polls were to be used , the restrictions, fines and penalties would be much more extensive then current Gov policy.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, but it's unfair and unrealistic to expect governments to have the perfect program already in mind from the beginning of a chaotic phenomenon like this.

How can they make effective policy if they can't change their minds about things as better data comes in?

I personally wouldn't trust any health authority that pretended to have always known all along the right combination of measures. I would much rather see them honestly admit that this didn't work so well, wasn't worth it, and that on the contrary we need to be doing more of, with frequent critical evaluations and revisions as experience is gained and data comes in.

It was an intentional choice to lie about mask effectiveness. That falls outside of oops, we didn't have a plan and didn't understand.

But if you get caught in a lie, doubling down and refusing to admit it was a lie, only makes people more distrustful. You come out and openly admit you F#%# Up and are trying to make it right.

[dwedeking2]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is not "what we now find." As far as I've read from the research so far, the question remains inconclusive. We don't know if, or more likely how much, the vaccine actually helps kill the SARS-CoV-2 virus. But it still helps prevent the onset of Covid-19 (which is the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2). And therefore it definitely limits transmission.

Sure, but it was sold as a fix all. "just put up with this, when we have a vaccine it will all go back to normal" with vaccine passports etc. Again, the goal posts have moved (and I think that is the plan, to just keep moving those goal posts).

If you're not coughing and sneezing and producing all that lovely mucus, then you are less likely to be spreading the virus. So of course it will help prevent transmission. And it is still a benefit to everyone -- not just front line workers.

I say front line workers because the amount of exposure seems to play a part in the severity of the symptoms. So limiting symptoms seems as a good thing even if spread is marginally stopped.

There is no research I'm aware of that suggests you would be "almost at zero risk." Unless you are already self-isolating, your risk is far from zero.

I'm 51 with very good health. My risk of death is less than 1/2%. Severe reaction to the disease is ancedotal at this point, so an unknown risk but from my research I'd put that as a low possibility. Having lived in Los Angeles and Las Vegas (ever tried to cross the street there?) less than 1% is near zero.



My lifestyle is near self isolation even before 2020. I mostly only am around people for work and brief excursions onto shore for supplies. So that lowers the risk level even further for me. Even in Jan/Feb when they were saying 2% - 5% fatality and I was figuring out who in my family wouldn't last the year I felt I was in a low risk group.

As for the risk of serious side effects, please point to the research which says they exist. I've not seen this yet in the reports or monitoring or the science.

They fought to remove liability for any issues for a reason. Granted the risks are probably low but with minimal upside why take the chance (in my case)?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Where am i being inconsistent , I merely stated that public health advice in my experience has not been consistent , and that is to be expected as the pandemic continued and real data has accumulated and views and feedback changed public opinion

I didn't say YOU were being inconsistent.

I was responding to your comment about "who cares" if the authorities are inconsistent and I stand by the idea that inconsistent response from our leaders is a horrible approach.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Maybe because if you give inconsistent responses, people stop believing what you say.

Nothing changed on the ground. The science didn't change. Cloth masks were always easy to fashion. It would have been easy to prohibit sale of N95 masks to non-medical institutions if supply was the concern.

Might want to go read "the boy who cried wolf".

I completely agree with this, but I don't agree that prohibiting the sale of N95 masks would have prevented N95s from being sucked into the general population (i.e. away from front-line folks, principally medical). People went to fisticuffs over so little as toilet paper. So how to say "where a mask but not the N95 ones, they're for medical"? That's sort of like telling the mob "okay, everyone needs to grab a parachute and jump out of the plane as the wings are about to fall off. But the medical people get first dibs at the modern parachutes, everyone else grab a WWI surplus chute."

You can disagree with me here, but I think we can both agree that some % of N95 in the supply chain got sucked away in the first place, and I'm biased to say that whatever % that was...was too much.

The boy who cried wolf thing is most correct. Mixed-messaging, poor preparation and leadership by CDC (not orange guy) is the murderer who didn't go to jail here. For that matter, because of orange guy, the murders are practically the heroes. People like their villains where sometimes the supreme doofus distracts from the cunningly negligent/incompetent.

[Lake-Effect]

I have an idea for pushing US vaccine uptake north of 90%: drop coverage of COVID-19 illness from all insurance plans, unless you were vaccinated.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I completely agree with this, but I don't agree that prohibiting the sale of N95 masks would have prevented N95s from being sucked into the general population (i.e. away from front-line folks, principally medical). People went to fisticuffs over so little as toilet paper. So how to say "where a mask but not the N95 ones, they're for medical"? That's sort of like telling the mob "okay, everyone needs to grab a parachute and jump out of the plane as the wings are about to fall off. But the medical people get first dibs at the modern parachutes, everyone else grab a WWI surplus chute."

Some medical grade masks would have made it out to the general public anyway, with a prohibition on sales (they did even with the mixed messages as many people understood they were being a fed a line of BS).

But a prohibition on sales to the general public would have had similar impacts on availability for medical professionals (probably better)....all without the mixed messages. In many ways, it would have been easier as you could more easily trace manufacturers & sellers and hold the accountable if they weren't following the rules.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

Sure, but it was sold as a fix all. "just put up with this, when we have a vaccine it will all go back to normal" with vaccine passports etc. Again, the goal posts have moved (and I think that is the plan, to just keep moving those goal posts).

This is not a message I've heard. I guess we both live in different echo-chambers .

The message is clear; vaccines will help prevent Covid-19, and if enough people take the vaccine, it will stop the spread. As to whether we ever "go back to normal," is really hard to say. What is "normal"? I doubt we'll go back to exactly the way it was before, but we will get back to having more physical contact.

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

I say front line workers because the amount of exposure seems to play a part in the severity of the symptoms. So limiting symptoms seems as a good thing even if spread is marginally stopped.

Indeed, frontline workers are one of the big risk groups. If the vaccine can prevent disease here, it will go a long way to limiting the spread.

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

I'm 51 with very good health. My risk of death is less than 1/2%. Severe reaction to the disease is ancedotal at this point, so an unknown risk but from my research I'd put that as a low possibility. Having lived in Los Angeles and Las Vegas (ever tried to cross the street there?) less than 1% is near zero.

It's a risk assessment for sure, but 0.5% is far from zero. We mitigate against far less risky things in our society, including other infectious disease, so while you may think this is low, most people who study this kind of thing would not agree.

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

My lifestyle is near self isolation even before 2020. I mostly only am around people for work and brief excursions onto shore for supplies. So that lowers the risk level even further for me. Even in Jan/Feb when they were saying 2% - 5% fatality and I was figuring out who in my family wouldn't last the year I felt I was in a low risk group.

You may indeed be at a lower risk than most. But again, the real benefit of a vaccine is that it protects the herd. But this only works if sufficient numbers get vaccinated.

The herd can sustain a certain number of free riders, but each one who chooses to go this route makes it harder for the rest. This is where the vaccine passports will likely come in. You may choose not to be vaccinated, but this means the rest of us will have to choose how to limit the risk you pose to others.

As always, it's all about freedom.

BTW, and to be clear, I'm not advocating a vaccine passport. My view is this would be an undesirable outcome. But much like having police and laws, if people won't behave responsibly, then it forces society to put in stronger measures.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I didn't say YOU were being inconsistent.

I was responding to your comment about "who cares" if the authorities are inconsistent and I stand by the idea that inconsistent response from our leaders is a horrible approach.

Things change, good leadership adapts to that change , hence advise and rules change over time as events and situations unfold

Our leaders are sadly not infallible, I’ve met our prime minister in a pub , he’s just as infallible as me

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I said “ largely useless “ , ie there is some benefit but small

I’m not against masks , by the way , I wear mine as required ( which was in greece recently , all the time by law)

My apologies for being pedantic, but specifically when and where there is a benefit, the benefit is large (not small). It's just that we don't know when/where (as with a seatbelt) those events will occur (though clearly grouped gatherings are higher probability).

I suggest it confusing to intuition to no delineate this statistic perspective. I know you know what you're talking about, but I suggest that others hear/read only "largely useless" wherein they don't invoke the context of those terms.

How ‘Superspreading’ Events Drive Most COVID-19 Spread

""As few as 10 percent of infected people may drive a whopping 80 percent of cases in specific types of situations""
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...id-19-spread1/

Evident that coronavirus superspreading is fat-tailed
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29416