U.S. to close..

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Ok, if COVID19 has acted like the others, why has their been such a discrepancy in expert advice.

Why not a solidarity of opinion amongst the medical profession?

Because it's been used as a political weapon...and don't for a minute think that high level "experts" that are trotted out for the media by both sides don't have a political agenda.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

90% effectiveness is HUGE. Such a vaccine will snuff out the pandemic very quickly.

Please don't forget that herd immunity is NOT binary. Every single immune person is one less pathway for spreading the virus. If we think full herd immunity happens at 50% or 60% or so, that does not take away from the huge effect of vaccinating 15% or 20%, especially if we manage to identify and vaccinate those people with the disproportionate amount of contacts first. Epidemiologists say the 80/20 Rule applies also to infections -- 20% of the population account for 80% of contacts outside of their own families. You vaccinate those 20% and you're already mostly there. If it's really 90% effective, then you only need to vaccinate roughly half as many people as you do with flu vaccines, which are around 50% effective. Vaccinate those people PLUS the vulnerable first, and the game is totally changed.

This is FANTASTIC news, unexpectedly good news. Of course we've got a few more hoops to jump through, but if it turns out the way it looks now, this thing will be over by this time next year, and by next summer the pandemic should already be well in retreat.

90% is definitely great news and yes, herd immunity is not achieved via a specific percentage but the spread drops with every percentage increase in immune population.

Also it does get complicated in that someone who is in physical contact with hundreds of people per day is far more important to vaccinate compared to grizzly adams living alone in the wilderness.

This is where the nuance comes in but when you boil it down, if they can get a 90% effective vaccine out and people retain immunity for even a year, it's just a question of how fast they can pump out doses before this is over.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

90% is definitely great news and yes, herd immunity is not achieved via a specific percentage but the spread drops with every percentage increase in immune population.

Also it does get complicated in that someone who is in physical contact with hundreds of people per day is far more important to vaccinate compared to grizzly adams living alone in the wilderness.

This is where the nuance comes in but when you boil it down, if they can get a 90% effective vaccine out and people retain immunity for even a year, it's just a question of how fast they can pump out doses before this is over.

That's it. Please God let it be so . . .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

What happened to the quarantine procedure that was in place since the Black plague 1000 700 years ago? ...

You might want to brush up on your history.

History Of Quarantines, From Bubonic Plague To Typhoid Mary
➥ https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...o-typhoid-mary

Lessons from the History of Quarantine, from Plague to Influenza A
➥ https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/2/12-0312_article

Social Distancing and Quarantine Were Used in Medieval Times to Fight the Black Death
➥ https://www.history.com/news/quarant...death-medieval

A Brief History of Quarantine
➥ https://vtuhr.org/articles/10.21061/vtuhr.v2i0.16/

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

These countries are already not homogenous (as I pointed out earlier) -- and why in the world would that be an advantage? I was brought up from the cradle in the U.S. to believe that diversity is actually a great strength of our society, not a weakness, and it's one of the few (perhaps one of the only) mythologies about our society which has stood up to critical scrutiny, at least in my mind. I have always thought that this argument is kind of racist, actually -- "Oh, they manage what we can't, because they don't have all those minorities dragging them down, like we do" -- that's a pathetic racist excuse for failure, in my opinion.

While you hear the mantra all the time...I've yet to see anything remotely solid supporting diversity as an advantage, so I don't know how it stands up to scrutiny.

It's not necessarily racist in the sense that one group is better or worse than another but the closer the relationship, the more people are likely to see it as in their benefit to support them. This is likely genetically inherited as those related to you have similar genes so if they are successful and propagate, effectively, your genes propagate.

Now this doesn't mean it's morally right or you can't overcome the challenges of diversity but it's certainly not an advantage in getting the herd to move as a group. Particularly in a panic situation, people will revert back to a familial/tribal association if for no other reason than it feels comfortable.

So a small country with an homogenous population has more of a sense of being one big family and you help out family. That makes it easier to implement policies where people sacrifice for good of the larger group.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

While you hear the mantra all the time...I've yet to see anything remotely solid supporting diversity as an advantage, so I don't know how it stands up to scrutiny.

It's not necessarily racist in the sense that one group is better or worse than another but the closer the relationship, the more people are likely to see it as in their benefit to support them. This is likely genetically inherited as those related to you have similar genes so if they are successful and propagate, effectively, your genes propagate.

Now this doesn't mean it's morally right or you can't overcome the challenges of diversity but it's certainly not an advantage in getting the herd to move as a group. Particularly in a panic situation, people will revert back to a familial/tribal association if for no other reason than it feels comfortable.

So a small country with an homogenous population has more of a sense of being one big family and you help out family. That makes it easier to implement policies where people sacrifice for good of the larger group.

And we don't "help out family" when our compatriots are of a different race? That's crazy. That is sure as hell not how I was raised. And I think it's not like that. Although we have some troglodyte racists in our midst, I think most Americans are just as likely to treat their neighbors of a different race, as family, as the Swedes are.

So even more do I consider this some kind of bizarre racist mythology.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

While you hear the mantra all the time...I've yet to see anything remotely solid supporting diversity as an advantage, so I don't know how it stands up to scrutiny.

It's not necessarily racist in the sense that one group is better or worse than another but the closer the relationship, the more people are likely to see it as in their benefit to support them. This is likely genetically inherited as those related to you have similar genes so if they are successful and propagate, effectively, your genes propagate.

Now this doesn't mean it's morally right or you can't overcome the challenges of diversity but it's certainly not an advantage in getting the herd to move as a group. Particularly in a panic situation, people will revert back to a familial/tribal association if for no other reason than it feels comfortable.

So a small country with an homogenous population has more of a sense of being one big family and you help out family. That makes it easier to implement policies where people sacrifice for good of the larger group.

Is it not the case that the big, more diverse coastal US cities are currently doing better with COVID than the interior, more homogeneous heartland areas?

Our city is quite diverse, by North American standards, and we're pretty happy with it.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

And we don't "help out family" when our compatriots are of a different race? That's crazy. That is sure as hell not how I was raised. And I think it's not like that. Although we have some troglodyte racists in our midst, I think most Americans are just as likely to treat their neighbors of a different race, as family, as the Swedes are.

So even more do I consider this some kind of bizarre racist mythology.

This is how I interpret what you are saying about cultural homogeneity and race:
-That homogeneity doesn't convey much influence.
-Those who contend that homogeneity conveys a problem are racists, because people holding this opinion believe that people from, say, a dark-skinned background cause problems. And only a racist would say this.

In any event, the melting pot concept was a fantasy from ?1950s. It's long been replaced by the stew or salad bowl conceptualization, where stuff like the narcissism of small differences is recognized to be one of the myriad negative influences effecting forced interaction of any two different sub-cultures.
So...that you hear/interpret "heterogeneity is bad because it means dark-skinned people make things worse"...sort of suggests that you either aren't familiar with more modern understanding of sociology, political science, etc, or even worse your first presumption is that it's dark-skinned people would be the bad people.

Anyhow, Mike was right on in the first place, as with Valhalla. First-second generation Americans in the past often had a hunger to adopt a new persona...but over time, simple clustering of subcultures creates rifts (Canada still young there). Homogeneity is perhaps the most important factor involved in getting any policy accomplished, any study conducted, etc. This works for sorting M&Ms, mixing paint, dividing and conquering (or not) a population, etc ad nauseum.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Singularity

Anyhow, Mike was right on in the first place, as with Valhalla. First-second generation Americans in the past often had a hunger to adopt a new persona...but over time, simple clustering of subcultures creates rifts (Canada still young there). Homogeneity is perhaps the most important factor involved in getting any policy accomplished, any study conducted, etc. This works for sorting M&Ms, mixing paint, dividing and conquering (or not) a population, etc ad nauseum.

I think you're not taking into account the tensions created by the "melting pot" approach ("why don't you act more like us?") as opposed to the multicultural approach where the differences are celebrated and shared.

An unhealed wound, like past slavery or civil war, is also a big factor.

You can create belonging and a sense of common purpose without assimilation and loss of other identities. Of course, if political survival requires finding and exploiting differences...

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ignorance is a greater threat than COVID-19.

Yes you are very right there!

[UFO]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

90% is definitely great news and yes, herd immunity is not achieved via a specific percentage but the spread drops with every percentage increase in immune population.

Also it does get complicated in that someone who is in physical contact with hundreds of people per day is far more important to vaccinate compared to grizzly adams living alone in the wilderness.

This is where the nuance comes in but when you boil it down, if they can get a 90% effective vaccine out and people retain immunity for even a year, it's just a question of how fast they can pump out doses before this is over.

The Devil is in the detail... Although they tested the vaccine on over 40,000 people that actual 90% came from a sample of only 94 People - Why only 94 you have to ask - Maybe they did not have the facilities to test any more



There is billions, probably trillions at stake over the years to come from this, so I would not necessarily believe the manipulated figures that are being thrown around as for either $ or Political reasons they may be skewed.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ignorance is a greater threat than COVID-19.

There are a number of differences between Mar 21 and now. The biggest difference is that vaccines seem to be close to rollout in 3 to 6 months, which is the light at the end of the tunnel that we didn't have in March. So, a short, sharp lockdown followed by a couple months of good behaviour would theoretically put the lid on it.

If the people of the US wanted to put the brakes on their runaway infection rate, and avoid healthcare being overwhelmed this winter... a short but serious lockdown is the only option at this point. And it IS affordable.

But that's a pretty big if. Given the overall US "meh" about the current death rate, and the howls of rage from the US well-off about sharing ANY of the burden of getting through COVID-19 ... and #45's long goodbye... any credible action can't happen before Jan 20. And is probably unlikely after, as well.

Thoughts and prayers, then.



Votes have been cast, the actual election is well and truly done. Parting is such sweet sorrow...

So have you actually read the Great Barrington Declaration?


https://gbdeclaration.org/


I suppose the 11,930 Scientists, 34,426 Medical practitioners and a shed load of normal people are all ignorant and that what they believe about lock downs is a total Fallacy, yet the few advisors (and yourself) in positions of power pushing the lock downs are all correct.


Perhaps you need to have a more open mind about the politics and $ involved which make this not such a simple black and white case and there are Definitely other viable ways of approaching this virus than the simple lock it all down approach, which has so many massively negative side effects.



If you are pinning your hopes on a vaccine, well good luck with that as again when such $$$$ and politics are involved you can not believe a word you hear about it - Bit funny how they timed the 90% effective (also see my previous post) press release just after the election and not before - Read into that what you will.



Too many people seem to have the belief that the West, its Governments and corporations are honest entities and that corruption is only an issue of the developing world and a handful of other nations - Well sadly that is so far from the truth its not funny and sometimes on such a massive scale that people simply do not believe it even when they hear about it.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

This is one of the most egregiously unbalanced "bothsiderism" things I have ever read.

Some others have mentioned the "wearing a mask in a car" issue, and I'd add: when they were alone! I, too, questioned why anyone would do this when I first saw it, and then realized the possible obvious answers after thinking about it for a few minutes.

Only one side politicized it. Those were brought to you by the same guy who KNEW about the dangers and then deliberately ignored it because his dimwit son-in-law thought others could be blamed for it.

That's simply sick.

I walk down a street in my local town and a majority of people care enough about their fellow citizens to wear a mask and stand aside for each other.

A (thankfully few) others intrude on my space without a mask and don't even have the courtesy to move aside when there is plenty of room. Those are almost always the jerks with crude garments with garish lettering declaiming their stupidity. And this isn't even the USA! It's amazing how consistent A-holes really are.

So anyone who doesn't tow the line regardless of how silly, must be vilified.

If it was the stray person with a mask, I might buy the "I forgot" excuse but given the number and how easy it is to take off and comments like this, it's about a purity test that has nothing to do with actually reducing infections. Outside on a wide lightly used sidewalk, the experts all admit it's pretty much pointless to wear a mask. It's not about people caring enough...but that's the purity test being applied.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Is it not the case that the big, more diverse coastal US cities are currently doing better with COVID than the interior, more homogeneous heartland areas?

Our city is quite diverse, by North American standards, and we're pretty happy with it.

Better...like NYC that has by far the worst death rate? They are just further into the process and got slammed harder. As I said, you can overcome diversity but it's not an advantage.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I think you're not taking into account the tensions created by the "melting pot" approach ("why don't you act more like us?") as opposed to the multicultural approach where the differences are celebrated and shared.

Agreed, centripetal force vs centrifugal force. I would say, though, and maybe repeating a falsehood myth, but emigrants in the past to the US perhaps where more prone to wanting a new identity. In any event, I submit that every country has a honeymoon period of enjoyed multiculturalism, right up until the familiarity breeds contempt thing sets it.

An unhealed wound, like past slavery or civil war, is also a big factor.

Certain of those elements certainly are a problem, while frankly some wounds have scabs picked at for purposes having no rational basis for expected policy change.

You can create belonging and a sense of common purpose without assimilation and loss of other identities. Of course, if political survival requires finding and exploiting differences...

Therein is a phenomenon recognized in 101% of civilizations in the written record. Economic advancement is the remedy, but frankly no hope for this anymore...economies of scale, post-industrialization, globalism...finds too many people, not enough jobs. Glad I have a boat.