Bad News Thread
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
No such agreement from me. I find the lab tests and cdc data very convincing- especially if you are asking about direct person to person transmission. The mask redirects my breath up, and away from you. The direct risk from me to you has been significantly reduced.
If you are asking about whether wearing a mask helps with long term indirect indoor exposure, that one is less convincing. Also less effective, at least for the kinds of mask most people wear. Less effective also means harder to measure. You get things like the Dutch study- expected reduction is 10-15%, but the number of participants is too small to be sure.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wrong. The people that made the policy are stupid. Is what it is.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Virus's have served us well. Without a virus, no placenta. No Husker Du.
Desert Hound
DA
Loved those guys.
One of the best Monty Python related projects is the movie Jabberwocky.
We actually have moved him on the issue. Long term indoor exposure, the type of mask people wear, transmission in the home, maybe even kids and outdoors. While he likes to suck on that blue pill, unlike others he doesn't swallow it whole.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
It makes sense that viruses are responsible for multi-aliased, misanthropic trolls.
You obviously don't understand the difference between cherry picking and scientific consensus. I'm glad you find those particular studies convincing; however, its hardly a consensus that masks are effective against the spread of Covid. Even the CDC only says "studies show that masks reduce the spray of droplets when worn over the nose and mouth." They make no conclusions about whether it is effective against spreading the virus although they cite some anecdotal studies that they may work. These are correlation studies and not causation studies. Keep in mind two things, 1) prior to Covid, the consensus was that masks didn't work for the general public against viruses and 2) the studies don't show that masks are 100% effective against "spray". Even the FDA says "Masks may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others."
That having been said, I believe that masks may have some level of effectiveness against Covid and my suspicion is that its likely in the area of viral load. So we have a dilemma. Which is more dangerous? My openly questioning mask effectiveness, or you openly drinking the mask kool-aid. My attitude could undermine the use of masks, your attitude could make masks falsely look like a panacea (like masks are better than vaccines). I prefer a honest discussion about masks. I also don't want anyone who thinks they may have symptoms or know they are sick going out in public thinking a mask will protect others. They should stay home.
When a series of people make a solid point, you're supposed to reconsider your previous position. If you don't, there's no point in talking about these issues.
Same as Grace eventually admitted that masks have a role in reducing transmission.
I'm just willing to give credit. Watfly on outdoor spaces and Grace on the difference between home and non-home exposures.
Duration of exposure goes to no one. Prior knowledge. Credit goes to the old saying, "the poison is in the dose.".
All moot soon, at least locally. Most of the blue pill areas are getting themselves vaccinated, and won't see many more cases. Dropping by 10% or so per week, with vax rates above 50% and rising.
Red pill areas are more reluctant/stubborn. They've got several months to fix it, though they'll lose some people while they figure it out.
Desert Hound
DA
And yet you constantly ignore this one.
Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures
wwwnc.cdc.gov
I decline to take any credit whatsoever. I'm just happy you've moved.
As for me, if you look back through my posts, I've (subject to the restrictions previously said) always been in favor of an indoor mask mandate. You might also like to know that because I've gotten so many colds on planes, I wholeheartedly embraced the practice of wearing a mask on a plane and would welcome that practice to continue....that contradicts the idea that I don't think they do anything....I just don't think they do much (particularly on an airplane and particularly if someone sick sits right next to you). I haven't moved on this and have always been in the same place on them from the beginning (even when Fauci was saying no you don't need masks I said BS and bought a carton of N95s).
I’m not a fan of red vs blue pill analogies as it brings politics front and center. That said, I do believe mask effectiveness is the externality you asked for on masks+distance studies. If one thinks masks are effective they are more likely to participate in risky activities like indoor gatherings (it’s human behavior to dismiss risks that are assumed to be mitigated). Hearing that masks ‘may be effective’ in those settings would cause more hesitation to engage in those activities and is the greatest public failing I see in this debate when it comes to mandates etc.
What do you mean by "don't help much"?
The plain English meaning of that phrase is completely at odds with "and should be mandatory".
The key is understanding that "effective" is not boolean, or even uniform.
Masks seem to reduce your ability to receive covid by about 10%. They also reduce your ability to send covid by 50 to 70%.
So, should I go indoors because my mask protects me? No. 90% of the risk to me is still there.
Should I go indoors because I know others wear masks? Not really. 30 to 50% of the risk is still there.
If I am stuck being indoors, should I wear a mask? Yes, because the mask eliminates more than half of the risk from me to other people. (Even though the risk to me is still quite high.)
I know you are all into math but didn't think you completely ignored your English classes. The opposite of much is a little...not none. From a cost benefit analysis....if the little help > very small cost (particularly if you exclude the very young and severely handicapped so you don't get the screaming children incidents on planes) o.k. go for it.
Big pharma was one of the few institutions in this crisis which didn't fail miserably. It doesn't seem particularly wise to back stab them, largely under pressure from the PRC because their vaccine doesn't work, if we want them to step up to the plate the next time there's a crisis.
That has to be the weakest policy endorsement I have ever heard.
Do you support any covid containment measure you actually believe to be effective?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Well, how about this.
The Atlantic, which hasn't exactly been on our side through all this, just published an article by Emma Green called "The Liberals Who Can't Quit Lockdown."
Subtitle: "Progressive communities have been home to some of the fiercest battles over COVID-19 policies, and some liberal policy makers have left scientific evidence behind."
Some excerpts:
The spring of 2021 is different from the spring of 2020, though. Scientists know a lot more about how COVID-19 spreads—and how it doesn’t. Public-health advice is shifting. But some progressives have not updated their behavior based on the new information.... Some progressives have continued to embrace policies and behaviors that aren’t supported by evidence, such as banning access to playgrounds, closing beaches, and refusing to reopen schools for in-person learning....
Scientists, academics, and writers who have argued that some very low-risk activities are worth doing as vaccination rates rise—even if the risk of exposure is not zero—have faced intense backlash. After Emily Oster, an economist at Brown University, argued in The Atlantic in March that families should plan to take their kids on trips and see friends and relatives this summer, a reader sent an email to her supervisors at the university suggesting that Oster be promoted to a leadership role in the field of “genocide encouragement.”
Green spends some time discussing left-liberal Somerville, Massachusetts:
In Somerville, a local leader appeared to describe parents who wanted a faster return to in-person instruction as “f***ing white parents” in a virtual public meeting; a community member accused the group of mothers advocating for schools to reopen of being motivated by white supremacy. “I spent four years fighting Trump because he was so anti-science,” Daniele Lantagne, a Somerville mom and engineering professor who works to promote equitable access to clean water and sanitation during disease outbreaks, told me. “I spent the last year fighting people who I normally would agree with … desperately trying to inject science into school reopening, and completely failed.”
As most Americans prepare to go back to normal, Green says in her conclusion, lockdown-addicted progressives "are left, Cassandra-like, to preach their peers’ folly."
Nice to see progressives finally portrayed, accurately, as stubbornly refusing to listen to science, and addicted to restrictions as evidence of their good citizenship.
But also nice to see a mainstream publication say: everyone else is going back to normal.
Tom Woods
The Atlantic, which hasn't exactly been on our side through all this, just published an article by Emma Green called "The Liberals Who Can't Quit Lockdown."
Subtitle: "Progressive communities have been home to some of the fiercest battles over COVID-19 policies, and some liberal policy makers have left scientific evidence behind."
Some excerpts:
The spring of 2021 is different from the spring of 2020, though. Scientists know a lot more about how COVID-19 spreads—and how it doesn’t. Public-health advice is shifting. But some progressives have not updated their behavior based on the new information.... Some progressives have continued to embrace policies and behaviors that aren’t supported by evidence, such as banning access to playgrounds, closing beaches, and refusing to reopen schools for in-person learning....
Scientists, academics, and writers who have argued that some very low-risk activities are worth doing as vaccination rates rise—even if the risk of exposure is not zero—have faced intense backlash. After Emily Oster, an economist at Brown University, argued in The Atlantic in March that families should plan to take their kids on trips and see friends and relatives this summer, a reader sent an email to her supervisors at the university suggesting that Oster be promoted to a leadership role in the field of “genocide encouragement.”
Green spends some time discussing left-liberal Somerville, Massachusetts:
In Somerville, a local leader appeared to describe parents who wanted a faster return to in-person instruction as “f***ing white parents” in a virtual public meeting; a community member accused the group of mothers advocating for schools to reopen of being motivated by white supremacy. “I spent four years fighting Trump because he was so anti-science,” Daniele Lantagne, a Somerville mom and engineering professor who works to promote equitable access to clean water and sanitation during disease outbreaks, told me. “I spent the last year fighting people who I normally would agree with … desperately trying to inject science into school reopening, and completely failed.”
As most Americans prepare to go back to normal, Green says in her conclusion, lockdown-addicted progressives "are left, Cassandra-like, to preach their peers’ folly."
Nice to see progressives finally portrayed, accurately, as stubbornly refusing to listen to science, and addicted to restrictions as evidence of their good citizenship.
But also nice to see a mainstream publication say: everyone else is going back to normal.
Tom Woods
I already laid out my plan for you. Care to (finally) lay out yours?
It seems you don't know how to do a cost/benefit analysis which is why you don't proffer one for your recommends even though you profess to be open to one. It's probably because we've established your econ background is fairly weak (incidentally I think everyone should be required to take econ in high school....it would put an end to stupid propositions like rent control). With masks the calculation is pretty simple. I think they provide substantially less benefit (even to others in non-residence situations) than you outline because: a) the externality of people being more casual in their distancing, b) that people can't wear them right, c) that they degrade with time or washing, d) cloth masks/bandanas/gaiters aren't even very effective and could be counterproductive in some instances, and e) the length of time spent indoors. But I do agree they offer some protection to both the wearer and others, particularly in short term situations indoors. Therefore there is a small benefit (particularly if it's coupled with the advice to keep indoor interactions short such as no airplanes). That small benefit exceeds the cost (social harm, pollution, cost of the mask, possible externalities like infections) if limited to indoors and you exclude the screaming babies and autistic.
Again, I'm not advocating for any policy here. I'd be o.k. with the one I outline above. That's not my objective...my objective is to drill down on truth, scientific or otherwise, even if we don't like the answer.
That's an awful lot of words for someone who didn't answer the question.
Which policy proposals do you support that would actually "help much"?
I don’t think any policy proposals would help much. Short of Australia (which is unconstitutional here at the minimum because of violent suppression of protests plus we can’t bomb Mexico into the oceans), virus is going to virus. Best we could have done was Germany and that’s a stretch given Americans aren’t Germans.