Bad News Thread

I think some hard core religious people might feel that way but

I'm just using your own words back at you. I'm not the one that has been saying masks are the miracle product that work indoors. As you yourself has said, with or without masks the longer indoors the greater the chance of exposure. My point is it explains the discrepancy between your theories and real world results

This has a lot of implications. Because the warning to people should have been "masks help, but if you spend too long indoors you still could catch it....being outdoors helps more". I suspect when all is said and done we will find out that people knew that, but just didn't want to say the quiet part out loud. There's a reason....it means all those flying is fine propaganda was bunk, it meant that we were telling essential workers such as in groceries and meat packing plants to go to work knowing the length of time of their shifts increased their risk (mask or no mask), and it means throwing all those migrants into detention overcrowded detention facilities probably also not a great idea.
[/QUOTE]
I'm fine with that wording. It's pretty good advice.

Cloth masks and social distance keep you from breathing coronavirus directly into someone else's face. That's not a miracle cure, but it is step in the right direction. Therefore, we should all wear our masks.

We should also give each other some space, to reduce direct exposure , and stay outdoors, to reduce the ambient air risk.

So, as before, mask, distance, outside. This is not rocket science.

Side note: Of course the air travel advocates were full of crap. I thought it was clear that it was a bad idea to spend 2-6 hours in an aluminum tube with 150 other people.
 
I think some hard core religious people might feel that way but

I'm just using your own words back at you. I'm not the one that has been saying masks are the miracle product that work indoors. As you yourself has said, with or without masks the longer indoors the greater the chance of exposure. My point is it explains the discrepancy between your theories and real world results

This has a lot of implications. Because the warning to people should have been "masks help, but if you spend too long indoors you still could catch it....being outdoors helps more". I suspect when all is said and done we will find out that people knew that, but just didn't want to say the quiet part out loud. There's a reason....it means all those flying is fine propaganda was bunk, it meant that we were telling essential workers such as in groceries and meat packing plants to go to work knowing the length of time of their shifts increased their risk (mask or no mask), and it means throwing all those migrants into detention overcrowded detention facilities probably also not a great idea.
[/QUOTE]

Who said masks are a miracle product?
 
Grace T. said:
That’s funny. I seem to remember masks are better than vaccines, if everyone wore a mask this would be over in 8 weeks and masks have a 70% reduction.
Click to expand...

Grace is just changing the topic because she got called out for her bogus claim about the MIT study.

When you read the details, they are still saying masks+distance+outside.

The only change is they want to raise the profile of being outside.

Ok by me. New rule is masks + distance + STAY THE HECK OUT OF INDOOR SPACES.

Better? I thought the old version was more polite. (masks + distance + outside)
 
dad4 said:
Grace is just changing the topic because she got called out for her bogus claim about the MIT study.

When you read the details, they are still saying masks+distance+outside.

The only change is they want to raise the profile of being outside.

Ok by me. New rule is masks + distance + STAY THE HECK OUT OF INDOOR SPACES.

Better? I thought the old version was more polite. (masks + distance + outside)
Click to expand...
Your new rule is backward in terms of relative importance. Why am I not surprised? My new rule is, Vaccine, ... oh, wait, I'm done.
 
dad4 said:
Grace is just changing the topic because she got called out for her bogus claim about the MIT study.

When you read the details, they are still saying masks+distance+outside.

The only change is they want to raise the profile of being outside.

Ok by me. New rule is masks + distance + STAY THE HECK OUT OF INDOOR SPACES.

Better? I thought the old version was more polite. (masks + distance + outside)
Click to expand...
Nah it’s much more embarrassing for your beloved experts than that. It’s the old rule should have been is inside was much more dangerous than we told you. Inside masks won’t protect you if you spend too much time indoors (which is what I’ve been saying forever). But we didnt tell you that because we had to keep the airlines afloat, bring immigrants in and couldnt freak out the essential workers who had to sacrifice themselves so people like dad4 working at home can stay safe. It’s why they said nonsense like masks are better than vaccines.

You always overread things and assume the worst in people (then ironically expect them to be angels when it comes to your policies...just like the old times preachers). Just the very same way you assumed that because I thought I didn’t think masks helped that much I just threw away my own mask or because I thought the trade off for indoor dining was too severe I went partying indoors and indoor dining

I agree with kicking though. It’s all moot now because of the vaccine which is the true miracle. Which is also btw why it’s now ok to talk about this stuff given we won’t freak out the sacrificial lambs
 
Grace T. said:
Nah it’s much more embarrassing for your beloved experts than that. It’s the old rule should have been is inside was much more dangerous than we told you. Inside masks won’t protect you if you spend too much time indoors (which is what I’ve been saying forever). But we didnt tell you that because we had to keep the airlines afloat, bring immigrants in and couldnt freak out the essential workers who had to sacrifice themselves so people like dad4 working at home can stay safe. It’s why they said nonsense like masks are better than vaccines.

You always overread things and assume the worst in people (then ironically expect them to be angels when it comes to your policies...just like the old times preachers). Just the very same way you assumed that because I thought I didn’t think masks helped that much I just threw away my own mask or because I thought the trade off for indoor dining was too severe I went partying indoors and indoor dining

I agree with kicking though. It’s all moot now because of the vaccine which is the true miracle. Which is also btw why it’s now ok to talk about this stuff given we won’t freak out the sacrificial lambs
Click to expand...
Overread? You just underread. There is more in those studies than you manage to pull out of them.

You saw a perfectly good study explaining how airflow modeling demonstrates that being indoors with other people is a non-mitigable risk, and never once made the connection that church and indoor dining are higher risk than you had previously believed.

Instead, you came out with an inaccurate one liner saying “told ya so.”. No you didn’t. And I didn’t either.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
Your new rule is backward in terms of relative importance. Why am I not surprised? My new rule is, Vaccine, ... oh, wait, I'm done.
Click to expand...
Less done than you’d think. (Unless your answer is limited to your own family. Then you might ge done.)

It looks like we will have a regional pattern in vaccinations. 80% on the coasts and 50% in the deep south. Some states/counties end up protected, while others do not.
 
dad4 said:
Overread? You just underread. There is more in those studies than you manage to pull out of them.

You saw a perfectly good study explaining how airflow modeling demonstrates that being indoors with other people is a non-mitigable risk, and never once made the connection that church and indoor dining are higher risk than you had previously believed.

Instead, you came out with an inaccurate one liner saying “told ya so.”. No you didn’t. And I didn’t either.
Click to expand...
Again you are misascribing motives. I’ve always believed indoor dining and church was higher risk. What I said was: there’s an inequity in that we are forcing some people and not others to take risk, there are trade offs which you fail to calculate the cost of (while forcing others to provide the things needed to keep you safe and sound), and people should be allowed to assess those cost themselves. My point on the study was the limited point that risks increased WITH or without masks the longer you are indoors. I’ve been saying forever people were neglecting the time factor. And I believe that explains the difference between your theoretical 40% and why masks in the real world haven’t worked to contain the outbreak. Extrapolating from there the best use of masks would have been to protect against short term exposure (like in grocery stores or doctor waiting rooms) but we didn’t say that because it would have brought down the airline industry, caused problems in prisons, and freaked out the essential workers. Instead we told them garbage like masks are better than vaccines
You’re just mad because someone is finally saying the quiet part out loud and shows why your preferred solution doesn’t work in the real world. When someone tears down your fantasy you really pull every overreach and rhetorical tool in the book to try and protect it.
 
Grace T. said:
Again you are misascribing motives. I’ve always believed indoor dining and church was higher risk. What I said was: there’s an inequity in that we are forcing some people and not others to take risk, there are trade offs which you fail to calculate the cost of (while forcing others to provide the things needed to keep you safe and sound), and people should be allowed to assess those cost themselves. My point on the study was the limited point that risks increased WITH or without masks the longer you are indoors. I’ve been saying forever people were neglecting the time factor. And I believe that explains the difference between your theoretical 40% and why masks in the real world haven’t worked to contain the outbreak. Extrapolating from there the best use of masks would have been to protect against short term exposure (like in grocery stores or doctor waiting rooms) but we didn’t say that because it would have brought down the airline industry, caused problems in prisons, and freaked out the essential workers. Instead we told them garbage like masks are better than vaccines
You’re just mad because someone is finally saying the quiet part out loud and shows why your preferred solution doesn’t work in the real world. When someone tears down your fantasy you really pull every overreach and rhetorical tool in the book to try and protect it.
Click to expand...
Ps. It’s also why outdoor mask mandates should never have been put in place, were ridiculous and only served to make a portion of the population hostile to them. Better a more limited use and treating people like grownups by being honest about what they can and can’t do.
 
dad4 said:
Less done than you’d think. (Unless your answer is limited to your own family. Then you might ge done.)

It looks like we will have a regional pattern in vaccinations. 80% on the coasts and 50% in the deep south. Some states/counties end up protected, while others do not.
Click to expand...
The only thing that matters is the percentage of 55+ that got the shot which will be higher in both red and blue state. The death rate will be on the floor. Time to move on...cases are meaningless
 
Grace T. said:
The only thing that matters is the percentage of 55+ that got the shot which will be higher in both red and blue state. The death rate will be on the floor. Time to move on...cases are meaningless
Click to expand...
Vax rates for 70+ are topping out at around 80%.

I don’t think you get a death rate on the floor just yet. 40% vax rate for younger people would keep it circulating. 20% unvaccinated would leave 1/5 of seniors exposed. That’s still enough deaths to care about.
 
dad4 said:
Vax rates for 70+ are topping out at around 80%.

I don’t think you get a death rate on the floor just yet. 40% vax rate for younger people would keep it circulating. 20% unvaccinated would leave 1/5 of seniors exposed. That’s still enough deaths to care about.
Click to expand...
Assuming arguendo those figures are true what does that do to the ifr and how does it compare to a bad flu season? The goal is not zero deaths. It’s never going to be zero deaths. And for the vaccinated that made the choice they are more likely to be killed in the car drive on the way to indoor dining than from catching covid and dying of covid. At a certain point the rest of us can’t sit around waiting if the old who refuse vaccination chose to behave that way. It’s never going to be zero.
 
Grace T. said:
Again you are misascribing motives. I’ve always believed indoor dining and church was higher risk. What I said was: there’s an inequity in that we are forcing some people and not others to take risk, there are trade offs which you fail to calculate the cost of (while forcing others to provide the things needed to keep you safe and sound), and people should be allowed to assess those cost themselves. My point on the study was the limited point that risks increased WITH or without masks the longer you are indoors. I’ve been saying forever people were neglecting the time factor. And I believe that explains the difference between your theoretical 40% and why masks in the real world haven’t worked to contain the outbreak. Extrapolating from there the best use of masks would have been to protect against short term exposure (like in grocery stores or doctor waiting rooms) but we didn’t say that because it would have brought down the airline industry, caused problems in prisons, and freaked out the essential workers. Instead we told them garbage like masks are better than vaccines
You’re just mad because someone is finally saying the quiet part out loud and shows why your preferred solution doesn’t work in the real world. When someone tears down your fantasy you really pull every overreach and rhetorical tool in the book to try and protect it.
Click to expand...
40% would not be expected to contain the outbreak.

To handle a variant with R=5, you’d need three or four 40% reductions, all at the same time. And you’d need to actually enforce all of them.

You can have a great slate of mitigations with a 90% reduction in transmission. If 20% of the population refuses to do it, case numbers will still increase.

They didn’t do my preferred solution. My preferred solution had fines. It doesn’t work without the fines. Remember, my authoritarian streak where I actually wanted the government to enforce their public health laws?
 
Grace T. said:
Assuming arguendo those figures are true what does that do to the ifr and how does it compare to a bad flu season? The goal is not zero deaths. It’s never going to be zero deaths. And for the vaccinated that made the choice they are more likely to be killed in the car drive on the way to indoor dining than from catching covid and dying of covid. At a certain point the rest of us can’t sit around waiting if the old who refuse vaccination chose to behave that way. It’s never going to be zero.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t change ifr for any age group. Total ifr drifts down a little because average age drifts down when a higher percentage of older people get vaccinated.

I have not run the numbers to figure out the steady state death rate for covid with a 50% overall vax rate and 80% for seniors. Permanent bad flu season might, or might not, accurately describe it.

The remaining fight isn’t over whether we sit around. It’s over things like vaccine passports.
 
dad4 said:
Less done than you’d think. (Unless your answer is limited to your own family. Then you might ge done.)

It looks like we will have a regional pattern in vaccinations. 80% on the coasts and 50% in the deep south. Some states/counties end up protected, while others do not.
Click to expand...
No, "it" is not done, even if I am. I will still be wearing a mask where required and avoiding those places that require one when possible.
 
dad4 said:
It doesn’t change ifr for any age group. Total ifr drifts down a little because average age drifts down when a higher percentage of older people get vaccinated.

I have not run the numbers to figure out the steady state death rate for covid with a 50% overall vax rate and 80% for seniors. Permanent bad flu season might, or might not, accurately describe it.

The remaining fight isn’t over whether we sit around. It’s over things like vaccine passports.
Click to expand...
Kids getting forced vaccinated too.
 
dad4 said:
It doesn’t change ifr for any age group. Total ifr drifts down a little because average age drifts down when a higher percentage of older people get vaccinated.

I have not run the numbers to figure out the steady state death rate for covid with a 50% overall vax rate and 80% for seniors. Permanent bad flu season might, or might not, accurately describe it.

The remaining fight isn’t over whether we sit around. It’s over things like vaccine passports.
Click to expand...
Why fight it? How many times do we need to go back through history and see that forcing people to do something "for their own good" is a slippery slope and the resulting power structure that is created to enforce it is very often worse than the problem it attempted to solve. Vaccine passports? Aren't the vaccines still listed as an emergency use authorization? We aren't even forcing the military to take the vaccine. The argument about doing it for the common good is quickly fading away as all those who desire vaccines able to get them. The risk to those that are vaccinated is less than that in a car trip (see below). It's time to let individual choice reign - well, by the end of May, anyway when it is obvious everyone who wants a vaccine can get one. We need to quit dividing ourselves based on irrational fear.

Part I


Good morning. Why do so many vaccinated people remain irrationally fearful? Listen to the professor’s story.

A fable for our times

Guido Calabresi, a federal judge and Yale law professor, invented a little fable that he has been telling law students for more than three decades.

He tells the students to imagine a god coming forth to offer society a wondrous invention that would improve everyday life in almost every way. It would allow people to spend more time with friends and family, see new places and do jobs they otherwise could not do. But it would also come with a high cost. In exchange for bestowing this invention on society, the god would choose 1,000 young men and women and strike them dead.

Calabresi then asks: Would you take the deal? Almost invariably, the students say no. The professor then delivers the fable’s lesson: “What’s the difference between this and the automobile?”

In truth, automobiles kill many more than 1,000 young Americans each year; the total U.S. death toll hovers at about 40,000 annually. We accept this toll, almost unthinkingly, because vehicle crashes have always been part of our lives. We can’t fathom a world without them.

It’s a classic example of human irrationality about risk. We often underestimate large, chronic dangers, like car crashes or chemical pollution, and fixate on tiny but salient risks, like plane crashes or shark attacks.

One way for a risk to become salient is for it to be new. That’s a core idea behind Calabresi’s fable. He asks students to consider whether they would accept the cost of vehicle travel if it did not already exist. That they say no underscores the very different ways we treat new risks and enduring ones.

I have been thinking about the fable recently because of Covid-19. Covid certainly presents a salient risk: It’s a global pandemic that has upended daily life for more than a year. It has changed how we live, where we work, even what we wear on our faces. Covid feels ubiquitous.

Fortunately, it is also curable. The vaccines have nearly eliminated death, hospitalization and other serious Covid illness among people who have received shots. The vaccines have also radically reduced the chances that people contract even a mild version of Covid or can pass it on to others.

Yet many vaccinated people continue to obsess over the risks from Covid — because they are so new and salient.
 
Part II


‘Psychologically hard’

To take just one example, major media outlets trumpeted new government data last week showing that 5,800 fully vaccinated Americans had contracted Covid. That may sound like a big number, but it indicates that a vaccinated person’s chances of getting Covid are about one in 11,000. The chances of a getting a version any worse than a common cold are even more remote.

But they are not zero. And they will not be zero anytime in the foreseeable future. Victory over Covid will not involve its elimination. Victory will instead mean turning it into the sort of danger that plane crashes or shark attacks present — too small to be worth reordering our lives.

That is what the vaccines do. If you’re vaccinated, Covid presents a minuscule risk to you, and you present a minuscule Covid risk to anyone else. A car trip is a bigger threat, to you and others. About 100 Americans are likely to die in car crashes today. The new federal data suggests that either zero or one vaccinated person will die today from Covid.

It’s true that experts believe vaccinated people should still sometimes wear a mask, partly because it’s a modest inconvenience that further reduces a tiny risk — and mostly because it contributes to a culture of mask wearing. It is the decent thing to do when most people still aren’t vaccinated. If you’re vaccinated, a mask is more of a symbol of solidarity than anything else.

Coming to grips with the comforting realities of post-vaccination life is going to take some time for most of us. It’s only natural that so many vaccinated people continue to harbor irrational fears. Yet slowly recognizing that irrationality will be a vital part of overcoming Covid.

“We’re not going to get to a place of zero risk,” Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, told me during a virtual Times event last week. “I don’t think that’s the right metric for feeling like things are normal.”

After Nuzzo made that point, Dr. Ashish Jha of Brown University told us about his own struggle to return to normal. He has been fully vaccinated for almost two months, he said, and only recently decided to meet a vaccinated friend for a drink, unmasked. “It was hard — psychologically hard — for me,” Jha said.

“There are going to be some challenges to re-acclimating and re-entering,” he added. “But we’ve got to do it.”

And how did it feel in the end, I asked, to get together with his friend?

“It was awesome,” Jha said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top