Vaccine

[watfly]

But again, you don't know what you don't know...the ventilators turned out to be counterproductive and within 6 months the medical community had radically shifted their use from them

Further, it was ridiculous to apply a country wide model to a nation like the US. New York should have probably been shut down way before they did it. There was no point in shutting down Iowa during that particular time period. The models were behind the time in New York, and inapplicable to Iowa. The only thing that happened as a result was that the administration burned its lockdown bullet in one blow (both social and economically) in places that didn't need to be locked down instead of targeting it for when surges inevitably happened (which if the short models were accurate, they should have been able to predict weeks ahead of time). Then BLM hit and that torched any further chance for using a targeted approach (which BTW is what China is doing now, way too late and with a virus which spreads rampantly through apartment buildings).

Again, taking the weather model: they work pretty good in a place like SoCal...they work pretty badly in a place with all the micro climates like Hawaii.

Sometimes I wonder if weather predictions would be more accurate if meteorologists actually looked out the window instead of staring at their computer.

In Utah the quip is if you don't like the weather just wait an hour. (I'm sure other states say the same thing). How hard is it to predict weather in San Diego.? If you said Sunny and 75 you'd probably be accurate 50% if time. SD has to have more TV weather people per weather event than any other city.

 

[watfly]

Which “jump to conclusions”?

Well certainly the outdoors issue that we are talking about. But the worst is no doubt the claim that the vaccine will prevent you from getting Covid which led to vaccine mandate policies and resulted in people losing their jobs.

 

[Happened again]

Which “jump to conclusions”?

The main argument was that, absent a change to behavior, cases were doubling every 3 days. That was empirical, not speculative. You can plot it on log paper and see the point where we would have exceeded hospital capacity. It wasn’t very far out.

the modeling was innacurate (everyone trying to CYA), vents were not the correct treatement (known very early on). The virus was/is novel. Early intervention as the grassroots wasn't encouraged. Imagine treating someone early, increasing chances of not coming back to the hospital VS telling someone to go home and if/when they got really sic, come back. It's kinda like medicining and doctoring was discouraged - everyone crossing their fingers that pharma would bail us out (ahh, the twinkle in big pharma's eyes).

 

[dad4]

Sometimes I wonder if weather predictions would be more accurate if meteorologists actually looked out the window instead of staring at their computer.

In Utah the quip is if you don't like the weather just wait an hour. (I'm sure other states say the same thing). How hard is it to predict weather in San Diego.? If you said Sunny and 75 you'd probably be accurate 50% if time. SD has to have more TV weather people per weather event than any other city.

TV weather people don’t actually do any forecasting. They are only there to look pretty when you’re done looking at the map.

Which is why SD needs them. You guys don’t need to actually look at the forecast, so it’s more important to have some eye candy to pass the time.

 

[watfly]

TV weather people don’t actually do any forecasting. They are only there to look pretty when you’re done looking at the map.

Which is why SD needs them. You guys don’t need to actually look at the forecast, so it’s more important to have some eye candy to pass the time.

Good point.

 

[watfly]

the modeling was innacurate (everyone trying to CYA), vents were not the correct treatement (known very early on). The virus was/is novel. Early intervention as the grassroots wasn't encouraged. Imagine treating someone early, increasing chances of not coming back to the hospital VS telling someone to go home and if/when they got really sic, come back. It's kinda like medicining and doctoring was discouraged - everyone crossing their fingers that pharma would bail us out (ahh, the twinkle in big pharma's eyes).

Was the vent treatment really based on modeling or historical medical treatment for severe respiratory issues? The initial fear that was greatly exaggerated was the fear that we wouldn't have enough vents (see Cuomo). I certainly heard some horror stories from NY hospitals unnecessarily putting people on vents. I hope that wasn't political.

 

[Grace T.]

Not sure where you get the idea that models don’t predict waves. Pretty much every wave has come a few weeks after a subvariant begins to show exponential growth. Ever since they started sequencing sewage specimens, we’ve had a few weeks warning before anything hits. It doesn’t tell you peak height, but it does tell you timing.

We saw it with Beta. That “huge hurricane off the coast.”. Osterholm had the timing right, and the size wrong.

In the case of April 2020, the timing data was bad enough. We didn’t have enough PPE to manage current caseloads. Letting it double for 3 more weeks would have been a huge problem. You can argue whether the actual peak would have been 15% or 50% of population. Well before we hit peak, the upswing itself was going to cause trouble.

You missed the point. If the models were good enough to predict the waves in particular cities before they happened, you could have employed a targeted approach city by city instead of putting the entire country (including places which didn't have waves) in lockdown. Because once you did it, you spent your bullet and you couldn't get there again (particularly after BLM). It's also based on the assumption (which even the Chinese stubbornly are being forced to recognize) that you can't lock down in perpetuity.

The Australia/NZ/China/Vietnam experience v. the rest of the world is pretty illustrative. The only thing that really worked by way of lockdowns were nearly complete and months long lockdowns like they did there. Not the half lockdowns that the US did (weed stores, fast food, and construction open where employees were passing it back and forth to each other), and not the intense short burst lockdowns Europe did (it just pushed it back a few weeks). So the debate in retrospect is really very simple: Were Australia/NZ/China/Vietnam right given the cost or not.

 

[dad4]

You missed the point. If the models were good enough to predict the waves in particular cities before they happened, you could have employed a targeted approach city by city instead of putting the entire country (including places which didn't have waves) in lockdown. Because once you did it, you spent your bullet and you couldn't get there again (particularly after BLM). It's also based on the assumption (which even the Chinese stubbornly are being forced to recognize) that you can't lock down in perpetuity.

The Australia/NZ/China/Vietnam experience v. the rest of the world is pretty illustrative. The only thing that really worked by way of lockdowns were nearly complete and months long lockdowns like they did there. Not the half lockdowns that the US did (weed stores, fast food, and construction open where employees were passing it back and forth to each other), and not the intense short burst lockdowns Europe did (it just pushed it back a few weeks). So the debate in retrospect is really very simple: Were Australia/NZ/China/Vietnam right given the cost or not.

They've been trying to do exactly that. We have sewage data that highlights which places are flaring up. They had it down to treatment plant by treatment plant. It is easy enough to use that to decide what rules are on/off.

Trouble is, you can't turn rules on and off like a light switch. People accuse you of flip flopping and think that every change proves that there is no reason for any of it. You saw exactly that sentiment here.

In the end, one side effect of all the complaints is that policy got sticky. The fight over whether to have rules trumped all other discussions- including the discussions about how to make the rules smarter.

 

[Grace T.]

They've been trying to do exactly that. We have sewage data that highlights which places are flaring up. They had it down to treatment plant by treatment plant. It is easy enough to use that to decide what rules are on/off.

Trouble is, you can't turn rules on and off like a light switch. People accuse you of flip flopping and think that every change proves that there is no reason for any of it. You saw exactly that sentiment here.

In the end, one side effect of all the complaints is that policy got sticky. The fight over whether to have rules trumped all other discussions- including the discussions about how to make the rules smarter.

That wasn't the problem. Be honest about it. The problem was they burned their credibility. First it was the mask thing, no mask. Then it was the lockdowns for Iowa. Then it was the outdoor stuff. Then while the outdoor stuff was still going on you had the BLM (which ended any hope of a reasonable discussion once and for all because then people just saw it was politics). You saw the same thing going forward after that with Fauci fudging his immune thresholds, the cloth masks, the vaccine mandates and handing over school policies to the teachers union. They f up and every one of those f ups made getting to a sensible policy impossible. A more reasonable approach would have been to have an honest discussion with the public about the tradeoffs, treat them like grownups, and then left the politics out of it.

You see it in the LA County attempts to reinstall the mask mandate. This time around, compliance won't be universal. You'll have some places where it's hard (mostly affecting those without power like kids, or in doctor's offices/hospitals/govt buildings), some places of reluctant compliance with a whole bunch of incidents (mostly big corporations) and everywhere else compliance will be spotty. The stupidity behind it is it's a cloth mask mandate, which we already know given the current infection rates, do nothing particularly for people working indoors with one another for long periods of time, and for which things like indoor dining will be exempting (making for meaningless things like indoor restaurants). There's no point to it at this point, and it's yet another thing they'll torch their credibility with.

 

[crush]

Step right up and get your Jim Jones Kool Aid while supplies last.

FDA authorizes Novavax COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use

Novavax's COVID-19 vaccine was granted emergency use authorization by the FDA on Wednesday, setting it up to be a fourth vaccine option for Americans.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[Hüsker Dü]

TV weather people don’t actually do any forecasting. They are only there to look pretty when you’re done looking at the map.

Which is why SD needs them. You guys don’t need to actually look at the forecast, so it’s more important to have some eye candy to pass the time.

Shawn Styles?

 

[espola]

Shawn Styles?

Raquel Tejada

 

[kickingandscreaming]

Here's a great example of how talking points "work" for those incapable of critical thinking.

First, we have @watfly responding to a study @EvilGoalie 21 posted. Here is where @watfly used compelling first - in reference to long-term impacts on children.

So they looked at 63 adults with long covid with mean age of 46? The study didn't look at children and in fact says that that is a limitation of the study. We all know children's Covid symptoms overwhelming tend to be much more mild than adults. That's a big leap in logic to get long term risks to kids, particularly since were not seeing a lot of kids with long covid and brain fog is considered very rare.

I don't doubt there may be some long term impacts to children but this study is not compelling.

@EvilGoalie 21 replies with some explanation of how he/she/they arrived at their interpretations and ends civilly with the following

... That's why it is interesting to me and yet another unknown risk aspect of this virus. If you don't see it that way, that's OK.

and

I got called away and wanted to append this. To remember my manners and purpose. You assessed the paper for yourself and came to an informed opinion. That's the way its supposed to work. Thanks.

@watfly responds to @EvilGoalie 21.

Yeah, I'm a skeptic by nature and profession...the evidence has to be compelling to me.

Anyone sincerely interested in what was going on would find it easy to see the use of compelling here was in the same context as it was above in bold. However, someone only interested in getting their talking points out might respond with as much thought as a dog when it sees a squirrel as we see below.

So something like a million dead does not compel you?

I point out E lost the thread

No, this is vintage E - lose the thread and go off on his talking point tangent that had nothing to do with what was being discussed.

Husker comes to his defense, stating that I wasn't following the thread. No surprise from the Borg Collective of Talking Point trolls.

Your inability to follow along is highlighted by your then attempt to blame others for such.

Pages of discussion follow based on someone spouting talking points that had nothing to do with the original point of contention. Even @EvilGoalie 21, one of the two involved in the initial discussion, appears to have lost the thread now. Interestingly, this is presented as a possible "defense" of E that, if true, actually indicates that E lost the thread. Strange.

If by million you mean "over a million excess deaths associated with C19" than, yes, according to the CDC we crossed that grim milestone in Feb of this year. So the CDC agrees with you.

Morals of the story: When an argument you support isn't going well, change it to a talking point you feel can't be refuted. If a point you made was meaningless in context, create a new scenario where the point is meaningful - extra points if you can get "someone else" to do it for you.

 

[Happened again]

Was the vent treatment really based on modeling or historical medical treatment for severe respiratory issues? The initial fear that was greatly exaggerated was the fear that we wouldn't have enough vents (see Cuomo). I certainly heard some horror stories from NY hospitals unnecessarily putting people on vents. I hope that wasn't political.

plenty of nuance in regards to invasive/mechanical venting. I will not dive into blood oxygen levels and the old dogma associated with it and vent needs. Italy was the testing ground. It became evident rather early that mech venting wasn't the best treatment and in fact simpler and more widely available devices was the better practice. Based on their population, Italian docs/nurse/specialists had to do plenty of doctoring to take care of patients. hats off to them - and many learned from their experience. They did a great job of early intervention, treating immediate symptoms, and managing a very stretched care system. They saved many lives (and many were lost, especially early, amongst the older population). There really wasn't much they could have done differently given what they knew, did'nt know.

But....much sexier and sensational here in the good ol us of a to talk abut vent shortages and what we could do about it...how cool was it to have the government trot out the DPA and save us from ourselves. So yes, plenty of political influence in getting vents manufactured when we knew that the trend in treatment was to not use mech vent machines. Remember warrior king cuomo? he was the ultimate vent advocate - without them NYC would have suffocated.

 

[dad4]

That wasn't the problem. Be honest about it. The problem was they burned their credibility. First it was the mask thing, no mask. Then it was the lockdowns for Iowa. Then it was the outdoor stuff. Then while the outdoor stuff was still going on you had the BLM (which ended any hope of a reasonable discussion once and for all because then people just saw it was politics). You saw the same thing going forward after that with Fauci fudging his immune thresholds, the cloth masks, the vaccine mandates and handing over school policies to the teachers union. They f up and every one of those f ups made getting to a sensible policy impossible. A more reasonable approach would have been to have an honest discussion with the public about the tradeoffs, treat them like grownups, and then left the politics out of it.

You see it in the LA County attempts to reinstall the mask mandate. This time around, compliance won't be universal. You'll have some places where it's hard (mostly affecting those without power like kids, or in doctor's offices/hospitals/govt buildings), some places of reluctant compliance with a whole bunch of incidents (mostly big corporations) and everywhere else compliance will be spotty. The stupidity behind it is it's a cloth mask mandate, which we already know given the current infection rates, do nothing particularly for people working indoors with one another for long periods of time, and for which things like indoor dining will be exempting (making for meaningless things like indoor restaurants). There's no point to it at this point, and it's yet another thing they'll torch their credibility with.

Your response proves my point.

When the CDC tried to fix their mask rule, what did people do? They immediately jumped on it as proof that the rules are all bad, and used the policy correction as an excuse to attack the agency's credibility.

Like you did above.

Having done that, what right do you have to ask for a flexible policy? You by your own words helped create the exact conditions which cause public agencies to become inflexible. No use complaining about it after you helped cause it.

 

[Grace T.]

Your response proves my point.

When the CDC tried to fix their mask rule, what did people do? They immediately jumped on it as proof that the rules are all bad, and used the policy correction as an excuse to attack the agency's credibility.

Like you did above.

Having done that, what right do you have to ask for a flexible policy? You by your own words helped create the exact conditions which cause public agencies to become inflexible. No use complaining about it after you helped cause it.

No, it was because the CDC purposefully lied to people in order to preserve the PPE for health care workers. If you lie, you destroy your credibility and trust. Do it enough, and your credibility goes in the shitter, like public health's currently is. They didn't "fix" anything (talk about destroying cred). You think if there's another pandemic anyone will believe them? There's a reason the boy who cried wolf is a timeless story.

p.s. Birx has now all but admitted she lied to both the public and Trump about 15 days to slow the spread, knowing from the get go it would be longer.

 

[watfly]

Your response proves my point.

When the CDC tried to fix their mask rule, what did people do? They immediately jumped on it as proof that the rules are all bad, and used the policy correction as an excuse to attack the agency's credibility.

Like you did above.

Having done that, what right do you have to ask for a flexible policy? You by your own words helped create the exact conditions which cause public agencies to become inflexible. No use complaining about it after you helped cause it.

It is/was a two fold issue. 1) America was founded on the principles of independence, freedom and limited government and culturally many Americans are still firm believers in those principles, 2) Many of the restrictions lacked credibility and even if they were credible they were often selectively enforced depending on how important or elite you were.

 

[dad4]

No, it was because the CDC purposefully lied to people in order to preserve the PPE for health care workers. If you lie, you destroy your credibility and trust. Do it enough, and your credibility goes in the shitter, like public health's currently is. They didn't "fix" anything (talk about destroying cred). You think if there's another pandemic anyone will believe them? There's a reason the boy who cried wolf is a timeless story.

p.s. Birx has now all but admitted she lied to both the public and Trump about 15 days to slow the spread, knowing from the get go it would be longer.

No? These statements are not in opposition.

The CDC lied in an effort to protect front line health care workers. The right wing media used this to undermine public health efforts in general. As a result, our public health officials learned to think long and hard about any future policy corrections.

This is one unified story, not two in opposition. Your part in it isn't honorable, either.

 

[Hüsker Dü]

Raquel Tejada

View attachment 14274

Sun Up San Diego!

 

[Grace T.]

No? These statements are not in opposition.

The CDC lied in an effort to protect front line health care workers. The right wing media used this to undermine public health efforts in general. As a result, our public health officials learned to think long and hard about any future policy corrections.

This is one unified story, not two in opposition. Your part in it isn't honorable, either.

Man, you can't even admit that lying shouldn't be part of public policy and then throw around terms about "right wing media". Talk about blaming the victim there. Don't lie and you don't have the problem. And it wasn't just one lie...it was repeated lies...like Birx has admitted about the 15 days, or BLM, or the school reopenings, or Fauci and his thresholds.

So if my part isn't honorable, your part in all this, and the resulting harm to children that resulting from your fear and selfishness, is downright disgusting.

 

[Grace T.]

It is/was a two fold issue. 1) America was founded on the principles of independence, freedom and limited government and culturally many Americans are still firm believers in those principles, 2) Many of the restrictions lacked credibility and even if they were credible they were often selectively enforced depending on how important or elite you were.

For the enforcement he'll just blame the politicians instead of his virtuous saint-like technocratic elite. If only the scientists had been put in charge....

Heinlein was prescient.