NinthMusketeer wrote: I would actually be cross with my government if they did not mandate masks--that sort of public-health regulation is exactly what I voted them into office for. If they aren't going to do that, to me they are not doing their jobs. And I AM cross with the White House for its worse-than-inaction for so long on the matter. The situation in the US is undoubtedly far worse than it needed to be, and there are a whole lot of people dead because of it. Hopefully it will be taken as a wake up call and in the future the US will be better prepared to deal with a pandemic.
Well if you want to talk about worse than it needed to be.
https://freopp.org/the-covid-19-nursing-home-crisis-by-the-numbers-3a47433c3f70 This is where you should start. Please don't do something stupid like criticize the source ether. Read the article and if there is something in there you don't like - dispute it with your own source.
Serious question - were you cross with the white house when they imposed a travel ban from Asian countries? I'm more cross they didn't do it sooner. The media around here though criticized the white house for being "racist" by doing the most common sense thing you can do in a pandemic...close your boarders. Kind of like every country in that region did because...it's common sense. We actually live in a country here in the states where most people are so short sited dishonest - that something like that can be ignored. Imagine we lived in a world where the white house could have closed the boarders without fear of what negative press they would get from a media which is literally intent on destroying your reputation with an obviously untrue accusation that half the population will just run with because they are sheepish and pathetic. A simple week or 2 sooner could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The blame falls on both sides equally there IMO.
Pacific wrote: What I don't get ... even if I thought that masks fulfilled no purpose (I don't think that's the case, but just for the sake of argument) I would understand that not wearing one when indoors would cause consternation to other people.
So, I would wear it just out of sense of common courtesy.
I would view it in the same way as not chatting or looking at my phone in a cinema, not taking photos in a tourist hot-spot cathedral because a sign asked me not to, being polite to the call centre guy who is calling me to sell car insurance even though I don't need it.
There are things we do just out of having manners, being a gentleman or whatever you call it, that allow societies of people to function without it descending into loss of civility.
For me, it's not just an ignorance around information of the use of masks, it's respect for other people (especially in this case - as they could actually save someone else's life) and I think not doing it says a lot about you as a person.
So, because some people are scared, I too must be forced to act like I am also scared, to make them feel better. Got it.
You get used to wearing it. I have no issue wearing it. I am more concerned about mental health. Distancing / fearing of contact /' covering of faces. This is all bound to cause an already stressed population to deteriorate in mental health. It is very hard to collect data on this too but it can not be ignored.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Well for QAR it's just that only thing in the world matters is what is good for HIM. He's the kind that if he gains even little he would sacrifice millions of lives.
He doesn't want to take even slight inconvenience as it's inconveniencing HIM.
That is an insane accusation. A person wanting to walk freely in public without covering their face is not a selfish act - it is in fact quite normal and has been normal the entirety of human history - unless it was part of some kind of religious requirement (I bet you disagree with that one too). What good do you think it does to shame a person in this way anyways?
Welcome to the mind of tneva. It's great. His posts always warm my soul a little. I'm surprised he hasn't yet learned that his attacks on my character change absolutely nothing, but with a head full of hysteria and malice, and seemingly little to no logic or critical thinking skills, I guess I probably shouldn't be. And that's even after I complimented his paintings. Cest la vie.
Edit: oh my, I only just read that 'millions of lives' bit. I mean..wow. the worldwide Corona death toll is only just over half a million, after 5 months... And I have probably had zero contact with or affect on the virus during that time... But m not wanting to be forced to wear a mask means I'm sacrificing millions. Hysterical.
The social impact is something that concerns me also, but I rarely if ever mention it because I know the response would be an even bigger meltdown than usual. I mean, who cares about creating a social narrative that absolutely everyone is a lethal, walking biohazard who must be avoided at all costs, when masks might give a potential, tiny impact on the spread of a virus that's basically already dying out on its own...
I think I've seen a total of six people wearing masks here in Sweden the entire time this pandemic has been going on. I wouldn't even know where to get a mask here to be honest. If it's a law introduced by the government, then sure, wear a mask. I'd love to wear a full-face mask so I can sleep for real during work meetings, one of which I have coming up this morning. Lord give me strength...
If you are wearing a mask that's at risk of choking you randomly as you go about your day, you are doing BDSM wrong and should probably stop and spend some time educating yourself on safe ways to practice masochism.
*Shrug* I'm not into any of that fetish stuff. I bought it to mock the new law.
Ah, so you are, to make a statement, insulting people's kinks because you find them weird. Mmmm, not unexpected from someone who doesn't want to wear a mask, but disappointing and gross.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Yeah, and whilst not being familiar with us numbers, I'd be doubting the validity of a claim like that.
I'm not disputing that there's negative reactions in some people. That's going to be the case with any new disease. As I said, it's not good and those who are suffering have my sympathy, but I still don't think it warrants this huge overreaction that we insist on continuing to flog. It's a sunk cost at this point. And the government are now trapped.
Consider that in the UK, we're in the third consecutive week of below average deaths for the year. This suggests that those who would normally have died at this point probably had it brought forward by a few weeks or couple of months by the virus.
"The disease is not that bad anyways"
In a few days you'll be going "And fauci invented it to spread the makr of the beast anyways"
Easy E wrote: This same old argument again. I guess the oldies are the goodies.
QAR- How do you feel about No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs at stores? Are they a violation of your freedoms or some sort of indoctrination to obedience?
And I see you've dragged out that old tired counterargument. But no.
Stores as private enterprises, can implement whatever policies they like. I, am objecting to the GOVERNMENT mandating what I must do.
LoL, the GOVT tells you what to do all the time. cant urinate or defecate in public places, cant go around naked, cant drive without aa license, can t do X, cant do Y.
Its a poor excuse and your know it.
Yeah I think you are missing the point here. These are things decent people do because of societal norms. The government didn't make these rules - society did - the people did. There probably was 0 opposition to laws about needed to be clothed in public. The government is implementing these procedures at will is the issue (there was no vote on the issue) - especially if it violates your rights like in the case of forcing people to not leave their houses ect. There is a lot of opposition on that.
Any 1st year polysci or history student can tell you the difference between society and government is not a vast gulf.
And your rights are not what you think they are, and threats to them are also not what you think they are. By refusing a mask you infringe on the right to life of everyone you come in contact with.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Yeah, and whilst not being familiar with us numbers, I'd be doubting the validity of a claim like that.
I'm not disputing that there's negative reactions in some people. That's going to be the case with any new disease. As I said, it's not good and those who are suffering have my sympathy, but I still don't think it warrants this huge overreaction that we insist on continuing to flog. It's a sunk cost at this point. And the government are now trapped.
Consider that in the UK, we're in the third consecutive week of below average deaths for the year. This suggests that those who would normally have died at this point probably had it brought forward by a few weeks or couple of months by the virus.
vice versa in switzerland covid has beaten the general flue within 1 month in deadlyness.
And considering that due to mers and sars we can gather that about a 3rd of the survivors will carry away permanent lungdamage, and that in china a study found 77% of people suffering from such grey patches, i rekon that we will have a lot more people suffering from longterm effects this time around .
In the same article...
"it's estimated as few as 5% and as many as 80% of Covid-19-positive patients are asymptomatic or have mild cases of the illness that take days or weeks for symptoms to emerge—and many have no symptoms after two weeks,"
Wow...that is quite a range for the estimated asymptomatic cases.
You may as well shout "FAKE NEWS" so we all get where you're really coming from.
This is absolutely a time to argue absolutes. Giving ground to the anti science anti safety folks is getting people stone dead killed. And in a much shorter term than their climate change denialism which is a long term problem.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Well that is another page of wasted discussion. Seriously guys, QAR is not arguing in good faith, ignore and move on to members who want to talk with you and not at you. The logic and science has been explained repeatedly, QAR refuses it for reasons we all know are political. That behavior is what led to politics being banned and I would really hate to see this thread go the same way for the same reason.
We know he isn't, but letting the liar stand up and lie without challenge just reinforces his lies.
I mean, realistically, he should just be ejected from the thread.
Just DIY. IIRC, The Czech Republic had something of a mask shortage, so were encouraged to make their own cloth masks. On another forum, a nurse said she prefers to make her own cloth masks, because they're better than most other masks (aside from N95, I assume).
"Minus any mask at all, unobstructed "coughs" generated droplets that traveled up to 12 feet over 50 seconds -- twice the 6-foot social distancing guideline
BTW, Here's an article on the latest about Sweden's softer approach to lockdowns and masks. Seems right to you?
“Our study shows that individually driven infection control measures can have a substantial effect on national outcomes, and we see Sweden as a good example of this case. Higher levels of individual action would further suppress the infection, while a complete lack of individual action would likely have led to runaway infection, which fortunately hasn’t happened.”
I'm not suggesting by any means this is a validated, scientific study, but it stands to reason, if you have a mask on, and you cough/sneeze then your phlegm is not contaminating the vicinity around you.
This is absolutely a time to argue absolutes. Giving ground to the anti science anti safety folks is getting people stone dead killed. And in a much shorter term than their climate change denialism which is a long term problem.
You argue in abosultes in an environment that is much lower backed factually then most are, with a pressing urgency, and instead of accepting this , you two decided that there's only black and white, with you or against you.
I'm not suggesting by any means this is a validated, scientific study, but it stands to reason, if you have a mask on, and you cough/sneeze then your phlegm is not contaminating the vicinity around you.
Also, fairly decent way to make the point
That relies upon mask quality and the actual capability of people using them.
Something i have sofar only seen 50/50 happening sadly...
So if people can't do it completely right, might as well not do it at all eh? The experts who know what they are talking about say mask wearing is a good idea, but a bit of Google work can match their doctorates! /s
Pacific wrote: What I don't get ... even if I thought that masks fulfilled no purpose (I don't think that's the case, but just for the sake of argument) I would understand that not wearing one when indoors would cause consternation to other people.
So, I would wear it just out of sense of common courtesy.
I would view it in the same way as not chatting or looking at my phone in a cinema, not taking photos in a tourist hot-spot cathedral because a sign asked me not to, being polite to the call centre guy who is calling me to sell car insurance even though I don't need it.
There are things we do just out of having manners, being a gentleman or whatever you call it, that allow societies of people to function without it descending into loss of civility.
For me, it's not just an ignorance around information of the use of masks, it's respect for other people (especially in this case - as they could actually save someone else's life) and I think not doing it says a lot about you as a person.
The problem is that a lot of people don't use them correctly or even where they do they don't act in a responsible way. Being pushed past very closely by those wearing masks etc. The risk is that masks and face coverings make people think they are immune and act inappropriately (the UK promotes this position by allowing closer contact with people) and it is madness. The benefit from face coverings come from less particles being transmitted directly in front of that person by 90%. That is 10% of particles (which is still a lot leaking out) and yet we don't know what viral load is needed to be infected. In addition they generate significant jets to the side and rear. See this research:- https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.10720.pdf for example in the conclusion:-
"Conversely, surgical and hand-made masks, and face shields, generate significant leakage jets that have the potential to disperse virus-laden fluid particles by several metres. The different nature of the masks and shields makes the direction of these jets difficult to be predicted, but the directionality of these jets should be a main design consideration for these covers. They all showed an intense backward jet for heavy breathing and coughing conditions. It is important to be aware of this jet, to avoid a false sense of security that may arise when standing to the side of, or behind, a person wearing a surgical, or handmade mask, or shield. For example, if some wearers of surgical masks turn their face to the side when they cough, there is a risk that this side or backward jet is directed closer to a person standing in front of the wearer".
There is even more scary stuff that these may then hit thermal plumes from the body and then lifted back to face height etc. As such reducing social distancing on the basis that masks are the answer is a recipe for the virus to spread even though those masks are being worn because of the psychology of feeling safe. That's not an argument against them but more an argument that they aren't some magic safety net that they are advertised as. Yes there is some anecdotal evidence (e.g. the Prague articles above) but it is difficult to attribute the impact from one such instance and risks misidentifying "cause and effect" (for example the weather might have changed to very hot and dry etc etc). That is why large scale statistical samples need to be taken. Without these then it is easy to point to such an event as the 'cure' but without recognising other factors and then we all stand around wondering why cases are suddenly escalating again as they are doing again in most European countries including the UK (at differing rates). To be honest I'd prefer someone to not wear a mask and stay at least 2m away than have some push past with a mask on (and hence why I recommend avoiding shops and areas where people congregate as much as possible).
I don't disagree with anything that you have written above and I have read articles covering similar things, but I do think there is a far greater danger of the waters being muddied with these kinds of statements when they are made publicly, and for the sake of keeping the public instruction as straightforward as possible (something which I think has been a failure, at least as far as the UK is concerned) you can cut away the chaff and say "masks = good". Don't give people any excuse to say "well I've read in so-and-so they don't really do much good anyway", when in the vast majority of cases the evidence is to the contrary.
In my view, people that don't bother to social distance and lean over you at the supermarket, are going to do this with or without a mask. Those who are cautious and mindful of the dangers will respect social distancing rules, go out at times when they are less likely to bump into other people, not go to high-risk places (pubs etc.) Ideally, if you must be indoors (and people should again really be restricting this to 'essential only' - the gov being torn on this as it conflicts with the economic impetus of get out and spend money) then social distancing + mask + gloves + mindfulness of hygiene/hand-washing should be the advised best practice.
I don't think wearing a mask is the be-all and end-all but the vast majority of evidence is that, when combined with other measures, it can help reduce probability of transmission to others. I agree what mustn't happen is the public statement to read "where a mask and you'll be fine" but in my mind a lot of damage has been caused by official guidelines sitting on the fence for far too long, at least in the west, whereas areas of asia have been unequivocal (I know that their societal situations will have helped in this regard) and you have to think that is in part responsible for their drastically lower casualty rates. So I'm glad, for the sake of colleagues of mine that work in retail, at least an attempt has been made by the UK gov to enforce mask wearing but it now has some way to go to address the damage that was caused by months of equivocation and confusing messaging around the use of masks.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So if people can't do it completely right, might as well not do it at all eh? The experts who know what they are talking about say mask wearing is a good idea, but a bit of Google work can match their doctorates! /s
Have i stated such?
No, quite to the contrary, however, the rather lackluster use of them for those that use it wrong is obviously wasted...
I 'd prefer mandatory masks then the track and tracing app.
I’m confused, can somebody clear something up for me? Is it Alien DNA or demons that cause coronavirus? Or do they cure it? What’s the latest statement on that?/s
NinthMusketeer wrote: So if people can't do it completely right, might as well not do it at all eh? The experts who know what they are talking about say mask wearing is a good idea, but a bit of Google work can match their doctorates! /s
Have i stated such?
No, quite to the contrary, however, the rather lackluster use of them for those that use it wrong is obviously wasted...
I 'd prefer mandatory masks then the track and tracing app.
I owe you an apology. I got so used to the QAR's of this thread that I automatically read your statement as more unreasonable than it was. I am sorry.
Ah, so you are, to make a statement, insulting people's kinks because you find them weird. Mmmm, not unexpected from someone who doesn't want to wear a mask, but disappointing and gross.
"The disease is not that bad anyways"
In a few days you'll be going "And fauci invented it to spread the makr of the beast anyways"
And your rights are not what you think they are, and threats to them are also not what you think they are. By refusing a mask you infringe on the right to life of everyone you come in contact with.
This is absolutely a time to argue absolutes. Giving ground to the anti science anti safety folks is getting people stone dead killed. And in a much shorter term than their climate change denialism which is a long term problem.
We know he isn't, but letting the liar stand up and lie without challenge just reinforces his lies.
I mean, realistically, he should just be ejected from the thread.
Well, this post is so full of bs and logical fallacies that I should in all good faith just ignore it, but I'm going to engage anyway.
You're assuming I think they are weird. Based on nothing. You know nothing about me or my feelings. Some advice, never argue on a personal level. Keep it in the abstract. It's the only way to avoid getting bogged down in emotion.
The disease isn't that bad. >99% recovery rate. There's really not much else to it.
Asserts that I will claim it is made up..yeah, no again. It would be logically inconsistent for me to claim the disease does not exist, while simultaneously claiming the things I do about the virus. That's week 1, day 1 logic there my friend.
Sigh. Not wearing a mask does not infringe on anyone's rights. This point is so ridiculous it's actually hysterical.
I'm not anti science. All my opinions are based on the figures I see and read every day. False assumptions again, with a little guilt by association and well poisoning through the use of irrelevant statements about climate change thrown in for good measure.
'ejected from the thread' that's literally all you folks have isn't it. The guy doesn't agree with my dogma so let's insult him and ask for his removal. Honestly, it's pathetic.
The reason I haven't been removed, (or even had any warnings)is because I've broken no rules, I debate in good faith, and don't insult people unprovoked.
Here endeth the lesson.
It looks like daily stats in the UK have plateaued with a very slight upturn.
Interesting comments from Nicola Sturgeon today about complete elimination of the virus in Scotland, rather than accepting a low ongoing level of transmission (which seems to be Westminster's view?). The problem is that while that's a noble aim, not sure how it will be possible to achieve without updating Hadrian's Wall..
Future War Cultist wrote: I’m confused, can somebody clear something up for me? Is it Alien DNA or demons that cause coronavirus? Or do they cure it? What’s the latest statement on that?/s
The one about Fauci developing the virus and transporting it to China is an absolute cracker. The question is then where the 5G masts come into it..
That article is spot on. This is not an influenza. this is why I don't believe there will be another 'second wave' or even any large death spikes like our initial one. I believe it will continue to Peter out, and become endemic in humanity. (See human coronavirus oc43 and its potential cause of the 1890 'russian flu' pandemic)
Future War Cultist wrote: I don’t know why anyone even bothers studying for a doctorate anymore anyway. It’s all on Google.
A key factor in our race to idiocracy. Why trust anyone with real knowledge to speak truth when you can find the answer you like best somewhere on the internet?
QAR what about the USA patten. They locked down, ended early and now have a second spike worse than the first. What you describe would only happen with either a slow spreading virus or with a majorityv of the population exposed, ergo herd immunity.
With a fast spreading virus it csn most certainly creat a secondary spike and worse. Especially as time goes on into winter and people want to spend more time indoors and food and other establishs want to have more normal customer numbers
Future War Cultist wrote: I don’t know why anyone even bothers studying for a doctorate anymore anyway. It’s all on Google.
Why trust anyone with real knowledge to speak truth when you can find the answer you like best somewhere on the internet?
As someone whose witnessed my spouse and best friend both getting doctorates in technical disciplines, these people do not think like I do . We need smart people to figure stuff out the fist time around, before it gets disseminated to the rest of us
(I know you're probably kidding / being sarcastic, but still!)
Not Online!!! wrote:I will ignore the rather condesecending tone and chalk up the rather instantanious skip from General scepticism of government to instantly
putting people into the conspiracysphere on cultural difference.
News Flash: there are countries with cultures that baseline feel that Central power of government is inherently dangerous due to accumulation of power, REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is. These put the onus into the capability of their citizens to Act themselves and the lower regional Levels.
The only question then is the question of legitimate implementation respectively if the Central authorithy has a right to Act at that instance and that entirely depends how entrenched that specific culture is and how the decision process worked and therefore was legitimate enough in it's execution. And nothing, absolutely nothing with conspiracy nutjobery.
I know that different cultures have different levels of comfort when it comes government authority but one has to be cognisant of what the government is actually asking for (masks). I'd think some degree of proportionality should considered when it comes to one's skepticism instead of absolute scepticism of everything. If one literally has a knee jerk reaction about every government action without evaluating its worth (the "REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is" bit) then it does feel on the conspiratorial side of the spectrum to me.
Ohh boi, so therefore we swiss are all conspirational nutjobs […]
There's nothing conspirational the scepticism torwards central authorithy if it takes actions bypassing the process of legitimisation over here, as it would do would the central government declare mandatory mask duty overall.
I never said that, I went from your statement (the bolded part): […]there are countries with cultures that baseline feel that Central power of government is inherently dangerous due to accumulation of power, REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is
That reads like you could have voted for somebody, given them certain governmental powers (on a federal level), and would immediately contest all of their actions. Kinda what the Republicans did under Obama just even more extreme, not what you wrote in the rest of the post (essentially about voting, power, and responsibilities being close to the people with fewer responsibilities on the federal level, which is also in the spoilered part) or extreme right wing libertarian ideas about government. And that type of stuff I would very much put in the nutjob category.
Overread wrote: QAR what about the USA patten. They locked down, ended early and now have a second spike worse than the first. What you describe would only happen with either a slow spreading virus or with a majorityv of the population exposed, ergo herd immunity.
With a fast spreading virus it csn most certainly creat a secondary spike and worse. Especially as time goes on into winter and people want to spend more time indoors and food and other establishs want to have more normal customer numbers
why bring up the US, when israel is the literal case study par excellence, infact even acting quite well in the initial phase only to botch it with the reopening?
Overread wrote: QAR what about the USA patten. They locked down, ended early and now have a second spike worse than the first. What you describe would only happen with either a slow spreading virus or with a majorityv of the population exposed, ergo herd immunity.
With a fast spreading virus it csn most certainly creat a secondary spike and worse. Especially as time goes on into winter and people want to spend more time indoors and food and other establishs want to have more normal customer numbers
Maybe. You might be right. I've never spoke in certainties in this regard. That's just what I think will happen based on the info I have.
I haven't really paid much attention to the us case/death rate for the last few months. Only the UK. That's what I base my views on. We started easing our own lockdown months ago, yet we've had no discernible countrywide 'spike'. I just don't think it's coming. I think the virus will rip through the vulnerable regardless of what we do. Those countries that had lower spikes, will probably have more deaths as lockdowns are eased, and it catches up. This is why I believe it unwise to base policies on the state of other countries.
Not Online!!! wrote:I will ignore the rather condesecending tone and chalk up the rather instantanious skip from General scepticism of government to instantly
putting people into the conspiracysphere on cultural difference.
News Flash: there are countries with cultures that baseline feel that Central power of government is inherently dangerous due to accumulation of power, REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is. These put the onus into the capability of their citizens to Act themselves and the lower regional Levels.
The only question then is the question of legitimate implementation respectively if the Central authorithy has a right to Act at that instance and that entirely depends how entrenched that specific culture is and how the decision process worked and therefore was legitimate enough in it's execution. And nothing, absolutely nothing with conspiracy nutjobery.
I know that different cultures have different levels of comfort when it comes government authority but one has to be cognisant of what the government is actually asking for (masks). I'd think some degree of proportionality should considered when it comes to one's skepticism instead of absolute scepticism of everything. If one literally has a knee jerk reaction about every government action without evaluating its worth (the "REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is" bit) then it does feel on the conspiratorial side of the spectrum to me.
Ohh boi, so therefore we swiss are all conspirational nutjobs […]
There's nothing conspirational the scepticism torwards central authorithy if it takes actions bypassing the process of legitimisation over here, as it would do would the central government declare mandatory mask duty overall.
I never said that, I went from your statement (the bolded part): […]there are countries with cultures that baseline feel that Central power of government is inherently dangerous due to accumulation of power, REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is
That reads like you could have voted for somebody, given them certain governmental powers (on a federal level), and would immediately contest all of their actions. Kinda what the Republicans did under Obama just even more extreme, not what you wrote in the rest of the post (essentially about voting, power, and responsibilities being close to the people with fewer responsibilities on the federal level, which is also in the spoilered part) or extreme right wing libertarian ideas about government. And that type of stuff I would very much put in the nutjob category.
Lol, unlike you over the rhine you forget one crucial part, HALF-DIRECT- DEMOCRATIC- SYSTEM, it is expected of us , to not just vote in the odd representative but to act and VOTE on our own on any policy which may or may not be contrary to what an elected offical state wishes. Also contrary to you, we actually have more parties in my little part of switzerland then you have over all your country parties aleigning with a much broader political spectrum indeed, which govern in what is called a Konkordanz system, which is also something that makes the controll of the people and legitimisation process MORE relevant, through votes, which you could've looked up instead of throwing me in a bin with Libertarian americans and declare me a nutjob.
But that would've required action and actual understanding of a point made, which would've required actual research. But then again i expected no less.
Overread wrote: QAR what about the USA patten. They locked down, ended early and now have a second spike worse than the first. What you describe would only happen with either a slow spreading virus or with a majorityv of the population exposed, ergo herd immunity.
With a fast spreading virus it csn most certainly creat a secondary spike and worse. Especially as time goes on into winter and people want to spend more time indoors and food and other establishs want to have more normal customer numbers
why bring up the US, when israel is the literal case study par excellence, infact even acting quite well in the initial phase only to botch it with the reopening?
One could suggest that a state could react TOO well. In the sense that they are just delaying the inevitable. 'squashing the sombrero' so much that the bulge pops out at the opposite end.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I like the sound of Switzerland. Do you have mandatory mask laws for supermarkets?
No, not yet, mandtory distancing and during public transportation masks, with a lot of leway in regards to local government tackling the issue locally whith central government playing firebrigade reserve and frontline at the same time.
Overread wrote: QAR what about the USA patten. They locked down, ended early and now have a second spike worse than the first. What you describe would only happen with either a slow spreading virus or with a majorityv of the population exposed, ergo herd immunity.
With a fast spreading virus it csn most certainly creat a secondary spike and worse. Especially as time goes on into winter and people want to spend more time indoors and food and other establishs want to have more normal customer numbers
why bring up the US, when israel is the literal case study par excellence, infact even acting quite well in the initial phase only to botch it with the reopening?
One could suggest that a state could react TOO well. In the sense that they are just delaying the inevitable. 'squashing the sombrero' so much that the bulge pops out at the opposite end.
not the issue, but more likely too much discipline demanded in one fell swoop, encouraged too much by the good numbers and then gotten complacent only to get fethed up again by it most likely.
Future War Cultist wrote: I don’t know why anyone even bothers studying for a doctorate anymore anyway. It’s all on Google.
The entire University system is flawed. Universities used to have a a monopoly on knowledge and they were few in number. Now Knowledge is free, yet there are more Universities than ever. They are essentially there to put ribbons on your chest. Not to say that some degrees are skill degrees and those do have value. The majority of degrees being offered have practically 0 value except to prove that you can accomplish tasks in a given time frame...which honestly...has already been proven by a child leaves high-school. Having done it all I can attest - you learn more by working jobs than you will ever learn in school. The university system needs to be redesigned to give people skills...knowledge is free - teach them how to find it - not regurgitate it from memory after forcing them to cram it...
“Only those are fit to live who do not fear to die; and none are fit to die who have shrunk from the joy of life and the duty of life. Both life and death are parts of the same Great Adventure.” - Theodore Roosevelt
“So live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and its purpose in the service of your people. Prepare a noble death song for the day when you go over the great divide. Always give a word or a sign of salute when meeting or passing a friend, even a stranger, when in a lonely place. Show respect to all people and grovel to none. When you arise in the morning give thanks for the food and for the joy of living. If you see no reason for giving thanks, the fault lies only in yourself. Abuse no one and no thing, for abuse turns the wise ones to fools and robs the spirit of its vision. When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.” - Cheif Tecumseh
"Don't let the fear of death steal from you the joy of living" - Anon
Maybe because while knowledge is free and easy to acess, GOOD knowledge requires effort, time and a willingness to go outside your comfort zone.
Also, Universities dont just pour knowledge in you like you are a funnel.
They build up a person who doesnt just know things, but know how to go about learning to know new things and understanding
Yeah i can go read about how vaccines work and the ingrediants and parrot them, but knowing how they truly work is a skill in and off themselves.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Maybe because while knowledge is free and easy to acess, GOOD knowledge requires effort, time and a willingness to go outside your comfort zone.
Also, Universities dont just pour knowledge in you like you are a funnel.
They build up a person who doesnt just know things, but know how to go about learning to know new things and understanding
Yeah i can go read about how vaccines work and the ingrediants and parrot them, but knowing how they truly work is a skill in and off themselves.
Don't get me wrong. Some fields have skills and require the standard grind of a university system. Bio-chemistry is one of them. You need to know how to work in a lab / use the tools involved / and apply knowledge from lots of different fields. I am just saying it has flaws. The majority of degrees they offer have no actual value in the real world.
In my personal experience I learned more useful skills while working at a restaurant than I did from any college class I took.
Matt Swain wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/doctor-retweeted-by-trump-has-warned-of-alien-dna-sex-with-demons/ar-BB17iaN4
Will someone please just headshot me? Preferably with a heavy bolter if not a lascannon.
It is truly shocking and horrifying how many of my friends and relations have immediately jumped on this bandwagon 'because they're doctors, or because she's a doctor'.
The cognitive dissonance involved in simultaneously devaluing the CDC, WHO and our country's head epidemiologist Dr. Fauci, while taking the word of this previously unknown individual because she's a doctor is staggering.
Not Online!!! wrote:I will ignore the rather condesecending tone and chalk up the rather instantanious skip from General scepticism of government to instantly
putting people into the conspiracysphere on cultural difference.
News Flash: there are countries with cultures that baseline feel that Central power of government is inherently dangerous due to accumulation of power, REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is. These put the onus into the capability of their citizens to Act themselves and the lower regional Levels.
The only question then is the question of legitimate implementation respectively if the Central authorithy has a right to Act at that instance and that entirely depends how entrenched that specific culture is and how the decision process worked and therefore was legitimate enough in it's execution. And nothing, absolutely nothing with conspiracy nutjobery.
I know that different cultures have different levels of comfort when it comes government authority but one has to be cognisant of what the government is actually asking for (masks). I'd think some degree of proportionality should considered when it comes to one's skepticism instead of absolute scepticism of everything. If one literally has a knee jerk reaction about every government action without evaluating its worth (the "REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is" bit) then it does feel on the conspiratorial side of the spectrum to me.
Ohh boi, so therefore we swiss are all conspirational nutjobs […]
There's nothing conspirational the scepticism torwards central authorithy if it takes actions bypassing the process of legitimisation over here, as it would do would the central government declare mandatory mask duty overall.
I never said that, I went from your statement (the bolded part): […]there are countries with cultures that baseline feel that Central power of government is inherently dangerous due to accumulation of power, REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is
That reads like you could have voted for somebody, given them certain governmental powers (on a federal level), and would immediately contest all of their actions. Kinda what the Republicans did under Obama just even more extreme, not what you wrote in the rest of the post (essentially about voting, power, and responsibilities being close to the people with fewer responsibilities on the federal level, which is also in the spoilered part) or extreme right wing libertarian ideas about government. And that type of stuff I would very much put in the nutjob category.
Lol, unlike you over the rhine you forget one crucial part, HALF-DIRECT- DEMOCRATIC- SYSTEM, it is expected of us , to not just vote in the odd representative but to act and VOTE on our own on any policy which may or may not be contrary to what an elected offical state wishes. Also contrary to you, we actually have more parties in my little part of switzerland then you have over all your country parties aleigning with a much broader political spectrum indeed, which govern in what is called a Konkordanz system, which is also something that makes the controll of the people and legitimisation process MORE relevant, through votes, which you could've looked up instead of throwing me in a bin with Libertarian americans and declare me a nutjob.
But that would've required action and actual understanding of a point made, which would've required actual research. But then again i expected no less.
Well, you did mention bits and pieces of that and I understand that Switzerland has directer democracy but that phrase still make it look like it looked. Maybe don't use such absolute statements if you don't want to accidentally sound like the extreme end of certain political ideologies?
The first study, published Monday in JAMA Cardiology, found that three-quarters of recovered COVID-19 patients were left with structural changes to their hearts, even two months later.
The researchers examined cardiac MRIs from 100 recovered COVID-19 patients between the ages of 45 to 53, and compared them to MRIs of similar people who did not contract the virus. Most of the COVID-19 patients had recovered at home, while 33 had to be hospitalized at some point in their illness.
Of the 100 COVID-19 patients, 78 had structural changes to their hearts. Within that group, 76 had a biomarker that is typically found in patients who had a heart attack, and 60 had heart inflammation, called myocarditis. The patients were all “mostly healthy … prior to their illness,” the researchers said.
Matt Swain wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/doctor-retweeted-by-trump-has-warned-of-alien-dna-sex-with-demons/ar-BB17iaN4
Will someone please just headshot me? Preferably with a heavy bolter if not a lascannon.
It is truly shocking and horrifying how many of my friends and relations have immediately jumped on this bandwagon 'because they're doctors, or because she's a doctor'.
The cognitive dissonance involved in simultaneously devaluing the CDC, WHO and our country's head epidemiologist Dr. Fauci, while taking the word of this previously unknown individual because she's a doctor is staggering.
Not Online!!! wrote:I will ignore the rather condesecending tone and chalk up the rather instantanious skip from General scepticism of government to instantly
putting people into the conspiracysphere on cultural difference.
News Flash: there are countries with cultures that baseline feel that Central power of government is inherently dangerous due to accumulation of power, REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is. These put the onus into the capability of their citizens to Act themselves and the lower regional Levels.
The only question then is the question of legitimate implementation respectively if the Central authorithy has a right to Act at that instance and that entirely depends how entrenched that specific culture is and how the decision process worked and therefore was legitimate enough in it's execution. And nothing, absolutely nothing with conspiracy nutjobery.
I know that different cultures have different levels of comfort when it comes government authority but one has to be cognisant of what the government is actually asking for (masks). I'd think some degree of proportionality should considered when it comes to one's skepticism instead of absolute scepticism of everything. If one literally has a knee jerk reaction about every government action without evaluating its worth (the "REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is" bit) then it does feel on the conspiratorial side of the spectrum to me.
Ohh boi, so therefore we swiss are all conspirational nutjobs […]
There's nothing conspirational the scepticism torwards central authorithy if it takes actions bypassing the process of legitimisation over here, as it would do would the central government declare mandatory mask duty overall.
I never said that, I went from your statement (the bolded part): […]there are countries with cultures that baseline feel that Central power of government is inherently dangerous due to accumulation of power, REGARDLESS what the action of the Central government is
That reads like you could have voted for somebody, given them certain governmental powers (on a federal level), and would immediately contest all of their actions. Kinda what the Republicans did under Obama just even more extreme, not what you wrote in the rest of the post (essentially about voting, power, and responsibilities being close to the people with fewer responsibilities on the federal level, which is also in the spoilered part) or extreme right wing libertarian ideas about government. And that type of stuff I would very much put in the nutjob category.
Lol, unlike you over the rhine you forget one crucial part, HALF-DIRECT- DEMOCRATIC- SYSTEM, it is expected of us , to not just vote in the odd representative but to act and VOTE on our own on any policy which may or may not be contrary to what an elected offical state wishes. Also contrary to you, we actually have more parties in my little part of switzerland then you have over all your country parties aleigning with a much broader political spectrum indeed, which govern in what is called a Konkordanz system, which is also something that makes the controll of the people and legitimisation process MORE relevant, through votes, which you could've looked up instead of throwing me in a bin with Libertarian americans and declare me a nutjob.
But that would've required action and actual understanding of a point made, which would've required actual research. But then again i expected no less.
Well, you did mention bits and pieces of that and I understand that Switzerland has directer democracy but that phrase still make it look like it looked. Maybe don't use such absolute statements if you don't want to accidentally sound like the extreme end of certain political ideologies?
The first study, published Monday in JAMA Cardiology, found that three-quarters of recovered COVID-19 patients were left with structural changes to their hearts, even two months later.
The researchers examined cardiac MRIs from 100 recovered COVID-19 patients between the ages of 45 to 53, and compared them to MRIs of similar people who did not contract the virus. Most of the COVID-19 patients had recovered at home, while 33 had to be hospitalized at some point in their illness.
Of the 100 COVID-19 patients, 78 had structural changes to their hearts. Within that group, 76 had a biomarker that is typically found in patients who had a heart attack, and 60 had heart inflammation, called myocarditis. The patients were all “mostly healthy … prior to their illness,” the researchers said.
First: General scepticism torwards any Act of the government is encouraged for any democratic society for it is the measuring Stick of how you Shall vote Next time and for what people should stand up.
Secondly: that doubly applies to states that have to let people vote on policy in general ,last but not least simply for the fact that suggestions should be broadly discussed in Order to Find a workable solution.
Because scepticism sparks debate. Debate sparks actual exchange of ideas.
Thirdly: and more specific to us , switzerland formed into a federal state ontop of an Civil war , the only reason why it didn't escalate into comparable butchery to the acw or other older quite common Civil wars within switzerland was a compromise solution in the first place for decentralisation and later on the implementation of direct democratic institutions.
Therefore what you percived as radical is merely expected baseline consensus, a consensus so Deep that the governing Parties themselves got changed forever. Regardless if they are socialist or peasants and small buissness Party.
As for the link, that is a devastatingly high Rate of changes to heart structure, granted 100 patients only but with such a Rate in seriously doubt that that is just a fluke.
Not to mention the evidence for issues tied to heart and Lung damage .
“Only those are fit to live who do not fear to die; and none are fit to die who have shrunk from the joy of life and the duty of life. Both life and death are parts of the same Great Adventure.” - Theodore Roosevelt
“So live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and its purpose in the service of your people. Prepare a noble death song for the day when you go over the great divide. Always give a word or a sign of salute when meeting or passing a friend, even a stranger, when in a lonely place. Show respect to all people and grovel to none. When you arise in the morning give thanks for the food and for the joy of living. If you see no reason for giving thanks, the fault lies only in yourself. Abuse no one and no thing, for abuse turns the wise ones to fools and robs the spirit of its vision. When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.” - Cheif Tecumseh
"Don't let the fear of death steal from you the joy of living" - Anon
Bravo, and what do those guys have to say about doing something trivial that might prevent you accidentally killing Doris from round the corner?
“Only those are fit to live who do not fear to die; and none are fit to die who have shrunk from the joy of life and the duty of life. Both life and death are parts of the same Great Adventure.” - Theodore Roosevelt
“So live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and its purpose in the service of your people. Prepare a noble death song for the day when you go over the great divide. Always give a word or a sign of salute when meeting or passing a friend, even a stranger, when in a lonely place. Show respect to all people and grovel to none. When you arise in the morning give thanks for the food and for the joy of living. If you see no reason for giving thanks, the fault lies only in yourself. Abuse no one and no thing, for abuse turns the wise ones to fools and robs the spirit of its vision. When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.” - Cheif Tecumseh
"Don't let the fear of death steal from you the joy of living" - Anon
Bravo, and what do those guys have to say about doing something trivial that might prevent you accidentally killing Doris from round the corner?
Teddy would probably hold a speech whilest wearing a Mask ridiculing his opponents so thouroughly he'd get reelected.
After that he'd Grab the nearest competent epidemologist put him in Charge and go in to bust monopolies, and do other Teddy things, probably Planting trees against climate Change...
Teddy would give a speech in an airtight plastic chamber while suffering from Covid then complain about not being allowed to hunt on the national parks he designated himself. Probably with a bunch of heavy metal bands playing while flaming sharks jumped through razor hoops in the background.
Matt Swain wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/doctor-retweeted-by-trump-has-warned-of-alien-dna-sex-with-demons/ar-BB17iaN4
Will someone please just headshot me? Preferably with a heavy bolter if not a lascannon.
It is truly shocking and horrifying how many of my friends and relations have immediately jumped on this bandwagon 'because they're doctors, or because she's a doctor'.
The cognitive dissonance involved in simultaneously devaluing the CDC, WHO and our country's head epidemiologist Dr. Fauci, while taking the word of this previously unknown individual because she's a doctor is staggering.
Do you know how many people I have seen in the last day and a half defending that Dr? It has been outrageous. "SHE DOESN'T EVEN SAY THAT IN THE VIDEO FACEBOOK IS TRYING TO HIDE IT OMG OMG" I wish I was making this up. If I was this creative, I would have written some scary as feth books by now.
Another ‘laugh’ are the idiots who say ‘ignore all the alien and demon gak and just focus on the arguments she makes for hydroxychloroquine‘, or ‘ignore her and focus on the other doctors who support the use of hydroxychloroquine’. It’s pathetic.
Future War Cultist wrote: I don’t know why anyone even bothers studying for a doctorate anymore anyway. It’s all on Google.
The entire University system is flawed. Universities used to have a a monopoly on knowledge and they were few in number. Now Knowledge is free, yet there are more Universities than ever. They are essentially there to put ribbons on your chest. Not to say that some degrees are skill degrees and those do have value. The majority of degrees being offered have practically 0 value except to prove that you can accomplish tasks in a given time frame...which honestly...has already been proven by a child leaves high-school. Having done it all I can attest - you learn more by working jobs than you will ever learn in school. The university system needs to be redesigned to give people skills...knowledge is free - teach them how to find it - not regurgitate it from memory after forcing them to cram it...
You have misunderstood the role of universities in regards to how they distribute knowledge. University doesn't teach you knowledge, it teaches you how to search for, analyse and critically evaluate knowledge.
University educated learner know the difference from reading an empirical study themselves, and reading a blog from an average Joe who is claiming their anecdotal experiences are proof.
I'd argue that you don't need a university education to be able to do that. I'd also argue that that is becoming less and less the case, but that is heading off topic
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'd argue that you don't need a university education to be able to do that. I'd also argue that that is becoming less and less the case, but that is heading off topic
I'd agree with you, however people that exist in their bubbles and are not challenged in regards to their views/conclusions tend to not progress and develop and truthfully critically analyse a topic, at university there are consequences to not doing that.
Whilst it is off topic, it is closely related to the topic, extremely ironic argument I know, it is my social cohort that is not university educated that is extremely dismissive of the scientific evidence, focussing on the anecdotal than those that are university educated.
I still remember my tutor at university and what she basically said about evidence and findings and forming your own conclusions without much substance to back them up. Effectively you do not have a valid opinion on topics or findings to form new theories and/or conclusions until you have at least completed a masters, then you have put the work in and demonstrated you have the skills and knowledge to have an actual opinion, so until you have earned that right, shut up and follow the evidence, analysing for reliability and validity along the way to ensure you do not fall into traps. You aren't creating your own conclusions, you are choosing the most scientifically valid and reliable finding that already exists for your conclusion.
Something many within the social media sphere do not grasp and respect.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'd argue that you don't need a university education to be able to do that. I'd also argue that that is becoming less and less the case, but that is heading off topic
I'd agree with you, however people that exist in their bubbles and are not challenged in regards to their views/conclusions tend to not progress and develop and truthfully critically analyse a topic, at university there are consequences to not doing that.
Whilst it is off topic, it is closely related to the topic, extremely ironic argument I know, it is my social cohort that is not university educated that is extremely dismissive of the scientific evidence, focussing on the anecdotal than those that are university educated.
I still remember my tutor at university and what she basically said about evidence and findings and forming your own conclusions without much substance to back them up. Effectively you do not have a valid opinion on topics or findings to form new theories and/or conclusions until you have at least completed a masters, then you have put the work in and demonstrated you have the skills and knowledge to have an actual opinion, so until you have earned that right, shut up and follow the evidence, analysing for reliability and validity along the way to ensure you do not fall into traps. You aren't creating your own conclusions, you are choosing the most scientifically valid and reliable finding that already exists for your conclusion.
Something many within the social media sphere do not grasp and respect.
For that though you need a university that is diverse in viepoints within, something in recent years sadly has become rather infuriatingly low in some ...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Do you know how many people I have seen in the last day and a half defending that Dr? It has been outrageous. "SHE DOESN'T EVEN SAY THAT IN THE VIDEO FACEBOOK IS TRYING TO HIDE IT OMG OMG" I wish I was making this up. If I was this creative, I would have written some scary as feth books by now.
nothing to do with creativity though, it's all common conspiracy stuff just recombined again and again...
I can concur with your line of thinking to a degree there, but I think claiming you need a master's degree to effectively be 'allowed' to make claims or assertions on a given topic is a bit of a push. A master's is essentially an arbitrary judgement made my a given person on the subject. So if that's the case, how do they have any authority to make that arbitrary benchmark? The answer is that people with various levels of knowledge on the subject got together and decided the terms.
Because the people that award the masters are PhD's/Professors. If you are chatting bubbles, you aren't being awarded the title, at that point you would hope that the person doesn't relent on the process, I'm sure it does happen, but then those people are weeded out in the wider research field, where it is ethical boards, and peer reviewed publication platforms where if they want their opinion to be trusted they have to jump through those hoops. Again, there are problems within those areas as well, but I much prefer a highly educated person with specific knowledge on a subject being the ones to give advice than Sharon from High Wycombe forming conclusions and then passing those on to others as advice when her sources are good morning britain and loose women.
Well yes of course, but as with everything in life, it's not a zero sum game. There are plenty of people occupying varying degrees of the middle ground between those 2 extremes, many of whom are perfectly capable of critically examining evidence and drawing their own conclusions.
You are surely aware of the appeal to authority fallacy? Theres a reason this exists, so as to allow people to challenge ideas that are asserted on the basis of high qualifications. For example, there are plenty of doctors who espouse anti vax and other quack ideas. Is my criticism of them invalid because they have a medical degree and I don't?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Well yes of course, but as with everything in life, it's not a zero sum game. There are plenty of people occupying varying degrees of the middle ground between those 2 extremes, many of whom are perfectly capable of critically examining evidence and drawing their own conclusions.
You are surely aware of the appeal to authority fallacy? Theres a reason this exists, so as to allow people to challenge ideas that are asserted on the basis of high qualifications. For example, there are plenty of doctors who espouse anti vax and other quack ideas. Is my criticism of them invalid because they have a medical degree and I don't?
It's the nature of academia and research that at points, contention will arise, and sometimes, the minority is in fact correct (or more likely, as technology and practices adapt, we realise long held theories are not actually correct, or the mechanism for their results are not as we once thought). So no I do not disagree with you there, but at the same time, it must be comparable experts making these counter arguments upon extremely sound reasoning, not someone outside of that realm. Look in the UK now, with how much advice is constantly changing in regards to COVID, why is that? It's because Bo Jo has not followed expert advice to its full extent from the start or cherry picked advice (that was from a minority of experts i.e. herd immunity idea), he has taken the advice and created his own conclusions in regards to how to deal with the matter... As far as I am aware he is not doctor or virologist, how much has this cost us in terms of prolonging the lockdown and deaths?
Just to address your point on doctors. When talking about academia and experts, I am usually referring to people directly involved within research (mainly from scientific fields as well, the 'arts' and social sciences are typically unsound in regards to stringent research practices and have a long way to go in regards to holding their fields to a high level of validity, reliability and account). Doctors are interesting, in that they are an expert, but unless they are engraved within a specialist field, and perform constant CPD (which you would hope) then they may be not actually an expert in that specific field, to the point they could have as much knowledge on that specific matter as an undergrad to be brutally honest. You wouldn't take advice from a GP about potential surgery, you'd take advice from a surgeon, and then if needed due to severe/niche problems, you'd take advice from surgeons who have specific specialist knowledge and experience for the issue.
Similar to how I am a sport scientist, I have knowledge in areas of anatomy, physiology and biochemistry, however they are not my specialist fields, and for all I know my knowledge could now be outdated.
I feel you..I think we're on the same page.
Sport scientist eh... I'm something of an armchair physiologist myself, on account of all the overuse injuries I've sustained over the past few years. Ha.
While not Coronavirus per se, at least until we have a vaccine, this meme does address the idea that we laypeople, however strong our googlefu, cannot in fact create opinions on these topics. I'm not saying we can't evaluate arguments critically, or research other experts, because we should.But ultimately if an epidemiologist says we need to do this to beat the coronavirus, and it's worked in every country that did it, we should mask and contact trace.
Spoiler:
I can talk about virus loads, rate of infection, and mortality rates (that I looked up in the last couple of months).... but someone who has steeped themselves in the study of disease for 30 years, studying emerging outbreaks year after year is going to be far more knowledgeable than I am.
Dr. Demon Semen illustrates the need to evaluate our sources, but we also have to accept what our sources tell us once we have evaluated their arguments and credentials even if it isn't intuitive.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: A master's is essentially an arbitrary judgement made my a given person on the subject. So if that's the case, how do they have any authority to make that arbitrary benchmark?
Undergraduate and masters awardS are given on the basis of predetermined indicators of achievement. The marking schemes, examination types, questions asked, penalties applied, allowances granted, and marks themselves for each piece of coursework are subject to review by departmental panels and by external examiners from other institutions. These examiners' meeting are long and detailed and produce comprehensive, published critiques annually and which the examined institution has an obligation to act upon.
It's not one lecturer going 'yeah sure. That seems fine'.
PhDs are a slightly different game, where it is the opinion of two persons, but the examinations are thorough and sometimes, probably more often than they should be, brutal.
why bring up the US, when israel is the literal case study par excellence, infact even acting quite well in the initial phase only to botch it with the reopening?
Because the US has quite a large number of people with exactly the same views as QAR. . . "refusing" to wear masks, thinking its BS that they should be asked to do so, assuming that just because no one in their immediate circle has announced being tested positive means proof of it being impossible for them to get it, DEMANDING that "the economy" reopen, no matter the cost. Thinking that "only" 1% mortality means its totally not serious enough to warrant any of this kind of reaction, etc.
Like, yes, globally this thing has a ~1% mortality rate. . . and that is largely down to actions of government: mask mandates, SIP/quarantine orders and the like. My home state, based on reported numbers is still sitting at around 3% mortality rate, which was the projected rate way back in February/March timeframe.
Seriously, the US is botching the handling of the entire situation, its no wonder we're on all the "do not allow admittance" orders and our land mass neighbors are closing their borders to us
why bring up the US, when israel is the literal case study par excellence, infact even acting quite well in the initial phase only to botch it with the reopening?
Because the US has quite a large number of people with exactly the same views as QAR. . . "refusing" to wear masks, thinking its BS that they should be asked to do so, assuming that just because no one in their immediate circle has announced being tested positive means proof of it being impossible for them to get it, DEMANDING that "the economy" reopen, no matter the cost. Thinking that "only" 1% mortality means its totally not serious enough to warrant any of this kind of reaction, etc.
No. I think its BS that the government is FORCING me to wear one or forfeit the ability to feed my family.
I've also never claimed its impossible for me to get it.
Don't misquote me for the sake of your own argument.
No. I think its BS that the government is FORCING me to wear one or forfeit the ability to feed my family.
Click and Collect
Home Delivery
Asking a friend
Asking a local restaurant/pub/other establishment - many have done food orders for people who are otherwise unable/willing/unsafe to shop out themselves.
That's 4 ways you can get food without going into the shop - granted click and collect likely would require you to wear a mask to pick things up. That said there's several viable ways you can get access to all the food you need without having to enter a shop. Furthermore barring the first weeks of lockdown, most of those services are running pretty smooth and easily now in most areas of the country.
My supermarket doesn't do those things. It's also beside the point. Supermarkets and shops having mandatory mask orders placed on them is entirely arbitrary. Hence why you can spend an extended period of time indoors in public without one, so long as you're eating or drinking beer. It's nonsense.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:I'd argue that you don't need a university education to be able to do that. I'd also argue that that is becoming less and less the case, but that is heading off topic
That's theoretically 100% true but practically you tend to learn a lot of technical terms and highly specific usages of regular words while getting a degree. You also get filtered for certain levels of competence (it's not perfect but better than nothing). People (amateurs) who don't have degrees—or even just people who have degrees in something unrelated (a lot of STEM graduates seem to fall in this group)—and blog or write about scientific papers often tend to simply not understand what those mean even if they technically understand all the words. Thus their conclusions tend to be rather badly informed, even if they are correct according to their own perception of things. And they often seem to hold their opinions in high regard because they technically understand a paper (or at least the words) and they came to a conclusion while not even understanding that don't know what they are talking/writing about.
Its name is a humorous reference to eigenvalue problemsWikipedia in mathematics,[2] and stems from a misinterpretation of the term "eigenvalue" as "igon value" on p.71 of Gladwell's book, as discussed below.
Such problems arise because the writer in question doesn't have the full understanding of a topic that comes from a full education and becoming a true expert in the subject. They are then prone to comparatively simple errors arising from mis-hearing or misunderstanding a topic in their interview with an expert.
That happened in the context of a rather simple mathematical term to a supposedly smart journalist who should have editors and people to read through their drafts as to avoid such fundamental mistakes. Now imagine how much worse it's for random bloggers or writers who have a similar sized ego but not the editorial support.
Jennica Harris, 33, is starting to believe she will never fully recover from the coronavirus. A fit and healthy Southern California mother of two, Harris fell ill in April after her husband, a commercial airline pilot, was infected. Her husband has recovered, and her children, who showed symptoms of the disease but were never tested, are now healthy — but Harris is still suffering flare-ups, when her heart rate jumps and she has to lie completely still. During these flare-ups, she also has severe bouts of diarrhea. When she’s sleeping, sometimes her pulse drops so low she awakens, gasping for breath. She is now waiting for results from a sleep study. Her brain feels foggy, she has started to stutter, she is extremely fatigued, and she gets debilitating headaches and dizzy spells along with muscle and joint pain. She said her vision is sometimes blurred and her hearing is now slightly impaired.
On July 17, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) disclosed instances in which wearing masks had blocked the additional spread of COVID-19. While the virus is extremely virulent, careful use of masks is enough to prevent a considerable amount of secondary infections, contract tracers have found.
[…]
According to a study published by the Lancet, an internationally acclaimed medical journal, a person not wearing a mask is five times more likely to contract COVID-19 than one who is.
[…]
The KCDC also provided examples of poor mask usage, such as lowering the mask below one’s chin. The KCDC recommends that the mask completely cover the mouth and nose and fit snugly to the face. After putting on a mask, one should avoid touching its surface and should only use the straps when taking it off.
This tweet really sums up the general COVID-19 zeitgeist and how certain people react to it:
this virus is pretty horrifying but just a little less horrifying than it needs to be to be taken very seriously and thats one of the most maddening things about it. its so endemic of our era of everything just slowly getting worse but not worse enough to change.
On July 17, the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) disclosed instances in which wearing masks had blocked the additional spread of COVID-19. While the virus is extremely virulent, careful use of masks is enough to prevent a considerable amount of secondary infections, contract tracers have found.
[…]
According to a study published by the Lancet, an internationally acclaimed medical journal, a person not wearing a mask is five times more likely to contract COVID-19 than one who is.
[…]
The KCDC also provided examples of poor mask usage, such as lowering the mask below one’s chin. The KCDC recommends that the mask completely cover the mouth and nose and fit snugly to the face. After putting on a mask, one should avoid touching its surface and should only use the straps when taking it off.
This isn't anything new really. Medical professionals using masks making a positive benefit has been known for some time. It's just repeating research that has already been undertaken. Using masks in controlled environments is a positive benefit. The question that isn't asked is why when large scale sampling of the populace at large why in medical environments there is such a large positive impact and why in the public it only has a weak positive impact. As an assertion (and my own conjecture) I query whether the latter quote above is largely the issue and also a psychology one. Firstly most of the public aren't trained in their use, likely use the same mask for hours, if not over days. Secondly that it makes people feel safe; a medical professional continues to recognises the risks even whilst wearing a mask so takes the necessary precautions. As such the mask is additive benefit over other protection measures. For the public they don't see the same risks. For them its the same as burning brimstone in the 1600s; it is *the* answer to the problem and hence other measures can be relaxed (e.g. keeping your distance). As such although people think they are safe the other measures they take place themselves at more risk. Hence the mask only has a weak benefit (the benefit is offset by the extra risk people put themselves under). Similar effects can be seen in climate change. There's evidence to suggest that those people that do something positive like install solar panels can actually be worse emitters of carbon.
As such I tend not to favour the over positive reporting on masks. I think although they are a benefit the populace as a whole use the evidence in the wrong way.
So according to that Lancet study, the masks DO protect the wearer, contrary to the popular assertion. In which case, put the onus back on an individuals judgement of their own risk, and not a mandatory diktat of compliance for everybody.
Azreal13 wrote: Areas of the North West around Manchester and Oldham have now been put back into lockdown.
Not clear on all the details, but it's apparently less severe than the one implemented in Leicester, but will affect many more people.
I wasn't clear on the details either from the reporting (I wonder if the govt isn't a bit fuzzy on the details too?)
One thing I would love to know is how they're going to tell people in the areas that they are not locked down (it's easy to say an entire country but it seems a lot harder to spread the message to a more localised area especially round the edges of it where people will wonder if they're in or out, household letters might work but given how slow they were to arrive from the start of national lockdown that might be too slow)
Postcodes. Simply list all the postcodes of affected areas on the local government website.
I'm actually registered with the local council online, for stuff like paying fines, applying for replacement bins etc, so they'd be able to cross reference my address and text me, but I doubt that's even close to the majority, but listing postcodes would be simpke enough.
PhDs are a slightly different game, where it is the opinion of two persons, but the examinations are thorough and sometimes, probably more often than they should be, brutal.
I have an MSc by research in astrophysics. My examination was a 3 hour long viva defending my thesis and demonstrating knowledge of the subject around my thesis.
So even some masters follow the examination procedure of PhDs.
PhDs are a slightly different game, where it is the opinion of two persons, but the examinations are thorough and sometimes, probably more often than they should be, brutal.
I have an MSc by research in astrophysics. My examination was a 3 hour long viva defending my thesis and demonstrating knowledge of the subject around my thesis.
So even some masters follow the examination procedure of PhDs.
Fair enough. I was aware most research masters have the option of a viva if the external feels they need to probe the author, but I don't actually know anyone who's had to have one.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: My supermarket doesn't do those things. It's also beside the point. Supermarkets and shops having mandatory mask orders placed on them is entirely arbitrary. Hence why you can spend an extended period of time indoors in public without one, so long as you're eating or drinking beer. It's nonsense.
I don't think it's arbitrary as much as it's the companies choice if they want to risk the bad publicity of being marked as a hotspot and potentially put into lockdown. You lose money and potentially reputation. Customers avoid the location in the future due to viewing your company as irresponsible. Pretty much falls into similar brackets as Work Health and Safety guidelines.
Locations like public areas are slightly different as it's more difficult to say who is responsible exactly if there is an outbreak linked to that specific location. Or the local council can just swing it's weight around to push the blame elsewhere.
I guess when in doubt simply try to ask who could be blamed if everything falls to grox droppings.
It's the opposite of arbitrary. It's a targeted response to the fact that people working in retail have been significantly negatively impacted relative to other employment sectors, with reports of up to 75% higher fatality rates. Which is what makes the whining about wearing them so baseless.
I've also never claimed its impossible for me to get it.
.
My wording was poorly phrased. . . I was truly talking about the people in the US who are making the same tired arguments you have been. . . IME, the AMERICANS who hold these views act, even if they aren't verbally saying it, like they are "immune" . . .
IMO, what other posters have said of you, things like "whats next, you'll say its all faked?" is said for a reason. . . People in the US who argue against being "forced" to wear a mask have a very large cross-section on the venn-diagram of "people who feel inconvenienced by masks and think they are special and shouldnt have to wear one" and "people who think its a giant fething hoax." If you are NOT one of the people who think its a hoax, your arguments sure seem to fall in line with those who do.
And the thing to keep in mind, you did say earlier ITT, that you have not been in contact with anyone who's infected or possibly infected. . . Which, on the face of it is BS. It is BS for literally anyone who lives in a society in any form. . . whether you live on a farm and have to go in to town, live in the suburbs, inner city or anywhere else. In short, unless you're a mountain-man/trapper who lives in complete isolation off of the land, you have contact with *someone* other than yourself. IF you've been to a grocery store, you've been exposed to someone who has it, or has been exposed to it. And, we know that this thing has a really high transmission rate.
So really, the reason so many countries around the world are bringing out mask mandates, is because people who argue as you have ITT, are incredibly selfish and either don't understand that they live in a society where people are affected by others' actions, or they just don't care.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We did this dance two pages ago guys, it does not go anywhere. Ignore and move on, bad-faith posters get threads locked.
And yet the whole issue could have been prevented months ago if the mods country had had some real leadership.
Ok honestly, I think that is an extremely harsh comparison to make and I hope I am misinterpreting. I don't think Dakka mods have ever sunk close to the same realm of poor leadership.
But I do agree, decent leadership or even no leadership in the US (as opposed to labeling it a hoax and 'no worse than the flu') would have us in a dramatically improved situation. We can see in this very thread that people who solidified their opinion of Covid as a non-threat are also among those most stubbornly resistant to changing their viewpoints. Just when it comes to this particular issue the link to suffering and death is more direct.
Azreal13 wrote: So they don't reduce your chance of spreading it to other people at all?
That would be typical logic for him yes. Binary on/off. If it protects you it doesn't prevent you from infecting others.
Oh and lack ofwearing it thus increases your chance of catching it and thus by very definition increases chance of you infecting others as to infect others you have to have it. So again it's not just personal thing.
But hey howabout law where if you don't wear it and anybody catches it from you you get sentenced from assault/murder depending does victim die or not. Your choice, you pay the price.
Far right presidential candidate Herman Cain, who championed an economic plan discredited by a civilization computer game and recently attended a (name i cant be the only one sick of seeing) rally which bragged about ignoring covid safety rules, has died of covid. He atended thr rally in the time window that would have fit his diagnosis with covid.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: put the onus back on an individuals judgement of their own risk, and not a mandatory diktat of compliance for everybody.
That 'diktat' is so there is no ambiguity or excuse when confronted. If there is a valid reason to not wear one, fine. Everyone else, no matter their beliefs or reasons, has to wear one.
So many examples from around the world have led to that. Blame the extreme cases we hear about in the news. Look at the reports (as you have), and there is no reason not to wear one.
We know that 'an individuals judgement' is flawed in so many cases, and cannot be relied upon.
NinthMusketeer wrote: We did this dance two pages ago guys, it does not go anywhere. Ignore and move on, bad-faith posters get threads locked.
And yet the whole issue could have been prevented months ago if the mods country had had some real leadership.
Ok honestly, I think that is an extremely harsh comparison to make and I hope I am misinterpreting. I don't think Dakka mods have ever sunk close to the same realm of poor leadership.
But I do agree, decent leadership or even no leadership in the US (as opposed to labeling it a hoax and 'no worse than the flu') would have us in a dramatically improved situation. We can see in this very thread that people who solidified their opinion of Covid as a non-threat are also among those most stubbornly resistant to changing their viewpoints. Just when it comes to this particular issue the link to suffering and death is more direct.
Going more for a gentle...ish tweaking than harsh criticism.
Azreal13 wrote: So they don't reduce your chance of spreading it to other people at all?
That would be typical logic for him yes. Binary on/off. If it protects you it doesn't prevent you from infecting others.
The nirvana fallacy in action my friend.
The nirvana fallacy is a common logical fallacy argument used by people opposing something. If something, a solution to a problem, a better way of doing things, etc is not absolutely perfect in every way and in every circumstance, the people opposing it will ignore it's clear advantages and strengths and focus on it's failings, no matter how small, as justification to oppose it.
So, wearing masks will reduce the spread of covid and protect some people to some degrees, but won't make covid magically disappear overight.
"Masks aren't no damn good and aren't worth violating people's rights for!"
queen_annes_revenge wrote: My supermarket doesn't do those things. It's also beside the point. Supermarkets and shops having mandatory mask orders placed on them is entirely arbitrary. Hence why you can spend an extended period of time indoors in public without one, so long as you're eating or drinking beer. It's nonsense.
I don't think it's arbitrary as much as it's the companies choice if they want to risk the bad publicity of being marked as a hotspot and potentially put into lockdown. You lose money and potentially reputation. Customers avoid the location in the future due to viewing your company as irresponsible. Pretty much falls into similar brackets as Work Health and Safety guidelines.
Locations like public areas are slightly different as it's more difficult to say who is responsible exactly if there is an outbreak linked to that specific location. Or the local council can just swing it's weight around to push the blame elsewhere.
I guess when in doubt simply try to ask who could be blamed if everything falls to grox droppings.
It's not the companies at all. This is a law. Before this my supermarket didn't give a damn if you wore a mask or not. They don't care about masks at all.
Azreal13 wrote: So they don't reduce your chance of spreading it to other people at all?
That would be typical logic for him yes. Binary on/off. If it protects you it doesn't prevent you from infecting others.
The nirvana fallacy in action my friend.
The nirvana fallacy is a common logical fallacy argument used by people opposing something. If something, a solution to a problem, a better way of doing things, etc is not absolutely perfect in every way and in every circumstance, the people opposing it will ignore it's clear advantages and strengths and focus on it's failings, no matter how small, as justification to oppose it.
So, wearing masks will reduce the spread of covid and protect some people to some degrees, but won't make covid magically disappear overight.
"Masks aren't no damn good and aren't worth violating people's rights for!"
Congratulations.... If only you were right. This would only apply to this situation if I were saying that they shouldn't be used at all because the benefit is only small. Which I'm not. I'm saying people should be allowed to make their own decisions, precisely because the benefit is so small. If there was conclusive proof that they stopped most spread (along with other factors like the disease actually affecting a substantial number of people. <0.1% of the UK population remember?) I would advocate their use, and potentially support mandatory wearing in some places.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: put the onus back on an individuals judgement of their own risk, and not a mandatory diktat of compliance for everybody.
That 'dictat' is so there is no ambiguity or excuse when confronted. If there is a valid reason to not wear one, fine. Everyone else, no matter their beliefs or reasons, has to wear one.
So many examples from around the world have led to that. Blame the extreme cases we hear about in the news. Look at the reports (as you have), and there is no reason not to wear one.
We know that 'an individuals judgement' is flawed in so many cases, and cannot be relied upon.
Best get us re-educated then. Maybe you could put us in camps to facilitate it... Just make sure we're all wearing masks...
I don't know what your point is here. This is just a description of exactly what I'm opposing.
Again, this is for sake of safety, backed by empirical evidence.
As a Driver, it’s my legal responsibility to ensure my car is safe to drive, insured for at least Third Party, and that any passengers are wearing seatbelts, and wearing them properly.
Yes, there are weirdos who claim seatbelts and airbags are dangerous items. Perhaps they’re right. But they’re less dangerous than a short flight through a windscreen, landing who knows where, or indeed the old classic ‘flung with great velocity into that worryingly sturdy steering wheel’
Restaurants have hygiene codes to stick to, due to public safety concerns.
These and hundreds, if not thousands of “diktats” are in place for the safety of as many people as possible. You may also recognise them under their proper name of laws?
You know laws. A set of enforceable controls where the Absolute Freedom of the individual is curtailed for the betterment of society as a whole? Some say they’re the hallmark of a civilised society, especially when they’re regularly and fairly enforced.
I'm glad someone finally brought up seatbelts. I'm surprised it didn't come up sooner.
This highlights my point perfectly.
Seatbelts have been proven to have a massive impact in saving lives in car accidents. Unequivocally. Therefore, imposing them in law is fine. It makes sense.
Masks, might work a little bit, sometimes, and it's been back and forth so much that no one seems to really know. Therefore imposing them on the population with threat of financial reprisal, is not proportionate.
Also, seatbelts and car parts are made to a set of specific specifications, of approved materials and tested to a set of standards. I can go into the supermarket wearing anything from a strip of my nans curtain to a lettuce leaf sellotaped around my face.
I'm assuming that you all vociferously opposed people wearing masks when the government said that they provide little benefit? I hope so.
No, I wore my masks because I was doing whatever I could to reduce potential infection of myself and others.
Same as taking care to wash my hands properly. Same as carrying a bottle of hand sanitiser. Same as not picking things up in the supermarket just to put them back. Same as still coughing into the crook of my arm. Same as not shaking hands with folk. Same as doing what I can to maintain a decent gap between myself and the next person.
You know. Teeny tiny little things which barely affect me, to do whatever I can to not make things any worse than the already are?
Consider. When we got Mum’s prognosis last year (around March, if memory serves) I of course went up to Scotland to see her. For flavour, it was terminal upper bowel cancer, which is a horrible way to go.
She’d been receiving chemo, but it just wasn’t working. And of course, chemo being chemo, she was left with a compromised immune system.
Unfortunately, the train was packed, and I wound up with someone sitting next to me. This person stunk to high heaven. Stale sweat, old ciggies. Their clothes were pretty manky too. Lots of coughing, and no covering of their mouth.
That really, really worried me. Sure, I’ve a decent immune system, and I only rarely get ill (but when I do, it’s horrendously ill.)
But because of that filth wizard, I had legitimate concerns that I might be bringing a pathogen into the house. So what did I do? I asked Dad not to collect me from the station, and took a taxi instead. Before walking through to the front room to see my parents, I took my bag to my room, grabbed a quick shower and changed my clothes.
That is going out of my way, because I had a legitimate concern for my Mum’s safety.
Wearing a mask, basic hygiene and consideration for others is not onerous. At all.
I really dislike the seat-belts analogy, it's not the same as neglecting to wear one has a different impact on others around you. Unless another person is really, really unfortunate, your corpse firing from the seat of the vehicle is unlikely to hit and injure them. You could argue that the most harm done is to the psychology of the poor medical staff who have to pick up your remains from the tarmac or tree etc, or the police staff that has to visit your relatives to give them the news.
A mask is for the sake of protecting the people around you. Fair enough that you can make a value judgement about this - you don't like the government telling you what to do. So what? That already applies for many, many other parts of your life, especially those where your actions can impact the lives of other individuals. Other than for largely qualitative statements about the impact masks have on behaviour, the science weighs very heavily in favour of them. Anecdotally, I look at what has happened in S Korea and Japan, which feature some of the most densely populated metropolises on earth, and how low (relatively) their rate of infection and death has been, and you have to think that use of masks factors into that.
Also, ask yourself this, in terms of a basic 101 of risk analysis. What is the 'worst case' scenario for you being right or wrong in your judgement about whether to wear a mask?
Scenario 1 wearing a mask: Masks have no impact on transmission of the virus. Penalty: I am uncomfortable and look like a fool.
Scenario 2 not wearing a mask: Masks do inhibit transmission of the virus. Penalty: I am carrying the virus - I pass it on to another person, who can then become sick themselves and become a point of transmission to others.
For me, it's a very simple calculation about which of these penalties I would rather suffer (or indeed inflict on someone else).
I don't believe I ever said it was. You want to wear one, go right ahead. I couldn't care less. However, I don't, and I don't want the government dictatating what I must wear to walk into a supermarket.
I'm slightly concerned that this is all it's taken for people to effectively beg the government to bring in oppressive laws and micromanage everyones lives, just for any tiny illusion of safety.
And pacific I counter your point on Japan with Spain, where masks are mandatory everywhere, yet have seen an increase in cases.
The assertion that they don't protect you but protect others is nonsense. There's a study cited on the last page that says that. Therefore, you wear yours, leave me alone.
Wearing a mask, basic hygiene and consideration for others is not onerous. At all.
That's the crux of it for me. In the vast majority of cases this is a small inconvenience that probably does have some positive effect on preventing the spread of the virus and may also help others feel safer in certain public areas. Spare me all the "mah liberteees!!" bullgak.
Also, why would I oppose people wearing masks before the government mandated it? They've not been called out as being more dangerous than not wearing one so what do I care if someone feels safer wearing one? The difference now is that wearing one may well be a net benefit, which is why it seems reasonable to mandate wearing one in certain situations. Proportionality is a thing here, at least to most of us.
Masks reduce transmission rates. This is why they are worn in surgery. This is why visitors to immuno compromised hospital patients wear them.
I don’t know the next person. I have no idea of their home situation, or how well they behave themselves with the guidelines around social distancing.
I wear a mask to remove myself as a risk to others as much as I can. They do not need to be 100% effective. Even if it’s 5% effective, it’s worth the bother, because any inconvenience to me is so utterly trivial.
I wash my hands for the same reasons. I use hand sanitiser, for the same reasons. I don’t drink drive for the same reasons. I don’t go around beating people for the same reasons (also I’m a wuss). I shower and change clothes before visiting the pub for the same reasons.
Common courtesy and consideration for others shouldn’t need to be a law. But if that’s what it takes for you to stop being a health risk to others? That. Is. Your. Problem. And your problem alone, you selfish, selfish man.
I really dislike the seat-belts analogy, it's not the same as neglecting to wear one has a different impact on others around you. Unless another person is really, really unfortunate, your corpse firing from the seat of the vehicle is unlikely to hit and injure them. You could argue that the most harm done is to the psychology of the poor medical staff who have to pick up your remains from the tarmac or tree etc, or the police staff that has to visit your relatives to give them the news.
It is partially why the drunk driving example was touted around a bit more, but *someone* took issue with that. . . See, there are dozens, if not hundreds of studies showing that in traffic incidents involving a drunk driver, the one under the influence survives the incident more often than the innocent parties around them. It is basically the same, incredibly selfish argument as is being used for not wearing a mask.
QAR feels that legally requiring people to be sober when driving is fascist, so that logic falls on deaf ears.
Of course I cannot imagine the sheer outrage QAR must feel over laws against public nudity, which unlike mask-wearing does not have any benefit to human health or safety.
Wearing a mask, basic hygiene and consideration for others is not onerous. At all.
That's the crux of it for me. In the vast majority of cases this is a small inconvenience that probably does have some positive effect on preventing the spread of the virus and may also help others feel safer in certain public areas. Spare me all the "mah liberteees!!" bullgak.
Also, why would I oppose people wearing masks before the government mandated it? They've not been called out as being more dangerous than not wearing one so what do I care if someone feels safer wearing one? The difference now is that wearing one may well be a net benefit, which is why it seems reasonable to mandate wearing one in certain situations. Proportionality is a thing here, at least to most of us.
Proportionality? Do you want me to tell you the infected rate plus survivability rate again? This thing isn't even big enough to be an epidemic in the UK. But hey man you're welcome to beg the gov to oppress you for the smallest things, but remember, if you give your government extra powers in an emergency, you're likely to find that it's always an emergency.
It's nothing to do with the government.
I'm happily walking around town with a mask on, Gubment requirements or not.
I've got better things to do than be blamed for killing someone by not having done so.
Wearing a mask, basic hygiene and consideration for others is not onerous. At all.
That's the crux of it for me. In the vast majority of cases this is a small inconvenience that probably does have some positive effect on preventing the spread of the virus and may also help others feel safer in certain public areas. Spare me all the "mah liberteees!!" bullgak.
Also, why would I oppose people wearing masks before the government mandated it? They've not been called out as being more dangerous than not wearing one so what do I care if someone feels safer wearing one? The difference now is that wearing one may well be a net benefit, which is why it seems reasonable to mandate wearing one in certain situations. Proportionality is a thing here, at least to most of us.
But hey man you're welcome to beg the gov to oppress you for the smallest things,
Sorry, I would have replied sooner but it took a while to pick myself back up off the floor from rolling around laughing at this being "oppression". I've seen actual government oppression, intimidation and suppression of human rights and your characterisation here is frankly insulting. We have gone way past the point of reasonable discourse here so, as with many others ITT, I think I'm done with responding to you now.
Skinnereal wrote: It's nothing to do with the government.
I'm happily walking around town with a mask on, Gubment requirements or not.
I've got better things to do than be blamed for killing someone by not having done so.
Sorry, I would have replied sooner but it took a while to pick myself back up off the floor from rolling around laughing at this being "oppression". I've seen actual government oppression, intimidation and suppression of human rights and your characterisation here is frankly insulting. We have gone way past the point of reasonable discourse here so, as with many others ITT, I think I'm done with responding to you now.
Just because it doesn't meet your requirement for oppression, doesn't mean it isn't. I notice you also ignored the earlier part of my comment, which was there to provide a framing to the proportionality point you made.
Sure, it's not PRC levels of oppression, but it's still highly disproportionate for the threat level present here.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: I'm glad someone finally brought up seatbelts. I'm surprised it didn't come up sooner.
This highlights my point perfectly.
Seatbelts have been proven to have a massive impact in saving lives in car accidents. Unequivocally. Therefore, imposing them in law is fine. It makes sense.
Masks, might work a little bit, sometimes, and it's been back and forth so much that no one seems to really know. Therefore imposing them on the population with threat of financial reprisal, is not proportionate.
Also, seatbelts and car parts are made to a set of specific specifications, of approved materials and tested to a set of standards. I can go into the supermarket wearing anything from a strip of my nans curtain to a lettuce leaf sellotaped around my face.
I'm assuming that you all vociferously opposed people wearing masks when the government said that they provide little benefit? I hope so.
So a whole stack of harm befell people too pig headed and self-obsessed to listen to advice from experts until years and years worth of data was presented to them.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: put the onus back on an individuals judgement of their own risk, and not a mandatory diktat of compliance for everybody.
That 'diktat' is so there is no ambiguity or excuse when confronted. If there is a valid reason to not wear one, fine. Everyone else, no matter their beliefs or reasons, has to wear one.
So many examples from around the world have led to that. Blame the extreme cases we hear about in the news. Look at the reports (as you have), and there is no reason not to wear one.
We know that 'an individuals judgement' is flawed in so many cases, and cannot be relied upon.
I wonder if the people who are so against wearing masks are also against laws mandating the wearing of clothes in public spaces, traffic laws, and basic safety regulations like toxic chemicals being labeled. I mean, shouldn't we just leave it up to the individual whether or not they're willing to risk an unmarked container of chemicals being explosively acidic on contact with oxygen?
The entire anti-mask debate is fething slowed. Your right to swing your arm ends at the next person's nose. Likewise, your right to be reckless with your own health ends at my health. Even if we were to surrender the point that masks are only effective under certain circumstances, just put the damn mask on and stop being a dick for the sole sake of being a dick. It's as inconvenient as putting on underwear. The only people applauding anti-maskers are anti-vaxxers and I half think that's solely because the anti-maskers are even more laughable and taking the heat off the people murdering children.
I really dislike the seat-belts analogy, it's not the same as neglecting to wear one has a different impact on others around you. Unless another person is really, really unfortunate, your corpse firing from the seat of the vehicle is unlikely to hit and injure them. You could argue that the most harm done is to the psychology of the poor medical staff who have to pick up your remains from the tarmac or tree etc, or the police staff that has to visit your relatives to give them the news.
It is partially why the drunk driving example was touted around a bit more, but *someone* took issue with that. . . See, there are dozens, if not hundreds of studies showing that in traffic incidents involving a drunk driver, the one under the influence survives the incident more often than the innocent parties around them. It is basically the same, incredibly selfish argument as is being used for not wearing a mask.
Drunk driving is an absurd analogy. A person chooses to get drunk and chooses to drive which deliberately puts other people in danger. A person not wearing a mask only puts other people in danger if that person is infectious. A non infected person not wearing a mask harms no one just like a sober driver doesn’t have to pass a breathalyzer exam to drive a car. We could mandate that all cars have breathalyzer tests built into the ignition system for safety which would be akin to making everyone sick and healthy wear masks but we don’t.
If we had a better testing apparatus in place people would be armed with better knowledge instead of having most people who aren’t sick not being certain they’re not sick and asymptomatic carriers not knowing they are sick. Dealing with that high level of uncertainty makes mask wearing prudent. My grandmother grew up without a mother because her mom went a hospital for a routine appendectomy caught an infection there and died. That was 90 years ago. Now doctors and nurses in the OR wear masks and gloves and practice better sanitary procedures which is good. Taking precautions is a good thing.
However, masks and social distancing don’t offer any guarantees. If it all it took to prevent the spread was masks and distancing every state could be 100% open and we’d be fine. Nobody would tell you that condoms make promiscuity harmless. We just need to recognize that there’s more nuance to the issue.
I do understand the concern over how intrusive the govt response has been compared to the lack of any real preventative measures we put in place for other public health dangers. I also think that the horrific mismanagement of the economic impact of the chose response in the US is causing a lot of harm and anger and it’s easy to vent those frustrations out on the mask wearing recommendations. The lockdown is literally ruining tens of millions of lives and that level of pain can’t be balanced against the benefits of the lockdown.
Do you know, right now that you’ve not contracted COVID-19?
Think carefully, for one can be infectious without showing symptoms, and even if you do show symptoms in the days to come, they can take two weeks to manifest, and all that time you’re at risk of infecting others.
Are you infected? Yes or no? Do you know for sure? If so, how?
If not? Wear your bloody mask you selfish git.
Because it’s exactly like morning after drink driving. If you’ve been on a sesh, or had a few to drink the night before, you can still be over the limit whilst feeling fine.
You don’t know you’re safe to drive. So doing so is a risk, compared to not driving until far later in the day.
This really isn’t rocket science people. It’s really straight forward.
Thats the biggest thing, you are always potentially infectious no matter what with Covid, you can have and give it and now know.
There is a reason they dont let just random people walk around the ICU and gak. you can potentially harm those who at risk.
Ritght now ,we are in that situation where, potentially everyone could have. It isnt "Fear Monger" its common sense that, in a world of unknown like this, we take the precautions.
It isnt aboit "Liberties" for Antimaskers, its people who dont like being told what to do, even if its a slight inconvinence.
Which makes QAR even more bizarre, as he claims a military career.
You know, a career where inherent submission to orders is a thing
He said earlier “yeah but not illegal orders”, as if those further down the chain of command ever get time to ponder such things.
Now, he’s either fibbing about his career, for reasons best known to himself. Or, he’s a really, really terrible choice for any military, or he’s just trolling us all in this thread and being deliberately contrary for reasons best known to himself.
You know, a career where inherent submission to orders is a thing
He said earlier “yeah but not illegal orders”, as if those further down the chain of command ever get time to ponder such things.
Now, he’s either fibbing about his career, for reasons best known to himself. Or, he’s a really, really terrible choice for any military, or he’s just trolling us all in this thread and being deliberately contrary for reasons best known to himself.
I’ll assume the latter.
RAF mate, check in not stag on.
Sadly, I put him on ignore a while back, but we may as well change the thread to "QAR's argument for the sake of it" thread because the last few pages have orbited around him and his viewpoint which seems to be getting the result of winding people up.
Be nice if we all stuck him on ignore and talked about the virus.
QAR, could you please consider wearing a mask for the sake of others? It’s really not a big inconvenience, and it could potentially save a life.
Also, the Burger King in the historic bank building opposite our city hall is yet to reopen and I fear it’s kaput. Why do I care so much about a Burger King? Because I’ve been going there since I was no age; getting the kids meal on my birthday with my dad after visiting the toy shop in the days of the BK Kid’s Club. The place is all golden and Art Deco too, very interesting time warp of a building.
Also I’ve not had a Bacon King in months and I’m getting the craving.
Future War Cultist wrote: QAR, could you please consider wearing a mask for the sake of others? It’s really not a big inconvenience, and it could potentially save a life.
Also, the Burger King in the historic bank building opposite our city hall is yet to reopen and I fear it’s kaput. Why do I care so much about a Burger King? Because I’ve been going there since I was no age; getting the kids meal on my birthday with my dad after visiting the toy shop in the days of the BK Kid’s Club. The place is all golden and Art Deco too, very interesting time warp of a building.
Also I’ve not had a Bacon King in months and I’m getting the craving.
Fastfood places that have no drive thru are doing real bad. Not only did before they lost the revenue from people just too lazy to get out of their car(Like me) and people just needing to pass thru, now they are from everyone.
You know, a career where inherent submission to orders is a thing
He said earlier “yeah but not illegal orders”, as if those further down the chain of command ever get time to ponder such things.
Now, he’s either fibbing about his career, for reasons best known to himself. Or, he’s a really, really terrible choice for any military, or he’s just trolling us all in this thread and being deliberately contrary for reasons best known to himself.
I’ll assume the latter.
IIRC from my ROTC days, you're told you don't have to follow illegal orders. Of course, you may face a court-martial, and punishment if they disagree about the nature of said orders. So I think his comment makes sense even if the overall context is petty and silly.
The best bit? The absolute best bit of QAR’s crap argument?
“I fear it will become law, so I won’t follow the guidance and will do everything in my meagre power to ensure others don’t follow said guidance. Because that’s exactly how you stop guidance becoming law
Sadly my career is a variant of dealing with bad faith idiots.
Thankfully, I’ve a keen skill for spotting flaws, and exploring the, before poking the obvious holes in the argument.
And it is a knack. It’s not the result of learning. I can just sort of do it. I could, potentially, figure out how to pass it on to others.
Really hope I do. Because if I can figure out how to teach people my instinct for seeing exactly what the next person isn’t saying, and will refuse to answer?
That’s the barrier between where I am right now (which is pretty ace) and a. £65,000 salary.
It is easy to understand why: mask mandates use the coercive power of the state to require a person to do something that they would otherwise not choose to do. And it seems to follow that a person’s liberty is compromised by such interference.
The conception of “freedom as non-interference” that underpins the anti-mask movement has the virtue of simplicity. It allows us to apply an easy metric to test our freedom: if our choices are interfered with, then we are less free.
But if this is correct it is unclear why wearing a mask is so troubling given the widespread “interference” in our other choices. Surely, the requirement that you have to cover any part of your body is a far graver violation of individual liberty than being compelled to wear a small face covering during a pandemic? It may be that the anti-mask movement is the spear tip of a global militant nudism trend, but that doesn’t seem particularly plausible (or desirable).
The problem is that the idea of liberty as non-interference often runs up against common sense. For example, most people do not feel savagely oppressed by having to drive on one side of the road, by bans on public nudity or by laws against murder. They interfere with our choices, but they don’t seem to make us less free. Maybe we need a different formulation of freedom.
“I fear it will become law, so I won’t follow the guidance and will do everything in my meagre power to ensure others don’t follow said guidance. Because that’s exactly how you stop guidance becoming law
Edited by RiTides - Language
And I thought you of everyone here were better than engaging in poor discourse, yet here you are indulging in base name calling. The lowest rung on the hierarchy of disagreement. Shame.
Not wearing a mask is not 'causing someone death or harm'. That's an assumed presupposition that I reject for its question begging, and am still yet to hear a logical argument in favour of.
Azreal13 wrote: Postcodes. Simply list all the postcodes of affected areas on the local government website.
I'm actually registered with the local council online, for stuff like paying fines, applying for replacement bins etc, so they'd be able to cross reference my address and text me, but I doubt that's even close to the majority, but listing postcodes would be simpke enough.
that's a good first step it should cut confusion among those who are involved enough to be looking for information,
it's contacting those who don't do online (or if they do don't look for stuff like this) that's the real problem
I wonder if the people who are so against wearing masks are also against laws mandating the wearing of clothes in public spaces, traffic laws, and basic safety regulations like toxic chemicals being labeled. I mean, shouldn't we just leave it up to the individual whether or not they're willing to risk an unmarked container of chemicals being explosively acidic on contact with oxygen?
The entire anti-mask debate is fething slowed. Your right to swing your arm ends at the next person's nose. Likewise, your right to be reckless with your own health ends at my health. Even if we were to surrender the point that masks are only effective under certain circumstances, just put the damn mask on and stop being a dick for the sole sake of being a dick. It's as inconvenient as putting on underwear. The only people applauding anti-maskers are anti-vaxxers and I half think that's solely because the anti-maskers are even more laughable and taking the heat off the people murdering children.
Your false equivalences, ad hominems and guilt by associations aside, the small part of your argument that is moderately reasonable rests on the presupposition that if someone has a disease, that they don't know about, and then you catch it from them, they are violating your rights. The refutation of which, part of my argument rests on. I posit that being unknowingly asymptomatic and spreading a virus, violates no ones rights.
Consider some analogies. if I accidentally knock an ice cube onto the floor, and leave without knowing, then someone comes and slips on it, cracks their head and dies, have I killed them?
If a soldier in Afghanistan accidentally initiates an ied, that kills his comrade but not him, do we accuse him of killing that man?
I really dislike the seat-belts analogy, it's not the same as neglecting to wear one has a different impact on others around you. Unless another person is really, really unfortunate, your corpse firing from the seat of the vehicle is unlikely to hit and injure them. You could argue that the most harm done is to the psychology of the poor medical staff who have to pick up your remains from the tarmac or tree etc, or the police staff that has to visit your relatives to give them the news.
It is partially why the drunk driving example was touted around a bit more, but *someone* took issue with that. . . See, there are dozens, if not hundreds of studies showing that in traffic incidents involving a drunk driver, the one under the influence survives the incident more often than the innocent parties around them. It is basically the same, incredibly selfish argument as is being used for not wearing a mask.
Drunk driving is an absurd analogy. A person chooses to get drunk and chooses to drive which deliberately puts other people in danger. A person not wearing a mask only puts other people in danger if that person is infectious. A non infected person not wearing a mask harms no one just like a sober driver doesn’t have to pass a breathalyzer exam to drive a car. We could mandate that all cars have breathalyzer tests built into the ignition system for safety which would be akin to making everyone sick and healthy wear masks but we don’t.
If we had a better testing apparatus in place people would be armed with better knowledge instead of having most people who aren’t sick not being certain they’re not sick and asymptomatic carriers not knowing they are sick. Dealing with that high level of uncertainty makes mask wearing prudent. My grandmother grew up without a mother because her mom went a hospital for a routine appendectomy caught an infection there and died. That was 90 years ago. Now doctors and nurses in the OR wear masks and gloves and practice better sanitary procedures which is good. Taking precautions is a good thing.
However, masks and social distancing don’t offer any guarantees. If it all it took to prevent the spread was masks and distancing every state could be 100% open and we’d be fine. Nobody would tell you that condoms make promiscuity harmless. We just need to recognize that there’s more nuance to the issue.
I do understand the concern over how intrusive the govt response has been compared to the lack of any real preventative measures we put in place for other public health dangers. I also think that the horrific mismanagement of the economic impact of the chose response in the US is causing a lot of harm and anger and it’s easy to vent those frustrations out on the mask wearing recommendations. The lockdown is literally ruining tens of millions of lives and that level of pain can’t be balanced against the benefits of the lockdown.
Drunk Driving is a great analogy. A Person gets drunk and then decides, even though they are drunk(infectious) they are going to go drive around. The person could just not do it(wear a mask) but they decide to put other peoples lives at risk(transmission) instead.
People with a history of drunk driving are also sober people who have to pass a breathalyzer exam to drive a car. We COULD mandate that people who are known NOT to wear a mask be isolated to prevent further transmission. IE: We take their drivers license and car. Which happens.
Spain issued a mask mandate. One of the strictest...
Not true. "Spain" did not issue a mask mandate, or is at least no longer doing so. Mask policy is being handled at a regional level, with varying stipulations in when they're necessary, and what the penalty for non compliance is.
For instance, Basque Country has no policy at all, excepting a town that currently is suffering an outbreak, whereas Asturias has the lowest rate of infection, but has no exceptions and one of the highest fines for non compliance.
So "Spain" in a collective sense is really about a dozen different ideas.
As a number of posters have expressed, if you fundamentally disagree with someone and have already thoroughly discussed your differences, it may make sense to put them on ignore.
We only ask that you avoid using insults and name calling, with - again - the goal of this thread remaining open. I've had to edit a few posts for this purpose. Thanks for your help everyone!
Saw a headline on my work browser's home page (but did not click the link) and the headline read something to the effect of "Dr. Fauci is cautiously optimistic of a vaccine by fall"
Which brings up a line of thought, or at least, a question in my mind. . . Lets say we do get a vaccine done. It's through trials and tests and all that. . . How much of an "issue" will be made of this?
We saw on Guam, or Samoa (I forget which now), a measles outbreak which was absolutely horrific, and it was so in largest part because the anti-vax movement had well and truly taken root there. . . In the majority of the western world, the US in particular, we do have a significantly vocal minority of anti-vax people. How do we really deal with those types of people?
Also, in the time between now and say, early December "when" it is released. . . should we be expecting a vaccine with MMR/Tetanus results, or should we expect Gardasil results?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Saw a headline on my work browser's home page (but did not click the link) and the headline read something to the effect of "Dr. Fauci is cautiously optimistic of a vaccine by fall"
Which brings up a line of thought, or at least, a question in my mind. . . Lets say we do get a vaccine done. It's through trials and tests and all that. . . How much of an "issue" will be made of this?
Sadly a lot, more than likely.
Distribution priority will also be a major issue. Which countries and which groups within those countries get it first.
We saw on Guam, or Samoa (I forget which now), a measles outbreak which was absolutely horrific, and it was so in largest part because the anti-vax movement had well and truly taken root there. . . In the majority of the western world, the US in particular, we do have a significantly vocal minority of anti-vax people. How do we really deal with those types of people?
Poorly, more than likely. But unless it can't be administered due to a health concern, it should not be optional. The more people who opt out, the longer this continues and the more it recurs. Letting people opt out of a vaccine will kill people in both the short term and long term. It will let the virus burrow in as recurring, endemic problem. So will not distributing vaccines on a truly global scale.
Also, in the time between now and say, early December "when" it is released. . . should we be expecting a vaccine with MMR/Tetanus results, or should we expect Gardasil results?
There is no way to know what the results will be. Hopefully they'll do sufficient testing despite the 'Warp Speed' focus, so results should be positive. But interactions always have the potential to be unpredictable.
That's flatly insufficient. A lot of estimates are we need about 70% coverage to really get past this pandemic. That's 5 billion doses. If the leading companies all manage to get working, effective and safe vaccines, we're still looking at _maybe_ Fall of next year for sufficient production.
A 'vaccine by fall' is unfortunately a very political statement. Its reassuring without touching on the stark reality of large scale production for a global population of 7.5ish billion.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Saw a headline on my work browser's home page (but did not click the link) and the headline read something to the effect of "Dr. Fauci is cautiously optimistic of a vaccine by fall"
Which brings up a line of thought, or at least, a question in my mind. . . Lets say we do get a vaccine done. It's through trials and tests and all that. . . How much of an "issue" will be made of this?
We saw on Guam, or Samoa (I forget which now), a measles outbreak which was absolutely horrific, and it was so in largest part because the anti-vax movement had well and truly taken root there. . . In the majority of the western world, the US in particular, we do have a significantly vocal minority of anti-vax people. How do we really deal with those types of people?
Also, in the time between now and say, early December "when" it is released. . . should we be expecting a vaccine with MMR/Tetanus results, or should we expect Gardasil results?
The subject of the antivax movement keeps popping up on this page, and i don't have a problem with that. In fact I want to share an image with people that was created by antivaxxers which shows just how totally whacked their minds are.
It's a powerful, graphic and offensive image so I'm putting it behind a spoiler tag so don't look unless you're prepared to see how stupid, raving paranoid bigots think. And yes, there is a strong anti semitic element to this image as it implies that the pro vaccination forces are control by "the jews" and that vaccines are therefore some evil Jewish conspiracy to do....something evil.
It also features a terrified crying baby. If you're not sure you want to see how these dangerously stupid people really think, what really goes on in their heads, what they really believe, if anti semitic propaganda really offends you and if the image of a terrified crying baby offends you you should probably just leave the spoiler tag in place.
And yes the image is anti jewish racism, I hope no one gives me trouble for posting it but I'm doing it to show that a lot of the anti vaxxer mob are the same people who believe all the anti jewish propaganda or conspiracy theories, and maybe people should be shown that.
Well, here's hoping posting this doesn't get me banned but honestly, people need to wake up to just how dangerously ignorant the antivax mob is.
Spoiler:
A lot of these anti vaxxers are more deranged and more dangerous than most people really know.
Finland plans to vaccinate initially those working with risk groups and risk groups expecting everybody to have it within year of starting vaccination program.
tneva82 wrote: Finland plans to vaccinate initially those working with risk groups and risk groups expecting everybody to have it within year of starting vaccination program.
Sounds like finalnd really has some good people running their efforts.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: studies showing that in traffic incidents involving a drunk driver, the one under the influence survives the incident more often than the innocent parties around them. It is basically the same, incredibly selfish argument as is being used for not wearing a mask.
It is unfortunate that real-life-karma isn't like movie-karma.
In the movie Burke gets his head bitten off by Aliens for being a selfish moron who exposes others to harm for his own perceived gain.
In RL such a Burke will, as a result of his carless attitude, get an elderly lady he passed by in a shop infected, she will die, but Burke will never learn about this, he will get away with mild symptoms and he will keep telling everyone in a smug way how he was right about this virus all along.
Report: Coronavirus infected scores of children and staff at Georgia sleep-away camp
The analysis, released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, details an outbreak at a sleep-away camp in Georgia last month in which 260 children and staffers — more than three-quarters of the 344 tested — contracted the virus less than a week after spending time together in close quarters. The children had a median age of 12. The camp had required all 597 campers and staff members to provide documentation that they had tested negative for the virus before coming. Staff were required to wear masks, but children were not. ... The report is likely to add fuel to an already polarizing nationwide discussion about whether sending children back to crowded school buildings is worth the risk, in large part because so little data has been available about children’s vulnerability to the infection and their ability to transmit the virus.
ced1106 wrote: Report: Coronavirus infected scores of children and staff at Georgia sleep-away camp
The analysis, released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, details an outbreak at a sleep-away camp in Georgia last month in which 260 children and staffers — more than three-quarters of the 344 tested — contracted the virus less than a week after spending time together in close quarters. The children had a median age of 12. The camp had required all 597 campers and staff members to provide documentation that they had tested negative for the virus before coming. Staff were required to wear masks, but children were not. ... The report is likely to add fuel to an already polarizing nationwide discussion about whether sending children back to crowded school buildings is worth the risk, in large part because so little data has been available about children’s vulnerability to the infection and their ability to transmit the virus.
With an average age of 12 I'd wager that masks aren't going to work all that well because staff will be coming into close contact with the students all the time, and the students with each other. It's very hard to socially distance at that age, especially when keeping so many together at one site.
Remembering also that masks are not designed to prevent you getting it (unless you've correctly fitted medical masks of a suitable grade), then if one of the students got it it wouldn't take long to spread around.
Overread wrote: With an average age of 12 I'd wager that masks aren't going to work all that well because staff will be coming into close contact with the students all the time, and the students with each other. It's very hard to socially distance at that age, especially when keeping so many together at one site.
Remembering also that masks are not designed to prevent you getting it (unless you've correctly fitted medical masks of a suitable grade), then if one of the students got it it wouldn't take long to spread around.
absolutely but if you'd find a lower rate despite such circumstances that be more than definitive, because that is virtually the only thing in these two groups differing except age...
Well, from an *individual* POV, matters more if you take the vaccine, and continue reducing your exposure to the virus. The flu vaccine is only 60% effective, and we are not achieving an ideal level of herd immunity because not enough people are taking the vaccine.
From the POV of herd immunity, the lower the percentage of a group that takes the vaccine, the higher the efficacy the vaccine must be to achieve a certain degree of herd immunity. (Note that vaccines are "artificial herd immunity" of vaccination, not the popularized herd immunity, where you allow people to be infected, which is a "natural herd immunity".) I posted awhile back an article that crunched a few numbers. And, I would guess it's more likely we'll have a lower efficacy vaccine before a higher one. Note that, in two years we may have a *nasally* administrated vaccine, which, again I would guess, make it easier to administrate, particularly children.
"The annual flu shot's effectiveness, for example, generally ranges between 40-60%, according to the CDC. Hence, on average, the flu vaccine reduces a person's risk of a flu outcome by 60%. ... The measles virus is highly transmissible, and you need 93-95% of the population vaccinated," she explained. "For influenza, 70% vaccination rate is required, yet each year we fall short of that -- which is why even in a typical flu season we still see 30-60,000 people die from flu each year."
Healthcare and schools require manditory vaccinations, so employers requiring employees to be vaccinated may be an option, particularly with a potentially deadly virus. Businesses whose reputation would be damaged if it were known that employees were infected (eg. Amazon, CostCo, Safeway) would require vaccinations for employees, I would think. Whether or not this can be done *quickly* may be a different matter.
"If an employer institutes a mandatory vaccination policy, it could be subjecting itself to potential liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and various state laws. Title VII may require an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with religious beliefs that prevent him or her from taking vaccines. Likewise, individuals with certain disabilities may not be able to have certain vaccinations due to the risk that they will exacerbate their medical conditions. Further, unionized employers may be prohibited from imposing mandatory vaccinations without first bargaining with the union. ... If an employer institutes a mandatory vaccination policy, it could be subjecting itself to potential liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and various state laws. Title VII may require an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with religious beliefs that prevent him or her from taking vaccines. Likewise, individuals with certain disabilities may not be able to have certain vaccinations due to the risk that they will exacerbate their medical conditions. Further, unionized employers may be prohibited from imposing mandatory vaccinations without first bargaining with the union.
Don't forget flu is optional and for many people isn't life threatening. So there's far less pressure on people to take the jab each year than there is for far more deadly diseases. Furthermore because it changes each year that again makes it harder to combat and get a nation wide herd immunity because you're having to do it every single year; whilst things like measles its a one time thing and some others are one-time with boosters every few years.
Corona would likely see a greater portion of the population take up the option of the jab. The issue it would have in uptake though would be less, I'd imagine, refusal to want to be immunized and more a risk of taking a very new drug that won't have any long term testing by its very nature of being so new.
So I can see it being one of those situations where early on it requires more pressure to get taken up and could take huge hits in uptake if any scare stories come out in the media.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Consider some analogies. if I accidentally knock an ice cube onto the floor, and leave without knowing, then someone comes and slips on it, cracks their head and dies, have I killed them?
Yes, through negligence. Manslaughter charges, IIRC, can be brought if proven, depending on the circumstances, such as it being your job to check the state of your workplace.
If a soldier in Afghanistan accidentally initiates an IED, that kills his comrade but not him, do we accuse him of killing that man?
Wartime incident, and risk of death is accepted by anyone posted there. Those planting the IED are blamed.
As for the flu jab, I buy one each year. I do not qualify for a free one, but I live and work around those who need the herd immunity to work.
I actually feel this will probably kill the anti-vax movement. Sure there will still be some crawling along, but it will lose anything resembling widespread support. Because when a vaccine does hit there will be HUGE numbers of people taking it, but no spike whatsoever in autism or any other made-up effects.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I actually feel this will probably kill the anti-vax movement. Sure there will still be some crawling along, but it will lose anything resembling widespread support. Because when a vaccine does hit there will be HUGE numbers of people taking it, but no spike whatsoever in autism or any other made-up effects.
I agree that provided the Corona vaccine (assuming we get one of course) works well and doesn't have any major/widespread side effects then its going to push back the anti-vac groups a lot. Many of them have gained traction partly because so many of the diseases that are heavily vaccinated are just not a risk for people so they don't "see" it. Corona has hit the whole world in one big go, generation wise it should likely be a huge display of the power of vaccination.
Of course if any mass deployed vaccine (even in another country) gets any major medical problems linked to it then it could very well have the complete opposite effect for some regions/nations
You're not thinking like the sort of people who believe this gak in the first place.
Assuming a safe and effective Coronavirus vaccine, the anti vax movement will adapt to explain it away. The most obvious hand wave is that it's for a different disease and it's the childhood ones that cause autism. But I could quite plausibly see it go as far as the government(or whoever) have engineered it so it doesn't cause issues because they need the adult population healthy to serve whatever agenda they're being credited with.
Do not underestimate a conspiracist's ability to bend the facts to fit their truth.
True, but at the same time its much harder to deny when the rest of the world is getting back to normality through the vaccine. Of course there will always be the fringe groups convinced that its a plot to spy on us or to inject alien babies into us or some other idea. You won't change them (but you might kick them out of the workplace if corona vaccines become mandatory to work in any team/public environment - handled at a job by job basis*)
However an effective vaccine for a virus that has directly affected most people (even if just inconveniencing them) and that allows people to "get back to normal" is going to likely sway a lot of the middle ground of anti-vac people and considerably cut down on the ability of the ring-leaders to recruit more to their cause.
Though again I say that this is all fine in theory, but assumes that the vaccine both works and is not later proven to have major/widespread negative side effects.
*though I could see governments perhaps stepping in with policies like "any community/public work mandates corona vaccines)
Thankfully, I’ve a keen skill for spotting flaws, and exploring the, before poking the obvious holes in the argument.
I have the same knack, at least when it comes to written things. I'd like to get better at spotting and, most urgently, refuting it in conversation as well, as there are so many people who argue in bad faith in my line of work, and I'm just no good at arguing in person.
Regardless, to everyone raising Spain as an argument against masks, the reason Spain is on the uptick again is because they opened up for tourists, not because the locals aren't careful.
A bunch of stupid tourists from the UK and other western European countries (I'm ashamed to say us Dutch were among the worst) showed up and decided that if they're on holiday, so is the virus, behaved like idiots and caused a resurgence - because the local serving people got infected along with the idiots.
When a fallacious argument gets to the level of '2+2=5' I think most of us are pretty good at spotting it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: You're not thinking like the sort of people who believe this gak in the first place.
Assuming a safe and effective Coronavirus vaccine, the anti vax movement will adapt to explain it away. The most obvious hand wave is that it's for a different disease and it's the childhood ones that cause autism. But I could quite plausibly see it go as far as the government(or whoever) have engineered it so it doesn't cause issues because they need the adult population healthy to serve whatever agenda they're being credited with.
Do not underestimate a conspiracist's ability to bend the facts to fit their truth.
Absolutely, and like I said there will still be some crawling along regardless. But as a movement I feel this will kill any momentum it has and push it to the sidelines next to flat-earthers and the like. Of course as Overread said, if there is a major issue that would indeed change the scenario.
They most certainly the hell are not. Most of my state is still screaming about the mask requirements. My entire small company refuses to wear masks other than myself, until the moment they hear the doorbell chime alert them to a customer coming in, in which case they are only one until the customer leaves. One of my fellow employees is still going out to bars nearly every night.
I can't even tell you the last time that I, as a delivery driver of tools and appliances to apartment complexes, actually met a maintenance guy or someone in the leasing office with a mask on in the last two months I have been working since the statewide lockdown ended. And this is statewide, because sometimes I drive 250 miles a day on deliveries.
Even the guy that gave our company our first Covid scare, STILL didn't have a mask on the next time I had to deliver to his property. I have actually had customers try to guilt trip me into taking my mask off, by implying I was some sort of anxious baby for wearing one. My own boss says they aren't even worried about planning for if our store of only 8 employees gets infected, because "it probably won't ever happen".
We in America are sitting in a hole of our own making, which we dug as fast as possible.
They most certainly the hell are not. Most of my state is still screaming about the mask requirements. My entire small company refuses to wear masks other than myself, until the moment they hear the doorbell chime alert them to a customer coming in, in which case they are only one until the customer leaves. One of my fellow employees is still going out to bars nearly every night.
I can't even tell you the last time that I, as a delivery driver of tools and appliances to apartment complexes, actually met a maintenance guy or someone in the leasing office with a mask on in the last two months I have been working since the statewide lockdown ended. And this is statewide, because sometimes I drive 250 miles a day on deliveries.
Even the guy that gave our company our first Covid scare, STILL didn't have a mask on the next time I had to deliver to his property. I have actually had customers try to guilt trip me into taking my mask off, by implying I was some sort of anxious baby for wearing one. My own boss says they aren't even worried about planning for if our store of only 8 employees gets infected, because "it probably won't ever happen".
We in America are sitting in a hole of our own making, which we dug as fast as possible.
Make sure to inform them that since they are not following proper procedure, if you can link an infection to any one of them you will make sure it is pursued to the furthest extent of the law.
Matt Swain wrote: I'm wondering if we'll have relatives of corona victims suing churches for violating covid control laws.
Those will be the new Mesothelioma commercials. "Did you attend Our Lady of the Sacred Heart between April 1st through December 25th of 2020? You could qualify for compensation from a multi-million dollar class action lawsuit! Call Danks and Danks today!"
If you feel your "civil liberties" are being impinged by this simple requirement, you are a whining, selfish, thoughtless child. Frankly you need to take a reality check, because your priorities are all wrong.
The amount of people that need to realise freedom does not actually exist. You enter into a contract of sorts with government almost at birth, they provide you with security, education, healthcare etc etc etc and your role in accepting that is following laws, rules, contributing to a society. That is the basis of nearly all modern civilisations, there's variance in countries and due to politics but that is the crux of it. You can choose not to follow those rules, laws, societal norms if you feel so, you have the free will to do that, but don't complain at the consequences.
It's not even THAT big a deal to wear a mask, you give up many liberties on a daily basis as it is, knowingly or not. Also, if you followed and respected the lockdown, that was a massive infringement on your freedom, to ease that lockdown you have to wear a mask...
I think some people are just being stubborn to save face now tbh, they don't want to admit they were wrong or are embarrassed about how extra they went about masks and don't want to lose face by backtracking.
If you feel your "civil liberties" are being impinged by this simple requirement, you are a whining, selfish, thoughtless child. Frankly you need to take a reality check, because your priorities are all wrong.
Jonathan pie is a satirical, fictional comedy character.
Have you really not realised that insulting people does absolutely nothing to change their mind?
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The amount of people that need to realise freedom does not actually exist. You enter into a contract of sorts with government almost at birth, they provide you with security, education, healthcare etc etc etc and your role in accepting that is following laws, rules, contributing to a society. That is the basis of nearly all modern civilisations, there's variance in countries and due to politics but that is the crux of it. You can choose not to follow those rules, laws, societal norms if you feel so, you have the free will to do that, but don't complain at the consequences.
It's not even THAT big a deal to wear a mask, you give up many liberties on a daily basis as it is, knowingly or not. Also, if you followed and respected the lockdown, that was a massive infringement on your freedom, to ease that lockdown you have to wear a mask...
I think some people are just being stubborn to save face now tbh, they don't want to admit they were wrong or are embarrassed about how extra they went about masks and don't want to lose face by backtracking.
That doesnt mean that the government should be able to just do whatever they want, or issue whatever decrees they happen to decide upon with impunity. These things are based on reasoning, compromise, and with the goal of promoting a functioning society. They are not just scrawled on the back of a cigarette packet and introduced at random.
OK, let me lay it out. my argument is that government should not be enforcing what the general public must wear to go into certain places. my main reasoning is: the infected rate is incredibly low. we are 4 months past our peak, hospitalisations and deaths continue to fall. masks have never been an issue before this. it makes no sense whatsoever.
So far the responses have been:
'its not hard to wear a mask': Never said it was.
'its considerate to others who might be anxious': Why should I be forced to act like I am scared, simply because someone else is?
'its not for your protection, its for the protection of others': Nonsense. Thats hokum used to beat dissenters into compliance through guilt.
'No shirt, No shoes': Private companies=/=Government.
'Seatbelts' : Seatbelts are proven to work and have a provable impact on road accident outcomes, which actually affects a substantial proportion of the population.
'Some people were opposed to seatbelts': So? very weak attempt at historical guilt by association and irrelevant comparison.
'anti-vax/climate change deniers': Well, even a lobotomised invalid could point out the flaw in the reasoning of this absolute reach.
and a bunch of other fallacies and insults to boot.
So, in conclusion, still no logically cogent argument supporting a government to just be able to issue a decree forcing people to cover half their face in order to enter certain spaces, with no logical basis, and furthermore, no parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever.
The secondary argument here is that not wearing a mask 'violates someone else' rights' if you are unknowingly asymptomatic, which I reject on its basic premises. Assuming that everyone is 'guilty' of having coronavirus until proven 'innocent' is absurd. If you are unaware of having coronavirus, well thats just a fact of life. There are thousands of asymptomatic carriers of chlamydia and aids, we don't enforce condom use on penalty of offence.
Have you really not realised that insulting people does absolutely nothing to change their mind?
But that doesn't stop these same people from insulting others for not believing the same things than them.
At some point, I think we should make all those people accountable for what they have done / are doing. Freedom of speech shouldn't be an excuse to spread false information that is doing real harm to real people.
And one day, we will all pay for it, because of people who always refused to see the consequences of their actions.
"'its considerate to others who might be anxious': Why should I be forced to act like I am scared, simply because someone else is?
This is not a contest to see who is scared or not. This is a public health matter.
The truth is, some people think they're more clever than the "sheeps" listening to the government's policies. They think they are the smart ones, because they, at least, know what is going on.
Unfortunately, they don't. It's just a question of human pride.
And that's the real trouble. Confusion spread by conspiracy theories and people who are too eager to believe them because they are convenient to them is now causing chaos. And there is only one winner here : the virus itself.
Freedom of speech is a separate rabbit hole that we should avoid here. also, I'm not spreading any conspiracy theories, and have insulted no one, despite receiving plenty myself.
It isnt really spreading. and even when there are rises in case numbers, deaths continue to fall.
Thats fine. I've laid out my logic. unless someone can come along and show my why its incorrect, which I doubt, unless a huge portion of the population suddenly becomes infected and deaths jump again, I stand by my reasoning.
Simply being ganged up on my the majority is not going to change my mind.
It isnt really spreading. and even when there are rises in case numbers, deaths continue to fall.
It is spreading, the reproduction rate is slowly but surely going back to what it was before the confinment - well, in countries that aren't already fethed up. The thing is, this virus is now more insidious and we still don't know what are the consequences on long term or those who had it. Not all are recovering completely, for those who didn't die.
But that's just another proof here : no matter what we will tell you or even put your nose right into the hospitals that are saturated, you won't change your mind - because you never wanted to see the reality, just the "truth" that is accommodating you.
And freedom of speech is what the conspiracy theorists are invoking to spread their lies. As well as you.
It isnt really spreading. and even when there are rises in case numbers, deaths continue to fall.
It is spreading, the reproduction rate is slowly but surely going back to what it was before the confinment - well, in countries that aren't already fethed up. The thing is, this virus is now more insidious and we still don't know what are the consequences on long term or those who had it. Not all are recovering completely, for those who didn't die.
But that's just another proof here : no matter what we will tell you or even put your nose right into the hospitals that are saturated, you won't change your mind - because you never wanted to see the reality, just the "truth" that is accommodating you.
And freedom of speech is what the conspiracy theorists are invoking to spread their lies. As well as you.
I'm talking about the UK pal. I'm not fussed about the continent. We base our policies on the situation here. the TRUTH of which is, as I've repeatedly stated.. C.<0.07% of the population infected at any time. C.700 cases daily, falling deaths, falling hospitalisations... what else is there to it?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Freedom of speech is a separate rabbit hole that we should avoid here. also, I'm not spreading any conspiracy theories, and have insulted no one, despite receiving plenty myself.
It isnt really spreading. and even when there are rises in case numbers, deaths continue to fall.
Thats fine. I've laid out my logic. unless someone can come along and show my why its incorrect, which I doubt, unless a huge portion of the population suddenly becomes infected and deaths jump again, I stand by my reasoning.
Simply being ganged up on my the majority is not going to change my mind.
But it’s the masks that are preventing the infection and death rates from spiking again. It’s a circular argument. You seem to be saying that the masks aren’t necessary because there’s not been a spike, when it’s the masks that are the reason for why there hasn’t been a spike. You take away the masks it’ll spike again.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Freedom of speech is a separate rabbit hole that we should avoid here. also, I'm not spreading any conspiracy theories, and have insulted no one, despite receiving plenty myself.
It isnt really spreading. and even when there are rises in case numbers, deaths continue to fall.
Thats fine. I've laid out my logic. unless someone can come along and show my why its incorrect, which I doubt, unless a huge portion of the population suddenly becomes infected and deaths jump again, I stand by my reasoning.
Simply being ganged up on my the majority is not going to change my mind.
But it’s the masks that are preventing the infection and death rates from spiking again. It’s a circular argument. You seem to be saying that the masks aren’t necessary because there’s not been a spike, when it’s the masks that are the reason for why there hasn’t been a spike. You take away the masks it’ll spike again.
come on dude. Thats not even my reasoning. there was no spike forthcoming regardless of mask mandates. just look at the graphs.. the masks arent preventing anything, they became mandatory a week ago, when we've been at the bottom of our peak for about 3.5 months.
They most certainly the hell are not. Most of my state is still screaming about the mask requirements. My entire small company refuses to wear masks other than myself, until the moment they hear the doorbell chime alert them to a customer coming in, in which case they are only one until the customer leaves. One of my fellow employees is still going out to bars nearly every night.
I can't even tell you the last time that I, as a delivery driver of tools and appliances to apartment complexes, actually met a maintenance guy or someone in the leasing office with a mask on in the last two months I have been working since the statewide lockdown ended. And this is statewide, because sometimes I drive 250 miles a day on deliveries.
Even the guy that gave our company our first Covid scare, STILL didn't have a mask on the next time I had to deliver to his property. I have actually had customers try to guilt trip me into taking my mask off, by implying I was some sort of anxious baby for wearing one. My own boss says they aren't even worried about planning for if our store of only 8 employees gets infected, because "it probably won't ever happen".
We in America are sitting in a hole of our own making, which we dug as fast as possible.
Make sure to inform them that since they are not following proper procedure, if you can link an infection to any one of them you will make sure it is pursued to the furthest extent of the law.
They're trying to give employers immunity from lawsuits related to getting infected by Covid.
It's just a slow rise not a major one at present. It's why the UK government has closed down plans for reopening some things like leisure centres. The Masks should have been brought in weeks ago when the stats were lower still to aid keeping things as low as possible for as long as possible.
The big risk is that we are back in late Feb early March where we see a slow steady rise than a shift in gear to doubling and a rapid increase back to high infection levels.
Deaths falling though is only part of the story - the UK has no recovery data coming out to speak of and the corona stats sites generally only display deaths, infections and recoveries. We don't have any real pooled data to display current term health impacts after infection.
We still have a disaster even with falling deaths because that could still mean that we are building up an increasing number of people with long term health impacts.
Furthermore once the virus gets going we have seen how fast it shifts gear from linear to exponential infection growth. Only right now we are starting from a baseline of hundreds not zero (like we were in March/Feb)
I agree. They should be publishing the recovery data. The cynic in me is prone to think that the reason they aren't is because it will disrupt the fear paralysis once the general population starts seeing the comparisons.
And yes, absolutely talk about the potential long term effects. In my opinion this is what they should be focusing on, rather than attempting to keep the population in that fear paralysis.
I differ from you in that I just don't think that second spike is coming.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: They should be publishing the recovery data. The cynic in me is prone to think that the reason they aren't is because it will disrupt the fear paralysis once the general population starts seeing the comparisons.
Why would the government want to not publish data which would give them ammunition for their attempts to re-open stuff?
You think the government wants people afraid of a virus more than they want people to be going back to normal, spending money, reopening businesses etc.? Why? What do they gain?
Exactly. Don't disrupt his conspiracy theories. I know that here in the US, our government DESPERATELY wants things to go back to normal, with us being good little spending drones. Regardless of political agenda, at the end of the day, Wildly Spending Money=Good. And yet even our highest office says "things are likely to get worse before they get better" and "It's best to wear a mask".
Masks limit the transmission of respiratory-based illnesses to others. It's science. Old science. Otherwise I guess there's no reason to wear a mask in a children's hospital or a cancer treatment center anymore, is there? When my mom goes to Lax Cancer Center, all the patients wearing a mask before Covid was even a thing must have been more of that old "fear paralysis", eh? Rather than risking a healthy person dragging in a respiratory illness to people who can't afford to be exposed to what other people in common public would otherwise shrug off.
Jesus. People have been wearing masks to limit the spread of respiratory disease since the days of Doctors prescribing cigarettes, and before we even had penicillin.
We currently have people orbiting the planet in a metal box, while we have others down here debating the efficacy of masks and how we shouldn't believe science.
Science? Why would anyone listen to scientists who propagate those inconvenient theories that affect your well-established lifestyle? Changing lifestyle is the worst!
It is much better to listen to populist demagogues. They say those convenient things you want to hear, hence they surely are more correct than scientists.
I differ from you in that I just don't think that second spike is coming.
And you're willing to risk a helluva lot of lives on that assumption. The rest of us are not. Suck it up.
And FYI, getting people to use masks is not about maintaining a fear paralyzation, it's about trying to find a way forward to a semblance of normalcy without sacrificing a lot of lives needelessly.
UK cases up 25% on average from 2 weeks ago, according to the evening news on the BBC, but thankfully my region and adjacent ones remain amongst the least affected.
Given the exponential nature of infection, one can see how 25% on relatively low infection rates could still get out of control without action fairly quickly.
Also from the same bulletin, sounds like Australia are nowhere near as under control as they first thought, with fresh lockdowns being mooted and apparently WA has closed its borders to all but necessary travellers.
Perhaps some antipodean dakkites can lend some insight into that beyond a news agency from the other side of the planet?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Have you really not realised that insulting people does absolutely nothing to change their mind?
Reasoning and begging didn't work. You also can't shame people into wearing masks who are so very convinced of being correct.
What else is left?
Leaving us alone.
Spoiler:
AegisGrimm wrote: Exactly. Don't disrupt his conspiracy theories. I know that here in the US, our government DESPERATELY wants things to go back to normal, with us being good little spending drones. Regardless of political agenda, at the end of the day, Wildly Spending Money=Good. And yet even our highest office says "things are likely to get worse before they get better" and "It's best to wear a mask".
Masks limit the transmission of respiratory-based illnesses to others. It's science. Old science. Otherwise I guess there's no reason to wear a mask in a children's hospital or a cancer treatment center anymore, is there? When my mom goes to Lax Cancer Center, all the patients wearing a mask before Covid was even a thing must have been more of that old "fear paralysis", eh? Rather than risking a healthy person dragging in a respiratory illness to people who can't afford to be exposed to what other people in common public would otherwise shrug off.
Jesus. People have been wearing masks to limit the spread of respiratory disease since the days of Doctors prescribing cigarettes, and before we even had penicillin.
We currently have people orbiting the planet in a metal box, while we have others down here debating the efficacy of masks and how we shouldn't believe science.
What conspiracy theories are those then? Questioning why my government fails to provide recovery stats 2 months after the promised delivery date? Questioning why they fail to publish any positive news regarding the virus? That's not a conspiracy. Those are valid questions.
Masks are worn in medical settings. Not necessary in supermarkets, especially the ones made from bits of old t shirts
I differ from you in that I just don't think that second spike is coming.
And you're willing to risk a helluva lot of lives on that assumption. The rest of us are not. Suck it up.
And FYI, getting people to use masks is not about maintaining a fear paralyzation, it's about trying to find a way forward to a semblance of normalcy without sacrificing a lot of lives needelessly.
Oh yeah, all those lives... C.0.7% of 0.07% of the population. Deaths were already incredibly low without mask laws. They are not necessary for a return to normal.
Azreal13 wrote: UK cases up 25% on average from 2 weeks ago, according to the evening news on the BBC, but thankfully my region and adjacent ones remain amongst the least affected.
Given the exponential nature of infection, one can see how 25% on relatively low infection rates could still get out of control without action fairly quickly.
Also from the same bulletin, sounds like Australia are nowhere near as under control as they first thought, with fresh lockdowns being mooted and apparently WA has closed its borders to all but necessary travellers.
Perhaps some antipodean dakkites can lend some insight into that beyond a news agency from the other side of the planet?
Interesting news about aussieland, I was surprised by how fast they seemed to get things under control. Mayhaps they did not, though I wouldn't peg that government as one to be massaging the stats so I wonder what happened.
Azreal13 wrote: UK cases up 25% on average from 2 weeks ago, according to the evening news on the BBC, but thankfully my region and adjacent ones remain amongst the least affected.
Given the exponential nature of infection, one can see how 25% on relatively low infection rates could still get out of control without action fairly quickly.
Also from the same bulletin, sounds like Australia are nowhere near as under control as they first thought, with fresh lockdowns being mooted and apparently WA has closed its borders to all but necessary travellers.
Perhaps some antipodean dakkites can lend some insight into that beyond a news agency from the other side of the planet?
While it's 25% of a fairly small number, those numbers are still a little worrying given, as you say, the potential for exponential growth. I strongly suspect we're seeing the effect of relaxing restrictions on pubs and restaurants starting to take effect. The conventional wisdom seemed to be that we'd know after two weeks and once we got past that two week mark there seemed to be a bit of a collective sigh of relief but I think the reality is it will take longer to see the effects of easing restrictions as not everyone would have been keen to rush to the pub on that first weekend. The mixing of more people at home probably hasn't helped.
I'm still waiting for a concrete explanation or at least an educated guess about what's caused the uptick in cases in the last week. It may be that I'm wrong about the opening of the pubs but it's hard to say without any good data.
Azreal13 wrote: UK cases up 25% on average from 2 weeks ago, according to the evening news on the BBC, but thankfully my region and adjacent ones remain amongst the least affected.
Given the exponential nature of infection, one can see how 25% on relatively low infection rates could still get out of control without action fairly quickly.
Also from the same bulletin, sounds like Australia are nowhere near as under control as they first thought, with fresh lockdowns being mooted and apparently WA has closed its borders to all but necessary travellers.
Perhaps some antipodean dakkites can lend some insight into that beyond a news agency from the other side of the planet?
Interesting news about aussieland, I was surprised by how fast they seemed to get things under control. Mayhaps they did not, though I wouldn't peg that government as one to be massaging the stats so I wonder what happened.
Yeah I don't think we ever had it under control as much as we sort of lucked out with our general structure. A lot of suburbs are really spread out and sort of isolated by areas of bushland and the like. But in the long run not even we're sure why we've been hit so lightly in comparison to other countries. And I think we only had the initial burst of infections from one cruise boat. Rather than tourists/migrants and the like coming straight from the point of infection.
But Vic is going into major lockdown now, already had a few people crossing interstate and spreading covid to NSW and the like again. And our gov is still sort of farting around aimlessly. But at least the PM isn't just dicking around in Hawaii like he did during the bushfires.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Freedom of speech is a separate rabbit hole that we should avoid here. also, I'm not spreading any conspiracy theories, and have insulted no one, despite receiving plenty myself.
It isnt really spreading. and even when there are rises in case numbers, deaths continue to fall.
Thats fine. I've laid out my logic. unless someone can come along and show my why its incorrect, which I doubt, unless a huge portion of the population suddenly becomes infected and deaths jump again, I stand by my reasoning.
Simply being ganged up on my the majority is not going to change my mind.
But it’s the masks that are preventing the infection and death rates from spiking again. It’s a circular argument. You seem to be saying that the masks aren’t necessary because there’s not been a spike, when it’s the masks that are the reason for why there hasn’t been a spike. You take away the masks it’ll spike again.
come on dude. Thats not even my reasoning. there was no spike forthcoming regardless of mask mandates. just look at the graphs.. the masks arent preventing anything, they became mandatory a week ago, when we've been at the bottom of our peak for about 3.5 months.
I guess nobody was wearing them before they became mandatory. Not a single soul in the country. But once they were mandatory! This is such a bad argument.
They most certainly the hell are not. Most of my state is still screaming about the mask requirements. My entire small company refuses to wear masks other than myself, until the moment they hear the doorbell chime alert them to a customer coming in, in which case they are only one until the customer leaves. One of my fellow employees is still going out to bars nearly every night.
I can't even tell you the last time that I, as a delivery driver of tools and appliances to apartment complexes, actually met a maintenance guy or someone in the leasing office with a mask on in the last two months I have been working since the statewide lockdown ended. And this is statewide, because sometimes I drive 250 miles a day on deliveries.
Even the guy that gave our company our first Covid scare, STILL didn't have a mask on the next time I had to deliver to his property. I have actually had customers try to guilt trip me into taking my mask off, by implying I was some sort of anxious baby for wearing one. My own boss says they aren't even worried about planning for if our store of only 8 employees gets infected, because "it probably won't ever happen".
We in America are sitting in a hole of our own making, which we dug as fast as possible.
Make sure to inform them that since they are not following proper procedure, if you can link an infection to any one of them you will make sure it is pursued to the furthest extent of the law.
They're trying to give employers immunity from lawsuits related to getting infected by Covid.
Yeah, I saw that. That is some real bs, honestly.
Edit: I look forward to when this is all over. When people are going back to work, but the people with permanent heart/lung damage cant go back to work. Then the same people will be saying "NOW ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE USED TO WELFARE SO NOW THEY DON'T WANT TO WORK! I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!" Meanwhile, not wearing the mask put these people in these situations. The same people complaining, like they complain about everything.
I had to get COVID tested for surgery, and they gave me the serious test that goes all the way up your nose and into your very soul. My body started involuntarily doggy-sneezing while the tube was in place, trying to expel it. It made my eyes water and my throat/soft palate soar for an hour. It wasn’t the worst feeling in the world, just uncomfortable in a way I wasn’t mentally prepared for. If you’ve ever had strong horseradish go in your sinus, it feels like that except that it’s over a lot faster.
Azreal13 wrote: UK cases up 25% on average from 2 weeks ago, according to the evening news on the BBC, but thankfully my region and adjacent ones remain amongst the least affected.
Given the exponential nature of infection, one can see how 25% on relatively low infection rates could still get out of control without action fairly quickly.
Also from the same bulletin, sounds like Australia are nowhere near as under control as they first thought, with fresh lockdowns being mooted and apparently WA has closed its borders to all but necessary travellers.
Perhaps some antipodean dakkites can lend some insight into that beyond a news agency from the other side of the planet?
Interesting news about aussieland, I was surprised by how fast they seemed to get things under control. Mayhaps they did not, though I wouldn't peg that government as one to be massaging the stats so I wonder what happened.
Yeah I don't think we ever had it under control as much as we sort of lucked out with our general structure. A lot of suburbs are really spread out and sort of isolated by areas of bushland and the like. But in the long run not even we're sure why we've been hit so lightly in comparison to other countries.
Probably because you are so used to the continent trying 50-ways-to-kill that a mere lethal disease is a walk in the park. Or swim in the ocean. With box jellyfish.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: I look forward to when this is all over. When people are going back to work, but the people with permanent heart/lung damage cant go back to work. Then the same people will be saying "NOW ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE USED TO WELFARE SO NOW THEY DON'T WANT TO WORK! I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!" Meanwhile, not wearing the mask put these people in these situations. The same people complaining, like they complain about everything.
It is coming.
Agreed, it is definitely coming. Those folks will stop complaining when they die and not a moment sooner.
Curiously I was just talking about that to a coworker with American background. I'm honestly more concerned about your fauna and flora. We don't have bears bigger than a fullgrown man that can outrun a car.
A lot of aussies are fairly soft all things considered. We're not like TF2s Saxton Hale. We have a fairly large elderly population and plenty of people with respiratory ailments (and a lot of heavy smokers) by all rights it's very odd we've only just passed the 200 mark in covid related deaths. And I don't think we're pulling what some of the dodgier countries are and hiding a few 0s on the end of the numbers. *cough China cough*
Dunno about China or Russia. But it looks like to no ones surprise Iran has not exactly been honest about there situation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53598965 Fairly concerning on an international level given all the pilgrims that regularly visit the holy sites there.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Dunno about China or Russia. But it looks like to no ones surprise Iran has not exactly been honest about there situation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53598965 Fairly concerning on an international level given all the pilgrims that regularly visit the holy sites there.
There are some tombs of imams in Iran but that's about it in terms of Islamic holy sites and I don't think any have massive numbers of visitors. I think how free-flowing the Kurdish region borders are might be a problem, though. Iraqi and Iranian Kurdistan aren't well provisioned with medocal infrastructure. Turkish Kurdistan is better but it's the part of the country the least government is least interested in supporting.
And in more "yes but no but yes but " from the UK government they are now going to pay 50% of the bill for eating out for the month of August. So at the same time as they are talking about reigning in relaxing lockdowns they are going to encourage people to go out more.
I get that pubs and restaurants need the money and custom and that its very hard right now with many reduced heavily on their capacity. At the same time its such a mixed message from the government.
Overread wrote: And in more "yes but no but yes but " from the UK government they are now going to pay 50% of the bill for eating out for the month of August. So at the same time as they are talking about reigning in relaxing lockdowns they are going to encourage people to go out more.
I get that pubs and restaurants need the money and custom and that its very hard right now with many reduced heavily on their capacity. At the same time its such a mixed message from the government.
And also at the same time as the governments new campaign on eating heathily and weight loss...
GoatboyBeta wrote: Dunno about China or Russia. But it looks like to no ones surprise Iran has not exactly been honest about there situation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53598965 Fairly concerning on an international level given all the pilgrims that regularly visit the holy sites there.
There are some tombs of imams in Iran but that's about it in terms of Islamic holy sites and I don't think any have massive numbers of visitors. I think how free-flowing the Kurdish region borders are might be a problem, though. Iraqi and Iranian Kurdistan aren't well provisioned with medocal infrastructure. Turkish Kurdistan is better but it's the part of the country the least government is least interested in supporting.
That's iffy though, some splinters of islam treat them like Catholics treat saints. Infact they don't even need to be imams to be considered holly funnily enough, and Iran has a lot of these sites as has north africa. (they are also generally targeted by Isis as a high priority target...)
For the second matter they often play a politically important role in the fight between Iran and Saudi arabia.
Overread wrote: And in more "yes but no but yes but " from the UK government they are now going to pay 50% of the bill for eating out for the month of August. So at the same time as they are talking about reigning in relaxing lockdowns they are going to encourage people to go out more.
I get that pubs and restaurants need the money and custom and that its very hard right now with many reduced heavily on their capacity. At the same time its such a mixed message from the government.
And also at the same time as the governments new campaign on eating heathily and weight loss...
I mean if owners of such establishment can have place outside and spread appart it might not be as harmfull , but that seriously depends on the locality no?
It feels like a catch-22 situation where we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, and the government is trying to absolve itself of responsibility.
So, we should socially distance in order to control the spread of the virus, but we should go out to eat in restaurants because the economy is getting clobbered, but we should cut down on what we eat because being overweight makes you more more susceptible to being badly affected by coronavirus...
We already saw similar with the change in message from the clear:
Stay home
Protect the NHS
Save lives
To the rather more nebulous and open to interpretation:
Stay alert
Control the virus
Save lives
I'm probably being overly cynical but it very much feels like the government is trying harder to avoid being blamed than it is trying to do the right thing...
Crispy78 wrote: It feels like a catch-22 situation where we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, and the government is trying to absolve itself of responsibility.
So, we should socially distance in order to control the spread of the virus, but we should go out to eat in restaurants because the economy is getting clobbered, but we should cut down on what we eat because being overweight makes you more more susceptible to being badly affected by coronavirus...
We already saw similar with the change in message from the clear:
Stay home
Protect the NHS
Save lives
To the rather more nebulous and open to interpretation:
Stay alert
Control the virus
Save lives
I'm probably being overly cynical but it very much feels like the government is trying harder to avoid being blamed than it is trying to do the right thing...
i doubt the government is attempting to not get blamed, infact they attempt this to not get blamed for increased unemployment.
Remember that sector has alot of people in there. it shutting down would mean alot more strain on welfare systems in place.
is it the correct way?
debatable, especially in cities with night clubs etc, beeing indoors. Which are the prefered superspreader environment atleast over here.
A restaurant having tables on the outside spaced appart and masked employees? shouldn't be an issue..
Well crap. Looks like the worldwide response to coronavirus may have an exacerbating effect on other infectious diseases like tuberculosis. I.e. people are scared to go in for diagnosis or treatment, and end up spreading these diseases.
The numbers in this article are discouraging. Up to 1.4 million additional deaths from TB, 770,000 from malaria and 500,000 from AIDS.
Edit: Ah,shoot. I thought this was a public article because it pertains to the pandemic but apparently you need to be a subscriber to read all of it. I can try to copy and paste or maybe there is another similar public source?
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah...you're going to have to also remember that one of the primary medications used for malaria is being peddled by the Cheeto in Chief as a wunderdrug to cure COVID19.
Is it possible to have a discussion about worldwide, scientific effects of the pandemic without getting back into politics? I get it, he's frustrating to me, too. That's not what the article is about at all, though. Did you try to read it? I'm not sure if maybe it will let non subscribers access one free article if they haven't already...
Not really. Not when he's literally made masks a political statement. Not when he's continually peddling a medication primarily used for malaria as a cure-all. Not when he's making reopening schools a political football.
And most definitely not when he's trying to claim that COVID is only up because testing is up.
Additionally, there's an important factor that you've overlooked with regards to those numbers:
TB, malaria, and AIDS? Why are you so surprised those numbers are up?
TB has an immunocompromising element to it. It also has a stigma of poverty attached to it...and in parts of Africa, it's stigmatically linked to AIDS.
AIDS is also an immunocompromising disease...it's right there in the name. Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome(AIDS).
I'm not an expert, obviously, but you don't see the problem in saying that it's the reaction to an epidemic that's caused this?
Kanluwen wrote: Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah...you're going to have to also remember that one of the primary medications used for malaria is being peddled by the Cheeto in Chief as a wunderdrug to cure COVID19.
Is there any evidence to prove there is a shortage of that medication? Also - it's not just these conditions. ER visits are down across the board.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/14/doctors-worry-the-coronavirus-is-keeping-patients-away-from-us-hospitals-as-er-visits-drop-heart-attacks-dont-stop.html Heart disease is the leading killer in the US and look at those reductions in ER visits for that condition alone. Just based on the numbers in my head and looking at excess deaths (outside of those assigned to covid) it appears to me (I'd love to see some real data on it) the fear of covid is taking a tole possibly even higher than covid.
Kanluwen wrote: Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah...you're going to have to also remember that one of the primary medications used for malaria is being peddled by the Cheeto in Chief as a wunderdrug to cure COVID19.
Is there any evidence to prove there is a shortage of that medication?
Kanluwen wrote: Yeaaaaaaaaaaaah...you're going to have to also remember that one of the primary medications used for malaria is being peddled by the Cheeto in Chief as a wunderdrug to cure COVID19.
Is there any evidence to prove there is a shortage of that medication?
That is concerning. Supply should catch up here in the states though. Malaria is literally of no concern here. Lupus doesn't kill you ether and there are a lot of other treatments.
https://www.lupus.org/resources/medications-used-to-treat-lupus Thank you though - you did prove there is a shortage of said medication. I wonder if it is an issue outside of the US.
And I made a point about how the 'worldwide response' is WORLDWIDE.
As much as people might want to pretend they're not, developing nations are reliant upon organizations like the WHO and established nations for medicinal supplies and the like. And hell, if you want me to spin it back more--realize that some of the issues surrounding what's happening in India and other areas? They were already happening. India apparently is the only place known for a medicine-resistant strain of TB.
The Director of Public Health in Trafford has been talking about how the current local spike in Manchester is very high in affluent white communities as well as amongst relatively young people. Putting it down to people who aren't in the communities who've been most stressed as in danger by the press not taking it very seriously, essentially.
Kanluwen - You didn't read the articke I posted, or any related source, as shown by your "Are you surprised the numbers are up?" comment. This is explained in depth in the article...
There are some unforeseen, and negative, side effects of the pandemic in countries already struggling with infectious diseases. If you only want to talk US politics-centric on this, that's fine, but again this is something broader. Do our struggles dealing with the pandemic have an effect? Absolutely. But there are a lot of other factors that are important, and which are discussed in the article I linked to.
If you do decide to read it, let me know and we can discuss it...
Literally can't read it, thanks to them not liking my adblocker.
And again, see why I mention that two of the three diseases listed are immunocompromisers...and while I didn't mention it initially remember that all all three also have had global programs tied to the WHO as key parts of handling them.
Did a little grain of faith in humanity die when you had to explain that yes, malaria is a problem outside the US? It had that effect for me upon reading it.
Did a little grain of faith in humanity die when you had to explain that yes, malaria is a problem outside the US? It had that effect for me upon reading it.
I was saying it's not a problem here. In other countries (mostly in Africa) it is a serious problem - I do think most people know that too. Just I hadn't seen that there was a medication shortage in other countries. There is - apparently. It's actually pretty shocking there is an extremely high prevalence to develop Lupus in Africa too. By all means there are lots of medical professionals prescribing the medication as a treatment for corona virus. Prices for the drug need to be locked internationally and governments need to put resources into developing more end of story.
Xenomancers wrote: That is concerning. Supply should catch up here in the states though. Malaria is literally of no concern here. Lupus doesn't kill you ether and there are a lot of other treatments.
https://www.lupus.org/resources/medications-used-to-treat-lupus Thank you though - you did prove there is a shortage of said medication. I wonder if it is an issue outside of the US.
Lupus absolutely can kill you, it's the treatment that restores your longevity. The reason that there's a lot of other treatments is because not all medications work for everybody.
The medical community at large does not really have a handle on what causes autoimmune disorders or the specifics of the mechanisms at work. Consequently what can be totally effective for one person can be worthless for another, and doctors don't really know why, they just rotate through until they (hopefully) find a medication that does the trick without making you feel worse than the disease does.
Even if someone could survive a period without their most effective medicine, the fact that they should need to do so because of idiots buying it up without any scientific basis for doing so is outrageous.
It could also inflict damage without "killing them" and the fact that not being dead seems to be your metric for dismissing it as an issue is almost as distressing as your apparent ignorance about the problems malaria causes in the world.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Have you really not realised that insulting people does absolutely nothing to change their mind?
Reasoning and begging didn't work. You also can't shame people into wearing masks who are so very convinced of being correct.
What else is left?
Leaving us alone.
Would love to do that but it gets complicated by the fact that anti-maskers still run around outside with potentially higher infection rates, and some are even attacking random employees for, for example, "outrageous" demands like stores wanting everybody to wear masks while shopping. That's kinda the whole point of this: Your actions don't only affect you in this case, yet we have to deal with it as a collective :/
RiTides wrote: Ah,shoot. I thought this was a public article because it pertains to the pandemic but apparently you need to be a subscriber to read all of it. I can try to copy and paste or maybe there is another similar public source?
I hope at least one person actually reads this after the effort I put in to make this readable:
Spoiler:
‘The Biggest Monster’ Is Spreading. And It’s Not the Coronavirus. Tuberculosis kills 1.5 million people each year. Lockdowns and supply-chain disruptions threaten progress against the disease as well as H.I.V. and malaria. By Apoorva Mandavilli
Aug. 3, 2020
Updated 10:51 a.m. ET
It begins with a mild fever and malaise, followed by a painful cough and shortness of breath. The infection prospers in crowds, spreading to people in close reach. Containing an outbreak requires contact tracing, as well as isolation and treatment of the sick for weeks or months.
This insidious disease has touched every part of the globe. It is tuberculosis, the biggest infectious-disease killer worldwide, claiming 1.5 million lives each year.
Until this year, TB and its deadly allies, H.I.V. and malaria, were on the run. The toll from each disease over the previous decade was at its nadir in 2018, the last year for which data are available.
Yet now, as the coronavirus pandemic spreads around the world, consuming global health resources, these perennially neglected adversaries are making a comeback.
“Covid-19 risks derailing all our efforts and taking us back to where we were 20 years ago,” said Dr. Pedro L. Alonso, the director of the World Health Organization’s global malaria program.
It’s not just that the coronavirus has diverted scientific attention from TB, H.I.V. and malaria. The lockdowns, particularly across parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America, have raised insurmountable barriers to patients who must travel to obtain diagnoses or drugs, according to interviews with more than two dozen public health officials, doctors and patients worldwide.
Fear of the coronavirus and the shuttering of clinics have kept away many patients struggling with H.I.V., TB and malaria, while restrictions on air and sea travel have severely limited delivery of medications to the hardest-hit regions.
About 80 percent of tuberculosis, H.I.V. and malaria programs worldwide have reported disruptions in services, and one in four people living with H.I.V. have reported problems with gaining access to medications, according to U.N. AIDS. Interruptions or delays in treatment may lead to drug resistance, already a formidable problem in many countries.
In India, home to about 27 percent of the world’s TB cases, diagnoses have dropped by nearly 75 percent since the pandemic began. In Russia, H.I.V. clinics have been repurposed for coronavirus testing.
Malaria season has begun in West Africa, which has 90 percent of malaria deaths in the world, but the normal strategies for prevention — distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets and spraying with pesticides — have been curtailed because of lockdowns.
According to one estimate, a three-month lockdown across different parts of the world and a gradual return to normal over 10 months could result in an additional 6.3 million cases of tuberculosis and 1.4 million deaths from it.
A six-month disruption of antiretroviral therapy may lead to more than 500,000 additional deaths from illnesses related to H.I.V., according to the W.H.O. Another model by the W.H.O. predicted that in the worst-case scenario, deaths from malaria could double to 770,000 per year.
Several public health experts, some close to tears, warned that if the current trends continue, the coronavirus is likely to set back years, perhaps decades, of painstaking progress against TB, H.I.V. and malaria.
The Global Fund, a public-private partnership to fight these diseases, estimates that mitigating this damage will require at least $28.5 billion, a sum that is unlikely to materialize.
Delays in diagnosis
If history is any guide, the coronavirus’s impact on the poor will be felt long after the pandemic is over. The socioeconomic crisis in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, for example, led to the highest rates in the world of a kind of TB that was resistant to multiple drugs, a dubious distinction the region holds even today.
The starting point in this ruinous chain of events is a failure to diagnose: The longer a person goes undiagnosed, and the later treatment begins, the more likely an infectious disease is to spread, sicken and kill.
For malaria, a short delay in diagnosis can swiftly turn fatal, sometimes within just 36 hours of a spiking fever. “It’s one of those diseases where we cannot afford to wait,” Dr. Alonso said.
Apprehensive about malaria’s rise in West Africa, the W.H.O. is now considering giving entire populations antimalarial drugs — a strategy of last resort used during the Ebola epidemic in West Africa and the Boko Haram insurgency.
Across sub-Saharan Africa, fewer women are coming to clinics for H.I.V. diagnosis. A six-month disruption in access to drugs that prevent H.I.V.-positive pregnant women from passing the infection to their babies in utero could increase H.I.V. infections in children by as much as 139 percent in Uganda and 162 percent in Malawi, according to U.N. AIDS.
Diminishing diagnostic capacity may have the greatest effect on TB, leading to dire consequences for households because, like the coronavirus, the bacterium spreads most efficiently in indoor air and among people in close contact.
Each person with TB can spread the disease to another 15 individuals over a year, sharply raising the possibility of people infected while indoors spreading it among their communities once lockdowns end. The prospect is especially worrisome in densely populated places with high rates of T.B., such as the favelas of Rio de Janeiro or the townships of South Africa.
“The more you leave undiagnosed and untreated, the more you will have next year and the year after,” said Dr. Lucica Ditiu, who heads the Stop TB Partnership, an international consortium of 1,700 groups fighting the disease.
The infrastructure built to diagnose H.I.V. and TB has been a boon for many countries grappling with the coronavirus. GeneXpert, the tool used to detect genetic material from the TB bacteria and from H.I.V., can also amplify RNA from the coronavirus for diagnosis.
But now most clinics are using the machines only to look for the coronavirus. Prioritizing the coronavirus over T.B. is “very stupid from a public health perspective,” Dr. Ditiu said. “You should actually be smart and do both.”
In country after country, the pandemic has resulted in sharp drops in diagnoses of TB: a 70 percent decline in Indonesia, 50 percent in Mozambique and South Africa, and 20 percent in China, according to the W.H.O.
In late May in Mexico, as coronavirus infections climbed, TB diagnoses recorded by the government fell to 263 cases from 1,097 the same week last year.
Dr. Giorgio Franyuti, the executive director of Medical Impact, an advocacy group based in Mexico, normally works in the country’s remote jungles, diagnosing and treating TB in the Lacandon people. Unable to travel there during the pandemic, he has worked at a makeshift army hospital treating Covid-19 patients in Mexico City.
There, he has seen nine patients with a sputum-filled cough — characteristic of TB — that began months earlier but who were presumed to have Covid-19. The patients later contracted the coronavirus in the hospital and became seriously ill. At least four have died.
“Nobody is testing for TB at any facility,” he said. “The mind of clinicians in Mexico, as well as decision makers, is stuck with Covid-19.”
“TB is the biggest monster of them all. If we’re talking about deaths and pandemics, 10 million cases a year,” he said, Covid doesn’t compare yet to that toll.
India went into lockdown on March 24, and the government directed public hospitals to focus on Covid-19. Many hospitals shuttered outpatient services for other diseases.
The impact on TB diagnoses was immediate: The number of new cases recorded by the Indian government between March 25 and June 19 was 60,486, compared with 179,792 during the same period in 2019.
The pandemic is also shrinking the supply of diagnostic tests for these killers as companies turn to making more expensive tests to detect the coronavirus. Cepheid, the California-based manufacturer of TB diagnostic tests, has pivoted to making tests for the coronavirus. Companies that make diagnostic tests for malaria are doing the same, according to Dr. Catharina Boehme, the chief executive of the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics.
Coronavirus tests are much more lucrative, at about $10, compared with 18 cents for a rapid malaria test.
These companies “have tremendous demand for Covid right now,” said Dr. Madhukar Pai, the director of the McGill International TB Centre in Montreal. “I can’t imagine diseases of poverty getting any attention in this space.”
Treatment interruptions
The pandemic has hindered the availability of drugs for H.I.V., TB and malaria worldwide by interrupting supply chains, diverting manufacturing capacity and imposing physical barriers for patients who must travel to distant clinics to pick up the medications.
And these shortages are forcing some patients to ration their medications, endangering their health. In Indonesia, the official policy is to provide a month’s supply of drugs at a time to H.I.V. patients, but antiretroviral therapy has lately been hard to come by outside of Jakarta.
Even in the city, some people are stretching a month’s supply to two, said “Davi” Sepi Maulana Ardiansyah, an activist with the group Inti Muda.
Mr. Ardiansyah has done so himself, although he knows it has jeopardized his well-being. “This pandemic and this unavailability of the medicines is really impacting our mental health and also our health,” he said.
During the lockdown in Nairobi, Thomas Wuoto, who has H.I.V., borrowed antiretroviral pills from his wife, who also is infected. As a volunteer educator for H.I.V., Mr. Wuoto knew only too well that he was risking drug resistance by mixing or skipping medications. When he finally made it to the Mbagathi County Hospital, he had gone 10 days without his H.I.V. medicines, the first time since 2002 that he had missed his therapy.
People with H.I.V. and TB who skip medication are likely to get sicker in the short term. In the long term, there’s an even more worrisome consequence: a rise in drug-resistant forms of these diseases. Already drug-resistant TB is such a threat that patients are closely monitored during treatment — a practice that has mostly been suspended during the pandemic.
According to the W.H.O., at least 121 countries have reported a drop in TB patients visiting clinics since the pandemic began, threatening hard-fought gains.
“This is really difficult to digest,” Dr. Ditiu said. “It took a lot of work to arrive where we are. We were not at the peak of the mountain, but we were away from the base. But then an avalanche came and pushed us back to the bottom.”
The lockdowns in many places were imposed so swiftly that drug stocks were rapidly depleted. Mexico already had expired drugs in its supply, but that problem has been exacerbated by the pandemic, according to Dr. Franyuti.
In Brazil, H.I.V. and TB drugs are purchased and distributed by the ministry of health. But the coronavirus is racing through the country, and distribution of these treatments has become increasingly difficult as health care workers try to cope with the pandemic’s toll.
“It’s a big logistical challenge to have municipalities have higher stock so they can supply,” said Dr. Betina Durovni, a senior scientist at the Fiocruz Foundation, a research institute in Brazil.
Even if governments are prepared, with some help from big aid agencies, to buy drugs months in advance, the global supply may soon run out.
The pandemic has severely restricted international transport, hindering the availability not just of chemical ingredients and raw materials, but also of packaging supplies.
“The disruption of supply chains is really something that worries me — for H.I.V., for TB, for malaria,” said Dr. Carlos del Rio, chair of the scientific advisory board of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
The hype over chloroquine as a potential treatment for the coronavirus has led to hoarding of the drug in some countries like Myanmar, depleting its global stocks.
More than 80 percent of the global supply of antiretroviral drugs comes from just eight Indian companies. The cost of these alone could rise by $225 million per year because of shortfalls in supplies and work force, transport disruptions and currency fluctuations, according to U.N. AIDS.
There is also a real risk that Indian companies will turn to more profitable medicines, or will not be able to meet the global demand because migrant workers have deserted cities as the coronavirus spreads.
The Indian government may even decide not to export T.B. medicines, saving its supply for its own citizens.
“We’re very dependent on a few key developers or manufacturers for all of the drugs around the world, and that needs to be diversified,” said Dr. Meg Doherty, who directs H.I.V. programs at the W.H.O. “If you had more locally developed drug depots or drug manufacturers, it would be closer to the point of need.”
Aid organizations and governments are trying to mitigate some of the damage by stretching supplies and stockpiling medications. In June, the W.H.O. changed its recommendation for treatment of drug-resistant TB. Instead of 20 months of injections, patients may now take pills for nine to 11 months. The change means patients don’t have to travel to clinics, increasingly closed by lockdowns.
More than half of 144 countries surveyed by the W.H.O. said they have opted to give patients H.I.V. drugs sufficient to last for at least three months — six months, in the case of a few countries like South Sudan — in order to limit their trips to hospitals. But it’s unclear how successful those efforts have been.
In some countries, such as the Philippines, advocacy groups have set up depots for patients to pick up antiretroviral pills or arrange to drop them off at patients’ homes.
In a few nations, like South Africa, most patients already pick up medications from community centers rather than from hospitals, said Dr. Salim S. Abdool Karim, a global health expert in South Africa and the chair of a government advisory committee on Covid-19. “That has been an important advantage in a way.”
‘What are we not doing right?’
The pandemic has exposed deep fissures in the health care systems of many countries.
In Zimbabwe, staffs in public hospitals were working reduced shifts even before the pandemic, because the government could not afford to pay their full salaries. Some hospitals like the Sally Mugabe Central Hospital in Harare — which was operating at half capacity because of water shortages and other problems — have since closed their outpatient departments, where TB and H.I.V. patients received their medications.
“Hospitals are functioning in an emergency mode,” said Dr. Tapiwa Mungofa, a physician at the Sally Mugabe Hospital.
The situation is no better in KwaZulu-Natal, which has the highest prevalence of H.I.V. in South Africa. Dr. Zolelwa Sifumba was a teenager when she saw images of skeletal patients dying of AIDS. Over the past few years in KwaZulu-Natal, she is again seeing patients with full-blown AIDS.
“We’re seeing people come in at the stage where they’re kind of on death’s door,” she said. “What are we not doing right?”
Some remote parts of the world are being decimated by the coronavirus — but their very remoteness makes the pandemic’s impact on these other big infectious killers impossible to measure.
The town of Tabatinga in Amazonas, the biggest state in Brazil, is more than 1,000 miles from the closest city with an I.C.U., Manaus. The government has been using airplanes to transport coronavirus patients to Manaus, but many cases are being missed, said Dr. Marcelo Cordeiro-Santos, a researcher at the Tropical Medicine Foundation in Manaus.
Hospitals are giving chloroquine to people with Covid-19, at the recommendation of the Brazilian ministry of health, even though evidence now suggests it does not help and may even be harmful.
Chloroquine is also a crucial malaria medicine, and its indiscriminate use now may lead to resistance to the drug, Dr. Cordeiro-Santos warned — with possibly dire consequences for those infected in the future. But he also said it’s possible that widespread distribution of chloroquine may help protect residents of Amazonas from malaria.
Other experts said they hope the coronavirus pandemic brings some silver linings.
Aid agencies have long recommended that countries buy drugs in bulk and provide several months’ supply at a time to their citizens. Some governments are considering doing so now for H.I.V., according to Dr. Doherty at the W.H.O.
Health care providers are also embracing video and phone calls to counsel and treat patients, which many people find far easier than traveling to distant clinics.
“Sometimes systems are tough to change,” said Dr. del Rio, “but I think there’s nothing better than a crisis to change the system, right?”
The Article wrote:The hype over chloroquine as a potential treatment for the coronavirus has led to hoarding of the drug in some countries like Myanmar, depleting its global stocks.
Hospitals are giving chloroquine to people with Covid-19, at the recommendation of the Brazilian ministry of health, even though evidence now suggests it does not help and may even be harmful.
Chloroquine is also a crucial malaria medicine, and its indiscriminate use now may lead to resistance to the drug, Dr. Cordeiro-Santos warned — with possibly dire consequences for those infected in the future. But he also said it’s possible that widespread distribution of chloroquine may help protect residents of Amazonas from malaria.
That's why I brought up what I did initially, RiTides. Just because I didn't read your specific article(beyond what I could get by fast-skimming before it 'blocked' me), does not mean that I have not paid attention to what is going on in the world.
If you just don't want me posting in this thread for fear of stirring up politics, just say so. But I damn well expect you to start cracking down on a specific poster in here. Ignore is not enough of an option when other people are requoting them, and the kinds of crap they're posting is begging to be replied to.
So something totally different.
My area has several big refineries and one is permanently closing do to decreased demand in gas, despite my county/state opening up more.
While it might not be, im wondering if these might end up being a result of a work from home revolution.
I think we are starting to realize just how much of our life revolved around work, not just the act of working, but the physical place of work, and how much of our infrastructure of was built getting people too work.
I definitely do not need to be physically at my workplace to do any part of my job.
The only reason I am here now is because of my employer's compulsive need to exert control over me (while they work remote, because Covid is on an upswing here, and they don't want to maybe get sick obviously).
Ouze wrote: I definitely do not need to be physically at my workplace to do any part of my job.
The only reason I am here now is because of my employer's compulsive need to exert control over me (while they work remote, because Covid is on an upswing here, and they don't want to maybe get sick obviously).
US culture in a nutshell.
Thanks for reformatting that article btw. Count me among those who had no idea the tb/malaria/HIV situation was being exacerbated so much by all this. But hey at least I know malaria comes from Africa!
I would certainly welcome a world where the majority of the people with general office type jobs work from home. You really don't need to sit in traffic every morning to get your job done. I'm not a hippie tree hugger, but imagine how much better the environment could be with like 50% less smog. Not that it would stop some people from having 4 cars in the driveway when they only need 1. Then there's the extra benefit of not having to get up so early since you need to make time for your commute, so you can get a little more rest each day. For me, my commute was 70-80 minutes. It sucked.
I've barely left the house since March and loving it. I go out twice a week, once for a grocery run and another time to maybe get some takeout.. both times with curbside delivery so I don't have to go inside where there's potential cooties. Just bummed we had to cancel our June cruise, but we got a 125% credit to postpone it till next year.
RiTides wrote: Ah,shoot. I thought this was a public article because it pertains to the pandemic but apparently you need to be a subscriber to read all of it. I can try to copy and paste or maybe there is another similar public source?
I hope at least one person actually reads this after the effort I put in to make this readable:
Spoiler:
‘The Biggest Monster’ Is Spreading. And It’s Not the Coronavirus. Tuberculosis kills 1.5 million people each year. Lockdowns and supply-chain disruptions threaten progress against the disease as well as H.I.V. and malaria. By Apoorva Mandavilli
Aug. 3, 2020
Updated 10:51 a.m. ET
It begins with a mild fever and malaise, followed by a painful cough and shortness of breath. The infection prospers in crowds, spreading to people in close reach. Containing an outbreak requires contact tracing, as well as isolation and treatment of the sick for weeks or months.
This insidious disease has touched every part of the globe. It is tuberculosis, the biggest infectious-disease killer worldwide, claiming 1.5 million lives each year.
Until this year, TB and its deadly allies, H.I.V. and malaria, were on the run. The toll from each disease over the previous decade was at its nadir in 2018, the last year for which data are available.
Yet now, as the coronavirus pandemic spreads around the world, consuming global health resources, these perennially neglected adversaries are making a comeback.
“Covid-19 risks derailing all our efforts and taking us back to where we were 20 years ago,” said Dr. Pedro L. Alonso, the director of the World Health Organization’s global malaria program.
It’s not just that the coronavirus has diverted scientific attention from TB, H.I.V. and malaria. The lockdowns, particularly across parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America, have raised insurmountable barriers to patients who must travel to obtain diagnoses or drugs, according to interviews with more than two dozen public health officials, doctors and patients worldwide.
Fear of the coronavirus and the shuttering of clinics have kept away many patients struggling with H.I.V., TB and malaria, while restrictions on air and sea travel have severely limited delivery of medications to the hardest-hit regions.
About 80 percent of tuberculosis, H.I.V. and malaria programs worldwide have reported disruptions in services, and one in four people living with H.I.V. have reported problems with gaining access to medications, according to U.N. AIDS. Interruptions or delays in treatment may lead to drug resistance, already a formidable problem in many countries.
In India, home to about 27 percent of the world’s TB cases, diagnoses have dropped by nearly 75 percent since the pandemic began. In Russia, H.I.V. clinics have been repurposed for coronavirus testing.
Malaria season has begun in West Africa, which has 90 percent of malaria deaths in the world, but the normal strategies for prevention — distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets and spraying with pesticides — have been curtailed because of lockdowns.
According to one estimate, a three-month lockdown across different parts of the world and a gradual return to normal over 10 months could result in an additional 6.3 million cases of tuberculosis and 1.4 million deaths from it.
A six-month disruption of antiretroviral therapy may lead to more than 500,000 additional deaths from illnesses related to H.I.V., according to the W.H.O. Another model by the W.H.O. predicted that in the worst-case scenario, deaths from malaria could double to 770,000 per year.
Several public health experts, some close to tears, warned that if the current trends continue, the coronavirus is likely to set back years, perhaps decades, of painstaking progress against TB, H.I.V. and malaria.
The Global Fund, a public-private partnership to fight these diseases, estimates that mitigating this damage will require at least $28.5 billion, a sum that is unlikely to materialize.
Delays in diagnosis
If history is any guide, the coronavirus’s impact on the poor will be felt long after the pandemic is over. The socioeconomic crisis in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, for example, led to the highest rates in the world of a kind of TB that was resistant to multiple drugs, a dubious distinction the region holds even today.
The starting point in this ruinous chain of events is a failure to diagnose: The longer a person goes undiagnosed, and the later treatment begins, the more likely an infectious disease is to spread, sicken and kill.
For malaria, a short delay in diagnosis can swiftly turn fatal, sometimes within just 36 hours of a spiking fever. “It’s one of those diseases where we cannot afford to wait,” Dr. Alonso said.
Apprehensive about malaria’s rise in West Africa, the W.H.O. is now considering giving entire populations antimalarial drugs — a strategy of last resort used during the Ebola epidemic in West Africa and the Boko Haram insurgency.
Across sub-Saharan Africa, fewer women are coming to clinics for H.I.V. diagnosis. A six-month disruption in access to drugs that prevent H.I.V.-positive pregnant women from passing the infection to their babies in utero could increase H.I.V. infections in children by as much as 139 percent in Uganda and 162 percent in Malawi, according to U.N. AIDS.
Diminishing diagnostic capacity may have the greatest effect on TB, leading to dire consequences for households because, like the coronavirus, the bacterium spreads most efficiently in indoor air and among people in close contact.
Each person with TB can spread the disease to another 15 individuals over a year, sharply raising the possibility of people infected while indoors spreading it among their communities once lockdowns end. The prospect is especially worrisome in densely populated places with high rates of T.B., such as the favelas of Rio de Janeiro or the townships of South Africa.
“The more you leave undiagnosed and untreated, the more you will have next year and the year after,” said Dr. Lucica Ditiu, who heads the Stop TB Partnership, an international consortium of 1,700 groups fighting the disease.
The infrastructure built to diagnose H.I.V. and TB has been a boon for many countries grappling with the coronavirus. GeneXpert, the tool used to detect genetic material from the TB bacteria and from H.I.V., can also amplify RNA from the coronavirus for diagnosis.
But now most clinics are using the machines only to look for the coronavirus. Prioritizing the coronavirus over T.B. is “very stupid from a public health perspective,” Dr. Ditiu said. “You should actually be smart and do both.”
In country after country, the pandemic has resulted in sharp drops in diagnoses of TB: a 70 percent decline in Indonesia, 50 percent in Mozambique and South Africa, and 20 percent in China, according to the W.H.O.
In late May in Mexico, as coronavirus infections climbed, TB diagnoses recorded by the government fell to 263 cases from 1,097 the same week last year.
Dr. Giorgio Franyuti, the executive director of Medical Impact, an advocacy group based in Mexico, normally works in the country’s remote jungles, diagnosing and treating TB in the Lacandon people. Unable to travel there during the pandemic, he has worked at a makeshift army hospital treating Covid-19 patients in Mexico City.
There, he has seen nine patients with a sputum-filled cough — characteristic of TB — that began months earlier but who were presumed to have Covid-19. The patients later contracted the coronavirus in the hospital and became seriously ill. At least four have died.
“Nobody is testing for TB at any facility,” he said. “The mind of clinicians in Mexico, as well as decision makers, is stuck with Covid-19.”
“TB is the biggest monster of them all. If we’re talking about deaths and pandemics, 10 million cases a year,” he said, Covid doesn’t compare yet to that toll.
India went into lockdown on March 24, and the government directed public hospitals to focus on Covid-19. Many hospitals shuttered outpatient services for other diseases.
The impact on TB diagnoses was immediate: The number of new cases recorded by the Indian government between March 25 and June 19 was 60,486, compared with 179,792 during the same period in 2019.
The pandemic is also shrinking the supply of diagnostic tests for these killers as companies turn to making more expensive tests to detect the coronavirus. Cepheid, the California-based manufacturer of TB diagnostic tests, has pivoted to making tests for the coronavirus. Companies that make diagnostic tests for malaria are doing the same, according to Dr. Catharina Boehme, the chief executive of the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics.
Coronavirus tests are much more lucrative, at about $10, compared with 18 cents for a rapid malaria test.
These companies “have tremendous demand for Covid right now,” said Dr. Madhukar Pai, the director of the McGill International TB Centre in Montreal. “I can’t imagine diseases of poverty getting any attention in this space.”
Treatment interruptions
The pandemic has hindered the availability of drugs for H.I.V., TB and malaria worldwide by interrupting supply chains, diverting manufacturing capacity and imposing physical barriers for patients who must travel to distant clinics to pick up the medications.
And these shortages are forcing some patients to ration their medications, endangering their health. In Indonesia, the official policy is to provide a month’s supply of drugs at a time to H.I.V. patients, but antiretroviral therapy has lately been hard to come by outside of Jakarta.
Even in the city, some people are stretching a month’s supply to two, said “Davi” Sepi Maulana Ardiansyah, an activist with the group Inti Muda.
Mr. Ardiansyah has done so himself, although he knows it has jeopardized his well-being. “This pandemic and this unavailability of the medicines is really impacting our mental health and also our health,” he said.
During the lockdown in Nairobi, Thomas Wuoto, who has H.I.V., borrowed antiretroviral pills from his wife, who also is infected. As a volunteer educator for H.I.V., Mr. Wuoto knew only too well that he was risking drug resistance by mixing or skipping medications. When he finally made it to the Mbagathi County Hospital, he had gone 10 days without his H.I.V. medicines, the first time since 2002 that he had missed his therapy.
People with H.I.V. and TB who skip medication are likely to get sicker in the short term. In the long term, there’s an even more worrisome consequence: a rise in drug-resistant forms of these diseases. Already drug-resistant TB is such a threat that patients are closely monitored during treatment — a practice that has mostly been suspended during the pandemic.
According to the W.H.O., at least 121 countries have reported a drop in TB patients visiting clinics since the pandemic began, threatening hard-fought gains.
“This is really difficult to digest,” Dr. Ditiu said. “It took a lot of work to arrive where we are. We were not at the peak of the mountain, but we were away from the base. But then an avalanche came and pushed us back to the bottom.”
The lockdowns in many places were imposed so swiftly that drug stocks were rapidly depleted. Mexico already had expired drugs in its supply, but that problem has been exacerbated by the pandemic, according to Dr. Franyuti.
In Brazil, H.I.V. and TB drugs are purchased and distributed by the ministry of health. But the coronavirus is racing through the country, and distribution of these treatments has become increasingly difficult as health care workers try to cope with the pandemic’s toll.
“It’s a big logistical challenge to have municipalities have higher stock so they can supply,” said Dr. Betina Durovni, a senior scientist at the Fiocruz Foundation, a research institute in Brazil.
Even if governments are prepared, with some help from big aid agencies, to buy drugs months in advance, the global supply may soon run out.
The pandemic has severely restricted international transport, hindering the availability not just of chemical ingredients and raw materials, but also of packaging supplies.
“The disruption of supply chains is really something that worries me — for H.I.V., for TB, for malaria,” said Dr. Carlos del Rio, chair of the scientific advisory board of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
The hype over chloroquine as a potential treatment for the coronavirus has led to hoarding of the drug in some countries like Myanmar, depleting its global stocks.
More than 80 percent of the global supply of antiretroviral drugs comes from just eight Indian companies. The cost of these alone could rise by $225 million per year because of shortfalls in supplies and work force, transport disruptions and currency fluctuations, according to U.N. AIDS.
There is also a real risk that Indian companies will turn to more profitable medicines, or will not be able to meet the global demand because migrant workers have deserted cities as the coronavirus spreads.
The Indian government may even decide not to export T.B. medicines, saving its supply for its own citizens.
“We’re very dependent on a few key developers or manufacturers for all of the drugs around the world, and that needs to be diversified,” said Dr. Meg Doherty, who directs H.I.V. programs at the W.H.O. “If you had more locally developed drug depots or drug manufacturers, it would be closer to the point of need.”
Aid organizations and governments are trying to mitigate some of the damage by stretching supplies and stockpiling medications. In June, the W.H.O. changed its recommendation for treatment of drug-resistant TB. Instead of 20 months of injections, patients may now take pills for nine to 11 months. The change means patients don’t have to travel to clinics, increasingly closed by lockdowns.
More than half of 144 countries surveyed by the W.H.O. said they have opted to give patients H.I.V. drugs sufficient to last for at least three months — six months, in the case of a few countries like South Sudan — in order to limit their trips to hospitals. But it’s unclear how successful those efforts have been.
In some countries, such as the Philippines, advocacy groups have set up depots for patients to pick up antiretroviral pills or arrange to drop them off at patients’ homes.
In a few nations, like South Africa, most patients already pick up medications from community centers rather than from hospitals, said Dr. Salim S. Abdool Karim, a global health expert in South Africa and the chair of a government advisory committee on Covid-19. “That has been an important advantage in a way.”
‘What are we not doing right?’
The pandemic has exposed deep fissures in the health care systems of many countries.
In Zimbabwe, staffs in public hospitals were working reduced shifts even before the pandemic, because the government could not afford to pay their full salaries. Some hospitals like the Sally Mugabe Central Hospital in Harare — which was operating at half capacity because of water shortages and other problems — have since closed their outpatient departments, where TB and H.I.V. patients received their medications.
“Hospitals are functioning in an emergency mode,” said Dr. Tapiwa Mungofa, a physician at the Sally Mugabe Hospital.
The situation is no better in KwaZulu-Natal, which has the highest prevalence of H.I.V. in South Africa. Dr. Zolelwa Sifumba was a teenager when she saw images of skeletal patients dying of AIDS. Over the past few years in KwaZulu-Natal, she is again seeing patients with full-blown AIDS.
“We’re seeing people come in at the stage where they’re kind of on death’s door,” she said. “What are we not doing right?”
Some remote parts of the world are being decimated by the coronavirus — but their very remoteness makes the pandemic’s impact on these other big infectious killers impossible to measure.
The town of Tabatinga in Amazonas, the biggest state in Brazil, is more than 1,000 miles from the closest city with an I.C.U., Manaus. The government has been using airplanes to transport coronavirus patients to Manaus, but many cases are being missed, said Dr. Marcelo Cordeiro-Santos, a researcher at the Tropical Medicine Foundation in Manaus.
Hospitals are giving chloroquine to people with Covid-19, at the recommendation of the Brazilian ministry of health, even though evidence now suggests it does not help and may even be harmful.
Chloroquine is also a crucial malaria medicine, and its indiscriminate use now may lead to resistance to the drug, Dr. Cordeiro-Santos warned — with possibly dire consequences for those infected in the future. But he also said it’s possible that widespread distribution of chloroquine may help protect residents of Amazonas from malaria.
Other experts said they hope the coronavirus pandemic brings some silver linings.
Aid agencies have long recommended that countries buy drugs in bulk and provide several months’ supply at a time to their citizens. Some governments are considering doing so now for H.I.V., according to Dr. Doherty at the W.H.O.
Health care providers are also embracing video and phone calls to counsel and treat patients, which many people find far easier than traveling to distant clinics.
“Sometimes systems are tough to change,” said Dr. del Rio, “but I think there’s nothing better than a crisis to change the system, right?”
Oh man, thanks Ouze!!! That really was daunting, which is why I didn't earlier. Really appreciate it
So that's what I was referring to with the possible / projected millions of additional deaths from tuberculosis, HIV and malaria, and setting back the progress of containing the spread of these diseases decades. I really hope those projections are not accurate
At some point it will click with companies that they can give their employees an effective pay raise without needing to pay for it, by implementing work from home. Removing commutes cuts the amount of time spent pseudo-working each week without cutting salary, meaning the hours remaining are worth more. Additionally it lowers expenses like gas, freeing up more of the employee's budget.
Kanluwen wrote: Literally can't read it, thanks to them not liking my adblocker.
And again, see why I mention that two of the three diseases listed are immunocompromisers...and while I didn't mention it initially remember that all all three also have had global programs tied to the WHO as key parts of handling them.
I'm going to side with kanluwen here, i can't read some articles people post to a lot of tmes.
Sometimes it's my adblocker.
Other times people post to subscription sites and when I start to read it a giant screen block appears with "To continue reading SUBSCRIBE! MONEY!" which puts me in a state of homicidal rage.
If you have a subscription to a site please don;t post links to articles on it without noting you need a subscription. It's infuriating to some people
nfe wrote: There are some tombs of imams in Iran but that's about it in terms of Islamic holy sites and I don't think any have massive numbers of visitors.
For Shia Islam, Iran is second only to Mecca for Pilgrimage.
EDIT: I'd happily turn my ad blocker off if hosts would take some damn responsibility for the ads that appear on their site. But they don't. So feth that.
Mario wrote: Would love to do that but it gets complicated by the fact that anti-maskers still run around outside with potentially higher infection rates, and some are even attacking random employees for, for example, "outrageous" demands like stores wanting everybody to wear masks while shopping. That's kinda the whole point of this: Your actions don't only affect you in this case, yet we have to deal with it as a collective :/
Sigh. Stores=\=Government.
FYI, over here in the UK, those 'anti-maskers' (AKA regular people), make up about 90% of the population. Before this decree I'd see 2 or 3 people wearing masks in the 50-60 people in the supermarket. The vast majority of people didn't care about masks. And now that it's law, do you think they suddenly care/believe the hype? All that's happened is those people have split into those who are either too docile to care that the government is playing them for fools, or are angry about it same as I am. The only people who are happy are a small minority who want to see their own actions and opinions forced on others against their will.
Ah so it's appeals to emotion and name calling for me, but good faith argument for thee? Fair enough.
Well that 90% was an estimation based on my experiences in public. Turns out I wasn't too far off. Most surveys before the new diktat have mask usage between 20-30%, rising slightly just before and steeply after. Threat of fines will do that I guess.
Right, over to you Queen Anne’s Revenge. I await with interest your counter citation from peer reviewed resources. Just in case, David Avocado Wolfe and Goop do not count
Why would I cite peer reviewed evidence? You're arguing a different point to me, again. I assert that it's not enough to justify the government making them mandatory in arbitrary places like supermarkets. If so, why not make them mandatory everywhere? And why not make the fine £1000? £10 000?
Another study saying that masks DO protect the wearer. Excellent. Let individuals decide whether to wear them or not then.
Do you really have no qualms at all about being an unwitting vector, given this virus kills, and can leave survivors with serious, lasting lung damage, and possibly brain damage?
Is wearing a mask really that much of a bother? Beyond “I don’t wanna”, do you have legitimate medical reasons not to wear a mask?
Do you understand how wearing a non-surgical mask helps reduce infection rates?
Or do you only get so far as “I don’t wanna”, dig your heels in, then argue until your blue in the face, despite a lack of factual information to support your position?
Do you understand that where a recommendation, based on solid scientific evidence, is ignored, the Government is left with no option to introduce a new law? As they did with seatbelts. And airbags. And not drink driving. And frankly thousands of other public safety related laws?
nfe wrote: There are some tombs of imams in Iran but that's about it in terms of Islamic holy sites and I don't think any have massive numbers of visitors.
For Shia Islam, Iran is second only to Mecca for Pilgrimage.
Najaf, Samarra, and Kurbala are much bigger deals than any Iranian shrine in terms of holiness, but fair game on checking the bigger Iranian shrined do get a stack more visitors than I thought. No idea how many are from outside Iran, though.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Mario wrote: Would love to do that but it gets complicated by the fact that anti-maskers still run around outside with potentially higher infection rates, and some are even attacking random employees for, for example, "outrageous" demands like stores wanting everybody to wear masks while shopping. That's kinda the whole point of this: Your actions don't only affect you in this case, yet we have to deal with it as a collective :/
Sigh. Stores=\=Government.
FYI, over here in the UK, those 'anti-maskers' (AKA regular people), make up about 90% of the population. Before this decree I'd see 2 or 3 people wearing masks in the 50-60 people in the supermarket. The vast majority of people didn't care about masks. And now that it's law, do you think they suddenly care/believe the hype? All that's happened is those people have split into those who are either too docile to care that the government is playing them for fools, or are angry about it same as I am. The only people who are happy are a small minority who want to see their own actions and opinions forced on others against their will.
This is an anecdote fleshed out with some pop psychology and then extrapolated to represent the average ideological positions of almost 70 million people.
People who think masks are a perfectly reasonable idea are also normal people and your wild-guess 90% is baseless. That a person was not wearing a mask prior to a law change does not mean they fundamentally oppose them and are now being strongarmed into obedience.
People's opinions do change. One of the things likely to prompt that, for good or ill, are changes to laws or governmental advice. When government decided that, actually, four pints is probably too much to drink before driving, was everyone who said 'yeah, that's probably fair enough really' a docile little cuckold? Is it possible that some people who did regularly tan four pints and drive home did so because they could and they fancied it that night, rather than because they thought it was their moral right or libertarian duty?
Same here. Plenty were a bit lazy or vain or just didn't fancy masks. Plenty doing so knew that they should probably be wearing a mask but thought 'well, when it's really important someone will mandate it'. Now they have. Lots of others will have thought that they just didn't really want to stand out as ones of those few wearing them but are perfectly comfortable now it's the norm. Lots of others will have thought lots of different things that don't occur to me in the last 30 seconds of typing. People vary.
Following rules coming into force on Friday that mean all Britons must now wear face masks in shops, the proportion of Britons donning a facial covering has shot up.
On July 12 only 38% of Britons reported having worn a face mask in the previous fortnight. As of this weekend [July 27, 2020] that figure has surged by almost 20 percentage points to 57%.
Anecdotally, nearly everyone I saw in Warwick yesterday had a mask on when inside.
"Let individuals decide whether to [infect anyone near] them or not then."
Matt Swain - It's a bit hard to tell with the NYT, as their coronavirus coverage is free but not the rest.
Luckily, Ouze copied and pasted the whole article into this thread, if you're interested in reading it! It's quoted in my post to Ouze further up this page, as well.
Edit: Make that last page! So here it is quoted over to the new one:
RiTides wrote: Ah,shoot. I thought this was a public article because it pertains to the pandemic but apparently you need to be a subscriber to read all of it. I can try to copy and paste or maybe there is another similar public source?
I hope at least one person actually reads this after the effort I put in to make this readable:
Spoiler:
‘The Biggest Monster’ Is Spreading. And It’s Not the Coronavirus. Tuberculosis kills 1.5 million people each year. Lockdowns and supply-chain disruptions threaten progress against the disease as well as H.I.V. and malaria. By Apoorva Mandavilli
Aug. 3, 2020
Updated 10:51 a.m. ET
It begins with a mild fever and malaise, followed by a painful cough and shortness of breath. The infection prospers in crowds, spreading to people in close reach. Containing an outbreak requires contact tracing, as well as isolation and treatment of the sick for weeks or months.
This insidious disease has touched every part of the globe. It is tuberculosis, the biggest infectious-disease killer worldwide, claiming 1.5 million lives each year.
Until this year, TB and its deadly allies, H.I.V. and malaria, were on the run. The toll from each disease over the previous decade was at its nadir in 2018, the last year for which data are available.
Yet now, as the coronavirus pandemic spreads around the world, consuming global health resources, these perennially neglected adversaries are making a comeback.
“Covid-19 risks derailing all our efforts and taking us back to where we were 20 years ago,” said Dr. Pedro L. Alonso, the director of the World Health Organization’s global malaria program.
It’s not just that the coronavirus has diverted scientific attention from TB, H.I.V. and malaria. The lockdowns, particularly across parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America, have raised insurmountable barriers to patients who must travel to obtain diagnoses or drugs, according to interviews with more than two dozen public health officials, doctors and patients worldwide.
Fear of the coronavirus and the shuttering of clinics have kept away many patients struggling with H.I.V., TB and malaria, while restrictions on air and sea travel have severely limited delivery of medications to the hardest-hit regions.
About 80 percent of tuberculosis, H.I.V. and malaria programs worldwide have reported disruptions in services, and one in four people living with H.I.V. have reported problems with gaining access to medications, according to U.N. AIDS. Interruptions or delays in treatment may lead to drug resistance, already a formidable problem in many countries.
In India, home to about 27 percent of the world’s TB cases, diagnoses have dropped by nearly 75 percent since the pandemic began. In Russia, H.I.V. clinics have been repurposed for coronavirus testing.
Malaria season has begun in West Africa, which has 90 percent of malaria deaths in the world, but the normal strategies for prevention — distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets and spraying with pesticides — have been curtailed because of lockdowns.
According to one estimate, a three-month lockdown across different parts of the world and a gradual return to normal over 10 months could result in an additional 6.3 million cases of tuberculosis and 1.4 million deaths from it.
A six-month disruption of antiretroviral therapy may lead to more than 500,000 additional deaths from illnesses related to H.I.V., according to the W.H.O. Another model by the W.H.O. predicted that in the worst-case scenario, deaths from malaria could double to 770,000 per year.
Several public health experts, some close to tears, warned that if the current trends continue, the coronavirus is likely to set back years, perhaps decades, of painstaking progress against TB, H.I.V. and malaria.
The Global Fund, a public-private partnership to fight these diseases, estimates that mitigating this damage will require at least $28.5 billion, a sum that is unlikely to materialize.
Delays in diagnosis
If history is any guide, the coronavirus’s impact on the poor will be felt long after the pandemic is over. The socioeconomic crisis in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, for example, led to the highest rates in the world of a kind of TB that was resistant to multiple drugs, a dubious distinction the region holds even today.
The starting point in this ruinous chain of events is a failure to diagnose: The longer a person goes undiagnosed, and the later treatment begins, the more likely an infectious disease is to spread, sicken and kill.
For malaria, a short delay in diagnosis can swiftly turn fatal, sometimes within just 36 hours of a spiking fever. “It’s one of those diseases where we cannot afford to wait,” Dr. Alonso said.
Apprehensive about malaria’s rise in West Africa, the W.H.O. is now considering giving entire populations antimalarial drugs — a strategy of last resort used during the Ebola epidemic in West Africa and the Boko Haram insurgency.
Across sub-Saharan Africa, fewer women are coming to clinics for H.I.V. diagnosis. A six-month disruption in access to drugs that prevent H.I.V.-positive pregnant women from passing the infection to their babies in utero could increase H.I.V. infections in children by as much as 139 percent in Uganda and 162 percent in Malawi, according to U.N. AIDS.
Diminishing diagnostic capacity may have the greatest effect on TB, leading to dire consequences for households because, like the coronavirus, the bacterium spreads most efficiently in indoor air and among people in close contact.
Each person with TB can spread the disease to another 15 individuals over a year, sharply raising the possibility of people infected while indoors spreading it among their communities once lockdowns end. The prospect is especially worrisome in densely populated places with high rates of T.B., such as the favelas of Rio de Janeiro or the townships of South Africa.
“The more you leave undiagnosed and untreated, the more you will have next year and the year after,” said Dr. Lucica Ditiu, who heads the Stop TB Partnership, an international consortium of 1,700 groups fighting the disease.
The infrastructure built to diagnose H.I.V. and TB has been a boon for many countries grappling with the coronavirus. GeneXpert, the tool used to detect genetic material from the TB bacteria and from H.I.V., can also amplify RNA from the coronavirus for diagnosis.
But now most clinics are using the machines only to look for the coronavirus. Prioritizing the coronavirus over T.B. is “very stupid from a public health perspective,” Dr. Ditiu said. “You should actually be smart and do both.”
In country after country, the pandemic has resulted in sharp drops in diagnoses of TB: a 70 percent decline in Indonesia, 50 percent in Mozambique and South Africa, and 20 percent in China, according to the W.H.O.
In late May in Mexico, as coronavirus infections climbed, TB diagnoses recorded by the government fell to 263 cases from 1,097 the same week last year.
Dr. Giorgio Franyuti, the executive director of Medical Impact, an advocacy group based in Mexico, normally works in the country’s remote jungles, diagnosing and treating TB in the Lacandon people. Unable to travel there during the pandemic, he has worked at a makeshift army hospital treating Covid-19 patients in Mexico City.
There, he has seen nine patients with a sputum-filled cough — characteristic of TB — that began months earlier but who were presumed to have Covid-19. The patients later contracted the coronavirus in the hospital and became seriously ill. At least four have died.
“Nobody is testing for TB at any facility,” he said. “The mind of clinicians in Mexico, as well as decision makers, is stuck with Covid-19.”
“TB is the biggest monster of them all. If we’re talking about deaths and pandemics, 10 million cases a year,” he said, Covid doesn’t compare yet to that toll.
India went into lockdown on March 24, and the government directed public hospitals to focus on Covid-19. Many hospitals shuttered outpatient services for other diseases.
The impact on TB diagnoses was immediate: The number of new cases recorded by the Indian government between March 25 and June 19 was 60,486, compared with 179,792 during the same period in 2019.
The pandemic is also shrinking the supply of diagnostic tests for these killers as companies turn to making more expensive tests to detect the coronavirus. Cepheid, the California-based manufacturer of TB diagnostic tests, has pivoted to making tests for the coronavirus. Companies that make diagnostic tests for malaria are doing the same, according to Dr. Catharina Boehme, the chief executive of the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics.
Coronavirus tests are much more lucrative, at about $10, compared with 18 cents for a rapid malaria test.
These companies “have tremendous demand for Covid right now,” said Dr. Madhukar Pai, the director of the McGill International TB Centre in Montreal. “I can’t imagine diseases of poverty getting any attention in this space.”
Treatment interruptions
The pandemic has hindered the availability of drugs for H.I.V., TB and malaria worldwide by interrupting supply chains, diverting manufacturing capacity and imposing physical barriers for patients who must travel to distant clinics to pick up the medications.
And these shortages are forcing some patients to ration their medications, endangering their health. In Indonesia, the official policy is to provide a month’s supply of drugs at a time to H.I.V. patients, but antiretroviral therapy has lately been hard to come by outside of Jakarta.
Even in the city, some people are stretching a month’s supply to two, said “Davi” Sepi Maulana Ardiansyah, an activist with the group Inti Muda.
Mr. Ardiansyah has done so himself, although he knows it has jeopardized his well-being. “This pandemic and this unavailability of the medicines is really impacting our mental health and also our health,” he said.
During the lockdown in Nairobi, Thomas Wuoto, who has H.I.V., borrowed antiretroviral pills from his wife, who also is infected. As a volunteer educator for H.I.V., Mr. Wuoto knew only too well that he was risking drug resistance by mixing or skipping medications. When he finally made it to the Mbagathi County Hospital, he had gone 10 days without his H.I.V. medicines, the first time since 2002 that he had missed his therapy.
People with H.I.V. and TB who skip medication are likely to get sicker in the short term. In the long term, there’s an even more worrisome consequence: a rise in drug-resistant forms of these diseases. Already drug-resistant TB is such a threat that patients are closely monitored during treatment — a practice that has mostly been suspended during the pandemic.
According to the W.H.O., at least 121 countries have reported a drop in TB patients visiting clinics since the pandemic began, threatening hard-fought gains.
“This is really difficult to digest,” Dr. Ditiu said. “It took a lot of work to arrive where we are. We were not at the peak of the mountain, but we were away from the base. But then an avalanche came and pushed us back to the bottom.”
The lockdowns in many places were imposed so swiftly that drug stocks were rapidly depleted. Mexico already had expired drugs in its supply, but that problem has been exacerbated by the pandemic, according to Dr. Franyuti.
In Brazil, H.I.V. and TB drugs are purchased and distributed by the ministry of health. But the coronavirus is racing through the country, and distribution of these treatments has become increasingly difficult as health care workers try to cope with the pandemic’s toll.
“It’s a big logistical challenge to have municipalities have higher stock so they can supply,” said Dr. Betina Durovni, a senior scientist at the Fiocruz Foundation, a research institute in Brazil.
Even if governments are prepared, with some help from big aid agencies, to buy drugs months in advance, the global supply may soon run out.
The pandemic has severely restricted international transport, hindering the availability not just of chemical ingredients and raw materials, but also of packaging supplies.
“The disruption of supply chains is really something that worries me — for H.I.V., for TB, for malaria,” said Dr. Carlos del Rio, chair of the scientific advisory board of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
The hype over chloroquine as a potential treatment for the coronavirus has led to hoarding of the drug in some countries like Myanmar, depleting its global stocks.
More than 80 percent of the global supply of antiretroviral drugs comes from just eight Indian companies. The cost of these alone could rise by $225 million per year because of shortfalls in supplies and work force, transport disruptions and currency fluctuations, according to U.N. AIDS.
There is also a real risk that Indian companies will turn to more profitable medicines, or will not be able to meet the global demand because migrant workers have deserted cities as the coronavirus spreads.
The Indian government may even decide not to export T.B. medicines, saving its supply for its own citizens.
“We’re very dependent on a few key developers or manufacturers for all of the drugs around the world, and that needs to be diversified,” said Dr. Meg Doherty, who directs H.I.V. programs at the W.H.O. “If you had more locally developed drug depots or drug manufacturers, it would be closer to the point of need.”
Aid organizations and governments are trying to mitigate some of the damage by stretching supplies and stockpiling medications. In June, the W.H.O. changed its recommendation for treatment of drug-resistant TB. Instead of 20 months of injections, patients may now take pills for nine to 11 months. The change means patients don’t have to travel to clinics, increasingly closed by lockdowns.
More than half of 144 countries surveyed by the W.H.O. said they have opted to give patients H.I.V. drugs sufficient to last for at least three months — six months, in the case of a few countries like South Sudan — in order to limit their trips to hospitals. But it’s unclear how successful those efforts have been.
In some countries, such as the Philippines, advocacy groups have set up depots for patients to pick up antiretroviral pills or arrange to drop them off at patients’ homes.
In a few nations, like South Africa, most patients already pick up medications from community centers rather than from hospitals, said Dr. Salim S. Abdool Karim, a global health expert in South Africa and the chair of a government advisory committee on Covid-19. “That has been an important advantage in a way.”
‘What are we not doing right?’
The pandemic has exposed deep fissures in the health care systems of many countries.
In Zimbabwe, staffs in public hospitals were working reduced shifts even before the pandemic, because the government could not afford to pay their full salaries. Some hospitals like the Sally Mugabe Central Hospital in Harare — which was operating at half capacity because of water shortages and other problems — have since closed their outpatient departments, where TB and H.I.V. patients received their medications.
“Hospitals are functioning in an emergency mode,” said Dr. Tapiwa Mungofa, a physician at the Sally Mugabe Hospital.
The situation is no better in KwaZulu-Natal, which has the highest prevalence of H.I.V. in South Africa. Dr. Zolelwa Sifumba was a teenager when she saw images of skeletal patients dying of AIDS. Over the past few years in KwaZulu-Natal, she is again seeing patients with full-blown AIDS.
“We’re seeing people come in at the stage where they’re kind of on death’s door,” she said. “What are we not doing right?”
Some remote parts of the world are being decimated by the coronavirus — but their very remoteness makes the pandemic’s impact on these other big infectious killers impossible to measure.
The town of Tabatinga in Amazonas, the biggest state in Brazil, is more than 1,000 miles from the closest city with an I.C.U., Manaus. The government has been using airplanes to transport coronavirus patients to Manaus, but many cases are being missed, said Dr. Marcelo Cordeiro-Santos, a researcher at the Tropical Medicine Foundation in Manaus.
Hospitals are giving chloroquine to people with Covid-19, at the recommendation of the Brazilian ministry of health, even though evidence now suggests it does not help and may even be harmful.
Chloroquine is also a crucial malaria medicine, and its indiscriminate use now may lead to resistance to the drug, Dr. Cordeiro-Santos warned — with possibly dire consequences for those infected in the future. But he also said it’s possible that widespread distribution of chloroquine may help protect residents of Amazonas from malaria.
Other experts said they hope the coronavirus pandemic brings some silver linings.
Aid agencies have long recommended that countries buy drugs in bulk and provide several months’ supply at a time to their citizens. Some governments are considering doing so now for H.I.V., according to Dr. Doherty at the W.H.O.
Health care providers are also embracing video and phone calls to counsel and treat patients, which many people find far easier than traveling to distant clinics.
“Sometimes systems are tough to change,” said Dr. del Rio, “but I think there’s nothing better than a crisis to change the system, right?”
It's a long read (that's why it's spoilered, obviously) but well worth checking out if you've got time...
I was wondering why Australia which had been doing so well preventing viral spread has started having so many problems
the BBC are reporting that in Victoria "Random checks by police on 3,000 infected people had found more than 800 were not home isolating, as they were supposed to be."
which seems insane levels of stupidity and selfishness
(or something weird going on with support for those isolating that's not being reported? As far as i'm aware AUS does support people getting food/medication)
90% of people with lupus are expected to live a normal life span. So if my math is right...10% will have a less than normal life span. Much like a host of other medical conditions that you wouldn't say "kill you" they are called morbities like hypertension/dyslipidemia/sleep apnea. These conditions don't kill you...a heart attack or in the case of Lupus like renal failure will kill you. Obviously it sucks if some Lupus suffers couldn't get a med that betters and prolongs their life but if it meant that a bunch of people lived through the corona virus that would have died - it would be worth it. Not claiming Hydroxy is effective at that - just saying if it was...there isn't some kind of moral crisis here. The people that need it more would get it and it would be the covid patients. Covid kills people.
Also - the shortages of Hydroxy are literally made up here in the states.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/americas/brazil-us-hydroxychloroquine-doses-intl/index.html It's in such short supply Trump sent 2 million doses to and Brazil is likely going to just throw it away (regardless of the fact that many people want it)...Guess there isn't really much of a shortage afterall. This is what is great about the MSM - they are so brazen about making things up the will ignore the fact that people can draw conclusions. They also can not resist the opportunity to make Trump look bad even it it exposes their narrative as a lie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I was wondering why Australia which had been doing so well preventing viral spread has started having so many problems
the BBC are reporting that in Victoria "Random checks by police on 3,000 infected people had found more than 800 were not home isolating, as they were supposed to be."
which seems insane levels of stupidity and selfishness
(or something weird going on with support for those isolating that's not being reported? As far as i'm aware AUS does support people getting food/medication)
Seriously...at what point do you people making these accusations of stupidity have to own up to your own stupidity. Your predictive abilities are terrible. People are not going to self isolate for this amount of time. It is common sense.
You have two options...accept the fact that a majority of people are not going to obey soft mandates all the time or - make draconian laws that force people to follow them.
The lets hope people aren't going to be jerks strategy is not working. Yet...the world isn't actually ending so...maybe these people should just be allowed to live their lives? Accept the fact that a pandemic virus is going to come in contact with basically everyone regardless of what we do?
Xenomancers wrote: 90% of people with lupus are expected to live a normal life span. So if my math is right...10% will have a less than normal life span. Much like a host of other medical conditions that you wouldn't say "kill you" they are called morbities likehypertension/dyslipidemia/sleep apnea. These conditions don't kill you...a heart attack or in the case of Lupus like renal failure will kill you.
Big oof there. So, if you have hypertension and then a heart attack, you died because you had hypertension that lead to a heart attack. Hypertension is a condition that can and will kill you if left unchecked. If you have lupus and it causes you to go in to renal failure, you died because you had lupus that lead to renal failure. Do people not understand cause and effect?
This is why we can't have nice things.
Xenomancers wrote: The lets hope people aren't going to be jerks strategy is not working. Yet...the world isn't actually ending so...maybe these people should just be allowed to live their lives? Accept the fact that a pandemic virus is going to come in contact with basically everyone regardless of what we do?
You cannot possibly make that argument 4 months in to a pandemic. That is absurd. Things are getting worse, not better. They are getting worse at an alarming rate. The world as many people knew it their entire lives has already ended. Some people are trying to hold on to that life and they are risking the lives of others. Regardless of if the world is ending or not, stopping the spread and damage it causes to people should be a top priority.
Xenomancers wrote: 90% of people with lupus are expected to live a normal life span. So if my math is right...10% will have a less than normal life span. Much like a host of other medical conditions that you wouldn't say "kill you" they are called morbities likehypertension/dyslipidemia/sleep apnea. These conditions don't kill you...a heart attack or in the case of Lupus like renal failure will kill you.
Big oof there. So, if you have hypertension and then a heart attack, you died because you had hypertension that lead to a heart attack. Hypertension is a condition that can and will kill you if left unchecked. If you have lupus and it causes you to go in to renal failure, you died because you had lupus that lead to renal failure. Do people not understand cause and effect?
This is why we can't have nice things.
Cause of death is the heart attack. Hypertension would be listed as a comorbidity.
Xenomancers wrote: Yet...the world isn't actually ending so...maybe these people should just be allowed to live their lives? Accept the fact that a pandemic virus is going to come in contact with basically everyone regardless of what we do?
155,000+ Americans might disagree with you there.
Other countries have proven this can be controlled.
I think the big question is what the motivation behind the "just passively let mass deaths of the undesirables happen" movement are?
Xenomancers wrote: Yet...the world isn't actually ending so...maybe these people should just be allowed to live their lives? Accept the fact that a pandemic virus is going to come in contact with basically everyone regardless of what we do?
155,000+ Americans might disagree with you there.
Other countries have proven this can be controlled.
I think the big question is what the motivation behind the "just passively let mass deaths of the undesirables happen" movement are?
Not taking very basic precautions, such as good personal hygiene, using hand sanitiser and wearing a mask, is essentially putting oneself right above the well-being of the next person.
That is incredibly selfish, and as such will not wash with me.
Hence my comparison to drink driving. If you’re stupid enough to have a skinful, then go for a drive? The risk is not solely to you. At all. Your stupidity can cause serious and potentially fatal harm to someone else
(Not having a pop at you, Scarletrose).
Similarly, if I feel inclined to have a good old Lemming style plummet off a motorway (freeway) bridge for reasons best know to myself, I’m at high risk of harming others.
Sure, they’ll have airbags and seatbelts etc. But my own idiot selfish up myself ‘muh freedom’ actions can still impact the life of others with literal life changing injuries. Sure, the driver of the other vehicle isn’t dead.....they’ve only lost a limb or three. BUT WHAT PRICE MY ABSOLUTE FREEDUMB?
Xenomancers wrote: 90% of people with lupus are expected to live a normal life span. So if my math is right...10% will have a less than normal life span. Much like a host of other medical conditions that you wouldn't say "kill you" they are called morbities likehypertension/dyslipidemia/sleep apnea. These conditions don't kill you...a heart attack or in the case of Lupus like renal failure will kill you.
Big oof there. So, if you have hypertension and then a heart attack, you died because you had hypertension that lead to a heart attack. Hypertension is a condition that can and will kill you if left unchecked. If you have lupus and it causes you to go in to renal failure, you died because you had lupus that lead to renal failure. Do people not understand cause and effect?
This is why we can't have nice things.
Cause of death is the heart attack. Hypertension would be listed as a comorbidity.
I see you didn't understand what I said about cause and effect. I also see you don't understand how death is "listed" lol
Xenomancers wrote: Yet...the world isn't actually ending so...maybe these people should just be allowed to live their lives? Accept the fact that a pandemic virus is going to come in contact with basically everyone regardless of what we do?
155,000+ Americans might disagree with you there.
Other countries have proven this can be controlled.
I think the big question is what the motivation behind the "just passively let mass deaths of the undesirables happen" movement are?
This is inaccurate. Other countries did a good job of keeping the virus out. A great example of why controlling your boarders is an important thing. On the other hand. MSM calls Trump as racist for closing the boarders. LOL. All countries that had outbreaks are still dealing with corona. It is not just the states. Honestly it's just temporary too in places like Japan/Singapore. 6th months from now they will loosen travel restrictions and it will pop up again or they can just deal with the lost of tourist revenues FOR EVER. Not happening.
Xenomancers wrote: 90% of people with lupus are expected to live a normal life span. So if my math is right...10% will have a less than normal life span. Much like a host of other medical conditions that you wouldn't say "kill you" they are called morbities likehypertension/dyslipidemia/sleep apnea. These conditions don't kill you...a heart attack or in the case of Lupus like renal failure will kill you.
Big oof there. So, if you have hypertension and then a heart attack, you died because you had hypertension that lead to a heart attack. Hypertension is a condition that can and will kill you if left unchecked. If you have lupus and it causes you to go in to renal failure, you died because you had lupus that lead to renal failure. Do people not understand cause and effect?
This is why we can't have nice things.
Cause of death is the heart attack. Hypertension would be listed as a comorbidity.
I see you didn't understand what I said about cause and effect. I also see you don't understand how death is "listed" lol
There is this thing called..."cause of death" it is going to say "Myocardial Infarction (of some type)" associated with (list of all confounding conditions)...are you actually just trolling? or do you just say things like "you do not understand" to make yourself feel smarter. Serious question?
Hey all, if I can make a request, we're trying to keep moderation light in this thread, and I understand this allows for some posting that often would get acted on elsewhere. However, I think a lot could be accomplished by not reacting to every post.
If someone is refusing to engage a core point and deflecting to other things, or is going to stake out the position that soiled underwear is a perfectly acceptable facemask, their mind isn't going to be changed by anything anyone says on an internet message board for fantasy toy soldiers, just ignore it and move on and keep in mind that such people exist and to take precautions accordingly when out and about. That'll help keep the thread a bit tidier and calmer overall. I understand how difficult it can be to not respond sometimes, but if it's not productive it's just wasted time on everyone's part.
I advocate blocking bad faith posters from contributing to the thread?
Because when they’re knowingly spreading false information, in light of the seriousness of the current situation? They’re literally a public health hazard.
Doesn’t matter their motivation, be it selfishness, lack of information, or “for the lulz”, they’re still a danger to public health.
One poster in particular has been so deliberately contrarian, I can only assume it’s the later.
I have no way of blocking people from specific threads (only the OT section in its entirety), Dakka has no rules against inhabiting an alternative reality or just being wrong, and to be fair, nobody should be relying on the DakkaDakka Off Topic Forum as their significant serious information source for Covid19.
That said, repeated nonsense postings that don't become part of conversations can be treated as spam. Likewise posts that are clearly flamebait can be reported and removed if judged to be such by a moderator, but if it's been quoted by multiple people and evolved into its own discussion, then it's kinda pointless to remove. It's more productive to just not take the bait in the first place.
Vaktathi wrote: I have no way of blocking people from specific threads (only the OT section in its entirety), Dakka has no rules against inhabiting an alternative reality or just being wrong, and to be fair, nobody should be relying on the DakkaDakka Off Topic Forum as their significant serious information source for Covid19.
That said, repeated nonsense postings that don't become part of conversations can be treated as spam. Likewise posts that are clearly flamebait can be reported and removed if judged to be such by a moderator, but if it's been quoted by multiple people and evolved into its own discussion, then it's kinda pointless to remove. It's more productive to just not take the bait in the first place.
What exactly is the goal for this thread and the reason for having it? If it’s for discussing the various national responses to the COVID-19 pandemic it’s going to run afoul of politics and rule 1 violations. If it is for collecting breaking news then there’s not going to be much discussion and a lot of posts need to be pruned. It would likely improve mental health of everyone if you just locked the thread instead of indulging people’s compulsions to argue and get indignant about people not agreeing with them. Every couple pages there’s a string of posters and mods asking people to calm down and let things go followed by people rationalizing why they can’t and won’t let it go so what’s the point?
Vaktathi wrote: I have no way of blocking people from specific threads (only the OT section in its entirety), Dakka has no rules against inhabiting an alternative reality or just being wrong, and to be fair, nobody should be relying on the DakkaDakka Off Topic Forum as their significant serious information source for Covid19.
That said, repeated nonsense postings that don't become part of conversations can be treated as spam. Likewise posts that are clearly flamebait can be reported and removed if judged to be such by a moderator, but if it's been quoted by multiple people and evolved into its own discussion, then it's kinda pointless to remove. It's more productive to just not take the bait in the first place.
I disagree.
Here, we have a deliberately contrarian poster. They post up nonsense, and are then presented with facts and citations. Half of the factual and cited posts they refuse to answer, in preference of “pearl Clutching”, and acting the injured party because their utter, utter nonsense has no factual route.
Just....review the posts in this very thread since around 8am UK time to see what I mean. When someone’s nonsensical ( and medically, potentially life threatening) posts are primarily “how dare you disagree with me, with your facts, because you can prove anything” with facts? That is a problematic poster.
Someone who ignores logic, facts and reality......because of reasons best known to themself?
How can the Mod team allow such outright misinformation on an incredibly serious matter stand? I don’t want to see said poster banned, because I otherwise enjoy their contributions. But there has to be a moral and factual line drawn.
Imagine if I started a thread, telling other Dakkanauts not to believe the science and ‘Big Toaster’, and in fact sticking ones fully tumescent self into a toaster and then turning it on.
How quickly would you clamp down on me (and rightfully, because it’s clearly trolling) in that situation?
Review their posts. See the many, many flaws in their argument. See the lack of factual information. Regard the lack of citation. See the genuine danger to public health they present.
People have repeatedly said they can't discuss this topic without talking about politics, and we've tried to allow as much leeway as we can on that front, but at some point it's just not working within the rules set out for the site.
Additionally, seeing people refusing to ignore others they disagree with, and campaigning within the thread for them to be blocked from posting instead, does make continuing here all that much more difficult.
For now, I'm going to lock the thread while we decide if we can move forward with it in some fashion. There are lots of places to discuss these things, that are honestly better suited to it. That might be the best path forward, in the end.
If you think the thread should be reopened feel free to PM me and I will pass it along to the mods for discussion. Thanks
Basically, N95 is the best (no surprise), cotton masks are surprisingly good (some are as good as N95), bandannas do nothing, and - this is the important part - fleece gaiters actually make it worse: they spread 110% droplets over wearing nothing. The fleece actually breaks larger droplets into many smaller ones that hang around longer.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: There’s a study now showing that Coronavirus has also been linked to long term brain damage. Looks like there will likely be a range of “Post Polio Syndrome” symptoms caused by the Coronavirus that afflicts people for years.
