Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 340560 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4150 on: January 10, 2022, 10:15:37 AM »
Is it less of a mass psychosis for people to think they can ward off covid with Zinc and calisthenics? How about the growing number of people asserting that doctors are murdering covid patients, who don't really have covid they have pneumonia, just to collect money for ventilation services?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4151 on: January 10, 2022, 11:30:57 AM »
I think there's definitely psychosis involved but in those examples it's not formed as a result of ubiquitous communication of those ideas.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4152 on: January 10, 2022, 12:14:42 PM »
I think there's definitely psychosis involved but in those examples it's not formed as a result of ubiquitous communication of those ideas.

It's ubiquitous to them. A steady diet of OANN is no better than 3 meals of CNN per day. I don't recommend either of them. Fox news loves to tout that they are the most popular channel, have they been part of the psychosis induction? Because it doesn't look like it to me. They are all part of the "covid no big deal" message that causes people to underestimate the risk of hospitalization.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4153 on: January 10, 2022, 12:51:06 PM »
I think there's definitely psychosis involved but in those examples it's not formed as a result of ubiquitous communication of those ideas.
It's ubiquitous to them. A steady diet of OANN is no better than 3 meals of CNN per day. I don't recommend either of them.
There's a difference between seeking out a particular narrative and finding echo chambers vs a narrative that is broadcast en masse by all major sources. Both can be dangerous and result in psychosis but they're certainly not the same.
Quote
Fox news loves to tout that they are the most popular channel, have they been part of the psychosis induction?
Definitely.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4154 on: January 12, 2022, 07:52:33 PM »
Meanwhile, in the "it's just the flu" department.

Never heard of a flu virus that permanently cuts an inch or more off wee willy wonka.

https://www.the-sun.com/health/4445676/mans-penis-shrinks-covid-permanent/

"Ashley Winter MD, a urologist in Portland, US, and associated with Kaiser Permanente, explained that penile shrinkage after Covid is a domino effect of erectile dysfunction.

She told the podcast: “It is true that having erectile dysfunction leads to shortening.

“You have this period of time where the penis is not stretching itself out, where it’s not, you know, getting all this full blood into it, and that can lead to scarring of the penis and shortening of the penis.

“And that’s probably what you know your caller is referring to now.”

Men are only at risk of a smaller todger if the cause of their erectile dysfunction is physical, Dr Winter explained, such as cancer.

Psychological causes of erectile dysfunction, such as anxiety around sexual performance or depression, are not linked to a shrinking penis.

The evidence shows that the virus can enter - and therefore likely cause damage to - the blood vessels of the penis."

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4155 on: January 12, 2022, 11:21:27 PM »
Men are only at risk of a smaller todger if the cause of their erectile dysfunction is physical, Dr Winter explained, such as cancer.

...or weight gain. With everybody suddenly becoming shutins and likely not lowering their calorie intake, probably a lot of people putting on the pounds. And turning their todger's into more of an "innie" as it takes up residence in that extra body fat.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4156 on: January 13, 2022, 08:21:29 AM »
Well 41 days and another 60,000 dead.  A total of 840,000 dead.  We are averaging 1,600 deaths a day and just 6 months we were just over 200/deaths per day.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4157 on: January 13, 2022, 10:51:53 AM »
And officials are throwing in the towel. Thanks to unvaxxed, unmasked, untested, unapologetic Republicans and their right wing counterparts around the world. I hope selling some cheeseburgers was worth it. Freedum!

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4158 on: January 13, 2022, 03:44:10 PM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandate.html

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandates-osha-health-care-workers

I'll admit I'm a little surprised.  I would have betted on 5-4 to affirm or return to OSHA for more details.  I would have thought that previously holding up the right of the States to mandate vaccinations would have led to upholding the right of the Fed Gov to mandate vaccinations.  But maybe it's apples and oranges here, with the State mandates being overseen by Legislation rather than by executive power.  Or maybe it's just the conservative majority wanting to strengthen state authority but not federal authority.  I don't know. Probably need to read a little more.  I'm a little bit surprised.  6-3. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4159 on: January 13, 2022, 04:06:52 PM »
As news outlets had been reporting prior, this isn't about government having the right to set up a mandate. It's the mechanism and who puts it in place. It's about delegation of powers and whether Congress had given that authority.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4160 on: January 13, 2022, 05:28:50 PM »
As news outlets had been reporting prior, this isn't about government having the right to set up a mandate. It's the mechanism and who puts it in place. It's about delegation of powers and whether Congress had given that authority.

So I'm reading through a bit of this, not all of it yet, and it seems the primary objections are as follows:

1.  The mandate was too broad (effected to many people and too many industries).  That these kinds of mandates needed to come directly from Congress, and not agencies delegated power by Congress. 

I don't know about this.  Every workplace with over 100 employees needs to have a Hazard Communication program.  All kinds of regulations apply.  There is apparently something fundamentally different about a vaccine or mandatory weekly testing than having to wear a hardhat, and I just haven't figured out their reasoning yet. 

2.  COVID 19 was not an overall workplace hazard, but rather a public health matter, because COVID did not just effect the workplace, but everywhere, and it doesn't effect everyone equally, and a vaccine is in place whether you are at work or not, unlike say a mask mandate. 

I don't know about this either.  Sure, COVID is a public health matter.  But don't public health matters effect the workplace?  Isn't COVID a hazard in the workplace?  I understand the hazard is different in different areas at different times, but it is still a hazard. 

3.  The mandate is too broad, effecting too many people without calculating their risk as compared to the mitigation.

This is the one that I do kinda get and expected.  That the mandate was too broad and uniform.  Where healthcare workers have a greater risk, etc.  To their credit, SCOTUS did uphold the mandate for healthcare workers, with Kavanaugh and Roberts joining the majority. 

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4161 on: January 13, 2022, 05:40:54 PM »
As news outlets had been reporting prior, this isn't about government having the right to set up a mandate. It's the mechanism and who puts it in place. It's about delegation of powers and whether Congress had given that authority.

I'm having trouble seeing the difference between mandating that everyone in a workplace with overhead hazards must wear a hardhat, and saying that everyone in a workplace with a COVID hazard must be vaccinated.  I understand that COVID effects more people than the hardhat rule, or the working at heights rule, but that's incidental.  Are they saying that if 100 million people worked in places with overhead hazards that OSHA could not put in place the hardhat rule?  That it requires a public law from Congress?  Both are mitigations against a workplace hazard.  Would it make a difference if everyone who died of COVID died at a workplace?  That's not how diseases work.  Pathogens are workplace hazards. 

Part of this is all the problem with an emergency rule.  But giving the public time to comment on final rule would probably not have changed much.  Maybe some more details which would have helped. 


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4162 on: January 14, 2022, 12:18:44 AM »
1.  The mandate was too broad (effected to many people and too many industries).  That these kinds of mandates needed to come directly from Congress, and not agencies delegated power by Congress. 

I don't know about this.  Every workplace with over 100 employees needs to have a Hazard Communication program.  All kinds of regulations apply.  There is apparently something fundamentally different about a vaccine or mandatory weekly testing than having to wear a hardhat, and I just haven't figured out their reasoning yet.

The issue with that kind of mandate is that for workplaces that went to "work from home" this put in place a mandate requiring someone who never comes within several miles of a co-worker now needed to test regularly if they were unvaccinated.... in order to protect who in their workplace?  Oh right, their employer has more than 100 people. So testing "remote worker Joe" for Covid-19 is going to make "remote worker Sally" safer through some kind of magic. The regulation was overly broad, and applies in a way that made zero sense in several real world applications.

Quote
2.  COVID 19 was not an overall workplace hazard, but rather a public health matter, because COVID did not just effect the workplace, but everywhere, and it doesn't effect everyone equally, and a vaccine is in place whether you are at work or not, unlike say a mask mandate. 

I don't know about this either.  Sure, COVID is a public health matter.  But don't public health matters effect the workplace?  Isn't COVID a hazard in the workplace?  I understand the hazard is different in different areas at different times, but it is still a hazard.

But we're not talking about AIDS either,  where OSHA was able to stipulate new guidance as it related to worker safety and dealing with the cleanup of bodily fluids in order to protect workers from it(and a number of other illnesses as well).

Quote
3.  The mandate is too broad, effecting too many people without calculating their risk as compared to the mitigation.

This is the one that I do kinda get and expected.  That the mandate was too broad and uniform.  Where healthcare workers have a greater risk, etc.  To their credit, SCOTUS did uphold the mandate for healthcare workers, with Kavanaugh and Roberts joining the majority.

See previous example of the company with 100+ remote workers needing to do regular covid19 testing of employees who likely shouldn't be within significant fractions of miles from each other on "work related functions" but required testing because... "You have more than 100 workers."

Conversely, testing truck drivers involved in interstate commerce frequently probably wouldn't be a bad idea without regard to their vaccination status. That would certainly fall within Federal Regulatory capabilities.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4163 on: January 14, 2022, 01:40:54 AM »
Quote
The issue with that kind of mandate is that for workplaces that went to "work from home" this put in place a mandate requiring someone who never comes within several miles of a co-worker now needed to test regularly if they were unvaccinated.... in order to protect who in their workplace?  Oh right, their employer has more than 100 people. So testing "remote worker Joe" for Covid-19 is going to make "remote worker Sally" safer through some kind of magic. The regulation was overly broad, and applies in a way that made zero sense in several real world applications.

I think you are making up excuses here.  They ruled that OSHA can't have this type of rule at all.  If this enormous a work hazard can't be something for which OSHA has the authority to make rules for (and it absolutely WASN'T a vaccine mandate - it was a MASKING AND TESTING mandate that could be exempted based on vaccination), then no federal agency should have any possible authority to make rules at all.  They didn't do a narrow ruling, they essentially completely eliminated any federal agency that congress has delegated power to from ever enacting any regulation.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4164 on: January 14, 2022, 11:44:23 AM »
I think you are making up excuses here.  They ruled that OSHA can't have this type of rule at all.  If this enormous a work hazard can't be something for which OSHA has the authority to make rules for (and it absolutely WASN'T a vaccine mandate - it was a MASKING AND TESTING mandate that could be exempted based on vaccination), then no federal agency should have any possible authority to make rules at all.  They didn't do a narrow ruling, they essentially completely eliminated any federal agency that congress has delegated power to from ever enacting any regulation.

I don't think that's what the decision says, or what the major question doctrine is.  The major question doctrine simply states that government agencies cannot make really big rules.  Those of "vast political or economic significance".  This is backed by the idea that Congress cannot delegate it's authority to be the primary legislator and source of regulation.  I don't think SCOTUS is arguing that OSHA cannot mandate people wearing safety glasses in the workplace, or having a hearing conservation program in the case of loud noise areas.  Kavanagh and Roberts even supported the idea that OSHA does have the authority to mandate vaccines or testing in health care settings.  But apparently mandating a vaccine or testing to 80 million people is too "big". Oh, and they're saying the states have the power. 

Now I personally don't agree with the idea that mandating vaccines or testing is that big a deal.  I also don't agree with the idea that because COVID is a hazard in and out of the workplace, that OSHA therefore doesn't have jurisdiction.  I do get that vaccines are not something like PPE that you can just put on and take off when you get to work or home. 

But my personal opinion is that vaccines are no big deal.  I understand that a whole bunch of people apparently don't think that way, but I kinda think a bunch of them are crazy. 

So when it comes to jurisdiction, I think the dissent has the better part of the argument.  But Breyer et al do not address the major questions doctrine or the authority of the states or the non delegation doctrine.  I get the argument for the major questions doctrine, I just don't think this was the right hill to fight on because I don't think vaccines are a big deal, but 27 states apparently did and a majority in the Senate already voted that they did not support it.  If it doesn't have economic vastness, it definitely has political vastness, because of so many nutters.  Testing was still an option and I don't know why that wasn't taken into consideration. 

None of this states that OSHA can't make an emergency or final rule.  OSHA has been around for 50 years, and I don't think many of the final rules were ever tossed out, though I do know a few of the emergency rules may have been tossed.  It was in fact a narrow ruling, especially since Roberts and Kavanaugh backed the idea that OSHA can mandate vaccination and testing in healthcare settings. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4165 on: January 14, 2022, 11:52:28 AM »
It isn't a specific "work hazard", however. And the point is that OSHA can't make up sweeping new rules. Obesity is a work hazard also, if that's the case. More likely to be injured on the job. But it wouldn't be within OSHA's purview to force employers to provide calisthenics every day.

Furthermore, for how many employers would the mandate on employees be rendered moot by the fact that outside suppliers and customers don't have to wear a mask? Normal OSHA rules impact everyone on site. If you're the client on a jobsite, you need to have the hard hat also. No such requirement existed under the proposed vax-out portion of the rule. If the rule had been everyone on a job site must be masked, that might have got through. Imagine the mayhem when an unmasked delivery driver shows up at the loading dock.

This would have been a nightmare for enforcement, there just wouldn't be nearly enough inspectors to battle the push back. That comes into the Congressional purse strings. OSHA would be implementing a rule that would have necessitated a higher budget, unless they redirected resources away from preventing falls and people getting mangled by machinery.

It was a stupid way of going about it, and I'll let the lawyers nit about it, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that all of OSHA must now be disbanded, despite LR's hyperbole.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4166 on: January 14, 2022, 12:30:03 PM »
It isn't a specific "work hazard", however. And the point is that OSHA can't make up sweeping new rules.

How do you define "sweeping"? 

Quote
Obesity is a work hazard also, if that's the case.

I've never seen "obesity" on a job safety analysis or a workplace hazard analysis.  Can you catch obesity from another worker?  Is obesity preventable by a vaccine?  Maybe that's why OSHA has not addressed obesity in the workplace.  Is obesity a form of energy like gravity, kinetic, electrical, hydraulic, pressure etc?  Is it a chemical or biological hazard? 

You know what the number 1 hazard in the workplace is?  Being a dumbass.  But that's not on JSAs either and not regulated by OSHA.  Biological hazards do have a history of regulation, though never on a pandemic scale.   

Quote
Furthermore, for how many employers would the mandate on employees be rendered moot by the fact that outside suppliers and customers don't have to wear a mask?

Nobody is stopping employers or states to mandate masks for their employees.  Already recommended in cases. 

Quote
Normal OSHA rules impact everyone on site.

Eh.  I don't think so.  Though it does make it easier that way.  Hearing conservation programs and Hazard Communication programs are mandated at site or not.  Employers are responsible when employees are undertaking mandatory travel for their job, away from the workplace.  Not OSHA, but DOT and USCG drug testing rules don't matter if you are working at a site or from home or driving a truck or a boat. Wherever you are when you are working becomes the work site.

Quote
Imagine the mayhem when an unmasked delivery driver shows up at the loading dock.

Rather fantastic, don't you think?  Just have your employees masked and maintain 6 ft of distance whenever possible.  Employers can also mandate, themselves, what third party personnel must do on their worksite.  You don't need OSHA. 

Quote
This would have been a nightmare for enforcement, there just wouldn't be nearly enough inspectors to battle the push back.

What pushback?  I mean, I get that OSHA doesn't have enough inspectors but they don't have enough inspectors to check fall protection requirements on every construction site either.  You just spot check.  Most enforcement is through threat of inspection and threat of fines.


cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4167 on: January 18, 2022, 02:19:29 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-challenge-grappling-imperfect-science-125242904.html

You don't see a lot of stories in the mainstream media like this, pointing out that the White House has been leaning on the CDC and that Biden lied about nobody knowing how risky it was to say it was safe for the vaccinated to take off their masks because of breakthrough infections caused by variants for which the vaccines were not attuned.

"In recent interviews, some officials at the CDC privately described the decisions as demoralizing, and worried about Walensky’s increasing reliance on a small group of advisers and what they saw as the White House’s heavy political influence on her actions...

... In May, Walensky cited scientific data when she told vaccinated people that they could take off their masks and mingle freely, much to the consternation of experts who said that the move ignored the possibility of breakthrough infections. (Those arrived with the delta variant.)"

The scientists at the CDC are like the generals and soldiers in Vietnam. They know best how to fight the war to win. Unfortunately, just like with the Vietnam War we have the politicians calling the shots and delivering the same disastrous results. The problem with following the science happens when we stop getting the science from the scientists and start getting it from the politicians, but it becomes especially devastating when that politician is Joe Biden who not only knows virtually nothing about science but also as a politician has a long track record of making the worst decisions at the worst times with the worst results imaginable.


msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4168 on: January 19, 2022, 11:32:34 AM »
Well we hit 75% of the total population with at least 1 shot yesterday and almost 80% over 5.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4169 on: January 19, 2022, 12:38:14 PM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-challenge-grappling-imperfect-science-125242904.html

You don't see a lot of stories in the mainstream media like this, pointing out that the White House has been leaning on the CDC and that Biden lied about nobody knowing how risky it was to say it was safe for the vaccinated to take off their masks because of breakthrough infections caused by variants for which the vaccines were not attuned.

"In recent interviews, some officials at the CDC privately described the decisions as demoralizing, and worried about Walensky’s increasing reliance on a small group of advisers and what they saw as the White House’s heavy political influence on her actions...

... In May, Walensky cited scientific data when she told vaccinated people that they could take off their masks and mingle freely, much to the consternation of experts who said that the move ignored the possibility of breakthrough infections. (Those arrived with the delta variant.)"

The scientists at the CDC are like the generals and soldiers in Vietnam. They know best how to fight the war to win. Unfortunately, just like with the Vietnam War we have the politicians calling the shots and delivering the same disastrous results. The problem with following the science happens when we stop getting the science from the scientists and start getting it from the politicians, but it becomes especially devastating when that politician is Joe Biden who not only knows virtually nothing about science but also as a politician has a long track record of making the worst decisions at the worst times with the worst results imaginable.

So getting 400 million N95 masks out to the entire country isn't enough redemption for you? Still just 100% negative news about Biden? It is especially bad when its Biden? Why is it that you think he knows "nothing about science"? Like, when compared to other politicians?

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4170 on: January 19, 2022, 01:04:34 PM »
So getting 400 million N95 masks out to the entire country isn't enough redemption for you? Still just 100% negative news about Biden? It is especially bad when its Biden? Why is it that you think he knows "nothing about science"? Like, when compared to other politicians?
Cherry's feels are still hurt at The Former Guy's 20,000's separate documented lies having been carefully reported by respectable journalists, and hence has made it their personal mission to hit 20,000 posts containing "Biden lied".  Facts or merits be blowed.

It's gonna be hard for Biden to "redeem" himself in cherry's very particular eyes, as that'd require him to lurch to the hard right on every issue -- except on masks, where he needs to lurch to the equally authoritarian left, as it's rather arbitrarily become.  And even that likely wouldn't do it, but would piss off literally everyone else in the country.  So I'm afraid this is going to continue until TFG pulls a Grover Cleveland, at which point actual mendacity will revert be being a minor character flaw at worst, excusable as "honest hyperbole", "metaphor", "misspeaking", etc.  Or by some miracle and electoral quirk the consistent Democratic majority manage to elect another Democratic president, at which point the moaning will shift targets.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4171 on: January 19, 2022, 01:15:20 PM »
Cherry's feels are still hurt at The Former Guy's 20,000's separate documented lies having been carefully reported by respectable journalists, and hence has made it their personal mission to hit 20,000 posts containing "Biden lied".  Facts or merits be blowed.

Uh, most of those lies weren't actually lies. And "respectable journalists" when it comes to many of those so-called claims of lies leaves a lot open to dispute.

Is this use of "respectable journalists" applied like "respectable families" was used 50+ years ago?

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4172 on: January 19, 2022, 01:40:02 PM »
Uh, most of those lies weren't actually lies.
Source:  hurt right-wing feels.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4173 on: January 19, 2022, 01:41:31 PM »
Actually, we've been over this. You can't really differentiate lies from untrue statements made honestly, let alone misleading statements.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4174 on: January 19, 2022, 01:46:34 PM »
Actually, we've been over this. You can't really differentiate lies from untrue statements made honestly, let alone misleading statements.
It's certainly a much harder proposition to demonstrate to beyond the level of vigorous skepticism.

But we'll be over it again, while cherry continues to have their "Biden lied" keyboard macro, and to hammer it multiple times daily on no reasonable basis whatsoever.

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4175 on: January 19, 2022, 04:12:50 PM »
Looks like we have peaked with Omnicron.  Hoping it will be a while before the next variant.

https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4176 on: January 19, 2022, 04:20:54 PM »
Omnicron
It surprises me the number of people that say it like that.  You'd think that the British upper classes in particular, if they learn nothing else in their expensive private-school education, it'd be the Greek alphabet!  But seemingly no.  Must just be the overweening self-confidence, and maybe la vice anglaise.

Sorry, pet peeve.  And yes, looks to have peaked in a number of developed countries, and hopefully no variant surprises for a while, and hopefully no especially nasty ones ever.  But it'd be unsurprising if there's a "seasonal peak" next winter.  Or in Florida, in any and all available seasons.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4177 on: January 19, 2022, 04:33:18 PM »
I do wonder how much of the US total is being impacted by test availability and test resistance. Availability is hard, my neighborhood facebook group regularly has people seeking tests and not being able to find them. Hopefully the new federal program will put tests in hands.

Test resistance from people who don't want the repercussions of a positive test. Can't afford to be out of work? Try to avoid taking a test and having to isolate. Scoff at the seriousness of covid? Skip it, its all fake results anyway and the hospitals are planning to murder you because you didn't get the vaccine. Exposed to covid? Don't worry about it. You're doing everyone a favor by infecting them anyway and giving them immunity.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4178 on: January 19, 2022, 06:08:33 PM »
Omnicron
It surprises me the number of people that say it like that.  You'd think that the British upper classes in particular, if they learn nothing else in their expensive private-school education, it'd be the Greek alphabet!  But seemingly no.  Must just be the overweening self-confidence, and maybe la vice anglaise.

Blame pop-culture for that one. As well as the use of the word "omni" for things like "omnidirectional antennas" and the like.

https://www.imdb.com/find?q=omnicron&ref_=nv_sr_sm

is also kind of interesting to examine.

But for a lot of people it seems to have almost became like saying nuc-le-ar vs nuc-u-lar

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4179 on: January 19, 2022, 06:13:24 PM »
I do wonder how much of the US total is being impacted by test availability and test resistance. Availability is hard, my neighborhood facebook group regularly has people seeking tests and not being able to find them. Hopefully the new federal program will put tests in hands.

Probably a mix a people having now completed holiday travels and their pre/post trip testing needs are done.. And beyond that, pretty much what you're alluding to. knowing it is Covid isn't likely to benefit them any in getting over it(most people won't end up in a hospital), while being verified to be positive for it brings plenty of headaches. Easier to just treat it like any other illness, and since they did their pre/post trip testing, if they get it and start spreading it. They must have picked it up locally in any case...

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4180 on: January 19, 2022, 06:32:13 PM »
As well as the use of the word "omni" for things like "omnidirectional antennas" and the like.
Yes, omni- is a recognisable prefix, omi- isn't.  But it's actually o-micron, versus o-mega.  Little O, big O, simples!

Quote
But for a lot of people it seems to have almost became like saying nuc-le-ar vs nuc-u-lar
I think there's supposedly a systematic sound change reason for that one, but without a copy of Deutscher's The Unfolding of Language to hand (great read!), so I'm limited as to how many $10 linguistic terms I can speculatively throw out.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4181 on: January 19, 2022, 06:38:08 PM »
Are you sure it isn't the O-MAGA variant?

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4182 on: January 19, 2022, 07:14:57 PM »
(Sotte voce) LOL.

An Irish comedian had a joke on r-numbers.  "Omicron's so infectious that if you think you have it, you have it.  In fact, if you say it, you have it, and the person you say it to has it, too.  If you see the French president, and think "Oh, Macron!" then you've got it."

(This joke doesn't fact-check well (actually it's more to do with a shorter incubation period and immune escape, not 'raw' infectiousness), but I tittered a little.  And was motivated enough to share it with you lot, indeed.)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4183 on: January 20, 2022, 10:46:54 AM »
(This joke doesn't fact-check well (actually it's more to do with a shorter incubation period and immune escape, not 'raw' infectiousness), but I tittered a little.  And was motivated enough to share it with you lot, indeed.)

I've read many accounts of it spreading vastly more through companies than alpha and delta did. Just anecdotal? Maybe, but I don't think so. I got it masked in the presence of a masked doctor, and I am SUPER careful. And unlike other illnesses where I feel like I'm fighting something, there was no fight or feeling or anything. One day I was 100% fine, the next run down like a truck hit me. No 'can I beat this' period like with the flu or a cold. So I actually agree fully with the classification of it being transmissible basically by telepathy.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4184 on: January 20, 2022, 10:53:20 AM »
We have had 4-5 cases in the small plant I work at in the past 2 weeks. The HR person tested positive yesterday. I know she was vaxed and boosted.  However I know she has to spend a fair amount of time with the plant people, most of which are not vaxed.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4185 on: January 20, 2022, 11:14:17 AM »
A friend of mine and her son now have it for the second time. He works at a Walmart and they now have 55% of staff out specifically with covid (not sure how much is infection vs isolation). Corporate policy is if they get to 60%, they close the store for a week. There's a growing "let's just get it over with" sentiment where people are either indifferent to any defense and in some cases actively exposing themselves to known infected people. Some of those later ones drop dead, FYI.

There's a certain mentality where it is exhausting to defend against it and people just give up. I can identify with that, I've been tugged in that direction emotionally.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4186 on: January 21, 2022, 06:13:45 PM »
I'm just a layperson, but this appears to indicate that unvaxxed who've recovered from covid are more protected (gasp) than the vax'd who've never had covid?

Quick, someone make this about vaccinations being an overall benefit for the at-risk and ignore the actual point that undiscerning mandates are ludicrous anti-science. A short play:

[The Science]:It's not either/or! You can get covid and you might be even more protected if you get vax'd too!

[Flat Earth Anti-vaxxer]: Hang on, you're admitting that even if I don't get vax'd but have recovered from covid I'm still "safer" than vax'd covid virgins, right? So... whether I choose to do that or not, why would I need to show proof of vax - for any reason?

[The Science]: How about you just shut your conspiratorial, anti-vaxxer mouth and follow Me.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4187 on: January 21, 2022, 06:25:56 PM »
ScottF, the problem lies in requiring something objective and quantifiable in order to have a public policy. You can't ask people to prove they had an illness (practically impossible to do formally) but you can track vaccinations and quantify it. The alternative is to sort of just not have public tracking of 'how well we're doing'. There is perhaps a case to be made that one could just not do that kind of tracking (the original herd immunity argument) but in our day and age that sort of inaction seems to be really frowned upon. It's not really surprising that developing a policy that can be tracked is desirable to people.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4188 on: January 21, 2022, 07:03:49 PM »
I'm just a layperson, but this appears to indicate that unvaxxed who've recovered from covid are more protected (gasp) than the vax'd who've never had covid?

Didn't read the link, but here is why you might get that false impression.

This is a common fallacy known as survivorship bias. Lets say you examine bullet holes on airplanes that return after being shot at by the enemy. Where do you place the armor?  You place it at the spots where the bullet holes aren't.  Why?  Because the lack of bullet holes in certain areas are for the planes that survived.  The planes that were shot down had bullet holes in the areas that the surviving planes didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Similarly when unvaccinated people die, they can't be infected again. So if you only compare the surviving unvaccinated with the vaccinated, you get a skewed perspective.  The vaccinated individuals who are elderly rarely die, but unvaccinated elderly frequently die.  So large numbers of vulnerable elderly are in the vaccinated sample that their matching partner in the unvaccinated group are dead.  You have to include the dead people with the unvaccinated or alternatively exclude the same number of people at the bottom of the unvaccinated distribution.

It is ok to be a layperson, but basic errors of understanding like this is why you should not rely on yourself or fringe scientists for interpretation of reports.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2022, 07:05:54 PM by LetterRip »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4189 on: January 21, 2022, 07:11:22 PM »
It also encourages unvaccinated people to have their little covid parties and get it on purpose. Many of the ones doing that are ending up dead. Some are ending up with long covid. Of course for the vast majority it's fine. But as we all know, a very small percentage of 325 million is still a lot of people dead and sickened for a long time, maybe permanently.

It's true people are giving up and just approaching mass covid deaths and sickness as the new normal. We had a chance there to make pretty much permanent masking the new normal but Biden threw that opportunity out the window. The vaccines without masks was always a false hope riding on a broken promise that never should have been made. Until we accept the necessity of masks we are doomed. In other words, we are doomed. Well, not everyone, just hundreds of thousands doomed to die and millions more to a debilitating maybe permanent illness.

That said, I do believe that having recovered is a great sign that you'll be okay with future exposure. Not a sure sign, but at least as good as being vaccinated and probably better. If you already got it and survived that round of Russian roulette than you may be good to go, but if you haven't then taking your turn puts two or three more bullets in the chambers compared to just getting the vaccine.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4190 on: January 21, 2022, 07:19:34 PM »
We had a chance there to make pretty much permanent masking the new normal but Biden threw that opportunity out the window.

Your level of delusion is impressive.  In numerous states masking was largely in the process of being eliminated.  There was zero possibility of 'permanent masking' becoming the new normal.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4191 on: January 21, 2022, 07:33:14 PM »
We had a chance there to make pretty much permanent masking the new normal but Biden threw that opportunity out the window.

Your level of delusion is impressive.  In numerous states masking was largely in the process of being eliminated.  There was zero possibility of 'permanent masking' becoming the new normal.

I have been obsessed with avoiding covid (to no avail), and even I would outright reject any plan where I wear a mask for the foreseeable future. There will be a limit, I think, to my patience with our current practices. It hasn't been exhausted yet, but I don't think the line is that far away where I would eventually say you know what, just let it all go and hopefully not too many people die. I'm not there yet, and it is/was important to struggle for a time to contain things. But not indefinitely, so not only do I agree with you about this particular point, but I think it's more than coincidental that permanent masking wasn't going to work. I don't think it *should* work.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4192 on: January 21, 2022, 08:34:15 PM »
Going back to my time in the military, working in an engine room on a destroyer for two years where the temperatures routinely get to over 110F, on a three section split the mid watch rotation which means you never sleep the same time two days in a row and adding in a regular workday means we were on about six hours sleep a day if we were lucky, and realizing that compared to what many others in the military had to go through I was totally lucky and had a cake walk, all I can say is when I hear people complaining about wearing a mask I just hear weakness. If the only discomfort I had to endure was wearing a mask I'd have been on cloud nine. When I see everyone in Japan wearing masks including the kids in school and I look at our citizens like a Supreme Court Justice who refuses to wear a mask to protect the life of an at risk coworker (that's the scorpions in a bottle Kavanaugh and Sotomayor), even in the air conditioned comfort of the courtroom, all I see is weakness. That is going to cost us and dearly. There's no doubt that it already has. We're at war and every citizen has been drafted but they are dodging it as mask slackers so there is no chance we'll win. We can't even stand our ground. The virus is sniping our citizens, over a thousand per day, and people don't even understand we're under attack, just walking blithely walking around as if nothing is happening. If Biden would have held the line, the liberal states never would have thrown off their masks, the liberals in the red states would have by and large kept wearing them, and we would be in a much better place against the pandemic than we are right now. We would also have a much better picture of their effectiveness so instead of constantly comparing Japan to America we could easily compare red to blue states. Of course we'll never know for sure now because Biden messed up easily with one of the top ten blunders of an American President in American history.

Maybe we'll get incredibly lucky and a more transmissible and more pathogenic (deadly) variant won't come along. But if it does everyone complaining about masks will start singing a different tune, and sadly for a lot of them it'll be a funeral dirge.

It's not just in the dead and sick either but the masks would have helped keep people on the job, would have helped with the supply chain issues and inflation and empty shelves. By making a small sacrifice in comfort we could be avoiding some of the huge problems we're having now and they're all going to get a whole lot worse before they get even worser still. In other words, our country is totally Bidened.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4193 on: January 21, 2022, 08:41:42 PM »
You can't ask people to prove they had an illness (practically impossible to do formally) but you can track vaccinations and quantify it.
Actually, you could.  The EU framework actually does so, combining vaccination, infection, and recent testing, all into the one "cert".  Notice also the nod the Australian system makes:  it doesn't exactly make a direct comparison as to which is better or worse, but it deems infection to be a medical counter-indication from getting vaxed, so ends up having much the same practical effect.  (I'm not sure if there's particularly strong evidence for it being an actual counter-indication, so that might be either a slightly sly presentation, or just an abundance of "oh no, cytokine storm" caution.)

I'm just a layperson, but this appears to indicate that unvaxxed who've recovered from covid are more protected (gasp) than the vax'd who've never had covid?
Oh, don't be so modest!  You're a layperson that's been singing this song for a while.  Recall the Israeli preprint that claimed a maHOOsive such effect?

Short answer:  yes and no.  Does it indicate that if you got around Novax Pox Party I, you're super-immune, and less likely to get it again than someone recently triple-vaxed?  (See social-media misinformation, passim.)  Nope!  Potentially longer answer on how other configurations after I've looked at the paper (for which link thank you) properly.

One factor is almost inevitably the "variant" effect.  Those vaccines are for Sars2 WT -- or as the SMMI might put it, outdated and dangerously experimental, at the same time!  If you've had a delta or an omicron infection, every chance you have more carryover immunity to getting delta or omicron, or something genetically closer to those than to Classic, than from the WT vaccine.

Quote
A short play:
Indeed, put the "short" part on the posters.  You can quote me on that if you don't get other reviews!


Biden threw that opportunity out the window
While lying, the filthy insufficiently radical communist scum that he is.  Keep banging the macro, we'll keep "cherry gonna cherry!"-ing.

Quote
Until we accept the necessity of masks we are doomed. In other words, we are doomed. Well, not everyone, just hundreds of thousands doomed to die and millions more to a debilitating maybe permanent illness.
You talking in the US, or worldwide?  Hard to tell when the "only one country" effect is in effect and when not, especially on a nom-det 'Merkin website.  Assuming the former:  that seems rather pessimistic overall, and wildly off for any likely difference between maskier and less-masked scenarios.  And even if it weren't...  seriously, find a blamemap that doesn't make you sound like a truly desperate partisan hack.

I have been obsessed with avoiding covid (to no avail), and even I would outright reject any plan where I wear a mask for the foreseeable future.
Hopefully it won't be a one-and-done permanent burnout.  To be optimistic, we might be entering a phase where from a public health point of view, "let's catch this cold!" might actually make sense.  But to be pessimistic, not impossible we'll have bad "covid seasons" -- or worse, bad combo covid/flu seasons to come.  So we might have future peaks we'd prefer to "flatten".

Here they've this very day dropped I think basically all restrictions apart from mask-wearing in shops and on public transport.

In other words, our country is totally Bidened.
If only there were some other more applicable proper noun, also describing a recent head of state, that actually made more semantic sense in this context, and even happened to be verb too...

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4194 on: January 21, 2022, 08:57:40 PM »
Rejecting masks is like being at war, under constant attack, and rejecting defensive strategies like keeping your head down or wearing body armor. The maskless are like this guy in Apocalypse Now with the bullets whizzing by and bombs dropping. He doesn't need a helmet or a foxhole. "I love the smell of Covid in the morning. Smells like... victory."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRp7tYWnJJs

The whole quote would be something more like:

"Covid, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of Covid in the morning. (Inhales deeply). You know, one time we had an ICU overrun with patients, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't save one of 'em, not one elderly person with numerous comorbidities. The whole ICU. Bodies in refrigerated trucks because the morgue was full. The smell, you know that Covid smell? Smelled like... victory. Someday this pandemic's gonna end. (Shakes head and sighs sadly)." Dr. Kilgore

A good write up about it:

https://groovyhistory.com/i-love-the-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning-apocalypse-now

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning" from Apocalypse Now (1979) is one of those perfect movie quotes that applies to us all -- even though most of us weren't in Vietnam and have never smelled napalm in the morning. As delivered entirely straight-faced by Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore (Robert Duvall), in director Francis Ford Coppola's war epic, the line expresses many things at once. There's a morbid optimism to it, an enthusiasm for a hellish predicament, a complete command of the details of a situation with a complete lack of interest in its life-or-death gravity. Kilgore fondly speaks of napalm as many of us would of our morning coffee or frying bacon.

But Kilgore, as protagonist and narrator Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) observes, has that x-factor that makes some men thrive in the midst of the chaos of Vietnam. "He was just one of those guys with that weird light around him," Willard tells us. "He just knew he wasn't gonna get so much as a scratch here." While Kilgore's fondness for the death-dealing combustible shocks us, his bulletproof competence and confidence inspires at least a bit of envy.

That's why we say it when we wake up with chaos swarming all around, a day of hell laid out before us. We want to get the day's job done without sweating the existential threats crashing all around us -- we summon our own inner Kilgore: "I love the smell of napalm in the morning. ... It smells like victory."

----------------------------------------------------------

I like the way that was put. The maskless have summoned their own inner Kilgores.

All I can say is good luck. We're all gonna need it.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4195 on: January 21, 2022, 09:21:15 PM »
Good news for the needlephobic (and maybe even a tiny subsegment of the conspiracy theorists, but I aim to keep my expectations there low).  Fluvid pills!  Four strains of flu vaccine, one of covid, all in an oral package, one and done.

https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-innovation-2021-2-how-a-uk-firm-put-a-covid-19-vaccine-in-a-pill/

(Possibly more detail on this in the UK's Express, but it's a dire right-wing tabloid rag and I'm not giving them the link.  (Honestly, even you self-confessed hard-right types would feel you were slumming it, and in a weird British way, at that.)
 Apparently they have a "scoop" on this, as relayed via the BBC paper review.)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4196 on: Today at 02:13:45 AM »
Going back to my time in the military, working in an engine room on a destroyer for two years where the temperatures routinely get to over 110F, on a three section split the mid watch rotation which means you never sleep the same time two days in a row and adding in a regular workday means we were on about six hours sleep a day if we were lucky, and realizing that compared to what many others in the military had to go through I was totally lucky and had a cake walk, all I can say is when I hear people complaining about wearing a mask I just hear weakness.

I find it amusing that you're comparing the future of civilian life, including for children and deaf people, to being in an armed service where the objective is to turn people into battle machines. Being tuned to a point of high efficiency and readiness for combat, yeah, that's not going to be comfortable at the best of times. Why would you want the average person to be 'strong' and also worn out going forward? I don't think you've taken the time to consider what masks cost society. They have a benefit, but it's not a blank check: you pay a price anytime you put distance between people, remove expression from interactions, and feel like you're hiding (which you literally are, it's the point of the mask). That, to you, is "strong"? It feels like perpetual weakness to me. You're talking about people having the physical resilience to wear a piece of cloth, but that's a canard. Anyone can do that; the question is how you could convince them they should.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4197 on: Today at 03:14:01 AM »
They have a benefit, but it's not a blank check: you pay a price anytime you put distance between people, remove expression from interactions, and feel like you're hiding (which you literally are, it's the point of the mask).
No, the point is to reduce transmission of aerial droplets.  (Purpose of other masks may vary.  Keep it safe, sane, and consensual kiddies!  Also legal.)

Quibbles about intent aside, there are also designs that are transparent or part-transparent.  Personally I'm not sure they don't mostly look even worse, but they do address the 'expression' concern.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4198 on: Today at 05:59:36 AM »
https://japantoday.com/category/features/lifestyle/surveys-suggest-over-80-of-japanese-people-likely-to-continue-with-masks-after-covid-19-subsides

Masks also hide facial expressions, which means people don’t need to fake them as often in certain social situations. That in turn reduces anxiety some people may have of others reading their face to detect lies or true emotions hiding beneath the surface.

Comments online have only added to the list of benefits when it comes to wearing a face mask, and very few of them have anything to do with COVID-19.

“The number of times I’ve had to shave in the mask era has decreased dramatically.”

“This is a paradise for ugly people.”

“With masks you don’t have to worry about nose hairs sticking out.”

“It’s better during the winter anyway because the dry air won’t hurt your throat.”

“My face probably makes embarrassing expressions at this point, plus I can chew gum at work now.”

“I do a chin mask unless I’m indoors or in a crowded place, so it’s no problem at all.”

“I get skeeved out now without a mask on a train where everyone is breathing all over the place.”

“It’s good at hiding a hangover.”

“I don’t smell other people’s bad breath nearly as much now.”

-----------------------------------------

Just thought this was amusing. And it's also funny to wonder if I'm giving them too much credit for concern toward the elderly and their fellow humans when really a lot of people for various ulterior motives just like wearing the masks.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #4199 on: Today at 11:29:41 AM »
I'm just a layperson, but this appears to indicate that unvaxxed who've recovered from covid are more protected (gasp) than the vax'd who've never had covid?

Didn't read the link, but here is why you might get that false impression.

This is a common fallacy known as survivorship bias. Lets say you examine bullet holes on airplanes that return after being shot at by the enemy. Where do you place the armor?  You place it at the spots where the bullet holes aren't.  Why?  Because the lack of bullet holes in certain areas are for the planes that survived.  The planes that were shot down had bullet holes in the areas that the surviving planes didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Similarly when unvaccinated people die, they can't be infected again. So if you only compare the surviving unvaccinated with the vaccinated, you get a skewed perspective.  The vaccinated individuals who are elderly rarely die, but unvaccinated elderly frequently die.  So large numbers of vulnerable elderly are in the vaccinated sample that their matching partner in the unvaccinated group are dead.  You have to include the dead people with the unvaccinated or alternatively exclude the same number of people at the bottom of the unvaccinated distribution.

It is ok to be a layperson, but basic errors of understanding like this is why you should not rely on yourself or fringe scientists for interpretation of reports.

I think I understand what you're saying. I don't believe survivorship bias is a factor among those within a ~1% risk category (aka most people). E.g, if we take a demographic of healthy 18-40-year-olds and the same data holds true, it's not being influenced by any significant number of the infected dying and skewing results.

This would make my point about indiscriminate mandates still valid. You can't logically defend demanding ALL people vax when a large chunk of them literally have better protection than just being vax'd would provide in the first place. It's nonsensical.

As was mentioned earlier, I don't buy "it would have to be an honor system because there's no way to know". The entire testing/isolation structure we have right now isn't exactly bulletproof. There's no reason this couldn't also be part of the documentation mix.