Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 123676 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2750 on: January 31, 2021, 07:24:30 PM »
I remember the same BS argument when it was "mandatory seat belt laws will encourage reckless driving". I don't doubt people use their mask as an excuse for not social distancing, but I suspect those people weren't going to social distance in the first place.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2751 on: January 31, 2021, 07:43:18 PM »
I remember the same BS argument when it was "mandatory seat belt laws will encourage reckless driving". I don't doubt people use their mask as an excuse for not social distancing, but I suspect those people weren't going to social distance in the first place.

I'm not so sure the analogy holds. As is evident from every angle of American life, people are not willing to give up stuff, especially their convenience and comforts. When it comes to covid-19, I feel that people when they're tired of it and the hype wears down from some initial announcement, are going to sort of adopt a "ok I'll do this one thing" attitude. It's not that they'll do nothing, and never were going to do anything. It's more like "how much do you want from us, anyhow??" and they feel like a token effort should be enough. Well if all you're going to get out of a huge part of a population is a token effort, best it be the most effective kind of token effort. It's not ideal either way when they don't care that much, obviously.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2752 on: January 31, 2021, 08:11:58 PM »
masks better

If both parties are masked at 1 foot distance (that's close!), <1%. 6 ft with masks? Same numbers, essentially. Social distancing remains important partly because people still don't understand that the masks need to go over the nose and stay there. So even if your theory is correct, mandatory mask policies are a win.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2753 on: February 01, 2021, 12:41:52 PM »
I still don't think masks are particularly important when weighed against social distance, and I suppose other measures like taking temperature.

It depends on what kind of social distancing you're talking about.  If you're talking about the "stay at home/work from home/don't touch nobody" social distancing, you're right.  If you're talking about the 6ft distance social distancing, you're only half right. 

Quote
What do you mean "needs" to work in the presence of others? There are a few situations where it is unavoidable to be within 6 feet: for instance movers lifting a heavy object together. But in most cases I doubt there is any need at all to be within 6 feet. In most cases I suspect that breaking social distance is a result of not feeling like going through the often arduous step of establishing how to do things without coming near each other. Schools involving young children are an exception to what I'm saying because obviously they just don't understand.

There are plenty of people that can't maintain 6ft of distance, either by the nature of their work, or because they're just idiots.  It's hard for many people to keep 6ft of distance in a supermarket.  Plenty of jobs require moving within 6 ft.  6ft is the bare minimum.  It definitely isn't going to cut the mustard in closed areas with a good HVAC system.  That's why masks are necessary and compliment social distancing rules. 

Quote
I am qualifying it with "in this environment" because the public authorities had *one chance*, and only one chance, at the start to put out a message of what people should do, and stick with it. The moment flip-flopping occurred, backpedals, restatements, and all the rest of the "now we know this!" followed by "actually it's not that, it's this!" any chance of ever getting people on board with procedure was out the window.

Welcome to the real world.  Sorry people are too stupid to realize that other people make mistakes and that information is evolving.  I'd rather the CDC and others admit they were wrong than keep it under wraps because they don't want to look wrong.  Ridiculous.  That's what overly politically motivated crazies do.  They realize they were wrong but they keep digging themselves deeper and deeper because they don't want to look like their wrong because they're afraid of losing credibility.  Like the election fraud bs.  It's the people most prone to acting like that that apparently want to blame other people for not being crazy like them. 

Quote
So I am not really surprised that someone like Fauci is accused of lying. Grant, the quote your provided above is quite telling. I don't think he's BS'ing, I think that's the real deal.

Let me translate Fauci for you:

"The general public shouldn't be wearing a mask because they don't know how to and because we have a shortage of masks and they are needed for healthcare workers". 

Where is the lie in that? 

I think he's wrong.  I think it was wrong to ask people not to buy masks because of a shortage because any masks they were buying were strictly out there for the general public.  Hospitals and health care providers buy direct.  They don't buy from wal-mart.  I said that back in March.  But I don't see a lie there.  I see an opinion I disagree with. 

« Last Edit: February 01, 2021, 12:43:56 PM by Grant »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2754 on: February 01, 2021, 12:54:21 PM »
Another potential problem with getting back to school before the vaccines have time to hopefully work their magic and instead relying on children to just go ahead and spread it amongst themselves willy-nilly because they don't seem to suffer severe health problems as much is that the more the virus is allowed to spread and reproduce itself, the more chances it gets to mutate into something that maybe isn't so kid friendly anymore. Yeah, usually it mutates the other way to be less dangerous, but certainly not always. Given enough opportunities it could become something not only easier to spread but also more dangerous to children.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2755 on: February 01, 2021, 12:56:35 PM »
Cherry

I am not disagreeing with you.  Like you said, I do not have a dog in this hunt (my kids are all in their late 20's and out of the house).

I would have thought a fall opening (do spring semester on line and give the summer to vaccinate as many as possible. I think that would reduce the over all risk enough to allow full time in school teaching.  If we are not at 70% vaccinated by Sept, things are going poorly.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2756 on: February 01, 2021, 01:07:04 PM »
Quote
FAUCI: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else. Now, when you see people and look at the films in China and South Korea, whatever, and everybody's wearing a mask. Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.

HOST: You're sure of this, because people are listening really closely to this.

FAUCI: Right. Now people should not be walk— there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.

And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

HOST: And you can get some schmutz sort of staying inside there.

FAUCI: Of course, but when you think "masks," you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people — when you look at the films of countries, and you see 85% of the people wearing masks, that's fine. That's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine.

HOST: But it can lead to a shortage.

FAUCI: Exactly, that’s the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.

Things to note: as of March 2, the date of this interview, there had not yet been a significant spread of the virus throughout the population.  Yes, it was spreading, and yes, if a significant number of people had started wearing masks at that point (and by that, I mean in the 50% range) that would definitely have slowed the spread of the virus, but because there were so few infections as of that date, wearing a mask would provide an infinitesimal increased protection to each person wearing a mask because each such person would be highly unlikely to come into contact with an infected person.

Marry that with the lack of manufacturing and supply, and encouraging people to wear masks on March 2 would only have put further stress on health care providers' ability to acquire them.  And yes, the increasing demand in the general public absolutely would divert resources away from hospitals and traditional health care providers, both from normal demand side pressures on the supply chain and well as black market diversions.  If you don't believe this, then you mustn't have been aware that hospitals were in fact short of PPE for months.  There simply was not the manufacturing and supply capability (at the time) to support all traditional health care providers with PPE, never mind the additional stress put on the manufacturing system by the increased demand in the general population.

By March 27, Fauci was using slightly different wording:
Quote
When we say you don't need to wear a mask, what we're really saying is make sure you prioritize it first for the people who need the mask. In a perfect world, if you had all the masks you wanted, then you could get some degree of protection, but make sure you prioritize it well.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2757 on: February 01, 2021, 01:14:25 PM »

Things to note: as of March 2, the date of this interview, there had not yet been a significant spread of the virus throughout the population.

I have to agree with this.  The first major outbreak did not begin until mid-March.  In hindsight it was bad advice but that should have been obvious. 

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2758 on: February 01, 2021, 01:58:27 PM »
Social distancing and masks are complementary. There are absolutely times where it's impossible to social distance even for short periods of time: for example, in the case where someone needs to work in the presence of others. It's not either/or, and neglecting mask use at this point in time will significantly aggravate the current situation.

What do you mean "needs" to work in the presence of others? There are a few situations where it is unavoidable to be within 6 feet: for instance movers lifting a heavy object together. But in most cases I doubt there is any need at all to be within 6 feet. In most cases I suspect that breaking social distance is a result of not feeling like going through the often arduous step of establishing how to do things without coming near each other. Schools involving young children are an exception to what I'm saying because obviously they just don't understand.

Cool.

You've all but admitted how your business works and how far their avoidance is. Thanks! Really let's us have a better grasp on your arguments bout the Rona.

Or not. Maybe? Eh. It'll come out eventually and I'll see it on the other end.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2759 on: February 01, 2021, 02:12:14 PM »
You've all but admitted how your business works and how far their avoidance is. Thanks! Really let's us have a better grasp on your arguments bout the Rona.

Or not. Maybe? Eh. It'll come out eventually and I'll see it on the other end.

Not really sure what any of this means. Many businesses that do involve a high degree of people close to each other (like standing behind a cash in a store) obviously could not social distance while maintaining the same work methods. It is possible to make concerted efforts to modify or renovate these practices, and I doubt that most types of business cannot avoid close social contact. Whether it requires special training from management to find a way to do it is another story.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2760 on: February 01, 2021, 02:25:51 PM »
You've all but admitted how your business works and how far their avoidance is. Thanks! Really let's us have a better grasp on your arguments bout the Rona.

Or not. Maybe? Eh. It'll come out eventually and I'll see it on the other end.

Not really sure what any of this means. Many businesses that do involve a high degree of people close to each other (like standing behind a cash in a store) obviously could not social distance while maintaining the same work methods. It is possible to make concerted efforts to modify or renovate these practices, and I doubt that most types of business cannot avoid close social contact. Whether it requires special training from management to find a way to do it is another story.

Oh. Thankful to hear you're unable to control close social distancing. I suppose we need to look at the severity of the disease now. Huh. Look's kinda bad!

I have an idea, how about we all stay away from each other. I know the very idea must be difficult but your own anti-vaxxers(jk cousins) must have enough people to keep you entertained

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2761 on: February 01, 2021, 03:17:56 PM »
CNN headline

Quote
'The end of the beginning.' The dark winter is here and Americans see no end

Dang, I thought the fake news media was going to stop negative news about the virus once Trump was out of office, since that was the only motivation for making the pandemic sound horrible.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2762 on: February 01, 2021, 03:33:19 PM »
Oh. Thankful to hear you're unable to control close social distancing. I suppose we need to look at the severity of the disease now. Huh. Look's kinda bad!

I have an idea, how about we all stay away from each other. I know the very idea must be difficult but your own anti-vaxxers(jk cousins) must have enough people to keep you entertained

You've made some kind of mistake, not sure what it is. This is non-responsive to anything I wrote; did you intend this for someone else saying social distancing is impossible?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2763 on: February 01, 2021, 03:56:38 PM »
I have to agree with this.  The first major outbreak did not begin until mid-March.  In hindsight it was bad advice but that should have been obvious.

My point was that it wasn't actually bad advice, or wrong advice.  If we imagine that Fauci had advised people to go out and buy masks right away, and everybody listened, you probably wouldn't have had more than 1% of the population getting access to masks anyway, definitely less than 5%, and without a doubt, far less than would be necessary to provide pseudo herd immunity sufficient to even slow the virus' spread.

From an epidemiological perspective, on a societal level, such a directive would have had a negligible effect.  But it would definitely have had an effect on the immediate supply of PPE.

One could argue that the wording was such that people could later (and did, later) misrepresent his statement in ways that were used to reduce the uptake of mask wearing - but given what we know about people misrepresenting even the most unambiguous statements, that would be almost impossible to guard against.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2764 on: February 01, 2021, 05:17:54 PM »
My point was that it wasn't actually bad advice, or wrong advice.  If we imagine that Fauci had advised people to go out and buy masks right away, and everybody listened, you probably wouldn't have had more than 1% of the population getting access to masks anyway, definitely less than 5%, and without a doubt, far less than would be necessary to provide pseudo herd immunity sufficient to even slow the virus' spread.

From an epidemiological perspective, on a societal level, such a directive would have had a negligible effect.  But it would definitely have had an effect on the immediate supply of PPE.

One could argue that the wording was such that people could later (and did, later) misrepresent his statement in ways that were used to reduce the uptake of mask wearing - but given what we know about people misrepresenting even the most unambiguous statements, that would be almost impossible to guard against.

I'm not quite sure. 

The bumrush on masks started right at the beginning of the outbreak in the United States.  The hospitals saw what could happen, looked at the estimates of the PPE they might need, went for middle to worst case scenarios, and immediately the health care industry freaked out.  They didn't have what they would need in a middle to worst case scenario.  So they got with the suppliers and nailed down the supply and got the CDC and people like Fauci and everybody else listening to them to parrot the idea that healthcare providers needed masks first.  Thus, the healthcare industry created the exact situation they were trying to prevent by saying "you don't need masks".  At exactly the time that making people wear masks, any masks, and putting in place a lockdown would have really mattered, to prevent or reduce the *censored*storm that became New York and New Jersey in March and April, they said, "you don't need masks, we need masks".  Why did the hospitals need the masks?  Because of worst case scenario.  What did they create by taking all the masks and stockpiling?  The worst case scenario.

Now, I don't really fault the health care industry.  They had a myopic view of the situation but that's what is going to happen.  The people who knew exactly how bad it could get *censored* the bed.  It may have even been the right call.  It's hard for me to judge.  But I stand by the idea that telling the public that they didn't need masks or didn't work on them because they were stupid or even because the healthcare industry needed them more was the wrong move.  They should have encouraged mask wearing from the start, educating the public on how to wear them and make them if necessary from household items while doing what they did with the suppliers anyways and nail down the production of the professional grade stuff.  They should have educated the public from the start on how to triage themselves and their workplaces when it came to mask wearing.  You work in the Piggly Wiggly in Yazoo MS in the back?  You can probably get by without a mask.  You live in NYC or a major metropolitan area, in the food service industry, or in public transportation?  Get a mask.  Make a mask. 

By telling the public that the healthcare industry workers needed the masks up front, same as with vaccines, they are saying they're more important than the plebs.  Maybe they're right.  But that's different then saying "you don't need a mask". 

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2765 on: February 01, 2021, 05:50:46 PM »
By telling the public that the healthcare industry workers needed the masks up front, same as with vaccines, they are saying they're more important than the plebs.  Maybe they're right.  But that's different then saying "you don't need a mask".

I don't think they were saying healthcare workers wore more important then the plebs but more at risk. The probability of a healthcare worker coming into contact with someone that was contagious being very much higher then for the plebs like such as my self. Masks, social distancing, washing hands, vaccines, who needs what most and when, its all about probabilities. 

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2766 on: February 01, 2021, 06:01:51 PM »
I read stories of hospital workers reusing single masks across days, and being forced to wear cloth masks.  Yes, some hospitals were trying to keep a cache of PPE, but other hospitals simply had no buffer whatsoever.

That suggests they did not have sufficient masks.  And I've also read article on the general lack of availability to hospitals.  For instance: Vox March 27, 2020: Why America ran out of protective masks — and what can be done about it.

As for helping stop generalized spread - without getting upwards of 50% of the population 'immune' (meaning wearing masks) you really would not be able to significantly slow viral spread.  And without it getting above 20%, you would see no observable slowing in spread.  I don't know anybody who claims there was sufficient PPE available for upwards of 50 million people on a daily basis, never mind 150 million.

That least bit is the key: not only wasn't there enough PPE for health care workers, in the immediate, emergent situation in March, there was nowhere near enough PPE available to the general population for it to have made any difference whatsoever to viral spread.  Any claims that it would have done so run up against the availability constraint. And from a purely epidemiological perspective, you would want those most likely to come in contact with the virus to be most protected; by limiting the spread there, you limit the spread from those people outwards.

Did Fauci say the masks didn't work for the public?  That they were too stupid?  I don't think so.  Even on March 3, he pointed out that they would be useful for infected people to wear to avoid spread, and that they would be useful, at least a little, to protect from droplets.  But he also was clearly very concerned, maybe more concerned, with fomites (which, after more was known about the virus, turned out to be incorrect). Now, if one wants to make the observation that nobody, including Fauci, appreciated that the virus spread so much more effectively via droplets and aerosols as opposed to surface contact, then sure - but that is only obvious in hindsight, and I would suggest that Fauci's wording was carefully couched, always talking about "now" or "right now", and often reiterating that things could change.

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2767 on: February 02, 2021, 09:16:19 AM »
I was always under the impression that Fauci and the CDC were talking about N95 masks.  Save the good stuff for the hospitals, and make your own re-usable mask.
But they never spelled it out like that.  Maybe I was inferring because that made sense to me.

And to be fair, we have an entire generation or two who only listen to 1 or 2 sentences and then stop paying attention, so maybe spelling it out was seen a wasted effort.

But I have 2 cousins and a family friend who work in hospitals down south, and as late as September, maybe October, they were still saying the hospitals didn't have enough masks.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2768 on: February 04, 2021, 06:22:51 AM »
"Even on March 3, he pointed out that they would be useful for infected people to wear to avoid spread, and that they would be useful, at least a little, to protect from droplets."

I don't understand why people see the need to keep defending this guy. He was wrong. Dead wrong. It was patently obvious at the time and he's been called on it from the moment he said it. It made no sense then and of course it makes no sense now.

"Dr Fauci says, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

First off, just to pick at his statement a little bit for it's obvious ridiculousness, NOBODY thinks masks provide perfect protection. Even the N-95s, right there in their name, only purport to block about 95% of the viruses. Nobody was looking for perfect protection. Anything at all would have been better than what he gave us which of course was bare faced nothing.

Here's the timeline which shows that the WHO was even worse on masks than anyone:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/10/20/is-trump-right-that-fauci-discouraged-wearing-masks/?sh=25b2a7fc4969

And I remember experts in Asia basically saying the Americans are crazy not to be wearing masks in public. But what do they know, right?

Sure he reversed his stance later but the main problem wasn't even the month or so that he had Americans spreading the virus everywhere although that was bad enough. Worse was when he finally turned around and admitted he was an idiot, yeah that's right I said it, but when he admitted he was wrong and that's putting it kindly because he was actually as far as a lot of people are concerned just outright lying, but anyway the real problem started then because of course now there was tremendous inconsistency in the message and it gave people the excuse they were looking for not to wear masks as much as they could get away with it.

Some people when the crunch time comes are just totally useless. Unfortunately, he wasn't one of those people. Sadly, he was the type of person who when crunch time comes makes the situation a thousand times worse.

What we've seen with this virus is that our government at every step of the way has been incredibly stupid. And it looks like they are going to continue their trend by opening schools before the vaccinations have gone into effect.

https://apnews.com/article/san-francisco-sues-own-school-district-9fa9cf285326935ce79b86c3c4c56774

"San Francisco sues its own school district to reopen classes"


John Hammond: "Don't worry, I'm not making the same mistakes again."

Dr. Ian Malcolm: "No, you're making all new ones."

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2769 on: February 04, 2021, 08:26:42 AM »
Cherry:
Quote
NOBODY thinks masks provide perfect protection

Every single time someone sarcastically said 'if the masks work, then why do we have to distance?' proves that you are wrong.  People generally try very hard to avoid thinking in terms of statistics - something either is, or it isn't.  Either the masks work perfectly, or they don't work at all.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2770 on: February 04, 2021, 08:35:33 AM »
I find it interesting that Trump supporters claim Fauci lied (maybe once) and so he should never be listened to ever again but Trump lies thousands of times and his word is still taken as holy writ.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2771 on: February 04, 2021, 09:20:26 AM »
Some people when the crunch time comes are just totally useless. Unfortunately, he wasn't one of those people. Sadly, he was the type of person who when crunch time comes makes the situation a thousand times worse.

Eisenhower and Marshall wanted to invade France in 1942.  Patton agreed.  I guess they are those kinds of people. 

You know, since 1998 I've either been in the US Army or working in emergency medicine and emergency response.  I've been in some pretty hairy situations.  There is not a single call I've ever been on, or a single engagement, or exercise, that I didn't make a mistake.  OK, maybe a couple.  Part of the process in both these fields were brutal self examination, so learning could take place.  You go through the review process, going over what you did, what went right, and what went wrong.  And it wasn't just me.  It was everybody.  Everybody made mistakes.  Some people made less mistakes, but everyone made them.

The point here is that everyone makes mistakes.  The good ones learn from them, admit their mistakes, and adjust fire.  Fauci did that.  Some other people I see on TV have never admitted making a mistake and if they did it would probably be someone else's fault. 

It's true I just don't understand the opposing position.  The things I describe above are like mother's milk to me.  They have always been there and are patently self-evident.  I guess that's my conceit. 

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2772 on: February 04, 2021, 09:38:13 AM »
Cherry:
Quote
NOBODY thinks masks provide perfect protection

Every single time someone sarcastically said 'if the masks work, then why do we have to distance?' proves that you are wrong.  People generally try very hard to avoid thinking in terms of statistics - something either is, or it isn't.  Either the masks work perfectly, or they don't work at all.

When have we started embracing cognitive distortions 'reasoning'  of Polarized reasoning, Overgeneralization, Catastrophizing... either something works perfectly or it doesn't work at all... WTF

People generally try very hard to avoid thinking. full stop.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2773 on: February 04, 2021, 10:24:56 AM »
Sprinkler systems aren't 100% effective either, but I don't hear people railing against them. There are literally thousands of other situations where the general public understands risk mitigation. The people who use that as an excuse to not do something are cognitively challenged. Especially since a good number of them wear body armor, even though it doesn't stop somebody from shooting you in the head.

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2774 on: February 05, 2021, 09:35:40 AM »
Rather than dig up the other thread, I will just ask this here -

Now that we have a few months of data, how did the 'Swedish' model of restrictions work out for them?

fizz

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2775 on: February 05, 2021, 11:09:16 AM »
From what I read, first and second wave Sweden "under-performed" compared to the other Nordic countries, while still remaining better than the worst hit European countries like the Czech Republic and Belgium (I've acquaintances that live in the Czech Republic, and allegedly there the anti-mask movement is very active, and most people do not wear one and pay scarcely any attention to any social distancing rule: in their words "they're crazy").
They (Sweden) should have started now implementing more forcefully the standard WHO recommendations, after their healthcare system having been nearly crashed during December.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2932750-1/fulltext

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2776 on: February 14, 2021, 04:02:30 PM »
It probably happened yesterday, but we passed 480,000 deaths in the US. That is 20 days for another 60,000.  That keeps us on the same, or slightly lower pace, than the previous 60,000.  Hopefully we will see the results of the vaccination start to show up since the population with the highest death rate (people over 80) were the first to be vaccinated.  Number of cases nation wide have been dropping and just like the death rate follows the case rate by about a month, the death rate should follow the case rate down by about a month.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2777 on: February 14, 2021, 04:54:47 PM »
Just an observation on how the death tolls are reported but it seems like soon after Biden took office news feeds stopped reporting the daily death figures and went to reporting the total deaths and reporting them less prominently pretty much the same way that after Obama took office after Bush the media stopped emphasizing the daily deaths of U.S. soldiers in the Middle-East.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2778 on: February 14, 2021, 07:59:03 PM »
Yes, it is so mysterious why the infection rates dropped when asshats got done running around the country and having deadly holiday gatherings. It's so likely that infection rates were being reported with an American political motivation in the UK, South Africa, Brazil, and Ireland.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2779 on: February 19, 2021, 11:20:04 PM »
https://news.yahoo.com/israel-waging-war-unvaccinated-races-162741987.html


"From Sunday, as part of the government's plan to exit its third lockdown, hotels, gym, shops, sporting events and cultural venues will open. But only for those who are fully vaccinated or have recovered from COVID-19."


It's interesting that people who have recovered from Covid-19 will get the same pass as those who are fully vaccinated.

I'm not sure if recovering from it is as good as the vaccine but if that's the case it seems like some of the vaccines that are in short supply could be freed up if there is a way to tell who has already recovered from it, which presumably there is since Israel is doing it, and then those people wouldn't need to be vaccinated. I haven't heard anything about this as a possibility in America. For instance, you come in for your vaccine, and they say you can get it if you want to but another option is we can test you to see if you've already had it and recovered, perhaps without even noticing it, and then if that's the case maybe you can hold off on your vaccine until everyone else who needs one gets one and then if you still want it you can get it later.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2780 on: February 20, 2021, 09:46:35 AM »
recovery and vaccination both provide resistance.  The 'recovery' is how 'herd immunity' was being recommended to be achieved in some countries.

The main issue of natural immunity vs vaccine based - is that the immune system always picks the easiest proteins of the virus for immunity and those proteins can be more susceptible to selective pressure that can result in immune evasion.

Also the scary version is that the body uses memory T and B cells when it has an antibody that responds to a virus and suppresses new antibody variant creation.  Unfortunately if the memory antibodies are a poor match then the immune response is ineffective in killing the virus - increasing the risk of death.  So if the virus mutates enough that it is similar to the original variant people were exposed to but different enough that the antibodies bind poorly - the people who have had it already are more likely to get it and die from it.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2781 on: February 20, 2021, 10:19:40 AM »
So more bad news the B117 COVID-19 variant spreads easily among children.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2782 on: February 20, 2021, 05:03:42 PM »
https://news.yahoo.com/israel-waging-war-unvaccinated-races-162741987.html


"From Sunday, as part of the government's plan to exit its third lockdown, hotels, gym, shops, sporting events and cultural venues will open. But only for those who are fully vaccinated or have recovered from COVID-19."


It's interesting that people who have recovered from Covid-19 will get the same pass as those who are fully vaccinated.

I'm not sure if recovering from it is as good as the vaccine but if that's the case it seems like some of the vaccines that are in short supply could be freed up if there is a way to tell who has already recovered from it, which presumably there is since Israel is doing it, and then those people wouldn't need to be vaccinated. I haven't heard anything about this as a possibility in America. For instance, you come in for your vaccine, and they say you can get it if you want to but another option is we can test you to see if you've already had it and recovered, perhaps without even noticing it, and then if that's the case maybe you can hold off on your vaccine until everyone else who needs one gets one and then if you still want it you can get it later.

Not a terrible idea, but not unlike the voting credentials, I hope we have a method that allows zero percent fraud for *censored* antimaskers.

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2783 on: February 22, 2021, 12:24:17 PM »
I know several anti-mask, anti-vax people who are planning to claim to be inoculated as an excuse to go mask-less from now on.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2784 on: February 22, 2021, 06:10:55 PM »
Half a million dead in the US in basically a year.  So glad it is only as bad as the flu. Any one who thought this would not be so bad want to chime in and admit they were wrong? And the pandemic is still not under control.  It looks like maybe by the end of summer, as more and more get vaccinated we might start to get life back to normal.  And of course, now, with all of the infections that we have had, we are getting issues with variants.  USA number one.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2785 on: February 22, 2021, 07:29:10 PM »
And Biden proves he still doesn't take Covid-19  seriously enough by going full frontal on open borders and encouraging mass migrations during a pandemic and he also demonstrates in no uncertain terms there was no misunderstanding when he berated Trump's travel restrictions as racist despite travel restrictions being one of the best ways to help stop the spread of the virus including even more dangerous variants. Biden on day one proved he puts politics ahead of American lives and on borders and travel he is just as big a failure as Trump was on masks.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2786 on: February 22, 2021, 07:47:26 PM »

And to be clear yes Biden may impose some travel restrictions on legal travel but those are laughable in the face of the scale of mass migration he is encouraging and facilitating on the border and throughout Latin America. We may be only months away from what could be total victory and right on the cusp of it Biden seems intent on putting it all at risk for the sake of power and politics. And by the way, his talk of unity is also laughable when it's well known that one of the main reasons people voted for Trump was because they wanted an orderly immigration process that takes into account the needs of Americans first and Biden has said to hell with that and to hell with anyone who wants it.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2787 on: February 23, 2021, 09:48:35 AM »
And Biden proves he still doesn't take Covid-19  seriously enough by going full frontal on open borders and encouraging mass migrations during a pandemic and he also demonstrates in no uncertain terms there was no misunderstanding when he berated Trump's travel restrictions as racist despite travel restrictions being one of the best ways to help stop the spread of the virus including even more dangerous variants. Biden on day one proved he puts politics ahead of American lives and on borders and travel he is just as big a failure as Trump was on masks.

Do you have any facts that point to Biden going full frontal on open borders and encouraging mass migrations during a pandemic?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2788 on: February 23, 2021, 11:15:08 AM »
He's increased legal refugees and returned to normal rules for asylum seekers, including not making them wait in squalid camps while their case is considered. Which, if you were truly serious about covid, you would have a lot of concern about.

He's stopped the diversion of DOD infrastructure funding to build big beautiful wall. He's trying to reunite children with their parents who were deported without them. He's not nearly going far enough to satisfy the ACLU, so it is only full frontal if you define it by Victorian standards.

But cherry seems to care only about how covid affects American citizens, and not the whole world, when he makes a statement about seriousness of covid. Most of those actions don't make a bit of difference about covid or the enforcement of our border policies. Several hundred thousand refugees aren't more dangerous than millions of anti-maskers throwing parties and packing into bars and restaurants. Especially if you screen and quarantine for a couple of weeks.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2789 on: February 24, 2021, 07:05:43 AM »
Y'all may not like the source but here it is, and this is just one. Numerous stories confirm that the numbers are going up.

https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/commentary/biden-backpedals-opening-border-day-one-the-damage-done

"Without even waiting for our election or heeding pandemic restrictions or the rapid increase in virus cases in the United States and Mexico, large migrant flows to our border restarted. In September, October, and November of this year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered the highest number of apprehensions and inadmissible aliens (57,674, 70,539, and 70,052, respectively), year-over-year, than at least the past seven years."

And that's just apprehensions. There's of course no telling how many people make it through unapprehended. And obviously for them there are no checks for Covid-19 and no quarantines.

And as these people travel across two continents, are they getting checked for Covid-19 at each major new population center they enter? Are they quarantining for two weeks? Of course not. Whatever precautions we are taking when they get here are not being taken at every other place they travel through along the way. And Biden is encouraging them to travel and risk spreading the virus.


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2790 on: February 24, 2021, 09:06:10 AM »
"Without even waiting for our election or heeding pandemic restrictions or the rapid increase in virus cases in the United States and Mexico, large migrant flows to our border restarted. In September, October, and November of this year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered the highest number of apprehensions and inadmissible aliens (57,674, 70,539, and 70,052, respectively), year-over-year, than at least the past seven years."

So Biden opened the borders during the campaign???

Here's what is actually happening and its the result of a Trump policy.

Quote
Attempted migrant crossings on the U.S.-Mexico borders are rising but a close look at the cases shows that it's largely due to single Mexican men who are attempting to cross numerous times.
...
 Andrew Selee of the Washington, D.C.-based Migration Policy Institute says the migrants no longer face any consequences for their repeated attempts to cross. Previously, they could face jail time.

ANDREW SELEE: They are trying multiple times, sometimes 10 or 12 times, to get across the border with limited turnaround, right? I mean, it's a couple hours for turnaround. You're sent back and maybe wait until the next day, and they go across again.

KAHN: According to CBP, Customs and Border Protection, 85% of those apprehended in the past four months were single adult men, mostly from Mexico. And nearly 40% of those caught had tried to get across more than once. CBP declined NPR's multiple interview requests.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/22/970074431/illegal-border-crossings-rise-as-some-people-try-multiple-times


cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2791 on: February 24, 2021, 03:39:24 PM »
That really makes the point though.

If you can just keep trying until you finally make it then that's an open border. America won't stop you. The only one who can stop you is yourself if you give up.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2792 on: February 24, 2021, 03:47:29 PM »
That really makes the point though.

If you can just keep trying until you finally make it then that's an open border. America won't stop you. The only one who can stop you is yourself if you give up.

What point? Trump was for open borders? The catch and immediately send back is a Trump era policy.

You claimed Biden was throwing open the borders. When asked to back that up you gave us data from the end of the Trump admin. When confronted with the impact of the Trump policy you claim point proven???

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2793 on: February 24, 2021, 04:46:03 PM »
Biden encouraged them to come during the campaign with his promise of amnesty, obviously.

You may be right about the Trump policy of catch and send back. That would be bad enough. However, to move the goalposts, that differs from the Biden policy of catch and let them claim asylum and release them into America with legal status for a couple of years while the government slow walks their claims through the system during which time they are allowed to have families, start businesses, buy houses, and generally set down roots which should not be unended.

The apparent claim that we don't have open borders under Biden's policies is laughable. Asking for proof is also laughable. The proof is in the pudding. Maybe I should turn it around. What would open borders look like? What is your proof that we don't have them now under Biden?

Frankly, I don't see why Biden supporters don't just own it and say yeah that's right we have open borders and it's a good thing and here's why. The claims that we don't have them now under Biden and the fight to insist that we don't might lead some to wonder if that means that Biden supporters don't actually support open borders.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2794 on: February 24, 2021, 05:00:29 PM »
Biden encouraged them to come during the campaign with his promise of amnesty, obviously.

You may be right about the Trump policy of catch and send back. That would be bad enough. However, to move the goalposts, that differs from the Biden policy of catch and let them claim asylum and release them into America with legal status for a couple of years while the government slow walks their claims through the system during which time they are allowed to have families, start businesses, buy houses, and generally set down roots which should not be unended.

The apparent claim that we don't have open borders under Biden's policies is laughable. Asking for proof is also laughable. The proof is in the pudding. Maybe I should turn it around. What would open borders look like? What is your proof that we don't have them now under Biden?

Frankly, I don't see why Biden supporters don't just own it and say yeah that's right we have open borders and it's a good thing and here's why. The claims that we don't have them now under Biden and the fight to insist that we don't might lead some to wonder if that means that Biden supporters don't actually support open borders.

I suspect that Biden supporters don't is that they don't, based on the facts, see the 'open' boarders that you do.
Asking for proof and not just some 'pudding' as fact is not laughable. That statement is telling. Suggesting perhaps that your determination of what is considered proof is based on speculation and editorial that you fail to distinguish from facts of the case. I suspect often based on fear - false evidence appearing real because. Worse case scenario, polarized all or nothing thinking.
That you are comfortable with such reasoning does not mean others might require more information to discern proof. 

If you have the ingredients for the pudding show us.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2795 on: February 24, 2021, 11:43:03 PM »
It's really hard to take this disbelief in Biden's open borders policy seriously. I mean you want proof? The proof is all over the news. Me just reprinting the same news here that all of us have access to seems like a waste of time. But to be honest I guess there's nothing I do better.

https://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-indefinitely-blocks-biden-165317976.html

"A federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely banned the Biden administration from enforcing a 100-day pause on deportations of most illegal immigrants in response to a lawsuit from Texas, which argued that the moratorium violated federal law and could saddle the state with additional costs.

U.S. district judge Drew Tipton issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday, dealing a blow to President Biden’s efforts to follow through on his campaign promise to pause most deportations."

So Biden tried to do 100 days of open borders. If you're telling the vast majority of illegals that they can stay then that's open borders. Also, the idea that anyone including hopeful illegals looking at the news from other countries would think that any of this won't eventually apply to them too is ridiculous. When what was supposed to be the last amnesty is proven not to be the last amnesty, then any further amnesties are also going to be assumed to not be the last ones either.

But alright then, let's just assume for the sake of argument that Biden doesn't have an open borders immigration policy. He just has an immigration policy that is more humane and does less to deter people from coming to America. This thread is about the coronavirus so is Biden's immigration policy a good thing for helping to stop the spread of the coronavirus or is it overall not helping and not in keeping with the science that tells us that the less travel done the better?

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2796 on: February 25, 2021, 01:20:04 AM »
cherry if you don't know what a word means then don't use it.  Hint a short moratorium on deportations is not 'open borders'.

Here is a reasonable explanation of the moratorium

https://www.thirdway.org/memo/understanding-president-bidens-deportation-moratorium

« Last Edit: February 25, 2021, 01:25:40 AM by LetterRip »

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2797 on: February 25, 2021, 08:42:34 AM »
Cherrypoptart:
Quote
... have families, start businesses, buy houses, and generally set down roots...

Yeah, the horrors of becoming productive citizens.

The entire argument against immigration is that they would remove money from our economy by sending it home; that they would not get jobs, but rather go on welfare; that they would end up criminals, running drugs and robbing good tax-paying citizens; that they would disappear into the woodwork, never to be found again when it comes time for their asylum hearing.

Out of all of those bad things you say the southern immigrants will do - which ones are represented by your initial quote?


Every single one of my ancestors emigrated here, some as recently as the late 1800's.  None of then had to worry about quotas.  We still have vast tracts of land just waiting for settlers, we still have huge swaths of minimum-wage jobs waiting for applicants.  The only difference is who is (recently) in charge, and where the immigrants are coming from.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2021, 08:46:30 AM by oldbrian »

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2798 on: February 25, 2021, 09:59:13 AM »
With the new variants popping up and the virus still spreading widely does anyone else think we're easing off the restrictions too soon? I get we're doing a lot better than we were a month ago. But I don't understand why we aren't doing everything we can for the next two months until we get a much larger percentage of the population vaccinated and then hope to have a regular summer and fall.

I just think the push to reopen everything and ease restrictions within a month or two of having a real handle on snuffing out the virus is counter productive and likely to make the pandemic last longer.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #2799 on: February 25, 2021, 10:02:24 AM »
That is the catch 22 of the measures we have been taking.  When they start working, those who do not really believe in them say "See the trend is down so we can stop doing what worked.  It would have happened anyway. You can't prove that masks and closing things down is what made the rate go down."

I would not have too much of a problem with opening things up a bit this summer. More places are ready for outdoor dinning and stuff like that.