The case against masks at school(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The case against masks at school
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/kids-masks-schools-weak-science/621133/
1,068 comments
> They'd also know that pretty much the only condition we're treating nowadays is Covid.
This statement might be true for your location but is not true in general. Here in New York City hospitalizations due to covid are not very high and going down quickly. Elective surgeries and procedures go on as scheduled. ICUs are not overrun with covid specific cases. Majority of the patients with positive PCR test are hospitalized for medical reasons other than covid. Recorded deaths do not differentiate between "died from covid" and "died while covid positive" making death statistics hard to interpret. In general, compared to the situation on the ground in March-April 2020 this time the covid load on NYC hospital system is lighter.
The biggest challenge is staffing shortages in the hospitals due to general burn-out, people being on sick leave due to spreading omicron. Noticeable percentage of nurses were laid off because of the vaccine mandate (i am not judging the mandate, just stating the consequence).
SOURCE: several physician relatives and friends working in NYC hospitals (Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn).
This statement might be true for your location but is not true in general. Here in New York City hospitalizations due to covid are not very high and going down quickly. Elective surgeries and procedures go on as scheduled. ICUs are not overrun with covid specific cases. Majority of the patients with positive PCR test are hospitalized for medical reasons other than covid. Recorded deaths do not differentiate between "died from covid" and "died while covid positive" making death statistics hard to interpret. In general, compared to the situation on the ground in March-April 2020 this time the covid load on NYC hospital system is lighter.
The biggest challenge is staffing shortages in the hospitals due to general burn-out, people being on sick leave due to spreading omicron. Noticeable percentage of nurses were laid off because of the vaccine mandate (i am not judging the mandate, just stating the consequence).
SOURCE: several physician relatives and friends working in NYC hospitals (Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn).
NYTimes has a pretty good source on this.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-hospitals-...
I'll tell you that here in Chicago, based off data, and anecdotes: really depends on the neighborhood. Vaccinated areas? Doing fine. Undervaccinated areas? Not doing so well.
Gosh, it's like vaccines work and that's the way out of this.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-hospitals-...
I'll tell you that here in Chicago, based off data, and anecdotes: really depends on the neighborhood. Vaccinated areas? Doing fine. Undervaccinated areas? Not doing so well.
Gosh, it's like vaccines work and that's the way out of this.
> Gosh, it's like vaccines work and that's the way out of this.
You know, I see snarky little comments like this becoming more and more common on this site, and I'd just like to point out that they are not helpful in any way. Who is it directed towards? Do you think you are convincing anyone, or encouraging a productive discussion? I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people on this website are vaccinated. I know I am.
In my opinion, that line is the equivalent of saying "gosh, maybe black people should just stop committing crimes if they don't want to go to jail" or "gosh, maybe gay people should just stop having unprotected sex if they don't want HIV."
I am begging you, and everyone else, PLEASE, if you want to make a point, please do it in a respectful way that doesn't assume anyone who disagrees is stupid. If you need to be snarky, go do it on the-site-that-must-not-be-named.
You know, I see snarky little comments like this becoming more and more common on this site, and I'd just like to point out that they are not helpful in any way. Who is it directed towards? Do you think you are convincing anyone, or encouraging a productive discussion? I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people on this website are vaccinated. I know I am.
In my opinion, that line is the equivalent of saying "gosh, maybe black people should just stop committing crimes if they don't want to go to jail" or "gosh, maybe gay people should just stop having unprotected sex if they don't want HIV."
I am begging you, and everyone else, PLEASE, if you want to make a point, please do it in a respectful way that doesn't assume anyone who disagrees is stupid. If you need to be snarky, go do it on the-site-that-must-not-be-named.
I actually want to hear good reasons for avoiding vaccinations, because many people care a lot about that.
I can understand immuno-compromised people, an underlying medical condition, for whom a vaccine may not work or may be dangerous. Undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer? Got it: vaccines won't help you (or anyone else) until you can get past the cancer.
I don't agree with an argument from stand-my-ground, my-body-my-choice principles. I could agree with such a line of reasoning, if a personal choice did not present an immediate danger to anyone else.
This is a very infectious disease with severe health consequences. No one has control over the outcome, if they choose to infect another person. Maybe it's no big deal for them. Or maybe it wrecks their life, long after the vaccine objector has left the scene.
What are some other reasons for avoiding vaccination?
I can understand immuno-compromised people, an underlying medical condition, for whom a vaccine may not work or may be dangerous. Undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer? Got it: vaccines won't help you (or anyone else) until you can get past the cancer.
I don't agree with an argument from stand-my-ground, my-body-my-choice principles. I could agree with such a line of reasoning, if a personal choice did not present an immediate danger to anyone else.
This is a very infectious disease with severe health consequences. No one has control over the outcome, if they choose to infect another person. Maybe it's no big deal for them. Or maybe it wrecks their life, long after the vaccine objector has left the scene.
What are some other reasons for avoiding vaccination?
Just today Sweden's health agency advised against the vaccine for kids
> STOCKHOLM, Jan 27 (Reuters) - Sweden has decided against recommending COVID vaccines for kids aged 5-11, the Health Agency said on Thursday, arguing that the benefits did not outweigh the risks.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-...
I'm not super well versed in the science but it seems like reasonable parties advise against vaccination in certain scenarios. Also knowing that government bodies are more likely to prioritize group outcomes over individual outcomes it seems reasonable for individuals to be skeptical.
> STOCKHOLM, Jan 27 (Reuters) - Sweden has decided against recommending COVID vaccines for kids aged 5-11, the Health Agency said on Thursday, arguing that the benefits did not outweigh the risks.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-...
I'm not super well versed in the science but it seems like reasonable parties advise against vaccination in certain scenarios. Also knowing that government bodies are more likely to prioritize group outcomes over individual outcomes it seems reasonable for individuals to be skeptical.
Having already had an infection before you were able to get vaccinated.
A recent CDC study [0] joins plenty of others from last year in showing that these people were at least as protected from infections and severe outcomes during delta as those who were vaccinated without a prior infection.
Avoiding getting something that offers little benefit and offers even small risks makes sense to me.
You've probably spent the last year being told these people are trying to murder your family though, so it also makes sense to me if you don't agree with this.
[0]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
A recent CDC study [0] joins plenty of others from last year in showing that these people were at least as protected from infections and severe outcomes during delta as those who were vaccinated without a prior infection.
Avoiding getting something that offers little benefit and offers even small risks makes sense to me.
You've probably spent the last year being told these people are trying to murder your family though, so it also makes sense to me if you don't agree with this.
[0]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
> Avoiding getting something that offers little benefit and offers even small risks makes sense to me.
It's not that simple: vaccination is more consistent at producing an immune response and it's stronger. The confound in both cases is that it wanes over time, so comparing someone who was vaccinated a year ago to someone who had COVID last month — or vice versa! — is telling you more about the elapsed time than anything else.
Getting boosted, even after having been infected, is a cheap and easy way to reliably keep your immune response high without unpredictable timing. It's much less risky than getting COVID even if you could organize the equivalent of a “pox party”.
It's not that simple: vaccination is more consistent at producing an immune response and it's stronger. The confound in both cases is that it wanes over time, so comparing someone who was vaccinated a year ago to someone who had COVID last month — or vice versa! — is telling you more about the elapsed time than anything else.
Getting boosted, even after having been infected, is a cheap and easy way to reliably keep your immune response high without unpredictable timing. It's much less risky than getting COVID even if you could organize the equivalent of a “pox party”.
> It's not that simple: vaccination is more consistent at producing an immune response and it's stronger. The confound in both cases is that it wanes over time, so comparing someone who was vaccinated a year ago to someone who had COVID last month — or vice versa! — is telling you more about the elapsed time than anything else.
I encourage you to read the linked study, particularly the parts about the included cohorts. The recovered cohort didn't have any kind of stipulation that their infection was recent. The text does call out waning efficacy in the vaccines, but it does not mention the same for infection.
> It's much less risky than getting COVID even if you could organize the equivalent of a “pox party”.
Does this have something do with what I said?
I encourage you to read the linked study, particularly the parts about the included cohorts. The recovered cohort didn't have any kind of stipulation that their infection was recent. The text does call out waning efficacy in the vaccines, but it does not mention the same for infection.
> It's much less risky than getting COVID even if you could organize the equivalent of a “pox party”.
Does this have something do with what I said?
I did read, when it came out. I’m quoting Dr. Benjamin Silk, one of the authors:
"The evidence in this report does not change our vaccination recommendations. We know that vaccination is still the safest way to protect yourself against COVID-19.”
The reasoning is easy: many more people do not develop as strong a response from infection as they do from vaccination, and vaccination happens on a known schedule. This is especially of interest since the relationship here was reversed with Alpha, and is still unclear with Omicron - the figures I’ve seen have relatively recent infection somewhere between 2 doses and 3 in terms of efficacy, and infected plus vaccinated being the strongest.
Now, if you think from a public health perspective that makes the call very easy: vaccines are cheap and effective, and more reliably produce an immune response. Waiting for people to get infected means that the schedule is unpredictable (overloads happen), and the timing being variable means that you might have people thinking they’re protected but they were part of the group who never mounted a strong response, or who have waned over time. Rather than having people get infected randomly or hoping that they had a strong response, it’s much easier to spend a few seconds vaccinating them so you have a higher confidence that they’re protected.
"The evidence in this report does not change our vaccination recommendations. We know that vaccination is still the safest way to protect yourself against COVID-19.”
The reasoning is easy: many more people do not develop as strong a response from infection as they do from vaccination, and vaccination happens on a known schedule. This is especially of interest since the relationship here was reversed with Alpha, and is still unclear with Omicron - the figures I’ve seen have relatively recent infection somewhere between 2 doses and 3 in terms of efficacy, and infected plus vaccinated being the strongest.
Now, if you think from a public health perspective that makes the call very easy: vaccines are cheap and effective, and more reliably produce an immune response. Waiting for people to get infected means that the schedule is unpredictable (overloads happen), and the timing being variable means that you might have people thinking they’re protected but they were part of the group who never mounted a strong response, or who have waned over time. Rather than having people get infected randomly or hoping that they had a strong response, it’s much easier to spend a few seconds vaccinating them so you have a higher confidence that they’re protected.
Maybe you can help me understand this: if what you keep saying about reliability and timing are a thing, why doesn't this data support that?
The study shows a cohort of people who had infections sometime between the advent of testing and march of 2021, and that cohort had better outcomes than the vaccinated but uninfected cohort. How can that be? What does it mean for immunity solely from vaccination to be "stronger" and "more reliable" if the outcomes are worse? What am I missing here?
For the alpha vs delta point, what does it matter if the relationship flipped? They're basically equivalent either way. The important part is that they're both much better than seronaive.
I think you might have lost track of my original response to the question that started this thread (what is a reason to not get vaccinated) where I said:
> Having already had an infection before you were able to get vaccinated.
How are pox parties and "waiting for people to get infected" and "having people get infected randomly" relevant to the scenario that I mentioned, where people don't have the choice of getting vaccinated before they get infected, since its already happened? There's no waiting, there's no parties, there is just dealing with the cards you've been dealt. By now there should be far more of these people than straight up seronaive folks.
Similarly, "We know that vaccination is still the safest way to protect yourself against COVID-19", sounds like the same thing: if you need to gain protection from covid, we recommend getting it via vaccine rather than illness. That doesn't apply in this scenario, since protection has (as it seems to me we see empirically here) already been attained.
The study shows a cohort of people who had infections sometime between the advent of testing and march of 2021, and that cohort had better outcomes than the vaccinated but uninfected cohort. How can that be? What does it mean for immunity solely from vaccination to be "stronger" and "more reliable" if the outcomes are worse? What am I missing here?
For the alpha vs delta point, what does it matter if the relationship flipped? They're basically equivalent either way. The important part is that they're both much better than seronaive.
I think you might have lost track of my original response to the question that started this thread (what is a reason to not get vaccinated) where I said:
> Having already had an infection before you were able to get vaccinated.
How are pox parties and "waiting for people to get infected" and "having people get infected randomly" relevant to the scenario that I mentioned, where people don't have the choice of getting vaccinated before they get infected, since its already happened? There's no waiting, there's no parties, there is just dealing with the cards you've been dealt. By now there should be far more of these people than straight up seronaive folks.
Similarly, "We know that vaccination is still the safest way to protect yourself against COVID-19", sounds like the same thing: if you need to gain protection from covid, we recommend getting it via vaccine rather than illness. That doesn't apply in this scenario, since protection has (as it seems to me we see empirically here) already been attained.
> [current medical consensus says] "If you need to gain protection from covid, we recommend getting it via vaccine rather than illness." That doesn't apply in this scenario, since protection has (as it seems to me we see empirically here) already been attained.
Apologies if my edit in quotating you is misrepresenting what you're saying, but it's how I read it.
Okay.
If people have already been infected with COVID, is vaccination going to do them any good?
I think so. I'm not a doctor, nurse, anything. But I expect anyone who hasn't seen COVID for a year, it would help. Probably the same benefit as a booster that follows vaccination for people who [think they] have never been infected.
Vaccination has its own risks. I believe there is very slight risk from the injection itself.
But -- I just got booster dose, my third shot, this week. I had to go to a pharmacy a couple of blocks from my house. I walked. I had to cross a street, with the traffic signal, but there were a couple of cars. They didn't hit me. This time. Then I had to go inside the pharmacy talk to some people, wait about ten minutes. Everyone was wearing masks, but honestly it was the most contact I've had with a random mix of people all week...
If I'd needed to drive miles out of my way to get the vaccination, that's also nonzero risk.
And then... well, it seemed to hit me pretty hard, the vaccine, this time. I felt awful for two days. Then I was fine. But it seemed like a bigger reaction than previous doses. I think that's supposed to happen, actually.
Anyhow, I thought about it, and made my choice. I think it was the right way to go for me.
It's given me some things to think about, thanks.
Apologies if my edit in quotating you is misrepresenting what you're saying, but it's how I read it.
Okay.
If people have already been infected with COVID, is vaccination going to do them any good?
I think so. I'm not a doctor, nurse, anything. But I expect anyone who hasn't seen COVID for a year, it would help. Probably the same benefit as a booster that follows vaccination for people who [think they] have never been infected.
Vaccination has its own risks. I believe there is very slight risk from the injection itself.
But -- I just got booster dose, my third shot, this week. I had to go to a pharmacy a couple of blocks from my house. I walked. I had to cross a street, with the traffic signal, but there were a couple of cars. They didn't hit me. This time. Then I had to go inside the pharmacy talk to some people, wait about ten minutes. Everyone was wearing masks, but honestly it was the most contact I've had with a random mix of people all week...
If I'd needed to drive miles out of my way to get the vaccination, that's also nonzero risk.
And then... well, it seemed to hit me pretty hard, the vaccine, this time. I felt awful for two days. Then I was fine. But it seemed like a bigger reaction than previous doses. I think that's supposed to happen, actually.
Anyhow, I thought about it, and made my choice. I think it was the right way to go for me.
It's given me some things to think about, thanks.
> Apologies if my edit in quotating you is misrepresenting what you're saying, but it's how I read it.
I think thats a reasonable interpretation of what the original quote (which wasn't mine) was saying.
> If people have already been infected with COVID, is vaccination going to do them any good?
The linked data shows that it did seem to lead to a small improvement for folks during delta. Whether or not that small improvement is worth it is a judgment call.
> Anyhow, I thought about it, and made my choice. I think it was the right way to go for me.
Not that anybody needs this affirmation, but I'm 1000% in support of you making that call.
I think thats a reasonable interpretation of what the original quote (which wasn't mine) was saying.
> If people have already been infected with COVID, is vaccination going to do them any good?
The linked data shows that it did seem to lead to a small improvement for folks during delta. Whether or not that small improvement is worth it is a judgment call.
> Anyhow, I thought about it, and made my choice. I think it was the right way to go for me.
Not that anybody needs this affirmation, but I'm 1000% in support of you making that call.
A lot of people caught the virus and recovered from it. Those people have immunity that is actually stronger than that offered by the vaccines. In those cases getting the vaccine is some (albeit small) risk and almost no reward.
Nobody here is advocating for avoiding vaccinations so your entire point is moot.
I think if we're supposed to treat the position against vaccination being effective as "not stupid", we ought to hear reasons why that is.
My point is that if you insinuate that anyone who holds that position is stupid through sarcasm and snarky comments, you are never going to hear those reasons, because no one will want to engage with you.
I've heard tons of reasons why people aren't getting vaccinated. At least every one I've heard is based on false or poor quality information. I wouldn't go so far as to call those people stupid. But I would say most of their reasons for not getting vaccinated are stupid.
And if your response is to compare it to presumably racist/homophobic statements, I'd say the same of your approach.
Even if it’s stupid, what exactly is saying that going to accomplish other than feigning some superiority over the unvaccinated?
> Nobody here is advocating for avoiding vaccinations so your entire point is moot.
I consistently see anti-vaccination rhetoric on HN.
I consistently see anti-vaccination rhetoric on HN.
I'm talking about in this specific comment thread.
> I can understand immuno-compromised people, an underlying medical condition, for whom a vaccine may not work or may be dangerous. Undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer? Got it: vaccines won't help you (or anyone else) until you can get past the cancer.
This is exactly backwards from reality. The groups you mentioned are at much higher risk from covid and ergo it is much more important to vaccinate. The risk in absolute terms will remain much higher even with vaccination but this is a poor reason not to vaccinate. The reason you vaccinate is the degree of risk mitigated not the expectation of reducing that risk to zero.
This is exactly backwards from reality. The groups you mentioned are at much higher risk from covid and ergo it is much more important to vaccinate. The risk in absolute terms will remain much higher even with vaccination but this is a poor reason not to vaccinate. The reason you vaccinate is the degree of risk mitigated not the expectation of reducing that risk to zero.
I suggested immune-compromised people as a group who might need to avoid a vaccination because their immune response isn't working.
They won't exhibit an immune response to COVID spike proteins. From the virus, from a conventional vaccine, or from their own cells' production following an mRNA vaccine.
There are certainly degrees of immune system pathology. If you are receiving medical care for such a situation, by all means please follow your doctors instructions and not mine!
They won't exhibit an immune response to COVID spike proteins. From the virus, from a conventional vaccine, or from their own cells' production following an mRNA vaccine.
There are certainly degrees of immune system pathology. If you are receiving medical care for such a situation, by all means please follow your doctors instructions and not mine!
I don't wish to be disrespectful but its undesirable to give life alteringly bad medical advice on a public forum. Saying hey don't listen to me listen to your doc after you gave advice that would literally lead to a portion of readers to actually die is in a word insufficient.
>They won't exhibit an immune response to COVID spike proteins. From the virus, from a conventional vaccine, or from their own cells' production following an mRNA vaccine.
This is absolutely untrue. Most people who are immunocompromised have an immune system that works poorly not none. They are worse off than others as far as mortality and morbidity with the vaccine and without it compared to healthier individuals but they are absolutely able to develop antibodies and benefit from vaccination.
The CDC says they are 65-80% less likely to end up in the ER presenting with covid if vaccinated and boosted.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e3.htm?s_cid=mm...
Immunocompromised people that took your advice would be 3-5x more likely to die if infected with covid and given prevalence will very likely to be infected in the year ahead of us. Please refrain from giving medical advise without first taking the time to understand the topic you are speaking on. It's more important not to spread health misinformation than chat on business and tech.
>They won't exhibit an immune response to COVID spike proteins. From the virus, from a conventional vaccine, or from their own cells' production following an mRNA vaccine.
This is absolutely untrue. Most people who are immunocompromised have an immune system that works poorly not none. They are worse off than others as far as mortality and morbidity with the vaccine and without it compared to healthier individuals but they are absolutely able to develop antibodies and benefit from vaccination.
The CDC says they are 65-80% less likely to end up in the ER presenting with covid if vaccinated and boosted.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e3.htm?s_cid=mm...
Immunocompromised people that took your advice would be 3-5x more likely to die if infected with covid and given prevalence will very likely to be infected in the year ahead of us. Please refrain from giving medical advise without first taking the time to understand the topic you are speaking on. It's more important not to spread health misinformation than chat on business and tech.
How Does an individual choice to get vaccinated or not impact others?
Vaccines do not stop transmission of Covid nor do they stop you from getting Covid.
They merely decrease your chances of getting severe Covid or dying from Covid.
Thus the decision to vax or not is clearly a personal choice.
Vaccines do not stop transmission of Covid nor do they stop you from getting Covid.
They merely decrease your chances of getting severe Covid or dying from Covid.
Thus the decision to vax or not is clearly a personal choice.
> Vaccines do not stop transmission of Covid nor do they stop you from getting Covid.
They don't stop it, but they do decrease your chances of acquiring it and they do reduce the viral load you shed.
> They merely decrease your chances of getting severe Covid or dying from Covid.
So they prevent you from taking up a hospital bed, exposing the people who have to care for you to COVID and preventing other non-COVID emergencies from being tended to. That seems to impact others to me.
They don't stop it, but they do decrease your chances of acquiring it and they do reduce the viral load you shed.
> They merely decrease your chances of getting severe Covid or dying from Covid.
So they prevent you from taking up a hospital bed, exposing the people who have to care for you to COVID and preventing other non-COVID emergencies from being tended to. That seems to impact others to me.
Should we apply the same standards to the obese? Arguably a greater strain on our health care system.
If avoiding obesity was as easy as a $20 needle prick with minimal side effects... absolutely. Without question, I would require that vaccine for everyone that didn't have a valid medical reason not to.
It is even easier, just dont eat too much. Also free.
If you think that is easier than a needle prick, then you have zero understanding of obesity.
Again, Is it more complicated than: maintain caloric equilibrium?
Or are you about to make a bunch of Socio-economic and cultural justifications for obesity that you will not extend to the unvaccinated?
Or are you about to make a bunch of Socio-economic and cultural justifications for obesity that you will not extend to the unvaccinated?
I don't know, is there a free two-shot regimen to help deal with obesity? Also, last time I checked, hospitals weren't running out of ICU beds thanks to obesity.
I encourage everyone eligible to protect themselves by getting vaccinated, but hospitals literally are running out of beds thanks to obesity.
https://www.wfae.org/health/2021-09-30/novant-says-9-of-10-c...
https://www.wfae.org/health/2021-09-30/novant-says-9-of-10-c...
> hospitals literally are running out of beds thanks to obesity.
... as a co-morbidity of COVID. Clearly the most effective option for people who are obese (and other people at elevated risk) is to get vaccinated.
... as a co-morbidity of COVID. Clearly the most effective option for people who are obese (and other people at elevated risk) is to get vaccinated.
Its even easier. Just dont eat too much.
You clearly don't know much about obesity or simply don't care. Either way, if you're truly invested in the public health implications/strategies for obesity, you're welcome to look into it. :)
So its more complicated than: maintain caloric equilibrium?
Or are you about to make a bunch of Socio-economic and cultural justifications for obesity that you will not extend to the unvaccinated?
Or are you about to make a bunch of Socio-economic and cultural justifications for obesity that you will not extend to the unvaccinated?
[deleted]
All these things will just select for more virulent, more severe, more contagious forms of the virus. And extend the lifetime of the pandemic.
You might as well be telling people to take antibiotics 'just in case' because a partially resistant strain of something is going around.
That partially resistant strain won't be "partially" resistant for long.
You might as well be telling people to take antibiotics 'just in case' because a partially resistant strain of something is going around.
That partially resistant strain won't be "partially" resistant for long.
Because if you're unvaccinated you're much more likely to require hospitalization should you get Covid. The impact to others is the unvaccinated are consuming medical resources and causing burn-out amongst medical practitioners.
We dont make this distinction with the vast majority of personal choices. Obesity causes a ton of strain on our health system. Should we start a class system based on BMI?
I’ve never caught obesity by sitting next to someone. Have you?
Again, vaccines do not stop transmission or contagion
Where are you getting the information for this claim? The vaccines certainly reduce your chance of catching it, and though vaccinated individuals may have similar viral loads to unvaccinated people at peak, the period of time that they're infectious is shorter. [0] One study even suggests less infectiousness. [1]
Where have you seen otherwise?
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
[1] https://www.jwatch.org/na54386/2021/12/15/transmission-risk-...
Where have you seen otherwise?
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
[1] https://www.jwatch.org/na54386/2021/12/15/transmission-risk-...
Both of those studies predate the omnicron wave. The rate of transmission in fully vaccinated regions is still very high.
Seatbelts. Helmets. Cigarette taxes. Drinking ages.
Sure but there is a big difference between finding somebody for not wearing a seatbelt in denying them medical care.
If nurses and doctors were quitting and students dropping out of medical school for fear of dealing with the fallout surrounding people not wearing seatbelts... yeah, we'd probably be considering it.
And, of course, the numerous other routine vaccines.
> You know, I see snarky little comments like this becoming more and more common on this site, and I'd just like to point out that they are not helpful in any way.
It just represents a general fatigue that a lot of people have with the anti vaxxers. That we have hard numbers that vaccines actually work seems to be irrelevant to them, so maybe they would be convinced by snark and sarcasm instead?
> In my opinion, that line is the equivalent of saying "gosh, maybe black people should just stop committing crimes if they don't want to go to jail" or "gosh, maybe gay people should just stop having unprotected sex if they don't want HIV."
You are comparing getting a couple of free shots at the pharmacy to much more complicated lifestyle circumstances.
It just represents a general fatigue that a lot of people have with the anti vaxxers. That we have hard numbers that vaccines actually work seems to be irrelevant to them, so maybe they would be convinced by snark and sarcasm instead?
> In my opinion, that line is the equivalent of saying "gosh, maybe black people should just stop committing crimes if they don't want to go to jail" or "gosh, maybe gay people should just stop having unprotected sex if they don't want HIV."
You are comparing getting a couple of free shots at the pharmacy to much more complicated lifestyle circumstances.
> It just represents a general fatigue that a lot of people have with the anti vaxxers. That we have hard numbers that vaccines actually work seems to be irrelevant to them, so why maybe they would be convinced by snark and sarcasm instead?
and you think this is an experience unique to your viewpoint? do you think the people reading your words who have vaguely opposing views might not also be fatigued when your group flatly denies their concerns as irrelevant?
if you find yourself in an us-vs-them mindset and decide to ditch empathy, all you do is widen the divide.
and you think this is an experience unique to your viewpoint? do you think the people reading your words who have vaguely opposing views might not also be fatigued when your group flatly denies their concerns as irrelevant?
if you find yourself in an us-vs-them mindset and decide to ditch empathy, all you do is widen the divide.
> do you think the people reading your words who have vaguely opposing views might not also be fatigued when your group flatly denies their concerns as irrelevant?
In the sense that a conspiracy theorist or a crank gets tired of people not believing them, yes, I guess they are annoyed. I just little empathy for them: I want this pandemic to be over, and they are getting in the way of that. Barring that, I hope that they can take responsibility for their choices without forcing the consequences on everyone else.
In the sense that a conspiracy theorist or a crank gets tired of people not believing them, yes, I guess they are annoyed. I just little empathy for them: I want this pandemic to be over, and they are getting in the way of that. Barring that, I hope that they can take responsibility for their choices without forcing the consequences on everyone else.
> I have little empathy for them, however: I want this pandemic to be over, and they are getting in the way of that.
funny, because most everyone i know wants this too, and it’s always “the other side” which prevents the pandemic from “being over”. from a person standing in the middle, it appears that it’s the divide which blocks this, whereas from deep behind lines i guess it looks like everyone past that divide is blocking things.
well good luck winning a battle in the modern world through force of will. there’s a reason the world powers generally don’t conduct large wars openly these days, and that many conflicts are instead resolved via international agreements (especially of trade). if you do discover a way to resolve the social woes in life without leveraging pro-social behaviors (like cooperation/empathy), write me and share your findings so that i in turn can better the state of our society. and if you spot the inherent contradiction of the previous sentence, i’ll buy you a beer.
funny, because most everyone i know wants this too, and it’s always “the other side” which prevents the pandemic from “being over”. from a person standing in the middle, it appears that it’s the divide which blocks this, whereas from deep behind lines i guess it looks like everyone past that divide is blocking things.
well good luck winning a battle in the modern world through force of will. there’s a reason the world powers generally don’t conduct large wars openly these days, and that many conflicts are instead resolved via international agreements (especially of trade). if you do discover a way to resolve the social woes in life without leveraging pro-social behaviors (like cooperation/empathy), write me and share your findings so that i in turn can better the state of our society. and if you spot the inherent contradiction of the previous sentence, i’ll buy you a beer.
> funny, because most everyone i know wants this too, and it’s always “the other side” which prevents the pandemic from “being over”.
Yes, that's true. The anti-vaxxers think the vaccines will kill them or make them sterile, or something...it is really hard to keep track of what their current theory is. Again, it's a free shot you can get at the pharmacy, the only rational reason for avoiding it is if you thought it could do harm rather than just being thought ineffective.
But given that unvaccinated are dying 10X more in hospitals due to COVID than unvaccinated cases that come in, maybe this problem will just solve itself the good ole fashioned Darwin way. Mind you, as long as they don't increase unvaccinated deaths, aren't clogging the hospitals or causing my health care costs/premiums to rise (faster than they would otherwise), I believe they should have the liberty to make that decision.
Yes, that's true. The anti-vaxxers think the vaccines will kill them or make them sterile, or something...it is really hard to keep track of what their current theory is. Again, it's a free shot you can get at the pharmacy, the only rational reason for avoiding it is if you thought it could do harm rather than just being thought ineffective.
But given that unvaccinated are dying 10X more in hospitals due to COVID than unvaccinated cases that come in, maybe this problem will just solve itself the good ole fashioned Darwin way. Mind you, as long as they don't increase unvaccinated deaths, aren't clogging the hospitals or causing my health care costs/premiums to rise (faster than they would otherwise), I believe they should have the liberty to make that decision.
> The anti-vaxxers think the vaccines will kill them or make them sterile, or something...it is really hard to keep track of what their current theory is. Again, it's a free shot you can get at the pharmacy, the only rational reason for avoiding it is [..]
in one sentence, you admit that you don't understand what knowledge some person is operating with. in the next sentence, you claim to know what is rational for that person to do. if you're using "rational" in the literal sense, then you've leapt to premature conclusions.
and i get it. it's exasperating. there's a bunch of people who don't want to take a vaccine. and from the outside it seems that as more information becomes available to this group, their vocalized reason for avoiding the vaccine changes. they're being dishonest, and that's infuriating!
if this is what you're seeing, it doesn't necessarily mean every individual within that group is shifting their story. some certainly are, but many aren't and the group behavior can be explained by things similar to "evaporative cooling": some people leave the group as a result of new information (new people are still getting vaccinated, every day), and the people left behind are the ones for which the previously dominant argument wasn't their primary reason for not getting the vaccine -- and so the dominant argument of the group then changes.
group dynamics encapsulate way more complexity than just that one effect. and i think it's worth considering. you see that your own individual behavior is way more consistent than the other side's behavior -- and it is. but that's comparing an individual (yourself) to a group (anti-vaxxers). it's apples to oranges. the other individuals aren't seeing your individual behavior. they're seeing your group's behavior. they're seeing the exact same type of inconsistent and contradictory behavior that you're so fed up with.
what's the way out? well, we haven't found it, so it's hard to say for sure. but i think it has to involve empathy: seeing beyond the group, and relating to each other as individuals.
in one sentence, you admit that you don't understand what knowledge some person is operating with. in the next sentence, you claim to know what is rational for that person to do. if you're using "rational" in the literal sense, then you've leapt to premature conclusions.
and i get it. it's exasperating. there's a bunch of people who don't want to take a vaccine. and from the outside it seems that as more information becomes available to this group, their vocalized reason for avoiding the vaccine changes. they're being dishonest, and that's infuriating!
if this is what you're seeing, it doesn't necessarily mean every individual within that group is shifting their story. some certainly are, but many aren't and the group behavior can be explained by things similar to "evaporative cooling": some people leave the group as a result of new information (new people are still getting vaccinated, every day), and the people left behind are the ones for which the previously dominant argument wasn't their primary reason for not getting the vaccine -- and so the dominant argument of the group then changes.
group dynamics encapsulate way more complexity than just that one effect. and i think it's worth considering. you see that your own individual behavior is way more consistent than the other side's behavior -- and it is. but that's comparing an individual (yourself) to a group (anti-vaxxers). it's apples to oranges. the other individuals aren't seeing your individual behavior. they're seeing your group's behavior. they're seeing the exact same type of inconsistent and contradictory behavior that you're so fed up with.
what's the way out? well, we haven't found it, so it's hard to say for sure. but i think it has to involve empathy: seeing beyond the group, and relating to each other as individuals.
> in one sentence, you admit that you don't understand what knowledge some person is operating with. in the next sentence, you claim to know what is rational for that person to do. if you're using "rational" in the literal sense, then you've leapt to premature conclusions.
You are right. I am just assuming that there is a rational explanation in their head for why they don't want to vax, and as you point out, it might not be. Nor are the explanations for vaccine hesitancy consistent.
> but i think it has to involve empathy: seeing beyond the group, and relating to each other as individuals.
I'm not really compassionate enough to see this as an empathy issue: if their choices didn't affect me I wouldn't care one bit what they decided to do. Right now we have a huge society-wide problem that requires some sort of societal cohesion and consensus to defeat, but we lack that, and I don't think any of us have the energy to fight this battle at the individual level.
You are right. I am just assuming that there is a rational explanation in their head for why they don't want to vax, and as you point out, it might not be. Nor are the explanations for vaccine hesitancy consistent.
> but i think it has to involve empathy: seeing beyond the group, and relating to each other as individuals.
I'm not really compassionate enough to see this as an empathy issue: if their choices didn't affect me I wouldn't care one bit what they decided to do. Right now we have a huge society-wide problem that requires some sort of societal cohesion and consensus to defeat, but we lack that, and I don't think any of us have the energy to fight this battle at the individual level.
> Right now we have a huge society-wide problem that requires some sort of societal cohesion and consensus to defeat, but we lack that, and I don't think any of us have the energy to fight this battle at the individual level.
walk me through it: how do we achieve societal cohesion if not by empathy? a society is a network of individuals and entities, and cohesion implies that the individuals want to "stick together". why would i want to be cohesive with the parts of that network that don't acknowledge me? individuals are drawn together by common interests, shared feelings, mutual understanding, ... empathy. it's the basis of every relationship i've ever held onto. how do you build a cohesive society without that? i really don't mean to be obtuse... this is all that i know.
walk me through it: how do we achieve societal cohesion if not by empathy? a society is a network of individuals and entities, and cohesion implies that the individuals want to "stick together". why would i want to be cohesive with the parts of that network that don't acknowledge me? individuals are drawn together by common interests, shared feelings, mutual understanding, ... empathy. it's the basis of every relationship i've ever held onto. how do you build a cohesive society without that? i really don't mean to be obtuse... this is all that i know.
>and you think this is an experience unique to your viewpoint?
Can attest to that. As a flat earther, I am just so sick of the snarkiness of everyone who believes what mainstream science preaches.
We should all equally appreciate ALL differing views because no idea is more or less valid than any other idea. Evolution, creationism, alien seed planted by Xenu, they all deserve our time and attention.
Can attest to that. As a flat earther, I am just so sick of the snarkiness of everyone who believes what mainstream science preaches.
We should all equally appreciate ALL differing views because no idea is more or less valid than any other idea. Evolution, creationism, alien seed planted by Xenu, they all deserve our time and attention.
You don't have to give them time nor attention. Being snarky is giving them both, and is done precisely to increase animosity between groups.
> It just represents a general fatigue that a lot of people have with the anti vaxxers. That we have hard numbers that vaccines actually work seems to be irrelevant to them, so maybe they would be convinced by snark and sarcasm instead?
It's far more nuanced than that. I have now had three doses of the vaccine, and I had Covid subsequent to the third dose. Israel is now moving on a fourth dose, and the vaccine manufacturers are making an Omicron-specific variant. If my city continues with prior behavior, and mandates a booster for a virus I've now had, am I an "anti-vaxxer" for not wanting the unnecessary dose?
That you're characterizing the situation in this binary way says a lot to how the entire issue has been treated as a cartoon political issue. But many millions of people are in exactly this situation, today (i.e. those who already had Covid, and are now being required to get a vaccine).
It's far more nuanced than that. I have now had three doses of the vaccine, and I had Covid subsequent to the third dose. Israel is now moving on a fourth dose, and the vaccine manufacturers are making an Omicron-specific variant. If my city continues with prior behavior, and mandates a booster for a virus I've now had, am I an "anti-vaxxer" for not wanting the unnecessary dose?
That you're characterizing the situation in this binary way says a lot to how the entire issue has been treated as a cartoon political issue. But many millions of people are in exactly this situation, today (i.e. those who already had Covid, and are now being required to get a vaccine).
I don't understand why you would be against getting a free booster, or even a shot every 6 months. Is it more harmful in Israel?
Plenty of people said they already had COVID, and they are still in the 10X more likely to die statistics. Either they are had something else (like a flu or a cold, you wouldn't know without a test), or something about natural immunity isn't working. I won't speculate, I believe its the former (easier to confirm that you got the vaccine then if you really got COVID).
Plenty of people said they already had COVID, and they are still in the 10X more likely to die statistics. Either they are had something else (like a flu or a cold, you wouldn't know without a test), or something about natural immunity isn't working. I won't speculate, I believe its the former (easier to confirm that you got the vaccine then if you really got COVID).
> Plenty of people said they already had COVID, and they are still in the 10X more likely to die statistics.
People who have had Covid are at least as well-protected against serious illness as anyone who is vaccinated, and probably more so given the latest variants:
> During October 3–16, compared with hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization rates were 19.8-fold lower (95% CI = 18.2–21.4) among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, 55.3-fold lower (95% CI = 27.3–83.3) among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, and 57.5-fold lower (95% CI = 29.2–85.8) among vaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm
People who have had Covid are at least as well-protected against serious illness as anyone who is vaccinated, and probably more so given the latest variants:
> During October 3–16, compared with hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization rates were 19.8-fold lower (95% CI = 18.2–21.4) among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, 55.3-fold lower (95% CI = 27.3–83.3) among unvaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, and 57.5-fold lower (95% CI = 29.2–85.8) among vaccinated persons with a previous COVID-19 diagnosis.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm
Do you have a citation on previously infected unvaccinated people having 10x the mortality rate of vaccinated people?
Or are you saying a lot of people think they've gotten covid but actually got something else?
If it's the latter case, how do you feel about encouraging that the people who don't want to be vaccinated because they've had a prior infection get an antibody test, and get vaccinated if it comes back negative, and if they do indeed have antibodies we treat them the same way we'd treat someone vaccinated?
If you think that natural immunity is comparable to vaccine-generated immunity, but that proposal still sounds unappealing to you, I'd be curious why.
Or are you saying a lot of people think they've gotten covid but actually got something else?
If it's the latter case, how do you feel about encouraging that the people who don't want to be vaccinated because they've had a prior infection get an antibody test, and get vaccinated if it comes back negative, and if they do indeed have antibodies we treat them the same way we'd treat someone vaccinated?
If you think that natural immunity is comparable to vaccine-generated immunity, but that proposal still sounds unappealing to you, I'd be curious why.
> Who is it directed towards?
I imagine toward the people who behave as if vaccines aren't effective, which are nonzero.
> In my opinion, that line is the equivalent of saying "gosh, maybe black people should just stop committing crimes if they don't want to go to jail" or "gosh, maybe gay people should just stop having unprotected sex if they don't want HIV."
I mean. The latter statement is a thing gay people actually DID say, long before the government told them to. Gay people noticed that it was spread through sex and that condoms work. Not even going to touch the former statement since I don't feel like wading into the criminalization of black people. Suffice to say, not convinced by either of these comparisons.
> I am begging you, and everyone else, PLEASE, if you want to make a point, please do it in a respectful way that doesn't assume anyone who disagrees is stupid. If you need to be snarky, go do it on the-site-that-must-not-be-named.
I'd label your preceding statement to be snarky, fwiw.
I imagine toward the people who behave as if vaccines aren't effective, which are nonzero.
> In my opinion, that line is the equivalent of saying "gosh, maybe black people should just stop committing crimes if they don't want to go to jail" or "gosh, maybe gay people should just stop having unprotected sex if they don't want HIV."
I mean. The latter statement is a thing gay people actually DID say, long before the government told them to. Gay people noticed that it was spread through sex and that condoms work. Not even going to touch the former statement since I don't feel like wading into the criminalization of black people. Suffice to say, not convinced by either of these comparisons.
> I am begging you, and everyone else, PLEASE, if you want to make a point, please do it in a respectful way that doesn't assume anyone who disagrees is stupid. If you need to be snarky, go do it on the-site-that-must-not-be-named.
I'd label your preceding statement to be snarky, fwiw.
It's a commonly accepted fact that vaccines work. We were all vaccinated against multiple viruses as babies for a reason.
The fact that he added the word "Gosh" to his comment doesn't make it insulting or target any specific group of people. You're taking great offense over nothing and distracting from a meaningful discussion.
The fact that he added the word "Gosh" to his comment doesn't make it insulting or target any specific group of people. You're taking great offense over nothing and distracting from a meaningful discussion.
I think repeating accurate facts is an important thing. Because the random complaints in incorrect and bizarre negative anti-vax claims pass by without someone addressing them often.
What is real and true matters. There's lots of things that are hard to decide, but we know that they're not millions of hidden deaths from getting vaccinated, and we know that there are millions of people protected from dying because they got vaccinated.
What is real and true matters. There's lots of things that are hard to decide, but we know that they're not millions of hidden deaths from getting vaccinated, and we know that there are millions of people protected from dying because they got vaccinated.
I don't think comments like that are meant to convince anyone.
There are vanishingly few circumstances other than legitimate medical conflicts that warrant being unvaccinated. Namely, crippling anxiety of planning/scheduling the appointment, or being misled by trusted advisors (Fox Entertainment or doctors who should have their medical license revoked).
Other than that, I have very little patience or sympathy.
There are vanishingly few circumstances other than legitimate medical conflicts that warrant being unvaccinated. Namely, crippling anxiety of planning/scheduling the appointment, or being misled by trusted advisors (Fox Entertainment or doctors who should have their medical license revoked).
Other than that, I have very little patience or sympathy.
I'm surprised more doctors have not had their license revoked for publicly preaching misinformation. You can have your license revoked for treating a patient when a more specialized expert is available. For example, a dentist can get in trouble for not referring more complex issues to a dental surgeon, periodontist, etc.
And yet we have cardiologists and eye doctors and chiropractors telling the public that the vaccine is dangerous and that we would be better off without it.
I saw someone mentioned that a doctor/professor from Johns Hopkins was raising concerns about college age kids getting vaccinated. I looked him up. He's a surgical oncologist. Guess what the epidemiologists, virologists, and immunologists at Johns Hopkins are recommending?
Oh ya, and the surgical oncologist turned epidemiologist just so happens to have a book about the pandemic that he is pushing right now. I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.
And yet we have cardiologists and eye doctors and chiropractors telling the public that the vaccine is dangerous and that we would be better off without it.
I saw someone mentioned that a doctor/professor from Johns Hopkins was raising concerns about college age kids getting vaccinated. I looked him up. He's a surgical oncologist. Guess what the epidemiologists, virologists, and immunologists at Johns Hopkins are recommending?
Oh ya, and the surgical oncologist turned epidemiologist just so happens to have a book about the pandemic that he is pushing right now. I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.
> I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people on this website are vaccinated.
I am not so sure. HN is the most "covid is just a flu, masks and respirators dont matter, teachers should teach when sick with covid those lazy bastards" place I regularly visit. I would be surprised if vaccination rates did not followed the same general political alignement.
I am not so sure. HN is the most "covid is just a flu, masks and respirators dont matter, teachers should teach when sick with covid those lazy bastards" place I regularly visit. I would be surprised if vaccination rates did not followed the same general political alignement.
HN, whatever it's faults is not just one side on this (or many other) political battles.
Encryption is probably the only thing that most people on HN agree with.
Encryption is probably the only thing that most people on HN agree with.
What are the demographics of each of your identified cohorts? For example, if the south side is under vaccinated (whatever that means) and doing poorly then it seems a little disingenuous to act like their medical care wasn’t subpar prior to Covid.
> Vaccinated areas? Doing fine. Undervaccinated areas? Not doing so well.
Not accurate AT ALL.
NPR has a better source that also gives COVID patient percentage.
Marin County, CA and Santa Cruz, CA county have 95% vaccination rates and are doing worse in ICU capacity than Escambia county, FL who has 55% vaccination rates.
For most ICUs running at 80 to 90 percent capacity is standard.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/9443799...
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-flow/2-healthc...
Not accurate AT ALL.
NPR has a better source that also gives COVID patient percentage.
Marin County, CA and Santa Cruz, CA county have 95% vaccination rates and are doing worse in ICU capacity than Escambia county, FL who has 55% vaccination rates.
For most ICUs running at 80 to 90 percent capacity is standard.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/9443799...
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-flow/2-healthc...
> Marin County, CA and Santa Cruz, CA county have 95% vaccination rates and are doing worse in ICU capacity than Escambia county, FL who has 55% vaccination rates.
Marin and SC counties have 13% of beds filled by covid patients. Escambia has 21% filled by covid patients. This appears to directly contradict what you claimed.
Marin and SC counties have 13% of beds filled by covid patients. Escambia has 21% filled by covid patients. This appears to directly contradict what you claimed.
We're talking about ICU capacity. That's what flattening the curve is all about.
Marin and Santa Cruz have LESS Covid patients and are closer to overflowing than Escambia.
Also covid patients only make up 13% of the ICU?
Something is odd with your flattening the curve narrative blaming overflow on Covid patients.
Marin and Santa Cruz have LESS Covid patients and are closer to overflowing than Escambia.
Also covid patients only make up 13% of the ICU?
Something is odd with your flattening the curve narrative blaming overflow on Covid patients.
Icus in normal times stay at 70% capacity, so covid adding 20-30 percent capacity fills them up. Doing what CA does, flattening the curve and keeping covid induced capacity at 10-15% allows hospitals to continue functioning normally.
Sounds like maybe whats causing the curve to need flattening is the 80% of non-Covid cases in the ICU?
> Marin and Santa Cruz have LESS Covid patients and are closer to overflowing than Escambia.
So I went ahead and checked this, and it's wrong.
Escambia's ICU capacity is 87% full, SC's is 90% full (and SC is a bad choice, as they have a total of 21 ICU beds in the county, they use bay area ICU beds for overflow, which are currently sitting at ~80% capacity), and Marin's is....40%. So I'm not sure what data you're looking at, but it seems to just be wrong.
Secondly, no, covid capacity really is the problem, because for the last year and a half, hospitals were reducing non-critical care. That means you have tons of people who need hip replacements or brain surgery or tumor removal who haven't been able to get it. Many of them will need to recover in the ICU a bit, so you'd want a higher baseline ICU use post-elective surgery freeze, as that implies that the "clog" is being recovered from.
If the hospital is still full due to covid patients, those elective surgeries will never get done, leading people who never caught covid to suffer too. So low covid capacity, but higher overall use temporarily means that we're catching up to all the deferred non-covid care, something we really need to do!
The other possibility is that you mean that the 70-80% that ICUs normally run at is somehow problematic (because well like I just said, we did actually "flatten" it by deferring elective ICU recovery for more than a year in many places). The US already has more ICU beds per capita than most nations, even other developed nations, so I'm not sure what your idea here is other than perhaps, "The us population is too unhealthy or is providing too much healthcare", which are both interesting positions to take for sure.
So I went ahead and checked this, and it's wrong.
Escambia's ICU capacity is 87% full, SC's is 90% full (and SC is a bad choice, as they have a total of 21 ICU beds in the county, they use bay area ICU beds for overflow, which are currently sitting at ~80% capacity), and Marin's is....40%. So I'm not sure what data you're looking at, but it seems to just be wrong.
Secondly, no, covid capacity really is the problem, because for the last year and a half, hospitals were reducing non-critical care. That means you have tons of people who need hip replacements or brain surgery or tumor removal who haven't been able to get it. Many of them will need to recover in the ICU a bit, so you'd want a higher baseline ICU use post-elective surgery freeze, as that implies that the "clog" is being recovered from.
If the hospital is still full due to covid patients, those elective surgeries will never get done, leading people who never caught covid to suffer too. So low covid capacity, but higher overall use temporarily means that we're catching up to all the deferred non-covid care, something we really need to do!
The other possibility is that you mean that the 70-80% that ICUs normally run at is somehow problematic (because well like I just said, we did actually "flatten" it by deferring elective ICU recovery for more than a year in many places). The US already has more ICU beds per capita than most nations, even other developed nations, so I'm not sure what your idea here is other than perhaps, "The us population is too unhealthy or is providing too much healthcare", which are both interesting positions to take for sure.
>Secondly, no, covid capacity really is the problem, because for the last year and a half...<a bunch of non quantitative opinion based unprovable emotional gish gallop stuff I didn't read.>
Bullshit.
Actual data says that Covid patients in ICU take up between 8% to 20ish% of admissions.
COVID is not causing the curve to be need flattening.
The medical system is.
Maybe they shouldn't fire medical professionals who got immunity through COVID infection instead of the vaccine.
Bullshit.
Actual data says that Covid patients in ICU take up between 8% to 20ish% of admissions.
COVID is not causing the curve to be need flattening.
The medical system is.
Maybe they shouldn't fire medical professionals who got immunity through COVID infection instead of the vaccine.
> Actual data says that Covid patients in ICU take up between 8% to 20ish% of admissions.
Yes, and actual data says this is a problem, because we don't have the capacity to handle a sustained 15% increase in ICU use. That is simply not a thing we have the capacity to handle.
> Maybe they shouldn't fire medical professionals who got immunity through COVID infection instead of the vaccine.
The less than 1% of people who fall into this category are probably not the issue. 1% more nurses isn't going to address 15% more patients.
> <a bunch of non quantitative opinion based unprovable emotional gish gallop stuff I didn't read.>
You really should have, because none of it was "emotional" and most of it was quantitative, so this makes you look rather silly. Like c'mon, you've lied about how full hospitals are in California, when confronted on that you claim I'm "gish galloping" with emotional nonsense that's just true[0] factual content about how we handle and have handled hospital capacity and why your (completely conjectured!) conclusion was wrong.
[0]: https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/40-hospitals-in-ny-for...
Yes, and actual data says this is a problem, because we don't have the capacity to handle a sustained 15% increase in ICU use. That is simply not a thing we have the capacity to handle.
> Maybe they shouldn't fire medical professionals who got immunity through COVID infection instead of the vaccine.
The less than 1% of people who fall into this category are probably not the issue. 1% more nurses isn't going to address 15% more patients.
> <a bunch of non quantitative opinion based unprovable emotional gish gallop stuff I didn't read.>
You really should have, because none of it was "emotional" and most of it was quantitative, so this makes you look rather silly. Like c'mon, you've lied about how full hospitals are in California, when confronted on that you claim I'm "gish galloping" with emotional nonsense that's just true[0] factual content about how we handle and have handled hospital capacity and why your (completely conjectured!) conclusion was wrong.
[0]: https://revcycleintelligence.com/news/40-hospitals-in-ny-for...
> we don't have the capacity to handle a sustained 15% increase in ICU use.
100 - 15 is 85.
There's 85% left to handle it.
Where is this 85% going and why is it less of a concern in flattening the curve?
why is no one concerned about this 85% of non-covid ICU patients??
Seems to me covid is a small fraction of ICU cases.
Seems to me maybe the ICU should work on handling its caseload..
Seems to me maybe there's systemic problems like the AMA limiting the number of health professionals to keep the salaries up and firing the ones who have natural immunity.
Maybe that's why the curve can't get flattened.
but one thing that is crystal clear from the data is that covid is not the primary cause of hospital overflow.
100 - 15 is 85.
There's 85% left to handle it.
Where is this 85% going and why is it less of a concern in flattening the curve?
why is no one concerned about this 85% of non-covid ICU patients??
Seems to me covid is a small fraction of ICU cases.
Seems to me maybe the ICU should work on handling its caseload..
Seems to me maybe there's systemic problems like the AMA limiting the number of health professionals to keep the salaries up and firing the ones who have natural immunity.
Maybe that's why the curve can't get flattened.
but one thing that is crystal clear from the data is that covid is not the primary cause of hospital overflow.
[deleted]
> Recorded deaths do not differentiate between "died from covid" and "died while covid positive" making death statistics hard to interpret.
This has never been true and remains false.
This has never been true and remains false.
The UK Government Covid death statistics literally say "deaths with Covid", and are defined as "deaths within 28 days of a positive test".
So it is true, and always has been.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
So it is true, and always has been.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths
The next line is "deaths with covid on the death certificate", which is different and is actually a higher number and the more important number, as it deals with people who died of covid induced pneumonia after a multi-week stay in the ICU, but not people who by chance had a heart attack after contracting a mild case.
Now there's where we get into interesting territory. The UK significantly relaxed regulations around March 2020, and basically made it very easy to put "Covid" on death certificates. The requirement for a coroner's report in the case of a novel disease (ie, Covid) was also dropped, as well as the requirement to do a Covid test (or even certify the death in person). [1]
As a result, it will never be possible to know how many died of specifically Covid, and how many died of a viral-induced pneumonia.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
As a result, it will never be possible to know how many died of specifically Covid, and how many died of a viral-induced pneumonia.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
So can you explain something to me:
We know how many people die of non-covid viral induced pneumonia in a normal year (and in a bad year). Most of it is caused by the flu. We also know that covid policies have demonstrably reduced flu rates to some of the lowest ever over the past few years.
So what other cause of viral induced pneumonia do you suppose is the one killing everyone?
We know how many people die of non-covid viral induced pneumonia in a normal year (and in a bad year). Most of it is caused by the flu. We also know that covid policies have demonstrably reduced flu rates to some of the lowest ever over the past few years.
So what other cause of viral induced pneumonia do you suppose is the one killing everyone?
I already did. We will never be able to find out how many people specifically died of Covid, and how many died of a viral pneumonia, thanks to the changes in death reporting guidelines that I linked.
I find it absurd to believe that flu "went away" - do you have any evidence for that?
I find it absurd to believe that flu "went away" - do you have any evidence for that?
> We will never be able to find out how many people specifically died of Covid, and how many died of a viral pneumonia, thanks to the changes in death reporting guidelines that I linked.
What do you think causes viral pneumonia? If you get in a car crash and bleed out and die, they put both "massive hemorrhage" and "vehicle accident" on your death certificate. If you die of covid-induced viral pneumonia, they put both on your death certificate, because the covid is what caused the pneumonia. You're trying to draw a distinction where there isn't one. Deaths from covid-induced viral pneumonia are deaths from covid, in exactly the same way that deaths from car-crash induced massive bleeding are deaths from a car crash.
> I find it absurd to believe that flu "went away" - do you have any evidence for that?
See https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/faq.htm#anchor_16336269..., notably the heading "Are there other metrics that can be used to compare the 2020-2021 flu season with past seasons?", which shows a table. That table compares the 2019 and 2020 seasons. Essentially they tested around the same number of specimens and the incidence of influenza was 1000x lower.
This is probably the most accurate datapoint, other things match up (such as reported hospitalizations also being ~100x lower than the year prior) but those are more prone to accidental misclassification of flu-as-covid. You can't really screw up a test in the same way. But generally speaking, they were low enough that the CDC couldn't actually calculate the likely impact, it was too low to make reasonable predictions about. This year it's higher, but still 10x less than a normal year.
(the reason for this is also straightforward: covid-19 variants are generally more contagious than the flu, so mask and social-distancing policies that are somewhat effective at reducing covid transmission are vastly more effective at reducing influenza transmission)
What do you think causes viral pneumonia? If you get in a car crash and bleed out and die, they put both "massive hemorrhage" and "vehicle accident" on your death certificate. If you die of covid-induced viral pneumonia, they put both on your death certificate, because the covid is what caused the pneumonia. You're trying to draw a distinction where there isn't one. Deaths from covid-induced viral pneumonia are deaths from covid, in exactly the same way that deaths from car-crash induced massive bleeding are deaths from a car crash.
> I find it absurd to believe that flu "went away" - do you have any evidence for that?
See https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/faq.htm#anchor_16336269..., notably the heading "Are there other metrics that can be used to compare the 2020-2021 flu season with past seasons?", which shows a table. That table compares the 2019 and 2020 seasons. Essentially they tested around the same number of specimens and the incidence of influenza was 1000x lower.
This is probably the most accurate datapoint, other things match up (such as reported hospitalizations also being ~100x lower than the year prior) but those are more prone to accidental misclassification of flu-as-covid. You can't really screw up a test in the same way. But generally speaking, they were low enough that the CDC couldn't actually calculate the likely impact, it was too low to make reasonable predictions about. This year it's higher, but still 10x less than a normal year.
(the reason for this is also straightforward: covid-19 variants are generally more contagious than the flu, so mask and social-distancing policies that are somewhat effective at reducing covid transmission are vastly more effective at reducing influenza transmission)
>What do you think causes viral pneumonia?
Clue's in the name. A respiratory virus, of which there are many.
>covid-19 variants are generally more contagious than the flu, so mask and social-distancing policies that are somewhat effective at reducing covid transmission are vastly more effective at reducing influenza transmission
Apparently common colds and the like are even more contagious than Covid-19, as the country where I live has had a mask mandate since September 2020 and I have been ill numerous times with regular sniffles and colds.
I take your point with the data you provided (although there's no information on sampling methods and thus the statistical significance of those numbers. We also don't have a similar data point for the UK), but it's a stretch to attribute it to masks and social control measures. I'm not in the US, but I don't think that policies have changed much over the past year - yet flu is back this winter.
Clue's in the name. A respiratory virus, of which there are many.
>covid-19 variants are generally more contagious than the flu, so mask and social-distancing policies that are somewhat effective at reducing covid transmission are vastly more effective at reducing influenza transmission
Apparently common colds and the like are even more contagious than Covid-19, as the country where I live has had a mask mandate since September 2020 and I have been ill numerous times with regular sniffles and colds.
I take your point with the data you provided (although there's no information on sampling methods and thus the statistical significance of those numbers. We also don't have a similar data point for the UK), but it's a stretch to attribute it to masks and social control measures. I'm not in the US, but I don't think that policies have changed much over the past year - yet flu is back this winter.
> Clue's in the name. A respiratory virus, of which there are many.
So again, if not covid, what other thing is causing the extreme spike in viral phenomena deaths? Is it some other novel virus that no one noticed or did we suddenly become more susceptible to the common cold?
> Apparently common colds and the like are even more contagious than Covid-19, as the country where I live has had a mask mandate since September 2020 and I have been ill numerous times with regular sniffles and colds.
Anecdotes are not data, but if we're sharing them, your experience would be unusual in my neck of the woods.
> but it's a stretch to attribute it to masks and social control measures
It really isn't.
> but I don't think that policies have changed much over the past year - yet flu is back this winter
Compared to a year ago, social distancing and mask mandates are far weaker. December 2020, gyms were closed and I couldn't go to work and restaurants were at 25% capacity or outdoor/takeout only. Today gyms are open, I can work from my office, and restaurants can run at full capacity.
So again, if not covid, what other thing is causing the extreme spike in viral phenomena deaths? Is it some other novel virus that no one noticed or did we suddenly become more susceptible to the common cold?
> Apparently common colds and the like are even more contagious than Covid-19, as the country where I live has had a mask mandate since September 2020 and I have been ill numerous times with regular sniffles and colds.
Anecdotes are not data, but if we're sharing them, your experience would be unusual in my neck of the woods.
> but it's a stretch to attribute it to masks and social control measures
It really isn't.
> but I don't think that policies have changed much over the past year - yet flu is back this winter
Compared to a year ago, social distancing and mask mandates are far weaker. December 2020, gyms were closed and I couldn't go to work and restaurants were at 25% capacity or outdoor/takeout only. Today gyms are open, I can work from my office, and restaurants can run at full capacity.
> You can see what our child-bearing aged children think of all this - they're not having kids. I don't think this is a short-term aberration. We're a population literally in decline.
I'm one of these folks. I think it's wrong to blame this solely on COVID. I won't have kids because my position in the United States is nowhere near guaranteed. I have survived three economic recessions, one of which I lost everything in and the course of my life was permanently altered. I watched as society adopted "the internet" and used it in terrifying detail. I've watched as social problems turned into vitriol, anger, and at times violence. I've watched as climate change was viewed as either "conserve", "don't believe", or "innovate" with the latter being the latest focus - none of which have worked and each took myopic approaches to a very broad problem. I've watched as society became polarized on such arbitrary lines as politics, missing any nuance that may occur across the spectrum; almost turned into a caricature of Star Wars. Home prices are higher than they've ever been, inaccessible to even moderately wealthy citizens.
I may not be on the money with each of my perspectives, though I also don't think I'm really that far off. So riddle me this: Why in the hell would I want to add one more responsibility while dodging and dealing with the bullets of life as-we-know-it today?
I'm one of these folks. I think it's wrong to blame this solely on COVID. I won't have kids because my position in the United States is nowhere near guaranteed. I have survived three economic recessions, one of which I lost everything in and the course of my life was permanently altered. I watched as society adopted "the internet" and used it in terrifying detail. I've watched as social problems turned into vitriol, anger, and at times violence. I've watched as climate change was viewed as either "conserve", "don't believe", or "innovate" with the latter being the latest focus - none of which have worked and each took myopic approaches to a very broad problem. I've watched as society became polarized on such arbitrary lines as politics, missing any nuance that may occur across the spectrum; almost turned into a caricature of Star Wars. Home prices are higher than they've ever been, inaccessible to even moderately wealthy citizens.
I may not be on the money with each of my perspectives, though I also don't think I'm really that far off. So riddle me this: Why in the hell would I want to add one more responsibility while dodging and dealing with the bullets of life as-we-know-it today?
If you don't feel like taking on that responsibility, don't do it.
But understand: the vast majority of human history is colored by a desire to grow a family in order to provide strength to their progeny knowing that they, in turn, will face an unkind future and can be protected, in some degree, by their kin.
Sounds like you're at the end of a multi-billion year winning streak. Your ancestors did well.
But understand: the vast majority of human history is colored by a desire to grow a family in order to provide strength to their progeny knowing that they, in turn, will face an unkind future and can be protected, in some degree, by their kin.
Sounds like you're at the end of a multi-billion year winning streak. Your ancestors did well.
I think you are misunderestimating the value that bringing a new life into the world offers you as a parent, and your community. The world in general, and especially the United States, has never been more peaceful and prosperous as it is now. Human civilization needs more people, now more than ever.
> I think you are misunderestimating the value that bringing a new life into the world offers you as a parent, and your community.
To me judging whether or not to have a child solely based on the value that it would have for you and your community, without evaluating whether or not your child will have [the possibilities of] a good life, seems cruelly selfish.
If you're not sure that there's a stable future to bring a child into, then it only makes sense to wait.
> The world in general, and especially the United States, has never been more peaceful and prosperous as it is now.
Nevertheless, there's a good case to be made that the next few decades will be "interesting times".
> Human civilization needs more people, now more than ever.
Why? For what? I mean, I like humans but there are billions and billions of us. What purpose do you see for which our teeming numbers would not already suffice?
To me judging whether or not to have a child solely based on the value that it would have for you and your community, without evaluating whether or not your child will have [the possibilities of] a good life, seems cruelly selfish.
If you're not sure that there's a stable future to bring a child into, then it only makes sense to wait.
> The world in general, and especially the United States, has never been more peaceful and prosperous as it is now.
Nevertheless, there's a good case to be made that the next few decades will be "interesting times".
> Human civilization needs more people, now more than ever.
Why? For what? I mean, I like humans but there are billions and billions of us. What purpose do you see for which our teeming numbers would not already suffice?
You're under no obligation to have children but historically it has been very rare for anyone to have a "guaranteed" position. The norm of human existence has been brief periods of stability punctuated by wars, famines, epidemics, depressions, and disasters. Yet through it all our ancestors kept reproducing. Our problems today are minor by comparison.
Wasn't right then, isn't right now.
Genuinely asking -
What's stopping a country, or hospital, from saying: "we'll prioritize cancer patients, scheduled surgeries, normal operation; you come in with Covid respiratory distress, and we're full? Go away." From the government data I've found, Covid patients are about 5-20% of emergency department patients in the US[0]; in Switzerland that leaves a healthy amount of free beds[1] (though I'm sure staffing is another issue). Why are they causing such disruption? And if they are, why are we not having a debate about whether all the additional cancer deaths, heart attack deaths (from deprogrammed surgeries and screenings) are worth it? In what way is this "healthcare catastrophe" not partly avoidable?
> You can see what our child-bearing aged children think of all this - they're not having kids. I don't think this is a short-term aberration. We're a population literally in decline.
That's been happening long before Corona, and I doubt it has much do do with politics or "optimism about climate change" compared with wages, housing, etc.
[0]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/nhcs/hospital-encounters-by...
[1]: https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/hosp-capacity/icu?time=phase...
What's stopping a country, or hospital, from saying: "we'll prioritize cancer patients, scheduled surgeries, normal operation; you come in with Covid respiratory distress, and we're full? Go away." From the government data I've found, Covid patients are about 5-20% of emergency department patients in the US[0]; in Switzerland that leaves a healthy amount of free beds[1] (though I'm sure staffing is another issue). Why are they causing such disruption? And if they are, why are we not having a debate about whether all the additional cancer deaths, heart attack deaths (from deprogrammed surgeries and screenings) are worth it? In what way is this "healthcare catastrophe" not partly avoidable?
> You can see what our child-bearing aged children think of all this - they're not having kids. I don't think this is a short-term aberration. We're a population literally in decline.
That's been happening long before Corona, and I doubt it has much do do with politics or "optimism about climate change" compared with wages, housing, etc.
[0]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/nhcs/hospital-encounters-by...
[1]: https://www.covid19.admin.ch/en/hosp-capacity/icu?time=phase...
I believe the EMTALA means a hospital can't deny you emergency treatment. Though what defines an emergency can be kind of murky. They could certainly evaluate most covid patients and send them home with Tylenol, or make them sit in their car while they let gunshot wounds in. I also think there is government money available for hospitals treating covid patients, so it is in the hospital's interest to not turn them away.
Some anecdotal evidence, I went through cancer treatment starting Feb 2020, ending Feb 2021, with a few scans since. Including one in a few days. I have never had any of my numerous appointments postponed for covid. But I think it is because I am lucky enough to afford to be treated by a hospital with a large cancer department.
Some anecdotal evidence, I went through cancer treatment starting Feb 2020, ending Feb 2021, with a few scans since. Including one in a few days. I have never had any of my numerous appointments postponed for covid. But I think it is because I am lucky enough to afford to be treated by a hospital with a large cancer department.
I've asked my friends working in medicine the same thing. What if hospitals were to start turning away those who are willingly unvaccinated? I haven't been able to get a clear answer but the basic theme I hear is you can't, state law prohibits that. Of course the law can be changed, but what legislature is going to do that? This is where politics enters the fray. They'd rather kick the can down the road and bring in the National Guard to help run the hospitals than turn away patients and potentially face voter wrath.
For hospitals it's the federal EMTALA law which makes it illegal for hospitals to deny emergency care on the basis of vaccination status. If a patient shows up with unstable vital signs then the hospital is required to at least stabilize them. For COVID-19 patients that's usually based on respiratory distress or low blood oxygen saturation.
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMT...
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMT...
So, we essentially have mandates to "treat" with no corresponding agreement on defining any mandates to "prevent". Prevention mandates could be a tapestry of options and defined within specific contextual and cultural boundaries. But having nothing on the "prevent" tilts the scale entirely to obligatory treatment and clearly feels imbalanced.
I'm vaccinated and think everyone capable of receiving the vaccine should get it but turning people away is cruel. That's science-fiction dystopia cruelty in my opinion. Now if a hospital is full and at capacity maybe there are some calculations but just turning people away is wrong.
Note I wasn't suggesting turning people away if they're unvaccinated, I think that would be dehumanizing and would set a horrible precedent. I'm just wondering why pre-programmed surgeries and screenings are being deprogrammed when a Covid hospitalization spike is expected, as opposed to keeping all previously programmed appointments, and turning new Covid patients away when you hit full capacity (regardless of vaccination status, and obviously wouldn't include people who catch Covid at the hospital since they're already there) given the additional burden involved when dealing with Covid patients.
It's a really complicated issue. I've had a doctor friend explain it to me that one way to look at it is ignorance is a disease. The unvaccinated who have Covid now have two diseases they're fighting against. It's an interesting perspective.
Keeping with that perspective, those coming to the hospital with Covid that goes untreated are more likely to die in the next 30 days than those who come in with cancer that goes untreated. That's the calculus being played out. They're hoping to get through these waves and then get back to the patients who weren't facing as immediate a health threat.
What's really bothering my medical friends, and I suspect may be the source of so much burnout, is the prevalence of willful ignorance. They see it as a majority of the unvaccinated are people who should know better - that's what's making this so tough for them. They knew there would be cranks and crackpots who wouldn't get the vaccine because there always are. They weren't expecting it to be this prevalent and they certainly weren't expecting it to be politicized. The whole situation is demoralizing and causing people to reassess their life choices.
Keeping with that perspective, those coming to the hospital with Covid that goes untreated are more likely to die in the next 30 days than those who come in with cancer that goes untreated. That's the calculus being played out. They're hoping to get through these waves and then get back to the patients who weren't facing as immediate a health threat.
What's really bothering my medical friends, and I suspect may be the source of so much burnout, is the prevalence of willful ignorance. They see it as a majority of the unvaccinated are people who should know better - that's what's making this so tough for them. They knew there would be cranks and crackpots who wouldn't get the vaccine because there always are. They weren't expecting it to be this prevalent and they certainly weren't expecting it to be politicized. The whole situation is demoralizing and causing people to reassess their life choices.
They were explicitly talking about the case of hospitals that are struggling with capacity issues.
Ah. My misunderstanding.
Most people don't die from covid, they die with covid and their multiple comorbidities. I think it would bring up multiple issues. I have many questions about the approach. Would you turn away someone who is asymptomatic but covid positive? What if they were turned away due to false positive covid test? What if they contracted covid from the hospital? What if they are vaccinated and still get covid?
I suspect it could easily lead to broader exemptions and eventually bring up the issue of other infectious diseases not being treated.
I suspect it could easily lead to broader exemptions and eventually bring up the issue of other infectious diseases not being treated.
Pretty sure this is exactly what Switzerland has done a few times when the hospital situation was much worse for a short time last year.
My family also got several, none time critical yet time time intensive treatments over the past 2 years. There was no waiting because of COVID here.
Maybe also part of the reason it never turned out to be the healthcare catastrophe Americans some to live trough.
Edit:// not turning away, but giving less priority. Nobody gets or should be turned down. But when it comes to triangulation cancer may should win against a non vaccinated patient with low chance to survive.
My family also got several, none time critical yet time time intensive treatments over the past 2 years. There was no waiting because of COVID here.
Maybe also part of the reason it never turned out to be the healthcare catastrophe Americans some to live trough.
Edit:// not turning away, but giving less priority. Nobody gets or should be turned down. But when it comes to triangulation cancer may should win against a non vaccinated patient with low chance to survive.
Ethics.
Physicians take an oat to care for patients while looking past that.
Physicians take an oat to care for patients while looking past that.
At least in my area, I have heard of people being turned away from hospitals (where they are going due to covid symptoms) because of their vaccination status.
As with many things, nuance is a subject that many on HN fail to grasp.
They believe that masking is a binary decision and that once made, the die is cast.
Rather, if we tied masking mandates to thresholds of community spread and encouraged/provided high quality masks, the public would at least show medical professionals we're interested in keeping another body out of the morgue, aside from the obvious vaccination need.
But I digress - there are many slow moving disasters that were every so slightly accelerated by COVID that are only going to surface in the years to come.
They believe that masking is a binary decision and that once made, the die is cast.
Rather, if we tied masking mandates to thresholds of community spread and encouraged/provided high quality masks, the public would at least show medical professionals we're interested in keeping another body out of the morgue, aside from the obvious vaccination need.
But I digress - there are many slow moving disasters that were every so slightly accelerated by COVID that are only going to surface in the years to come.
> Rather, if we tied masking mandates to thresholds of community spread and encouraged/provided high quality masks, the public would at least show medical professionals we're interested in keeping another body out of the morgue, aside from the obvious vaccination need.
At this point, mandates have convinced everyone who will ever be convinced. There is no more convincing in our future. A subset of people will always reject masks and vaccines.
At this point, mandates have convinced everyone who will ever be convinced. There is no more convincing in our future. A subset of people will always reject masks and vaccines.
> At this point, mandates have convinced everyone who will ever be convinced. There is no more convincing in our future. A subset of people will always reject masks and vaccines.
This is defeatist and I don't think it's true. Most of those people have never had a mandate — as we've seen everywhere those have actually been implemented, there are a very few dedicated antivaxers and a whole ton of people who are comfortable repeating their shiboleths as long as there's no personal cost. Once they're forced to accept the consequences of their decision, a significant fraction cave. They'll never admit that they spent the last couple of years parroting lies but at least they're vaccinated and far less likely to be tying up a hospital bed.
This is defeatist and I don't think it's true. Most of those people have never had a mandate — as we've seen everywhere those have actually been implemented, there are a very few dedicated antivaxers and a whole ton of people who are comfortable repeating their shiboleths as long as there's no personal cost. Once they're forced to accept the consequences of their decision, a significant fraction cave. They'll never admit that they spent the last couple of years parroting lies but at least they're vaccinated and far less likely to be tying up a hospital bed.
Its only defeatist if you give up. And that's effectively what our leadership has done; keep screeching about masks and vaccinations, some listen, some don't, and nothing changes. The curve keeps oscillating.
Ok; recognize that. Pivot. If the best solution won't work, then it isn't the best solution; continuing to believe so is like standing on the Titanic as its going down and yelling "god damn it just don't hit the iceberg, its so simple, just turn left." Its not helpful toward driving positive outcomes, and that's what matters. Its what happens when you let scientists and doctors run the show; they present fantastic solutions which work in the lab, if everyone does them, perfectly. The population is not a programmable computer.
What's the problem right now? Medical care capacity. What's the best way to solve that? Keep people out of the hospital. That isn't working. Stop doubling down. We need to keep medical professionals in the system, and encourage new ones to join. Pass federal laws limiting the number of patients nurses are responsible for. Supplement medical professional income with tax dollars. Create incentives for retired professionals to come back into the fray, and younger people to stay in the pipeline to join the field. Deploy the military to hard-hit areas. Embrace more easily accessible, quicker trade-skill like training for COVID-care specialist to manpower-supplement existing hospital forces, working underneath more highly trained professionals. There are many things we could do, but we're not doing much of them.
Ok; recognize that. Pivot. If the best solution won't work, then it isn't the best solution; continuing to believe so is like standing on the Titanic as its going down and yelling "god damn it just don't hit the iceberg, its so simple, just turn left." Its not helpful toward driving positive outcomes, and that's what matters. Its what happens when you let scientists and doctors run the show; they present fantastic solutions which work in the lab, if everyone does them, perfectly. The population is not a programmable computer.
What's the problem right now? Medical care capacity. What's the best way to solve that? Keep people out of the hospital. That isn't working. Stop doubling down. We need to keep medical professionals in the system, and encourage new ones to join. Pass federal laws limiting the number of patients nurses are responsible for. Supplement medical professional income with tax dollars. Create incentives for retired professionals to come back into the fray, and younger people to stay in the pipeline to join the field. Deploy the military to hard-hit areas. Embrace more easily accessible, quicker trade-skill like training for COVID-care specialist to manpower-supplement existing hospital forces, working underneath more highly trained professionals. There are many things we could do, but we're not doing much of them.
> And that's effectively what our leadership has done; keep screeching about masks and vaccinations, some listen, some don't, and nothing changes.
This is wrong, and the reason resolves the seeming problem: “our leadership” never did that. Some people in some places did, many did not, and in many cases they actively worked against it. The experts’ plan works everywhere it’s actually been tried.
I do agree that we need to improve conditions for healthcare workers but that’s slow to train people up and it’d be much easier and faster if we had fewer Republicans driving them out. The politics around basic health measures is the most widely mentioned reason for burnout.
This is wrong, and the reason resolves the seeming problem: “our leadership” never did that. Some people in some places did, many did not, and in many cases they actively worked against it. The experts’ plan works everywhere it’s actually been tried.
I do agree that we need to improve conditions for healthcare workers but that’s slow to train people up and it’d be much easier and faster if we had fewer Republicans driving them out. The politics around basic health measures is the most widely mentioned reason for burnout.
I find it kind of amazing that the justification for school mask mandates (which was once "keep kids from getting covid") has morphed into "we'll lower the load on hospitals if the kids keep their faces covered."
Can anyone imagine if we went back to 2020 and pitched this to parents? "Look, if your kid gets it, it will be similar in nature to a chest cold. It's somewhat more dangerous for the elderly. In order to keep doctors and nurses from getting burned out, the kids are all going to wear masks all day. Other than that, outside of school, we're all going to be pretty much getting back to normal."
I have lost track of what the goalposts are. I am starting to think that people just like the idea that children are suffering, it must mean that we're taking the whole thing seriously. As long as none of us are inconvenienced, right?
Can anyone imagine if we went back to 2020 and pitched this to parents? "Look, if your kid gets it, it will be similar in nature to a chest cold. It's somewhat more dangerous for the elderly. In order to keep doctors and nurses from getting burned out, the kids are all going to wear masks all day. Other than that, outside of school, we're all going to be pretty much getting back to normal."
I have lost track of what the goalposts are. I am starting to think that people just like the idea that children are suffering, it must mean that we're taking the whole thing seriously. As long as none of us are inconvenienced, right?
> In order to keep doctors and nurses from getting burned out
You say it as if that's the only consequence of a medical shortage... How about replacing that with "in order to have enough functioning doctors and nurses able to treat patients with cancer, respond to car accidents, and do organ transplants"?
You say it as if that's the only consequence of a medical shortage... How about replacing that with "in order to have enough functioning doctors and nurses able to treat patients with cancer, respond to car accidents, and do organ transplants"?
Isn't the whole point of the article that school mask mandates probably don't reduce spread? If it doesn't reduce spread than it won't help your overwhelmed friends working in medicine. Sorry I guess I just don't understand what point you are trying to make.
So many Covid (and other) policies are the result of "We must do something. This is something."
His point is that the job satisfaction of adults is important and saving it requires our collective agreement that 1+1=3.
The point of masking in schools was maybe, once, based on the theory that it would keep the children and teachers safe. Now, the point is that we must exert every lever of control at our disposal. It just so happens that the only group of people who we can reliably control are children, as they cannot vote, do not have fully-formed civil rights, and (in the main) are legally required to attend government run schools each day.
So, while they'd love to make everyone else mask, they realize they practically cannot -- so they focus on children. It's grotesque.
The point of masking in schools was maybe, once, based on the theory that it would keep the children and teachers safe. Now, the point is that we must exert every lever of control at our disposal. It just so happens that the only group of people who we can reliably control are children, as they cannot vote, do not have fully-formed civil rights, and (in the main) are legally required to attend government run schools each day.
So, while they'd love to make everyone else mask, they realize they practically cannot -- so they focus on children. It's grotesque.
The thesis of the article is that even though studies show masks work studies in schools had obvious flaws and are measuring multiple confounding factors ergo masks might not work so we have no justification for mask mandates. This is materially different from knowing they don't work.
I cannot countenance the idea that keeping most of your spit with you rather than floating around the room doesn't reduce spread of a respiratory virus. At best I would suggest instead that schools ought to have had a mandate to use and reuse sterilized n95 masks instead of a loosely fitting cloth mask oft worn with the nose exposed.
I cannot countenance the idea that keeping most of your spit with you rather than floating around the room doesn't reduce spread of a respiratory virus. At best I would suggest instead that schools ought to have had a mandate to use and reuse sterilized n95 masks instead of a loosely fitting cloth mask oft worn with the nose exposed.
Yeah I don't think they are really saying that they absolutely don't work but that the evidence that they do is weak enough to justify removing the mandates. They address N95 mask in the article (did you read it) pointing out that they are more difficult to breath in and hinder communication more (I'll add my own point in that they are harder to keep a seal with which seems to be quite important according to the studies I have seen). Personally I have used N95 mask quite a bit for sanding projects and can to attest to the difficulty of wearing them for long period in a properly fitting way.
N95 masks are not at all difficult to breathe in in my experience. Not at all.
> N95 masks are not at all difficult to breathe in in my experience. Not at all.
My default assumption would be that if the mask doesn't make it more difficult to breathe then it is unlikely to be effective. The filtration mechanism should introduce friction which you then have to compensate for with additional pressure in your lungs.
My default assumption would be that if the mask doesn't make it more difficult to breathe then it is unlikely to be effective. The filtration mechanism should introduce friction which you then have to compensate for with additional pressure in your lungs.
This is a bad assumption that you can disprove for yourself in 10 seconds. You aren't pushing air up a slope you are creating a pressure differential. An impediment ought to at best result in a small decrease in the speed of filling and a tiny amount at that because your mask is very porous. Your mask is effective not in proportion to keeping air out but because larger items like globs of spit get stuck on it and because of electrostatic charge.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that effectiveness at preventing infection is linearly correlated with difficulty breathing or that to a degree that the additional friction induces difficulty must rise to the level of preventing breath in order to be effective. You aren't preventing 50% of particulates from getting in by preventing 50% of oxygen for example.
For example I imagine that you didn't believe that doctors wearing masks pre pandemic or construction workers weren't just going without breathing well for hours given paucity of air becomes an problem very very quickly
There is absolutely no reason to believe that effectiveness at preventing infection is linearly correlated with difficulty breathing or that to a degree that the additional friction induces difficulty must rise to the level of preventing breath in order to be effective. You aren't preventing 50% of particulates from getting in by preventing 50% of oxygen for example.
For example I imagine that you didn't believe that doctors wearing masks pre pandemic or construction workers weren't just going without breathing well for hours given paucity of air becomes an problem very very quickly
Thanks for the extra perspective. Without going into specifics like linearity it still seems like it could be the basis of reasonable public health advice. Forgive the tongue in cheekness but something along the lines of:
"Expect some discomfort - that lets you know the mask is working"
"Expect some discomfort - that lets you know the mask is working"
It’s a natural assumption!, and it’s important to address it. Basically the filter material is… almost indistinguishable from magic? It’s a beautifully balanced construction of materials science. From the perspective of gases, the mask is almost transparent. From the perspective of aerosolized particles, the mask is a wall of electrostatic forces and difficult luck rolls. It’s sort of like a wide reef that the tide may pass over but just isn’t traversible by boat; And all boats are steel and the reef is magnetized.
As a statement of technically accurate fact: I wouldn’t have been able to imagine how easy it is to breathe through a 3M Aura 9320+ FFP2 mask. Not before trying one. It’s… magic? –Feels like magic! These ones: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_LB/p/d/v000078838/ – pretty much the same mask as the 9205+ N95: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v101146024/
“Duckbill” type masks are great too, like Kimberly-Clark / Kimtech pouch respirators: https://www.kcprofessional.com/en-us/products/scientific-and... … These might be the most comfortable article of clothing I’ve ever worn? Like really seriously. Very easy to breathe through. No drag or inertia at all. The 3M Aura mask has the edge in breathability though – feels impossibly transparent. I believe it’s due to the material itself. The duckbill type gets its breathability through using more material and a bigger airspace. I’d love to try a duckbill made out of the material in the 3M Aura. (Secret tip: If the duckbill is creased just right it looks more like a Stormtrooper than a duck. The free bread is nice though.)
I’m reading the Wikipedia page on HEPA filters now. Trying to get a better feel for how the material works. Seems like part of how the close-fitting masks can be made so easy to breathe through is that the possible speed of air flowing through is limited. Anywhere in the range of airspeed that we can breathe aerosolized particles in or out, the filter material causes slight turbulence in the atmospheric gas, it flows and eddies around the filter material – the air flows around the material – but the aerosol particles have much more inertia and hit the filter. I actually hadn’t understood or appreciated this aspect before now.
As a statement of technically accurate fact: I wouldn’t have been able to imagine how easy it is to breathe through a 3M Aura 9320+ FFP2 mask. Not before trying one. It’s… magic? –Feels like magic! These ones: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_LB/p/d/v000078838/ – pretty much the same mask as the 9205+ N95: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/v101146024/
“Duckbill” type masks are great too, like Kimberly-Clark / Kimtech pouch respirators: https://www.kcprofessional.com/en-us/products/scientific-and... … These might be the most comfortable article of clothing I’ve ever worn? Like really seriously. Very easy to breathe through. No drag or inertia at all. The 3M Aura mask has the edge in breathability though – feels impossibly transparent. I believe it’s due to the material itself. The duckbill type gets its breathability through using more material and a bigger airspace. I’d love to try a duckbill made out of the material in the 3M Aura. (Secret tip: If the duckbill is creased just right it looks more like a Stormtrooper than a duck. The free bread is nice though.)
I’m reading the Wikipedia page on HEPA filters now. Trying to get a better feel for how the material works. Seems like part of how the close-fitting masks can be made so easy to breathe through is that the possible speed of air flowing through is limited. Anywhere in the range of airspeed that we can breathe aerosolized particles in or out, the filter material causes slight turbulence in the atmospheric gas, it flows and eddies around the filter material – the air flows around the material – but the aerosol particles have much more inertia and hit the filter. I actually hadn’t understood or appreciated this aspect before now.
There are a couple of things happening.
This 'they don't 100% work so we shouldn't even bother' bullshit .. is just that. Bullshit.
What is the cost of masked students, it's the cost of the masks. Now granted our schools are, frankly, criminally underfunded. However that PPE could be supplied from outside the school's budget for those students that don't take care of the costs themselves.
The other problem that i've been hearing from my public school teacher friends is that there are so many staff absences due to covid that more and more students are stuffed into the classrooms of those teachers that are there. So if you, as a teacher, have a class that is down 50% of students due to an outbreak but somehow you managed to avoid it. Well your 50% empty class that allows for better distancing will not last, you will be at 100% or grater capacity simply because another teacher is out, there are no available substitutes and you can't leave kids unsupervised.
This 'they don't 100% work so we shouldn't even bother' bullshit .. is just that. Bullshit.
What is the cost of masked students, it's the cost of the masks. Now granted our schools are, frankly, criminally underfunded. However that PPE could be supplied from outside the school's budget for those students that don't take care of the costs themselves.
The other problem that i've been hearing from my public school teacher friends is that there are so many staff absences due to covid that more and more students are stuffed into the classrooms of those teachers that are there. So if you, as a teacher, have a class that is down 50% of students due to an outbreak but somehow you managed to avoid it. Well your 50% empty class that allows for better distancing will not last, you will be at 100% or grater capacity simply because another teacher is out, there are no available substitutes and you can't leave kids unsupervised.
The cost of masked students is not just the purchase price of the masks. It’s that plus the reduction in learning (academic, linguistic, and social) from wearing the masks (and the masks being fussed over).
That total cost may (or may not) still support the decision to have a mask mandate for kids, but let’s not get confused and think the only cost is measured in dollars.
That total cost may (or may not) still support the decision to have a mask mandate for kids, but let’s not get confused and think the only cost is measured in dollars.
Do we have any evidence of any kind that there is a reduction in learning?
What is the cost of masked students, it's the cost of the masks.
It's much more than that.
The other problem that i've been hearing from my public school teacher friends is that there are so many staff absences due to covid
Sure, and that's happening in schools with and without mask mandates. Unless you go into full hermit mode, you are going to be exposed to Omicron. And if you're young or vaccinated, that's very unlikely to be a big deal.
It's much more than that.
The other problem that i've been hearing from my public school teacher friends is that there are so many staff absences due to covid
Sure, and that's happening in schools with and without mask mandates. Unless you go into full hermit mode, you are going to be exposed to Omicron. And if you're young or vaccinated, that's very unlikely to be a big deal.
ah, so you didn't read the article I guess, because it never says that they don't work 100% just says the evidence that they do isn't great, it also covers what the writer sees at downsides (cost) to masking children. Its fine to have differing views but you should probably focus your arguments on the substance of article. The author laid out several very compelling paragraphs to back up her point along with sources cited, so I'm sorry, but if the only counter argument you can come up with is "its bullshit" you should probably quit the debate club.
1% effective is better than 0% effective. The best defense is defense in depth.
I mean that is generally referred to as "safetyism" and while I guess its a fine personal choice it is not something that should be applied in public policy.
> Now granted our schools are, frankly, criminally underfunded.
They’re not, they’re one of the best funded schools in the world.
They’re not, they’re one of the best funded schools in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_spending_...
the US is 66th by % of gdp
the US is 66th by % of gdp
Yes, we're not at the top of spending on education as a percentage of GDP. Similarly, we're spending less on food as a % of GDP than Mexico, and much, much less than Somalia. Does it mean that US is not spending enough on food? That we're underfed compared to Mexico or Somalia? No, it just means that using percentage of GDP as a measure of something being over/underfunded is ridiculously wrong.
> They're watching how medical professionals are being treated and saying screw it!
This was a trend before the pandemic. The financials of becoming a doctor just don't make any damn sense any more. Sure you'll make more in the long run, but it's a grind to get there and you basically give up your 20's to get there. This has a lot of negative impacts on your social life and your ability to build any sort of financial stability until your 30's.
I'm really happy to see the change in attitude in medicine. Hospital leadership has been milking the Hypocratic Oath for all the can. Physicians (and other health care workers) are starting to realize this bullshit.
----
PS: I know it's not my place, but I'd really recommend having a conversation with your daughter about going into medicine. Take a peak at places like /r/medicalschool, /r/residency/, /r/medicine, and student doctor network.
March 18 will be a sobering day for many.
This was a trend before the pandemic. The financials of becoming a doctor just don't make any damn sense any more. Sure you'll make more in the long run, but it's a grind to get there and you basically give up your 20's to get there. This has a lot of negative impacts on your social life and your ability to build any sort of financial stability until your 30's.
I'm really happy to see the change in attitude in medicine. Hospital leadership has been milking the Hypocratic Oath for all the can. Physicians (and other health care workers) are starting to realize this bullshit.
----
PS: I know it's not my place, but I'd really recommend having a conversation with your daughter about going into medicine. Take a peak at places like /r/medicalschool, /r/residency/, /r/medicine, and student doctor network.
March 18 will be a sobering day for many.
> They'd also know that pretty much the only condition we're treating nowadays is Covid.
This isn't true. Here in Washington State we're experiencing peak Covid, and only about 30% of hospital capacity is for Covid. And that's an all-time high. For most of the pandemic it's been between 10 and 20%.
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/COVID19/DataDashboard#das...
This isn't true. Here in Washington State we're experiencing peak Covid, and only about 30% of hospital capacity is for Covid. And that's an all-time high. For most of the pandemic it's been between 10 and 20%.
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/COVID19/DataDashboard#das...
> And it gets worse. My daughter is in pre-med. Apparently people are dropping out like flies and not just because of the course load. They're watching how medical professionals are being treated and saying screw it! This should concern us all because we've had a marked uptick of medical professionals retiring/resigning since the pandemic started and now the pipeline is thinning out.
You should be angry at corporate healthcare that has prioritized financial efficiency and monetary gain over doing its job and treating healthcare workers fairly, not strangers on hackernews.
> We're a population literally in decline.
No, no we're _literally_ not. Not as of right now at least; the US population grew over the last year. But- even if we were, wouldn't that directly address the unrelated issue of climate change that you brought up?
You should be angry at corporate healthcare that has prioritized financial efficiency and monetary gain over doing its job and treating healthcare workers fairly, not strangers on hackernews.
> We're a population literally in decline.
No, no we're _literally_ not. Not as of right now at least; the US population grew over the last year. But- even if we were, wouldn't that directly address the unrelated issue of climate change that you brought up?
It’s only increasing due to immigration, if I’m reading this correctly.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
Not yet - if you look on pages 5 and 6 of that report, you see that births still exceed deaths in the US. Without immigration, though, population will stop growing in the next two decades (but it hasnt stopped yet).
ah, so everything is going according to plan then.
downvoters: is this outcome undesirable? if so, why, and what can we do to fix it? because I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to say that having more kids is a good thing, and using immigration/migration as a means of replacing those kids we're not having is a bad thing.
thus, is this outcome (declining citizen birth rates, increased immigration/migration compensating for it) not the intended, desired one?
downvoters: is this outcome undesirable? if so, why, and what can we do to fix it? because I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to say that having more kids is a good thing, and using immigration/migration as a means of replacing those kids we're not having is a bad thing.
thus, is this outcome (declining citizen birth rates, increased immigration/migration compensating for it) not the intended, desired one?
(I think you may have been downvoted because your initial comment appeared to be referencing the "White Genocide" conspiracy theory - essentially the idea that the Jews are planning to slowly eliminate the white race in the West and replace them with blacks and Muslims.)
This is a bizarrely specific conspiracy theory (and seems to be designed for maximum divide & conquer of voting populations) which I've never heard of. What exactly led to its inception? I always enjoy engaging with conspiracy theories, as they are a great training regimen for keeping one's mind sharp and empirically grounded, but I don't even know where to start with this one!
>What exactly led to its inception?
From what I understand, people noticed the fact that whites were gradually becoming a smaller proportion of the population of Western nations, due to both lower fertility and increased immigration.
In addition to this, some migrant groups (notably Muslims from the middle-east) have higher-than-replacement fertility rates.
Extrapolating this out, the idea was that whites would eventually be "replaced" by Muslims and other "minority" groups over the course of many decades.
I don't quite know how the Jews got involved in the conspiracy, but I always found the accusation that they're trying to increase the population of Muslims to be a bit ridiculous.
From what I understand, people noticed the fact that whites were gradually becoming a smaller proportion of the population of Western nations, due to both lower fertility and increased immigration.
In addition to this, some migrant groups (notably Muslims from the middle-east) have higher-than-replacement fertility rates.
Extrapolating this out, the idea was that whites would eventually be "replaced" by Muslims and other "minority" groups over the course of many decades.
I don't quite know how the Jews got involved in the conspiracy, but I always found the accusation that they're trying to increase the population of Muslims to be a bit ridiculous.
notice that I did not say anything about races or religions or groups or anything, aside from, implicitly, "people who were already citizens of any given Western nation" and "people who are immigrating/migrating to said nation, en masse". my original post, untainted by your invocation of specific groups of people to brand my post as being an invocation of a specific—named even—"conspiracy theory" to be harmful to discourse, because once you have invoked that, not only is all further discussion is off the table, but now I'm now actively in a pickle here because I have to say something or else risk possibly being perceived as an anti-Semite when someone looks in my post history and sees your accusations not responded to by me. I don't know if that was your intent or not but I ask that you please be more sensitive to these things, especially when I'm posting here using my real name.
I am in healthcare and the leadership whoever that is makes me question continuing. Their decisions just don’t come with reason I am starting to question who is making such decisions. We are not supported and are left out to face the front lines with no sound decision making process behind what we do. If I come across a severely sick patient I am asked to wear a gown that covers 2/3s of my front from my neck to my knees along with my basic medical mask and face shield. That is all the protection I get. My head nurses do not show up and test the clients for covid they just get deemed droplet precautions until they get better. If they are confirmed covid then we can get an N95 mask but no one is testing them unless they test their selves and all my clients are elderly so not going to be tested. Now 2 months after firing those who choose not to get vaccinated we are told we have to work even with covid if our symptoms are not serious. The lunacy I am seeing is highly turning me off from doing this forever. What if it was Ebola? There is no way I can trust my leadership to make the correct decisions to keep me safe. And I don’t have any authority to use resources or make change myself. It is very tiring to do this job day after day and with the housing market I can not even afford to get into a house. I love my job but am considering a change to get into something higher paying and worth my time.
I understand you are making the argument that removing mandates for masks at schools will lead us to have a shortage of medical practitioners? That seems dubious to me.
From what I know, the limits on number of doctors licensed each year are tightly controlled. If students drop out, there are countless others who will be willing to take their place.
From what I know, the limits on number of doctors licensed each year are tightly controlled. If students drop out, there are countless others who will be willing to take their place.
It's not just students being affected, but educators and those who supervise residents. There will be less and less spots available in residency programs, nursing programs, etc. due to this. That was already a problem pre-pandemic:
https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/nursing-fac...
Compensation helps, but having to do much more work with less people increases burnout regardless of how much you're being paid.
https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/nursing-fac...
Compensation helps, but having to do much more work with less people increases burnout regardless of how much you're being paid.
Appreciate the link, it was an informative read.
Based off what I read there, I don't think reducing burden on nurses to prevent burnout at any cost is the right response here.
The article makes clear there are two pipelines here:
Nursing student applicants -> Nursing students -> Nurses, and Nurses -> Nursing faculty
There are more qualified applicants than can be accepted as students due in part to shortages in the faculty, according to the article. So why is there a shortage of faculty? There are several items noted in the article, but I'll point out the one I think is relevant to our conversation.
> the pandemic has forced much of nursing education to an online, virtual format ... An overnight switch to virtual learning has not been seamless or easy on students or faculty ... The risk of burnout in these prolonged conditions is high—especially for faculty members who have young children or who are caretakers in the home.
So, this article is arguing nursing faculty is burning out because teaching virtually is too taxing. I don't think this article supports the idea that a nursing shortage will result due to overtaxed nurses in hospitals.
Based off what I read there, I don't think reducing burden on nurses to prevent burnout at any cost is the right response here.
The article makes clear there are two pipelines here:
Nursing student applicants -> Nursing students -> Nurses, and Nurses -> Nursing faculty
There are more qualified applicants than can be accepted as students due in part to shortages in the faculty, according to the article. So why is there a shortage of faculty? There are several items noted in the article, but I'll point out the one I think is relevant to our conversation.
> the pandemic has forced much of nursing education to an online, virtual format ... An overnight switch to virtual learning has not been seamless or easy on students or faculty ... The risk of burnout in these prolonged conditions is high—especially for faculty members who have young children or who are caretakers in the home.
So, this article is arguing nursing faculty is burning out because teaching virtually is too taxing. I don't think this article supports the idea that a nursing shortage will result due to overtaxed nurses in hospitals.
I agree, it's not the most significant factor. It would affect those close to retiring anyway. A bigger one is compensation. The reduction of funding of universities in the United States, and resulting loan cost, has made working towards a post-graduate degree very undesirable. Hospitals often cover the cost of working towards a degree, but if you are doing that you're more likely to become a nurse practitioner. Right now, working as a traveling nurse is extremely well-compensated. I had meant this article as just an introduction to the concept, you're right about the pipeline.
EDIT: Another thing is that nurses often go through 'preceptorships,' which is like a residency but much more focused and shorter in duration. It is how you accumulate a great deal of the clinical hours required by a Board of Nursing. It was difficult during my preceptorship to find people trained to be preceptors, as experienced nurses are dropping out. The difference between a green instructor and an expreienced one can be massive.
EDIT: Another thing is that nurses often go through 'preceptorships,' which is like a residency but much more focused and shorter in duration. It is how you accumulate a great deal of the clinical hours required by a Board of Nursing. It was difficult during my preceptorship to find people trained to be preceptors, as experienced nurses are dropping out. The difference between a green instructor and an expreienced one can be massive.
People stopped having kids once they could(easily available birth control). Trying to connect it to COVID or Climate change is not supported by any data whatsoever.
Call it a vibe. I only see a steady decline in living standards in our future and it makes me pause when I think about whether to subject another human being (i.e. my kids) to that.
We are living in the most safe, prosperous, easy, carefree time in the history of human species. Can we fuck it up? yes we probably can, it won't be easy and would need to involve nukes probably.
Realize that doom and fear porn that you are reading addresses certain type of need we have. If you overdo it well you get depression. Then again some people I know use this crap to give themselves excuse to behave like teenagers in their 30s, stuck in childhood(because they can).
Realize that doom and fear porn that you are reading addresses certain type of need we have. If you overdo it well you get depression. Then again some people I know use this crap to give themselves excuse to behave like teenagers in their 30s, stuck in childhood(because they can).
There is no stigma these days for not starting a family kids and men can privately retreat into video games and pornography. When confronted about their selfish* lifestyle the above comment is convenient cover but it is not backed by solid data. I'd take birth in this past decade over birth in my decade any day.
*I'd argue that not having at least one child and possibly adopting others is selfish assuming one has financial means. For example, while I thought I wanted kids, upon reflection what I really wanted are mini-me's. If I could buy a clone I'd do it immediately, but child roulette?, no thanks. My selfish lifestyle had made me very happy so far and that feels like a character flaw.
*I'd argue that not having at least one child and possibly adopting others is selfish assuming one has financial means. For example, while I thought I wanted kids, upon reflection what I really wanted are mini-me's. If I could buy a clone I'd do it immediately, but child roulette?, no thanks. My selfish lifestyle had made me very happy so far and that feels like a character flaw.
May I ask how old you are?
From where I am, a "selfish" lifestyle of video games and porn replacing responsibility does not seem to be healthy long-term.
I'm in my late 20s now, and the guys I know who are not working towards getting married and starting a family are pretty much all starting to experience some sort of constant existential anxiety.
From where I am, a "selfish" lifestyle of video games and porn replacing responsibility does not seem to be healthy long-term.
I'm in my late 20s now, and the guys I know who are not working towards getting married and starting a family are pretty much all starting to experience some sort of constant existential anxiety.
I'd rather not say my age because I rather not influence any young men to follow my path. The general data is there, a life without a family is not healthy long term. Follow my path at your peril since a lot of other things have to go right to make up for the void usually filled by family. For the record I don't play video games or view much porn and if that is how I were filling the void I would have severe existential anxiety. I volunteer/mentor, play sports, run a business, and am successful professionally.
Perhaps the existential anxiety was already there and has kept them from working towards a family? Look at a history of births and you see a major drop-off in WW2, a period where it really felt like the world could end, literally people anxious over their continued existence. Take away the War, and you get a baby boom.
Part of me thinks its the "working towards" part, independent of the family/marriage bit. I can't prove it though.
I think if you drop off the rails of a traditional lifestyle, you need to be ready to stand on your own two feet a little more when it comes to intrinsic motivation.
I think if you drop off the rails of a traditional lifestyle, you need to be ready to stand on your own two feet a little more when it comes to intrinsic motivation.
Birth control is not the only factor that has affected birth rates, even if it's the biggest. There are many factors. Any connection to COVID or climate change may not supported by any data you've seen, but does that entitle you to categorically rule it out as a factor? Where's this data that shows no relationship? I've seen a number of indications young people are increasingly hopeless about the future. It stands to reason that this could effect birth rates so I feel there's at least a small burden on you to show why the idea is wrong.
I mean it is possible somewhere in the rounding error or the rounding error of the effect contraceptives had there is climate change and covid effect. Massaging that out of the data will will be tricky to say the least, but given enough grant money I am sure people will rise to the occasion.
Yes, having plunged dramatically in the 60s with the widespread adoption of the pill, birth rate in the US has been falling in a fairly steady rate since about 1970
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/birt...
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/birt...
What does this have to do with masking young children, many who are vaccinated, in schools? Are you implying that they are a source of the spread and causing medical professionals to be burnt out? and that therefore we should ignore that both the teacher and student wearing a mask might be detrimental for ESL & Language development ?
Yes, and?
The hospital case load is overwhelmingly, screamingly, massively dominated by the elderly unvaccinated.
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/...
Given the extremely contagious nature of Omicron, what plausible way do we have to prevent these individuals from getting COVID and using hospital space? And don't say masking up kids—because if they haven't gotten vaccinated, then why do you think they themselves would wear masks and social distance to prevent themselves from getting COVID?
I have seen no plausible modeling that shows even high level of masking would significantly blunt the spread of this.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america?view...
So why make the kids put on hair shirts I mean masks?
Oh, and by the way: I have plenty of sympathy towards health care workers. I am dating a nurse. I have doctors, nurses, and paramedics as friends. I have extreme empathy towards them, and full seething burning anger towards the unvaccinated septuagenarians ruining our health care system. And the rest of our economy while they're at it.
The hospital case load is overwhelmingly, screamingly, massively dominated by the elderly unvaccinated.
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/...
Given the extremely contagious nature of Omicron, what plausible way do we have to prevent these individuals from getting COVID and using hospital space? And don't say masking up kids—because if they haven't gotten vaccinated, then why do you think they themselves would wear masks and social distance to prevent themselves from getting COVID?
I have seen no plausible modeling that shows even high level of masking would significantly blunt the spread of this.
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america?view...
So why make the kids put on hair shirts I mean masks?
Oh, and by the way: I have plenty of sympathy towards health care workers. I am dating a nurse. I have doctors, nurses, and paramedics as friends. I have extreme empathy towards them, and full seething burning anger towards the unvaccinated septuagenarians ruining our health care system. And the rest of our economy while they're at it.
The hospital case load is overwhelmingly, screamingly, massively dominated by the elderly unvaccinated.
Are you sure this is true? The data you linked to shows that hospitalization rate for 65+ unvaccinated is 7x 65+ vaccinated. But WA has a great vaccination rate, over 99% for 65+ with one or more shot. So even with 7x the rate, unvaccinated elderly probably aren't massively dominating hospitalizations because it is such a small pool of ppl.
vax rate: https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-st...
Are you sure this is true? The data you linked to shows that hospitalization rate for 65+ unvaccinated is 7x 65+ vaccinated. But WA has a great vaccination rate, over 99% for 65+ with one or more shot. So even with 7x the rate, unvaccinated elderly probably aren't massively dominating hospitalizations because it is such a small pool of ppl.
vax rate: https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-st...
The data that is showing 99+% with one or more shots is bad. Lots of second and third doses could not be linked to the original dose and got counted as "first" doses, then the percentage of people with first doses got capped at 99.9% (or something very high) because it would be obviously absurd if 115% of people had one or more doses.
Vaccination rates in liberal states for the elderly are pretty good. But not 99%.
Vaccination rates in liberal states for the elderly are pretty good. But not 99%.
I dug out a more accurate number, 93.6%, from the Washington dashboard. Even at 93.6%, the remaining 6.4% unvaccinated can't overwhelmingly account for hospitalizations even if they are being hospitalized at 7x the rate.
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/COVID19/DataDashboard
edit: According to the dashboard, 59.5% of people in the hospital with covid like illness are 60+. That's vaccinated and and unvaccinated combined. We can definitively say that the hospital case load is not overwhelmingly dominated by the elderly unvaccinated.
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/COVID19/DataDashboard
edit: According to the dashboard, 59.5% of people in the hospital with covid like illness are 60+. That's vaccinated and and unvaccinated combined. We can definitively say that the hospital case load is not overwhelmingly dominated by the elderly unvaccinated.
60% still strikes me as dominating, because the percentage of the US population that is over 60 years of age is way less than 60%.
60% is the number for 60+, unvaccinated and 60+ vaccinated. The claim was the 65+ unvaccinated alone were dominating. Can't be true given the numbers. Specifically the claim was "overwhelmingly, screamingly, massively dominated by the elderly unvaccinated".
[deleted]
With or 'because of'?
[deleted]
I think the relevant table is on page 13 "COVID-19 hospitalizations in unvaccinated and fully vaccinated individuals in
Washington state by age group, February - December, 2021"
It shows that 79% of hospitalizations in the state are unvaccinated people and that of those, 3,000 are under 34, 11,000 are between 34-65, 7,000 are over 65.
So it is indeed largely elderly unvaccinated in the hospital.
It shows that 79% of hospitalizations in the state are unvaccinated people and that of those, 3,000 are under 34, 11,000 are between 34-65, 7,000 are over 65.
So it is indeed largely elderly unvaccinated in the hospital.
So, help me here. If 7000 hospitalized are over 65 and 11,000 are under 65, does that not show that there are 4000 less elderly hospitalized than middle-aged?
If I look at those numbers, the elderly are not "dominating" the hospitals. In fact, that would show that if you looked in a hospital at any given time, there would be more middle-aged than elderly. I get that "per-capita" the rate is higher, but that does not matter to the hospital census.
What am I missing?
If I look at those numbers, the elderly are not "dominating" the hospitals. In fact, that would show that if you looked in a hospital at any given time, there would be more middle-aged than elderly. I get that "per-capita" the rate is higher, but that does not matter to the hospital census.
What am I missing?
I know multiple households where the initial infection vector was the kids. Grandpa might be stupid and refuse the vaccine, but keeping little Billy from becoming a carrier lessens the hospital load. If screaming Karens are going to insist on in person learning, we need to mask test and vaccinate in the schools.
> If screaming Karens are going to insist on in person learning
In defense of the Karens (ew, I feel gross even typing that) remote learning absolutely was the disaster they say it was. It was really, really bad. It's hard to exaggerate how bad it was. And I mean specifically for the kids, not for the parents (it also sucked for them/us, obviously). We can probably recover well-enough from a semester or two of it, but without some top-down moonshot level effort to make it better fast, continuing it would have been an actual catastrophe. I doubt anyone else with school-side insight into how it went would claim otherwise. It was bad.
In defense of the Karens (ew, I feel gross even typing that) remote learning absolutely was the disaster they say it was. It was really, really bad. It's hard to exaggerate how bad it was. And I mean specifically for the kids, not for the parents (it also sucked for them/us, obviously). We can probably recover well-enough from a semester or two of it, but without some top-down moonshot level effort to make it better fast, continuing it would have been an actual catastrophe. I doubt anyone else with school-side insight into how it went would claim otherwise. It was bad.
It was so bad in my school district. I think it was worse than no school for a year because of the chaos of teachers doing different things and no good monitoring or follow-up.
Classes ranged from some teachers sending out a single email a week with assignments and tests and grades to teachers taking attendance the minute class started and then disconnecting. For 10 year olds.
This means I would get silence for a long time, no posts in the classroom site or Teams and then an email saying “major test is tomorrow, make sure your kids study X,Y,Z” with X being chapters in a pdf, Y being a broken link, and Z being some slapdash PowerPoint posted minutes before the email. And there’s multiple subjects.
It was such a surreal experience with countless “we’re doing our best” emails from school leadership.
It was even more performative and useless than normal school.
I know my mileage may vary and it may be problems with my school district. But in the same district they didn’t suffer like this and my kids performed better.
And this is with me spending 1h+ every day helping, running around between telework. I can’t help but think how it fared for kids who didn’t have parents who could flex their work schedule to support digital school.
Classes ranged from some teachers sending out a single email a week with assignments and tests and grades to teachers taking attendance the minute class started and then disconnecting. For 10 year olds.
This means I would get silence for a long time, no posts in the classroom site or Teams and then an email saying “major test is tomorrow, make sure your kids study X,Y,Z” with X being chapters in a pdf, Y being a broken link, and Z being some slapdash PowerPoint posted minutes before the email. And there’s multiple subjects.
It was such a surreal experience with countless “we’re doing our best” emails from school leadership.
It was even more performative and useless than normal school.
I know my mileage may vary and it may be problems with my school district. But in the same district they didn’t suffer like this and my kids performed better.
And this is with me spending 1h+ every day helping, running around between telework. I can’t help but think how it fared for kids who didn’t have parents who could flex their work schedule to support digital school.
My wife is a teacher in Chicago Public Schools and there are classes in her school that have spent less than half of the school year in the classroom because of quarantine every time a kid gets COVID. Because the kids all eat lunch together, unmasked, and indoors, well they're all considered close contacts. So back to remote lessons they go again and again.
How exactly is this better than a consistent schedule from home?
How exactly is this better than a consistent schedule from home?
No. It wasn't that bad. School still continued. Your children are at most slightly inconvenienced during a global pandemic that has killed MILLIONS of people.
All you have to do is keep your kid looking at a screen. They may need to repeat a year of school. At some point in their future your kids boss may say "oh right, you were a pandemic kid, here let me show you."
It's like someone in WW2 UK complaining that the Germans dropping bombs on their neighbors houses knocked some of the good dishes off the shelf.
All you have to do is keep your kid looking at a screen. They may need to repeat a year of school. At some point in their future your kids boss may say "oh right, you were a pandemic kid, here let me show you."
It's like someone in WW2 UK complaining that the Germans dropping bombs on their neighbors houses knocked some of the good dishes off the shelf.
“Slightly inconvenienced” is a term I can assure you would be only used by someone who doesn’t have kids.
Sure, the first six months, or even a year can be discounted as an aberration in the child development process and can be compensated for. This is year 3 with no end in sight. Do you even realize how much children develop in 3 years? A 6 year old and a 9 year old have a significant difference in cognitive capabilities and if you stop the learning process, the lifetime effect can be devastating. It doesn’t matter when you’re 30 and have to sit at home, but it absolutely does when you’re a child and your brain is developing.
And based on my long career on the corporate ladder, absolutely no one cares about whether you were a pandemic baby, a child growing up in poverty or pretty much any other non visible handicap in your life. You either know stuff or you don’t.
And since you mentioned World War 2, schools didn’t stop even in WW2, At a time when people didn’t even necessarily need to go to schools to eventually lead a comfortable life.
Sure, the first six months, or even a year can be discounted as an aberration in the child development process and can be compensated for. This is year 3 with no end in sight. Do you even realize how much children develop in 3 years? A 6 year old and a 9 year old have a significant difference in cognitive capabilities and if you stop the learning process, the lifetime effect can be devastating. It doesn’t matter when you’re 30 and have to sit at home, but it absolutely does when you’re a child and your brain is developing.
And based on my long career on the corporate ladder, absolutely no one cares about whether you were a pandemic baby, a child growing up in poverty or pretty much any other non visible handicap in your life. You either know stuff or you don’t.
And since you mentioned World War 2, schools didn’t stop even in WW2, At a time when people didn’t even necessarily need to go to schools to eventually lead a comfortable life.
It's been almost 2 years. Your point still stands, but it has not been 3 years of lockdowns and schools closing their doors.
Louisiana schools closed in March of 2020 toward the end of the month. In August/September they were virtual learning only for a while, and it was not good, or so I was told.
Essentially, they got a "pass" for 2020 regardless of what their grades were, without ever stepping back into class or remote learning.
We also had a massive hurricane and two smaller ones that year, and that had more people at home in October than the SARS-CoV-2 virus did.
Either way, assuming other states allowed or encouraged remote learning and continue to this day, as of, say April of this year we enter year 3 of remote learning. I'm on mobile so I could be wrong, but I believe the original post said "going on/into 3 years at this point" - or at least that was how I interpreted it.
Essentially, they got a "pass" for 2020 regardless of what their grades were, without ever stepping back into class or remote learning.
We also had a massive hurricane and two smaller ones that year, and that had more people at home in October than the SARS-CoV-2 virus did.
Either way, assuming other states allowed or encouraged remote learning and continue to this day, as of, say April of this year we enter year 3 of remote learning. I'm on mobile so I could be wrong, but I believe the original post said "going on/into 3 years at this point" - or at least that was how I interpreted it.
I cannot find evidence of a single US school district that did not have an in-person option this academic year. As another commenter mentioned, it now makes national headlines when a school district needs to take a 1 week pause.
Also the original commenter was talking about early childhood development, not beuracracy. Everything kids learned from 9/2019 through 2/2020 shouldn't disappear because of what happened that spring. If it does our school systems are even worse than I thought.
You wouldn't say you are going into 30 years 2 months before your 29th birthday. And "no end in sight" makes 0 sense in the context of in person schooling, because the end of remote school is already in the rear view mirror.
Also the original commenter was talking about early childhood development, not beuracracy. Everything kids learned from 9/2019 through 2/2020 shouldn't disappear because of what happened that spring. If it does our school systems are even worse than I thought.
You wouldn't say you are going into 30 years 2 months before your 29th birthday. And "no end in sight" makes 0 sense in the context of in person schooling, because the end of remote school is already in the rear view mirror.
I get your overall point, but you're greatly exaggerating the length of time here. The entire pandemic has been going on for less than 2 years. I also don't know any district that wasn't in person this entire school year. Every family I know in my area (a pretty liberal area of the US) had a packed summer involving camps, friends, and road trips. Kids truly sat at home for about 1 year.
Sounds like a wealthy area.
Now envision: You are a parent who HAS to work to make ends meet. Your work has to be in person (nurse, meat packing plant etc). You have two kids 3 years apart, say 7 and 10. One you just were able to adjust to school after years of sensory and social issues. The school is closed. The kids cant go in but bars are open.
Now envision: You are a parent who HAS to work to make ends meet. Your work has to be in person (nurse, meat packing plant etc). You have two kids 3 years apart, say 7 and 10. One you just were able to adjust to school after years of sensory and social issues. The school is closed. The kids cant go in but bars are open.
Certainly my circle is wealthier, but it is a major city and any mandates would apply city-wide. Rural areas have even fewer COVID restrictions. Please point me to a school district in the United States that has had no in-person option this school year.
I live in a large U.S. city. For this discussion I'll include the metropolitan area which has a total population of roughly 2.5 million. The schools closed in the Spring of 2020 - just as the disease was first spreading. In the Fall of 2020 they were partially open - kids would go to school 2-3 days per week. By Spring of 2021 they were completely back at school though there was a mask requirement. That's the state we've been in since. So in total we had 3-4 months of no in-person school. Certainly not the 3 years the commenter you're replying to has claimed - as you pointed out this pandemic hasn't even hit the two year mark yet!
It's been the norm for some time to have in-person classes. School districts make the headlines when they cancel in-person classes and even then that situation only lasts a couple of weeks. Look at the most recent case in Chicago - it lasted one week. Since I live across the street from a large park I can tell you the kids are in school, they're playing outside, they're doing after school activities, and they're playing sports. I don't know what these people are getting on about acting like kids have been locked in their homes for two years.
It's been the norm for some time to have in-person classes. School districts make the headlines when they cancel in-person classes and even then that situation only lasts a couple of weeks. Look at the most recent case in Chicago - it lasted one week. Since I live across the street from a large park I can tell you the kids are in school, they're playing outside, they're doing after school activities, and they're playing sports. I don't know what these people are getting on about acting like kids have been locked in their homes for two years.
dsl(3)
You are wrong. Deeply wrong. I respect HN's rules, so I won't reply as I really want to.
There is deep psychological damage to kids who sat alone, by themselves for the past year. Have others had it worse in history? Sure. But that's like saying if you get run over by a Prius, it doesn't matter because people that got hit by a truck had it worse.
And for all that keeping kids at home, we really didn't gain anything. If you look at places and regions that kept kids in school and compare them to places that shut schools down, there's no discernable difference in outcomes. Because people intermingled anyway. So we could've at least had kids socializing and developing normally for that cost.
There is deep psychological damage to kids who sat alone, by themselves for the past year. Have others had it worse in history? Sure. But that's like saying if you get run over by a Prius, it doesn't matter because people that got hit by a truck had it worse.
And for all that keeping kids at home, we really didn't gain anything. If you look at places and regions that kept kids in school and compare them to places that shut schools down, there's no discernable difference in outcomes. Because people intermingled anyway. So we could've at least had kids socializing and developing normally for that cost.
Here's the thing - my wife works for the school system, I have 3 kids, and I'm involved in kids activities. The "shutdown" happened in the Spring of 2020. In the Fall of 2020 all the sports leagues resumed as normal and all the kid activities resumed as normal. The schools were partially open and they went to fully open in the Spring of 2021. In total there were 3-4 months where the kids were "locked up" in their homes. I don't know where this narrative is coming from that kids have been "locked up" for the past two years, but they have not. At least not for the overwhelming majority of kids in the U.S.
There have been cases where a school system makes headline news by cancelling in-person classes as the infection peaks in their area. These shutdowns have only been for 1-2 weeks. The kids are in school. The kids are doing activities. The kids are alright.
There have been cases where a school system makes headline news by cancelling in-person classes as the infection peaks in their area. These shutdowns have only been for 1-2 weeks. The kids are in school. The kids are doing activities. The kids are alright.
My son had a total of 6 days of in-person school for the '20-'21 school year. All after, in-person school activities were canceled the entire year. Almost all sports were canceled as well. The summer of 2020 all summer camps were canceled except for a handful of virtual camps. This past summer, there were a handful of camps available, fortunately.
School is in person this school year, although there have been about 10 virtual days so far for his school, all have been in 2022 because of Omicron making staffing really tough. There are a handful of after school activities, but many are canceled. Sports are largely back to normal.
School is in person this school year, although there have been about 10 virtual days so far for his school, all have been in 2022 because of Omicron making staffing really tough. There are a handful of after school activities, but many are canceled. Sports are largely back to normal.
That's awful - especially at the start of 2021 when we fully understood the vectors and how to manage the transmission of the virus. Summer Camps in 2020 really struggled with sick staff. Even camps that did open had to close due to high rates of infection. Summer 2021 was a completely different story thanks to the vaccine. It's been really frustrating to see the people clamoring for a return to normalcy are taking action to prolong that return to normalcy.
Hope your son is doing okay.
Hope your son is doing okay.
Probably because the actions of communist districts like Los Angeles
There is deep psychological damage to kids who sat alone, by themselves for the past year.
My kids and their friends repurposed their remote learning tools (MS Teams) and have had more creative interaction with their peers than they would have had otherwise (it's always been a pain organizing real-world play-dates). I'm surprised that this wasn't a more widespread experience.
My kids and their friends repurposed their remote learning tools (MS Teams) and have had more creative interaction with their peers than they would have had otherwise (it's always been a pain organizing real-world play-dates). I'm surprised that this wasn't a more widespread experience.
My son would totally be in to that, and I figured he'd have an ok time in the pandemic because of that. Unfortunately, his friends (were 6th grade, now 7th grade) turn out to be complete cyberbullies online. They just get hyper aggressive with each other and every other week during the pandemic my son would be in tears because his friends were so toxic. Once back in person at school, they are totally fine (well, within standards for middle schoolers!) and have a great time, but even now there are several he can't be around online because they just want to find a target and gang up on them. Sometimes it is my son, sometimes some other kid.
Plus a lot of parents are paranoid about online interaction to a crazy degree and will hardly let kids interact online - it makes no sense, but they consider it to be the great bogey man of the 21st century and think that pedophiles are ready to instantly jump on their kids, even if they are in a private discord room just chatting.
Plus a lot of parents are paranoid about online interaction to a crazy degree and will hardly let kids interact online - it makes no sense, but they consider it to be the great bogey man of the 21st century and think that pedophiles are ready to instantly jump on their kids, even if they are in a private discord room just chatting.
My kids didn’t. What’s your point?
It’s hard to measure this systematically and I’m glad that your experiences were positive. My kids had marked drop in grades and really suffered. It wasn’t so much the social aspect as teachers and schools not being to adapt to new methods.
I’d like to see trends in standardized tests during this period as I think the real harm was in knowledge not gained.
It’s hard to measure this systematically and I’m glad that your experiences were positive. My kids had marked drop in grades and really suffered. It wasn’t so much the social aspect as teachers and schools not being to adapt to new methods.
I’d like to see trends in standardized tests during this period as I think the real harm was in knowledge not gained.
I've got decent insight into several local school districts. From less-close information I've picked up from around the country, our city doesn't seem to be an outlier.
For both fully-remote and alternating-day in-person, if schools still failed kids, they'd have had to fail over half of most classes. Percentages of engaged-enough-to-be-OK kids in online schools tended to sit in the 10-20% range. It wasn't unusual for half or more of kids to effectively be absent for an entire semester. [EDIT] The alternating-day half-in-half-out in-person schedule kids, in the one district that I have insight into that did that for fall 2020/spring 2021, seemed to fare even worse than the online cohort, incidentally.
> I’d like to see trends in standardized tests during this period as I think the real harm was in knowledge not gained.
Any places that did them, they'll be awful, guaranteed. IIRC at least some states skipped them in Spring 2020 since it'd have been nearly impossible to proctor them and everyone knew they'd be "tainted" anyway. The main point of them is to compare year-over-year progress to see what needs to be adjusted and whether progress is being made, for which a during-remote-learning standardized test would be worthless, since you already know it'll be bad and why it's bad and won't be able to get any actionable info out of comparing it to prior or future years. It'll probably be another couple years before we have something like a new baseline and the tests start to be useful for their intended purpose again.
For both fully-remote and alternating-day in-person, if schools still failed kids, they'd have had to fail over half of most classes. Percentages of engaged-enough-to-be-OK kids in online schools tended to sit in the 10-20% range. It wasn't unusual for half or more of kids to effectively be absent for an entire semester. [EDIT] The alternating-day half-in-half-out in-person schedule kids, in the one district that I have insight into that did that for fall 2020/spring 2021, seemed to fare even worse than the online cohort, incidentally.
> I’d like to see trends in standardized tests during this period as I think the real harm was in knowledge not gained.
Any places that did them, they'll be awful, guaranteed. IIRC at least some states skipped them in Spring 2020 since it'd have been nearly impossible to proctor them and everyone knew they'd be "tainted" anyway. The main point of them is to compare year-over-year progress to see what needs to be adjusted and whether progress is being made, for which a during-remote-learning standardized test would be worthless, since you already know it'll be bad and why it's bad and won't be able to get any actionable info out of comparing it to prior or future years. It'll probably be another couple years before we have something like a new baseline and the tests start to be useful for their intended purpose again.
You're wrong. Deeply wrong. There is no deep psychological damage. Children are not fragile snowflakes - they're adaptable, resilient little humans. That's why as a species we continue to thrive.
Stop inventing new problems that don't exist - there's already enough to go around.
Stop inventing new problems that don't exist - there's already enough to go around.
My wife used to teach reading to elementary aged children with reading comprehension issues. And she found that you cannot teach children how to make letter sounds via Zoom. They cannot see, hear, and experience the inflections and mouth/tongue movements required.
The result is these children don't learn how to read. And studies have shown for ages that if a child is not a proficient reader by grade 3, they will likely never be proficient, ever.
That's just one of many costs. We're leaving these children behind.
The result is these children don't learn how to read. And studies have shown for ages that if a child is not a proficient reader by grade 3, they will likely never be proficient, ever.
That's just one of many costs. We're leaving these children behind.
Humans are social animals and we can most definitely have negative long term impacts from social issues at childhood.
They are resilient, my son will (probably) be fine - but that doesn't mean there wasn't damage done. I ask all his teachers what the effect has on the kids in comparison, and without an exception, they all point out that nearly all kids aren't as far along as they normally would be: emotionally, socially and academically. Most of them will mostly catch up. Some won't, and all will have an imprint of the pandemic on them in many ways.
Minimizing this does nothing for them. And remember, a depressed kid doesn't always look sad, but can seem happy go lucky as they are trying to be what their parents want them to be.
Minimizing this does nothing for them. And remember, a depressed kid doesn't always look sad, but can seem happy go lucky as they are trying to be what their parents want them to be.
I have family that teach in poorer districts here in California. Distance learning (for middle school in these areas that I have heard about) was and is an unmitigated disaster. A lot of the families served don't have reliable internet. Many have nowhere in their homes where a child can be in class without massive distractions of siblings/people/noise/etc making it essentially impossible for the students to pay attention. Often the laptops/chromebooks sent home with them don't last long due to external actions from others in the household.
The teachers are trying their best, but the best teacher in the world can't overcome the nature of these problems, and the effects are absolutely compounding over the past couple of years. It's really, really bad.
The teachers are trying their best, but the best teacher in the world can't overcome the nature of these problems, and the effects are absolutely compounding over the past couple of years. It's really, really bad.
Actually, it didn’t go well. Nowadays we’ve got a bunch of 6th graders still at a 4th grade education level. Remote learning for children is substantially less effective for many of them.
Think about it, what are the reasons making close supervision of school-aged children desirable? Their brains are still growing and developing! They often aren’t mature enough to be academically successful when they’re physically isolated and stuck on a shitty google hangout.
Think about it, what are the reasons making close supervision of school-aged children desirable? Their brains are still growing and developing! They often aren’t mature enough to be academically successful when they’re physically isolated and stuck on a shitty google hangout.
The people getting hit hardest by remote learning are the poor kids, who have few enough opportunities as it is. (I can tell you from experience, these remote learning systems are horrible on a low-end device, yet almost tolerable on a high-end one. Parents with both the time and knowledge to assist with school-work aren't distributed evenly. etc, etc.)
Universal education is supposed to be the great equaliser. I can't imagine the current state of remote learning achieves that, so I'm somewhat sympathetic to the people who push for schools to re-open in-person. I don't think it's worth people dying over, though, especially given that the qualifications are more important than the stuff you learn in school.
Universal education is supposed to be the great equaliser. I can't imagine the current state of remote learning achieves that, so I'm somewhat sympathetic to the people who push for schools to re-open in-person. I don't think it's worth people dying over, though, especially given that the qualifications are more important than the stuff you learn in school.
If you think it wasn't that bad, you must be from a privileged household, and haven't paid attention to the data. Children, especially low-income children, have been devastated by remote learning.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-13/online-l...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-13/online-l...
Remote learning was a disaster for my family, and we have great internet with many computers, and a father who could troubleshoot all the problems, and tutor them some of the time. I cannot imagine what it was like for low income families.
Closing schools was never necessary or even helpful. Some countries like Sweden kept primary schools open for in-person learning throughout the pandemic. They did fine.
This is comically out of touch with both how schooling works now and how the adult world will react to these kids' experience when they mature.
And what happens if you fail 50% of the students for 3 years in a row? It turns into a disaster.
You come up with a plan to identify the problem, you find a way to tutor them, etc.
There are many ways to help those who want to be helped. If they don't want to be helped.. well that's not a new problem.
There are many ways to help those who want to be helped. If they don't want to be helped.. well that's not a new problem.
Here’s a plan. We could come up with a place where we could teach them. And hire people to teach them. Let them go back to school.
I don’t know what you call a person that thinks half of the population are Karens, but it’s absurd.
I don’t know what you call a person that thinks half of the population are Karens, but it’s absurd.
[deleted]
That's what I don't understand. Massive world wide problem.. but we have to keep cranking the kids through the meatgrinder (public school->college->first entry job) on time. God forbid, they stop, think about how things run, try to adjust accordingly.
This is yet another problem that's ignored, swept under the run and "averaged out" as a solution.
This is yet another problem that's ignored, swept under the run and "averaged out" as a solution.
Nieve
1. If your Grandpa chose to not get vaccinated and gets COVID, thats his problem.
2. The idea that anyone who wants in person learning is a "screaming Karen" is fucking stupid. There is lots of evidence that remote learning has all kinds of negative outcomes for kids, and your (frankly sexist) dismissiveness is the reason this conversation never goes anywhere.
2. The idea that anyone who wants in person learning is a "screaming Karen" is fucking stupid. There is lots of evidence that remote learning has all kinds of negative outcomes for kids, and your (frankly sexist) dismissiveness is the reason this conversation never goes anywhere.
> If your Grandpa chose to not get vaccinated and gets COVID, thats his problem.
Unfortunately though that's not true. It's putting a huge burden on hospitals that affects us all.
Unfortunately though that's not true. It's putting a huge burden on hospitals that affects us all.
Isn't the point way up that nurses are quitting. This creates a burden at the hospital. Why are they quitting? Because they are treated like cattle instead of employed human beings. See the court case on the hospital suing the nurses in an at will employment state for quitting and going to another hospital for higher pay. There are even some who are fired for not getting a vaccine regardless of any special circumstance the individual may have.
True, but thats a % of a % of a % (ie Masks could prevent some % of COVID transmission at school, of some % of which would have be transmitted to other individuals in the home, of which some % of which would have required hospitalization), which makes it seem likely to be a high cost for not much reward.
Which at scale is still a significant number of hospital beds, and queues grow exponentially when a system reaches capacity.
But the studies in the article, from multiple places, say that masking children didn't make a difference in local covid rates.
Maybe insurance companies should drop them (or raise their premium, just like what they do with smokers).
Due to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), medical insurers aren't legally allowed to set premiums based on vaccination status.
https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/
https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/
Should insurance companies also drop low income Americans with diets that trivially lead to heart disease? Shouldn't we, as a society, take care of those who don't know better?
Just record license plates at all fast food restaurants, probably most restaurants, really, average meal runs over 3/4ths of what an average adult male needs to maintain weight.
Liquor stores and bars, too. Ethanol is at least as bad for your body as straight sucrose/fructose.
Log time spent on Facebook, steam, Reddit, etc. Statistically inactivities.
Hell, we could probably reject 75% of Americans in the first three months without any sort of death panels being necessary, just let Google, Target, and walmart machine learn AI the rejection criteria and alert the insurers.
Liquor stores and bars, too. Ethanol is at least as bad for your body as straight sucrose/fructose.
Log time spent on Facebook, steam, Reddit, etc. Statistically inactivities.
Hell, we could probably reject 75% of Americans in the first three months without any sort of death panels being necessary, just let Google, Target, and walmart machine learn AI the rejection criteria and alert the insurers.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> If your Grandpa chose to not get vaccinated and gets COVID, thats his problem.
Sure thing. Can we get the Grandpa's to sign documents saying they're going unvaccinated by choice and would like to opt-out from any hospital care related to COVID if their resources are needed for any other patient?
Sure thing. Can we get the Grandpa's to sign documents saying they're going unvaccinated by choice and would like to opt-out from any hospital care related to COVID if their resources are needed for any other patient?
Sure and while we’re at it, let’s not treat aids patients because they engaged in high risk activity and not treat heart attacks of the overweight either.
Are the hospitals collapsing because of aids patients or so many people getting heart attacks? If so then maybe we should start using carrots/sticks to limit peoples risky behavior or make them absorb more of the cost.
If they’re not collapsing the hospitals then why bring them up?
If they’re not collapsing the hospitals then why bring them up?
I mean… yes, they are. Hospitals have frequently been at capacity before covid, often from the number one killer, heart disease
The US medical system is financially untenable due to the massive percentage of adults drinking sugary sodas with every meal, getting fat, and developing Type II diabetes. Guess we should let them die too, right?
You are making an argument with no limiting principle, because it's poorly thought out and shallow, and it shows.
You are making an argument with no limiting principle, because it's poorly thought out and shallow, and it shows.
Was it untenable before covid? There were twos of needing more nurses before every boomer was in a nursing home, but I don’t remember reading reports of elective surgeries being cancelled or hospitals going to extremely understaffed.
> You are making an argument with no limiting principle, because it's poorly thought out and shallow, and it shows.
It wasn’t poorly thought out. Our system sucked but was sustainable before the unvaxxed group decided to eschew medical prevention for this disease. Now it sucks _and_ is unsustainable.
Any argument you bring out that doesn’t recognize that the situation has changed due to covid, that also points out other health problems as a reason to not react to the change caused by covid, is poorly thought out.
If any self inflicted problem causes our healthcare system to tip over we should react to it.
People refusing the covid vaccination have tipped over the system. People getting type II diabetes have not
> You are making an argument with no limiting principle, because it's poorly thought out and shallow, and it shows.
It wasn’t poorly thought out. Our system sucked but was sustainable before the unvaxxed group decided to eschew medical prevention for this disease. Now it sucks _and_ is unsustainable.
Any argument you bring out that doesn’t recognize that the situation has changed due to covid, that also points out other health problems as a reason to not react to the change caused by covid, is poorly thought out.
If any self inflicted problem causes our healthcare system to tip over we should react to it.
People refusing the covid vaccination have tipped over the system. People getting type II diabetes have not
The way you talk about the unvaccinated is telling.
I'd like to propose a solution that I think you would really prefer:
Let's make it really obvious who the unvaccinated are. I'm thinking we could maybe have some kind of article of clothing that could be worn over top of normal clothes. Perhaps an armband would suffice? Would that make you feel comfortable? It would also make it easier for you to mistreat them and shame them at will. Perhaps we could have a different armband for people that are unvaccinated but have a record of a positive test and recovery. They could be subject to shaming as well for not going along with your sacrament.
59% of Democratic party voters surveyed support a policy of confining unvaccinated people to their homes. We should go ahead and do that right? I'm taking this to its logical end because you don't dare do so.
I voted Democrat my entire life. People have no idea what it was like campaigning for Barack Obama in southwestern Virginia. I literally had a man brandish a shotgun at me in his driveway. It's coal country. I was a die-hard supporter and they betrayed me and other people like me.
This coercion was the last straw and I'm never voting for the party again. Congratulations you and your ilk have created a monster.
I'd like to propose a solution that I think you would really prefer:
Let's make it really obvious who the unvaccinated are. I'm thinking we could maybe have some kind of article of clothing that could be worn over top of normal clothes. Perhaps an armband would suffice? Would that make you feel comfortable? It would also make it easier for you to mistreat them and shame them at will. Perhaps we could have a different armband for people that are unvaccinated but have a record of a positive test and recovery. They could be subject to shaming as well for not going along with your sacrament.
59% of Democratic party voters surveyed support a policy of confining unvaccinated people to their homes. We should go ahead and do that right? I'm taking this to its logical end because you don't dare do so.
I voted Democrat my entire life. People have no idea what it was like campaigning for Barack Obama in southwestern Virginia. I literally had a man brandish a shotgun at me in his driveway. It's coal country. I was a die-hard supporter and they betrayed me and other people like me.
This coercion was the last straw and I'm never voting for the party again. Congratulations you and your ilk have created a monster.
> Let's make it really obvious who the unvaccinated are. I'm thinking we could maybe have some kind of article of clothing that could be worn over top of normal clothes. Perhaps an armband would suffice? Would that make you feel comfortable? It would also make it easier for you to mistreat them and shame them at will. Perhaps we could have a different armband for people that are unvaccinated but have a record of a positive test and recovery. They could be subject to shaming as well for not going along with your sacrament.
I’m not going to accept you trying to make comparisons between the unvaxxed and Jews. Being unvaccinated is a _choice_. If you make choices you deal with the consequence. I’m never going to be behind treating people different for aspects of their life they had no choice in, but I am 100% behind treating people differently based on their choices.
> 59% of Democratic party voters surveyed support a policy of confining unvaccinated people to their homes. We should go ahead and do that right? I'm taking this to its logical end because you don't dare do so.
You didn’t ask. I’m completely fine taking this to the logical end. Not a democrat but I’d be in the 59%. If you want to be unvaxxed and not enter society, that’s fine. You’ve kept your externalities to yourself. If you want to have access to public areas and not take steps to stop breaking down public systems, then you’re pushing your problems on us and that’s where I have a problem with it
> I literally had a man brandish a shotgun at me in his driveway
And? It’s America, who grew up here and hasn’t had someone threaten to kill them for coming on their land?
> This coercion was the last straw and I'm never voting for the party again. Congratulations you and your ilk have created a monster.
I didn’t talk about being democrat at all, but if I was in the Democratic Party and you were threatening to leave over not being getting vaccinated then I wouldn’t lift a finger to stop you. It’s not a threat when I already don’t want the unvaccinated associated with me. Go ahead, take your ball, and go home.
I’m not going to accept you trying to make comparisons between the unvaxxed and Jews. Being unvaccinated is a _choice_. If you make choices you deal with the consequence. I’m never going to be behind treating people different for aspects of their life they had no choice in, but I am 100% behind treating people differently based on their choices.
> 59% of Democratic party voters surveyed support a policy of confining unvaccinated people to their homes. We should go ahead and do that right? I'm taking this to its logical end because you don't dare do so.
You didn’t ask. I’m completely fine taking this to the logical end. Not a democrat but I’d be in the 59%. If you want to be unvaxxed and not enter society, that’s fine. You’ve kept your externalities to yourself. If you want to have access to public areas and not take steps to stop breaking down public systems, then you’re pushing your problems on us and that’s where I have a problem with it
> I literally had a man brandish a shotgun at me in his driveway
And? It’s America, who grew up here and hasn’t had someone threaten to kill them for coming on their land?
> This coercion was the last straw and I'm never voting for the party again. Congratulations you and your ilk have created a monster.
I didn’t talk about being democrat at all, but if I was in the Democratic Party and you were threatening to leave over not being getting vaccinated then I wouldn’t lift a finger to stop you. It’s not a threat when I already don’t want the unvaccinated associated with me. Go ahead, take your ball, and go home.
I fully admit I've been harsh in this thread, and frankly I'm unhappy with myself for letting my emotions get the best of me.
I appreciate your honesty and candor on your feelings on this subject.
What I will state bluntly is this:
You have stated, implicitly, that you support the policy of confining the unvaccinated to their homes.
Unfortunately, I don't see a path forward for me to ever forgive, or be willing to be decent to, people who hold that opinion, because I view it as absolutely and unequivocally tyrannical, to a degree that I view is a betrayal to the constitution. My ancestors settled in southern Appalachia in the early 1700s, and I would have a far larger number of relatives if not for so many of them dying in the Revolutionary War for the right to never again have their fundamental rights violated by inevitably corrupt, morally certain and powerful rulers in distant cities. They too, fled Ulster, where oppressive policies could have been avoided if they had made the CHOICE to convert to the Anglican church. Just a CHOICE. They CHOSE to not join the Anglican church, so they deserved the oppression that was visited on them in the eyes of the British monarchy. "Those stupid Scots-Irish Presbyterians. If they'd just convert, they'd be fine! Let's take their shit." The English KNEW that THEY were RIGHT. It was all justified.
I strongly suspect that, had you been born in 1914, you would have been fully supportive of the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II. Most Americans were, because violating the sovereign rights of fellow citizens made them feel safer. It reduced the risk imposed by some of them being spies. You have applied the same logic here. I know you view that as an unfair characterization. I don't fault you for that. Most people think that, if push came to shove, they would not have been one of the majoritarian oppressors they read about in history books. They think they are one of the small percentage of people who would have taken a stand, and sacrificed to do so. I see no evidence to support that belief in this conversation.
All I will say is that the machinery required to enforce such policies, as put on display in Australia, once put in place, can be used for any end, by any ruler who seizes power.
Regarding the political party aspects, it wasn't intended as a threat, but more of as a single data point that should make you question what the long-term fallout will be when this already endemic virus is eventually recognized as such by the vast majority of the American public. I'm not the only one who has hit a point of no return. I know I am in a minority, but it's an intransigent one, and the effect will be generational. I used to support gun control as well. Knowing that people out there are happy to violate my rights, I no longer do. 2 years ago, I viewed the NRA as a bunch of psychopaths allied with gun and ammunition manufacturers. My opinions, likely correct, was that a lot of the "Obama will take your guns" was designed to boost ammunition sales and profits for the gun/ammo companies. Now I view them as a useful counterbalance. I've been radicalized. Was it worth it?
I appreciate your honesty and candor on your feelings on this subject.
What I will state bluntly is this:
You have stated, implicitly, that you support the policy of confining the unvaccinated to their homes.
Unfortunately, I don't see a path forward for me to ever forgive, or be willing to be decent to, people who hold that opinion, because I view it as absolutely and unequivocally tyrannical, to a degree that I view is a betrayal to the constitution. My ancestors settled in southern Appalachia in the early 1700s, and I would have a far larger number of relatives if not for so many of them dying in the Revolutionary War for the right to never again have their fundamental rights violated by inevitably corrupt, morally certain and powerful rulers in distant cities. They too, fled Ulster, where oppressive policies could have been avoided if they had made the CHOICE to convert to the Anglican church. Just a CHOICE. They CHOSE to not join the Anglican church, so they deserved the oppression that was visited on them in the eyes of the British monarchy. "Those stupid Scots-Irish Presbyterians. If they'd just convert, they'd be fine! Let's take their shit." The English KNEW that THEY were RIGHT. It was all justified.
I strongly suspect that, had you been born in 1914, you would have been fully supportive of the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II. Most Americans were, because violating the sovereign rights of fellow citizens made them feel safer. It reduced the risk imposed by some of them being spies. You have applied the same logic here. I know you view that as an unfair characterization. I don't fault you for that. Most people think that, if push came to shove, they would not have been one of the majoritarian oppressors they read about in history books. They think they are one of the small percentage of people who would have taken a stand, and sacrificed to do so. I see no evidence to support that belief in this conversation.
All I will say is that the machinery required to enforce such policies, as put on display in Australia, once put in place, can be used for any end, by any ruler who seizes power.
Regarding the political party aspects, it wasn't intended as a threat, but more of as a single data point that should make you question what the long-term fallout will be when this already endemic virus is eventually recognized as such by the vast majority of the American public. I'm not the only one who has hit a point of no return. I know I am in a minority, but it's an intransigent one, and the effect will be generational. I used to support gun control as well. Knowing that people out there are happy to violate my rights, I no longer do. 2 years ago, I viewed the NRA as a bunch of psychopaths allied with gun and ammunition manufacturers. My opinions, likely correct, was that a lot of the "Obama will take your guns" was designed to boost ammunition sales and profits for the gun/ammo companies. Now I view them as a useful counterbalance. I've been radicalized. Was it worth it?
Why? We're on a free market. Surely they could simply add a big surcharge. I'd expect their insurance to go way up too.
There is no free market. Due to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), medical insurers aren't legally allowed to set premiums based on vaccination status.
https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/
https://www.healthcare.gov/how-plans-set-your-premiums/
Let's not pretend that insurance based payment even remotely resembled a free market before.
Medical services do not have price-elastic demand just because they are offered in a free market. It's the other way actually; I'd imagine medical services are some of the most price-inelastic things you can buy.
This has gone on long enough that I’m putting off multiple surgeries. Thankfully not life threatening. Just significant quality of life ruining.
The unvaccinated are harming and killing a lot of people. It isn't just grandpa's problem.
The unvaccinated are harming and killing a lot of people. It isn't just grandpa's problem.
Yeah, but masks aren't doing much to prevent that. My kids go to an Oregon elementary school that requires full time masking and I can't think of a single kid who hasn't had it. COVID has run rampant through Oregon schools. I don't care what the lab studies show. Masks don't do shit in schools. The elderly and vulnerable need to get vaccinated, or be handled in a tent in the hospital parking lot. Stop punishing kids. This coming from a very large, male, angry "Karen."
Indeed. My twin brother lives just outside of PDX, and the schools were closed for a full year, then hybrid classes. His son was in kindergarten when it hit, just like my daughter. His son is severely delayed now. On top of all of that, they finally open the schools back up and shove the kids into useless masks. His son (Jack) needs speech therapy. When he goes, the instructor is wearing a mask. He can't see what her lips are doing.
It's an absurd horror show. I live outside of Boulder, and thank God, our schools weren't closed nearly as long, thanks to the culture here being a lot more common sense than the hysterical, politically radical group-think out there. I visited there in the summer of 2020 (drove), and they had the fucking beaches closed to 4x4s. Because God forbid you drive your truck on an empty beach and catch COVID from..... who???
It was a really tense vibe everywhere we went, and when I went to Oceanside and rented a house, everyone was masking outside like idiots. I've never seen such a nutty, poorly governed state in my life, and that foolish governor did everything she could to maximize the fear, when she should have been trying to calm everyone down.
It's an absurd horror show. I live outside of Boulder, and thank God, our schools weren't closed nearly as long, thanks to the culture here being a lot more common sense than the hysterical, politically radical group-think out there. I visited there in the summer of 2020 (drove), and they had the fucking beaches closed to 4x4s. Because God forbid you drive your truck on an empty beach and catch COVID from..... who???
It was a really tense vibe everywhere we went, and when I went to Oceanside and rented a house, everyone was masking outside like idiots. I've never seen such a nutty, poorly governed state in my life, and that foolish governor did everything she could to maximize the fear, when she should have been trying to calm everyone down.
The strange part to me is that usually on policy issues there’s this band of reasonable behavior and people disagree on which end of that band we should fall, but if you’re honest you can understand the other side’s perspective. On COVID in Oregon, it’s the first time in my life I’ve felt like I’m looking at a completely different world than others. I’m just flabbergasted by the policy calls driven by COVID hysteria. I’m not some rabid right winger. (My wife and I are both triple vaccinated, AND we still recently got it!) I just feel totally, totally confused. We vacationed in Idaho over Christmas and it was like reorienting myself to reality. I have no idea what’s going on in Oregon, but I am confident that we have revealed a fundamental split in human psyches that some bad actor will exploit to terrible ends.
So what I'm about to write here is I want to emphasize just groaning and complaining from my brother. He recently moved just over the line to one of those suburbs of Portland in Washington State. He told me he was fed up with Oregon and although he doesn't like the Pacific Northwest in general, he is divorced and needs to be near his ex-wife since she has custody of the kids.
His view of Oregon is that it's filled with people who are really not that bright. Obviously this is a stereotype but I will say that being out there what I kind of sensed was a bunch of people who were descended from pioneers who were very religious and are wired for religion but don't have it. I think COVID helped foster a new form of religion in the population, but perhaps it was always a sort of case where people on the coast were kind of doing that with progressive politics in general.
Human beings really are herd animals, and the vast majority of the population would rather do what is popular than what is right. I think that you have a toxic mix of this ideology combined with the rather unique Pacific Northwest cultural trait of never speaking your mind and primarily using passive aggressive behavior at all times. My brother worked at Nike for a while and was always told by colleagues that he was "too intense". He and I both worked in military intelligence in the past in the DC area and he's a driven worker like I am. He's only intense to people that really want to take it slow all the time. He always told me that the cultural traits in the region were really obnoxious and obstructed. Getting good work done. Nike is after all a shitshow of a company. Highly unproductive, very unefficient, with the dramatically larger workforce then it needs at its campus in Beaverton. We are talking about a state that has made the decision that people can't pump their own gas because it would hurt the economy by robbing people of the job of pumping their gas for them. That's a special kind of stupidity at the government level.
On top of this rather insane groupthink that you are referring to west of the Cascades, you have this other weird situation which is the rather extreme government measures at the state level have completely radicalized people on the right side of the political spectrum. When going to a grocery store in Sherwood outside of Portland, I encountered a bunch of boogaloo boys. Half the time I was driving around there I would occasionally see a truck with radical right wing stickers all over it, signifying membership in some group. (3 percenters or something like that?) I almost never see that anywhere in Colorado outside of Denver.
But perhaps the most memorable part of that trip was the interior of the state and the fact that the state government of Oregon clearly has zero authority anywhere east of the Cascades. It's really something to behold. You have this massive land area that is essentially ungovernable by the state government. The local population absolutely hates everything from the capital. They aren't at all subtle about it. It is basically a state of open, proud disobedience. It is the only place I've ever been since the pandemic started where there is a state law requiring wearing a mask indoors, but if I walked into a convenience store wearing one, they would get angry at me including the employees. It's a very good lesson to me about the fact that urban areas should understand that large swaths of this country will become completely ungovernable if they continue to use the government as a cudgel to force their values on a population that doesn't want it.
Another item that was shocking was the fact that we had visited Portland a few times before in previous summers, and the horrific degradation of Portland's downtown was tragic to see. It's really insane. Granted I was there right as the federal courthouse was being besieged, and it was pretty crazy having young men dressed in black threaten me and my brother when we were walking. We are both over 6 ft and over 200 lb and I'm pretty sure that's the only reason we didn't get our asses beat. Complete lawlessness in that city. I just don't know how people who live there aren't completely embarrassed by it.
His view of Oregon is that it's filled with people who are really not that bright. Obviously this is a stereotype but I will say that being out there what I kind of sensed was a bunch of people who were descended from pioneers who were very religious and are wired for religion but don't have it. I think COVID helped foster a new form of religion in the population, but perhaps it was always a sort of case where people on the coast were kind of doing that with progressive politics in general.
Human beings really are herd animals, and the vast majority of the population would rather do what is popular than what is right. I think that you have a toxic mix of this ideology combined with the rather unique Pacific Northwest cultural trait of never speaking your mind and primarily using passive aggressive behavior at all times. My brother worked at Nike for a while and was always told by colleagues that he was "too intense". He and I both worked in military intelligence in the past in the DC area and he's a driven worker like I am. He's only intense to people that really want to take it slow all the time. He always told me that the cultural traits in the region were really obnoxious and obstructed. Getting good work done. Nike is after all a shitshow of a company. Highly unproductive, very unefficient, with the dramatically larger workforce then it needs at its campus in Beaverton. We are talking about a state that has made the decision that people can't pump their own gas because it would hurt the economy by robbing people of the job of pumping their gas for them. That's a special kind of stupidity at the government level.
On top of this rather insane groupthink that you are referring to west of the Cascades, you have this other weird situation which is the rather extreme government measures at the state level have completely radicalized people on the right side of the political spectrum. When going to a grocery store in Sherwood outside of Portland, I encountered a bunch of boogaloo boys. Half the time I was driving around there I would occasionally see a truck with radical right wing stickers all over it, signifying membership in some group. (3 percenters or something like that?) I almost never see that anywhere in Colorado outside of Denver.
But perhaps the most memorable part of that trip was the interior of the state and the fact that the state government of Oregon clearly has zero authority anywhere east of the Cascades. It's really something to behold. You have this massive land area that is essentially ungovernable by the state government. The local population absolutely hates everything from the capital. They aren't at all subtle about it. It is basically a state of open, proud disobedience. It is the only place I've ever been since the pandemic started where there is a state law requiring wearing a mask indoors, but if I walked into a convenience store wearing one, they would get angry at me including the employees. It's a very good lesson to me about the fact that urban areas should understand that large swaths of this country will become completely ungovernable if they continue to use the government as a cudgel to force their values on a population that doesn't want it.
Another item that was shocking was the fact that we had visited Portland a few times before in previous summers, and the horrific degradation of Portland's downtown was tragic to see. It's really insane. Granted I was there right as the federal courthouse was being besieged, and it was pretty crazy having young men dressed in black threaten me and my brother when we were walking. We are both over 6 ft and over 200 lb and I'm pretty sure that's the only reason we didn't get our asses beat. Complete lawlessness in that city. I just don't know how people who live there aren't completely embarrassed by it.
[deleted]
> I don't care what the lab studies show. Masks don't do shit in schools.
According to the article, studies have said very little in a way that controls for variables. There haven't been great studies showing their effectiveness. The Bangladesh one said surgical masks were "modestly effective." Not that it matters. Omicron is so contagious masks are well past their usefulness.
According to the article, studies have said very little in a way that controls for variables. There haven't been great studies showing their effectiveness. The Bangladesh one said surgical masks were "modestly effective." Not that it matters. Omicron is so contagious masks are well past their usefulness.
> The Bangladesh one said surgical masks were "modestly effective."
And then the raw data came out and there was a difference of maybe 20 cases.
The gold standard is an RCT, and it failed to show any benefit to masks in general.
Masks work great on mannequins or hamsters but they are essentially useless as a public health measure. We learned this in 1912. I am astonished that so many people still cling to them and claim "masks work" when we have overwhelming data that as a non-pharmaceutical intervention, they really don't. unless 100% of the people wear an N95 24/7.
The masks were well past their usefulness in 2019.
And then the raw data came out and there was a difference of maybe 20 cases.
The gold standard is an RCT, and it failed to show any benefit to masks in general.
Masks work great on mannequins or hamsters but they are essentially useless as a public health measure. We learned this in 1912. I am astonished that so many people still cling to them and claim "masks work" when we have overwhelming data that as a non-pharmaceutical intervention, they really don't. unless 100% of the people wear an N95 24/7.
The masks were well past their usefulness in 2019.
Or…grandpa can get vaccinated.
I'd be more than happy to test and vaccinate in schools. In particular vaccinate. But having kids wear masks…which they don't do well, because they're kids…not like adults do it well either…is a fig leaf. It's not going to work. And you can see that from the massive infection rates in schools that have masks.
I'd be more than happy to test and vaccinate in schools. In particular vaccinate. But having kids wear masks…which they don't do well, because they're kids…not like adults do it well either…is a fig leaf. It's not going to work. And you can see that from the massive infection rates in schools that have masks.
Of course all of our problems go away when you convince the remaining 40% of the population to get vaccinated.
I'm actually in favor of doing away with masks and social distancing. Just create a nationwide policy that the unvaccinated will not be admitted or treated for COVID and we can all return to our daily lives.
I'm actually in favor of doing away with masks and social distancing. Just create a nationwide policy that the unvaccinated will not be admitted or treated for COVID and we can all return to our daily lives.
Please refer to countries like Australia/Israel who are still experiencing massive case loads with a ~95% vaccination rate. It doesn't make it go away. For example please see
https://twitter.com/orwell2022/status/1486330027549544452
Sure, you can deny some people medical treatment if you want to reduce the load on the hospital by a bit but it does not go away!
https://twitter.com/orwell2022/status/1486330027549544452
Sure, you can deny some people medical treatment if you want to reduce the load on the hospital by a bit but it does not go away!
> Please refer to countries like Australia/Israel who are still experiencing massive case loads with a ~95% vaccination rate. It doesn't make it go away. For example please see
I think people underestimate how big a number 5% of a population of most countries -- even small ones -- actually is, especially when compared against available health care resources.
I think people underestimate how big a number 5% of a population of most countries -- even small ones -- actually is, especially when compared against available health care resources.
About 1/3 of the covid cases in the ICU where I live [1]. No idea how that stacks up compared to total ICU capacity (I think <10% but am not sure on this).
https://twitter.com/VicGovDH/status/1486225759874486273
https://twitter.com/VicGovDH/status/1486225759874486273
If only modern medicine was reserved for the Master Race, it would be so much simpler, and cost effective!
But before you seek medical treatment we’ll just need you to fill out this questionnaire:
1. Have you ever had an alcoholic beverage?
2. Do you have a BMI greater than 18.5?
3. Have you ever eaten at The Cheesecake Factory?
4. Do you ride, run, or swim less than 40 miles per day?
Please understand that your answers may disqualify you from eligibility for healthcare. Thank you, Acme Excellence Health Partners.
But before you seek medical treatment we’ll just need you to fill out this questionnaire:
1. Have you ever had an alcoholic beverage?
2. Do you have a BMI greater than 18.5?
3. Have you ever eaten at The Cheesecake Factory?
4. Do you ride, run, or swim less than 40 miles per day?
Please understand that your answers may disqualify you from eligibility for healthcare. Thank you, Acme Excellence Health Partners.
None of those things have forced us to all drastically alter our lives in the forms of economic and social lockdowns like covid has. It is a pretty silly thing to compare.
Covid is old and busted. Now all you have is OMG Omicron that’s just basically an annoying flu, you go ahead and lose your mind over it - it’s a free country. I’m still freaking out about dioxin so I don’t have time for this shit.
Covid killed 3895 people yesterday, with a 7 day average of almost a 9/11 of people every single day this past week.
Covid didn't make economic and social lockdowns.
Governments did.
Governments did.
Shush, you’re going to ruin everything.
We have been vacationing in FL and TX specifically because lockdown mania did not infect those States. Those economies seemed to be doing OK.
I read that some politicians also choose to vacation in Miami, and without masks.
I read that some politicians also choose to vacation in Miami, and without masks.
Convincing that 40% to get vaccinated while members of our elected government preach to that particular choir about how things that are partially or mostly effective (masking, vaccines, etc) are NOT effective simply because they are not 100% effective is a losing battle.
Watch the widely circulated video of the Florida's nomination hearing for their new Surgeon General, where a democrat asks the nominee if he, yes or no, believes the vaccines to be effective. It was asked five times, his answers were nothing but stuttering, rambling, dissembling, meandering madness ('i mean what does effective actually mean' level bullshit). The republicans passed him out of committee once the democrats walked out in frustration.
We have a party that is in full denial mode because that's what their anti-vax constituents want to hear. The only upside might be that their vote share goes down because their constituents die in higher numbers.
Watch the widely circulated video of the Florida's nomination hearing for their new Surgeon General, where a democrat asks the nominee if he, yes or no, believes the vaccines to be effective. It was asked five times, his answers were nothing but stuttering, rambling, dissembling, meandering madness ('i mean what does effective actually mean' level bullshit). The republicans passed him out of committee once the democrats walked out in frustration.
We have a party that is in full denial mode because that's what their anti-vax constituents want to hear. The only upside might be that their vote share goes down because their constituents die in higher numbers.
The denial is so palpable. I know a couple in their early sixties who refused to get vaccinated because "COVID is way overblown". They were both regular weight and normal health. The wife contracted COVID and died in the hospital. Later, when asked if he was going to get vaccinated, he said no, because "COVID is no worse than a cold."
He apparently believes that even though his wife went into the hospital for COVID, she actually died from pneumonia, and not COVID. I guess no doctor explained to him that pneumonia is simply an infection that has spread to the lungs.
You can't help people like this.
He apparently believes that even though his wife went into the hospital for COVID, she actually died from pneumonia, and not COVID. I guess no doctor explained to him that pneumonia is simply an infection that has spread to the lungs.
You can't help people like this.
Consider what he would have to accept if he faced the truth: That his incorrect beliefs directly caused his wife's death.
Not surprising he'd perform basically any level of mental gymnastics to avoid that.
Ego-protective delusions are extremely common and most are motivated by far less than this.
Not surprising he'd perform basically any level of mental gymnastics to avoid that.
Ego-protective delusions are extremely common and most are motivated by far less than this.
I'd argue it in a more adult way than just punishing those who are different from you. Just do away with the masking and social distancing regardless. As soon as we were throwing out the first doses of expired vaccine, the choice by every american to get vaccinated or not had been made. If the hospitals are overrun, it will be the unvaccinated, so they'll be punished anyway - no need to legally do it.
Also you need to update your Sam Harris stats, its not 40% unvaccinated anymore like some outlets continue to harp on, check CDC numbers, its closer to only 20% of the population remaining.
Also you need to update your Sam Harris stats, its not 40% unvaccinated anymore like some outlets continue to harp on, check CDC numbers, its closer to only 20% of the population remaining.
hospitals being overrun doesn't just affect the unvaccinated, it affects anybody who needs medical attention. just allowing the hospitals to get overrun is not a reasonable option
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-...
I guess it depends on what you mean by vaccinated:
75.1% of total us population has had at least on dose (79.8% of eligible (>= 5 yr)
Fully vaccinated drops to 63.6/67.6%
And Boosted is at only 41% of the fully vaccinated, 86.5M.
Is saying "Sam Harris stats" some kind of dig?
All of our problems go away?! Which demographic do you think this policy will affect the most, for example, in California[0]?
[0]: https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/#ethnicity-gender-age
[0]: https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/#ethnicity-gender-age
[deleted]
Another thing I wonder about is what are the affects of wearing masks at young age and not getting usual amount of exposure to viruses and other germs.
I remember reading here and elsewhere that early childhood exposure to germs builds a robust immune system.
While my kid doesn’t wear mask in his class but his school is following very strict cleaning procedures. So he hasn’t gotten sick as much before pandemic. Maybe that is good, definitely easier on us. Maybe we will always have higher level of hygiene now. Or maybe in future there will be a lot of young adults with underdeveloped immune system.
I remember reading here and elsewhere that early childhood exposure to germs builds a robust immune system.
While my kid doesn’t wear mask in his class but his school is following very strict cleaning procedures. So he hasn’t gotten sick as much before pandemic. Maybe that is good, definitely easier on us. Maybe we will always have higher level of hygiene now. Or maybe in future there will be a lot of young adults with underdeveloped immune system.
Having young kids myself, I can say pretty confidently that kids are going to expose themselves to quite a lot of germs no matter what precautions we take, short of putting them in solitary confinement in clean rooms.
So I think it's possible that precautions reduce viral and bacterial exposure, but since they don't completely stop it, immune systems may still get enough exposure to build immunity to things while still not getting enough exposure to actually make them sick.
So I think it's possible that precautions reduce viral and bacterial exposure, but since they don't completely stop it, immune systems may still get enough exposure to build immunity to things while still not getting enough exposure to actually make them sick.
This seems to run counter to the current hygiene hypothesis, which is the current mainstream scientific opinion on one aspect of allergy development. Children in developed countries are decreasingly exposed to various microorganisms, and this is thought to result in increased rates of allergic disorders.
Good question.
I believe that it's common for kids to wear masks during flu season in some countries. They probably have some relevant data.
I think there's a belief that strict adherence to vaccination and masks would get us to a place where we won't need masks all the time, and kids can resume their usual immune-system adventures. That might be less realistic than we might want. I don't know.
I believe that it's common for kids to wear masks during flu season in some countries. They probably have some relevant data.
I think there's a belief that strict adherence to vaccination and masks would get us to a place where we won't need masks all the time, and kids can resume their usual immune-system adventures. That might be less realistic than we might want. I don't know.
Is there a massive infection rate? My kid’s elementary school sends an email with the count of positive test results in the school each week. It seems like it’s consistently under 1% per week. (Typically 1-4 people testing positive in a city K-5 school, students and staff being tested.)
Our school has seemed to do OK keeping it from spreading between kids.
But they also do weekly testing. And did surveillance testing at the end of winter break, which kept about 15% of the school's students at home for the first week back because they had covid.
This statistic was also consistent with LA Unified surveillance testing after winter break - about 15%.
Before winter break, some parents of 2nd graders had an indoor, maskless, holiday party. Apparently all the kids got covid. Then gave it to the teachers - all 4 2nd grade teachers were out of school with covid the week before winter break. But from what our school's testing showed, it didn't spread beyond that.
I do know of a couple families who did seem to get covid from their school though.
But they also do weekly testing. And did surveillance testing at the end of winter break, which kept about 15% of the school's students at home for the first week back because they had covid.
This statistic was also consistent with LA Unified surveillance testing after winter break - about 15%.
Before winter break, some parents of 2nd graders had an indoor, maskless, holiday party. Apparently all the kids got covid. Then gave it to the teachers - all 4 2nd grade teachers were out of school with covid the week before winter break. But from what our school's testing showed, it didn't spread beyond that.
I do know of a couple families who did seem to get covid from their school though.
Our elementary school in Oregon has required masks. And I can't think of a kid who hasn't got it, including our own. It's run rampant through Oregon schools. By my assessment, masks do very, very little to stop the spread.
That's interesting. I'm in California, and I know a lot of kids that have caught it, but only 2 that can trace it back to the classroom.
We have caught about 3 things over the past ~year, but none of it covid (as far as tests showed) and all of them had obvious non-classroom links.
Two of them were sick friends. And the third was probably when our 3 year old licked a trashcan at the zoo.
We have caught about 3 things over the past ~year, but none of it covid (as far as tests showed) and all of them had obvious non-classroom links.
Two of them were sick friends. And the third was probably when our 3 year old licked a trashcan at the zoo.
You somehow manage to be condescending against all parties here.
Calling mothers who want their children to receive an in-person education "screaming Karens" is terribly out of touch.
I have young children, and my position is simple: the hospital load, the vaccination status of the elderly, the burn out of the teachers -- it's not my child's burden. It's the adults' burden.
You are free to wear a mask for the rest of your life for all I care. I find it pathetic, but I really don't care. But you and people like you do not deserve power over my children, and if you don't see the reckoning coming you are not paying close enough attention.
Calling mothers who want their children to receive an in-person education "screaming Karens" is terribly out of touch.
I have young children, and my position is simple: the hospital load, the vaccination status of the elderly, the burn out of the teachers -- it's not my child's burden. It's the adults' burden.
You are free to wear a mask for the rest of your life for all I care. I find it pathetic, but I really don't care. But you and people like you do not deserve power over my children, and if you don't see the reckoning coming you are not paying close enough attention.
Maybe take your kids out of public school then? Your kids are not the only ones there and don’t take priority over everyone else’s (and the teaches)
So he should foot the bill for private school because people like you don't understand basic statistics, or even bother to look at the data? With all due respect, there's a name for fear that is divorced from reality and not in proportion with the actual risk: paranoia. And that's what this is.
The number of kids who have died of COVID is in the hundreds, over a two year period. TWICE AS MANY KIDS DROWN EVERY YEAR. Virtually zero of those kids that died was healthy before they caught COVID. The number of children dying of COVID is the same as the number dying of influenza in previous years (despite a dramatically more contagious virus with far higher case rates), but for some odd reason, there wasn't a mass of parents demanding that all kids wear masks.... it's almost like maybe, just maybe, you've let your brain get hijacked by a mass panic and are refusing to acknowledge reality now, because that would require you to admit you've completely overreacted, and have done damage to children in the process. I don't blame you for not wanting to admit that to yourself, but at some point this has to stop.
The number of kids who have died of COVID is in the hundreds, over a two year period. TWICE AS MANY KIDS DROWN EVERY YEAR. Virtually zero of those kids that died was healthy before they caught COVID. The number of children dying of COVID is the same as the number dying of influenza in previous years (despite a dramatically more contagious virus with far higher case rates), but for some odd reason, there wasn't a mass of parents demanding that all kids wear masks.... it's almost like maybe, just maybe, you've let your brain get hijacked by a mass panic and are refusing to acknowledge reality now, because that would require you to admit you've completely overreacted, and have done damage to children in the process. I don't blame you for not wanting to admit that to yourself, but at some point this has to stop.
> The number of kids who have died of COVID is in the hundreds, over a two year period.
That's just deaths, though. What about other long-term effects? Long COVID and MIS-C come to mind.
> TWICE AS MANY KIDS DROWN EVERY YEAR.
And you'll notice that schools tend to take measures to prevent drowning - namely, barring unsupervised access to bodies of water deep enough for kids to drown.
> The number of children dying of COVID is the same as the number dying of influenza in previous years (despite a dramatically more contagious virus with far higher case rates), but for some odd reason, there wasn't a mass of parents demanding that all kids wear masks
Maybe there should've been?
That's just deaths, though. What about other long-term effects? Long COVID and MIS-C come to mind.
> TWICE AS MANY KIDS DROWN EVERY YEAR.
And you'll notice that schools tend to take measures to prevent drowning - namely, barring unsupervised access to bodies of water deep enough for kids to drown.
> The number of children dying of COVID is the same as the number dying of influenza in previous years (despite a dramatically more contagious virus with far higher case rates), but for some odd reason, there wasn't a mass of parents demanding that all kids wear masks
Maybe there should've been?
The number of children seriously impacted by long COVID or MIS-C is tiny. Those are not valid reasons to maintain any restrictions in schools.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00431-021-04345-z
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#mis-national-surve...
Everyone will inevitably be exposed to the virus anyway. Whether that exposure occurs in school or somewhere else hardly matters. We can't wrap our children in protective bubbles. At some point they have to exist in the real world with all of it's risks.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00431-021-04345-z
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#mis-national-surve...
Everyone will inevitably be exposed to the virus anyway. Whether that exposure occurs in school or somewhere else hardly matters. We can't wrap our children in protective bubbles. At some point they have to exist in the real world with all of it's risks.
Care to back up any numbers with long COVID? Or am I again going to have to suffer with hand waving and zero quantitative analysis?
Throughout this pandemic, measures were taken with a public health benefit in mind that was purely limited to the virus, and any and all mentions of weighing the cost of these measures or even trying to quantify it was met with "You're killing people!!! You shouldn't have a platform. You should be silenced!" Shaming tactics are the last resort of people with bad policies and bad ideas.
I wasn't aware that any schools had completely closed their doors to prevent kids from drowning or were preventing kids from learning to speak by forcing them to cover half of their faces to prevent drowning. The point is that you don't know a kid that's drowned most likely and most of us don't.
Additionally, masks don't stop the spread. So we're sitting here arguing about an intervention that hasn't done anything to prevent omicron from spreading all over classrooms anyway. If you had school age children you would know this, but I'm going to take a wild guess you don't do you?
Your last question indicates that you think making mask wearing in school by children a permanent feature should be explored. I would welcome you to submit your own children if you ever have them to this experiment, but good luck finding researchers that think it would be ethical to conduct this experiment. They certainly wouldn't endorse it for more than a short period of time, but we did it to all of our kids in an uncontrolled experiment born out of panic.
You are on the wrong side of history.
Throughout this pandemic, measures were taken with a public health benefit in mind that was purely limited to the virus, and any and all mentions of weighing the cost of these measures or even trying to quantify it was met with "You're killing people!!! You shouldn't have a platform. You should be silenced!" Shaming tactics are the last resort of people with bad policies and bad ideas.
I wasn't aware that any schools had completely closed their doors to prevent kids from drowning or were preventing kids from learning to speak by forcing them to cover half of their faces to prevent drowning. The point is that you don't know a kid that's drowned most likely and most of us don't.
Additionally, masks don't stop the spread. So we're sitting here arguing about an intervention that hasn't done anything to prevent omicron from spreading all over classrooms anyway. If you had school age children you would know this, but I'm going to take a wild guess you don't do you?
Your last question indicates that you think making mask wearing in school by children a permanent feature should be explored. I would welcome you to submit your own children if you ever have them to this experiment, but good luck finding researchers that think it would be ethical to conduct this experiment. They certainly wouldn't endorse it for more than a short period of time, but we did it to all of our kids in an uncontrolled experiment born out of panic.
You are on the wrong side of history.
Kids aren't the only ones at risk - he also mentioned teachers, some of whom don't want to take the higher risk of in-person teaching or dealing with 100+ kids every day that aren't wearing masks.
Is that over reaction? Maybe, maybe not, but the thing is, it's really easy to shove the risk onto somebody else because it's more convenient for you.
Is that over reaction? Maybe, maybe not, but the thing is, it's really easy to shove the risk onto somebody else because it's more convenient for you.
My wife is a kindergarten teacher. We face the "risk" on two fronts. Unlike many of her colleagues, she was unhappy with the obvious impeded ability to teach resulting from the school closures. A large percentage of her colleagues were clearly enjoying working from home. That's a dark side of this that people on your side are unwilling to admit.
I deeply resent it when people call it an issue of convenience. Proper emotional and social development of children is not an issue of convenience despite the constant claim from people like you that "You're just mad because you lost your free babysitting. Get over it."
The teachers were first in line to get vaccinated. Every other kind of employee in public places faces equivalent risks. As usual nobody is talking about numbers because your side has no numbers to back you up. It's just waving your hand and talking about people's comfort levels. Unquantifiable emotional nonsense, with people who are impervious to any form of facts or statistics or actual numbers.
Consequences be damned.
I deeply resent it when people call it an issue of convenience. Proper emotional and social development of children is not an issue of convenience despite the constant claim from people like you that "You're just mad because you lost your free babysitting. Get over it."
The teachers were first in line to get vaccinated. Every other kind of employee in public places faces equivalent risks. As usual nobody is talking about numbers because your side has no numbers to back you up. It's just waving your hand and talking about people's comfort levels. Unquantifiable emotional nonsense, with people who are impervious to any form of facts or statistics or actual numbers.
Consequences be damned.
So in other words, if you get sick because of my kids, that is your problem, not mine? Sounds like the perfect definition of a Karen right there.
Why? Masks dont help much. Vaccines dont stop contagion or transmission. They do lower risk of severe covid but kids are very low risk even if unvaccinated.
> Masks don’t help much
It depends what kind of mask. Proper respirator masks like N95 and FFP2 work very well. There are now very clear results that show that the main mode of transmission is respiratory aerosol.
As an example, this Lancet paper captures it well: ”Ten scientific reasons in support of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2”, The Lancet, 2021. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Numerous results have come out since.
I can’t find fault with the data or the investigation or the conclusion – I act according to this: We’re dealing with an airborne pathogen. Aerosolized.
Closed masks – respirator masks – N95/FFP2. These do work. Almost unreasonably well.
“Surgical masks” that gape at the sides do not protect well against aerosolized particles.
It depends what kind of mask. Proper respirator masks like N95 and FFP2 work very well. There are now very clear results that show that the main mode of transmission is respiratory aerosol.
As an example, this Lancet paper captures it well: ”Ten scientific reasons in support of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2”, The Lancet, 2021. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Numerous results have come out since.
I can’t find fault with the data or the investigation or the conclusion – I act according to this: We’re dealing with an airborne pathogen. Aerosolized.
Closed masks – respirator masks – N95/FFP2. These do work. Almost unreasonably well.
“Surgical masks” that gape at the sides do not protect well against aerosolized particles.
Masks as used by 90% of the mask wearing population which is only 40%? Of the total population dont work well*
If you feel like you should wear an N95 properly to be safe then you should do that. But let’s not pretend we can get everyone to properly wear N95s
If you feel like you should wear an N95 properly to be safe then you should do that. But let’s not pretend we can get everyone to properly wear N95s
Even improper usage of N95s give much more protection than a surgical with a mask brace.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/10/commenta...
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/10/commenta...
Whether people currently wear a particular type doesn’t indicate whether they are effective.
If people knew that they actually are effective, more would wear them.
If people knew that they actually are effective, more would wear them.
If only the CDC had not flip flopped on their mask guidance caused a complete erosion of institutional trust.
Indeed. It’s tragic.
At what cost? If there were crazy people jaywalking onto the freeway, do you want to reduce speed limit nationally to accommodate that, or would you rather let it play out and people can realize certain things are just fatally stupid?
[deleted]
Until when? What’s the endpoint? Children are little bundles of disease; it has always been and will always be strictly better for public health to prevent children from interacting with each other. But what kind of world is that?
So basically harming Billy possibly violating his rights and not respecting Grandpa’s autonomy to make his own decisions regarding risk/return tradeoffs is the solution? Hasn’t worked well to date.
>Oh, and by the way: I have plenty of sympathy towards health care workers. I am dating a nurse. I have doctors, nurses, and paramedics as friends. I have extreme empathy towards them, and full seething burning anger towards the unvaccinated septuagenarians ruining our health care system. And the rest of our economy while they're at it.
Instead of blaming unvaxxed people, you should blame the government for not having more capacity and not planning on how to handle surge in demand for hospitals. We're lucky covid is so tame, this could have been a crazy disaster.
This rhetoric where we try to divide the population is insanely toxic when the fault should be placed on the ruling class for mishandling both the planning, the communication and the handling of the pandemic.
Instead of blaming unvaxxed people, you should blame the government for not having more capacity and not planning on how to handle surge in demand for hospitals. We're lucky covid is so tame, this could have been a crazy disaster.
This rhetoric where we try to divide the population is insanely toxic when the fault should be placed on the ruling class for mishandling both the planning, the communication and the handling of the pandemic.
There’s a simple solution, but good luck getting everyone on board with it: stop treating the willingly unvaxxed in hospitals. Only vaxxed patients and medically-ineligible unvaxxed patients get treatment. If you can’t do this minuscule thing to help society then society can’t be turned on its head to help you.
Firstly, there no way to check someone’s vaccination status. There are fake cards, there are people who got vaccinated before government databases, there are people who got vaccinated without documentation, there are people who got documentation from medical people who didn’t actually perform the vaccination.
Secondly, it is massively against a breach of ethics to intentionally withhold care from people because of a moral judgement. Medicine knows where that goes and is strongly incentivized to never go there again.
Secondly, it is massively against a breach of ethics to intentionally withhold care from people because of a moral judgement. Medicine knows where that goes and is strongly incentivized to never go there again.
> Secondly, it is massively against a breach of ethics to intentionally withhold care from people because of a moral judgement.
I don’t think framing it as a moral judgement is correct. We don’t have the capacity in our medical system to keep this up forever, and the electorate has signaled they don’t want to pay for increasing the systems capacity. Cutting off the purposely unvaccinated is just triage
I don’t think framing it as a moral judgement is correct. We don’t have the capacity in our medical system to keep this up forever, and the electorate has signaled they don’t want to pay for increasing the systems capacity. Cutting off the purposely unvaccinated is just triage
I don’t have an answer but I always get stuck on the slippery slope intersection about what differentiates willingly unvaxxed vs people that don’t exercise and eat healthy enough.
The unvaxxed tipped the system. It’s like when your company finally adds npm audit checks to your ci pipeline and you are the first team to push a patch after that. Sucks that you got the luck of the draw and are dealing with the failures of multiple groups, but the failures are real now and there is no more forward progress without handling the situation
Sure, the electorate has thus far been unwilling to increase the capacity. At the same time the private medical facilities have been underpaying, overworking, and under-resourcing our hospitals. They close rural hospitals because they're not profitable /enough/. We could have more beds, and happier staff, but then the profits would be lower.
I agree that the hospitals as private businesses have not handled the situation well because they are seeking profit, but the electorate has no punished them for it.
There are no single issue voters for increasing the medical systems capacity. There are multiple political groups who care about the medical system but none who are willing to sacrifice every other possible gain if they get an improved medical system. That is what I mean about the electorate signaling that they do not care
There are no single issue voters for increasing the medical systems capacity. There are multiple political groups who care about the medical system but none who are willing to sacrifice every other possible gain if they get an improved medical system. That is what I mean about the electorate signaling that they do not care
Cut off all the medical care for those with aids too? You get to be the judge of who lives and doesn’t?
That sounds very unethical.
> There’s a simple solution, but good luck getting everyone on board with it: stop treating the willingly unvaxxed in hospitals.
Have you considered Nth order effects of this simple approach (the law of unintended consequences)?
> If you can’t do this minuscule thing to help society then society can’t be turned on its head to help you.
Have you considered that there might be some of this within the infinitely complex (and typically invisible, due to the nature of consciousness) causality behind why some people aren't getting vaccinated? Perhaps we are enjoying the bitter taste of unintended consequences as we speak.
Have you considered Nth order effects of this simple approach (the law of unintended consequences)?
> If you can’t do this minuscule thing to help society then society can’t be turned on its head to help you.
Have you considered that there might be some of this within the infinitely complex (and typically invisible, due to the nature of consciousness) causality behind why some people aren't getting vaccinated? Perhaps we are enjoying the bitter taste of unintended consequences as we speak.
> So why make the kids put on hair shirts I mean masks?
Because wearing masks is a good thing. A large part of the resistance to mask wearing in the US stems from seeing it as an abnormal thing and an oppression, but, in fact, wearing a mask when you're sick—even if it's just a minor sickness, not in the context of a global pandemic—is a good and respectful thing to do, practiced as a matter of course in many countries. Kids who grow up wearing masks will not have the horror of them that their vaccine-avoiding forebears did, and hopefully will be better equipped to meet the next pandemic sanely.
Because wearing masks is a good thing. A large part of the resistance to mask wearing in the US stems from seeing it as an abnormal thing and an oppression, but, in fact, wearing a mask when you're sick—even if it's just a minor sickness, not in the context of a global pandemic—is a good and respectful thing to do, practiced as a matter of course in many countries. Kids who grow up wearing masks will not have the horror of them that their vaccine-avoiding forebears did, and hopefully will be better equipped to meet the next pandemic sanely.
When you started with "yes, and", for a second I thought you were about to do improv!
> I have full seething burning anger towards the unvaccinated septuagenarians ruining our health care system
What do your medic friends say?
> I have full seething burning anger towards the unvaccinated septuagenarians ruining our health care system
What do your medic friends say?
You're aware that you're arguing about the health impact on children using a doc that ignores anybody <12 years of age, right?
Anything that follows from that will be a flawed argument.
Anything that follows from that will be a flawed argument.
Stop spouting disinfo. Your actions have real repercussions.
The article was written by a infectious disease expert. and an emergency room doctor at UCSF.
Are you saying you know better than those two about whether or not masks are necessary at schools?
If I were you I would simply trust the experts on this one.
Are you saying you know better than those two about whether or not masks are necessary at schools?
If I were you I would simply trust the experts on this one.
we only trust experts we agree with. this is why covid response has been such a wild ride.
> My daughter is in pre-med. Apparently people are dropping out like flies
This may not be a bad thing in the long run. There’s a shortage of medical professionals because the medical industry wants it that way. If the crisis becomes acute enough, the government will be forced to loosen regulations, and that would allow for more people to enter the field faster and more easily.
This may not be a bad thing in the long run. There’s a shortage of medical professionals because the medical industry wants it that way. If the crisis becomes acute enough, the government will be forced to loosen regulations, and that would allow for more people to enter the field faster and more easily.
The shortage of physicians is primarily caused not by regulations but by lack of government funding for residency programs.
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-fun...
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-fun...
It's good to remember that the AMA and other medical groups lobbied for capping the residency slots back in 1997 (when an "oversupply" of doctors was forecast).
From [1]:
> "The United States is on the verge of a serious oversupply of physicians," the AMA and five other medical groups said in a joint statement. "The current rate of physician supply -- the number of physicians entering the work force each year -- is clearly excessive."
> The groups, representing a large segment of the medical establishment, proposed limits on the number of doctors who become residents each year.
> The number of medical residents, now 25,000, should be much lower, the groups said. While they did not endorse a specific number, they suggested that 18,700 might be appropriate.
They've changed their tune (which I, cynically, think is because the members in the late 90s have all "gotten theirs" by now).
[0] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thanks-to-doctors-there-a...
[1] https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1997-03-01-19970600...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/01/us/doctors-assert-there-a...
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/health/train-more-doctors-res...
[4] http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9708/24/doctor.glut/
From [1]:
> "The United States is on the verge of a serious oversupply of physicians," the AMA and five other medical groups said in a joint statement. "The current rate of physician supply -- the number of physicians entering the work force each year -- is clearly excessive."
> The groups, representing a large segment of the medical establishment, proposed limits on the number of doctors who become residents each year.
> The number of medical residents, now 25,000, should be much lower, the groups said. While they did not endorse a specific number, they suggested that 18,700 might be appropriate.
They've changed their tune (which I, cynically, think is because the members in the late 90s have all "gotten theirs" by now).
[0] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thanks-to-doctors-there-a...
[1] https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1997-03-01-19970600...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/01/us/doctors-assert-there-a...
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/health/train-more-doctors-res...
[4] http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9708/24/doctor.glut/
So we didn’t have physicians before government started funding residencies? I think not, I think we used to have physicians just fine 100 years ago. So what changed?
Medical education with residencies only really started in about 1930. Before that there was no real consistency, and the results were terrible in terms of iatrogenic harm.
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001936.htm
The other thing that changed in the past 100 years is that Americans on average are older, sicker, and have higher demand for healthcare.
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001936.htm
The other thing that changed in the past 100 years is that Americans on average are older, sicker, and have higher demand for healthcare.
_thats_ your takeaway? that if the damn government stopped bothering to try to oversee outcomes in an area with extreme information asymmetry, a desire to get treated regardless of the cost, a bunch of agents between the doctor and the patient taking their cut, and a massive problem with cost control....everything would just be fine and we'd have plenty of doctors.
No. You’re putting a bunch of words in my mouth.
General observation from reading YOUR comment - you must not have young kids at a key developmental age in primary school for if you did you'd realize how detrimental arbitrary, poorly-fitting, non-medical masks are to small children's ability to learn to speak, read other's emotions, and other crucial milestones.
It's an uncontrolled experiment that was launched, without any regard for potential negative consequences. Your kids are older, you don't know anything about what they are facing.
My wife is a kindergarten teacher. It's a huge topic of constant discussion amongst the entire faculty at her school and others about how insanely developmentally delayed and poorly socialized the current crop of kindergartners are. They've been stuck in isolation, left alone on ipads and other screens since they were 3. This isn't just anecdotal, there are studies showing small children are TWO STANDARD DEVIATIONS behind where they should be. Your sitting here whining about young adults in an extremely high-paying profession being worn out saving a population that will mostly be dead of old age in less than 20 years, and ignoring the damage that has already been done (needlessly) and the continuing damage being done for bio-security theater. Utterly infuriating. These kids are OUR future.
Your comment showed zero empathy or thought towards that. YOUR kids didn't miss kindergarten. YOUR kids didn't get isolated. YOUR kids had a normal childhood. Mine aren't. Many others aren't. But really glad you care so much about "Global Climate Change" (why capitalize it, is it your religion?). The selfishness of your statement is appalling.
It's an uncontrolled experiment that was launched, without any regard for potential negative consequences. Your kids are older, you don't know anything about what they are facing.
My wife is a kindergarten teacher. It's a huge topic of constant discussion amongst the entire faculty at her school and others about how insanely developmentally delayed and poorly socialized the current crop of kindergartners are. They've been stuck in isolation, left alone on ipads and other screens since they were 3. This isn't just anecdotal, there are studies showing small children are TWO STANDARD DEVIATIONS behind where they should be. Your sitting here whining about young adults in an extremely high-paying profession being worn out saving a population that will mostly be dead of old age in less than 20 years, and ignoring the damage that has already been done (needlessly) and the continuing damage being done for bio-security theater. Utterly infuriating. These kids are OUR future.
Your comment showed zero empathy or thought towards that. YOUR kids didn't miss kindergarten. YOUR kids didn't get isolated. YOUR kids had a normal childhood. Mine aren't. Many others aren't. But really glad you care so much about "Global Climate Change" (why capitalize it, is it your religion?). The selfishness of your statement is appalling.
Less than 20 years—what is 20 to you? That's a generation's worth of time to live, love, have grandchildren; enjoy retirement. People of that age with Covid-19 are often nowhere near the point where hospice is recommended. Would you expect the treatment you prescribe?
In any case, we're seeing a surge in cases where the young are facing hospitalizations https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/health/covid-children-hos.... When I trained at a country hospital, it was overwhelmingly people under 50 being hospitalized for COVID-19. Children are at risk and we shouldn't think like it's spring of 2020 anymore.
In any case, we're seeing a surge in cases where the young are facing hospitalizations https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/07/health/covid-children-hos.... When I trained at a country hospital, it was overwhelmingly people under 50 being hospitalized for COVID-19. Children are at risk and we shouldn't think like it's spring of 2020 anymore.
This.
Adults have offloaded as much of the burden of the pandemic on young people as possible.
- Suicide rates are through the roof
- Developmentally delays
- Societal debt
And it goes on. Medical professional have it rough… oh well! Open up more medical schools, theres far more people willing to go to med school than get in.
Id rather not go to the Dr. and not need prescriptions to buy most drugs. Lets loosen those regulations and 80% of the reasons Ive been to the Dr. in the last six years will be covered with the same formula: 10 days of augmentin.
Adults have offloaded as much of the burden of the pandemic on young people as possible.
- Suicide rates are through the roof
- Developmentally delays
- Societal debt
And it goes on. Medical professional have it rough… oh well! Open up more medical schools, theres far more people willing to go to med school than get in.
Id rather not go to the Dr. and not need prescriptions to buy most drugs. Lets loosen those regulations and 80% of the reasons Ive been to the Dr. in the last six years will be covered with the same formula: 10 days of augmentin.
You can't open up more medical schools because the American Medical Association has lobbied for decades and use their accreditation authority to put a cap on the number of seats in med schools in the US. There's been virtually no change since the 1980s despite a 30% increase in the population.
They are perhaps one of the most significant drags on economic growth in the history of the United States. Because of the artificially induced scarcity, we pay mediocre physicians the wages that CEOs earn in other industries.
Everyone in the US thinks insurance companies are to blame, while they are certainly not efficient, there have been numerous studies that show that the majority of growth in price increases in medicine are due to physician wages and their organized bargaining power with insurance companies driving up prices.
What other service have you encountered where you routinely have the person you are paying reschedule your appointments at the last minute? Thanks to the American Medical Association, they have the ability to do this with impunity. What's insane is we actually have to import medical workers from overseas where they are trained in countries that don't have an evil organization limiting supply.
Knowing about this has made it even more unbearable to get scolded by these people for 2 years. I'm terribly sorry that they have to endure such horrible conditions while earning over $400,000 a year. It really is primarily a profession of non-creative, rule following mid-wits, kissing the ass of their licensing boards and taking defacto bribes from pharma reps to push the latest overprescribed Big Pharma product.
They are perhaps one of the most significant drags on economic growth in the history of the United States. Because of the artificially induced scarcity, we pay mediocre physicians the wages that CEOs earn in other industries.
Everyone in the US thinks insurance companies are to blame, while they are certainly not efficient, there have been numerous studies that show that the majority of growth in price increases in medicine are due to physician wages and their organized bargaining power with insurance companies driving up prices.
What other service have you encountered where you routinely have the person you are paying reschedule your appointments at the last minute? Thanks to the American Medical Association, they have the ability to do this with impunity. What's insane is we actually have to import medical workers from overseas where they are trained in countries that don't have an evil organization limiting supply.
Knowing about this has made it even more unbearable to get scolded by these people for 2 years. I'm terribly sorry that they have to endure such horrible conditions while earning over $400,000 a year. It really is primarily a profession of non-creative, rule following mid-wits, kissing the ass of their licensing boards and taking defacto bribes from pharma reps to push the latest overprescribed Big Pharma product.
“ You can't open up more medical schools because the American Medical Association has lobbied for decades and use their accreditation authority to put a cap on the number of seats in med schools in the US. ”
Thats what I was implying, but I wasn’t sure if this was also the case in the US as in other countries. Like you say, its their doing so they can go and cry me a river for all I care.
Thats what I was implying, but I wasn’t sure if this was also the case in the US as in other countries. Like you say, its their doing so they can go and cry me a river for all I care.
That's not correct. The actual bottleneck in training more physicians is lack of federal funding for residency slots. Every year about 5% of the students who graduate from accredited medical schools fail to get matched to a residency program and are thus unable to practice medicine. Contrary to your claim, the American Medical Association has actually been lobbying for increased residency funding for years, and even contributed their own money.
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-fun...
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-fun...
Why does the federal government need to fund the training of doctors? They don't fund the training of software engineers considering that universities do a pretty poor job of preparing somebody for a position at a software company. The vast majority of computer science graduates I've hired require extensive on the job training before I can trust them with anything. I've actually had to fire several.
If you're talking about clinics catering to poor populations. Why can't they use their Medicare money?
I'm sorry, I don't trust anything from the AMA because they are a lobbying organization. Why don't I just start sending links to the American Petroleum Institute while we're at it?
If you're talking about clinics catering to poor populations. Why can't they use their Medicare money?
I'm sorry, I don't trust anything from the AMA because they are a lobbying organization. Why don't I just start sending links to the American Petroleum Institute while we're at it?
The federal government doesn't necessarily need to fund the residency training of doctors, but if we want more doctors then that's the fastest way to get them. Most teaching hospitals are non-profits so if they had to self fund residency programs then they would have to raise prices to patients. Hospitals barely break even (or less) on many Medicare service fees so those don't provide much margin to fund residency programs. That is the reality of our situation regardless of whether you trust the AMA.
Yes the American Petroleum Institute is a good source of information on some topics. They're certainly biased and I disagree with some of their conclusions, but they publish some accurate data and it's worth understanding their perspective.
Yes the American Petroleum Institute is a good source of information on some topics. They're certainly biased and I disagree with some of their conclusions, but they publish some accurate data and it's worth understanding their perspective.
> This isn't just anecdotal, there are studies showing small children are TWO STANDARD DEVIATIONS behind where they should be.
Do you have a link? I would not be surprised if there were significant developmental issues, but two standard deviations is such an enormously large effect size that I'm doubtful.
Do you have a link? I would not be surprised if there were significant developmental issues, but two standard deviations is such an enormously large effect size that I'm doubtful.
So many inaccuracies.
ICU's are not overflowing. They run at an 80 to 90 percent capacity in general.
Flattening the curve has been a news media myth for YEARS now that has never come true.
Here's actual ICU data around the U.S. They all run high because they ALWAYS HAVE.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/9443799...
More medical professionals are being fired for not getting the vaccine than retiring.
People weren't having kids BEFORE COVID.
On a geological time scale the earth temperature is not even close to the hottest it's ever been.
It's a gish gallop of unfounded liberal news media talking points.
ICU's are not overflowing. They run at an 80 to 90 percent capacity in general.
Flattening the curve has been a news media myth for YEARS now that has never come true.
Here's actual ICU data around the U.S. They all run high because they ALWAYS HAVE.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/9443799...
More medical professionals are being fired for not getting the vaccine than retiring.
People weren't having kids BEFORE COVID.
On a geological time scale the earth temperature is not even close to the hottest it's ever been.
It's a gish gallop of unfounded liberal news media talking points.
>They'd also know that pretty much the only condition we're treating nowadays is Covid.
Do you have a source for that? The percentage of Covid patients in ICU wards in the UK peaked at somewhere near 30% for a short period in January 2021.
>the folks on HN must not have many friends working in medicine for if they had they'd realize those friends are swamped and burned-out.
Now I do know this to be true, but it's not due to the absolute numbers of Covid patients. In my experience (as I know several people in frontline healthcare), its the side-effects of Covid restrictions making healthcare impossible to provide.
Do you have a source for that? The percentage of Covid patients in ICU wards in the UK peaked at somewhere near 30% for a short period in January 2021.
>the folks on HN must not have many friends working in medicine for if they had they'd realize those friends are swamped and burned-out.
Now I do know this to be true, but it's not due to the absolute numbers of Covid patients. In my experience (as I know several people in frontline healthcare), its the side-effects of Covid restrictions making healthcare impossible to provide.
This is a perfect example of catastrophizing our situation and seems riddled with anxiety and fear.
The CDC has already admitted half of the people in the hospital with Covid aren’t there because of Covid and this lines up with other countries experiences.
The world has been through far worse than what we are going through now and we made it just fine.
You personally may die from Covid or you could get run over by a car walking your doggy.
Rather than worrying about it, try and turn off the internet, spend time with people you love and enjoy your life. There will always be time to worry and stress.
The CDC has already admitted half of the people in the hospital with Covid aren’t there because of Covid and this lines up with other countries experiences.
The world has been through far worse than what we are going through now and we made it just fine.
You personally may die from Covid or you could get run over by a car walking your doggy.
Rather than worrying about it, try and turn off the internet, spend time with people you love and enjoy your life. There will always be time to worry and stress.
I just graduated from nursing school and am preparing for my board exam. Everyone I talked and worked with during school said this was the worst period in their careers. Now, with Omicron, we're back to peak load on hospitals. The postponements started in the middle of December, it's terrible.
I program as a hobby, so I do frequent here. It is unusual how many people talk here about medicine, especially when deciding to debate medical ethics. A lot of it feels like they are working it out a priori.
I program as a hobby, so I do frequent here. It is unusual how many people talk here about medicine, especially when deciding to debate medical ethics. A lot of it feels like they are working it out a priori.
I'll throw into this that my friend at a big hospital in Topeka, Kansas says all overnight surgeries are canceled so to staff shortage. Including heart surgery. Crazy.
> They'd also know that pretty much the only condition we're treating nowadays is Covid.
That claim is misinformation, please edit and delete. Medicine as a field is very broad and plenty of other conditions are being treated.
That claim is misinformation, please edit and delete. Medicine as a field is very broad and plenty of other conditions are being treated.
At your dentist or plastic surgery clinic, sure. Hospitals everywhere are short on nurses and anything that can be delayed still is. A friend was recently transfered to another hospital to give birth because the maternity ward was unstaffed.
"short on nurses" != "only condition we're treating nowadays is Covid"
It took me two months in Chicago to see a general practitioner and I'm still waiting (4 months later) for an in-network physical therapist to start taking non-critical, new patients for a back issue. Everything is completely understaffed and overwhelmed, even the services that aren't even associated with emergency care are swamped. Heck, getting just a dentist appointment now is a multi-month out scheduling nightmare with a side of random cancellations because the staff got COVID followed by being rescheduled several more months out and hoping to be bumped again.
Firing front line responders, nurses, etc for refusing the mRna shots backfiring?
Not encouraging preemptive healthy lifestyles backfiring? (Obesity, etc)
Things will work out just fine.
Not encouraging preemptive healthy lifestyles backfiring? (Obesity, etc)
Things will work out just fine.
> My daughter is in pre-med. Apparently people are dropping out like flies and not just because of the course load. They're watching how medical professionals are being treated and saying screw it!
And who can blame them at this point? If anything we need more doctors/nurses/healthcare workers, but now we're going to be moving in the wrong direction for many years.
And who can blame them at this point? If anything we need more doctors/nurses/healthcare workers, but now we're going to be moving in the wrong direction for many years.
People were quitting medicine for greener pastures way before the pandemic.
I should know, I'm one of them since 10 years ago.
I should know, I'm one of them since 10 years ago.
If the concern is hospitals being overwhelmed for long periods of time, then there's really no reason not to just let them get overwhelmed all the way. They can return to normal working conditions earlier, and people can get important surgeries again.
As a wise person once said, "Mind your own business". Take care of yourself and those around you and the rest will fall into place.
[deleted]
>they'd realize those friends are swamped and burned-out
The ones dancing on tiktok a year and a half ago? Or the ones who are left in an understaffed environment after their unvaccinated colleagues were canned?
The ones dancing on tiktok a year and a half ago? Or the ones who are left in an understaffed environment after their unvaccinated colleagues were canned?
Funny to watch the Atlantic change directions on COVID over the last few months. I go back and forth on masks. In general I find them to be a minor inconvenience, although I believe they're more inconvenient for me than most because I'm blind and no matter what I do they always fog up my glasses.
But while masks themselves are mildly inconvenient, harsh mask mandates and restrictions become much more of an annoyance quickly. Try taking a 6 hour flight with a 2 year old that's required to keep his mask on the entire flight, and when he takes it off (because he's 2, of course he's going to take it off) the flight attendants threaten to turn the plane around and ban you permanently. That gets old quick.
I was in a coffee shop the other day and my mask broke. Everyone takes their mask off to sip their drink or eat their pastries, but I was immediately asked to leave when the functional mask I walked in with broke. They didn't have any extras, I wasn't carrying around more than one mask. It was embarrassing. It's pretty easy to grow tired of these mandates when your situation deviates slightly from the norm.
At this point, I'm in favor of a "protect yourself" direction. If you're concerned, put on an N95 and a face shield and sanitize your hands often. It's clear that shutting down society to the point necessary to restrict the spread of COVID is not feasible, and all the halfway measures we've taken haven't achieved their stated goals. It's just a nuisance at this point.
But while masks themselves are mildly inconvenient, harsh mask mandates and restrictions become much more of an annoyance quickly. Try taking a 6 hour flight with a 2 year old that's required to keep his mask on the entire flight, and when he takes it off (because he's 2, of course he's going to take it off) the flight attendants threaten to turn the plane around and ban you permanently. That gets old quick.
I was in a coffee shop the other day and my mask broke. Everyone takes their mask off to sip their drink or eat their pastries, but I was immediately asked to leave when the functional mask I walked in with broke. They didn't have any extras, I wasn't carrying around more than one mask. It was embarrassing. It's pretty easy to grow tired of these mandates when your situation deviates slightly from the norm.
At this point, I'm in favor of a "protect yourself" direction. If you're concerned, put on an N95 and a face shield and sanitize your hands often. It's clear that shutting down society to the point necessary to restrict the spread of COVID is not feasible, and all the halfway measures we've taken haven't achieved their stated goals. It's just a nuisance at this point.
This is the kind of thing that just drives me crazy.
If the mandates were at the very least logically consistent, I would not consider them a burden. "You are not allowed into the restaurant unless you are masked, but you may immediately take it off once you've walked 10 feet to your table" is nonsense. Forcing you to leave the coffee shop with everyone unmasking to drink anyway is nonsense.
It is security theater. It is virtue signalling. And if you have the audacity to question the irrational rules, people unironically call you a murderer.
If the mandates were at the very least logically consistent, I would not consider them a burden. "You are not allowed into the restaurant unless you are masked, but you may immediately take it off once you've walked 10 feet to your table" is nonsense. Forcing you to leave the coffee shop with everyone unmasking to drink anyway is nonsense.
It is security theater. It is virtue signalling. And if you have the audacity to question the irrational rules, people unironically call you a murderer.
The crazy thing is this is creating a breeding ground for conspiracy theorists.
When the media, the government and "science" double-down on policies we all know are total bullshit, it makes people lose faith in the media, the government, and "science."
When the media, the government and "science" double-down on policies we all know are total bullshit, it makes people lose faith in the media, the government, and "science."
Science is based off independent verification of results i.e. the scientific method.
The "Science" that we're supposed to "#believe" is based off peer review where a huge fraction (in some cases... a majority) of results cannot be independently replicated. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
The "Science" that we're supposed to "#believe" is based off peer review where a huge fraction (in some cases... a majority) of results cannot be independently replicated. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
You walk by others while you are not at your table. What do you want to do? Hold your breath? Not to mention bathrooms and so forth. Presumably the tables are well spaced etc...
In an open air room, the difference between walking past and sitting in the same room as is negligible.
Total theatre, does nothing besides allowing restaurants and patrons to feel ok/that they are “doing something” and stay open.
Total theatre, does nothing besides allowing restaurants and patrons to feel ok/that they are “doing something” and stay open.
Which is why indoor dining rooms should still be closed. Pretending we aren't living through a pandemic that is respiratory in nature is fucking madness. Maybe if we had locked down harder for longer and treated this thing seriously in the beginning we wouldn't be almost two years into this with no end in sight.
> Which is why indoor dining rooms should still be closed. Pretending we aren't living through a pandemic that is respiratory in nature is fucking madness. Maybe if we had locked down harder for longer and treated this thing seriously in the beginning we wouldn't be almost two years into this with no end in sight.
We aren't living through a pandemic anymore, we are now living in an endemic. Omicron isn't going away anytime soon - and we can't lock down businesses forever. Omicron can't be stopped by lockdown anyway (see challenges of containing it within China).
Secondly, it is highly unlikely that we would have got rid of Covid-19 even harsher lockdown measures earlier (e.g. see Omicron which happened because the original virus jumped to mice and back to humans - just humans locking down wouldn't have stopped this variant, we would have had to lock down all the rodents too).
My personal view - we have to stop viewing life as nothing but a vector for disease, and stop re-architecting our entire society and culture to avoid Covid infections (at huge societal costs to education, standards of living etc).
We aren't living through a pandemic anymore, we are now living in an endemic. Omicron isn't going away anytime soon - and we can't lock down businesses forever. Omicron can't be stopped by lockdown anyway (see challenges of containing it within China).
Secondly, it is highly unlikely that we would have got rid of Covid-19 even harsher lockdown measures earlier (e.g. see Omicron which happened because the original virus jumped to mice and back to humans - just humans locking down wouldn't have stopped this variant, we would have had to lock down all the rodents too).
My personal view - we have to stop viewing life as nothing but a vector for disease, and stop re-architecting our entire society and culture to avoid Covid infections (at huge societal costs to education, standards of living etc).
You need to look up the definitions of pandemic, epidemic and endemic.
An endemic disease is a disease that is always present in a particular population/region.
Ex. Flu, malaria, HIV, syphilis, and… COVID
Am I missing something?
Ex. Flu, malaria, HIV, syphilis, and… COVID
Am I missing something?
Go look up the definitions of these words and then read what Closi wrote again.
Endemic also means, particularly in the context of disease, widely present in the area.
Endemic for COVID, therefore, means that theres no locking it out because its everywhere.
And since COVID can jump species, its done. Game over. It will be with us forever.
Endemic for COVID, therefore, means that theres no locking it out because its everywhere.
And since COVID can jump species, its done. Game over. It will be with us forever.
If people want to use these words they should learn what these words mean in the context of infectious disease and public health and use them correctly.
https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blogs/topics/live-well/2...
https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blogs/topics/live-well/2...
Ill do that if you look up pedantic
No, Covid is low risk if you are vaccinated and elderly/at risk and extremely low risk if you are younger (vaccinated or not)
It’s endemic. Its not going away. We are all going to get it. (Me: triple vaxxed, had covid 2x)
Getting vaccinated is a personal heath decision (which I encourage)
Time to move on.
It’s endemic. Its not going away. We are all going to get it. (Me: triple vaxxed, had covid 2x)
Getting vaccinated is a personal heath decision (which I encourage)
Time to move on.
Polio used to be endemic in the USA and now it has been eradicated.
This is VERY different than polio/small pox.
We have no chance with current medical tech of eliminating a highly mutagenic coronavirus. Even if we did the cost/benefit of doing so would not be adequate.
We have no chance with current medical tech of eliminating a highly mutagenic coronavirus. Even if we did the cost/benefit of doing so would not be adequate.
Mutagenic describes a mutagen which is something that mutates DNA.
Just look up what the words mean scientifically if you are going to use them. Hell even read the article you cite.
Mutagenic describes a mutagen which causes mutagenesis. https://www.nature.com/subjects/mutagenesis
Covid19 is not mutagenic. However, it is highly and continually mutated.
Mutagenic describes a mutagen which causes mutagenesis. https://www.nature.com/subjects/mutagenesis
Covid19 is not mutagenic. However, it is highly and continually mutated.
Polio doesn't require boosters every three months and a redesigned vaccine every 18 (as they’re developing now)
Yeah. It was eradicated by a vaccine that actually granted immunity.
This plan would kill a large portion of immunocompromised people worldwide.
Why are the only deaths we seem to care about those that are Covid related?
If we are worried about killing people worldwide, far more people die of hunger-related causes each day, but we aren't rebuilding our entire society to save those people. But I can't see a reason why deaths from Covid are more of a tragedy than those we left to starve.
Or take smoking for instance - more people die each year from smoking than have died from Covid, but we seem more willing to ban human contact than to ban cigarettes? Seems backwards to me (especially considering c10% of smoking related deaths are from secondhand smoke in the USA!).
I know these might seem like a silly point, but why are we so focused on one single cause of death right now? We lock down our entire society to 'protect unvaccinated people worldwide', but then have continually cut foreign aid?
IMO - I think we have totally lost the plot and lost sight of what is important, but that's just my view.
If we are worried about killing people worldwide, far more people die of hunger-related causes each day, but we aren't rebuilding our entire society to save those people. But I can't see a reason why deaths from Covid are more of a tragedy than those we left to starve.
Or take smoking for instance - more people die each year from smoking than have died from Covid, but we seem more willing to ban human contact than to ban cigarettes? Seems backwards to me (especially considering c10% of smoking related deaths are from secondhand smoke in the USA!).
I know these might seem like a silly point, but why are we so focused on one single cause of death right now? We lock down our entire society to 'protect unvaccinated people worldwide', but then have continually cut foreign aid?
IMO - I think we have totally lost the plot and lost sight of what is important, but that's just my view.
People are afraid to die, and some people will do anything to lower the risk (ironically, life is still 100% fatal). These people will get angry at you for something dangerous even if you don't endanger them!
If you rode motorcycles you'd encounter this safety fascism attitude quite a bit. Ive had ppl flip out on me just for mentioning I disagree with helmet laws, even though I ride with 100% safety equipment 100% of the time.
If you rode motorcycles you'd encounter this safety fascism attitude quite a bit. Ive had ppl flip out on me just for mentioning I disagree with helmet laws, even though I ride with 100% safety equipment 100% of the time.
Smoking, at least where I live is heavily taxed and regulated. You can't smoke in any building open to the public or place of employment, you can't smoke within 25ft of any entrance to any of those buildings either. Cigarettes are taxed to hell and back as well.
I guess we could do that to the people unwilling to get vaxxinated. Tax them for their status and bar them from any building open to the public or place of employment.
I guess we could do that to the people unwilling to get vaxxinated. Tax them for their status and bar them from any building open to the public or place of employment.
Why would we bar them?
Getting vaccinated does not stop you from getting Covid and it does not stop the spread of Covid.
I could see a tax break for being vaccinated as a viable incentive.
Getting vaccinated does not stop you from getting Covid and it does not stop the spread of Covid.
I could see a tax break for being vaccinated as a viable incentive.
It scares me to see this legitimately suggested on a site full of people whose opinions I normally respect.
So we bar them because they are making individual choices that don’t impact us and we want to control them because we are afraid/disagree with those choices?
If they are spreading covid they are impacting us.
If they are smoking they are impacting us - 10% if smoking deaths are from second hand smoke.
I’m not really seeing the difference.
I’m not really seeing the difference.
Sure thing.
We could get them to wear a yellow badge as well. /s
We could get them to wear a yellow badge as well. /s
I do believe we should rebuild global society to prevent death from hunger. I don't know how to do that, but it's a thing we need to prioritize more.
When I see people minimizing COVID, I wonder if they've somehow avoided seeing an excess death graph even once for the past year-and-a-half.
When I see people minimizing COVID, I wonder if they've somehow avoided seeing an excess death graph even once for the past year-and-a-half.
Not minimizing just doubtful continued lockdowns and restrictions will do much to the death graph at this point.
We have vaccines, we have better therapies. Lets move on.
Communism killed 20M people and we still flirt with that ideology.
We have vaccines, we have better therapies. Lets move on.
Communism killed 20M people and we still flirt with that ideology.
> When I see people minimizing COVID, I wonder if they've somehow avoided seeing an excess death graph even once for the past year-and-a-half.
In the UK where I am from, I’m not entirely sure you would come to that conclusion - you would probably find that the first two waves caused significant excess deaths but the impact of the last wave has been much lower (probably from a combination of multiple factors).
Uk government data below, see “all persons” tab:
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYmUwNmFhMjYtNGZhYS00N...
Looking at the (fairly low) excess deaths only tells half the story though - you also have to look at quality of living, which is undoubtedly lower in my view.
In the UK where I am from, I’m not entirely sure you would come to that conclusion - you would probably find that the first two waves caused significant excess deaths but the impact of the last wave has been much lower (probably from a combination of multiple factors).
Uk government data below, see “all persons” tab:
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYmUwNmFhMjYtNGZhYS00N...
Looking at the (fairly low) excess deaths only tells half the story though - you also have to look at quality of living, which is undoubtedly lower in my view.
How?
They can take whatever measures they need to keep themselves safe. I assume they are not going into restaurants now since the mask situation is just theater.
Their unfortunate circumstances don’t mean they get to control others. If there was a concrete ask with end date that would be one thing but asking everyone else to live as if they are immunocompromised just because they are is not sustainable.
They can take whatever measures they need to keep themselves safe. I assume they are not going into restaurants now since the mask situation is just theater.
Their unfortunate circumstances don’t mean they get to control others. If there was a concrete ask with end date that would be one thing but asking everyone else to live as if they are immunocompromised just because they are is not sustainable.
Im not willing to build society around a theoretical risk for a very small population that is alive only because of artificial means.
Writ large, its immoral failing Kant’s categorical imperative. Massive utilitarian fail (you got to count the lockdown suicides and others too!). Aesthetically gross (life glued indoors is not really living).
Reasonable accommodations are fine, and necessary and can include: wearing a mask if a known immunocompromised person is present. Setting up free grocery delivery for them. Ambulatory health care.
Locking down society is not reasonable.
Writ large, its immoral failing Kant’s categorical imperative. Massive utilitarian fail (you got to count the lockdown suicides and others too!). Aesthetically gross (life glued indoors is not really living).
Reasonable accommodations are fine, and necessary and can include: wearing a mask if a known immunocompromised person is present. Setting up free grocery delivery for them. Ambulatory health care.
Locking down society is not reasonable.
When you remark that they're "alive only because of artificial means", are you implying that your judgement might be different if they were, say, healthy and athletic young adults?
Are you proposing that additional suicides due to lockdowns are comparable to the number of deaths prevented by social distancing and stay-at-home orders?
Also, why are you telling me this? Find a housebound person to tell that they're "not really living". Find an immunocompromised person to assure that it's fine if you never wear a mask except when they're nearby. (Don't do either of those things.)
Are you proposing that additional suicides due to lockdowns are comparable to the number of deaths prevented by social distancing and stay-at-home orders?
Also, why are you telling me this? Find a housebound person to tell that they're "not really living". Find an immunocompromised person to assure that it's fine if you never wear a mask except when they're nearby. (Don't do either of those things.)
No, my judegement wouldn't be different if a similar number of “healthy, athletic” were somehow pegged as high COVID risk (perhaps a genetic marker?). What forms my opinion are their small numbers. Its easy to cater to the exception, but exceptions make bad generalities.
The “artificial” refers to point that immunocompromised people already (justly!) have greatly extended lives because society has expanded a lot of resources on research and development for their care. These people are our sisters and brothers and should be taken care of, and have been to a large extent (otherwise they’d be dead).
They do have a claim to our assistance, and Ill gladly pay more taxes for better programs, but they don't have a claim to have society turned upside down on their behalf
Lockdowns are not reasonable accommodation.
“ Are you proposing that additional suicides due to lockdowns are comparable to the number of deaths prevented by social distancing and stay-at-home orders?”
Your original point was about immunocompromised, a small group. I gave one example of people that are being killed by lockdowns. Add deferred cancer patients, etc.
Anyway, today if you’re not immunocompromised and you’re still dying of COVID you probably made the choice not to get vaccinated. Which is fine, btw.
“ Also, why are you telling me this? ”
You want to lock me up in my room like a truant schoolboy.
“ Find a housebound person to tell that they're "not really living".”
They’d agree with the general sentiment. Certainly its harder to grasp at life’s meaning when your only companion is TV.
My very independent 95 year old grandma who has been housebound for two years due to COVID is uncharacteristically depressed. Which is why instead of a pseudo-philosophical talk like we’re having she’d probably appreciate it more if I took her for a walk in the mountainside (alas, she lives 10 000 km away).
Perhaps because I cant be there for my grandma, next week we’re planning on taking my housebound ex-neighbors for a trip outside the city. They’re very lovely but they’re too old to drive and housebound to a large extent. I’m sure they agree with me about lockdowns.
“Find an immunocompromised person to assure that it's fine if you never wear a mask except when they're nearby.”
Does telling a friend with a kidney transplant that my kid goes to school without a mask count?
The “artificial” refers to point that immunocompromised people already (justly!) have greatly extended lives because society has expanded a lot of resources on research and development for their care. These people are our sisters and brothers and should be taken care of, and have been to a large extent (otherwise they’d be dead).
They do have a claim to our assistance, and Ill gladly pay more taxes for better programs, but they don't have a claim to have society turned upside down on their behalf
Lockdowns are not reasonable accommodation.
“ Are you proposing that additional suicides due to lockdowns are comparable to the number of deaths prevented by social distancing and stay-at-home orders?”
Your original point was about immunocompromised, a small group. I gave one example of people that are being killed by lockdowns. Add deferred cancer patients, etc.
Anyway, today if you’re not immunocompromised and you’re still dying of COVID you probably made the choice not to get vaccinated. Which is fine, btw.
“ Also, why are you telling me this? ”
You want to lock me up in my room like a truant schoolboy.
“ Find a housebound person to tell that they're "not really living".”
They’d agree with the general sentiment. Certainly its harder to grasp at life’s meaning when your only companion is TV.
My very independent 95 year old grandma who has been housebound for two years due to COVID is uncharacteristically depressed. Which is why instead of a pseudo-philosophical talk like we’re having she’d probably appreciate it more if I took her for a walk in the mountainside (alas, she lives 10 000 km away).
Perhaps because I cant be there for my grandma, next week we’re planning on taking my housebound ex-neighbors for a trip outside the city. They’re very lovely but they’re too old to drive and housebound to a large extent. I’m sure they agree with me about lockdowns.
“Find an immunocompromised person to assure that it's fine if you never wear a mask except when they're nearby.”
Does telling a friend with a kidney transplant that my kid goes to school without a mask count?
No. At some point you've got to ask if these measures are worth living for. It's winter in the northern hemisphere. It'd dark and it's cold.
Keeping people locked up at home for a third season is absurd.
Keeping people locked up at home for a third season is absurd.
I live in seattle. It's dark and cold. Hell the mask helps, it's great for keeping my face warm.
I don't consider myself locked up. I miss in person game nights the most, i miss dinner with friends (in a private home or restaurant) somewhat.
We do gamenights online using videochat and products like roll20 and boardgame arena. It's not super awesome but it works for us for now.
I leave the house, go on walks go shopping etc. But I take very reasonable precautions. I shop during low traffic times, get up early and hit the grocery store before work, I order food for pickup and wait outside for it. During the more temperate months we'd set up a few tables in the backyard and have friends over for meals, each 'pod' got their own table nicely distanced, we were probably a little louder than most dinner parties but it was nice just to have them around.
For a friends birthday we wanted to go see spiderman, we rented a theater (it was actually not especially expensive) invited about 20 people who we knew were supervaxxed and responsible enough not to come if they though they might be exposed and had a grand, masked and distanced, time.
I'm just trying to be responsible, I know several people that are immunocompromised and they can't even do half that stuff. I'm trying to be responsible so that they can. When some asshole declares that 'covid is over' I just realize how fucking narcissistic they are.
I don't consider myself locked up. I miss in person game nights the most, i miss dinner with friends (in a private home or restaurant) somewhat.
We do gamenights online using videochat and products like roll20 and boardgame arena. It's not super awesome but it works for us for now.
I leave the house, go on walks go shopping etc. But I take very reasonable precautions. I shop during low traffic times, get up early and hit the grocery store before work, I order food for pickup and wait outside for it. During the more temperate months we'd set up a few tables in the backyard and have friends over for meals, each 'pod' got their own table nicely distanced, we were probably a little louder than most dinner parties but it was nice just to have them around.
For a friends birthday we wanted to go see spiderman, we rented a theater (it was actually not especially expensive) invited about 20 people who we knew were supervaxxed and responsible enough not to come if they though they might be exposed and had a grand, masked and distanced, time.
I'm just trying to be responsible, I know several people that are immunocompromised and they can't even do half that stuff. I'm trying to be responsible so that they can. When some asshole declares that 'covid is over' I just realize how fucking narcissistic they are.
You and your friends are well off and it looks like you dont have children and can work remote. Thats great!
Unfortunately most are living under wildly different and much more difficult circumstances that they are being asked to bear month after month with no end and with dubious effect.
Unfortunately most are living under wildly different and much more difficult circumstances that they are being asked to bear month after month with no end and with dubious effect.
If half our population hadn't decided covid was a hoax and didn't take even the simplest precautions from the beginning we probably wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.
Sure but woulda, coulda, shoulda.
CDC told us not to wear masks initially. Democrats were vaccine skeptics until Biden won. But who cares? Thats in the past, get vaccinated or not. Go out or not. Just dont try to control others.
Also, the world hasn’t stopped it so it is unlikely ANY US only measure would have done much unless we went fill isolationist which would probably have had worse outcomes.
CDC told us not to wear masks initially. Democrats were vaccine skeptics until Biden won. But who cares? Thats in the past, get vaccinated or not. Go out or not. Just dont try to control others.
Also, the world hasn’t stopped it so it is unlikely ANY US only measure would have done much unless we went fill isolationist which would probably have had worse outcomes.
How much longer are you willing to live like that? Keep in mind that people who decided to move on are living happy and healthy lives without making as many sacrifices. You can call them "narcissistic" but the reality is that this virus is here to stay, regardless of how many people get vaccinated, for a very very long time.
You are welcome to live any way you like, but please don't judge others for examining the situation and deciding how to live their own lives.
You are welcome to live any way you like, but please don't judge others for examining the situation and deciding how to live their own lives.
There's two sides to this. Those that want to control everyone else's lives, and those that want to live their life.
i love this viewpoint because your behavior is so similar to what i see among 90% of my friends, it seems logically consistent, and you seem to have arrived at it from your own reasoning/volition.
and then we have the mandates. presumably, your behavior is the same with v.s. without them. as is the case for most people i know. with the exception of my one friend who was building a japanese-style coin-operated 24/7 unstaffed arcade business in a stripmall off aurora. she ditched that a year into the pandemic because navigating the mandates as a business owner is not easy (how does one check vax cards at the door if their business only works because it’s unstaffed? once she does find a solution, how long until the next mandate changes things for her again? it’s settled down a little, but the policy changes were really chaotic through to last summer).
“return to normal” as a phrase is a bit ambiguous. does it mean everyone goes back to living how they did two years ago? or does it mean everyone, within each area of their life, has the option to return to what worked for them then, while keeping the parts of their current lifestyle they prefer? obviously, we can’t grant that level of optionality to every area of life without bifurcating society (e.g. separate schools for in-person vs virtual), which doesn’t sound great. but we can grant that optionality in lots of areas of life that are already adept at catering to different preferences — e.g. restaurants (if you want italian food, go to an italian restaurant), entertainment venues, gyms, and really most small/medium businesses.
i’d love for my friend to be able to open her arcade some day, and i know there are hundreds of other individuals in a similar position as hers trying to bring new things into our community. i think it’s reasonable that we allow a “return to normal” in the areas of life that are already adept at catering to different preferences, and leave the mandates only for those areas in which there’s less optionality (e.g. public transit, schools — for now, etc).
and then we have the mandates. presumably, your behavior is the same with v.s. without them. as is the case for most people i know. with the exception of my one friend who was building a japanese-style coin-operated 24/7 unstaffed arcade business in a stripmall off aurora. she ditched that a year into the pandemic because navigating the mandates as a business owner is not easy (how does one check vax cards at the door if their business only works because it’s unstaffed? once she does find a solution, how long until the next mandate changes things for her again? it’s settled down a little, but the policy changes were really chaotic through to last summer).
“return to normal” as a phrase is a bit ambiguous. does it mean everyone goes back to living how they did two years ago? or does it mean everyone, within each area of their life, has the option to return to what worked for them then, while keeping the parts of their current lifestyle they prefer? obviously, we can’t grant that level of optionality to every area of life without bifurcating society (e.g. separate schools for in-person vs virtual), which doesn’t sound great. but we can grant that optionality in lots of areas of life that are already adept at catering to different preferences — e.g. restaurants (if you want italian food, go to an italian restaurant), entertainment venues, gyms, and really most small/medium businesses.
i’d love for my friend to be able to open her arcade some day, and i know there are hundreds of other individuals in a similar position as hers trying to bring new things into our community. i think it’s reasonable that we allow a “return to normal” in the areas of life that are already adept at catering to different preferences, and leave the mandates only for those areas in which there’s less optionality (e.g. public transit, schools — for now, etc).
"a year into the pandemic" vaccines were literally just becoming available to the general public. Mandates pre-vaccine were a totally different ball game than mandates now, as far as what would be reasonable in the interest of public safety. I also find it hard to believe that Aurora was requiring strip mall stores to check vaccine cards before any vaccine was even fully FDA approved, and I can't find any evidence of that online either. Are you sure it wasn't something about verifying mask compliance?
an arcade is an entertainment venue. entertainment venues (along with bars, restaurants) are required to check vax cards (i believe that’s a WA requirement, as opposed to a local requirement). i was being approximate when i said “a year”: more precisely i think the vax card mandate was sometime in June? July? a few months after the vaccines themselves had widespread availability.
You're really still staying away from your friends, even at someone's house? I guess I get it with Omicron, just surprising at this point.
Seattle is sunnier and warmer than most of Europe.
Generally I agree, this fall was uncharacteristically warmer and sunnier, but out winter had some pretty brutal spots thanks to the arctic river or whatever that was in early jan.
People complain about seattle's wetness a lot, but as someone that's lived here their whole life we generally get a few stright up downpour days, but most days (in the colder months) are somewhere in the overcast and misty to drizzly range.
It doesn't really change my assertions though. Even on days with downpours I'm pretty happy to swaddle myself in rainjackets and waterpoof shoes and take a walk or wait for takeout outside. When we had our little bout of snow this month I took walks every day, but little to no takeout because seattle essentially shuts down at the sight of the first flake.
People complain about seattle's wetness a lot, but as someone that's lived here their whole life we generally get a few stright up downpour days, but most days (in the colder months) are somewhere in the overcast and misty to drizzly range.
It doesn't really change my assertions though. Even on days with downpours I'm pretty happy to swaddle myself in rainjackets and waterpoof shoes and take a walk or wait for takeout outside. When we had our little bout of snow this month I took walks every day, but little to no takeout because seattle essentially shuts down at the sight of the first flake.
People over here in France are generally living pretty normally. Far from madness, it's pretty nice. Sure, everyone masks up and whips out their phone for constant QR scanning, but restaurants are still pretty full, trams busses and trains as well, and people are getting together. Schools are in person. It probably helps that home tests are cheap ($25 for 5) and super easy to get.
It's frankly pretty weird that these comment threads are always so ragey and judgey, let alone the ones on Twitter. Everyone should chill a bit and stop reading the news stories stoking fears - at some point the mental effects are riskier than the physical ones, and I'd say that many in this thread are well past this point.
It's frankly pretty weird that these comment threads are always so ragey and judgey, let alone the ones on Twitter. Everyone should chill a bit and stop reading the news stories stoking fears - at some point the mental effects are riskier than the physical ones, and I'd say that many in this thread are well past this point.
People bitching about restrictions in the US just want something to be mad about, because there really aren't any life-altering ones. Masks on public transit and in healthcare facilities, and in some schools (it is very variable by district). Some cities require proof of vaccination for indoor dining or large events. That's basically it, just as you describe it in France. The only things that have been cancelled lately have been due to staffing issues (e.g. concerts happen unless performers get COVID, schools are open except where the absence rate is very high there may be a brief shutdown, etc.).
I'm in the northeast, and it has been this way for at least 9 months now. Just imagine how little life was impacted by restrictions in some other areas of the US. So IMO it's the people mad about "restrictions" that should calm down with the hyperbole. Yes there are also some hyper anxious pro-lockdown people, but reality doesn't reflect their opinion anyway. I don't get what there is to be upset about.
For those that are so angry about US-based restrictions, what have you been prevented from doing in the last 9 months?
I'm in the northeast, and it has been this way for at least 9 months now. Just imagine how little life was impacted by restrictions in some other areas of the US. So IMO it's the people mad about "restrictions" that should calm down with the hyperbole. Yes there are also some hyper anxious pro-lockdown people, but reality doesn't reflect their opinion anyway. I don't get what there is to be upset about.
For those that are so angry about US-based restrictions, what have you been prevented from doing in the last 9 months?
Wearing masks and having to endure "constant QR scanning" doesn't sound like normal life to me.
The masks are if you want to go into mass transit or peoples’ businesses, and it’s mostly theater in restaurants - they come off and stay off almost immediately. It’s just common courtesy to others to wear them in public places while omicron is raging.
The QR code scanning is just for dining at the place (not takeout), and for things like long trains and planes. It’s not a big deal, except for the privacy implications.
My point was mostly that people aren’t holding back from going out, despite very high infection rates, and things appear to be mostly fine.
The QR code scanning is just for dining at the place (not takeout), and for things like long trains and planes. It’s not a big deal, except for the privacy implications.
My point was mostly that people aren’t holding back from going out, despite very high infection rates, and things appear to be mostly fine.
Jealous of your tests. Pretty sad we printed a couple trillion and didnt get testing etc with it.
Covid spread throughout the entire world very quickly. "Locking down harder" in any region simply delays the inevitable spike in cases once those lockdowns end.
I mean if you want to argue to close all indoor dining rooms, that's a case you could try to make. I disagree, but at least it'd be a consistent thing to argue for. Opening dining rooms, but then requiring everyone to wear a mask while they walk from the door to the table is pure theater that does nothing at all.
Wearing masks whenever possible doesn't bother me in the slightest. I've been loving it that COVID has normalized wearing a mask in public because I'd like to do it all the time for the rest of my life without being judged for it.
But I don't want anybody mandating it. I've been trying to work out in my own mind why I switched to being more, uh, 'deontologist' if you will, several years ago. I'm just starting to almost be able to articulate it. If you take a consequentialist stance, then any catastrophe sufficient to put your chosen 'utility' at risk instantly justifies literally any measure that mitigates that risk. As long as the measure is outside the realm of the thing you regard as 'utility'. Is free speech for its own sake not part of 'utility' but only a means to increase it? Then out the window it goes when it causes problems. Same for privacy, leaving your home without permission from an authority, pretty much anything we think of as freedom.
It greatly disturbs me to find the Overton Window in a place where I see smart Americans debating every day whether strongly authoritarian and invasive measures are OK, if they save lives.
But I don't want anybody mandating it. I've been trying to work out in my own mind why I switched to being more, uh, 'deontologist' if you will, several years ago. I'm just starting to almost be able to articulate it. If you take a consequentialist stance, then any catastrophe sufficient to put your chosen 'utility' at risk instantly justifies literally any measure that mitigates that risk. As long as the measure is outside the realm of the thing you regard as 'utility'. Is free speech for its own sake not part of 'utility' but only a means to increase it? Then out the window it goes when it causes problems. Same for privacy, leaving your home without permission from an authority, pretty much anything we think of as freedom.
It greatly disturbs me to find the Overton Window in a place where I see smart Americans debating every day whether strongly authoritarian and invasive measures are OK, if they save lives.
> Americans debating every day whether strongly authoritarian and invasive measures are OK, if they save lives.
In Europe seatbelts are mandatory, and it is forbidden to smoke in most places. I think that these are reasonable measures. I think, for the exact same reasons, that mask mandates are reasonable.
In public transport is mandatory to wear at least a t-shirt, as skin to skin contact gets unhealthy fast. And restaurants require to clean your hands after going to the toilet.
What does not fit with my idea about the USA is that you can go naked in the street, as it seems quite a Puritan country. And books being censured in schools for mildly nudeness also seem to be the norm. Is not that worse that mask mandates?
Edit: seatbelt
In Europe seatbelts are mandatory, and it is forbidden to smoke in most places. I think that these are reasonable measures. I think, for the exact same reasons, that mask mandates are reasonable.
In public transport is mandatory to wear at least a t-shirt, as skin to skin contact gets unhealthy fast. And restaurants require to clean your hands after going to the toilet.
What does not fit with my idea about the USA is that you can go naked in the street, as it seems quite a Puritan country. And books being censured in schools for mildly nudeness also seem to be the norm. Is not that worse that mask mandates?
Edit: seatbelt
The US is not as different as you think. Seat belts are mandatory in 49/50 states, restrictions on smoking are common, restaurant employees generally need to wash their hands after going to the bathroom, "no shirt no shoes no service" is the general rule, nudity in public places is generally against the law. I don't know where you are getting your impression of US laws from, but it's just wrong.
My take was not that the US does not have same/similar rules, but that the US does have same/similar rules while thinking mask mandates as somehow different from those.
> restaurant employees generally need to wash their hands after going to the bathroom
I struggle to grasp a society where that has to be mandated
I struggle to grasp a society where that has to be mandated
>I struggle to grasp a society where that has to be mandated
You're probably unaware of the high prevalence of fecal bacteria on public surfaces, then.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16134485/
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/29/mcdonalds-touchscreen-kiosks...
"A study by U.K. newspaper Metro found gut and fecal bacteria on touchscreens in all of the chain’s restaurants it surveyed. It took samples from the screens in eight branches and found that they contained coliform bacteria, a group of microorganisms found in people’s intestines as well as in soil and on plants."
You're probably unaware of the high prevalence of fecal bacteria on public surfaces, then.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16134485/
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/29/mcdonalds-touchscreen-kiosks...
"A study by U.K. newspaper Metro found gut and fecal bacteria on touchscreens in all of the chain’s restaurants it surveyed. It took samples from the screens in eight branches and found that they contained coliform bacteria, a group of microorganisms found in people’s intestines as well as in soil and on plants."
After the restaurant waiter or cook is done texting and then flushes the toilet, they wash their hands. Do they wash their phone? Or do they put phone in pocket, go back to kitchen, and proceed to finger the phone for the next hour and contaminate everything while playing their role wearing a mask?
In most of Europe masks for schoolchildren aren't mandatory.
https://www.newsweek.com/cdc-school-mask-guidelines-fuel-cul...
https://www.newsweek.com/cdc-school-mask-guidelines-fuel-cul...
In Europe belts are mandatory
I'm having a hard time understanding this one... Are you literally saying that belts that hold people's pants up are mandatory?
I'm having a hard time understanding this one... Are you literally saying that belts that hold people's pants up are mandatory?
It's probably a reference to seatbelts
Duh, thank you, that is completely obvious and why I didn't get that reading it is beyond me!
Yes. Down with with the Big Apparel
I've been to Europe and never wore a belt, so they must mean something else.
Count your blessings, my friend.
Seat belts.
seatbelt?
> it is forbidden to smoke in most places.
I've always felt Europeans had no trouble throwing the cigarette smoke to your face, and that Americans were conscious this is extremely rude and went out of their way to prevent it
I've always felt Europeans had no trouble throwing the cigarette smoke to your face, and that Americans were conscious this is extremely rude and went out of their way to prevent it
If you haven't stumbled upon it already, you may enjoy reading about rule utilitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_utilitarianism
> Rule utilitarians argue that following rules that tend to lead to the greatest good will have better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be made in individual instances, even if better consequences can be demonstrated in those instances.
> Rule utilitarians argue that following rules that tend to lead to the greatest good will have better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be made in individual instances, even if better consequences can be demonstrated in those instances.
> Try taking a 6 hour flight with a 2 year old that's required to keep his mask on the entire flight, and when he takes it off (because he's 2, of course he's going to take it off) the flight attendants threaten to turn the plane around and ban you permanently.
Never heard about this, source? Toddlers tend to be somewhat exempt from mask mandates because they're toddlers and everyone understands when they don't comply.
Never heard about this, source? Toddlers tend to be somewhat exempt from mask mandates because they're toddlers and everyone understands when they don't comply.
In Illinois, wife teaches 2-3 yr olds. Masks are mandatory, all day long. Any pulldown gets pulled up. Nothing much goes on in the classroom anymore besides mask compliance and handwashing. It is INSANE.
We have two children. Both masked for 7 hours a day. Every day. Both schools are VERY STRICT. Everybody is vaxxed and boosted. Doesn't matter.
We have two children. Both masked for 7 hours a day. Every day. Both schools are VERY STRICT. Everybody is vaxxed and boosted. Doesn't matter.
https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2021/08/20/tsa-exten...
The TSA mandate itself. Only those under age 2 are exempt from it. This is just for the US obviously, not sure about other places. But in my experience the less you paid for your ticket the more strict the airline is. I typically don't fly budget airlines but did once during the pandemic and that's when a flight attendant shouted at me and my wife when our toddler had taken his mask off and we didn't notice.
The TSA mandate itself. Only those under age 2 are exempt from it. This is just for the US obviously, not sure about other places. But in my experience the less you paid for your ticket the more strict the airline is. I typically don't fly budget airlines but did once during the pandemic and that's when a flight attendant shouted at me and my wife when our toddler had taken his mask off and we didn't notice.
They would probably be more patient and tolerant of children if they hadn't spent 2 years dealing with manchidren who scream at flight attendants and punch them in the face. I've actually never seen anyone on an airplane shout at all. Did they actually scream at you or merely speak tersely?
They should hire attendants who can distinguish between grown men and toddlers
Yeah. I have to assume user ngngngng is exaggerating to make a statement.
I've flown in the past year and was annoyed that adult passengers in front of me weren't wearing their mask (or wearing it with their nose exposed). While the flight attendant told them a few times times to put their mask on correctly, the flight attendants were not going to "turn the plane around and ban [them] permanently".
I've flown in the past year and was annoyed that adult passengers in front of me weren't wearing their mask (or wearing it with their nose exposed). While the flight attendant told them a few times times to put their mask on correctly, the flight attendants were not going to "turn the plane around and ban [them] permanently".
We just flew out to California for Christmas. We had this happen, our 2 1/2 year old is a kid. He kept fiddling with his mask and the flight attendant got uppity with us over it. So no, this happens and it is ridiculous.
No, that's not an exaggeration at all. If anything, it's an understatement. Not only will they threaten to turn the plane around, they will turn the plane around: https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/american-airlines-flight-...
[deleted]
https://www.tabsynth.com/product/badger-seal-mask-fitter/
I broke my nose playing baseball in high school and have an odd shaped ridge that prevents the metal in the mask from forming a tight seal. I use these to prevent fogging, works great for me.
I was never really a good mask wearer. Ideally I keep a distance but at this point of the pandemic I've just started taking the mask off or leaving it at home. There is a mask mandate where I live if you go to the store and so on, but I haven't had any complaints yet. I'm just drawing a line in the sand at this point.
bandaid over the nose and mask should stop your fogging. You can also use a little saliva on the lenses like they do in scuba diving.
I usually just move the glasses a little further down my nose and that does like 95% of the solution.
I haven't tried saliva. Usually I just end up with my mask way up my nose and my glasses moved down my nose. That works fine short term but I have to hold my head like a pompous asshole and that's tiring.
The 3M "Aura" N95s have a generous and durable nose pad that's basically eliminated this problem for me. They do get extremely humid on the inside though; I have to carry two and swap them every hour.
Soap (dry, no water) rubbed and spread with a paper towel until "apparently clean" also works - the thin layer of soap prevents fogging. You might have to try several brands of soap.
I have some old ski goggle 'defogger' that's worked well for me. I assume it operates on the same principal. It's kind of a waxy stick that you rub on and spread out with a cloth.
Something else that works really well is the anti fog dry cloth/wipes. They're cheap and get rid of fogging completely.
early in the pandemic I had a very limited supply of N95 masks and when the nose wire got too deformed to keep a good seal I solved it with a tiny amount of spirit gum. Lots of solutions if you're willing to try.
The Atlantic has lots of writers (on staff as well as guest writers) who have different positions. They do seem to be running a lot more "I'm done with this" articles lately.
> In general I find them to be a minor inconvenience, although I believe they're more inconvenient for me than most because I'm blind and no matter what I do they always fog up my glasses.
I have this problem too with every surgical-style mask. However, at least some N95 masks fit me well enough that air doesn't escape around my nose and my glasses stay fog-free.
I have this problem too with every surgical-style mask. However, at least some N95 masks fit me well enough that air doesn't escape around my nose and my glasses stay fog-free.
Katherine Wu has been a font of great information on Covid issues, especially vaccines. I noticed she's not party to this particular article. I'm wondering if she's gnashing her teeth right now or about to launch a Twitter tirade. This could just be The Atlantic giving space to a breadth of ideas rather than an actual endorsement of their thesis.
And as a parent with two kids in school they have absolutely zero complaints about their masks and wear them all day even outside. They think they're cool and comfortable. Anecdote but it definitely colors my opinion.
And as a parent with two kids in school they have absolutely zero complaints about their masks and wear them all day even outside. They think they're cool and comfortable. Anecdote but it definitely colors my opinion.
> although I believe they're more inconvenient for me than most because I'm blind and no matter what I do they always fog up my glasses
Sorry if this is an insensitive, stupid question, but why do foggy glasses bother you if you're blind?
Sorry if this is an insensitive, stupid question, but why do foggy glasses bother you if you're blind?
Sorry, left it vague for brevity. I'm unable to do all sorts of things without glasses, such as reading or driving. I'm not legally blind, I just have terrible vision. So if I'm in a restaurant trying to see the menu and my mask causes my glasses to fog up there's nothing I can do. I can't see through the fog, and I can't read without glasses.
The majority of visually impaired people who are legally classified as "blind" still have some visual perception and glasses can help maximize that.
Never mind the fact that they are not rated to filter viruses.
It doesn't matter. Putting literally anything in front of your virus spewing face hole is going to help to some degree. It's not as if the crook of our arms are rated to filter viruses, but that hasn't stopped health organizations all over the world from recommending the vampire cough for years.
It's true that a mask alone isn't enough to guarantee anyone's safety and while community spread is high sending kids into schools is pretty much asking for them to get infected, but wearing masks is still far better than doing nothing, it's just that sadly "nothing" is all some people are willing to do to prevent the spread of the virus.
It's true that a mask alone isn't enough to guarantee anyone's safety and while community spread is high sending kids into schools is pretty much asking for them to get infected, but wearing masks is still far better than doing nothing, it's just that sadly "nothing" is all some people are willing to do to prevent the spread of the virus.
Your face hole is not virus spewing if you aren't sick.
Too bad you can't know if you're sick or not until it's too late. It's one of the reasons this virus spreads so quickly. Even if you're not sick wearing masks also helps to protect you from getting sick. It's win/win for extremely minimal effort/inconvenience.
Extremely minimal?
Masks make it a lot harder to communicate effectively. People are harder to understand, emotions are harder to read, speaking takes more effort.
If communicating is the main thing you do all day, because you're a teacher for instance, that is a significant inconvenience.
Masks make it a lot harder to communicate effectively. People are harder to understand, emotions are harder to read, speaking takes more effort.
If communicating is the main thing you do all day, because you're a teacher for instance, that is a significant inconvenience.
> Extremely minimal?
compared to hospitals being overrun, people getting seriously ill and dying (2,200+ US deaths every day) continuing economic harm and disruptions in education yeah it's pretty small thing that it's a little harder to communicate because your voice is muffled and you cant watch people's lips form words.
compared to hospitals being overrun, people getting seriously ill and dying (2,200+ US deaths every day) continuing economic harm and disruptions in education yeah it's pretty small thing that it's a little harder to communicate because your voice is muffled and you cant watch people's lips form words.
The benefit is always vastly overstated with masks, and the cost always downplayed. You’re implying masks lead to happy hospitals, and masks are just a minor inconvenience.
Reality? Masks don’t seem that effective, they may reduce spread in some circumstances, but there’s so little evidence that mask mandates (the way we do them in America) have done much good. Obviously there’s a risk reduction on an individual level when an infected person wears a well-fitted, effective mask like an N95, but at a population level it hasn’t seemed to really help much. Every study seems to have huge error bars and a lot of confounding variables.
Reality? Masks don’t seem that effective, they may reduce spread in some circumstances, but there’s so little evidence that mask mandates (the way we do them in America) have done much good. Obviously there’s a risk reduction on an individual level when an infected person wears a well-fitted, effective mask like an N95, but at a population level it hasn’t seemed to really help much. Every study seems to have huge error bars and a lot of confounding variables.
> You’re implying masks lead to happy hospitals, and masks are just a minor inconvenience.
Masks lead to fewer cases and yes that means happier hospitals. The science says that masks work and the majority of people accept that fact. Mandates work too, but only to the extent that they are followed and enforced. In fact they work so well that a certain embarrassed republican governor who had evidence that they work decided to try to hide that information from the public so he can keep pushing anti-mask lies to his base (https://missouriindependent.com/2021/12/01/missouri-health-d...)
The real problem with tracking the effectiveness of mask mandates comes from fact that case numbers and deaths are easy to track, but it's much harder to track the number of places that refuse to enforce the mandates that are in place or the number of people who decide to ignore the mandate or try to get around them by dick-nosing.
It's a difficult problem because there are a lot of reasons people oppose mask wearing. For some it's just simple petulance. Insisting on stricter enforcement of mandates just gets stronger push back from those folks who'll stomp their feet and take a very "You're not my mom!" attitude about anyone telling them what to do. Others have just been mislead by misinformation and they can be reached out to and informed but so many have made mask wearing political and it's extremely hard to get people to listen to facts that they've built an identity around rejecting.
Mandates aren't the ideal. I genuinely wish they weren't needed (both because community spread was lower and people had more faith in science) but because we're stuck with a percentage of the population that is anti-mask for whatever reason the best we can do is try to drag them kicking and screaming into doing the right thing by issuing mandates and hope that enough of the anti-maskers in our communities will do their part that it helps.
Masks lead to fewer cases and yes that means happier hospitals. The science says that masks work and the majority of people accept that fact. Mandates work too, but only to the extent that they are followed and enforced. In fact they work so well that a certain embarrassed republican governor who had evidence that they work decided to try to hide that information from the public so he can keep pushing anti-mask lies to his base (https://missouriindependent.com/2021/12/01/missouri-health-d...)
The real problem with tracking the effectiveness of mask mandates comes from fact that case numbers and deaths are easy to track, but it's much harder to track the number of places that refuse to enforce the mandates that are in place or the number of people who decide to ignore the mandate or try to get around them by dick-nosing.
It's a difficult problem because there are a lot of reasons people oppose mask wearing. For some it's just simple petulance. Insisting on stricter enforcement of mandates just gets stronger push back from those folks who'll stomp their feet and take a very "You're not my mom!" attitude about anyone telling them what to do. Others have just been mislead by misinformation and they can be reached out to and informed but so many have made mask wearing political and it's extremely hard to get people to listen to facts that they've built an identity around rejecting.
Mandates aren't the ideal. I genuinely wish they weren't needed (both because community spread was lower and people had more faith in science) but because we're stuck with a percentage of the population that is anti-mask for whatever reason the best we can do is try to drag them kicking and screaming into doing the right thing by issuing mandates and hope that enough of the anti-maskers in our communities will do their part that it helps.
The problem, as you point out, is that mask mandates are effective only in the fantasy world where the population adheres rigorously and uses the right kinds of masks. And even then, you’re only limiting spread by some amount in masked scenarios. A mask mandate doesn’t stop one family member from infecting the whole family. The biggest spread vector has always been the home.
I agree, it's an imperfect tool. It's just one of the best ones we have at the moment and when things get bad enough in an area people will reach to anything that will help.
not to mention facial expressions transmit an incredible amount of non-verbal information that transcends language itself (which the article touches upon). not taking this, and all the other variables that we now have a better understanding of, into account is highly negligent.
Personally I found that a good n95 mask aside from being more effective is far less muffling than a shitty cloth mask.
Much, much more comfortable too.
Too bad that condemning everyone as sick with zero evidence isn't how a free society works. Let's imprison everyone who "might" commit a crime.
Masks have gigantic effort/inconvenience and mental health costs. I can't think of anything but counting down the seconds until ripping that f*cking thing off my face while being strangled by that shit. Yet nobody cares about anyone else's mental health over their own perceived safety.
Masks have gigantic effort/inconvenience and mental health costs. I can't think of anything but counting down the seconds until ripping that f*cking thing off my face while being strangled by that shit. Yet nobody cares about anyone else's mental health over their own perceived safety.
> condemning everyone as sick with zero evidence isn't how a free society works.
That is like saying that seatbelts and speed limits condemn you as a bad driver.
A free society protects everyone's rights. What people tend to forget is that every right has a price, in the form of an obligation. For example: You have the right to private property, and the price is that you must respect other's private property.
One of the things that is difficult to get about Covid is that you can simultaneously be infectious (able to transmit it to others) and asymptomatic (no headhache, no fever, not even sore throat). That is not something we are used to deal with, our other infectious illnesses aren't that stealthy. There are other things that are atypical about this virus (the kind of vaccine we used is new, the amount of infected is unusually high, it transmits via air...). Treating this illness with the knowledge and techniques that we have learned from other illnesses is simply not enough, there are too many differences.
The free society is protecting your rights. In particular, your right to not be infected by another person might have no other chance but to get into close contact with. The price of that right is that both of you wear a mask.
Even if the mask is terribly uncomfortable for you, you must endure it because other people also have rights. The same way that just because you are hot, you are not allowed to take off all your clothes in front of everyone.
> being strangled
You might just need a better mask.
My head is big compared to the heads in China. Most of the masks I have access to locally for cheap are made there. They tend to be quite uncomfortable for me.
I splurged ~60 bucks into buying several from different makers and found a model that works for me (Adidas Made For Sport, I wear it at the gym and do cardio with it. Comfortable and makes you look like Bane). When I'm going to use the public transport or visit a hospital I wear an FP2 mask with an ear protector. It is not comfortable, but at least my ears don't hurt a the end.
You could also try inventing a better mask.
That is like saying that seatbelts and speed limits condemn you as a bad driver.
A free society protects everyone's rights. What people tend to forget is that every right has a price, in the form of an obligation. For example: You have the right to private property, and the price is that you must respect other's private property.
One of the things that is difficult to get about Covid is that you can simultaneously be infectious (able to transmit it to others) and asymptomatic (no headhache, no fever, not even sore throat). That is not something we are used to deal with, our other infectious illnesses aren't that stealthy. There are other things that are atypical about this virus (the kind of vaccine we used is new, the amount of infected is unusually high, it transmits via air...). Treating this illness with the knowledge and techniques that we have learned from other illnesses is simply not enough, there are too many differences.
The free society is protecting your rights. In particular, your right to not be infected by another person might have no other chance but to get into close contact with. The price of that right is that both of you wear a mask.
Even if the mask is terribly uncomfortable for you, you must endure it because other people also have rights. The same way that just because you are hot, you are not allowed to take off all your clothes in front of everyone.
> being strangled
You might just need a better mask.
My head is big compared to the heads in China. Most of the masks I have access to locally for cheap are made there. They tend to be quite uncomfortable for me.
I splurged ~60 bucks into buying several from different makers and found a model that works for me (Adidas Made For Sport, I wear it at the gym and do cardio with it. Comfortable and makes you look like Bane). When I'm going to use the public transport or visit a hospital I wear an FP2 mask with an ear protector. It is not comfortable, but at least my ears don't hurt a the end.
You could also try inventing a better mask.
There is no legal right to be protected from infection. It appears nowhere in the US Constitution.
The virus will be around forever and everyone will be exposed. You can't seriously expect people to spend the rest of their lives wearing masks.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
The virus will be around forever and everyone will be exposed. You can't seriously expect people to spend the rest of their lives wearing masks.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
You are confusing _right_ with _constitutional right_. The US constitution also doesn't say anything about seatbelts, speed limits, or privacy when browsing the internet. Other US laws have rules that encode and protect those non-constitutional rights.
Besides, this is a worldwide problem. Looking at it from a US-only perspective is insufficient. Other countries have other legal systems and encode rights in a different way (some of them don't even have a written "Constitution").
> The virus will be around forever and everyone will be exposed.
That link that you sent is just an opinion from a single person written on a website. "Vinay Phrasad, hematologist-oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco".
Let me try to share my thought process when I see something like this.
I have no medical training, so in principle that person is more knowledgeable than myself. On top of that, he teaches at the SF University. Those are very good credentials. How could I possibly ignore what this person says?
- I know modern medicine is highly specialized - When I go to the family doctor and he detects a problem on one ear, they might send me to an otologist, for example.
- There is a branch of medicine for infectious diseases: epidemiology. This person is an "hematologist-oncologist". That is already a bit of a warning sign. If I really wanted to dig, I would google his name, look for publications/studies. Maybe his practicing title is hematologist but he also has done the epidemiology training, he just doesn't practice that on a hospital. Let's assume he does, because I don't feel like doing that work right now.
- He's a single person. Individual people have every day problems. Get ill. Discuss with their spouses. Are sleep-deprived because they have to take care of a dependent person. And a myriad other things. I have to consider the possibility that Dr Vinay just had a bad day when he wrote that. The usual way to counter this is by looking for opinions of "groups of people". Peer-reviewed journals, etc. It does not seem like "medpagetoday" has a strong peer-review policy. This is published as an "opinion piece". That is another red sign.
- This is not a regular epidemic, it has reached pandemic levels. The number of people specializing in those must be very limited, because we don't have pandemics frequently enough to sustain large numbers of professionals. It also requires some budget - to gather information, travel to places, run labs to do analysis, etc.
So I would ask myself _which groups of medical professionals which specialize on pandemic illnesses and have a budget exist_. I know of two: The CDC, and the World Health Organization.
I would then compare what you are saying and what Dr Vinay is saying versus what those organizations are saying.
And for now, both the CDC and the WHO say that everyone should be wearing masks (they just differ in the age at which they should start).
> You can't seriously expect people to spend the rest of their lives wearing masks.
I try not to "expect things in long term", nowadays. Every day I try to get the evidence, and then re-evaluate with what I learn. Sometimes I wish that I could have a predefined idea of how the world works and then be able to ignore any piece of evidence that contradicts that, like I see some people are doing. Constant uncertainty is draining!
My expectation for _today_ is that everyone keeps wearing masks. So is my expectation for next month. I _hope_ that the CDC and WHO know what they are doing, and I think they are our best bets. I will follow their indications the best I can, but I can only _hope_ that the rest of the world does the same.
Besides, this is a worldwide problem. Looking at it from a US-only perspective is insufficient. Other countries have other legal systems and encode rights in a different way (some of them don't even have a written "Constitution").
> The virus will be around forever and everyone will be exposed.
That link that you sent is just an opinion from a single person written on a website. "Vinay Phrasad, hematologist-oncologist and associate professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco".
Let me try to share my thought process when I see something like this.
I have no medical training, so in principle that person is more knowledgeable than myself. On top of that, he teaches at the SF University. Those are very good credentials. How could I possibly ignore what this person says?
- I know modern medicine is highly specialized - When I go to the family doctor and he detects a problem on one ear, they might send me to an otologist, for example.
- There is a branch of medicine for infectious diseases: epidemiology. This person is an "hematologist-oncologist". That is already a bit of a warning sign. If I really wanted to dig, I would google his name, look for publications/studies. Maybe his practicing title is hematologist but he also has done the epidemiology training, he just doesn't practice that on a hospital. Let's assume he does, because I don't feel like doing that work right now.
- He's a single person. Individual people have every day problems. Get ill. Discuss with their spouses. Are sleep-deprived because they have to take care of a dependent person. And a myriad other things. I have to consider the possibility that Dr Vinay just had a bad day when he wrote that. The usual way to counter this is by looking for opinions of "groups of people". Peer-reviewed journals, etc. It does not seem like "medpagetoday" has a strong peer-review policy. This is published as an "opinion piece". That is another red sign.
- This is not a regular epidemic, it has reached pandemic levels. The number of people specializing in those must be very limited, because we don't have pandemics frequently enough to sustain large numbers of professionals. It also requires some budget - to gather information, travel to places, run labs to do analysis, etc.
So I would ask myself _which groups of medical professionals which specialize on pandemic illnesses and have a budget exist_. I know of two: The CDC, and the World Health Organization.
I would then compare what you are saying and what Dr Vinay is saying versus what those organizations are saying.
And for now, both the CDC and the WHO say that everyone should be wearing masks (they just differ in the age at which they should start).
> You can't seriously expect people to spend the rest of their lives wearing masks.
I try not to "expect things in long term", nowadays. Every day I try to get the evidence, and then re-evaluate with what I learn. Sometimes I wish that I could have a predefined idea of how the world works and then be able to ignore any piece of evidence that contradicts that, like I see some people are doing. Constant uncertainty is draining!
My expectation for _today_ is that everyone keeps wearing masks. So is my expectation for next month. I _hope_ that the CDC and WHO know what they are doing, and I think they are our best bets. I will follow their indications the best I can, but I can only _hope_ that the rest of the world does the same.
Actually there's no valid scientific or medical reason for most people to keep wearing masks. I recommend listening to infectious disease expert Dr. Monica Gandhi who explains it very clearly.
https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/
https://profiles.ucsf.edu/monica.gandhi
The European equivalent of the CDC doesn't support mask mandates for children.
https://www.newsweek.com/cdc-school-mask-guidelines-fuel-cul...
https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/
https://profiles.ucsf.edu/monica.gandhi
The European equivalent of the CDC doesn't support mask mandates for children.
https://www.newsweek.com/cdc-school-mask-guidelines-fuel-cul...
Dr. Monica Gandhi is an outlier. Outlier voices are important. Unique perspectives are valuable (her's coming from experience with HIV) but while listening to the views of an outlier can be comforting to cling to when they are telling you what you want to hear, it's important to look at what most experts are saying and to consider the evidence that cause them all to agree. A statement like "there's no valid scientific or medical reason for most people to keep wearing masks." is simply false. We have a massive amount of evidence that masks are effective. Once we have overwhelming evidence that something else works better to slow the spread of covid in our communities and protect ourselves and each other from infection I'll be thrilled to ditch the masks, but so far we don't.
If you experience a great deal of anxiety or feel like you are being strangled while wearing a mask you are either wearing it wrong or have a medical issue this isn't how most people experience wearing a mask.
This is what I wear. https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/511sZBCeHES._AC_.jpg I have bad asthma. My lungs are basically shit. I can't jog a 1/4 mile without having breathing problems. I have no problems wearing this mask save for doing sustained physical activity.
This is what I wear. https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/511sZBCeHES._AC_.jpg I have bad asthma. My lungs are basically shit. I can't jog a 1/4 mile without having breathing problems. I have no problems wearing this mask save for doing sustained physical activity.
I agree with them, I hate every second I am forced to wear a mask.
Since this is psychological not a physical limitation what are we to do about it?
Trying to get people to enjoy masks is a lot like getting them to enjoy condoms or stop drinking alcohol.
Lol, if you think "Masks have gigantic effort/inconvenience and mental health costs", your life must be a continuous living hellscape.
It has been for the past two years, yes. Thank you so much for your concern.
wait until you find out about the mental health costs of not being able to get healthcare when you need it because of staff shortages or constant interruptions in education, or the effects of long covid or the loss of a loved one. I'll take masks over more of those kinds of problems anytime.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Interventions work differently for different diseases. Influenza is significantly hampered by social distancing, surgical masks, and elbow coughs.
Covid 19 is a different virus and the interventions of a flu pandemic are not going to yield the same results.
Infection is a binary status. You are either infected or not. There is no such thing as half infected or slightly infected. The probability of infection goes up when the air is more and more saturated with airborne virus... When air in a poorly ventilated space is fully saturated with virus, it simply does not matter if you wear a surgical mask or not as these interventions are doing nothing of significance for you in that situation.
Covid 19 is a different virus and the interventions of a flu pandemic are not going to yield the same results.
Infection is a binary status. You are either infected or not. There is no such thing as half infected or slightly infected. The probability of infection goes up when the air is more and more saturated with airborne virus... When air in a poorly ventilated space is fully saturated with virus, it simply does not matter if you wear a surgical mask or not as these interventions are doing nothing of significance for you in that situation.
> Covid 19 is a different virus and the interventions of a flu pandemic are not going to yield the same results.
The results don't have to be identical. As long as a benefit exists and it can help reduce the major problems we're facing right now it's worth it.
> Infection is a binary status. You are either infected or not.
The amount of virus matters in if you get infected or not. The more you do to reduce the amount of virus that is in the air the better. You are correct that you can't expect perfect protection from a mask while standing in a fog of virus, but that's rarely the scenario people experience. Masks have been shown again and again to he effective at helping prevent the spread of covid. I wouldn't feel comfortable sitting in a classroom with 40-60 other kids while there were thousands of new infections every day in my community, but if I were forced to, I'd make damn sure I had a mask on. What's the alternative?
The results don't have to be identical. As long as a benefit exists and it can help reduce the major problems we're facing right now it's worth it.
> Infection is a binary status. You are either infected or not.
The amount of virus matters in if you get infected or not. The more you do to reduce the amount of virus that is in the air the better. You are correct that you can't expect perfect protection from a mask while standing in a fog of virus, but that's rarely the scenario people experience. Masks have been shown again and again to he effective at helping prevent the spread of covid. I wouldn't feel comfortable sitting in a classroom with 40-60 other kids while there were thousands of new infections every day in my community, but if I were forced to, I'd make damn sure I had a mask on. What's the alternative?
humm... no.
Things don't work like that. On the contrary, exhaling through what is essentially is a sieve is only going to promote aerosolization.
Things don't work like that. On the contrary, exhaling through what is essentially is a sieve is only going to promote aerosolization.
Exhaling through a sieve still blocks the largest wettest particles, and limits the distance virus is forcefully expelled through the air. Again, it's not perfect, but infection is purely a numbers game. The more virus you can deposit on a mask, or a sleeve, or even a sieve, the less virus is in the air and the longer it takes for a virus to go from a mouth on one side of a room to a receptor on the other side of a room the better.
It catches the largest wettest particles and then launches them into the air as smaller particles upon the next cough.
Which is why some of the new omicron studies show cloth masks to be worse than no masks at all.
And partially explains why omicron seems more capable of defeating real world mask use.
Which is why some of the new omicron studies show cloth masks to be worse than no masks at all.
And partially explains why omicron seems more capable of defeating real world mask use.
Do you know how aerosols work?
Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread, large-scale study shows
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask...
Even cloth masks reduced transmission, and "reduce the overall likelihood of experiencing symptoms of respiratory illness during the study period."
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-mask...
Even cloth masks reduced transmission, and "reduce the overall likelihood of experiencing symptoms of respiratory illness during the study period."
Many of the test aerosols they use to test N95s and similar are smaller than the coronavirus. Also they have done virus measurements from sick people through masks that prove there is filtration happening.
N95s work via an electric polarity of the filter. This charge is what captures the viruses. Filtration fades when the charge is lost.
I don't need to see your studies because I have helped build and certify N95 factories and know a lot about it. The masks arent usable for long and arent reusable, either.
Cloth masks do nothing and are not a consideration to any serious adult.
I don't need to see your studies because I have helped build and certify N95 factories and know a lot about it. The masks arent usable for long and arent reusable, either.
Cloth masks do nothing and are not a consideration to any serious adult.
> N95s work via an electric polarity of the filter
...as well as mechanical filtration[1].
> To minimize the effect of electrostatic attraction, we used isopropanol (IPA) to remove nearly all dipole charges in the filter layer (Figure Figure77C) and measured the filtration efficiency. The filtration efficiencies of N95 respirators after IPA treatment decreased about 7–15% after removing all dipole charges. Such decreases in filtration efficiencies indicated that electrostatic charges contributed to the filtration performance.
Others here have pointed to studies RE the efficacy of cloth masks. Which, while not great, is not 0 either. I'm willing to be wrong, but do you have any research showing that "Cloth masks do nothing"?
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7724761/
...as well as mechanical filtration[1].
> To minimize the effect of electrostatic attraction, we used isopropanol (IPA) to remove nearly all dipole charges in the filter layer (Figure Figure77C) and measured the filtration efficiency. The filtration efficiencies of N95 respirators after IPA treatment decreased about 7–15% after removing all dipole charges. Such decreases in filtration efficiencies indicated that electrostatic charges contributed to the filtration performance.
Others here have pointed to studies RE the efficacy of cloth masks. Which, while not great, is not 0 either. I'm willing to be wrong, but do you have any research showing that "Cloth masks do nothing"?
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7724761/
Why make the claim that n95s don't filter viruses and then say that they do indeed capture viruses?
Also yes the filtration fades but there's data out there showing 40 hours of use on KF94s still showing filtration percentages in the low 90s.
Also yes the filtration fades but there's data out there showing 40 hours of use on KF94s still showing filtration percentages in the low 90s.
You misunderstood or I was not clear. N95s do filter viruses when used properly and still within their rated window of use.
> The masks arent usable for long and arent reusable
Only because lawyers got involved and are trying to minimize liability (ie: you used it wrongly, not our problem anymore).
Or are you telling me that if I put an N95, and remove it after 5 min, I can't reuse it 1 hour later, but it's fine if I wear it 8 hours straight. Yes, yes, it could get contaminated on the inside surface in between, I know. But will it stop filtering viruses just because I took it off?
Only because lawyers got involved and are trying to minimize liability (ie: you used it wrongly, not our problem anymore).
Or are you telling me that if I put an N95, and remove it after 5 min, I can't reuse it 1 hour later, but it's fine if I wear it 8 hours straight. Yes, yes, it could get contaminated on the inside surface in between, I know. But will it stop filtering viruses just because I took it off?
Masks are eminently reusable.
From a Twitter thread by Dr. Claire J. Horwell, Director of International Volcanic Health Hazard Network (IVHHN), Professor at Duram Volcanology – “here's a short thread to answer the question: can you wear a disposable #facemask more than once? The answer is YES. Many manufacturers state that masks should be disposed of after 8 hours but this is not true. […] Unless a mask has become clogged full of particles in a very high exposure scenario (e.g. mining, construction) or the worker is in a contaminated front-line healthcare setting, it is still perfectly useable after 8 hours, unless it is broken.”
https://twitter.com/claire_horwell/status/146640027013763072...
From a Twitter thread by Dr. Claire J. Horwell, Director of International Volcanic Health Hazard Network (IVHHN), Professor at Duram Volcanology – “here's a short thread to answer the question: can you wear a disposable #facemask more than once? The answer is YES. Many manufacturers state that masks should be disposed of after 8 hours but this is not true. […] Unless a mask has become clogged full of particles in a very high exposure scenario (e.g. mining, construction) or the worker is in a contaminated front-line healthcare setting, it is still perfectly useable after 8 hours, unless it is broken.”
https://twitter.com/claire_horwell/status/146640027013763072...
and all the halfway measures we've taken haven't achieved their stated goals.
You have some good points up until this one. Go to your local hospital and ask them how they'd like it if their case load went up by 2x due to a lack of "halfway measures." In some places, that will be OK, while in others, it will be utterly catastrophic.
Obviously that doesn't justify ridiculous overreactions to unmasked toddlers, as you point out. But it's just as obvious that the inadequate measures being taken are nevertheless helpful on a population-wide basis.
You have some good points up until this one. Go to your local hospital and ask them how they'd like it if their case load went up by 2x due to a lack of "halfway measures." In some places, that will be OK, while in others, it will be utterly catastrophic.
Obviously that doesn't justify ridiculous overreactions to unmasked toddlers, as you point out. But it's just as obvious that the inadequate measures being taken are nevertheless helpful on a population-wide basis.
> Go to your local hospital and ask them how they'd like it if their case load went up by 2x due to a lack of "halfway measures."
I love this argument.
"Just imagine how much worse things could have been! The observed outcome is better than a worst case scenario I made up!"
"Just imagine if I didn't wear my lucky socks to the game. We would have lost even worse!"
The data does not bear out your position. Places with less / no mandates did not have measurably worse outcomes.
I love this argument.
"Just imagine how much worse things could have been! The observed outcome is better than a worst case scenario I made up!"
"Just imagine if I didn't wear my lucky socks to the game. We would have lost even worse!"
The data does not bear out your position. Places with less / no mandates did not have measurably worse outcomes.
Places with less / no mandates did not have measurably worse outcomes.
A meaningless statement without context. Places with different levels of mandates also tend to be disparate in terms of population density and demographics. A cherry-picked study showing that masks weren't needed to conserve hospital utilization in Bumfark, Oklahoma will tell us nothing about what to expect in crowded urban areas.
Then there's the easily-justified suspicion that officials in right-leaning areas are rigging the data they report ("Stop testing so much, it makes us look bad!")
These debates always seem to turn into perpetual playground games where duelling studies are whipped out like Magic cards. For every one you cite, I'll cite one that says something else. Consensus is the only way to make good decisions in such an epistemic environment. I'll continue to look to public health authorities for that, not bloggers, podcasters, politicians, celebrities, or HN commenters.
A meaningless statement without context. Places with different levels of mandates also tend to be disparate in terms of population density and demographics. A cherry-picked study showing that masks weren't needed to conserve hospital utilization in Bumfark, Oklahoma will tell us nothing about what to expect in crowded urban areas.
Then there's the easily-justified suspicion that officials in right-leaning areas are rigging the data they report ("Stop testing so much, it makes us look bad!")
These debates always seem to turn into perpetual playground games where duelling studies are whipped out like Magic cards. For every one you cite, I'll cite one that says something else. Consensus is the only way to make good decisions in such an epistemic environment. I'll continue to look to public health authorities for that, not bloggers, podcasters, politicians, celebrities, or HN commenters.
There is no evidence that I am aware of which would indicate places with strict mandates (Boston or LA) did significantly better or worse than places that made such mandates illegal (Texas).
The outbreak curves and percentages are basically the same, especially when you account for the population differences in age, obeasity, diabetes, etc.
A red state might do worse at times, but is also more easily explained as a result of a more vulnerable population.
Be scientific about it rather than political. There are a lot of ways to analyze the data.
The outbreak curves and percentages are basically the same, especially when you account for the population differences in age, obeasity, diabetes, etc.
A red state might do worse at times, but is also more easily explained as a result of a more vulnerable population.
Be scientific about it rather than political. There are a lot of ways to analyze the data.
> The outbreak curves and percentages are basically the same, especially when you account for the population differences in age, obeasity, diabetes, etc.
Can you cite a source for this claim?
Can you cite a source for this claim?
You can start here for age adjusted death rates by US state.
https://www.bioinformaticscro.com/blog/states-ranked-by-age-...
https://www.bioinformaticscro.com/blog/states-ranked-by-age-...
Try looking at places in the world where people actually followed the mandates versus places that didn't. How come Taiwan, which has cases of Omicrom right now, is not seeing exponential spread?
> In some places, that will be OK, while in others, it will be utterly catastrophic.
Maybe? But I already live in a place that did away with all COVID restrictions some time ago (not to mention they were never as harsh as elsewhere to begin with), and the situation here is barely worse than places with prohibitive restrictions.
Maybe? But I already live in a place that did away with all COVID restrictions some time ago (not to mention they were never as harsh as elsewhere to begin with), and the situation here is barely worse than places with prohibitive restrictions.
> and the situation here is barely worse than places with prohibitive restrictions.
Are you sure about this?
I lived in a metro area in the middle of anti-COVID restriction land for a portion of the pandemic. Our hospitals were slammed during every surge, mostly with COVID cases from outlying counties.
Tiny rural hospitals didn't have case spikes, but really only because they functioned purely as funnels to the metro hospital systems. In one case, a county never had more than a single digit number of ICU admissions! Of course, the dashboard failed to mention that the sole hospital in that county only had a single digit number of ICU beds... guess where their overflow patients ended up?
At least in our case, if you looked at statistics on dashboards you got one story, but if you paid attention to the actual source of cases -- as opposed to which ICU the patient was sent to -- you got a very different story.
Are you sure about this?
I lived in a metro area in the middle of anti-COVID restriction land for a portion of the pandemic. Our hospitals were slammed during every surge, mostly with COVID cases from outlying counties.
Tiny rural hospitals didn't have case spikes, but really only because they functioned purely as funnels to the metro hospital systems. In one case, a county never had more than a single digit number of ICU admissions! Of course, the dashboard failed to mention that the sole hospital in that county only had a single digit number of ICU beds... guess where their overflow patients ended up?
At least in our case, if you looked at statistics on dashboards you got one story, but if you paid attention to the actual source of cases -- as opposed to which ICU the patient was sent to -- you got a very different story.
According to the article, in the only large randomized studies that have been performed, masking showed little, if any benefit.
As far as I'm aware, most studies, including WHO, show that lockdowns were counter productive, and could result in increased transmission.
I haven't seen a single study that showed school closures resulted in any decrease in transmission, or provided any benefit. I have seen many that showed the harms it imposed, though.
These measures were ineffective. So, how do you justify saying that a hospital's case load would increase by 2X if we got rid of them, or had never done them?
As far as I'm aware, most studies, including WHO, show that lockdowns were counter productive, and could result in increased transmission.
I haven't seen a single study that showed school closures resulted in any decrease in transmission, or provided any benefit. I have seen many that showed the harms it imposed, though.
These measures were ineffective. So, how do you justify saying that a hospital's case load would increase by 2X if we got rid of them, or had never done them?
> According to the article, in the only large randomized studies that have been performed, masking showed little, if any benefit.
I have this open in another tab. It links to three studies that show masks in school do work:
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/mask-requirem...
> most studies, including WHO, show that lockdowns were counter productive, and could result in increased transmission.
Do you have a source for this?
I have this open in another tab. It links to three studies that show masks in school do work:
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/mask-requirem...
> most studies, including WHO, show that lockdowns were counter productive, and could result in increased transmission.
Do you have a source for this?
The author of that blog post sees that states like Tennessee and Texas had a high number of school closures, but that plot is simply plotting raw numbers of school closures. Not only are those numbers affected by a plethora of variables (for example, population density, population number, vaccination rates, number of schools, closure policies...), but how could you possibly compare raw numbers of school closures in individual states? Then, they use this incredibly skewed plot to draw the conclusion that "Public health mitigation measures in schools, like mask requirements, work." Talk about jumping to conclusions.
For the first two studies, these kinds of probabilities are extremely dangerous and prone to "playing with the data." Given the exact same dataset, one could draw nearly any conclusion with such disparate and varied data, especially when attempting to control for other factors. Could these increased "change in daily number of cases per 100,000 children" be due to other factors; for example, a correlation between a mask policy and other policies, such as closure and a decrease in class size? I'm not saying that I know the answer, either, but plots like this should be taken with a pinch of salt.
For the first two studies, these kinds of probabilities are extremely dangerous and prone to "playing with the data." Given the exact same dataset, one could draw nearly any conclusion with such disparate and varied data, especially when attempting to control for other factors. Could these increased "change in daily number of cases per 100,000 children" be due to other factors; for example, a correlation between a mask policy and other policies, such as closure and a decrease in class size? I'm not saying that I know the answer, either, but plots like this should be taken with a pinch of salt.
> According to the article, in the only large randomized studies that have been performed, masking showed little, if any benefit.
From the first one [1] they linked:
> odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23] … Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection. …
Sounds like the issue is lack of statistical power. We basically can't conclude much at all from that study, but taken "at face value", that was an ~18% reduction in transmission. Presumably this would compound if done for longer or among more people due to exponential spread.
Compound an 18% reduction for three generations (about ~15 days) of viral spread and that's about a 45% reduction in case load. Of course it's more complicated than that because a faster-spreading virus will also reach saturation of the susceptible population more quickly, but it does mean lowering peak hospital load, as well as lowering R_0 which means the point of saturation is smaller, etc.
From the second one [2] they linked:
> Proper mask-wearing increased from 13.3% in the control group to 42.3% in the intervention arm (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.29 [0.26, 0.31]). The intervention reduced symptomatic seroprevalence (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) = 0.91 [0.82, 1.00])
So that's a 9% reduction (again, with a wide confidence interval), as a result of increasing mask usage by only 29 percentage points. So if the signal's real, then presumably increasing mask usage further, say up to 85%, would add a very meaningful further reduction.
Again, we can assume that would compound if done for longer or among a larger population.
**
Furthermore, there have been plenty of lab experiments on masks which show them to be effective at filtering water droplet-bound Covid particles. And Covid is not the first virus we've ever encountered. In the absence of lots of data specific to Covid, we can apply background scientific knowledge about the effectiveness of masks in slowing the spread of respiratory disease.
There are also costs to wearing masks, as well as to mask mandates, which I'm not taking into account in this post. But I wouldn't characterize the evidence as you have.
**
[1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-6817
[2] https://www.poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-...
From the first one [1] they linked:
> odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23] … Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection. …
Sounds like the issue is lack of statistical power. We basically can't conclude much at all from that study, but taken "at face value", that was an ~18% reduction in transmission. Presumably this would compound if done for longer or among more people due to exponential spread.
Compound an 18% reduction for three generations (about ~15 days) of viral spread and that's about a 45% reduction in case load. Of course it's more complicated than that because a faster-spreading virus will also reach saturation of the susceptible population more quickly, but it does mean lowering peak hospital load, as well as lowering R_0 which means the point of saturation is smaller, etc.
From the second one [2] they linked:
> Proper mask-wearing increased from 13.3% in the control group to 42.3% in the intervention arm (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.29 [0.26, 0.31]). The intervention reduced symptomatic seroprevalence (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) = 0.91 [0.82, 1.00])
So that's a 9% reduction (again, with a wide confidence interval), as a result of increasing mask usage by only 29 percentage points. So if the signal's real, then presumably increasing mask usage further, say up to 85%, would add a very meaningful further reduction.
Again, we can assume that would compound if done for longer or among a larger population.
**
Furthermore, there have been plenty of lab experiments on masks which show them to be effective at filtering water droplet-bound Covid particles. And Covid is not the first virus we've ever encountered. In the absence of lots of data specific to Covid, we can apply background scientific knowledge about the effectiveness of masks in slowing the spread of respiratory disease.
There are also costs to wearing masks, as well as to mask mandates, which I'm not taking into account in this post. But I wouldn't characterize the evidence as you have.
**
[1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-6817
[2] https://www.poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-...
I agree that we interpret the results of those studies very differently.
I'd also suggest that we only regard lab studies with a bit of intellectual curiosity, rather than a meaningful focus. Lab studies are very different than the real world where my son trades his batman mask for a friend's spiderman mask because it's cooler :D
I'd also suggest that we only regard lab studies with a bit of intellectual curiosity, rather than a meaningful focus. Lab studies are very different than the real world where my son trades his batman mask for a friend's spiderman mask because it's cooler :D
In biological sciences we have to integrate multiple kinds of evidence — in vitro (or in larva? — in the mask) lab experiments, animal models, randomized controlled trials in humans, descriptive statistics of human populations, in silico simulation, etc. — because they all have their advantages and disadvantages.
Lab/in vitro models are great because they allow for tightly controlled conditions and are clear tests of mechanisms, but they might not represent real-world conditions in living human beings in our social context, with all of the attending quirks and nuances.
Animal models are great because they're a complete organism upon which we can still do a whole range of controlled experiments which we can't do in people. But they're not human beings, so there could be differences there. And we can't control them as closely as e.g. an experiment with a few cells or a few viral particles.
etc. etc.
When all the evidence seems to be pointing in roughly the same direction, I think it's fair to say we know something. That appears to be the case with masks limiting the spread of Covid, even if the confidence intervals on the randomized controlled trials are large. That's very different from "little, if any benefit".
Lab/in vitro models are great because they allow for tightly controlled conditions and are clear tests of mechanisms, but they might not represent real-world conditions in living human beings in our social context, with all of the attending quirks and nuances.
Animal models are great because they're a complete organism upon which we can still do a whole range of controlled experiments which we can't do in people. But they're not human beings, so there could be differences there. And we can't control them as closely as e.g. an experiment with a few cells or a few viral particles.
etc. etc.
When all the evidence seems to be pointing in roughly the same direction, I think it's fair to say we know something. That appears to be the case with masks limiting the spread of Covid, even if the confidence intervals on the randomized controlled trials are large. That's very different from "little, if any benefit".
Margery Smelkinson (the author), Ph.D., infections disease expert focused on Covid 19 and affiliated with NIH, disagrees with your interpretation.
I think we should either evaluate arguments for ourselves, or rely on a broad consensus of experts in the field in question.
If we resort to argument from authority, but cherry pick our authorities to be those which agree with our preexisting views, then that won't get us very far epistemically.
In this case, I think both the broad consensus of experts as well as the balance of evidence/argumentation supports the efficacy of masks.
If we resort to argument from authority, but cherry pick our authorities to be those which agree with our preexisting views, then that won't get us very far epistemically.
In this case, I think both the broad consensus of experts as well as the balance of evidence/argumentation supports the efficacy of masks.
[deleted]
My kids attend a university in Canada and live in residence on campus. They have had incredibly strict rules around masking and gatherings. It's clear that they are only considering one variable - number of infections - and it seems like they aren't considering any other factors.
For example, in the dorm there is a common area with a piano. Because of COVID, playing that piano is banned. Even if there was a reasonable danger of contracting COVID from a piano, there are also mental health benefits to playing music. It doesn't feel like the piano ban is in the best interests of the people who live there and I don't think the people who set the rules care because they can't measure that. They can only measure infections.
For example, in the dorm there is a common area with a piano. Because of COVID, playing that piano is banned. Even if there was a reasonable danger of contracting COVID from a piano, there are also mental health benefits to playing music. It doesn't feel like the piano ban is in the best interests of the people who live there and I don't think the people who set the rules care because they can't measure that. They can only measure infections.
This is the fundamental issue with coronavirus mitigation measures. There are circumstances in which "drop everything" makes sense - if coronavirus were ten times more fatal, we'd do it naturally.
But in general, looking at life from a perspective of "what is the minimum possible quality of life we can have" is depressing and fundamentally incompatible with the human spirit.
I tend to think that people who operate in this way are subhuman, in the genuine sense of the word - they seem more like bureaucratic automatons than living beings with spirits and hopes and dreams.
Like, yeah, I will take the risk of contracting coronavirus to play the piano, because I want the piano in my life. The piano is what life is, life is not simply breathing and eating.
But in general, looking at life from a perspective of "what is the minimum possible quality of life we can have" is depressing and fundamentally incompatible with the human spirit.
I tend to think that people who operate in this way are subhuman, in the genuine sense of the word - they seem more like bureaucratic automatons than living beings with spirits and hopes and dreams.
Like, yeah, I will take the risk of contracting coronavirus to play the piano, because I want the piano in my life. The piano is what life is, life is not simply breathing and eating.
For two years we’ve been asked to park our problems and to act like literally all that matters is the spread of Covid. Nothing else matters. Just a myopic fixation on the spread of one highly infectious respiratory virus.
Even a year after vaccines we are still being asked to treat Covid like it is the #1 priority in our lives. More important than our well being, our mental health, our communities, our children, or anything else.
Heaven help you if your value system is incompatible with such an idea. Be prepared to be yelled at, called names, lose your career, and become marginalized.
Even a year after vaccines we are still being asked to treat Covid like it is the #1 priority in our lives. More important than our well being, our mental health, our communities, our children, or anything else.
Heaven help you if your value system is incompatible with such an idea. Be prepared to be yelled at, called names, lose your career, and become marginalized.
How about if you have anxiety issues and the reduced inflow of air from masks gives you panic attacks? This has been my life for this pandemic. I take medication but it does not stop them 100% from happening, and I have to use anti-anxiety techniques most times I put one on to stop from being overwhelmed by anticipation. Does anyone care about people like me? It sure feels like they don't. And I have seen my physical and mental condition degrade largely due to this (I was never personally panicked by the virus itself). There are others like me and it is deeply upsetting that we have to suffer like this.
[ EDIT: other commenters response to this comment made me go look up some original research on the topic. As a result, I fully retract what I've said below. I found several papers that report substantial restrictions of airflow from wearing a correctly fitted N95 mask.
I was wrong, and I apologize for the misinformation. I did try to explicitly say that I was not doubting someone's experiences, but I apologize for appearing to do that too. I've left the text up because that seems more honest. ]
I do not want to seek to diminish your very real anxiety and panic issues.
But you should be aware that there is no actual reduced inflow of air due to mask wearing, certainly not one that you would detect physiologically. In 2020, there were numerous demonstrations of this, both with actual measurements (lung volume, blood oxygen etc.) and with more anecdotal illustrations such as vigorous exercise even while wearing multiple masks.
Your mental conditions matter, and I hope you are able find ways to live reasonably happily without too much anxiety.
I was wrong, and I apologize for the misinformation. I did try to explicitly say that I was not doubting someone's experiences, but I apologize for appearing to do that too. I've left the text up because that seems more honest. ]
I do not want to seek to diminish your very real anxiety and panic issues.
But you should be aware that there is no actual reduced inflow of air due to mask wearing, certainly not one that you would detect physiologically. In 2020, there were numerous demonstrations of this, both with actual measurements (lung volume, blood oxygen etc.) and with more anecdotal illustrations such as vigorous exercise even while wearing multiple masks.
Your mental conditions matter, and I hope you are able find ways to live reasonably happily without too much anxiety.
You must be joking!
Have you tried exercising with surgical mask or N95 respirator?
I train regularly with N95 since Omicron started and they definitely negatively affect airflow and aerobic exercise performance. N95 respirator even more than surgical mask. I am used to them and don't have anxiety, but they aren't comfortable at all. They also affect temperature of air that you are inhaling as it mixes inside the mask with the hot air that you exhale, increasing your rest and cooldown time.
Pure, unadulterated BS. I was in the hospital for a few days last year (unrelated to Covid) and as part of the standard discharge process, I had to walk around (with a mask on) while my blood oxygen was measured. It was slightly low, so the nurse said "take off your mask for a second" and sure enough, it popped right back up to normal. She said she sees it with almost everyone.
You're breathing in less air, and more CO2. There is no way it's not going to have an impact.
You're breathing in less air, and more CO2. There is no way it's not going to have an impact.
What are you talking about with masks not restricting airflow, totally not correct and absolute misinformation. Here is what happens when you wear a mask while exercising hard:
https://ktvz.com/news/coronavirus/2021/04/26/summit-hs-runne...
https://ktvz.com/news/coronavirus/2021/04/26/summit-hs-runne...
I do not want to seek to diminish your very real belief that my issues are not real. But they are. My panic attacks in public started when I had to wear masks. When I am anxious or stressed, my breathing shallows. When this happens and I am wearing a mask, i have even less airflow coming in. I have tested this by simply lowering my mask, and examining how much air enters my nasal cavity. It is a huge difference. Or, I should say, it makes a huge difference to my mental state, even if the change in oxygen is relatively small.
My psychiatrist, therapist and gp all confirmed this. Frankly, you should trust people with these actual conditions. We are living it, you aren't.
My psychiatrist, therapist and gp all confirmed this. Frankly, you should trust people with these actual conditions. We are living it, you aren't.
I tried to explicitly state that I believe that your mental experiences are real and worthy of attention and care.
> I should say, it makes a huge difference to my mental state, even if the change in oxygen is relatively small.
This is the key point. The change in airflow and oxygen is extremely small. None of that means your mental state does not change when wearing a mask, but it is probably useful to understand that this is not due to a physiological process involving less oxygen/air.
[ EDIT: one possible answer is change in the CO2 conditions and/or thermal conditions: e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8450908/ ]
[ EDIT 2: I was wrong. Please see original comment + edit at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30104420 ]
> I should say, it makes a huge difference to my mental state, even if the change in oxygen is relatively small.
This is the key point. The change in airflow and oxygen is extremely small. None of that means your mental state does not change when wearing a mask, but it is probably useful to understand that this is not due to a physiological process involving less oxygen/air.
[ EDIT: one possible answer is change in the CO2 conditions and/or thermal conditions: e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8450908/ ]
[ EDIT 2: I was wrong. Please see original comment + edit at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30104420 ]
The key point is that you are wrong. It is absolutely due to a physiological process. You are telling me that it is "all in my head," and that it is impossible that a cloth mask over my face restricts my airflow. I am telling you it isn't.
>I tried to explicitly state that I believe that your mental experiences are real and worthy of attention and care.
I appreciate that. But you should be aware that people with anxiety hear this all the time. "What you believe is true matters. And is important. Now, having said that..." it isn't helpful and not really all that respectful, really. I can tell you with 100% certainty that restricting my breathing gives me anxiety. Not the idea of it, but the actual act itself. And that I feel less air entering my body, and more anxiety, when I wear masks. Other people have said the exact same thing happens to them in this thread. It's your choice who to believe.
Edit: saw your edit. Maybe it's not "oxygen," per se, and another chemical is to blame. That would be helpful, if I knew the exact mechanism! But unfortunately, not very useful in solving the mask/anxiety issue. I've opted just to get a shitty mask (in medical terms) that will suit me, for my health needs.
>I tried to explicitly state that I believe that your mental experiences are real and worthy of attention and care.
I appreciate that. But you should be aware that people with anxiety hear this all the time. "What you believe is true matters. And is important. Now, having said that..." it isn't helpful and not really all that respectful, really. I can tell you with 100% certainty that restricting my breathing gives me anxiety. Not the idea of it, but the actual act itself. And that I feel less air entering my body, and more anxiety, when I wear masks. Other people have said the exact same thing happens to them in this thread. It's your choice who to believe.
Edit: saw your edit. Maybe it's not "oxygen," per se, and another chemical is to blame. That would be helpful, if I knew the exact mechanism! But unfortunately, not very useful in solving the mask/anxiety issue. I've opted just to get a shitty mask (in medical terms) that will suit me, for my health needs.
Please see my larger edit in my original comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30104420
I was wrong.
I was wrong.
I wonder if the shallowed breathing is a physiological response that only some of us experience while wearing masks. It could explain why there are two very different experiences for people when masked.
I fortunately don't experience panic attacks from wearing a mask, but I will consistently get a headache from wearing one. And it's the same-feeling kind of headache I get from being in another enclosed space without air circulation.
I fortunately don't experience panic attacks from wearing a mask, but I will consistently get a headache from wearing one. And it's the same-feeling kind of headache I get from being in another enclosed space without air circulation.
It could be. To me it doesn't feel like there is a difference in the cadence of my breathing, after I put the mask on. I simply have less oxygen coming in. I probably should be breathing more deeply, all the time! Then perhaps the mask wouldn't make a noticeable difference. But after a lifetime of dealing with anxiety, I've learned to trust my body. My mind can lie to me when im anxious, but my body generally doesn't.
Not disagreeing with any of your comments about masks; but FWIW, as another person with a diagnosed & medicated anxiety disorder, your (our) body(ies) absolutely do lie to us. It's an inappropriate physiological response (fight/flight/etc) to stimuli. The panic response _is the lie_. It was that realization/training through therapy that helped make my disorder manageable, knowing that just because my body thinks it's in danger of dying doesn't mean it actually is.
>The panic response _is the lie_
You're right. I think I meant that examining my body's responses can give me a quicker realization of "something is wrong (meaning my anxiety is out-of-proportion)" than examining my mental processes can; because I can get trapped in that anxious loop of thinking about thinking, and worrying about worrying. So it doesn't "lie" to me, that way.
But the only way to truly get over anxiety is like you say, you've got to realize that all of it is exaggerated and false, and you've got to just "let it go." It really does get easier. The pandemic has made it harder again and I resent it.
You're right. I think I meant that examining my body's responses can give me a quicker realization of "something is wrong (meaning my anxiety is out-of-proportion)" than examining my mental processes can; because I can get trapped in that anxious loop of thinking about thinking, and worrying about worrying. So it doesn't "lie" to me, that way.
But the only way to truly get over anxiety is like you say, you've got to realize that all of it is exaggerated and false, and you've got to just "let it go." It really does get easier. The pandemic has made it harder again and I resent it.
Yeah, this matches my experience as well. The air simply feels less.. airy. Like I can't get a deep enough breath. I'd love to understand the science behind it.
"Polypropylene is a commonly used material for N95 type respirators. In order for small particles to get through a filter composed of interlaced layers of polypropylene fibers, they have to wind through a rather tortuous path and as a result would likely be trapped in the material." [0]
[0] https://qcmask.com/pages/the-science-of-masks
[0] https://qcmask.com/pages/the-science-of-masks
Blood-oxygen level is not relevant when it comes to mental well-being. I have the exact same problem as the parent commenter. I've tried exercising with a mask (cloth and surgical), and it feels like getting waterboarded (because the mask inevitably becomes soaked in sweat).
It causes a great amount of anxiety for me, and literally feels like torture. I don't care about what lung volume/blood oxygen "studies" say.
It causes a great amount of anxiety for me, and literally feels like torture. I don't care about what lung volume/blood oxygen "studies" say.
I am double vaxed+boosted, and I still wear a mask everywhere I'm required to which includes still going to the gym 3-4 times a week.
My gym has gone back and forth between masks being required or not with the case count. I know I've read everything about airflow being fine, and there being no reduced oxygen intake, but having worked out with and without a mask depending on location in the past 2 years I can attest anecdotally as somebody with no health problems that even if only anecdotal it is way more taxing/difficult to recover breath when working out with a mask on, and can be borderline anxiety/torture especially after very intense sets or cardiovascular effort.
It easily takes me at least a couple more minutes to recover my breath/rest in between very hard sets of heavy squats for instance as compared to when not wearing a mask.
My gym has gone back and forth between masks being required or not with the case count. I know I've read everything about airflow being fine, and there being no reduced oxygen intake, but having worked out with and without a mask depending on location in the past 2 years I can attest anecdotally as somebody with no health problems that even if only anecdotal it is way more taxing/difficult to recover breath when working out with a mask on, and can be borderline anxiety/torture especially after very intense sets or cardiovascular effort.
It easily takes me at least a couple more minutes to recover my breath/rest in between very hard sets of heavy squats for instance as compared to when not wearing a mask.
As an aside, have you noticed any improvements from training with a mask on? Is it like how runners might train at high altitude, so when you come back to normal levels you are more efficient?
A good while back I looked at restrictors for training and my recollection is they didn't show any benefit in studies. Unclear why. They're a lot tougher than any respirator I've tried so I wouldn't expect the respirator to have any benefit that direction. Altitude tents apparently do work but are more trouble and risk than I'm comfortable with.
The only thing I could say is I have improved some at working out with a mask on, but it's still noticeable by a large margin more difficult to recover my breath/energy than without.
I don't think I've generally seen that transfer over to performance without one though.
I don't think I've generally seen that transfer over to performance without one though.
[deleted]
Thank you
>But you should be aware that there is no actual reduced inflow of air due to mask wearing
Huh? From https://weintraubcenter.dentistry.ucla.edu/n95-respirators-t...
>Pressure drop is a measure of the resistance that the air meets as it flows through the respirator filter and into the mask. This is important because the pressure drop affects the comfort and breathability of the mask- specifically a lower pressure drop is desirable as it translates to increased breathability and thus comfort.
> On average, those that have high filtration efficiency are also the ones with the largest pressure drop, which make it difficult to breath.
I'm aware not everyone is wearing a N95 or better respirator, but the metric applies to all masks.
Huh? From https://weintraubcenter.dentistry.ucla.edu/n95-respirators-t...
>Pressure drop is a measure of the resistance that the air meets as it flows through the respirator filter and into the mask. This is important because the pressure drop affects the comfort and breathability of the mask- specifically a lower pressure drop is desirable as it translates to increased breathability and thus comfort.
> On average, those that have high filtration efficiency are also the ones with the largest pressure drop, which make it difficult to breath.
I'm aware not everyone is wearing a N95 or better respirator, but the metric applies to all masks.
There are some genuine N95 duckbill style masks that have much lower pressure drop.
Genuine question- how is that actually possible?
Surely there is, at minimum, an unstated variable here like "effort required to inhale the same volume of air"? Or the composition of the air?
I'm not an expert in this area, but as someone who "feels" like I'm getting less oxygen and is willing to consider that my body is tricking me, help me understand.
edit: I shouldn't have to say this, but I'll mention I'm vaccinated+boosted and have complied with the mask mandates. I just don't understand these unintuitive claims.
Surely there is, at minimum, an unstated variable here like "effort required to inhale the same volume of air"? Or the composition of the air?
I'm not an expert in this area, but as someone who "feels" like I'm getting less oxygen and is willing to consider that my body is tricking me, help me understand.
edit: I shouldn't have to say this, but I'll mention I'm vaccinated+boosted and have complied with the mask mandates. I just don't understand these unintuitive claims.
There is no way that you are not having your intake of air restricted by putting a piece of cloth or fabric over your face. For the average person it probably doesn't make a difference in the way their body or mind works. But small changes can and do make a huge difference in people who are not neurotypical, or have breathing issues due to their sinuses.
That is my assertion as well. The simple physics of it require that filtering air effectively will reduce the air-for-effort. If you're not experiencing this, you're pulling air from around the sides of your mask.
(Note that not noticing it is not the same as not experiencing it.)
(Note that not noticing it is not the same as not experiencing it.)
the retraction is appreciated but, if you'll excuse me for saying so, the fact that you thought this at all shows that we're well into "brainwashing" territory with this mask nonsense.
it should be beyond obvious to any neutral observer that putting a covering over one's nose and mouth will affect their breathing airflow, especially so when exercising. you don't even have to try it yourself to intuit this, it's just common sense. but once you have tried it, there should be zero doubt in your mind that your breathing airflow is affected, especially if you're actually going out of your way to ensure that you've sealed the mask on your face properly.
I don't say this to shame or disparage you specifically, but instead to point out how people, broadly, are having their thoughts programmed, on a massive scale, to truly believe things that are obviously contradictory to reality.
this should be very concerning to everyone.
it should be beyond obvious to any neutral observer that putting a covering over one's nose and mouth will affect their breathing airflow, especially so when exercising. you don't even have to try it yourself to intuit this, it's just common sense. but once you have tried it, there should be zero doubt in your mind that your breathing airflow is affected, especially if you're actually going out of your way to ensure that you've sealed the mask on your face properly.
I don't say this to shame or disparage you specifically, but instead to point out how people, broadly, are having their thoughts programmed, on a massive scale, to truly believe things that are obviously contradictory to reality.
this should be very concerning to everyone.
> the fact that you thought this at all shows that we're well into "brainwashing" territory with this mask nonsense.
I don't agree with that. As noted, blood oxygen levels for most people are not changed by mask wearing (presumably, most of us just add the extra 20-30% effort to keep the airflow up and/or were nowhere near close to requiring the full breath).
> once you have tried it, there should be zero doubt in your mind that your breathing airflow is affected
As some comments in the main thread here have noted, masks like the 3M Aura+ (which I've been wearing for a few months now) really do not have much impact on breathing airflow. My actual experience of wearing KN95's and N95's even while running is that I do not feel that my airflow is impacted at all. My mistake was to combine that actual personal experience together with data on physiological state while wearing masks (not changed much in most people) and make the false claim that there was no impact on airflow.
Some of those comments noted that the construction and fit of the mask can make a huge difference - damp cloth masks, for example, do seem to have an outsize impact. I have never used cloth masks during the pandemic, and I live in an exceedingly dry climate, so people I know who have worn them have not commented much on the effects of them being damp.
So, no, I do not agree that what I said (even while actually false) was "obviously contradictory to reality".
I don't agree with that. As noted, blood oxygen levels for most people are not changed by mask wearing (presumably, most of us just add the extra 20-30% effort to keep the airflow up and/or were nowhere near close to requiring the full breath).
> once you have tried it, there should be zero doubt in your mind that your breathing airflow is affected
As some comments in the main thread here have noted, masks like the 3M Aura+ (which I've been wearing for a few months now) really do not have much impact on breathing airflow. My actual experience of wearing KN95's and N95's even while running is that I do not feel that my airflow is impacted at all. My mistake was to combine that actual personal experience together with data on physiological state while wearing masks (not changed much in most people) and make the false claim that there was no impact on airflow.
Some of those comments noted that the construction and fit of the mask can make a huge difference - damp cloth masks, for example, do seem to have an outsize impact. I have never used cloth masks during the pandemic, and I live in an exceedingly dry climate, so people I know who have worn them have not commented much on the effects of them being damp.
So, no, I do not agree that what I said (even while actually false) was "obviously contradictory to reality".
> I do not feel that my airflow is impacted at all
This just means that you are very fit. Just like athletes sometimes train on purpose with air restricting masks.
It's like saying "I can lift 200 pounds easily, so people complaining that they are struggling with that amount are mistaken".
The FFP3 euro standard (N99 equiv) mask I'm wearing is very noticeable to me and tiring if I walk fast for example.
This just means that you are very fit. Just like athletes sometimes train on purpose with air restricting masks.
It's like saying "I can lift 200 pounds easily, so people complaining that they are struggling with that amount are mistaken".
The FFP3 euro standard (N99 equiv) mask I'm wearing is very noticeable to me and tiring if I walk fast for example.
when you put a thing over your nose and mouth, it negatively affects how well you can breathe. depending on the material and how much you're currently breathing (exerting yourself or not, healthy or not), it may be a little, it may be a lot. this is basic common sense intuition, and propaganda about the effectiveness and/or necessity of masks of any description should not preclude you from continuing to hold these basic observable truths in your mind.
> presumably, most of us just add the extra 20-30% effort to keep the airflow up and/or were nowhere near close to requiring the full breath
how can this be considered negligible under any circumstances? even if the observed difference in effort required seems negligible for you personally, why would it be the same for everyone? I can think of many, many reasons why 20–30% additional effort to breathe can be extremely impactful for many different people with different personal circumstances.
> presumably, most of us just add the extra 20-30% effort to keep the airflow up and/or were nowhere near close to requiring the full breath
how can this be considered negligible under any circumstances? even if the observed difference in effort required seems negligible for you personally, why would it be the same for everyone? I can think of many, many reasons why 20–30% additional effort to breathe can be extremely impactful for many different people with different personal circumstances.
Let's try an (thought) experiment:
Put a tennis racket in front of your face. Does it impede airflow? I think the answer is clearly no.
Put a plastic bag over the your nose and mouth? Does it impede airflow? I think the answer is clear yes.
Put a food sieve over your mouth and nose. Does it impede airflow? I think the answer is probably no, but there's room for doubt.
Clearly, something placed over your mouth and nose does not necessarily impede airflow - it depends on the properties of the material it is made of. Some materials obviously have no impact, some have a lot, others are inbetween.
So the question is: why you conclude without careful measurement that a given mask would impede airflow? Presumably you have some intuition about the material and what you know about its properties ("It stops X percent of all particles above a certain size!") that lead you to conclude that it's somewhere between a food sieve and plastic bag, rather than a tennis racket and a food sieve. But there's no "common sense" here. How can Goretex fabric allow water vapor to pass freely, but not allow water in liquid phase to pass at all? You cannot explain that using common sense, but again, you have some intuition that you can use common sense to reason about the properties of masks.
I should also stress that the 20-30% number comes from a 2009 paper on the reduction in airflow. The increase in breathing effort could be less than that, unchanged or more than that, depending on a large number of factors. Example: sitting on a sofa in a comfortable temperature and being very relaxed ... you are already breathing fairly shallowly, and the increase required to overcome whatever effect the mask has will move you only to a condition you are in very regularly anyway, and so will likely be unnoticeable (there's also the "X percent of a small number is a small number" aspect). By contrast, if you are exercising near V02max levels and in excellent cardiovascular condition, you are likely already breathing almost as hard as you can, and so breathing harder due to reduced airflow is likely to challenging to impossible.
Put a tennis racket in front of your face. Does it impede airflow? I think the answer is clearly no.
Put a plastic bag over the your nose and mouth? Does it impede airflow? I think the answer is clear yes.
Put a food sieve over your mouth and nose. Does it impede airflow? I think the answer is probably no, but there's room for doubt.
Clearly, something placed over your mouth and nose does not necessarily impede airflow - it depends on the properties of the material it is made of. Some materials obviously have no impact, some have a lot, others are inbetween.
So the question is: why you conclude without careful measurement that a given mask would impede airflow? Presumably you have some intuition about the material and what you know about its properties ("It stops X percent of all particles above a certain size!") that lead you to conclude that it's somewhere between a food sieve and plastic bag, rather than a tennis racket and a food sieve. But there's no "common sense" here. How can Goretex fabric allow water vapor to pass freely, but not allow water in liquid phase to pass at all? You cannot explain that using common sense, but again, you have some intuition that you can use common sense to reason about the properties of masks.
I should also stress that the 20-30% number comes from a 2009 paper on the reduction in airflow. The increase in breathing effort could be less than that, unchanged or more than that, depending on a large number of factors. Example: sitting on a sofa in a comfortable temperature and being very relaxed ... you are already breathing fairly shallowly, and the increase required to overcome whatever effect the mask has will move you only to a condition you are in very regularly anyway, and so will likely be unnoticeable (there's also the "X percent of a small number is a small number" aspect). By contrast, if you are exercising near V02max levels and in excellent cardiovascular condition, you are likely already breathing almost as hard as you can, and so breathing harder due to reduced airflow is likely to challenging to impossible.
"no actual reduced inflow of air due to mask wearing, certainly not one that you would detect physiologically."
Depends on how you measure it and what you mean by physiologically detect. Generally, the resistance of breathing through a ("good") mask is not automatically detectable, but does exist and one could detect it if they are attentive. Your body tends to increase tidal volume and/or respiration rate because of the rebreathing of the stale under the mask. There are certainly studies that measure the physiological effects, such that we set 15 minute and 8 hour limits on CO2 exposure etc.
Granted it's largely not an issue, but it's not necessarily correct to say that it offers no restriction and no physiological changes.
Depends on how you measure it and what you mean by physiologically detect. Generally, the resistance of breathing through a ("good") mask is not automatically detectable, but does exist and one could detect it if they are attentive. Your body tends to increase tidal volume and/or respiration rate because of the rebreathing of the stale under the mask. There are certainly studies that measure the physiological effects, such that we set 15 minute and 8 hour limits on CO2 exposure etc.
Granted it's largely not an issue, but it's not necessarily correct to say that it offers no restriction and no physiological changes.
Notice how they said "no reduced inflow", not "no increased effort".
They've since edited.
"EDIT: other commenters response to this comment made me go look up some original research on the topic. As a result, I fully retract what I've said below. I found several papers that report substantial restrictions of airflow from wearing a correctly fitted N95 mask."
"EDIT: other commenters response to this comment made me go look up some original research on the topic. As a result, I fully retract what I've said below. I found several papers that report substantial restrictions of airflow from wearing a correctly fitted N95 mask."
Put on an n95 mask then run 5k and tell me with a straight face that it doesn't inhibit air flow.
Well put. I’m a 29 year old male who moved to a new city right before covid and my life has basically been put on hold for two years now with my only access to meeting potential partners being Tinder (or bars, I suppose.) All the activities I try to join (other than my BJJ classes) are remote. Chess club is remote (might as well just play chess.com) my bipolar support group is remote, etc.
I am very curious, which city? I moved to NYC in early pandemic and have had an extremely robust dating and social life. Even in 2020 dating was not difficult here. And for the past year or so life has been 95% normal, with big events, shows, packed bars, etc.
I have to assume you live on the West Coast. I have spent a couple months in and around SF during pandemic, but I live in NYC and have travelled to many other places.
The West Coast experience seems to be a singularly restrictive experience. I'd hesitate to assume the entire nation is experiencing things the same way as you describe them (they are not). Though it does seem like many students across the nation are getting the super-restrictive experience as well.
The West Coast experience seems to be a singularly restrictive experience. I'd hesitate to assume the entire nation is experiencing things the same way as you describe them (they are not). Though it does seem like many students across the nation are getting the super-restrictive experience as well.
It also depends where on the West Coast you live, of course. It's more of a city/rural divide.
I live south of Seattle. Seattle is restrictive, everybody outside is wearing masks, many restaurants are still take-out only, business are open for limited hours.
But you go 40 minutes south to, say, Puyallup, and the COVID restrictions are much more relaxed (if present at all).
I live south of Seattle. Seattle is restrictive, everybody outside is wearing masks, many restaurants are still take-out only, business are open for limited hours.
But you go 40 minutes south to, say, Puyallup, and the COVID restrictions are much more relaxed (if present at all).
> Puyallup, and the COVID restrictions are much more relaxed (if present at all).
Meanwhile, the medical group I work for in Seattle is being absolutely swamped by patients being transferred from overwhelmed hospital and urgent care facilities in Pierce and Thurston counties. We've had to stop doing anything but COVID-related care and the only reason we have the capacity to do that is because we don't operate an emergency room so we can't take on the worst-of-the-worst cases.
According to our daily COVID update report, we have a handful of patients who gave residence addresses--we ask for this because the county and state departments of health want it for statistics, among other reasons--inside Seattle and just a few more inside King County.
It's a very stressful time for many of us, and it isn't helped by the disparity in level of care, let's say, over COVID prevention measures even inside the region.
Meanwhile, the medical group I work for in Seattle is being absolutely swamped by patients being transferred from overwhelmed hospital and urgent care facilities in Pierce and Thurston counties. We've had to stop doing anything but COVID-related care and the only reason we have the capacity to do that is because we don't operate an emergency room so we can't take on the worst-of-the-worst cases.
According to our daily COVID update report, we have a handful of patients who gave residence addresses--we ask for this because the county and state departments of health want it for statistics, among other reasons--inside Seattle and just a few more inside King County.
It's a very stressful time for many of us, and it isn't helped by the disparity in level of care, let's say, over COVID prevention measures even inside the region.
I'd imagine this is also due, at least in part, to Pierce County / South Sound having a lower vaccination rate than the Seattle metro area.
I'm sure it is. In my experience, the willingness to be vaccinated is directly, if loosely, correlated with the willingness to do other COVID prevention measures, like wearing any form of face covering properly (as in, over the nose and mouth as opposed to a chin diaper) when in an enclosed setting.
Because we are a not-for-profit medical group that receives funding from the federal government, we are covered by the vaccinate-or-test requirement from CMMS. In my department, IT, we had two employees quit over it; both of them live in Pierce County. Meanwhile, all of us (so far as I know, obviously I am not privy to everyone's medical records so I am going off of what is claimed and who remains employed with us) who live inside Seattle were fully vaccinated months before the requirement took effect.
I'm also sorry if I come across as unsympathetic or uncaring. Even though I "just work with the computers," this has not been easy for me or my department, and I have seen nurses and doctors I have worked with for years and become work friends with reach and then exceed burnout and press on anyway out of a sense of duty and obligation.
So it is just a bit disheartening to read yet another thread on Hacker News where people keep insisting we'll just have to live with it and this is just how things are now and the West Coast is obviously bad because we've tried to put this godforsaken virus first of mind for stamping out. I know we're past being able to eradicate it, but to just throw up our hands and say "well, even a disposable mask with earloops is JUST TOO MUCH" makes me deeply sad.
Because we are a not-for-profit medical group that receives funding from the federal government, we are covered by the vaccinate-or-test requirement from CMMS. In my department, IT, we had two employees quit over it; both of them live in Pierce County. Meanwhile, all of us (so far as I know, obviously I am not privy to everyone's medical records so I am going off of what is claimed and who remains employed with us) who live inside Seattle were fully vaccinated months before the requirement took effect.
I'm also sorry if I come across as unsympathetic or uncaring. Even though I "just work with the computers," this has not been easy for me or my department, and I have seen nurses and doctors I have worked with for years and become work friends with reach and then exceed burnout and press on anyway out of a sense of duty and obligation.
So it is just a bit disheartening to read yet another thread on Hacker News where people keep insisting we'll just have to live with it and this is just how things are now and the West Coast is obviously bad because we've tried to put this godforsaken virus first of mind for stamping out. I know we're past being able to eradicate it, but to just throw up our hands and say "well, even a disposable mask with earloops is JUST TOO MUCH" makes me deeply sad.
I'm sorry for the difficulty you and your coworkers are facing, it can't be fun. I worked for six years in direct patient care and I know what it's like when my ward is filled an how exhausting it is.
Sometimes we lose a bit of the big picture in that situation though. It helps to take a look at the actual numbers.
In Pierce County, WA the hospitals have only recently exceeded bed capacity warranting transfers [1], in the past week there was an 8% excess capacity, the total bed capacity of Pierce County is ~460, and last week there were 125 covid admissions. The ICU is not at capacity, it's at 92%, which is typically where ICU utilization sits, if a hospital is profitable.
Pierce County has a new infection rate of about 3.5k per 100,000 [2]. The population of Pierce County is almost 1 million, which gives about 35,000 total case infections for 14 days. Of roughly 35,000 infections, there were 125 admissions over the past week. For excess capacity transfer patients, the number is somewhere around 35 to 40 people.
That's certainly enough to feel a strain with when you're working there day to day, but from the average Pierce County resident who's chance of admission in a given week (not age or health adjusted) of 0.000125, I think it's understandable why they may not feel like participating in all of the restrictive measures.
https://datacentral.kitsapsun.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity...
https://www.tpchd.org/healthy-people/diseases/covid-19/pierc...
Sometimes we lose a bit of the big picture in that situation though. It helps to take a look at the actual numbers.
In Pierce County, WA the hospitals have only recently exceeded bed capacity warranting transfers [1], in the past week there was an 8% excess capacity, the total bed capacity of Pierce County is ~460, and last week there were 125 covid admissions. The ICU is not at capacity, it's at 92%, which is typically where ICU utilization sits, if a hospital is profitable.
Pierce County has a new infection rate of about 3.5k per 100,000 [2]. The population of Pierce County is almost 1 million, which gives about 35,000 total case infections for 14 days. Of roughly 35,000 infections, there were 125 admissions over the past week. For excess capacity transfer patients, the number is somewhere around 35 to 40 people.
That's certainly enough to feel a strain with when you're working there day to day, but from the average Pierce County resident who's chance of admission in a given week (not age or health adjusted) of 0.000125, I think it's understandable why they may not feel like participating in all of the restrictive measures.
https://datacentral.kitsapsun.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity...
https://www.tpchd.org/healthy-people/diseases/covid-19/pierc...
> but from the average Pierce County resident who's chance of admission in a given week (not age or health adjusted) of 0.000125, I think it's understandable why they may not feel like participating in all of the restrictive measures.
I know (and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I do agree with you), and I get it. In our practice's case, we're not taking transfers of patients who would be in the ED/ER (we don't have those facilities), we're taking patients who are in for the "long COVID" type symptoms or who need other kinds of longer-term care. I think, though I don't know for sure, that some hospitals in Pierce and Thurston are asking outfits like ours to take patients prior to the ICU getting full so those hospitals can leave a spare bed or two for the true emergency cases.
I guess what I'm saying is it feels like so many of us on the "invisible" end, from medical providers to service workers to public health officials to warehouse folks to all the rest, are expending so much effort to keep things going that to hear people complain that their wellbeing is impacted because they have to exercise behind a mask six days a week just...falls flat. And I feel guilty even typing that out because MENTAL HEALTH IS ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT and for some people that does mean physical exercise and yes anxiety CAN result from mask wearing. But it seems like there are those who genuinely experience those symptoms, and then there are those who are hiding their petulant "I don't wanna and you can't make me nyah" behind claiming those symptoms. And the overlap between the latter group and the group of people who flatly refuse to be vaccinated so that we can all dump these masks and rules is damn near a circle.
Anyway, I think we largely agree, and I'm just tired, but not as tired as some.
I know (and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I do agree with you), and I get it. In our practice's case, we're not taking transfers of patients who would be in the ED/ER (we don't have those facilities), we're taking patients who are in for the "long COVID" type symptoms or who need other kinds of longer-term care. I think, though I don't know for sure, that some hospitals in Pierce and Thurston are asking outfits like ours to take patients prior to the ICU getting full so those hospitals can leave a spare bed or two for the true emergency cases.
I guess what I'm saying is it feels like so many of us on the "invisible" end, from medical providers to service workers to public health officials to warehouse folks to all the rest, are expending so much effort to keep things going that to hear people complain that their wellbeing is impacted because they have to exercise behind a mask six days a week just...falls flat. And I feel guilty even typing that out because MENTAL HEALTH IS ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT and for some people that does mean physical exercise and yes anxiety CAN result from mask wearing. But it seems like there are those who genuinely experience those symptoms, and then there are those who are hiding their petulant "I don't wanna and you can't make me nyah" behind claiming those symptoms. And the overlap between the latter group and the group of people who flatly refuse to be vaccinated so that we can all dump these masks and rules is damn near a circle.
Anyway, I think we largely agree, and I'm just tired, but not as tired as some.
> The West Coast experience seems to be a singularly restrictive experience.
Unless you go to a bar. You just have to wear your mask when you walk in and go to the restroom. Otherwise, nursing that pint is "actively drinking."
Unless you go to a bar. You just have to wear your mask when you walk in and go to the restroom. Otherwise, nursing that pint is "actively drinking."
Even the idea of having to "actively drink" is not something we think about on the East Coast. We just don't wear masks inside bars and restaurants.
Just to throw my anecdote into the ring -- I live in a mid sized city in the midwest. People have largely stopped wearing masks since about March of last year in all places except for hospitals (and even then it's just those crappy generic blue masks). My GF and I actually had a bit of culture shock when we took a trip to Chicago a few weeks ago and 95%+ people were wearing masks everywhere they went, along with private businesses requiring masks and proof of vaccination.
It's not like the people around here aren't aware of COVID-19 and the subsequent variants, we just kind of moved on.
It's not like the people around here aren't aware of COVID-19 and the subsequent variants, we just kind of moved on.
The north star for most countries and cities has always been cases over hospitalizations or deaths. With vaccine intake high in most developed countries a covid infection is like a cold or a bad flu for some. I think the time has come to rethink this goal of cases being a metric to shut down everything and let society return to some sense of normalcy while still maintaining a safety mandate for those with special conditions(who could potentially die from covid).
Another thing to note, the CDC has mentioned that cloth masks are not effective against omnicron, I know this firsthand as my whole family wore them and we all spread it to each other as the masks did not stop the spread despite hospital levels of disinfection and extreme precaution. With that being said most kids masks are cloth and surgical masks or n95/kn95 masks(cdc says these are effective) are not made for little kids. So whats going on is kids are forced to wear masks that will not protect them against omicron.
Lastly, although the sample size is low my daughter and other kids in her class got covid and had zero symptoms or very minor ones at worst(they were all fully vaccinated) so I wonder what is the benefit of these extreme precautions that don't really seem relevant based on government health declarations(cloth masks don't work, kids[who don't have serious medical issues] have good protection against covid due to age).
Another thing to note, the CDC has mentioned that cloth masks are not effective against omnicron, I know this firsthand as my whole family wore them and we all spread it to each other as the masks did not stop the spread despite hospital levels of disinfection and extreme precaution. With that being said most kids masks are cloth and surgical masks or n95/kn95 masks(cdc says these are effective) are not made for little kids. So whats going on is kids are forced to wear masks that will not protect them against omicron.
Lastly, although the sample size is low my daughter and other kids in her class got covid and had zero symptoms or very minor ones at worst(they were all fully vaccinated) so I wonder what is the benefit of these extreme precautions that don't really seem relevant based on government health declarations(cloth masks don't work, kids[who don't have serious medical issues] have good protection against covid due to age).
Sounds like you are on a path to awakening so I don't want to discourage you, but it might be worth sharing additional data and context to parts of your comment.
>With vaccine intake high in most developed countries a covid infection is like a cold or a bad flu for some.
That may be more driven by the mildness of Omicron than it is by the protective effect of the vaccine. For example, the latest data show that vaccinated (but not boosted) are getting sick and dying at higher rates than unvaccinated. One source (14 per 100k vs 10 per 100k): https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11318/22-01-26-covid...
>Another thing to note, the CDC has mentioned that cloth masks are not effective against omnicron
This is something that is in all likelihood not variant-specific. In other words, cloth masks were always ineffective, however with the increased transmissibility of Omicron, this fact of ineffectiveness has become readily apparent.
>With vaccine intake high in most developed countries a covid infection is like a cold or a bad flu for some.
That may be more driven by the mildness of Omicron than it is by the protective effect of the vaccine. For example, the latest data show that vaccinated (but not boosted) are getting sick and dying at higher rates than unvaccinated. One source (14 per 100k vs 10 per 100k): https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11318/22-01-26-covid...
>Another thing to note, the CDC has mentioned that cloth masks are not effective against omnicron
This is something that is in all likelihood not variant-specific. In other words, cloth masks were always ineffective, however with the increased transmissibility of Omicron, this fact of ineffectiveness has become readily apparent.
You're taking 14 vs 10 from table 15 on page 50 on the report. Page 51 says:
> The rates in Table 15 should not be used as a measures of vaccine effectiveness due to unaccounted for biases and risk factors.
The age-standardized morality rates you mentioned are for just the week of Jan 8-14 (though the same pattern is visible for earlier weeks). But, you didn't mention 3-dose stats with show the opposite pattern:
- Unvaccinated: 16/1.5m raw; 10/100k age adj
- 2-dose: 33/1m raw; 14/100k age adj
- 3-dose: 71/3m raw; 1.5/100k age adj
You can't infer the protectiveness of vaccination in elders directly from this age-adjusted mortality data because Scotland has 100% 2+ dose coverage in those age 60+. The unvaccinated group only includes people under 60 while the vaccinated group includes both. You have to use other observations to judge the protective effect.
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/phs.covid.19/viz/COVI...
(In reality the number is a bit under 100% because the denominator and the numerator are not linked together. They're tracking sum totals, not individual people.)
> The rates in Table 15 should not be used as a measures of vaccine effectiveness due to unaccounted for biases and risk factors.
The age-standardized morality rates you mentioned are for just the week of Jan 8-14 (though the same pattern is visible for earlier weeks). But, you didn't mention 3-dose stats with show the opposite pattern:
- Unvaccinated: 16/1.5m raw; 10/100k age adj
- 2-dose: 33/1m raw; 14/100k age adj
- 3-dose: 71/3m raw; 1.5/100k age adj
You can't infer the protectiveness of vaccination in elders directly from this age-adjusted mortality data because Scotland has 100% 2+ dose coverage in those age 60+. The unvaccinated group only includes people under 60 while the vaccinated group includes both. You have to use other observations to judge the protective effect.
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/phs.covid.19/viz/COVI...
(In reality the number is a bit under 100% because the denominator and the numerator are not linked together. They're tracking sum totals, not individual people.)
To put it more directly, the same document states (on page 36):
In the last week from 08 January 2022 to 14 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the COVID-19 related death rate in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.2 to 9.4 times lower than individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine
In the last week from 08 January 2022 to 14 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the COVID-19 related death rate in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.2 to 9.4 times lower than individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine
You pulled a quote that compares boosted vs unvaccinated/one/two doses, and that is not the comparison I was making. It's possible that I'm misinterpreting the data, but you didn't show it right there.
>you didn't mention 3-dose stats with show the opposite pattern:
I didn't. Boosted do show more protection than unvaccinated, at least for a period of time. I don't dispute that.
I didn't. Boosted do show more protection than unvaccinated, at least for a period of time. I don't dispute that.
From December 11 to January 7, 2022, 107 patients died in Scotland who were vaccinated twice.
Most of them (more than 95 percent) received the second dose more than six months before their deaths. As many as 96 percent of them "had other health complications that contributed to their deaths," the PHS report said. Their average age was 78.1 years.
Most of them (more than 95 percent) received the second dose more than six months before their deaths. As many as 96 percent of them "had other health complications that contributed to their deaths," the PHS report said. Their average age was 78.1 years.
Yes, the vaccine effectiveness wanes quite significantly at 6 months.
Most covid deaths, regardless of vaccination status, had other health complications that contributed.
And the average age of covid deaths, regardless of vaccination status, is over 70.
Was there a particular takeaway you were looking to impart?
Most covid deaths, regardless of vaccination status, had other health complications that contributed.
And the average age of covid deaths, regardless of vaccination status, is over 70.
Was there a particular takeaway you were looking to impart?
The scots over 70 are 100% 2+ doses. There is no unvaccinated comparison group in Scotland for people over 70.
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/phs.covid.19/viz/COVI...
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/phs.covid.19/viz/COVI...
> One source (14 per 100k vs 10 per 100k):
Please do not cherry-pick data that has hidden confounding variables. The data DOES NOT SHOW that vaccinated (but not boosted) are getting sick and dying at higher rates than unvaccinated. You are being severely misleading with your statements as “facts”.
Most importantly “In the last week from 08 January 2022 to 14 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the COVID-19 related death rate in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.2 to 9.4 times lower than individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.”. That directly contradicts your “fact”, and the reason is the simple one that your numbers are not standardised for age i.e. more older people are vaccinated so more vaccinated people die. This should not need to be repeated ad nausium. Pay attention to the facts and please stop misrepresenting the truth.
From page 34 of that report:
“PLEASE READ BEFORE REVIEWING THE FOLLOWING TABLES AND FIGURES There is a large risk of misinterpretation of the data presented in this section due to the complexities of vaccination data. A blog post by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), formerly Public Health England (PHE), provides a comprehensive explanation of the biases and potential areas for misinterpretation of such data. They state that a simple comparison of COVID-19 case rates in those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated should not be used to assess how effective a vaccine is in preventing serious health outcomes, because there are a number of differences between the groups, other than the vaccine itself, and these biases mean that you cannot use the rates to determine how well the vaccines work. Below are examples of some of the complexities and biases that need to be taken into consideration when interpreting these data. This is explained in more detail in our blog on the PHS website.” And from page 35: “There are likely to be systematic differences and biases between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, such as behaviour, vulnerability and previous infection, that are unaccounted for when comparing rates. As most of the population is vaccinated, these differences become more evident and could create bias in case/hospitalisation/death rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated population.”
Please do not cherry-pick data that has hidden confounding variables. The data DOES NOT SHOW that vaccinated (but not boosted) are getting sick and dying at higher rates than unvaccinated. You are being severely misleading with your statements as “facts”.
Most importantly “In the last week from 08 January 2022 to 14 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the COVID-19 related death rate in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.2 to 9.4 times lower than individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.”. That directly contradicts your “fact”, and the reason is the simple one that your numbers are not standardised for age i.e. more older people are vaccinated so more vaccinated people die. This should not need to be repeated ad nausium. Pay attention to the facts and please stop misrepresenting the truth.
From page 34 of that report:
“PLEASE READ BEFORE REVIEWING THE FOLLOWING TABLES AND FIGURES There is a large risk of misinterpretation of the data presented in this section due to the complexities of vaccination data. A blog post by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), formerly Public Health England (PHE), provides a comprehensive explanation of the biases and potential areas for misinterpretation of such data. They state that a simple comparison of COVID-19 case rates in those who are vaccinated and unvaccinated should not be used to assess how effective a vaccine is in preventing serious health outcomes, because there are a number of differences between the groups, other than the vaccine itself, and these biases mean that you cannot use the rates to determine how well the vaccines work. Below are examples of some of the complexities and biases that need to be taken into consideration when interpreting these data. This is explained in more detail in our blog on the PHS website.” And from page 35: “There are likely to be systematic differences and biases between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, such as behaviour, vulnerability and previous infection, that are unaccounted for when comparing rates. As most of the population is vaccinated, these differences become more evident and could create bias in case/hospitalisation/death rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated population.”
>Most importantly “In the last week from 08 January 2022 to 14 January 2022, in an age-standardised population, the COVID-19 related death rate in individuals that received a booster or third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was between 3.2 to 9.4 times lower than individuals who are unvaccinated or have only received one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.”. That directly contradicts your “fact”,
It does? You pulled a quote that compares boosted vs unvaccinated/one/two doses, and that is not the comparison I was making. It's possible that I'm misinterpreting the data, but you didn't show it right there.
It does? You pulled a quote that compares boosted vs unvaccinated/one/two doses, and that is not the comparison I was making. It's possible that I'm misinterpreting the data, but you didn't show it right there.
> That may be more driven by the mildness of Omicron than it is by the protective effect of the vaccine
So with this one I wonder if the mildness of omicron is due to previous infection/vaccination than the virus itself being mild. Like if omicron came into the scene in 2020 it would have been just as deadly but more infectious. I don't know for certain if this is true but was something I was thinking.
As for this I 100% agree:
> This is something that is in all likelihood not variant-specific. In other words, cloth masks were always ineffective, however with the increased transmissibility of Omicron, this fact of ineffectiveness has become readily apparent.
So with this one I wonder if the mildness of omicron is due to previous infection/vaccination than the virus itself being mild. Like if omicron came into the scene in 2020 it would have been just as deadly but more infectious. I don't know for certain if this is true but was something I was thinking.
As for this I 100% agree:
> This is something that is in all likelihood not variant-specific. In other words, cloth masks were always ineffective, however with the increased transmissibility of Omicron, this fact of ineffectiveness has become readily apparent.
"Even a year after vaccines we are still being asked to treat Covid like it is the #1 priority in our lives. More important than our well being, our mental health, our communities, our children, or anything else."
Depends on where you live. There are many rural/red areas that are basically back to normal.
Depends on where you live. There are many rural/red areas that are basically back to normal.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> For two years we’ve been asked to park our problems and to act like literally all that matters is the spread of Covid.
The problem is only half the population really followed through. These measures are still needed more because half the population effectively thinks COVID is no big deal or a hoax.
The problem is only half the population really followed through. These measures are still needed more because half the population effectively thinks COVID is no big deal or a hoax.
We were never going to stop it. As soon as the "real lockdown" people were calling for in the US in April, 2020 was lifted, the virus would start spreading again since there would always be travel, p999 events, people violating lockdown, and animal reservoirs that would reintroduce it. China is the best case for "following through." It can hold back covid, but only through extensive testing, lockdowns, and border restrictions in perpetuity.
Given US values (e.g. "don't tread on me"), 15% of the population would ignore restrictions. You'd also see the same thing globally, sometimes because of values, sometimes out of economic necessity.
We never had a chance to vaccinate the world quickly enough, either. Up until delta, the mRNA vaccines might have been able to eradicate it, but delta was circulating in India around when those vaccines were approved. The logistics and manufacturing capacity to deliver them to rich countries was still 6 months away.
Given US values (e.g. "don't tread on me"), 15% of the population would ignore restrictions. You'd also see the same thing globally, sometimes because of values, sometimes out of economic necessity.
We never had a chance to vaccinate the world quickly enough, either. Up until delta, the mRNA vaccines might have been able to eradicate it, but delta was circulating in India around when those vaccines were approved. The logistics and manufacturing capacity to deliver them to rich countries was still 6 months away.
Many of the restrictions were mandatory, so all people had to follow through…
My parents live in a moderately rural area outside of seattle, i live in seattle. The end of very first week of the lockdown my parents were able to acquire or had already had a few items I could not find in stores in the city. Primarily toilet paper, but a few other items as well.
So I drove over to their place and they leant me some stuff, we were all paranoid so they left the stuff in the garage, I drove up, waved to them on the porch and loaded up my car and headed home. I did need to stop and get gas before getting back on the freeway, at the gas station there was a little mini-mart. There were four people inside, none of them had a mask on. The gas station is next to a Denny's or similar, their dining room was closed but there were people waiting INSIDE and UNMASKED for takeout.
That's why we can't have nice things, even if your town/city collectively was pretty serious about lockdown, the next town over might not be and their citizens are coming into your community to work or whatever else. The only enforcement is the local sherif and if they are a crazy gimme liberty or gimme death type they aren't going to enforce shit.
So I drove over to their place and they leant me some stuff, we were all paranoid so they left the stuff in the garage, I drove up, waved to them on the porch and loaded up my car and headed home. I did need to stop and get gas before getting back on the freeway, at the gas station there was a little mini-mart. There were four people inside, none of them had a mask on. The gas station is next to a Denny's or similar, their dining room was closed but there were people waiting INSIDE and UNMASKED for takeout.
That's why we can't have nice things, even if your town/city collectively was pretty serious about lockdown, the next town over might not be and their citizens are coming into your community to work or whatever else. The only enforcement is the local sherif and if they are a crazy gimme liberty or gimme death type they aren't going to enforce shit.
Yeah, just because it was mandatory doesn't mean people followed through. I live in a very progressive city and we still had many people refusing to follow mask mandates at the height of pre-vaccine pandemic.
People ripping down mask signs, spitting on people, arguing at the doors to a store, etc.
People ripping down mask signs, spitting on people, arguing at the doors to a store, etc.
Interesting, I haven't noticed any of that. Maybe my country has a different mentality. I do see some people not having the masks cover their nose, but definitely nowhere near 50%, more like 5% at worst.
Totally get that. A friend of mine from Finland said compliance with mandates and safety advisories was a lot better back home than those in the US.
There's a lot of people in the US arguing that mask mandates and other medical precautions are "violating their freedom".
There's a lot of people in the US arguing that mask mandates and other medical precautions are "violating their freedom".
As they should. Mask mandates were always more religion than science. Calmer heads decades from now will suggest as much.
I have a feeling that if the same people were tasked with setting road speed limits, they would set it to 20 mph and argue that 30,000 lives will be saved each year. They aren't wrong, but it's misjudging the risk most of us are willing to accept for the benefits of being able to move around quickly.
You are grossly misrepresenting the argument. It is about 30mph inside cities. Which is a great idea, not just for saving lives but for substantially increasing quality of life of everyone living there.
The greatest cause of noise in cities is traffic. Setting a strict speed limit would substantially reduce this. (Also side benefits like better air quality and so on) And traffic would actually flow better, so you might not even reach your destination that much later.
You can be protect your individual freedom at all cost and treat everything as a zero sum game or you can bee cooperative and help build a better world for everyone by compromising a bit.
The greatest cause of noise in cities is traffic. Setting a strict speed limit would substantially reduce this. (Also side benefits like better air quality and so on) And traffic would actually flow better, so you might not even reach your destination that much later.
You can be protect your individual freedom at all cost and treat everything as a zero sum game or you can bee cooperative and help build a better world for everyone by compromising a bit.
They’d probably ban cars, airplanes, multi story buildings, solid food..
Ah, that one's actually happening.
There are actual attempts to ban cars in my neighbourhood now because some people judge that the marginal effects of air pollution outweigh the enormous benefit of me being able to visit my friends and family in literally a quarter of the time.
These people don't think about benefit. It's only cost. I've come to think of them as simply being depressed, in the chemical imbalance sense.
There are actual attempts to ban cars in my neighbourhood now because some people judge that the marginal effects of air pollution outweigh the enormous benefit of me being able to visit my friends and family in literally a quarter of the time.
These people don't think about benefit. It's only cost. I've come to think of them as simply being depressed, in the chemical imbalance sense.
And here you are making pseudoscientific judgements (chemical imbalance?!) about a huge number of people you've lumped into a group and referred to as "these people."
I'm seriously surprised you haven't been downvoted off this thread.
I'm seriously surprised you haven't been downvoted off this thread.
Referring to other humans as "subhuman" is disrespectful, at best. Where do you get off saying ANYONE isn't a "living being[s] with spirits and hopes and dreams?"
Having different priorities than you do does not make someone "subhuman" and I would seriously reconsider the language you are using.
Having different priorities than you do does not make someone "subhuman" and I would seriously reconsider the language you are using.
Perhaps instead I might be following Covid guidelines for the following reasons: so I don't pass the infection onto those who are indeed vulnerable; so I don't overtax an already overtaxed healthcare system and healthcare workers. Part of the ineffable human spirit, IMHO, is altruism: which in this case can manifest as taking on a set of mild day to day inconveniences in order to help others be happier and safer. I do believe altruism is a (not exclusively) human characteristic, which means that part of 'joie de vive', alongside wine, piano playing, etc., is knowing one is doing something for others.
Honestly, I don't think it's as extreme as "if coronavirus were ten times more fatal" that would lead us to naturally take on mitigations. Instead, it would be if the death rate were evenly spread across age groups. Then, the motivation for avoiding some piano playing would be the immediate cost to self or close friends, rather than the abstract cost to some other group.
All that said I am quite sympathetic to the motivation behind your argument, but I believe you and GP are ignoring some motivations people might have for following or being 'bureaucratic automatons'.
Honestly, I don't think it's as extreme as "if coronavirus were ten times more fatal" that would lead us to naturally take on mitigations. Instead, it would be if the death rate were evenly spread across age groups. Then, the motivation for avoiding some piano playing would be the immediate cost to self or close friends, rather than the abstract cost to some other group.
All that said I am quite sympathetic to the motivation behind your argument, but I believe you and GP are ignoring some motivations people might have for following or being 'bureaucratic automatons'.
At this point, the most vulnerable have a sophisticated arsenal of tools to prevent themselves from being seriously affected by the virus. Vaccines, antivirals, masks like N95 that work to protect the wearer, etc. In my opinion it is no longer the duty of the non-vulnerable, especially children, to carry the burden of the pandemic because of the extremely negative consequences of these countermeasures.
> so I don't pass the infection onto those who are indeed vulnerable; so I don't overtax an already overtaxed healthcare system and healthcare workers
This seems reasonable and is a common point of view. It does make me curious though. Did you get a yearly flu shot prior to Covid? If not, has Covid changed your mind about this?
This seems reasonable and is a common point of view. It does make me curious though. Did you get a yearly flu shot prior to Covid? If not, has Covid changed your mind about this?
A good question. I've done the yearly flu shot for over a decade. But before that I was A) not a flu shot getter, B) a more reckless driver, and C) etc. etc. My sense of the impact of my actions on other peoples safety seems to have grown over the years, from a near complete lack of consciousness in my teens and early twenties to a stronger feeling today. Probably a not unusual path. And people including myself are good at rationalizing their choices, good or bad.
To the subject of the article: If our child's school decided to not require masks (they currently do) I would go ahead with that without undue worry about the children, assuming the school were representing the will of the teachers. I believe overall the teachers should have the strongest say in the matter because they're the highest risk group involved.
To the subject of the article: If our child's school decided to not require masks (they currently do) I would go ahead with that without undue worry about the children, assuming the school were representing the will of the teachers. I believe overall the teachers should have the strongest say in the matter because they're the highest risk group involved.
> I tend to think that people who operate in this way are subhuman, in the genuine sense of the word - they seem more like bureaucratic automatons than living beings with spirits and hopes and dreams.
Quick capsule hypothesis-- you tend toward thinking in a way that results in you having written the word "subhuman" on HN because an active pandemic tends to increase feelings of disgust in the affected population.
Did you consider that possibility?
Edit: wording
Quick capsule hypothesis-- you tend toward thinking in a way that results in you having written the word "subhuman" on HN because an active pandemic tends to increase feelings of disgust in the affected population.
Did you consider that possibility?
Edit: wording
Why look for a statistical hypothesis when I have the actual reasoning?
I specifically want to exclude bureaucratic people from my life, it's not a new thing since coronavirus. I don't find the "pandemic" disgusting at all, to be honest, it's a low severity virus. I've had it, zero negative effect.
I genuinely find it bizarre that people would have an issue with me using a potentially slightly offensive word to describe someone, but have no issue with the use of force to seperate people from their families.
Like, you need to go right back to basics on your entire thought process there because there's been a complete logical breakdown.
I specifically want to exclude bureaucratic people from my life, it's not a new thing since coronavirus. I don't find the "pandemic" disgusting at all, to be honest, it's a low severity virus. I've had it, zero negative effect.
I genuinely find it bizarre that people would have an issue with me using a potentially slightly offensive word to describe someone, but have no issue with the use of force to seperate people from their families.
Like, you need to go right back to basics on your entire thought process there because there's been a complete logical breakdown.
> Like, yeah, I will take the risk of contracting coronavirus to play the piano, because I want the piano in my life.
I'm sympathetic to your point (and I love to play piano), but I can't help but ask, if we slightly reword your claim: would you be willing to take responsibility for spreading coronavirus to n other people so you can play the piano?
Edit, to be clear: I'm not talking about the piano, or surface transmission; I'm talking about the values.
I'm sympathetic to your point (and I love to play piano), but I can't help but ask, if we slightly reword your claim: would you be willing to take responsibility for spreading coronavirus to n other people so you can play the piano?
Edit, to be clear: I'm not talking about the piano, or surface transmission; I'm talking about the values.
> would you be willing to take responsibility for spreading coronavirus to n other people so you can play the piano?
Would you be willing to accept responsibility for the increased depression and loneliness among the young people who live together in this building that could result from banning the piano?
Would you be willing to accept responsibility for the increased depression and loneliness among the young people who live together in this building that could result from banning the piano?
Yes, exactly. We have conflicting values to balance. I hope most of us can do it most of the time from the goal, however quixotic, of doing the most good for the most people. I don't claim to know what that is, and I am not saying that the kid in the example shouldn't be able to play the piano (though, on that note, it seems to me that if a student's well-being depends that directly on being able to play the piano, the school itself is foundering). But I get you. It would be all too easy to settle for some sort of rhetorical first principle that abstracts away all the complexity: sharing things makes people sick, we shouldn't share things. Or, other people getting sick is their own problem, damn the torpedos, I'm jamming in the lounge.
> if a student's well-being depends that directly on being able to play the piano
It's death by a thousand cuts. The piano policy isn't that devastating by itself, but it's one of 50 things that have been taken away.
It's death by a thousand cuts. The piano policy isn't that devastating by itself, but it's one of 50 things that have been taken away.
It's exhausting. And the piano policy in the example is totally absurd. I hope my remarks didn't come across as personal. I have kids in school too, and although I'm currently favoring masks, I'm also miserable about how my kids' early childhood social and academic development have been impacted.
Why do kids even need masks? Like, they aren’t at risk… this is a known fact since like March of 2020. Why force kids to wear them? Who are they supposed to be protecting? Fully vaccinated teachers? Who?
Kids are less at risk. That doesn't mean they aren't at risk. They can, and do, still catch Covid, even if they are less likely to suffer severe hospitalization.
On top of that, if they end up with long-covid or some other long-term complication from the Covid infection, they're quality of life is impacted for a far longer time. Some known long-covid complications include things like (potentially) permanent loss of smell or taste, reduced mental faculties, and organ damage. Would you sentence a child to a lifetime of being unable to taste their food for the rest of their lives just so they don't have to wear a mask for a tiny portion of their lives?
Also, adults seem to hate masks, but plenty of kids don't feel the same way. My oldest loves to accent his outfits with his cloth masks, and wears them over surgical or N95 masks now.
Who are they protecting? They're protecting each other and everyone around them. That could be a teacher who could catch a breakthrough case, a sibling or family member, and anyone they might come into close contact with. That also cascades. That vaccinated teacher who may have caught a break through case might infect their family causing a small outbreak in their home.
By wearing a mask, they're reducing risk, even if it might be a small amount. Those few percentage points could mean the difference between life and death for someone in their contact circle.
On top of that, if they end up with long-covid or some other long-term complication from the Covid infection, they're quality of life is impacted for a far longer time. Some known long-covid complications include things like (potentially) permanent loss of smell or taste, reduced mental faculties, and organ damage. Would you sentence a child to a lifetime of being unable to taste their food for the rest of their lives just so they don't have to wear a mask for a tiny portion of their lives?
Also, adults seem to hate masks, but plenty of kids don't feel the same way. My oldest loves to accent his outfits with his cloth masks, and wears them over surgical or N95 masks now.
Who are they protecting? They're protecting each other and everyone around them. That could be a teacher who could catch a breakthrough case, a sibling or family member, and anyone they might come into close contact with. That also cascades. That vaccinated teacher who may have caught a break through case might infect their family causing a small outbreak in their home.
By wearing a mask, they're reducing risk, even if it might be a small amount. Those few percentage points could mean the difference between life and death for someone in their contact circle.
That just sounds like completely ungrounded fear. More kids get fucked by pool accidents than Covid. Kids have no business wearing masks.
The damage caused by masks and treating kids like nothing more than disease vectors vastly outweighs the absolutely minimal risks Covid poses to them.
The damage caused by masks and treating kids like nothing more than disease vectors vastly outweighs the absolutely minimal risks Covid poses to them.
48 million Americans get food poisoning every year, many dying. Are you going to stop cooking for your family and friends?
Yeeeaaah, I realize my point was easy to make a caricature of, but that's a pretty specious caricature. I'm talking about an effort to balance safety and freedom from a more collective and thoughtful perspective.
How is him playing the piano spreading anything aside from possibly joy and happiness? What a ridiculous thing to say.
Yeah, sorry for not being more clear, but I wasn't talking about that person, or the piano, or about the odds of someone contracting COVID from surfaces. I was using the quote to illustrate what I see as a difficult pair of values to balance that situations like masks in classrooms, or other shared-space restrictions, really throw into painfully high relief: how do we collectively, as a society, balance our own personal inclinations (i.e., in this case, to play the piano, or in OP, to let our kids go unmasked) with whatever risks we impose on other people (i.e., in this case, which for the record I totally agree is excessive, that the shared piano will help spread disease; or in the outer case, that fewer masks in the classroom could lead to, e.g., more sick grandparents, or teachers)?
In the case of the piano, it's very simple: anyone who is worried about catching Covid by listening to the piano is free to not listen to the piano. There's really nothing to balance.
Solid, got it. Next time I talk to criddell's kids' university's dorm administrators, I'll try to set them straight. Hopefully they'll be able to zoom out a bit from whatever conversation-impairing details they've latched onto.
This myopic focus on exactly one specific illness to the literal exclusion of everything else is not healthy. People need to accept the risks and move on.
There is more to life than a singular focus on spreading Covid. Life would be robbed of all that is worth living for if every action and encounter we take has to pass the “willing to spread Covid” question.
There are countless more problems and risks in life than Covid. Many are much more important to individuals.
There are countless more problems and risks in life than Covid. Many are much more important to individuals.
I upvoted your comment for your overall sentiment about focusing on what life is really about, and not driving to the lowest-common-denominator of quality of life.
But I'd also like to downvote you for the this comment: "I tend to think that people who operate in this way are subhuman, in the genuine sense of the word" >> It's not right, not useful, and not reflective. Much better is to assume others are also smart, well-educated and well-intentioned, and then try to genuinely understand why they believe or act the way they do.
But I'd also like to downvote you for the this comment: "I tend to think that people who operate in this way are subhuman, in the genuine sense of the word" >> It's not right, not useful, and not reflective. Much better is to assume others are also smart, well-educated and well-intentioned, and then try to genuinely understand why they believe or act the way they do.
To me, this ignores the fact that a death of a loved/cared for individual is the most "minimum quality of life" you can get.
Sure, being able to go watch a family movie together used to be a big family thing, but we can't do that anymore. Our QOL has dropped in that regard, but it's far less impactful than saying to heck with it and going to the theater and having my kid or an in-law catch Covid and die. Long Covid even indicates there's a chance that surviving Covid leaves you with a long-term impact to QOL. Why take that risk over minor irritation in the near term?
Sure, masks are tedious and annoying. But to my youngest, so are shirts and shoes. If he had his choice, he'd run around all damn day in underwear or shorts. But society as a whole benefits from a general adherence to everyone wearing shirts and shoes in public. He's got the same feelings towards seatbelts. Just like masks, seatbelts are only a half-measure. They don't prevent you from dying in a car crash, but they give some modicum of benefit overall. There's a higher chance of surviving a crash with a seatbelt on, even if it's not guaranteed.
All of these "I'm done with masks/precautions" statements are made in a void while ignoring the ripple effect that stems from that.
There's a turning point where life will have to resume one way or another, but the longer we can go as a civilization with a reduced QOL the better the chances of resolving the pandemic with fewer deaths all around.
Sure, being able to go watch a family movie together used to be a big family thing, but we can't do that anymore. Our QOL has dropped in that regard, but it's far less impactful than saying to heck with it and going to the theater and having my kid or an in-law catch Covid and die. Long Covid even indicates there's a chance that surviving Covid leaves you with a long-term impact to QOL. Why take that risk over minor irritation in the near term?
Sure, masks are tedious and annoying. But to my youngest, so are shirts and shoes. If he had his choice, he'd run around all damn day in underwear or shorts. But society as a whole benefits from a general adherence to everyone wearing shirts and shoes in public. He's got the same feelings towards seatbelts. Just like masks, seatbelts are only a half-measure. They don't prevent you from dying in a car crash, but they give some modicum of benefit overall. There's a higher chance of surviving a crash with a seatbelt on, even if it's not guaranteed.
All of these "I'm done with masks/precautions" statements are made in a void while ignoring the ripple effect that stems from that.
There's a turning point where life will have to resume one way or another, but the longer we can go as a civilization with a reduced QOL the better the chances of resolving the pandemic with fewer deaths all around.
> To me, this ignores the fact that a death of a loved/cared for individual is the most "minimum quality of life" you can get.
Counterpoint: my grandmother spent her last two years in perpetual loneliness because of covid measures in care homes preventing our family from ensuring full time visitors.
Counterpoint: my grandmother spent her last two years in perpetual loneliness because of covid measures in care homes preventing our family from ensuring full time visitors.
Up front here, I'm in no way attempting to demean your loss.
As a counter-counterpoint; Buddy of mine by way of a local community group lost his elderly mother in a care home because someone decided to come in to visit last year while unknowingly covid-positive. It swept through the wing and at least three other residents died from Covid complications. My friend himself ended up catching it from his mother and was in ICU when she passed herself.
Lack of social connections can be overcome with virtual communications. It's not the same as true face to face interaction, but it beats killing someone with your mere presence.
As a counter-counterpoint; Buddy of mine by way of a local community group lost his elderly mother in a care home because someone decided to come in to visit last year while unknowingly covid-positive. It swept through the wing and at least three other residents died from Covid complications. My friend himself ended up catching it from his mother and was in ICU when she passed herself.
Lack of social connections can be overcome with virtual communications. It's not the same as true face to face interaction, but it beats killing someone with your mere presence.
> Lack of social connections can be overcome with virtual communications. It's not the same as true face to face interaction, but it beats killing someone with your mere presence.
While true, when someone's dying, skyping not in any way a replacement for being at their side.
While true, when someone's dying, skyping not in any way a replacement for being at their side.
> Like, yeah, I will take the risk of contracting coronavirus to play the piano, because I want the piano in my life.
The problem comes when it's "I will take the risk of infecting others who are vulnerable, of contributing to overwhelming the already struggling healthcare system, and of damaging the economy to play the piano, because it doesn't matter how many people are infected or are dying every single day I care more about myself getting the things I want right now than I care about any of those things."
There's no need to frame the issue as if folks are being told they can't do anything they enjoy ever again and have to devote their whole lives to simply breathing and eating either. It's a false dichotomy that we have to choose between common sense measures for the good of our community and limiting ourselves to "what is the minimum possible quality of life we can have".
We can instead make smart choices based on the degree of community spread which can mean putting off certain activities, but often times just means putting on a mask and washing our hands. It's not a huge ask.
The problem comes when it's "I will take the risk of infecting others who are vulnerable, of contributing to overwhelming the already struggling healthcare system, and of damaging the economy to play the piano, because it doesn't matter how many people are infected or are dying every single day I care more about myself getting the things I want right now than I care about any of those things."
There's no need to frame the issue as if folks are being told they can't do anything they enjoy ever again and have to devote their whole lives to simply breathing and eating either. It's a false dichotomy that we have to choose between common sense measures for the good of our community and limiting ourselves to "what is the minimum possible quality of life we can have".
We can instead make smart choices based on the degree of community spread which can mean putting off certain activities, but often times just means putting on a mask and washing our hands. It's not a huge ask.
>There are circumstances in which "drop everything" makes sense - if coronavirus were ten times more fatal, we'd do it naturally.
It was pretty damn fatal when we had no containment measures or vaccines. We're in a totally different situation now, and need to get out of the "minimize cases" mentality.
It was pretty damn fatal when we had no containment measures or vaccines. We're in a totally different situation now, and need to get out of the "minimize cases" mentality.
When we had no containment measures or vaccines the CDC estimated the infection fatality rate at about 0.6%.
You would take that risk, everyone you know will take that risk, everyone they know will take that risk....
> if coronavirus were ten times more fatal, we'd do it naturally.
What if people didn’t? What then? How would that be different from today?
What if people didn’t? What then? How would that be different from today?
Reminds me of (now takeout only) restaurants which have their bathrooms closed "for covid," or public drinking fountains which are still closed "for covid." Not really much to due with covid at this point I suspect. So it may not really be about measuring infections at all, but that played piano makes noise and requires tuning, and so administration would rather just not, and now there is an excuse.
Many places have used Covid as an excuse to regress and implement desired polices. Take for example the Tate Modern, a museum in London. Under the argument of COVID you must have a ticket to enter (previously free). You can get a ticket by scanning a QR at the door, you simply have to give an name and email.
You can see how they got to that place, so they can control the density of visitors which is important because of COVID, but it's also something they've wanted for years.
You can see how they got to that place, so they can control the density of visitors which is important because of COVID, but it's also something they've wanted for years.
"never let a good crisis go to waste"
I'd imagine that's also for contact tracing.
contact tracing only works when a pandemic is in the hundreds, maybe a few thousand tops. After that it becomes too intractable to trace and also yields little benefit.
On the west coast I've seen parking at municipal parks completely closed "for covid". Yet the parks remain open.
This means people just park in the streets around the parks. What’s that supposed to achieve?
This means people just park in the streets around the parks. What’s that supposed to achieve?
And if its anything like American colleges, the draconian restrictions don't actually stop the students from crowding into over-packed apartment and house parties over the weekends.
This has been my son's experience : masks required in the classroom but the students spread disease (not just COVID -- Flu and colds as well) rampantly in the dorms.
The piano thing feels like a "we gotta do something" from a board with very little power over things that would limit transmission. Maybe they have a separate dorm board.
It is like where I live, the library closed becouse that was the only thing the county could close.
And there is like never more than 10 people there at the same time for a huge building. They could just have closed the cafeteria and remove the reading chairs. Etc.
It is like where I live, the library closed becouse that was the only thing the county could close.
And there is like never more than 10 people there at the same time for a huge building. They could just have closed the cafeteria and remove the reading chairs. Etc.
This one-dimensional approach is especially bad since the emergence of omicron, where number of infections doesn’t even capture the level of COVID danger.
When people play music, they sing. Singing in a crowded room isn't really a good idea when there is an infectious visus around.
This argument falls flat on its face. There is always infections viruses going around. Covid is not the first nor will it be the last.
Who gets to decide what is okay and isn’t anyway? Some myopic “experts” who barely feel the negative impacts of their prognostications? What about other types of experts? What would “music experts” say about shutting down the piano?
Covid doesn’t live in a vaccum.
Who gets to decide what is okay and isn’t anyway? Some myopic “experts” who barely feel the negative impacts of their prognostications? What about other types of experts? What would “music experts” say about shutting down the piano?
Covid doesn’t live in a vaccum.
It likely wouldn't be crowded. They have pretty strict rules about the number of people that can gather in any room. Also, these people all live together. They are touching the same surfaces, breathing the same air, sharing the same bathrooms, etc...
But you are right - singing would increase the risk of infection. Still, I think the risks from the current version of the virus to a vaccinated group of young people (who are still required to wear masks!) is small enough that the piano should be available.
But you are right - singing would increase the risk of infection. Still, I think the risks from the current version of the virus to a vaccinated group of young people (who are still required to wear masks!) is small enough that the piano should be available.
Why is it up to anybody to decide what risks people are able to take? We have freely available vaccines. Let people decide for themselves…
There is more to life than Covid.
There is more to life than Covid.
I strongly suspect that playing the piano is banned due to the possibility of social gatherings of people in close proximity to each other listening to the piano - not contracting covid from the piano itself.
Presumably the piano ban was brought in last year, when people though that Covid spreading through surfaces was a big problem - and that piano ban hasn't been re-considered now that we know that Covid is mostly spread through inhaling shared air.
[deleted]
its the public health equivalent of the broken window fallacy.
I would've said it was more a case of Goodhart's law:
> When a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric
The public health equivalent of the broken window fallacy would be maximising the spread of disease in order to boost the medical industry.
> When a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric
The public health equivalent of the broken window fallacy would be maximising the spread of disease in order to boost the medical industry.
There have been numerous studies showing that mechanically N95 and equivalent masks can greatly reduce the emission of coronavirus and influenza, and can also greatly reduce the intake of coronavirus-sized particles.
That's why these types of articles always focus on mask mandate effectiveness instead of mask effectiveness. How many schools with mask mandates also have their lunch indoors with poor ventilation? Can you wear a mask while eating? How many have their noses sticking out all day? How many are wearing cloth masks?
It's like having a kid constantly getting pinkeye from not wiping their ass properly, and then saying toilet paper is pointless, instead of teaching the kid how to wipe and wash properly.
That's why these types of articles always focus on mask mandate effectiveness instead of mask effectiveness. How many schools with mask mandates also have their lunch indoors with poor ventilation? Can you wear a mask while eating? How many have their noses sticking out all day? How many are wearing cloth masks?
It's like having a kid constantly getting pinkeye from not wiping their ass properly, and then saying toilet paper is pointless, instead of teaching the kid how to wipe and wash properly.
The article points out that children have been relatively safe from COVID, which is true. The article doesn’t really cite much data to support its case. The studies it cites show a positive benefit to masking that it fails to counter. What it also completely ignores is that the masks are mainly to protect teachers and the children’s older guardians and care takers. I’m tired of anti-maskers.
Children are safe from having debilitating symptoms due to COVID. I think it's worth being precise with language because the shorthand has been confusing for many people and used as a bludgeon in the reopening-schools-debate. But of course the real issue is children getting COVID from family, bringing it to school, spreading it to other kids who then give it to other parents. I have not seen analyses which attempt to quantify the effect of closing schools while taking this into account, but I'm sure they're out there.
Also spreading it to their teachers, who are usually adults and who usually don't want to get deadly diseases and may not be willing to work without some precautions going towards their safety.
The virus is endemic, we are all going to get it sooner or later.
No it is not and no we are not. You are advocating the sacrifice of lives which are not your own, which is unequivocally reprehensible.
It is endemic. Its everywhere. Its mutating.
Humanity has never stopped the spread of similar coronaviruses and even if we could the death rate/risk is not bad enough to justify the cost (this isnt smallpox/polio)
We have vaccines. They don’t stop you from getting it or transmitting it. They do lower probability of the vaccinated person getting severe/fatal covid. Clearly a personal health decision that should not be mandated (although I would encourage it)
Mask are of marginal help. Mandates dont change actual behavior.
Life goes on. (Me: triple vaxxed and have had Covid 2x)
Humanity has never stopped the spread of similar coronaviruses and even if we could the death rate/risk is not bad enough to justify the cost (this isnt smallpox/polio)
We have vaccines. They don’t stop you from getting it or transmitting it. They do lower probability of the vaccinated person getting severe/fatal covid. Clearly a personal health decision that should not be mandated (although I would encourage it)
Mask are of marginal help. Mandates dont change actual behavior.
Life goes on. (Me: triple vaxxed and have had Covid 2x)
Not endemic. Will you accept a formal assessment of endemicity from a PI at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization? See as of two weeks ago: https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/14808999541638635...
Not interested in playing word games. Words mean things. Get over it.
> [Vaccines] don’t stop you from getting [COVID] or transmitting it.
This is a harmful framing. What ultimately matters is Rt < 1. Do vaccines get us closer to that? Yes. Does not breathing on each other help with that? Yes. Does avoiding indoor gatherings prevent us from breathing on each other? Yes. Do masks and adequate ventilation help us reduce the amount of exposure when contact is unavoidable? Yes. Ergo each of these factors contributes to reducing the reproduction rate of the virus when applied. Wow, the power of simple logical deductions. Try it sometime.
Deliberately obfuscating truths by painting a false dichotomy is misinformation.
Life doesn't go on for the multitudes of preventable deaths that have occurred and will occur because people like you continue to push false narratives.
Not interested in playing word games. Words mean things. Get over it.
> [Vaccines] don’t stop you from getting [COVID] or transmitting it.
This is a harmful framing. What ultimately matters is Rt < 1. Do vaccines get us closer to that? Yes. Does not breathing on each other help with that? Yes. Does avoiding indoor gatherings prevent us from breathing on each other? Yes. Do masks and adequate ventilation help us reduce the amount of exposure when contact is unavoidable? Yes. Ergo each of these factors contributes to reducing the reproduction rate of the virus when applied. Wow, the power of simple logical deductions. Try it sometime.
Deliberately obfuscating truths by painting a false dichotomy is misinformation.
Life doesn't go on for the multitudes of preventable deaths that have occurred and will occur because people like you continue to push false narratives.
Ok so now what?
We lock down society for a relatively benign virus whose more extreme outcomes are mostly ameliorated by vaccines and therapies?
I am all for you encouraging people to vaccinate but if they don’t then that is their choice. (Me: triple vaxxed and still got covid 2x)
There a millions of preventable deaths of many kinds every year. Why is this cause special (now today, not with our previous situation in 2020)
Also: An endemic disease is a disease that is always present in a particular population/region. Ex. Flu, malaria, HIV, syphilis, and… COVID
(When they do declare this an endemic next month do I get a prize?)
Additionally we have never eliminated a coronavirus before. This isn’t smallpox/polio.
We lock down society for a relatively benign virus whose more extreme outcomes are mostly ameliorated by vaccines and therapies?
I am all for you encouraging people to vaccinate but if they don’t then that is their choice. (Me: triple vaxxed and still got covid 2x)
There a millions of preventable deaths of many kinds every year. Why is this cause special (now today, not with our previous situation in 2020)
Also: An endemic disease is a disease that is always present in a particular population/region. Ex. Flu, malaria, HIV, syphilis, and… COVID
(When they do declare this an endemic next month do I get a prize?)
Additionally we have never eliminated a coronavirus before. This isn’t smallpox/polio.
> Ok so now what? We lock down society for a relatively benign virus
Awwww, you made that little straw man just for me?! You're too kind...
(Your first mistake is acting like there's only two sides to this, and because I advocate taking more care, then you think I unflinchingly parrot the CDC and other hysterical bullshit. Not so :)!)
> still got covid 2x
Were there things you could have done differently not to catch it? Probably! In the spirit of "let everyone do what they want" then it follows directly that you agentively chose to put yourself in a position to catch and spread COVID. This is the main issue with libertarian-style arguments -- you accept full culpability if everything else is framed through the lens of agency.
> https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/glossary/endemic
Endemicity as you correctly point out is with relation to a particular population or region. That means more care needs to be put in to assigning particular viruses that status. HIV is not endemic to the US (it is in West Africa), neither is malaria (ditto but wider range) nor apparently COVID (of course, not yet, but the outcome is inevitable only if you act like it is).
> Why is this cause special
Because there's a lot of built-up infrastructure and society-wide attention on the problem, given the last couple years, which gives us a lot more leverage for having a strong effect on the outcome compared to something like a particular flu or rhinovirus. It's special because we're talking about this disease right now and not a different one. Seems obvious to me, but if ignoring reality makes you more comfortable then by all means. Just don't make your mistakes other peoples' problems.
Awwww, you made that little straw man just for me?! You're too kind...
(Your first mistake is acting like there's only two sides to this, and because I advocate taking more care, then you think I unflinchingly parrot the CDC and other hysterical bullshit. Not so :)!)
> still got covid 2x
Were there things you could have done differently not to catch it? Probably! In the spirit of "let everyone do what they want" then it follows directly that you agentively chose to put yourself in a position to catch and spread COVID. This is the main issue with libertarian-style arguments -- you accept full culpability if everything else is framed through the lens of agency.
> https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/glossary/endemic
Endemicity as you correctly point out is with relation to a particular population or region. That means more care needs to be put in to assigning particular viruses that status. HIV is not endemic to the US (it is in West Africa), neither is malaria (ditto but wider range) nor apparently COVID (of course, not yet, but the outcome is inevitable only if you act like it is).
> Why is this cause special
Because there's a lot of built-up infrastructure and society-wide attention on the problem, given the last couple years, which gives us a lot more leverage for having a strong effect on the outcome compared to something like a particular flu or rhinovirus. It's special because we're talking about this disease right now and not a different one. Seems obvious to me, but if ignoring reality makes you more comfortable then by all means. Just don't make your mistakes other peoples' problems.
Nothing you are saying is justification for mandates.
Im not a libertarian. My city is world famously liberal and highly vaxxed. I follow all mandates (mostly to not upset people) and have been more cautious than most due to immunocompromised family.
I just dont think we should have “get vaccinated or lose your job” style mandates for vaccines with high individual but marginal communal benefit. Its a bad precedent and furthers politicization.
Also mask mandates are never done sufficiently to be meaningful. The mandates that exist aren’t stringent enough now to be impactful and are ignored anyways.
Im not a libertarian. My city is world famously liberal and highly vaxxed. I follow all mandates (mostly to not upset people) and have been more cautious than most due to immunocompromised family.
I just dont think we should have “get vaccinated or lose your job” style mandates for vaccines with high individual but marginal communal benefit. Its a bad precedent and furthers politicization.
Also mask mandates are never done sufficiently to be meaningful. The mandates that exist aren’t stringent enough now to be impactful and are ignored anyways.
> Words mean things. Get over it.
Oh man, lemme tell you about the last time I used that one in an unrelated but equally controversial topic... I was browbeaten out of the room.
"Words mean things (when that is convenient for my argument!)"
Oh man, lemme tell you about the last time I used that one in an unrelated but equally controversial topic... I was browbeaten out of the room.
"Words mean things (when that is convenient for my argument!)"
> "Words mean things (when that is convenient for my argument!)"
This sort of idea sums up modern politics, or the entire history of it for all I know.
This sort of idea sums up modern politics, or the entire history of it for all I know.
Anecdata? Supporting your pre-supposed conclusions?? Color me convinced!
> Life goes on. (Me: triple vaxxed and have had Covid 2x)
I can't agree with a lot of what you are posting here, but this totally got my attention.
You've had all your shots, and had covid twice so far? Can you say more about that? How bad was it for you?
My daughter had a mild case, weeks after 2nd vaccination, when she returned to college last Fall. She was ok.
I think that if everyone could do what you've done, we'd be able to figure out if we're at a modern influenza situation already. But the crush in the hospitals is real. We're not there yet.
I can't agree with a lot of what you are posting here, but this totally got my attention.
You've had all your shots, and had covid twice so far? Can you say more about that? How bad was it for you?
My daughter had a mild case, weeks after 2nd vaccination, when she returned to college last Fall. She was ok.
I think that if everyone could do what you've done, we'd be able to figure out if we're at a modern influenza situation already. But the crush in the hospitals is real. We're not there yet.
Sure, first round was 2020 and pre-vaccines but positive PCR (had recently had surgery and needed negative PCRs to go the physical therapy) It was just a sore throat and some heavy fatigues. Symptoms for about 3 days but no cough, loss of taste, or fever.
Second round was omicron in December shortly after being boosted. Symptoms of cough, fatigue, and shortness of breath. Much more sever symptoms the second time but only for about 3 days. Also had contracted bronchitis right before so that probably contributed. Note: with the cold that lead to bronchitis I was nervous it was Covid so rapid tested 5x over 3 weeks. All came back negative, including 2 that came back right before and after a positive PCR. Anecdotally I have strong doubts on rapid test efficacy with Omicron (friends had similar experiences)
Second round was omicron in December shortly after being boosted. Symptoms of cough, fatigue, and shortness of breath. Much more sever symptoms the second time but only for about 3 days. Also had contracted bronchitis right before so that probably contributed. Note: with the cold that lead to bronchitis I was nervous it was Covid so rapid tested 5x over 3 weeks. All came back negative, including 2 that came back right before and after a positive PCR. Anecdotally I have strong doubts on rapid test efficacy with Omicron (friends had similar experiences)
What an experience... Thanks.
Glad it was relatively mild for you.
Some of my folks live on a Native American reservation. They lost lots of people, at first. It burned real hard.
The more I learn, the more confused I get.
Immunology is complicated. Public policy plus community building plus immunology... makes my career in software development look like a kid playing in a sandbox.
Glad it was relatively mild for you.
Some of my folks live on a Native American reservation. They lost lots of people, at first. It burned real hard.
The more I learn, the more confused I get.
Immunology is complicated. Public policy plus community building plus immunology... makes my career in software development look like a kid playing in a sandbox.
I mean most experts agree that it is (or will be), soooo yeah you should probably accept that and figure out how to live your life accordingly, maybe just don't go into public policy making though.
Curious which experts are "most" and which are not.
Fauci says COVID-19 won't go away like smallpox, but will more likely become endemic https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2022/0...
Covid is here for good, scientists say. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/is-covid-here-t...
Despite omicron, Covid-19 will become endemic. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22849891/omicron-pandemic...
Those are just a few from a quick google search
Covid is here for good, scientists say. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/is-covid-here-t...
Despite omicron, Covid-19 will become endemic. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22849891/omicron-pandemic...
Those are just a few from a quick google search
If you don’t want to contract it feel free to make whatever personal decisions you think will prevent it.
Don’t use your fear to control others and prevent them from making their own decisions.
Don’t use your fear to control others and prevent them from making their own decisions.
The problem with this argument is the slipperiness of the slope. So we shouldn't try to enforce gun laws either, eh?
You're either going to have to be more specific, or concede that we live in a society where individual actions have consequences that influence others.
You're either going to have to be more specific, or concede that we live in a society where individual actions have consequences that influence others.
We have vaccines, but they dont stop transmission or contagion.
If they did, a vaccine mandate to protect others would make sense. However, since they dont getting/not getting the vaccine mostly impacts the individual it is odd that we have vaccine mandates.
If they did, a vaccine mandate to protect others would make sense. However, since they dont getting/not getting the vaccine mostly impacts the individual it is odd that we have vaccine mandates.
Vaccines make symptoms happen earlier, so you can isolate earlier. That impacts other people.
I am not sure this has been proven but assuming it is true would you be comfortable with taking this kind of marginal benefit as justification for mandates along the lines of “get the vaccination or you are fired?” What about in other areas?
Attending a protest is attending a spreading event which impacts others for example.
Attending a protest is attending a spreading event which impacts others for example.
It is the responsibility of public health to take all of these variables into account before mandating countermeasures. The fact that people are constantly placed in situations where mask effectiveness is reduced or in some cases completely eliminated should be evidence that mask mandates are pointless when applied at scale.
Very confusing how people seem to keep making the illogical jump from "individuals follow a mask mandate improperly / mask mandates are insufficiently specific to cover the actual means of transmission" to "mask mandates are pointless".
Mask mandates done poorly are pointless. Obviously. But it is completely absurd to conclude that mask mandates writ large are pointless.
Mask mandates done poorly are pointless. Obviously. But it is completely absurd to conclude that mask mandates writ large are pointless.
I forget where I saw this but…
“If your solution of some problem relies on “if everyone would just…” Than you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no point in the history of the universe has everyone just and they are not going to start now”
“If your solution of some problem relies on “if everyone would just…” Than you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no point in the history of the universe has everyone just and they are not going to start now”
That was a poor choice of words on my part. Instead of "pointless" I should have said "impractical." I think most of us agree that we wouldn't want to live in a world where kids are forced to wear N95 masks all day, with tape binding them to their skin, with adults constantly supervising their proper fit, and with absolutely no lunch breaks or ability to drink fluids. If mask wearing done poorly is the only realistic option, then we would be better off without them altogether.
The kids are not allowed to interact at school. Their schools are closed arbitrarily. They are taught that they are a vector of disease. We make them eat outside on cold sidewalks in freezing temperatures. The risk to children is very low.
Meanwhile, adults are going to crowded restaurants, bars, concerts without masks in the same cities.
It is all a joke at the expense of our children.
When these kids are running our government and we are the retirees dependent upon them etc. then the bill will come due and we will deserve it.
Meanwhile, adults are going to crowded restaurants, bars, concerts without masks in the same cities.
It is all a joke at the expense of our children.
When these kids are running our government and we are the retirees dependent upon them etc. then the bill will come due and we will deserve it.
> It's like having a kid constantly getting pinkeye from not wiping their ass properly, and then saying toilet paper is pointless, instead of teaching the kid how to wipe and wash properly.
Poor adherence in young populations is exactly the point.
Poor adherence in young populations is exactly the point.
There is a deep irony in that this conversation concerns schools and yet we're here implying that it's pointless to teach children anything.
If they keep failing at teaching something, then maybe what's being taught is wrong, not who's taught.
It's like how left-handed kids have been taught to write with their right hand: how many lefties must fail until they realize writing with your left should be acceptable?
It's like how left-handed kids have been taught to write with their right hand: how many lefties must fail until they realize writing with your left should be acceptable?
Not sure how you go from "poor adherence on masks" to "it's pointless to teach kids anything".
This argument is poorly constructed. I think there could be better ones, but here’s my problem. It goes through the three CDC studies and correctly observes that they fail to separate regions that have high vaccination rates from schools without a mask mandate. Indeed, the ideal experiment would involve two schools that are otherwise identical in the same geographical area with high vaccination rates: one that has no mask policy, and one that has mandatory masking. The article essentially complains that such an experiment has yet to be done, so therefore, the universal masking recommendation is unfounded.
It is empirical fact that vaccination rates on a county by county is strongly predicted by the overall political alignment of a county (not implying anything further). It is also empirical fact that mask mandates are also correlated in a similar way. It is also fact that COVID-19 is an airborne disease.
The first two facts determine that the ideal experiment cannot accidentally occur in the United States. The last fact precludes an intentional experiment ethically. But the last fact at least makes the masking recommendation reasonable.
I think the political correlation with these two variables (masking and vaccination) is a confounding variable. It would be very preferable for it be otherwise, but complaining that it is so while not seriously engaging with the real situation is a poor argument.
It is empirical fact that vaccination rates on a county by county is strongly predicted by the overall political alignment of a county (not implying anything further). It is also empirical fact that mask mandates are also correlated in a similar way. It is also fact that COVID-19 is an airborne disease.
The first two facts determine that the ideal experiment cannot accidentally occur in the United States. The last fact precludes an intentional experiment ethically. But the last fact at least makes the masking recommendation reasonable.
I think the political correlation with these two variables (masking and vaccination) is a confounding variable. It would be very preferable for it be otherwise, but complaining that it is so while not seriously engaging with the real situation is a poor argument.
A randomized study was run in Bangladesh. There they handed out masks to randomly selected villages among a pool of 600 villages with similar vaccination and political stances.
That study showed that the effect of surgical masks was statistically significant when used by the elderly 50+ population. For other age groups and for cloth masks, the advantage was statistically insignificant.
All the headlines around this study, including from the CDC were basically 'Masks proven to be effective!', 'masks work!', but that's a very lax definition of effective.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/09/masks-rand...
That study showed that the effect of surgical masks was statistically significant when used by the elderly 50+ population. For other age groups and for cloth masks, the advantage was statistically insignificant.
All the headlines around this study, including from the CDC were basically 'Masks proven to be effective!', 'masks work!', but that's a very lax definition of effective.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/09/masks-rand...
Saying the effects of masking on younger age groups and with cloth masks in this study were statistically insignificant is also a misrepresentation of what the study found. The actual paper itself can be downloaded here:
https://www.poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-...
From the paper:
Furthermore, they said that even without that consideration, the cloth masks still reduced symptoms of Covid, which is still a great win for masks, as it seems they reduce the viral load received by an individual enough to reduce the severity of their infection. So saying the overall advantage of masks was statistically insignificant isn't really true.
What the trial really found was indeed that masks seem to work, and surgical masks work better than cloth masks. This aligns with what many other studies have found as well. However, even though that's probably a valid inference to draw from the data collected in the trial, it's not really what the trial was designed to find, which was more specifically that if you actively distribute masks to people and encourage them to be worn, then more people will indeed wear them, and this in turn seems to have a positive effect on reducing both the transmission and severity of Covid.
https://www.poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-...
From the paper:
We found clear evidence that surgical masks are effective in reducing symptomatic seropreva-
lence of SARS-CoV-2. While cloth masks clearly reduce symptoms, we find less clear evidence of
their impact on symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, with the statistical significance depending
on whether we impute missing values for non-consenting adults. The number of cloth mask vil-
lages (100) was half that for surgical masks (200), meaning that our results tend to be less precise.
Furthermore, they said that even without that consideration, the cloth masks still reduced symptoms of Covid, which is still a great win for masks, as it seems they reduce the viral load received by an individual enough to reduce the severity of their infection. So saying the overall advantage of masks was statistically insignificant isn't really true.
What the trial really found was indeed that masks seem to work, and surgical masks work better than cloth masks. This aligns with what many other studies have found as well. However, even though that's probably a valid inference to draw from the data collected in the trial, it's not really what the trial was designed to find, which was more specifically that if you actively distribute masks to people and encourage them to be worn, then more people will indeed wear them, and this in turn seems to have a positive effect on reducing both the transmission and severity of Covid.
The question is how effective masks are w.r.t. Covid. For this the test really needs to be seroprevalence, not just symptoms. Symptoms can be caused by many non-Covid causes like allergies or the common cold.
The researchers state:
> We selected the WHO case definition of COVID-19 for its sensitivity, though its limited specificity may imply that the impact of masks on symptoms comes partly from non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections
The researchers state:
> We selected the WHO case definition of COVID-19 for its sensitivity, though its limited specificity may imply that the impact of masks on symptoms comes partly from non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections
Teachers are the "50+ population" in schools, right?
I never know what to make of posts like this. It seems almost insulting to have to explicitly point out that masks are about reducing transmission, and that transmission could occur between students (not 50+) and teachers (many 50+).
Right?
So your conclusion should be that the Bangladesh study is quite relevant to schools, yet you seem to be suggesting the opposite?
Though I knew about it, I don't think I really appreciated how people could cherry-pick information to fit their preconceived ideas until covid.
I never know what to make of posts like this. It seems almost insulting to have to explicitly point out that masks are about reducing transmission, and that transmission could occur between students (not 50+) and teachers (many 50+).
Right?
So your conclusion should be that the Bangladesh study is quite relevant to schools, yet you seem to be suggesting the opposite?
Though I knew about it, I don't think I really appreciated how people could cherry-pick information to fit their preconceived ideas until covid.
> That study showed that the effect of surgical masks was statistically significant when used by the elderly 50+ population. For other age groups and for cloth masks, the advantage was statistically insignificant.
The study could prove that the masks worked in 50+. And this was with a maximum of 40% of people complying.
This does NOT mean that the masks didn't work in 50-. It means that the statistical power was insufficient to prove that they worked.
It could also mean that 50- didn't comply with masks as well. It could also mean that 50- engaged in other risky behavior. etc.
Why everybody seems to think that "Provably works in 50+" and "Provably doesn't work in 50-" are completely compatible ideas is completely beyond me. "Provably works in 50+" significantly increases the Bayesian prior on "Works in 50- even if we can't prove such."
The study could prove that the masks worked in 50+. And this was with a maximum of 40% of people complying.
This does NOT mean that the masks didn't work in 50-. It means that the statistical power was insufficient to prove that they worked.
It could also mean that 50- didn't comply with masks as well. It could also mean that 50- engaged in other risky behavior. etc.
Why everybody seems to think that "Provably works in 50+" and "Provably doesn't work in 50-" are completely compatible ideas is completely beyond me. "Provably works in 50+" significantly increases the Bayesian prior on "Works in 50- even if we can't prove such."
The advantage of this study is that the villages were randomized so it's unlikely that the control group engaged in more risky behavior than the treatment group.
This result for 50+ was right on the edge of the significance interval so proves is probably too strong of a word. It means you would expect this result to happen by chance if the experiment were repeated 20 times. It is definitely evidence for some efficacy but it is about as weak as it gets to be considered evidence from a scientific POV.
My point was just that the headlines painted a significantly different picture than was contained within the paper itself.
This result for 50+ was right on the edge of the significance interval so proves is probably too strong of a word. It means you would expect this result to happen by chance if the experiment were repeated 20 times. It is definitely evidence for some efficacy but it is about as weak as it gets to be considered evidence from a scientific POV.
My point was just that the headlines painted a significantly different picture than was contained within the paper itself.
There's another problem with the article's argument. It contends that the many studies on mask effectiveness have various shortcomings such as not being specific to kids, or having vaccination rates as a confounding variable. And therefore, we should not have mask mandates (despite the evidence that they work, however non-specific to school children they may be).
But its reason for concluding that children should not wear masks is because of all of these issues that themselves aren't well studied or understood by the article's own admission:
> Despite how widespread all-day masking of children in school is, the short-term and long-term consequences of this practice are not well understood, in part because no one has successfully collected large-scale systematic data and few researchers have tried.
Why in this case should the serious lack of evidence for the risks of masking children outweigh the greater-but-imperfect evidence for the risks of increased transmission of Covid by not masking children? It seems like a double-standard allowing the author to arrive at their desired conclusion.
But its reason for concluding that children should not wear masks is because of all of these issues that themselves aren't well studied or understood by the article's own admission:
> Despite how widespread all-day masking of children in school is, the short-term and long-term consequences of this practice are not well understood, in part because no one has successfully collected large-scale systematic data and few researchers have tried.
Why in this case should the serious lack of evidence for the risks of masking children outweigh the greater-but-imperfect evidence for the risks of increased transmission of Covid by not masking children? It seems like a double-standard allowing the author to arrive at their desired conclusion.
From what I've been hearing, there are private schools not implementing masks mandates in the same areas as public schools that are. Those might be good places to look.
An interesting article. I was recently unimpressed by the new Virginia governor's first action to reaching the mandate on masks in schools. My county has elected to retain its own mask mandate.
At first blush a mask mandate is generally a public good. I keep my germs to myself, you keep yours too yourself, and we don't get the flu, or a cold, or COVID, whatever. And so for me despite not living wearing a mask I have been happy to anytime I'm near others.
The article makes a decent case that, at least for kids in schools, the science to support the utility of masks just isn't there. At first I found this surprising - how could it not be? At least it should help. But kids are in school, together, for 6+ hours a day. I barely wear my mask properly for two hours at a time and I understand how they work. Kids don't care, they're just doing what they're told, cargo cult style. Of course they won't be written perfectly, which reduces their effectiveness. But the idea that they don't help at all, or at least statistically so, is astonishing.
And the article provides evidence of that, cutting neighboring counties in Tennessee with similar vaccination rates where one had a 23% lower making rate, but similar spread. How can that be? Truly fascinating.
Much as we've seen the downside of forced closures and lockdowns, this article reminds us that there may be downsides for kids and masks. I wasn't open to this possibility previously. What could be the downside to putting on a mask? And the answer is, we just don't know. How can we follow the science if we don't have any research?
I continue to be glad to be a resident of the US, whose federalist system allows all these different jurisdictions to try different rules that may work better for them. It gives us a chance to study these differences and learn from them.
Really thought provoking article. While I wait for more studies, guess I'll keep wearing this mask around people. Can't hurt, right? Probably.
At first blush a mask mandate is generally a public good. I keep my germs to myself, you keep yours too yourself, and we don't get the flu, or a cold, or COVID, whatever. And so for me despite not living wearing a mask I have been happy to anytime I'm near others.
The article makes a decent case that, at least for kids in schools, the science to support the utility of masks just isn't there. At first I found this surprising - how could it not be? At least it should help. But kids are in school, together, for 6+ hours a day. I barely wear my mask properly for two hours at a time and I understand how they work. Kids don't care, they're just doing what they're told, cargo cult style. Of course they won't be written perfectly, which reduces their effectiveness. But the idea that they don't help at all, or at least statistically so, is astonishing.
And the article provides evidence of that, cutting neighboring counties in Tennessee with similar vaccination rates where one had a 23% lower making rate, but similar spread. How can that be? Truly fascinating.
Much as we've seen the downside of forced closures and lockdowns, this article reminds us that there may be downsides for kids and masks. I wasn't open to this possibility previously. What could be the downside to putting on a mask? And the answer is, we just don't know. How can we follow the science if we don't have any research?
I continue to be glad to be a resident of the US, whose federalist system allows all these different jurisdictions to try different rules that may work better for them. It gives us a chance to study these differences and learn from them.
Really thought provoking article. While I wait for more studies, guess I'll keep wearing this mask around people. Can't hurt, right? Probably.
A large portion of people wear cloth masks, which are largely ineffective. In addition, you’re talking about a group of 20+ people being in close proximity for at least an hour. (Most) masks are only going to reduce the number of viruses spread, so it might buy you a little extra time around someone that’s infected - but at some point enough will get through.
In the US, at least. In countries like Italy, they mostly wear surgical masks and have started a broader push for FFP2 masks. I find this kind of bizarre - the US has a lot more money than a place like Italy, but I guess they cared more about trying to layer some preventative measures instead of turning crappy cloth masks into some sort of weird self-expression thing.
And the article provides evidence of that, cutting neighboring counties in Tennessee with similar vaccination rates where one had a 23% lower making rate, but similar spread. How can that be? Truly fascinating.
There's more to this than vaccination and masking rate. When we're talking about being indoors all day, one other variable in this is ventilation. For their part, the CDC does suggest considering improving ventilation in buildings. Vaccination is probably the best single tool we have and if everyone who could have been vaccinated was, we'd be in a different situation. However, with so many refusing, you have to get into the minutia about wearing masks, sitting certain distance apart, ventilation, etc., but people aren't good about going into the minutia or dealing with the fact that people in different situations (like different building with different ventilation) should behave differently.
Even knowing this, a lot of places simply don't want to spend money on infrastructure, including improving schools.
0 - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/ventilat...
There's more to this than vaccination and masking rate. When we're talking about being indoors all day, one other variable in this is ventilation. For their part, the CDC does suggest considering improving ventilation in buildings. Vaccination is probably the best single tool we have and if everyone who could have been vaccinated was, we'd be in a different situation. However, with so many refusing, you have to get into the minutia about wearing masks, sitting certain distance apart, ventilation, etc., but people aren't good about going into the minutia or dealing with the fact that people in different situations (like different building with different ventilation) should behave differently.
Even knowing this, a lot of places simply don't want to spend money on infrastructure, including improving schools.
0 - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/ventilat...
> But kids are in school, together, for 6+ hours a day.
This is probably the relevant variable. If you're sharing the same air space with someone carrying an airborne virus, it probably doesn't matter that a mask is filtering 95% if you're both breathing the same air in an enclosed space for 6 hours. Some minimal viral load is needed for infection, and even with 95% filtering you'll probably surpass that threshold after 6 hours.
This is probably the relevant variable. If you're sharing the same air space with someone carrying an airborne virus, it probably doesn't matter that a mask is filtering 95% if you're both breathing the same air in an enclosed space for 6 hours. Some minimal viral load is needed for infection, and even with 95% filtering you'll probably surpass that threshold after 6 hours.
I live somewhere with mild winters so the schools don't have any hallways (the classrooms just open to the outside). This meant that kids could at least get a break from masking between classes. However, after coming back from winter break, the schools started mandating masks outside as well as in, and including during PE class. As you can imagine, my asthmatic daughter was not pleased.
> after coming back from winter break, the schools started mandating masks outside as well as in
While the effectiveness of masks at schools indoors is questionable, is there any evidence at all for using, let alone mandating masks outside? I would have thought that the sheer volume and circulation of fresh air should dilute viral particles below the infectious concentration. What are they protecting against: direct sneezing into someone else's face?
While the effectiveness of masks at schools indoors is questionable, is there any evidence at all for using, let alone mandating masks outside? I would have thought that the sheer volume and circulation of fresh air should dilute viral particles below the infectious concentration. What are they protecting against: direct sneezing into someone else's face?
> What are they protecting against: direct sneezing into someone else's face?
You'd be surprised how often this happens at an elementary school!
You'd be surprised how often this happens at an elementary school!
If you have children you know the answer to this question:
What are they protecting against: direct sneezing into someone else's face?
I’ve found N95 masks to be far more breathable than the normal paper masks, and definitely more breathable than cloth masks.
do you mean N95 masks with a valve? If so I agree, but the ones without a valve are way more difficult to breath in, that is kind of the point.
The 3M Aura+ line is by far the easiest mask (including cloth) I've used, and coincidentally it gives me the best seal.
I don't use them often, just in high risk situations - but they pass the glasses fog test among other things, and I can't tell I'm wearing it after about 15 minutes. All other masks annoy me.
YMMV but it really surprised me as I hate the "surgical style" 3M N95's, these "duckbill" design masks are quite comfortable and breathable in comparison.
I don't use them often, just in high risk situations - but they pass the glasses fog test among other things, and I can't tell I'm wearing it after about 15 minutes. All other masks annoy me.
YMMV but it really surprised me as I hate the "surgical style" 3M N95's, these "duckbill" design masks are quite comfortable and breathable in comparison.
I think they are talking as compared to cloth or surgical masks - and I would agree that the n95 class of masks are relatively easier to breathe in (and also reusable).
Cloth masks get wet after a while which makes it hard to breathe, N95 masks (with or without valve) don't.
I’ve only used non-valve N95s
perhaps an unmask would be helpful: https://www.getunmask.com/
Just bought one. Hoping it lives up to its marketing and I can enjoy a flight on an airplane without discomfort.
I'm triple-vaccinated and absolutely sick of wearing a mask. I agreed with it for the first 18+ months of this but by now I'm just no longer in favor. I no longer believe covid will eventually "go away" and am certainly not in favor of wearing masks for years to come in the hopes that it does.
Those that remain unvaccinated by choice I don't care about. Those who have vulnerable immune systems I have sympathy for but ultimately I don't feel all of society can wear masks forever on basis of their existence. Especially now that it's such a widespread virus that it's basically unavoidable without being a hermit.
I'm triple-vaccinated and absolutely sick of wearing a mask. I agreed with it for the first 18+ months of this but by now I'm just no longer in favor. I no longer believe covid will eventually "go away" and am certainly not in favor of wearing masks for years to come in the hopes that it does.
Those that remain unvaccinated by choice I don't care about. Those who have vulnerable immune systems I have sympathy for but ultimately I don't feel all of society can wear masks forever on basis of their existence. Especially now that it's such a widespread virus that it's basically unavoidable without being a hermit.
Everyone in my family (including me) is vaccinated and boosted, but they all (except me somehow) still got COVID during December, with my mom getting especially sick. Fortunately they all recovered and are fine now (I think largely due to the vaccine), but I feel like there exists an alternate universe where my mom dies despite being vaccinated.
Because of this, I don't think the "fuck the unvaccinated, I am sick of masks" mantra works; people can still get pretty sick even after being responsible and getting vaccinated, and I think as a result the mask mandates might need to stay. I don't like them either, but I like people getting sick even less.
NOTE:
Just to be 100% clear: I am very very very much not anti-vax. Please get vaccinated.
Because of this, I don't think the "fuck the unvaccinated, I am sick of masks" mantra works; people can still get pretty sick even after being responsible and getting vaccinated, and I think as a result the mask mandates might need to stay. I don't like them either, but I like people getting sick even less.
NOTE:
Just to be 100% clear: I am very very very much not anti-vax. Please get vaccinated.
The amount of time you spent trying to keep others safe is washed down the drain when you give up for no reason other than you’re tired.
This isn't really true, regardless of whether you like masks or not. There have been one or two level changes with respect to how much risk you're introducing to those around you as well as the personal accountability of those you'd affect. It's not surprising that different people have different tolerances for these risks.
Even without the above factored in, this is sort of like saying that not using your turn signals in traffic on the 100th turn nullifies their utility for the previous 99 (not a perfect analogy).
Even without the above factored in, this is sort of like saying that not using your turn signals in traffic on the 100th turn nullifies their utility for the previous 99 (not a perfect analogy).
It's not about individual risk, it's about collective risk, and honestly it's quite selfish to consider the COVID risks only with regard to yourself.
And Omicron has made it so the risk profile is effectively the same as when this pandemic started; you will get it, you will be contagious for a time, and you will infect others.
By looking at that risk and accepting it, you're throwing away the work you've previously put in to avoid being a bad person.
And Omicron has made it so the risk profile is effectively the same as when this pandemic started; you will get it, you will be contagious for a time, and you will infect others.
By looking at that risk and accepting it, you're throwing away the work you've previously put in to avoid being a bad person.
> And Omicron has made it so the risk profile is effectively the same as when this pandemic started; you will get it, you will be contagious for a time, and you will infect others.
Total nonsense. Anyone's chance of dying is massively diminished with the vaccine.
Total nonsense. Anyone's chance of dying is massively diminished with the vaccine.
Dying isn't the only bad thing that can happen to you if you contract SARS-CoV-19, and it's not just about you.
Many respiratory viruses have “long” symptoms. Covid is not even close to unique in that regard. Should we shut down everything and force little kids to wear masks for 8 hours a day for the annual flu?
Yes, if those other viruses are as contagious, widespread, and deadly as SARS-CoV-2.
Luckily, nothing else has reached that level. Yet.
Luckily, nothing else has reached that level. Yet.
The risk profiles that I refer to are both collective and individual - they're correlated for pretty clear reasons. Nobody is experiencing the spread of the disease in a vacuum.
Omicron's risk profile doesn't seem to be the same, looking at the numbers available on the Google chart I look at. We're seeing a lot fewer deaths per cases. That's not to say everyone should throw caution to the wind and do whatever they want, but it's disingenuous to say the math hasn't changed at all.
COVID cases are acting like a marketplace. People take different actions when the numbers/unknowns change, and that's not surprising. I know I'm doing a lot more outside of the home than I was when COVID first started, and that I'm not unique in that respect _at all_.
Not prescribing any course of action, just tossing out what I've been seeing.
Omicron's risk profile doesn't seem to be the same, looking at the numbers available on the Google chart I look at. We're seeing a lot fewer deaths per cases. That's not to say everyone should throw caution to the wind and do whatever they want, but it's disingenuous to say the math hasn't changed at all.
COVID cases are acting like a marketplace. People take different actions when the numbers/unknowns change, and that's not surprising. I know I'm doing a lot more outside of the home than I was when COVID first started, and that I'm not unique in that respect _at all_.
Not prescribing any course of action, just tossing out what I've been seeing.
Omicron may only be less deadly because of the precautions we're currently taking. Reducing those precautions could very well slingshot Omicron into being the deadliest variant, if it isn't already by sheer numbers.
> It's not about individual risk, it's about collective risk, and honestly it's quite selfish to consider the COVID risks only with regard to yourself.
Is it wrong to be selfish? That seems be an implicit assumption in your argument.
Is it wrong to be selfish? That seems be an implicit assumption in your argument.
Yes, it's wrong to be so selfish that you can't experience a minor inconvenience to mitigate the risk of causing another person's death or severe injury.
More assumptions:
1. Should people have the expectation that they can inconvenience others, even if only in minor ways? This is taken as given, but it's not always the case. For instance, reducing speed limits everywhere would only slightly inconvenience everyone but save thousands of lives.
2. Is it a minor inconvenience? Certainly not to some people with breathing difficulties.
3. Does it really mitigate the risk to the degree you imply? The case is frankly not as solid as you suggest.
There are even more, but frankly the case is flimsy enough as it is.
1. Should people have the expectation that they can inconvenience others, even if only in minor ways? This is taken as given, but it's not always the case. For instance, reducing speed limits everywhere would only slightly inconvenience everyone but save thousands of lives.
2. Is it a minor inconvenience? Certainly not to some people with breathing difficulties.
3. Does it really mitigate the risk to the degree you imply? The case is frankly not as solid as you suggest.
There are even more, but frankly the case is flimsy enough as it is.
How long will you wear a mask for? Will you wear one in 2028 when Covid is still a circulating illness? Will you wear one in 2046? Are you in favor of mask-wearing in the permanent absence of covid to protect others from the flu, just in case you have it but haven't realized yet?
Its not March 2020 anymore we have vaccines and treatments the externalities have changed so should our behaviors.
This is how I feel as well, and it seems to be a growing sentiment among liberals who supported the masks and lockdowns for the first year or so.
From their website (About/Disclaimer):
_The Unmask is not designed or intended to prevent, mitigate, treat, diagnose or cure any disease or health condition, including COVID-19/Coronavirus. Unmasks are intended for general public use only. They are non-sterile and are not intended for use in any clinical or surgical setting or where exposure to bodily or hazardous fluids may be expected, where the risk of exposure through inhalation is high, or near intense heat or flammable gas. Unmasks are not surgical masks, personal protective equipment, or filtering respirators (such as N95 masks)._
Basically, it seems like a soft, breathable mask.....but they make no claims that they will significantly reduce your chances of catching Covid from someone nearby. That said, if the only goal is to meet masking requirements in public places, then it "works".
_The Unmask is not designed or intended to prevent, mitigate, treat, diagnose or cure any disease or health condition, including COVID-19/Coronavirus. Unmasks are intended for general public use only. They are non-sterile and are not intended for use in any clinical or surgical setting or where exposure to bodily or hazardous fluids may be expected, where the risk of exposure through inhalation is high, or near intense heat or flammable gas. Unmasks are not surgical masks, personal protective equipment, or filtering respirators (such as N95 masks)._
Basically, it seems like a soft, breathable mask.....but they make no claims that they will significantly reduce your chances of catching Covid from someone nearby. That said, if the only goal is to meet masking requirements in public places, then it "works".
Read between the lines. They are marketing for people who don't want to wear a mask but have to. These "masks" are designed to do the bare minimum to get you onto an airplane. It's not supposed to protect you.
People buying this mask disappoint me. They should at least go full hose:
https://fakemaskworldwide.com/the-offensively-fake-fake-mask...
https://fakemaskworldwide.com/the-offensively-fake-fake-mask...
Surgical masks do the same. They're easy to breathe in, they offer little protection, and you can board an airplane with them. I don't see the point.
All of this, down to the disclaimer, also applies to the ubiquitous normal cloth masks, so it's hardly a strike against them.
It’s absolutely a strike against them, considering all of that does not apply to normal cloth masks intentionally.
The makers of this mask deliberately choose to make a product that does not improve collective safety, and that malicious attitude deserves to be jailed, not rewarded.
The makers of this mask deliberately choose to make a product that does not improve collective safety, and that malicious attitude deserves to be jailed, not rewarded.
No, it absolutely applies to normal cloth masks. In fact, as far as I can tell, that disclaimer is simply copied and pasted from other sites selling cloth masks, for example: https://teepublic.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360047284753...
It does not apply to "normal" cloth masks, and it's deliberately misleading to say otherwise, because if it were true about "normal" cloth masks, then these masks would not be more breathable.
I don’t know how to be more clear that the disclaimer is the same than to link you to a site selling normal cloth masks with the exact same disclaimer.
And I don't know how to be more clear that the disclaimer is not the only set of facts in this situation.
Maybe you should have read up thread to see what I was responding to then? This is a thread about the disclaimer.
Nope, it's a thread about how dishonest these mask makers are, considering you're now in my thread.
So it's a cloth mask, which have been shown to barely protect you at all.
> The Unmask is not designed or intended to prevent, mitigate, treat, diagnose or cure any disease or health condition, including COVID-19/Coronavirus.
That goes beyond the "this isn't an n95 mask" - this is actually saying this mask is purely performative. Which is the accusation anti-maskers make. So they become what they accuse others of doing.
Great business.
> The Unmask is not designed or intended to prevent, mitigate, treat, diagnose or cure any disease or health condition, including COVID-19/Coronavirus.
That goes beyond the "this isn't an n95 mask" - this is actually saying this mask is purely performative. Which is the accusation anti-maskers make. So they become what they accuse others of doing.
Great business.
So these are made for one priority:
“ Each UnMask is made of two layers of premium ultralight material that are chosen for their incredible breathability and comfort. ”
Wow. The market really does solve for every possible niche.
Their mention of air travel also makes me think of how the government brought in TSA checkpoints, but a company called Clear allows people to mostly bypass it for a fee. It would be nice if we didn't have these restrictions plus people finding ways to profit off of getting around them. Just get rid of both.
Clear doesn't get you past the checkpoints, it just gets you to the front of the line. Gross on a "class warfare" level, but you go through the same security everyone else does.
Now, TSA PreCheck allows you to bypass some of the stuff, like shoe removal and taking laptops out of your bag, but it's coupled with a background check.
Now, TSA PreCheck allows you to bypass some of the stuff, like shoe removal and taking laptops out of your bag, but it's coupled with a background check.
> the government brought in TSA checkpoints,
The government brought in the TSA to take over checkpoints and relieve the air transport industry for liability for failures of and abuses at the checkpoints as part of the post-9/11 air transport industry bailout; the checkpoints had existed for a long time.
The government brought in the TSA to take over checkpoints and relieve the air transport industry for liability for failures of and abuses at the checkpoints as part of the post-9/11 air transport industry bailout; the checkpoints had existed for a long time.
Yep, pre-911 you still had to go through a metal detector and get your stuff x-rayed. Taking off your shoes and no fluids are the only new restrictions really.
The TSA was a huge improvement over the understaffed and indifferent private contractors that used to run airport checkpoints when it first started. Things didn't get bad again until the shoe bomber.
don't forget a high likelyhood of being irradiated
Not that I like the millimeter wave scanners, but like the metal detectors I think they use low-energy non-ionizing radiation, so its not really a change in the kind or significance of radiation exposure.
Conventional metal detectors use electromagnets and don't emit any ionizing radiation. Backscatter scanners used in airport security screening do emit ionizing radiation but a very small amount.
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radiation-and-airport-security-s...
https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radiation-and-airport-security-s...
You get more radiation in the plane than from TSA.
Ironically, they offer four different sizes, while I yet haven't found FFP2 masks in more than in one size.
Buy good ones like the 3M Aurora and you get at least 3 size options...
On their website I couldn’t find any statement about their effectiveness, nor any certification.
You're being sarcastic, right? If not, that's the entire point. These are designed to fail any tests but cursory visual inspection.
At first I thought that the website was sarcastic. But they are unironically selling those “unmasks” without making it clear that they are as useful as a fishnet mask.
I went to check the site after your comment, and found this, and the letters weren't even small:
Disclaimer
The Unmask is not designed or intended to prevent, mitigate, treat, diagnose or cure any disease or health condition, including COVID-19/Coronavirus. Unmasks are intended for general public use only. They are non-sterile and are not intended for use in any clinical or surgical setting or where exposure to bodily or hazardous fluids may be expected, where the risk of exposure through inhalation is high, or near intense heat or flammable gas. Unmasks are not surgical masks, personal protective equipment, or filtering respirators (such as N95 masks).
Disclaimer
The Unmask is not designed or intended to prevent, mitigate, treat, diagnose or cure any disease or health condition, including COVID-19/Coronavirus. Unmasks are intended for general public use only. They are non-sterile and are not intended for use in any clinical or surgical setting or where exposure to bodily or hazardous fluids may be expected, where the risk of exposure through inhalation is high, or near intense heat or flammable gas. Unmasks are not surgical masks, personal protective equipment, or filtering respirators (such as N95 masks).
In other words, they exist to put others at potential risk.
For people like me, it's either this option or an exemption. No longer will I put other people's health above my own. Triple vaxxed and willing to get as many as I need. But feeling like I'm suffocating is no longer an option. If you don't have breathing/anxiety issues (or both), you don't know what it's like and I;d encourage you to avoid the snideness.
I have chronic lung issues. It's not snideness. People who use fake masks put my life at risk. I've literally spent the past two years being terrified.
So yes, I do have breathing and anxiety issues, but my breathing issues are because I've crappy lungs, and I'd prefer to _not_ be around those who consider my life less worthy than their own.
So yes, I do have breathing and anxiety issues, but my breathing issues are because I've crappy lungs, and I'd prefer to _not_ be around those who consider my life less worthy than their own.
You are vaccinated and boosted. That is what protects you. Not somebody else wearing a mask.
It isn’t societies job to cater to fully vaccinated individuals who remain terrified of Covid. Such an expectation is what is truly selfish.
It isn’t societies job to cater to fully vaccinated individuals who remain terrified of Covid. Such an expectation is what is truly selfish.
Sorry. I just feel like I've reached a breaking point myself. Honestly, the only reason i don't have an exemption now is because I didn't want to freak other people out, or feel selfish because I don't have a life-threatening condition. I think people like me just can't imagine living this way much longer, my quality of life has truly sucked this year, in particular.
But it's not the same as what you have to deal with, genuinely fearing for your life.
But it's not the same as what you have to deal with, genuinely fearing for your life.
I am genuinely sorry about your condition, but I can't live my life based on the limitations of others forever.
Bonus points for ingenuity, I guess? /s
As a non-American considering going through the Green Card process and with an American-born daughter, stuff like this dampens my enthusiasm for living here long term. I guess the USA is just a place with an enormous spectrum of opinions...
As a non-American considering going through the Green Card process and with an American-born daughter, stuff like this dampens my enthusiasm for living here long term. I guess the USA is just a place with an enormous spectrum of opinions...
You're kinda like the guy who complains that Australian covid protesters are outside without QR codes that prove they're allowed to protest. I.e. that's the point.
[deleted]
just bought one too! thank you
What type of mask is she wearing?
I'm a former asthmatic. Even cloth masks are restrictive enough that they'd have been an issue for me.
I actually have the opposite experience with my exercise-induced asthma.
It's quite dry and cold where I am currently, due to winter. Wearing a cloth mask increases the temperature and humidity of the air I breathe when working hard, and makes it less likely that asthma will be triggered.
It's a significant enough effect that I will sometimes wear a cloth mask specifically for this effect when doing something strenuous outdoors.
It's quite dry and cold where I am currently, due to winter. Wearing a cloth mask increases the temperature and humidity of the air I breathe when working hard, and makes it less likely that asthma will be triggered.
It's a significant enough effect that I will sometimes wear a cloth mask specifically for this effect when doing something strenuous outdoors.
That would probably be true if we lived somewhere with actual winters. My daughter's PE class is in the afternoon, and the lowest high-temperature we've had all winter is 63.
Gotcha, that makes sense. The high today for me was 28.
Didn't think about that, and I did sometimes put the mask on outside for comfort!
Me too :( it feels like people like us are forgotten.
But I saw Denmark has just dropped all covid measures including masks so hopefully we're all getting there
But I saw Denmark has just dropped all covid measures including masks so hopefully we're all getting there
I suspect that’s exactly the problem. Cloth masks are often less breathable than N95s!
Could be. Unfortunately N95s are hard to find by here. I can't say that I've noticed much difference with my KN95s versus the cloth mask.
Yeah me as well + I wear glasses so I can’t see unless the weather is absolutely perfect (little humidity etc.)
It turns out a good fitting mask is essential for comfort. I had a problem with masks being hard to breathe in and fogging up my glasses. Then I found a good set of N95 masks that have a real solid fit. It's loose and flexible enough to be breathable, and has a solid seal across the nose so moisture doesn't get near my glasses. You can tell it's a good fit because it deflates/inflates likes a balloon when you breathe.
I did manage to find sports masks I wear when I got the gym that do make it much easier to breath, although they fog up my glasses still so I take those off when I'm there.
She switched from cloth to paper and it did improve things somewhat; I think a lot of the effect is that it seals less on the side though, so the results of them requiring masks outside is that my daughter is wearing a less effective mask inside.
Have you tried her in an N95?
I've worn those during fire season; I feel like any benefit from breathing would be erased by how uncomfortable they are on the face.
Was that a cup style one? Depending on your facial shape, they can be very uncomfortable. Try a 3M Aura flat fold. Life changing for most healthcare workers.
Yeah, the ones that were first manufactured on the same machines to make brassieres.
It appears that the article is looking at vaccination in addition to mask usage. There are many areas of the US where vaccination percentages are relatively low and vaccination percentage of children between the ages of 5 to 11 are even lower.
While children may not wear masks correctly, at a population level, it stands to reason that wearing masks will reduce the chance of transmission. Just like condoms have a theoretical effectiveness of 98% when used properly, but real world use shows an effectiveness rate of 82%, mask usage should still reduce transmission, but not to the extent that they would given proper use. But that doesn't mean that they're not effective at all and there's no need to use them. Looking at it from a population perspective versus an individual perspective in terms of transmission and the chance of contracting the disease, they should still have some beneficial effect.
The other part of the equation is the use of multiple strategies to mitigate transmission. For example, social distancing, limiting the number of people, and reducing the time spent indoors. All these factors put together will reduce transmission even if people aren't perfect in terms of compliance.
While children may not wear masks correctly, at a population level, it stands to reason that wearing masks will reduce the chance of transmission. Just like condoms have a theoretical effectiveness of 98% when used properly, but real world use shows an effectiveness rate of 82%, mask usage should still reduce transmission, but not to the extent that they would given proper use. But that doesn't mean that they're not effective at all and there's no need to use them. Looking at it from a population perspective versus an individual perspective in terms of transmission and the chance of contracting the disease, they should still have some beneficial effect.
The other part of the equation is the use of multiple strategies to mitigate transmission. For example, social distancing, limiting the number of people, and reducing the time spent indoors. All these factors put together will reduce transmission even if people aren't perfect in terms of compliance.
You may look at the data of how much protection masks add between the ages of 5 to 11 and 2 to 5. And how much other mitigations measures add (ventilation, cohorting, etc). You'll find that high quality masks for teachers reduce spread a lot. Masks for kids - the effect can't be clearly registered.
And using masks for kids, particularly outdoors is a hazard in itself. Masks tend to block lower peripheral vision. Which results in kids tripping and falling more often. Falls and playground injuries are a common cause of hospitalizations in the US [the order of 100k kids/year]. Masks also reduce ability to communicate [hazard]. And it is unclear what is the long-term impact on kids development.
Overall, at least to me, masking kids outdoors at this stage seem wrong. Indoor - questionable, it'd be good to see more statistics for this particular mitigation measure, if de-correlated from other mitigation measures.
And using masks for kids, particularly outdoors is a hazard in itself. Masks tend to block lower peripheral vision. Which results in kids tripping and falling more often. Falls and playground injuries are a common cause of hospitalizations in the US [the order of 100k kids/year]. Masks also reduce ability to communicate [hazard]. And it is unclear what is the long-term impact on kids development.
Overall, at least to me, masking kids outdoors at this stage seem wrong. Indoor - questionable, it'd be good to see more statistics for this particular mitigation measure, if de-correlated from other mitigation measures.
> And it is unclear what is the long-term impact on kids development.
Keep in mind that it's also pretty unclear the long term effects of contracting COVID (even with no symptoms) in the first place. What about getting COVID twice? Three times? Four times? I'd rather do what I can to ensure my kids don't get it at all, are vaccinated, social distance, etc. Hopefully we'll get to a place where vaccinations / natural immunity reduce cases to a point where masks no longer make sense, but until then...
Keep in mind that it's also pretty unclear the long term effects of contracting COVID (even with no symptoms) in the first place. What about getting COVID twice? Three times? Four times? I'd rather do what I can to ensure my kids don't get it at all, are vaccinated, social distance, etc. Hopefully we'll get to a place where vaccinations / natural immunity reduce cases to a point where masks no longer make sense, but until then...
In Taiwan we've been wearing masks for over 2 years with near zero complaint at school. I have to remind a few kids a day to put it over their nose. We've had Omicron here for awhile, but it's still only a trickle of cases, with no exponential explosion. The policies here, with contact tracing, quarantine and masks, have kept things open and people from dying. I don't understand the hesitancy.
It's the incredible selfishness of some Americans (speaking as an American). Plenty of people who take their own personal comfort and opinions as higher priority over others.
Even from day one we've had people refusing to mask/sanitize/social distance, claiming it "violates their freedom".
Even from day one we've had people refusing to mask/sanitize/social distance, claiming it "violates their freedom".
I disagree that it is rooted in selfishness. It's healthy to live in a society that has at least some degree of skepticism over public health claims that tend to optimize one variable at the cost of others.
Since this article is about children, there is a lot of evidence to show that kids are experiencing developmental delays that are likely correlated with masking. The long term effects of which is not yet well understood. I would much rather live in a country that challenges assumptions and fosters debate, instead of blindly pursuing countermeasures that may have extremely detrimental outcomes in the future.
Since this article is about children, there is a lot of evidence to show that kids are experiencing developmental delays that are likely correlated with masking. The long term effects of which is not yet well understood. I would much rather live in a country that challenges assumptions and fosters debate, instead of blindly pursuing countermeasures that may have extremely detrimental outcomes in the future.
Same here in Japan. When I leave home, I put on mask and keep it on until I return home. Only time I take off mask is to eat and drink. Most people do the same.
KISS, We have kept it simple. There is no discussion about when to wear or not wear, who need to wear or not, what type of mask to wear or not.
KISS, We have kept it simple. There is no discussion about when to wear or not wear, who need to wear or not, what type of mask to wear or not.
Wearing mask is pretty basic so no discussion, but mask type is a bit controversial topic in Japan.
At the beginning of pandemic, gov sends cloth mask all house. I think this was good try at the time, but finally the mask isn't used well because non-woven mask become available soon. Now gov still has huge cloth mask stocks.
After that, some research suggests that nonwoven mask is the best for protect, cloth mask isn't the best, urethane mask is relatively bad. But because the gov sends and still has cloth mask, gov don't want to say avoid using other than nonwoven masks.
Anyway over 80% (I assume) of people wear non woven mask so totally fine.
At the beginning of pandemic, gov sends cloth mask all house. I think this was good try at the time, but finally the mask isn't used well because non-woven mask become available soon. Now gov still has huge cloth mask stocks.
After that, some research suggests that nonwoven mask is the best for protect, cloth mask isn't the best, urethane mask is relatively bad. But because the gov sends and still has cloth mask, gov don't want to say avoid using other than nonwoven masks.
Anyway over 80% (I assume) of people wear non woven mask so totally fine.
While government initiative to supply masks was a fiasco, I don’t believe that mask type is a controversial topic here. Majority of people are wearing whatever type of masks they want. There is no controversy about mask type. Even at several hospitals that I have visited, majority of doctors are wearing regular surgical masks, only a few wear N95 or double up on regular surgical mask.
Taiwan isn’t suffering from near 50% obesity though…
That doesn't have anything to do with case count and lack of spread, though.
Obesity increases the risk of illness which contributes to spread.
Citation needed that obesity promotes spread. It may increase symptoms, but places like India have millions of cases, many likely undocumented, and low levels of obesity.
Hm... this does not actually make an argument against masks in school.
It's perfectly fair to point out the limitations of the available studies. Of course we want better ones -- that's a good argument for more, better studies. But the lack of absolute proof isn't an argument against masks in school. That's dumb. Until we conduct some well-designed rigorous controlled experiments on human children (which we'll never do, for presumably obvious reasons) we are going to have to make decisions with imperfect knowledge.
There is substantial evidence that a properly worn N95 or KN95 mask reduces the transmission of covid, right?
Can children be swayed/educated/convinced to wear a quality mask often enough to make a difference in the transmission of covid among their teachers or their families? IDK. Good question. We aren't completely sure, but probably.
Maybe we should answer that before killing masks in school. I mean... let's not be dumb, right?
Masks aren't exactly burdensome. We make kids wear shirts and shoes, even when it's unnecessary in summer. Given the current situation, if you could magically set aside politics and the associated mouth-breathers (which of course we can't) wouldn't we actually demand proof that masks are a net negative before we stop mandating them?
To me, this is a question of how much do we allow "dumb" to run the way things are. Apparently, it's quite a lot. I'm curious how far down we'll go before the end?
It's perfectly fair to point out the limitations of the available studies. Of course we want better ones -- that's a good argument for more, better studies. But the lack of absolute proof isn't an argument against masks in school. That's dumb. Until we conduct some well-designed rigorous controlled experiments on human children (which we'll never do, for presumably obvious reasons) we are going to have to make decisions with imperfect knowledge.
There is substantial evidence that a properly worn N95 or KN95 mask reduces the transmission of covid, right?
Can children be swayed/educated/convinced to wear a quality mask often enough to make a difference in the transmission of covid among their teachers or their families? IDK. Good question. We aren't completely sure, but probably.
Maybe we should answer that before killing masks in school. I mean... let's not be dumb, right?
Masks aren't exactly burdensome. We make kids wear shirts and shoes, even when it's unnecessary in summer. Given the current situation, if you could magically set aside politics and the associated mouth-breathers (which of course we can't) wouldn't we actually demand proof that masks are a net negative before we stop mandating them?
To me, this is a question of how much do we allow "dumb" to run the way things are. Apparently, it's quite a lot. I'm curious how far down we'll go before the end?
> Masks aren't exactly burdensome. We make kids wear shirts and shoes, even when it's unnecessary in summer. Given the current situation, if you could magically set aside politics and the associated mouth-breathers (which of course we can't) wouldn't we actually demand proof that masks are a net negative before we stop mandating them?
normally you're supposed to actually demand proof that something is a net positive before you start mandating it, instead of saying "it's not exactly burdensome, why not?", and then going ahead and doing it.
shirts and shoes don't obscure faces, which are used to communicate nonverbally. one of the main advantages of public/private schooling over homeschooling (though there's obviously ways to mitigate this for homeschoolers) is the social interactions between children are valuable in teaching them basic social skills more or less organically.
you have to stop and think about nth-order effects when making broad sweeping authoritarianesque mandates like this, it's never as simple as, "well, they have to wear shirts and shoes to school don't they? how are masks any different?"
normally you're supposed to actually demand proof that something is a net positive before you start mandating it, instead of saying "it's not exactly burdensome, why not?", and then going ahead and doing it.
shirts and shoes don't obscure faces, which are used to communicate nonverbally. one of the main advantages of public/private schooling over homeschooling (though there's obviously ways to mitigate this for homeschoolers) is the social interactions between children are valuable in teaching them basic social skills more or less organically.
you have to stop and think about nth-order effects when making broad sweeping authoritarianesque mandates like this, it's never as simple as, "well, they have to wear shirts and shoes to school don't they? how are masks any different?"
In the middle of a global pandemic, is the chance that it could prevent a death or life-long complication for someone not a "net positive"?
If wearing red shirts on Tuesdays gave me a 0.001% improvement in my kid not being infected, sure as shit I'd be wearing red shirts on Tuesdays and convincing everyone I could to do the same.
If wearing red shirts on Tuesdays gave me a 0.001% improvement in my kid not being infected, sure as shit I'd be wearing red shirts on Tuesdays and convincing everyone I could to do the same.
> normally you're supposed to actually demand proof that something is a net positive before you start mandating it
Are you unaware of the massive amounts of clear-cut evidence that properly worn quality masks substantially reduce the transmission of covid? Come on.
Are you unaware of the massive amounts of clear-cut evidence that properly worn quality masks substantially reduce the transmission of covid? Come on.
I am not aware of "clear-cut" evidence that masking in schools work in fact that's the entire point of the article in question here so if you have some silver bullet that debunks all the authors claims than you should absolutely share it.
as other comments have said, why are we so obsessed with minimizing transmission as much as possible, seemingly regardless of cost or any other incidental negative outcomes, at this point in time? these are all things that made sense early on when we didn't know much and everyone was kind of panicky and the death counts were higher and the misinformation from China was prevalent.
but now in twenty twenty two, we can't just mandating things in order to reduce transmission of a respiratory virus, without considering what other nth-order effects said mandates will have. it's pure irresponsibility as the result of prescribed dogma.
but now in twenty twenty two, we can't just mandating things in order to reduce transmission of a respiratory virus, without considering what other nth-order effects said mandates will have. it's pure irresponsibility as the result of prescribed dogma.
> But the lack of absolute proof isn't an argument against masks in school. That's dumb.
How so? It seems more ignorant to assume that masks would help more when the data we do have doesn’t show that.
> Can children be swayed/educated/convinced to wear a quality mask often enough to make a difference in the transmission of covid among their teachers or their families? IDK. Good question. We aren't completely sure, but probably.
You call the authors ideas dumb, but then yourself make unfounded inferences as an argument for continuing to require masks in schools.
How so? It seems more ignorant to assume that masks would help more when the data we do have doesn’t show that.
> Can children be swayed/educated/convinced to wear a quality mask often enough to make a difference in the transmission of covid among their teachers or their families? IDK. Good question. We aren't completely sure, but probably.
You call the authors ideas dumb, but then yourself make unfounded inferences as an argument for continuing to require masks in schools.
Come on. The problem is the studies aren't conclusive, not that they show nothing.
Jesus.
Sorry, but yes, arguing that away is dumb. Not just dumb, but it gets people dead. So... good for you?
Look at the way the article hand-waves away the Bangladesh study... that only makes sense if children transmit covid in a substantially different way than adults. What's the justification for that? Our model for covid transmission is by droplets, particularly from the mouth, such as when exclaiming, shouting, etc. and that masks inhibit such transmission by catching the droplets. Without some evidence it's hard to conceive of how children would be less prone to this, making mask-wearing more important for them to reduce transmission.
> unfounded inferences
What's your argument? That children probably cannot be educated to do anything whatsoever? Hey, schools are pointless in their entirety, so we can cancel all that and the mask issue goes away naturally. Dumb.
Jesus.
Sorry, but yes, arguing that away is dumb. Not just dumb, but it gets people dead. So... good for you?
Look at the way the article hand-waves away the Bangladesh study... that only makes sense if children transmit covid in a substantially different way than adults. What's the justification for that? Our model for covid transmission is by droplets, particularly from the mouth, such as when exclaiming, shouting, etc. and that masks inhibit such transmission by catching the droplets. Without some evidence it's hard to conceive of how children would be less prone to this, making mask-wearing more important for them to reduce transmission.
> unfounded inferences
What's your argument? That children probably cannot be educated to do anything whatsoever? Hey, schools are pointless in their entirety, so we can cancel all that and the mask issue goes away naturally. Dumb.
Vaccines for Covid are available.
Vaccines do not stop the spread of Covid.
Vaccines do not stop you from getting Covid.
Vaccines do reduce the probability of severe/fatal cases of covid.
Masks are available. Most masks in most situations do little to stop the spread of Covid. Well fitted N95s are more effective.
Getting vaccinated or wearing a mask is clearly a personal health decision. Vaccine mandates are ridiculous given the above. Mask mandates are ridiculous given the above. Mandates in general show little impact on actually changing behavior.
The risk to children is incredibly low. The coronavirus is endemic, we are all going to get it.
Lets move on already.
If you are fearful of coronavirus or at risk you can do what you think is necessary to stay safe. You don’t get to use your fear or neuroses to control others.
Masks are available. Most masks in most situations do little to stop the spread of Covid. Well fitted N95s are more effective.
Getting vaccinated or wearing a mask is clearly a personal health decision. Vaccine mandates are ridiculous given the above. Mask mandates are ridiculous given the above. Mandates in general show little impact on actually changing behavior.
The risk to children is incredibly low. The coronavirus is endemic, we are all going to get it.
Lets move on already.
If you are fearful of coronavirus or at risk you can do what you think is necessary to stay safe. You don’t get to use your fear or neuroses to control others.
When you spread covid misinformation, you help people die earlier than they otherwise would.
The fact is, the vaccines reduce the transmission of covid. Likewise well-fitted quality masks. So when you opt out, or encourage others to do so, there's an incremental harm to other people. To the extent anyone reads and is persuaded by you comments, people are being harmed. Hopefully, no one is, but I see from the responses at least one dummy is encouraged. I wonder how you feel about that?
> The risk to children is incredibly low.
I don't think you're actually unaware there is a substantial number of people in schools that aren't children. So what's the point of this observation in relation to the topic?
The fact is, the vaccines reduce the transmission of covid. Likewise well-fitted quality masks. So when you opt out, or encourage others to do so, there's an incremental harm to other people. To the extent anyone reads and is persuaded by you comments, people are being harmed. Hopefully, no one is, but I see from the responses at least one dummy is encouraged. I wonder how you feel about that?
> The risk to children is incredibly low.
I don't think you're actually unaware there is a substantial number of people in schools that aren't children. So what's the point of this observation in relation to the topic?
What misinformation am I spreading? I think you are misunderstanding me.
I am not saying vaccines and masks have no benefit. Vaccines have a substantial personal benefit and a more marginal communal benefit.
Mask done perfectly have a decent personal and communal benefit. However, masks are not done perfectly and never will be.
The question is should we have mandates? Should we have vaccine mandates along the lines of “get the vaccine or get fired?” for marginal and waning communal benefit. If so should we extend this marginal logic to other marginally communally beneficial prevention measures? Eg. Protests are spreader events. These hurt the community. Attend a protest and you’re fired. I don’t think either is reasonable.
In regards to mask mandates we are forcing kids to wear masks at school but we are not mandating adults wear masks at restaurants, bars, movie theatres, concerts, football games etc. It doesn’t matter if the kids had perfect mask compliance (and they dont) the exposure to adults is everywhere. Also mask mandates do not impact behavior much. So why do we have them for students? I think it is mostly because adults want security theater and are used to telling kids to do something they themselves are unwilling to do.
I am not saying vaccines and masks have no benefit. Vaccines have a substantial personal benefit and a more marginal communal benefit.
Mask done perfectly have a decent personal and communal benefit. However, masks are not done perfectly and never will be.
The question is should we have mandates? Should we have vaccine mandates along the lines of “get the vaccine or get fired?” for marginal and waning communal benefit. If so should we extend this marginal logic to other marginally communally beneficial prevention measures? Eg. Protests are spreader events. These hurt the community. Attend a protest and you’re fired. I don’t think either is reasonable.
In regards to mask mandates we are forcing kids to wear masks at school but we are not mandating adults wear masks at restaurants, bars, movie theatres, concerts, football games etc. It doesn’t matter if the kids had perfect mask compliance (and they dont) the exposure to adults is everywhere. Also mask mandates do not impact behavior much. So why do we have them for students? I think it is mostly because adults want security theater and are used to telling kids to do something they themselves are unwilling to do.
yes, please copy and paste this at the top of every covid thread. i can't believe people still believe 2 years on that there is "something" we can do to stop covid. it's endemic, assess/mitigate your own risk and move the fuck on.
> Vaccines do not stop the spread of Covid. Vaccines do not stop you from getting Covid.
The vaccines still reduce the likelihood of infection and thus slow the spread of Covid. It's true their effectiveness against Omicron is reduced compared to prior variants.
The vaccines still reduce the likelihood of infection and thus slow the spread of Covid. It's true their effectiveness against Omicron is reduced compared to prior variants.
Wtf, masks absolutely work. Who is pushing this stuff and for what nefarious reasons? Do they think all children should get exposed early to the virus and then we'll develop heard immunity in decades to come? We have the vaccine for that.
It's not saying to not vaccinate kids, it's saying the evidence says masks are ineffective at preventing the spread of covid in schools, which means it's meaningless to wear them, and that there is a negative cognitive effect on kids with wearing masks, so we should weigh that.
Feel free to post a link that confirms "Wtf, masks absolutely work" in the context of kids in schools and the Omicron variant.
Feel free to post a link that confirms "Wtf, masks absolutely work" in the context of kids in schools and the Omicron variant.
> masks absolutely work
The handful of large, high-quality studies show that cloth masks have no significant effect on transmission, and FFP2/N95 masks have at best a small effect. The article talks about specific reasons to think that even FFP2/N95 masks might be substantially less effective in schools.
The handful of large, high-quality studies show that cloth masks have no significant effect on transmission, and FFP2/N95 masks have at best a small effect. The article talks about specific reasons to think that even FFP2/N95 masks might be substantially less effective in schools.
> Wtf, masks absolutely work.
I’m not that sure. A lot of experts agree that there’s not much quality data to reach that conclusion.
Most “definitive proof” comes from mechanical studies (they measure how far your saliva is reaching with and with out mask), but that’s not the only important factor.
Masks are not designed for full day use, and by wearing them everyone is constantly touching their face, mouth and nose. This sounds to me like a way worse infection vector. Viruses like covid can survive for a long time on surfaces.
It’s hard to separate the effects of masks from that of hand sanitizer, vaccinations, or other measures taken.
I’m not that sure. A lot of experts agree that there’s not much quality data to reach that conclusion.
Most “definitive proof” comes from mechanical studies (they measure how far your saliva is reaching with and with out mask), but that’s not the only important factor.
Masks are not designed for full day use, and by wearing them everyone is constantly touching their face, mouth and nose. This sounds to me like a way worse infection vector. Viruses like covid can survive for a long time on surfaces.
It’s hard to separate the effects of masks from that of hand sanitizer, vaccinations, or other measures taken.
Nurses working in the ICU during the beginning of the pandemic would use the same mask for an entire week without losing efficacy. If the masks didn't work, we would have seen a huge number of them infected in the NYC hospitals but that didn't happen. Most viruses don't survive very long on surfaces.
ICU nurses wear N95 masks that are fitted and tested (a bad tasting/smelling aerosol is used). It is completely sealed around the face. This is how my SIL did COVID ICU for 1.5 years every week without contracting it. Not the same as the one size fits all n95 people loosely place on their faces.
Nurses in ICU are constantly sanitizing their hands, use gloves and are trained about the dangers of constantly touching your face.
> Most viruses don't survive very long on surfaces.
Virus can last for days on glass, metals and other non porous surfaces.
> Most viruses don't survive very long on surfaces.
Virus can last for days on glass, metals and other non porous surfaces.
The person "pushing" this is apparently Margery Smelkinson who according to bio on the Atlantic is an infectious-disease scientist whose research has focused on influenza and SARS-CoV-2, further research indicates that she is a staff scientist at The National Institutes of Health. So you know, just another one of those run of the mill nut jobs out there. Although she did at least manage to string together a few paragraphs laying out her case and citing sources as compared to you single sentence rebuttable.
If we have a vaccines, why do we need masks? Do vaccines not work or something?
Context matters. In this case it is in the context of spending multiple hours in close proximity with a virus as contagious as Omicron.
The case against masks is quite trivial and generalizable across most industries.
Today, a teacher now has two realistic options:
a) self-isolate indefinitely, either teaching remotely or quitting their job
b) contract coronavirus at some point
Given that, masks are an irrelevance. A teacher who is clinically vulnerable and unwilling to roll the dice is left only with the option to quit their job, regardless of whether masks are used, or windows are left open, or whatever else.
Coronavirus is too contagious for any sort of avoidance strategy to actually work. It's not like, say, cooking chicken, in which you can basically solve food poisoning.
Today, a teacher now has two realistic options:
a) self-isolate indefinitely, either teaching remotely or quitting their job
b) contract coronavirus at some point
Given that, masks are an irrelevance. A teacher who is clinically vulnerable and unwilling to roll the dice is left only with the option to quit their job, regardless of whether masks are used, or windows are left open, or whatever else.
Coronavirus is too contagious for any sort of avoidance strategy to actually work. It's not like, say, cooking chicken, in which you can basically solve food poisoning.
The point of masking and being cautious at this point is not to avoid ever catching COVID, because it seems certain now that everyone will catch it at some point. The point is to be the last person to catch it when hospitals are at normal capacity and everything else is back to normal, just in case you happen to have a very poor reaction to it.
It also just sounds kind of miserable. I also avoid catching the flu as much as possible. And if I ever go back to commuting by train, I’ll probably wear masks on the train too. I used to get colds all the time just from riding a completely packed train with sick people coughing and sneezing all over.
It also just sounds kind of miserable. I also avoid catching the flu as much as possible. And if I ever go back to commuting by train, I’ll probably wear masks on the train too. I used to get colds all the time just from riding a completely packed train with sick people coughing and sneezing all over.
Sterilizing your environment might be actually counterproductive for your immune system. A better strategy is eat more healthy and do moderate exercises, especially during flu season.
Eventually you will come in to contact with a virus, unless you plan to remove all contact with people and animals.
Eventually you will come in to contact with a virus, unless you plan to remove all contact with people and animals.
This is unlikely to be true for respiratory viruses. Compared to an ancestral environment, we have:
* Much less contact with bacteria, dirt, allergens, due to sterilization
* Much more contact with respiratory viruses, due to enclosed spaces and modern energy efficiency standards
The whole overactive immune system/hygiene hypothesis is much more likely linked to lack of exposure to the first group of pathogens and substances.
* Much less contact with bacteria, dirt, allergens, due to sterilization
* Much more contact with respiratory viruses, due to enclosed spaces and modern energy efficiency standards
The whole overactive immune system/hygiene hypothesis is much more likely linked to lack of exposure to the first group of pathogens and substances.
But that's the trick; I can temporarily remove all contact with people and animals, while there's an active deadly virus killing astronomically large numbers of people in my country.
Will I need to be like this forever? No. Can I be like this for another year or so? Yes. It's highly unpleasant, but I (and some others like me) can actually isolate to the degree you jokingly suggest.
And why wouldn't I? Because of some primitive need for physical social interaction? Because of my weak will, my inability to place the needs of others before the totally optional needs of my own?
It just seems like anyone who can isolate and doesn't should have a hard time looking themselves in the mirror. It's obviously a different story for those who can't (most people, really).
Will I need to be like this forever? No. Can I be like this for another year or so? Yes. It's highly unpleasant, but I (and some others like me) can actually isolate to the degree you jokingly suggest.
And why wouldn't I? Because of some primitive need for physical social interaction? Because of my weak will, my inability to place the needs of others before the totally optional needs of my own?
It just seems like anyone who can isolate and doesn't should have a hard time looking themselves in the mirror. It's obviously a different story for those who can't (most people, really).
Humans aren't robots. There's nothing primitive or optional about the need for physical social interaction. The people who disagree with you aren't wrong, they simply have different subjective priorities and values.
There absolutely is something optional about the need (as in food, water) for physical social interaction, and the people who disagree with me are, factually, incorrect, know they're incorrect, and are acting selfishly at the cost of human lives.
Is it entirely pleasant? No. Is it temporary? Yes. You will survive without physically being around your buddies for a few years while a global fucking pandemic is resolved...
Is it entirely pleasant? No. Is it temporary? Yes. You will survive without physically being around your buddies for a few years while a global fucking pandemic is resolved...
That is one way of looking at it, the other is why force yourself to suffer if neither you nor anyone around you is at threat from the virus.
My threat model is different, everyone around me is healthy and young--with I myself being the only one with a chronic condition leaving me more vulnerable to Covid but still no that much--locking myself would be more unhealthy.
I don't see it as selfish, I'm not forcing anyone who is at risk to take the risks I am taking. They can stay at home for as long as they want, it is their life after all.
My threat model is different, everyone around me is healthy and young--with I myself being the only one with a chronic condition leaving me more vulnerable to Covid but still no that much--locking myself would be more unhealthy.
I don't see it as selfish, I'm not forcing anyone who is at risk to take the risks I am taking. They can stay at home for as long as they want, it is their life after all.
There is a long religious tradition of suffering for the sake of faith in order to signal one's virtue or gain favor with a deity. While some pandemic control measures such as vaccination and mitigating co-morbid conditions are well supported by evidence based medicine, others have become kind of a weird secular religion largely detached from science.
I think some people just want to feel like they're in control. Surely if I dance in a circle while beating a drum the rains will come. Surely if I wear the sacred garment and perform the proper cleansing rituals the virus will see my piety and spare my life.
I think some people just want to feel like they're in control. Surely if I dance in a circle while beating a drum the rains will come. Surely if I wear the sacred garment and perform the proper cleansing rituals the virus will see my piety and spare my life.
Who's talking about sterilizing their environment? Reply to wrong comment?
Of course I'll get sick, I've had the cold a few times this year already. That doesn't mean I try to get sick. Don't you wash your hands?
Wearing a mask on a crowded train with people sneezing and coughing seems pretty rational to me. I don't like catching a cold and will take reasonable measures to avoid it. Wearing a mask for an hour is hardly a big deal.
Of course I'll get sick, I've had the cold a few times this year already. That doesn't mean I try to get sick. Don't you wash your hands?
Wearing a mask on a crowded train with people sneezing and coughing seems pretty rational to me. I don't like catching a cold and will take reasonable measures to avoid it. Wearing a mask for an hour is hardly a big deal.
In this post-vaccine world we now live in, is slowing the spread of Covid really the absolute most important thing we all need to focus on?
Shouldn’t we move on at this point? What is the end goal here? Why are fully vaccinated adults continuing to freak out about Covid?
Shouldn’t we move on at this point? What is the end goal here? Why are fully vaccinated adults continuing to freak out about Covid?
Once again: people are dying, right now, because they can't get access to health care, because hospitals in some places are overflowing with mostly unvaccinated people with COVID. This seems like a fairly location-specific issue, so I would expect that different places could do different things at different times.
We can and are focusing on other things, but hospital capacity is a good one to work on keeping down. Once that's down, I guess we see where we are and probably lift some restrictions.
We can and are focusing on other things, but hospital capacity is a good one to work on keeping down. Once that's down, I guess we see where we are and probably lift some restrictions.
Where are people dying because they cannot get access to healthcare?
My large city in Texas is now down to 35 ICU beds across the entire city. That's how.
A friend's father-in-law had to drive 4hrs away to find a hospital with capacity for his cardiac surgery. That's how.
A friend's father-in-law had to drive 4hrs away to find a hospital with capacity for his cardiac surgery. That's how.
And why is that the fault of the general public? These hospitals had 2 years to figure this out.
Why would it be the fault of hospitals? They have no incentive to construct more ICUs. A large percentage of covid patients entering the ICU for ventilation will die, and you can't collect on a dead patient. ICUs are a money hole -- they require specialized equipment, isolation construction, experienced medical team, etc. If a hospital is motivated by profit, they would construct as few ICUs as legally possible.
It’s not my problem to fix hospitals. I shouldn’t be forced to wear some worthless mask because my lousy government can’t find a way to staff some kind of emergency Covid hospital. I only pissed away two years of my life waiting for them to do so… Time is up. Not my problem.
Masks aren't useless, which is pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about the physics of an airborne pathogen for a few minutes.
Research demonstrates the same thing.
Why would anyone spend billions and billions on field hospitals when there's an easily available vaccine that prevents all of this? No one expected the uptake to be so bad. I mean even T**p is telling people to get their boosters.
Research demonstrates the same thing.
Why would anyone spend billions and billions on field hospitals when there's an easily available vaccine that prevents all of this? No one expected the uptake to be so bad. I mean even T**p is telling people to get their boosters.
https://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/news/idaho-activates-cris... - comes to mind. Here where I live in Oregon, during the Delta surge, people were waiting on "elective" surgeries for things like cancer treatment, and the hospital system was pretty clear that some ended up dying because the hospital was overloaded.
I'm not freaking out. I'm just trying to avoid getting myself and my family sick. Who likes being sick? I'm not living in some underground bunker, just taking basic precautions. It's the same reason I buckle my seatbelt: huge potential upside with negligible downside. So worst case scenario, I accidentally wore a mask I didn't need to wear. Oh no.
I have no reason to believe COIVD would be bad for me. But what if it is? Then I'd rather get sick when things have calmed down and hospitals are at normal capacity.
I have no reason to believe COIVD would be bad for me. But what if it is? Then I'd rather get sick when things have calmed down and hospitals are at normal capacity.
> The point of masking and being cautious at this point is not to avoid ever catching COVID, because it seems certain now that everyone will catch it at some point. The point is to be the last person to catch it
Great justification for making 5 year-olds wear masks for 6+ hours 5 days a week in school. This makes even more sense for the 5 year old kids that have ESL or Speech Pathology needs.
Great justification for making 5 year-olds wear masks for 6+ hours 5 days a week in school. This makes even more sense for the 5 year old kids that have ESL or Speech Pathology needs.
[deleted]
>The point is to be the last person to catch it when hospitals are at normal capacity and everything else is back to normal, just in case you happen to have a very poor reaction to it.
By that reasoning you would only wear masks when rates are very high. But a lot of schools require it when case rates are very low.
By that reasoning you would only wear masks when rates are very high. But a lot of schools require it when case rates are very low.
I mix in society, wear masks everywhere, and have yet to contract coronavirus.
You have yet to get coronavirus. There’s a pretty good chance that you will before the year is out. Omicron is extremely infectious even among the fully vaccinated. For example, among my friends group all of us are fully vaccinated and boosted, and so far 60% have gotten omicron despite wearing masks in public, washing hands frequently, etc. I expect further mutations in the future will probably happen and similarly reduce vaccine effectiveness in preventing infection.
Depending on what test people are getting, there may be a good portion of the population who have gotten Omicron but don't know it if they had very mild symptoms.
Plenty of us have off days, or may feel a little sick but don't assume it is Covid because of expecting extreme reactions even when it absolutely could be due to its symptoms overlapping others and many people being affected very little or even being asymptomatic.
Plenty of us have off days, or may feel a little sick but don't assume it is Covid because of expecting extreme reactions even when it absolutely could be due to its symptoms overlapping others and many people being affected very little or even being asymptomatic.
How do you know that? Unless you've been taking PCR tests at least weekly, it's more likely that you've had at least one asymptomatic infection.
You will get COVID at some point, and it won't be because you were careful, you forgot to wear a mask, or you encountered unvaccinated/unmasked people. It will be because this virus is endemic and at some point everyone will get it.
The idea that somehow getting or not getting COVID is due to level of diligence is absurd on its face.
The idea that somehow getting or not getting COVID is due to level of diligence is absurd on its face.
I've been exposed to covid-positive people multiple times in my home (each time they found out they were positive after), no masking involved.
I get tested after each exposure and have yet to get it either.
Wearing masks and not catching covid is like wearing a bandana and not getting into a bike accident. It is an extremely contagious aerosolized virus that cloth masks simply aren't sufficient to stop.
Meanwhile, the effects of perpetual masking are obvious- harmful to deaf people, harmful to the development of speech and socialization in children, asthmatics and more.
I get tested after each exposure and have yet to get it either.
Wearing masks and not catching covid is like wearing a bandana and not getting into a bike accident. It is an extremely contagious aerosolized virus that cloth masks simply aren't sufficient to stop.
Meanwhile, the effects of perpetual masking are obvious- harmful to deaf people, harmful to the development of speech and socialization in children, asthmatics and more.
> Meanwhile, the effects of perpetual masking are obvious- harmful to deaf people, harmful to the development of speech and socialization in children, asthmatics and more.
There's a ton more. I now have tons of facial scars due to continuous breakouts over the past two years due to masks (and, yes, I've spent about $2k trying all sorts of silk and other supposedly "comfortable" masks).
Another thing that hasn't been talked about is cartilage deformities in young children due to the pressure of masks on developing features. My sister is a plastic surgeon and she has talked about this quite a bit, but it hasn't gotten much media attention. The pressure caused by elastic loops around the ear is quite harmful to the correct development of the ear by permanently modifying the cartilage of the concha in growing children[0].
She also mentioned that there may be affects on the shape of the nose if a mask is worn tight enough. A "celestial" nose is a nose shape with an upturned tip, stereotypically considered a sign of attractiveness in many cultures and a common feature of celebrities. It's the most requested shape for those interested in rhinoplasties.
Forcing young children to wear tight masks is quite literally deforming them.
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7302120
There's a ton more. I now have tons of facial scars due to continuous breakouts over the past two years due to masks (and, yes, I've spent about $2k trying all sorts of silk and other supposedly "comfortable" masks).
Another thing that hasn't been talked about is cartilage deformities in young children due to the pressure of masks on developing features. My sister is a plastic surgeon and she has talked about this quite a bit, but it hasn't gotten much media attention. The pressure caused by elastic loops around the ear is quite harmful to the correct development of the ear by permanently modifying the cartilage of the concha in growing children[0].
She also mentioned that there may be affects on the shape of the nose if a mask is worn tight enough. A "celestial" nose is a nose shape with an upturned tip, stereotypically considered a sign of attractiveness in many cultures and a common feature of celebrities. It's the most requested shape for those interested in rhinoplasties.
Forcing young children to wear tight masks is quite literally deforming them.
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7302120
My son wears a mask to kindergarten and I’ve been impressed by just how much it doesn’t seem to bother him or really matter at all. That link about deforming ears is interesting! It’s funny actually, my family tends to have stuck out “Obama ears” as well call them. Maybe this will create more “ear peers” with the potential to actually increase their hearing capabilities?
Funnily enough, I've seen many people riding bikes in the street with no helmet, but wearing a cloth mask.
I've found myself leaving them on on the walk back to the car a whole lot more now that it's Winter. Zero extra safety, but it keeps the face warm.
I was already regularly wearing masks in the winter before the pandemic for the same reason, it kept my face nice and warm. Of course it was cloth masks, not N95. But I did wear N95 when the air quality was especially bad.
We're three months in to Omicron and only two years in, your situation right now is irrelevant.
The only way you're getting away with this is either by having some innate immunity, or by simply not noticing you've had it.
I wouldn't have realised if not for a friend saying "get a test", my only symptom was a purple line on a bit of paper. I actually felt better than normal because I went out drinking less.
The only way you're getting away with this is either by having some innate immunity, or by simply not noticing you've had it.
I wouldn't have realised if not for a friend saying "get a test", my only symptom was a purple line on a bit of paper. I actually felt better than normal because I went out drinking less.
> I mix in society, wear masks everywhere, and have yet to contract coronavirus.
Or you did and were asymptomatic. Something on the order of 70% of cases are largely asymptomatic IIRC. Unless you're claiming you got a PCR test every 21 days since the beginning of the pandemic?
Or you did and were asymptomatic. Something on the order of 70% of cases are largely asymptomatic IIRC. Unless you're claiming you got a PCR test every 21 days since the beginning of the pandemic?
I have not (only a few tests so far) but I'll do you one better. I have a few doctors friends who mix in society, wear masks everywhere, work in covid wards and have yet to contract coronavirus. They have to take an ungodly amount of PCRs.
Point is, a lot of people have been infected so far, but not all people.
Point is, a lot of people have been infected so far, but not all people.
More likely, you've had contact with it but it did not cause any symptoms.
I don't think it is possible to avoid Coronavirus at this point. Unless someone had barricaded themselves in for the past 2 years they are likely to have had contact with the virus at this point.
I don't think it is possible to avoid Coronavirus at this point. Unless someone had barricaded themselves in for the past 2 years they are likely to have had contact with the virus at this point.
[deleted]
c) get lucky
Statistically speaking, isn't that just normal luck? Aren't 80% or so of infections mild to symptom free?
My kids school district did not require masks but highly recommended them. I figured I would send the kids to school with masks as I did not want to be disrespectful to their teachers who I assumed would be masked out of concern with being around so many children all day. None of their teachers wore masks, so that was the end of that. Essentially 15% of people including teachers and students wear masks. None of the adults (school staff) in their on campus after school program are masked either.
Do you know what the positivity rate is of your school population?
Our school requires masks at all times on campus, inside or outside, vaccinated or not (we're in California). However, prior to omicron we had 0 cases (school has about 500 people at it teachers+staff+kids). With Omicron we've only had 37 cases.
Our school requires masks at all times on campus, inside or outside, vaccinated or not (we're in California). However, prior to omicron we had 0 cases (school has about 500 people at it teachers+staff+kids). With Omicron we've only had 37 cases.
Official numbers say we have 10 active cases and 35 total for the year in my kids elementary school which has ~750 people on campus. My kid is one of those positive cases so he is quarantined for 10 days. Keeping my youngest home as well just to be sure he does not infect anyone, just assuming he is positive as well but no symptoms. They go to the same school. Prior to omicron I think they only had 5 positive cases at the school, no masks during delta either. At this point just assumed that if no one else is masking, there is no point and the kids are not going to keep them on if the teachers don't make them or wear them themselves. Assuming wife and I have it currently as well as we are not isolating from our kid but no symptoms. Wife and I are just working from home to avoid infecting anyone at work.
[deleted]
I still wear my mask to slow the transmission of covid so that less vulnerable people die, and so that our hospitals can stop being overrun.
I also personally think of this as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/health/coronavirus-mask-p...
Masking may reduce the severity of your covid infection, which would be pretty sweet.
So it's not an all or nothing.
I also personally think of this as well: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/health/coronavirus-mask-p...
Masking may reduce the severity of your covid infection, which would be pretty sweet.
So it's not an all or nothing.
We are all getting coronavirus
C) Take a COVID therapeutic and get well.
If only the powers that be would take that approach.
If only the powers that be would take that approach.
There is inconclusive evidence that children are vectors of transmission to teachers. At the very least it is the same as any public gathering. So your "options" would apply to every aspect of life, (Grocery store, restaurant, etc.)
Yes, hence my use of the term "generalizable".
>generalizable across most industries.
I was trying to point out that it is not just industries, its literally life. This is anecdotal, but many of the teachers I personally know are anti-in person learning, but still willing to eat out a restaurant, which makes me question their true motives for remote learning.
I was trying to point out that it is not just industries, its literally life. This is anecdotal, but many of the teachers I personally know are anti-in person learning, but still willing to eat out a restaurant, which makes me question their true motives for remote learning.
Ah, yes, I agree.
My eyes tend to glaze over whenever I hear "because covid" now, it's devoid of meaning and simply means "I don't want to" most of the time.
My eyes tend to glaze over whenever I hear "because covid" now, it's devoid of meaning and simply means "I don't want to" most of the time.
There is no valid scientific or medical basis to mandate masks at school. It's pure scientism and politics. For anyone who believes that mask mandates should continue please take the time to educate yourself by listening to this panel discussion by a group of leading physicians. UCSF professor and infectious disease expert Dr. Monica Gandhi explains the current science very clearly.
https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/
https://profiles.ucsf.edu/monica.gandhi
Most European countries don't mandate masks for schoolchildren.
https://peterattiamd.com/covid-part2/
https://profiles.ucsf.edu/monica.gandhi
Most European countries don't mandate masks for schoolchildren.
What? Do masks reduce infection rates? If yes, mandates work. If no, mandates don’t. Spoiler: they do. [0]
This is pants-on-head stupid, and has nothing at all to do with politics. Mandates increase adoption rates of measures that are proven to help, and trying to manipulate the situation to say otherwise is the problem, not the mandate.
Anyone opposing masking in schools at this point is literally choosing to risk killing children for stupid political points, and should be profoundly ashamed of their behavior.
[0] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...
This is pants-on-head stupid, and has nothing at all to do with politics. Mandates increase adoption rates of measures that are proven to help, and trying to manipulate the situation to say otherwise is the problem, not the mandate.
Anyone opposing masking in schools at this point is literally choosing to risk killing children for stupid political points, and should be profoundly ashamed of their behavior.
[0] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...
If the childhood mortality risk associated with Covid is comparable to the flu (which seems to be the case) why weren't we masking every child before Covid?
The idea is to reduce the spread of the virus in order to protect everyone from a lack of hospital beds and exhausted medical staff. It's not about protecting the individual children (at least not primarily, because they are so low risk). Whether or not this is still a useful approach probably depends on the locale. It seems like places where the Omicron wave is rapidly ending, having children wear masks is entirely pointless.
>The idea is to reduce the spread of the virus in order to protect everyone from a lack of hospital beds and exhausted medical staff.
People keep saying this, but if hospital capacity was actually the "real" bottleneck in treating covid then why haven't we seen massive campaigns to expand that capacity? "Do this thing that is marginally beneficial for adults and potentially actively harmful long term for children to possibly impact hospital capacity elsewhere" is not something that makes sense to me. If this was just another bottleneck in some system and not related to the pandemic you'd address the real problem, right?
People keep saying this, but if hospital capacity was actually the "real" bottleneck in treating covid then why haven't we seen massive campaigns to expand that capacity? "Do this thing that is marginally beneficial for adults and potentially actively harmful long term for children to possibly impact hospital capacity elsewhere" is not something that makes sense to me. If this was just another bottleneck in some system and not related to the pandemic you'd address the real problem, right?
> People keep saying this, but if hospital capacity was actually the "real" bottleneck in treating covid then why haven't we seen massive campaigns to expand that capacity?
You mean like calling in the national guard to help alleviate the problem or busing in nurses from all over the country, or creating temporary wards, or fighting to get more ventilators and medications? All of those things and more have been happening.
> "Do this thing that is marginally beneficial for adults and potentially actively harmful long term for children
Not only are you minimizing the benefits here, but you're prioritizing potential outcomes over proven ones. That is not something that makes sense to me. I want to make my choices based on our best understanding of the evidence we have right now, not based on things that may or may not ever happen in the future.
Right now, getting vaccinated and wearing a mask when community spread is high in your area are proven to do a lot of good to help prevent very real harms. That's enough for me.
You mean like calling in the national guard to help alleviate the problem or busing in nurses from all over the country, or creating temporary wards, or fighting to get more ventilators and medications? All of those things and more have been happening.
> "Do this thing that is marginally beneficial for adults and potentially actively harmful long term for children
Not only are you minimizing the benefits here, but you're prioritizing potential outcomes over proven ones. That is not something that makes sense to me. I want to make my choices based on our best understanding of the evidence we have right now, not based on things that may or may not ever happen in the future.
Right now, getting vaccinated and wearing a mask when community spread is high in your area are proven to do a lot of good to help prevent very real harms. That's enough for me.
Nurses in Boston have been striking for almost a year. I've seen one instance of calling in the national guard recently, and ventilators are no longer the preferred treatment protocol in every case. I haven't seen a single effort to literally build more hospital wings with ICU beds. Have you?
>Not only are you minimizing the benefits here
CDC's own studies did this, not me.
>but you're prioritizing potential outcomes over proven ones.
Yes exactly. We know that kids have an infinitesimally small risk from covid, we know that teachers have a similar risk profile if they're vaccinated. The "potential" outcomes are catastrophic to development, and we won't know for years what detrimental effects forcing small children to wear masks all the time will have.
Sorry, still doesn't make sense to me. We have one set of known knowns, and one of unknown-ish unknowns, and we're still doing this because people (not you, necessarily) seem to think the goal is to "never get covid".
>Not only are you minimizing the benefits here
CDC's own studies did this, not me.
>but you're prioritizing potential outcomes over proven ones.
Yes exactly. We know that kids have an infinitesimally small risk from covid, we know that teachers have a similar risk profile if they're vaccinated. The "potential" outcomes are catastrophic to development, and we won't know for years what detrimental effects forcing small children to wear masks all the time will have.
Sorry, still doesn't make sense to me. We have one set of known knowns, and one of unknown-ish unknowns, and we're still doing this because people (not you, necessarily) seem to think the goal is to "never get covid".
> Nurses in Boston have been striking for almost a year
I'm surprised more haven't been. Nurses are being outright abused, but that doesn't change the fact that nurses are being asked to travel great distances to help with staffing issues. The whole situation in nursing is a huge mess right now for a lot of reasons.
> I've seen one instance of calling in the national guard recently
you should be paying more attention to the news, or possibility looking critically at where you're getting your news from since it's not serving you very well. I don't know which one you heard about but your list should include Washington, Georgia, Ohio, Oregon, Maine, New York, and New Hampshire. New Mexico has also called in the national guard because of omicron, but they want troops acting as substitute teachers.
> and ventilators are no longer the preferred treatment protocol in every case
That doesn't mean they aren't being used by covid patients or that hospitals aren't still struggling with a shortage of them. see here for example: https://www.kansascity.com/news/coronavirus/article257168037...
> I haven't seen a single effort to literally build more hospital wings with ICU beds. Have you?
Yes I have. Most hospitals don't want to add entire new wings full of beds because covid isn't going to be like this forever, but in just the last few months here are some examples of hospitals doing wherever they can to add capacity: https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-nursing-homes-covid-...
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2775
https://www.wpr.org/mayo-clinic-puts-hospital-beds-ambulance...
https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article257323822.htm...
This is on top of all the beds and overflow centers hospitals have been adding over the last two years. It's not that every hospital is waiting until they have people dying outside their doors to start adding beds either. One of the best US hospitals for heart surgeries is just outside of Chicago and they've renovated parts of their old partially demolished hospital building to keep on standby so they can handle covid cases in case they get overwhelmed like so many others have. It's a pretty smart way to gain some extra ICU space while keeping costs down.
Your facts are just very wrong or very incomplete. I recommend looking into this stuff a bit more using new sources.
I'm surprised more haven't been. Nurses are being outright abused, but that doesn't change the fact that nurses are being asked to travel great distances to help with staffing issues. The whole situation in nursing is a huge mess right now for a lot of reasons.
> I've seen one instance of calling in the national guard recently
you should be paying more attention to the news, or possibility looking critically at where you're getting your news from since it's not serving you very well. I don't know which one you heard about but your list should include Washington, Georgia, Ohio, Oregon, Maine, New York, and New Hampshire. New Mexico has also called in the national guard because of omicron, but they want troops acting as substitute teachers.
> and ventilators are no longer the preferred treatment protocol in every case
That doesn't mean they aren't being used by covid patients or that hospitals aren't still struggling with a shortage of them. see here for example: https://www.kansascity.com/news/coronavirus/article257168037...
> I haven't seen a single effort to literally build more hospital wings with ICU beds. Have you?
Yes I have. Most hospitals don't want to add entire new wings full of beds because covid isn't going to be like this forever, but in just the last few months here are some examples of hospitals doing wherever they can to add capacity: https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-nursing-homes-covid-...
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2775
https://www.wpr.org/mayo-clinic-puts-hospital-beds-ambulance...
https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article257323822.htm...
This is on top of all the beds and overflow centers hospitals have been adding over the last two years. It's not that every hospital is waiting until they have people dying outside their doors to start adding beds either. One of the best US hospitals for heart surgeries is just outside of Chicago and they've renovated parts of their old partially demolished hospital building to keep on standby so they can handle covid cases in case they get overwhelmed like so many others have. It's a pretty smart way to gain some extra ICU space while keeping costs down.
Your facts are just very wrong or very incomplete. I recommend looking into this stuff a bit more using new sources.
"why haven't we seen massive campaigns to expand that capacity?"
Maybe we should, but we are talking about an astounding cost, with ongoing upkeep, for once-every-hundred-year events. And that's just for new facilities - we already have nursing shortages.
Instead, we (and just about every other country) have used mitigation efforts to reduce the transmission rate when hospital capacity is threatened. It's a lot cheaper and can be done quickly, unlike building new ICU capacity and training new doctors and nurses (many of whom would be out of the job once the pandemic is over).
Maybe we should, but we are talking about an astounding cost, with ongoing upkeep, for once-every-hundred-year events. And that's just for new facilities - we already have nursing shortages.
Instead, we (and just about every other country) have used mitigation efforts to reduce the transmission rate when hospital capacity is threatened. It's a lot cheaper and can be done quickly, unlike building new ICU capacity and training new doctors and nurses (many of whom would be out of the job once the pandemic is over).
I’m not following your point.
You say this is expensive and hard, but so what? Isn’t that what you do when a pandemic occurs?
You also point out we have a nursing shortage currently (we did before the pandemic as well). Isn’t that a reason why we should do this? Kill two birds with one stone … solve the prior nursing shortage with a training and hiring blitz.
You say this is expensive and hard, but so what? Isn’t that what you do when a pandemic occurs?
You also point out we have a nursing shortage currently (we did before the pandemic as well). Isn’t that a reason why we should do this? Kill two birds with one stone … solve the prior nursing shortage with a training and hiring blitz.
Expanding hospitals, building new hospitals and training scores of new highly-skilled staff all takes many years. In addition to being extraordinarily expensive.
And then what? The pandemic ends and we have incredibly expensive facilities sitting empty (but still incurring maintenance costs forever) and a surplus of highly-trained staff who cannot find jobs because 98% of the time, we simply don't need any more capacity than we had in 2019.
And then what? The pandemic ends and we have incredibly expensive facilities sitting empty (but still incurring maintenance costs forever) and a surplus of highly-trained staff who cannot find jobs because 98% of the time, we simply don't need any more capacity than we had in 2019.
Training staff does take time but new hospitals can be built quickly. The Chinese built an entire new hospital in 10 days. It probably isn't as good as a modern US hospital, but it's better than nothing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-s-coronavirus-hospi...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-s-coronavirus-hospi...
The mitigation efforts have cost trillions of dollars in relief spending to make up for the economic damage they caused. Could we not have expanded capacity with one or two of the trillions we spent?
Makes you kinda wonder what kind of emergency this is? I mean they tried setting up fully staffed field hospitals in the beginning but they were closed—most without seeing a single patient.
Whatever the hell society is doing right now, it ain’t to protect hospital capacity. If hospitals were truly falling apart we’d have done something to fix them.
Whatever the hell society is doing right now, it ain’t to protect hospital capacity. If hospitals were truly falling apart we’d have done something to fix them.
Because the Covid mortality risk for children is already with masks, compared to without masks for the flu.
Also, there are considerations other than specifically a child's death that are relevant here, like who that child can spread it to and what negative longterm effects surviving COVID-19 carry, neither of which are as pronounced or unknown as with the flu.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
Also, there are considerations other than specifically a child's death that are relevant here, like who that child can spread it to and what negative longterm effects surviving COVID-19 carry, neither of which are as pronounced or unknown as with the flu.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
According to the CDC the COVID-19 infection fatality rate for children is 0.002%.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
Children can spread the virus to adults, but adults who want to be vaccinated have been for months now. And since everyone will be exposed anyway it hardly matters who does the exposing.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
Children can spread the virus to adults, but adults who want to be vaccinated have been for months now. And since everyone will be exposed anyway it hardly matters who does the exposing.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
How many children are there in the US? I'll let you pick the number you'd like to multiply by 0.00002, to get the number of children you're okay with killing.
It's easy to act morally superior and make cheap emotional arguments for when you're not the one who has to make hard decisions. All lives have value, but no life has infinite value. You can't seriously expect the majority to endure perpetual mandates and restrictions just to provide some limited, temporary protection to a small minority who are vulnerable due to risk factors like obesity.
https://reason.com/2022/01/03/cdc-covid-19-children-hospital...
And in the long run it won't make any difference anyway. Everyone will be exposed regardless of whether or not schoolchildren are subjected to mask mandates. So what's the point of continuing the charade?
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
https://reason.com/2022/01/03/cdc-covid-19-children-hospital...
And in the long run it won't make any difference anyway. Everyone will be exposed regardless of whether or not schoolchildren are subjected to mask mandates. So what's the point of continuing the charade?
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
I absolutely can expect the majority to endure a minor inconvenience, if that minority they're protecting is a thousand innocent children in a given year (you didn't pick a number, so I will, 78 million children).
And the point is to lower the curve, not avoid exposure.
But, again, you know all of this, you just don't care. Shameful.
And the point is to lower the curve, not avoid exposure.
But, again, you know all of this, you just don't care. Shameful.
Children actually have around a ten times higher chance of drowning than dying of COVID, so should we close all the pools and lakes? No we don't do that because we realize as humans that life is not without risk, in fact risk is what makes life worth living. I have children and worry every day something bad might happen to them but I let them take risk and live life because I know that's the only way that they will grow and be happy.
We do close all the pools and lakes to children who can't swim, or who swim unsupervised. We literally do not let children swim freely in random bodies of water. It's a huge deal; we hire lifeguards, teach them methods of operating safely in bodies of water, there's all kinds of equipment a child can wear while in the water to prevent drowning...
This isn't a great analogy for you, because it pretty thoroughly proves my point that masking is a very reasonable thing to do, compared to the litany of structure we put around children swimming in pools.
I was a lifeguard at a summer camp for christsake, what a terrible analogy. I literally worked to implement the many systems we use to keep kids safe in bodies of water.
This isn't a great analogy for you, because it pretty thoroughly proves my point that masking is a very reasonable thing to do, compared to the litany of structure we put around children swimming in pools.
I was a lifeguard at a summer camp for christsake, what a terrible analogy. I literally worked to implement the many systems we use to keep kids safe in bodies of water.
This is false. I can confirm there are thousands of “not-closed” lakes in America.
I literally live on a lake and kids swim in it unsupervised all the time. I can't but feel you are just trolling at this point.
> minor inconvenience
The impacts on their development shown in the article and rest of the comments are much more than a minor inconvenience
The impacts on their development shown in the article and rest of the comments are much more than a minor inconvenience
The impacts are a price worth paying.
That is not for you to decide. Maybe you can decide that for your own children but not mine.
I absolutely can decide that for your own children, and I can decide that for you, given enough votes.
You have no special control over your children that transcends society, especially if you mean them harm.
You have no special control over your children that transcends society, especially if you mean them harm.
Delaying inevitable infections doesn't seem worth saddling an entire generation with developmental delays and potential ear deformities requiring surgery.
It is, however, and it is the advice of every reputable institution in the US.
> You can't seriously expect the majority to endure perpetual mandates and restrictions just to provide some limited, temporary protection to a small minority who are vulnerable due to risk factors like obesity.
Who is saying the mandates and restrictions are perpetual?
Who is saying the mandates and restrictions are perpetual?
> Because the Covid mortality risk for children is already with masks, compared to without masks for the flu
This is false, which we know because we can measure the fatality rates for children in unmasked locales, and they do not differ from those in masked locales.
This is false, which we know because we can measure the fatality rates for children in unmasked locales, and they do not differ from those in masked locales.
Too many confounding variables, those measurements are useless.
okay, then please by all means, cite a source showing definitively that mask themselves reduce the likelihood of a children dying from covid.
I already have, all over this thread.
The mortality of a virus is not affected by whether you were wearing a mask when you caught it.
[deleted]
Exec summary: N95s work. Others, not so much, and less than we’ve been claiming up until now.
The chance of a child dying from coronavirus is infinitesimal, the response should be proportional.
It's only infinitesimal due to all of the precautions being taken. Remove those precautions, and more children will die.
Also pretty great, you're cool with a couple dozen kids dying because otherwise some kids might be mildly inconvenienced by wearing a mask.
The discomfort is infinitesimal, the response should be proportional.
Also pretty great, you're cool with a couple dozen kids dying because otherwise some kids might be mildly inconvenienced by wearing a mask.
The discomfort is infinitesimal, the response should be proportional.
I've been pro-masking-in-schools for other reasons (including the practical reality that many schools would have had to shut down without it, since many teachers would have just quit—I know a lot of teachers, and whether you think it's right or wrong, that was going to happen, last school year especially, if precautions like masking, distancing, and long quarantine periods hadn't been enforced) but the risk specifically to kids under ~12 has been low enough not to trigger my "this is significantly-enough riskier than the average time a kid spends being driven around in a car in a given year, that I should worry about it" alarm pretty much throughout the pandemic. I looked into it when the first semi-reliable mortality numbers started to come in (I have some young kids, so of course I did) and it seemed well below nearly anyone's freak-out threshold, except for kids with other risk factors, some of whom probably shouldn't have been in school at all for any of this.
Right, but you aren't really someone who should have much of a say over this, and neither are any parents. The people most knowledgable about this topic are (though not universally) arriving at the conclusion that children should continue to wear masks.
Besides, wearing a mask is not exactly a heavy burden to bear. Yes, it's annoying, but the consequences of not doing so are also annoying, and in more than zero cases deadly.
It's such a low burden, that it's almost silly to think about not doing it, given the current situation.
Honestly, it just seems like parents are taking out their frustrations about the situation on other people who are also stuck in this situation. It's absolutely bananas, how acrimonious this has gotten, all because political actors saw a way to divide the country in a way that benefitted them.
Besides, wearing a mask is not exactly a heavy burden to bear. Yes, it's annoying, but the consequences of not doing so are also annoying, and in more than zero cases deadly.
It's such a low burden, that it's almost silly to think about not doing it, given the current situation.
Honestly, it just seems like parents are taking out their frustrations about the situation on other people who are also stuck in this situation. It's absolutely bananas, how acrimonious this has gotten, all because political actors saw a way to divide the country in a way that benefitted them.
> Besides, wearing a mask is not exactly a heavy burden to bear. Yes, it's annoying, but the consequences of not doing so are also annoying, and in more than zero cases deadly.
Sure, but tons of things are deadly in a non-zero number of cases, which most people give no thought to. Micromorts are everywhere.
I've been baffled at the strong anti-mask reaction and the way so many people've wanted to toss mask mandates and other measures out the second things even slightly improve, but if current trends continue (Omicron burning out, the virus generally getting less-bad, vaccinations continuing to be administered) I'll have (weakly, without really caring that much) joined team-no-mask-mandates-in-schools by next school year. My kids have been champs at wearing them but it's clear they're a (minor) problem in school, from the muffling effect if nothing else, and that compliance and good mask-wearing generally is pretty shit among younger kids anyway. I think we're probably past the cost/reward tipping point already, but again, I've tended to favor sticking with safety measures until we're extra sure, if only to avoid policy change whiplash.
OTOH I kind of love masks and hope it remains non-weird to go out in public in one. Two years of no illnesses in our house has been awesome.
Sure, but tons of things are deadly in a non-zero number of cases, which most people give no thought to. Micromorts are everywhere.
I've been baffled at the strong anti-mask reaction and the way so many people've wanted to toss mask mandates and other measures out the second things even slightly improve, but if current trends continue (Omicron burning out, the virus generally getting less-bad, vaccinations continuing to be administered) I'll have (weakly, without really caring that much) joined team-no-mask-mandates-in-schools by next school year. My kids have been champs at wearing them but it's clear they're a (minor) problem in school, from the muffling effect if nothing else, and that compliance and good mask-wearing generally is pretty shit among younger kids anyway. I think we're probably past the cost/reward tipping point already, but again, I've tended to favor sticking with safety measures until we're extra sure, if only to avoid policy change whiplash.
OTOH I kind of love masks and hope it remains non-weird to go out in public in one. Two years of no illnesses in our house has been awesome.
There aren't tons of things you do that actively harm others, and when there are those things, they're regulated and compliance is enforced via legislation.
Wearing/not wearing a mask is not a heavy burden to bear, and by not doing it, you're increasing the net risk of everyone around you, in addition to your own.
That's what makes this different from wearing a helmet 24/7. But you knew that! Why is this the thing we can't do for one another, this small, one thing?!
Wearing/not wearing a mask is not a heavy burden to bear, and by not doing it, you're increasing the net risk of everyone around you, in addition to your own.
That's what makes this different from wearing a helmet 24/7. But you knew that! Why is this the thing we can't do for one another, this small, one thing?!
I'm having trouble figuring out how you're not advocating for never-ending mask mandates, as long as risk reduction is greater than zero (which it would have been even before Covid). That's how these posts read. Is that what you're in favor of?
If I'm saying anything, I'm saying we should do what the collective expert institutions tell us (and stop listening to individuals, regardless of how qualified), and those institutions are generally sticking with the, "keep masking, kids!" message.
I'm not sure how you can read what I've written and not see how the risk is actually substantially higher than 0, and additionally to other people who have less of a choice about their comfort taking on that risk. I think you are fully aware I'm not suggesting we wear masks forever, but I'm curious about why you feel the need to present that strawman as my position. Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you?
I'm not sure how you can read what I've written and not see how the risk is actually substantially higher than 0, and additionally to other people who have less of a choice about their comfort taking on that risk. I think you are fully aware I'm not suggesting we wear masks forever, but I'm curious about why you feel the need to present that strawman as my position. Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you?
>If I'm saying anything, I'm saying we should do what the collective expert institutions tell us (and stop listening to individuals, regardless of how qualified), and those institutions are generally sticking with the, "keep masking, kids!" message.
This just isn't true. Just the other day Sweden decided that they will not be recommending the vax for kids under 11 [1], and the UK has ended their mask mandates all together. The US is part of a select club that is actively ignoring what the data says about how effective these intrusive measures really are. There's other examples from all over the world and their covid outcomes are better that the US, largely because so many in the US were simply unhealthy, out of shape, and fat which weakens your immune system.
Taking your strategy will do much to weaken the general populous' trust in these institutions.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-...
This just isn't true. Just the other day Sweden decided that they will not be recommending the vax for kids under 11 [1], and the UK has ended their mask mandates all together. The US is part of a select club that is actively ignoring what the data says about how effective these intrusive measures really are. There's other examples from all over the world and their covid outcomes are better that the US, largely because so many in the US were simply unhealthy, out of shape, and fat which weakens your immune system.
Taking your strategy will do much to weaken the general populous' trust in these institutions.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-decides-against-...
It is absolutely true:
The CDC does. [0]. So does the Mayo Clinic [1]. So does the Cleveland Clinic [2]. So does Johns Hopkins [3]. So does the American Academy of Pediatrics [4].
And the WHO does suggest many children wear masks. [5]
If you don't trust even one of these institutions over your own judgement, you are failing to participate successfully in society.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-...
[1] https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/benefits-of-ki...
[2] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/-/scassets/files/org/employer...
[3] https://www.hopkinsallchildrens.org/ACH-News/General-News/Ki...
[4] https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...
[5] https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cor...
The CDC does. [0]. So does the Mayo Clinic [1]. So does the Cleveland Clinic [2]. So does Johns Hopkins [3]. So does the American Academy of Pediatrics [4].
And the WHO does suggest many children wear masks. [5]
If you don't trust even one of these institutions over your own judgement, you are failing to participate successfully in society.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-...
[1] https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/benefits-of-ki...
[2] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/-/scassets/files/org/employer...
[3] https://www.hopkinsallchildrens.org/ACH-News/General-News/Ki...
[4] https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...
[5] https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cor...
It's not a straw man, I've been noting that risk to nearly all kids, especially young ones, has always been so low that any amount of effort or expense to reduce it would have been questionable (but I was still pro- various measures, including mask mandates, to protect other people in and connected to schools and students, to reduce community rates of infection, while still letting us go back to in-person school—that was always by far the stronger argument for, specifically, school mask mandates) which is just true unless you've got some figures at hand that look very different from any I've seen, and that at some point—which we are likely at least approaching—the broader risk and the amount of mitigation we gain from school mask mandates drops below the level of being worth any attention at all, baring some drastic change in the current trajectory of the pandemic.
But you keep coming back like that's an unreasonable position. What's left is... what? The conclusion I came to, right?
> Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you?
I'm just trying to understand WTF you're getting at. I don't have a clue what you think I'm trying to do.
But you keep coming back like that's an unreasonable position. What's left is... what? The conclusion I came to, right?
> Is this generally an effective way to communicate for you?
I'm just trying to understand WTF you're getting at. I don't have a clue what you think I'm trying to do.
Why are you ignoring the multiple times I've talked about the effects that aren't directly related to the children? They're carriers too, and that matters, on top of everything else.
And the institutions I trust do not agree with you that we're "rapidly approaching" any such loss of value from masking in schools. That's just straight up wrong.
And the institutions I trust do not agree with you that we're "rapidly approaching" any such loss of value from masking in schools. That's just straight up wrong.
The European experts institutions aren't recommending masks for schoolchildren.
https://www.newsweek.com/cdc-school-mask-guidelines-fuel-cul...
https://www.newsweek.com/cdc-school-mask-guidelines-fuel-cul...
The CDC does. [0]. So does the Mayo Clinic [1]. So does the Cleveland Clinic [2]. So does Johns Hopkins [3]. So does the American Academy of Pediatrics [4].
And the WHO does suggest many children wear masks. [5]
If you don't trust even one of these institutions over your own judgement, you are failing to participate successfully in society.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-...
[1] https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/benefits-of-ki...
[2] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/-/scassets/files/org/employer...
[3] https://www.hopkinsallchildrens.org/ACH-News/General-News/Ki...
[4] https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...
[5] https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cor...
And the WHO does suggest many children wear masks. [5]
If you don't trust even one of these institutions over your own judgement, you are failing to participate successfully in society.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-...
[1] https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/benefits-of-ki...
[2] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/-/scassets/files/org/employer...
[3] https://www.hopkinsallchildrens.org/ACH-News/General-News/Ki...
[4] https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...
[5] https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cor...
> except for kids with other risk factors, some of whom probably shouldn't have been in school at all for any of this
You're likely getting into ADA territory there. Masking during a pandemic to permit at-risk kids to continue to go to school sounds very much like a "reasonable accommodation" of the sort schools are required by law to provide.
You're likely getting into ADA territory there. Masking during a pandemic to permit at-risk kids to continue to go to school sounds very much like a "reasonable accommodation" of the sort schools are required by law to provide.
> You're likely getting into ADA territory there. Masking during a pandemic to permit at-risk kids to continue to go to school sounds very much like a "reasonable accommodation" of the sort schools are required by law to provide.
I agree it is a reasonable accommodation, but also cannot imagine sending my own kid to in-person school if they were one of the rare high-risk kids, especially before vaccination was an option. Masking helps over a population, absolutely, but if you're a particular person who's prone to and weak against infection, the way it's been spreading in school even with masking—yikes. Masks and the (mostly lame and questionable, for the simple reason that doing better would have meant building new schools—I saw some hilariously pointless and even alarmingly counterproductive guidelines forwarded from teachers I'm friends with) distancing practices aren't anywhere near sufficient for that case, IMO.
OTOH, lots of people don't have the option to stay home and watch a high-risk kid. So masking it is (again, I am mostly very in favor of it!) but man, that sucks for those kids and their parents.
I agree it is a reasonable accommodation, but also cannot imagine sending my own kid to in-person school if they were one of the rare high-risk kids, especially before vaccination was an option. Masking helps over a population, absolutely, but if you're a particular person who's prone to and weak against infection, the way it's been spreading in school even with masking—yikes. Masks and the (mostly lame and questionable, for the simple reason that doing better would have meant building new schools—I saw some hilariously pointless and even alarmingly counterproductive guidelines forwarded from teachers I'm friends with) distancing practices aren't anywhere near sufficient for that case, IMO.
OTOH, lots of people don't have the option to stay home and watch a high-risk kid. So masking it is (again, I am mostly very in favor of it!) but man, that sucks for those kids and their parents.
More children dealing with Covidism (it's a cult at this point) enforced in schools are going to off themselves from the psychological abuse of being denied a social life than will be saved by enforcing cloth mask policy.
Luckily Covidism isn't real, so it's not very harmful to children.
Um, it says "can" and not "do". It says "can" because it depends entirely on the person wearing it. Trained professionals in a short term controlled environment, I am sure they work great. Kids in a school, not worth it. The neglect in "frequent hand-washing", "physical distancing", and other habits are going to lay waste to any positive impact the masks may have. No one is going to spend the time to instill the necessary habits to make masks worthwhile in school.
So teach the children how to wear masks. We don't let kids shit on the floor because they don't innately know how to use toilets...
Who's going to teach them? Parents aren't going to have time or will miss critical areas. Teachers won't want to do it. If teachers do attempt it, it would likely be weeks or months of education down the drain since they'll be constantly taking breaks to correct students one by one.
Who, in a school, I wonder, could possibly teach children something....
...yeah, it'd be teachers teaching the children, and it would take a lot less time than weeks or months.
...yeah, it'd be teachers teaching the children, and it would take a lot less time than weeks or months.
No, no it would not. Most of it would be breaking thoughtless behavior. Johnny you have your fingers in your eyes again. Joan, did you wash your hands before and after smearing that lip gloss on? Etc...
It is all pretty much worthless considering all the unmasked children gathered for lunch.
It is all pretty much worthless considering all the unmasked children gathered for lunch.
Then don't have children gather unmasked for lunch indoors?
You're just bringing up other things schools should do...
You're just bringing up other things schools should do...
> Then don't have children gather unmasked for lunch indoors?
That's going to go over really well when it is snowing and windy, just really cold, etc.
> You're just bringing up other things schools should do...
You're just proving you don't have a clue what problems other areas face.
That's going to go over really well when it is snowing and windy, just really cold, etc.
> You're just bringing up other things schools should do...
You're just proving you don't have a clue what problems other areas face.
The lunchtime outdoor temperature in Minneapolis today will be about 6 °F. Where would you suggest that children eat lunch?
Sadly they are not just killing children but children are clearly one of the most important vectors carrying the virus from family to family. Childcare and schools are the super nodes in an otherwise socially distanced network. Any effort to slow down the spread in these places will be multiplied across the whole population. Considering the breakdown of medical care system not doing anything right now is irresponsible.
More children will probably die in the years to come by suicide due to overburdensome restrictions and nuked social development than by COVID.
Monica Gandhi has been incorrectly predicting the end of the pandemic for quite some time. Long thread with video examples here: https://twitter.com/KindAndUnblind/status/147038993167988326...
For example: June 29, 2021: "I actually do not wear masks unless the business asks me to, bc I feel really protected by my vaccine, and I also feel that I can't spread it to others...these vaccines are effective against variants, they make it so that you can't transmit..."
For example: June 29, 2021: "I actually do not wear masks unless the business asks me to, bc I feel really protected by my vaccine, and I also feel that I can't spread it to others...these vaccines are effective against variants, they make it so that you can't transmit..."
> For example: June 29, 2021: "I actually do not wear masks unless the business asks me to, bc I feel really protected by my vaccine, and I also feel that I can't spread it to others...these vaccines are effective against variants, they make it so that you can't transmit..."
That was exactly the CDC’s publicly stated view at the time. Pre-Delta, it was to a first approximation true. Citing this as if it’s evidence of her spreading misinformation is exceptionally dishonest.
That was exactly the CDC’s publicly stated view at the time. Pre-Delta, it was to a first approximation true. Citing this as if it’s evidence of her spreading misinformation is exceptionally dishonest.
Even the most optimistic data we ever had was ~90% reduction in infection. That the vaccines on the market were not sterilizing has been evident since the start.
There are a lot of examples in that thread, too. She's been confidently predicting hitting herd immunity, no need for boosters, last wave, etc. sort of stuff for a long time.
There are a lot of examples in that thread, too. She's been confidently predicting hitting herd immunity, no need for boosters, last wave, etc. sort of stuff for a long time.
It’s fine to say with hindsight that vaccine predictions were wrong, but again, that was the official position of the CDC and Biden administration at the time as well, so it’s hugely dishonest to pretend like she’s some kind of extremist or disinformation artist for being on the same page as them.
It’s not really the reader’s responsibility to check everything else in the thread to see how you and/or the thread author are either lying or failing to remember very public facts about the pandemic.
It’s not really the reader’s responsibility to check everything else in the thread to see how you and/or the thread author are either lying or failing to remember very public facts about the pandemic.
> It’s fine to say with hindsight that vaccine predictions were wrong...
It's also fine to say I'm not inclined to trust the opinions of someone who has been repeatedly and demonstrably wrong in this fashion.
I know Biden got out over his skis on a number of statements, but can you cite the CDC ever making this claim? The wording they were using in June 2021 was reduce infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-ri...
"I also feel that I can't spread it to others" is a confident, evidence-free, and wrong statement.
It's also fine to say I'm not inclined to trust the opinions of someone who has been repeatedly and demonstrably wrong in this fashion.
I know Biden got out over his skis on a number of statements, but can you cite the CDC ever making this claim? The wording they were using in June 2021 was reduce infection. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-ri...
"I also feel that I can't spread it to others" is a confident, evidence-free, and wrong statement.
Those CDC claims are now demonstrably wrong in the same post-Delta world you’re judging her claims by. When the CDC recommended that vaccinated people no longer needed to wear masks, exactly what do you think they were claiming that is different from Gandhi?
It’s fine if you want to ignore people who’ve made predictions about Covid that turned out to be wrong, but it just means you have to ignore everyone.
It’s fine if you want to ignore people who’ve made predictions about Covid that turned out to be wrong, but it just means you have to ignore everyone.
Gandhi’s claim was wrong at the time. Right then and there. There was no indication the vaccines were sterilizing; she was just wishful thinking.
And yet her position was exactly the same as the CDC’s: the vaccines prevent infection and transmission enough that masks were no longer needed on vaccinated people.
That is only part of her stated position, and not the part I take strong issue with.
“they make it so that you can't transmit” was a blatantly false claim about the vaccines at the time it was made.
“they make it so that you can't transmit” was a blatantly false claim about the vaccines at the time it was made.
> scientism
Thanks for that.
Thanks for that.
I may be missing something, but I don't see any sort statistical accounting for vaccination rates in any of this article's referenced studies. The authors explicitly use this to dismiss studies that saw mask effectiveness, but then go on to offer similarly deficient studies as evidence arguing against masks in schools.
I don’t get it - at this point vaccinations are available for anyone school aged.
There’s no more need for masks. Vaccinate if you want, or don’t. If you get sick, or not, that’s on you.
It’s the same deal with a lot of other illnesses- you vaccinate or take the risk. It’s been this way for decades in schools.
Disclosure: triple vaxx’d moderna
There’s no more need for masks. Vaccinate if you want, or don’t. If you get sick, or not, that’s on you.
It’s the same deal with a lot of other illnesses- you vaccinate or take the risk. It’s been this way for decades in schools.
Disclosure: triple vaxx’d moderna
> In the panicked spring of 2020, as health officials scrambled to keep communities safe, they recommended various restrictions and interventions, sometimes in the absence of rigorous science supporting them. That was understandable at the time.
The fact that they were enacted with such zeal in the absence of rigorous science is why some/many people don't want them removed now. What was instituted without science cannot be removed by science.
If anything, the same emotional manipulation must be used. They used to say "we have to lock up if only to save one life". Now it should be "we need to go back to normal if only to save one child from killing himself from isolation".
The fact that they were enacted with such zeal in the absence of rigorous science is why some/many people don't want them removed now. What was instituted without science cannot be removed by science.
If anything, the same emotional manipulation must be used. They used to say "we have to lock up if only to save one life". Now it should be "we need to go back to normal if only to save one child from killing himself from isolation".
I thought the paragraphs about requiring KN95 in schools were interesting.
My kids' school district recently had a policy change that requires everyone to wear KN95 or KF94 masks. What I've noticed is that most kids (including mine) have switched from high quality (Halo) well fitting cloths masks with filters to 95 or 94s with huge gaps around their noses. It is hard to believe that this is an improvement in safety.
My kids' school district recently had a policy change that requires everyone to wear KN95 or KF94 masks. What I've noticed is that most kids (including mine) have switched from high quality (Halo) well fitting cloths masks with filters to 95 or 94s with huge gaps around their noses. It is hard to believe that this is an improvement in safety.
I used to use KN95 mask for sanding projects but they never worked because only after a short period I almost always ended up with a gap that allowed a lot of sanding dust (which I assume is a large particle than a virus) in causing me to have headaches all day. So I don't have a whole lot of faith that KN95s are much better (at least over long term wear).
It's safetyism. It's to prevent snarky parents from speaking out and holding the school liable if one kid gets a head cold from Omicron.
It’s worth pointing out that the U.K. government’s recommendations has always been - throughout the pandemic - that little children should not wear masks in school [1].
It may be true that children wearing masks in class could potentially prevent some indirect deaths, but we have to draw a balance. We do this with everything else.
Countless lives can be saved if we ban cars, planes, sugar, dogs, ladders, beaches, and knives.
Where we draw the line is a matter of opinion, not of fact.
[1] “Based on current evidence and the measures that schools are already putting in place, such as the system of controls and consistent bubbles, face coverings will not be necessary in the classroom even where social distancing is not possible. Face coverings could have a negative impact on teaching and their use in the classroom should be avoided.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/actions-for-schoo...
It may be true that children wearing masks in class could potentially prevent some indirect deaths, but we have to draw a balance. We do this with everything else.
Countless lives can be saved if we ban cars, planes, sugar, dogs, ladders, beaches, and knives.
Where we draw the line is a matter of opinion, not of fact.
[1] “Based on current evidence and the measures that schools are already putting in place, such as the system of controls and consistent bubbles, face coverings will not be necessary in the classroom even where social distancing is not possible. Face coverings could have a negative impact on teaching and their use in the classroom should be avoided.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/actions-for-schoo...
I’m sure this comment will be buried but I’ll talk about my experiences. Our school has a mask policy and transmission in the classroom has been almost nonexistent.
The district north of us has no mask policy and it’s been a shit show. My friend is a teacher there and they don’t bother with close contacts or tracing. Basically everyone got covid and they had to shut the schools down because so many teachers were sick.
This has been while the hospitals have been full of covid cases this fall and winter. Kids might not get real sick, but it infects a bunch of family, who can end up in the hospitals.
The time to roll back the mask mandates is either at the end of this school year or when we have widespread availability of the Pfizer drug paxlivod and folks can get ahold of it and take it when they have covid.
The district north of us has no mask policy and it’s been a shit show. My friend is a teacher there and they don’t bother with close contacts or tracing. Basically everyone got covid and they had to shut the schools down because so many teachers were sick.
This has been while the hospitals have been full of covid cases this fall and winter. Kids might not get real sick, but it infects a bunch of family, who can end up in the hospitals.
The time to roll back the mask mandates is either at the end of this school year or when we have widespread availability of the Pfizer drug paxlivod and folks can get ahold of it and take it when they have covid.
Why haven't states setup Covid only treatment centers to relieve the pressure on hospitals? Sure there are only so many nurses and doctors but reducing regulation on who could work in these centers would fix that.
People are in here talking about how young kids don't wear masks correctly, but are they actually any worse than adults at it?
When I go out and see people "wearing masks" I frequently wonder if I'm in some alternate universe science fiction story where everyone on earth has been infected with a stupidity virus or blasted with brainwave-dampening radiation. Surely there must be some explanation for the people removing their masks to cough or talk or leaving their nose uncovered or wearing the mask so loosely that you can literally see their nose and mouth when they look down at something. Same goes for social distancing, hand washing... anything really. Any time there is a procedure, it seems that the average adult will fail to follow it correctly.
I'm pro mask-wearing because the reasoning makes sense to me, but I don't for a second think that we can meaningfully ask the general public to do anything more complicated than "stay home," which they refuse to do but at least understand.
When I go out and see people "wearing masks" I frequently wonder if I'm in some alternate universe science fiction story where everyone on earth has been infected with a stupidity virus or blasted with brainwave-dampening radiation. Surely there must be some explanation for the people removing their masks to cough or talk or leaving their nose uncovered or wearing the mask so loosely that you can literally see their nose and mouth when they look down at something. Same goes for social distancing, hand washing... anything really. Any time there is a procedure, it seems that the average adult will fail to follow it correctly.
I'm pro mask-wearing because the reasoning makes sense to me, but I don't for a second think that we can meaningfully ask the general public to do anything more complicated than "stay home," which they refuse to do but at least understand.
have a vaccinated 5 year-old and really frustrated that her & other kids in an overwhelmingly vaccinated & non-english language immigrant community, have to wear masks all day at school. The impact to speech, language & general development just seems so overwhelming compared against the potential benefit of children wearing a mask.
What we need to do is take a harder stance on the non-human species who think this whole thing is a joke! All those deer running around unmasked are the reason we are still in this situation two years later! it's just downright disgraceful! If all us mamamals could just come together for once and think collectively instead of acting in our own self interest we would have beat this thing a long time ago. Oh, and don't get me started on those dogs walking around in restaraunts unmasked... I know a shitzu in DogPatch that has never worn a mask once!
sometimes I like to read the first paragraph of articles with the opposite bias they impose.
> In the panicked spring of 2020, as health officials scrambled to keep communities safe, they recommended various restrictions and interventions, sometimes in the absence of rigorous science supporting them. That was understandable at the time.
becomes:
>In the spring of 2020, as more health professionals than ever before worked together on a single issue, they recommended measures and interventions, based on our most up-to-date understanding of medicine and science. That was remarkable at the time....
> In the panicked spring of 2020, as health officials scrambled to keep communities safe, they recommended various restrictions and interventions, sometimes in the absence of rigorous science supporting them. That was understandable at the time.
becomes:
>In the spring of 2020, as more health professionals than ever before worked together on a single issue, they recommended measures and interventions, based on our most up-to-date understanding of medicine and science. That was remarkable at the time....
> To justify mask requirements in school at this point, health officials should be able to muster solid evidence from randomized trials of masking in children.
I think that's a false premise right off the bat. Even if you stipulate that evidence for masking is not settled beyond a reasonable doubt, it's still at least very plausibly true and very low cost to enforce. I'd need to see pretty strong evidence of why we shouldn't enforce masking.
I think that's a false premise right off the bat. Even if you stipulate that evidence for masking is not settled beyond a reasonable doubt, it's still at least very plausibly true and very low cost to enforce. I'd need to see pretty strong evidence of why we shouldn't enforce masking.
Whether this article means to it makes the case for requiring vaccination instead, which, yeah we should do that.
The cost / benefit to vaccinating kids is extremely suspect.
Ireland has 1 million children aged 0-14. 1 has died of Covid this entire time. One.
So we need to vaccinate them all every year to maybe prevent half an annual death? No way does that make sense from a cost/benefit perspective (unless you're a Pfizer shareholder).
"But those kids can spread it to their triple- and quadruple vaccinated grandparents!" - What's the NNTV on that?
Ireland has 1 million children aged 0-14. 1 has died of Covid this entire time. One.
So we need to vaccinate them all every year to maybe prevent half an annual death? No way does that make sense from a cost/benefit perspective (unless you're a Pfizer shareholder).
"But those kids can spread it to their triple- and quadruple vaccinated grandparents!" - What's the NNTV on that?
It seems like you're dismissing the reality of small children spreading Covid to more vulnerable populations.
My daughter who is 3 and thus unvaccinated, caught Omicron at daycare. Unfortunately the parents of the child who was spreading it, neglected to inform the daycare that the child was positive. Because of this, we unknowingly spread it to my 81 year old mother in law. This was around Christmas and although she is ok, it was a little touch and go for a while.
I imagine I'm far from the only person who found themselves in this kind of situation.
My daughter who is 3 and thus unvaccinated, caught Omicron at daycare. Unfortunately the parents of the child who was spreading it, neglected to inform the daycare that the child was positive. Because of this, we unknowingly spread it to my 81 year old mother in law. This was around Christmas and although she is ok, it was a little touch and go for a while.
I imagine I'm far from the only person who found themselves in this kind of situation.
I'm glad your MIL is okay. Are you sure she only got ill because we didn't vaccinate every 3 year old?
Say all those children had been vaccinated, all of them, before daycare started. They'd have gotten a shot or two to be ready for August.
In all likelihood, that wouldn't have done much to protect them from Omicron in December. Omicron featured 32 mutations on the spike protein alone, and previous 'vaccines' delivered only 4 months ago offer "very limited protection".
Repeated mass vaccination, of entire generations of children, to protect already vaccinated grandparents - man, that's going very far. There are many possible unforeseen health consequences to such action - and the lengths to which you'd have to go to get every parent to comply are very fucking far indeed.
Say all those children had been vaccinated, all of them, before daycare started. They'd have gotten a shot or two to be ready for August.
In all likelihood, that wouldn't have done much to protect them from Omicron in December. Omicron featured 32 mutations on the spike protein alone, and previous 'vaccines' delivered only 4 months ago offer "very limited protection".
Repeated mass vaccination, of entire generations of children, to protect already vaccinated grandparents - man, that's going very far. There are many possible unforeseen health consequences to such action - and the lengths to which you'd have to go to get every parent to comply are very fucking far indeed.
If vaccination was the answer, why is my triple vaccinated self still required to wear a mask at a grocery store? Worse, why do I need to show proof of vaccine to enter a restaurant yet still be required to wear a mask anyway?
It's easier to enforce mask compliance than vaccine compliance because masks are visible and vaccination status is not.
Masking in restaurants for the twenty feet from entrance to table is a bit silly, though.
Masking in restaurants for the twenty feet from entrance to table is a bit silly, though.
First of all, the number of places where you need to wear a mask inside of stores is fairly tiny. Second, for those places with mask mandates for shops, it's really hard to check everyone for vaccine status and really easy to see if someone is wearing a mask.
As for restaurants... where do you need to wear a mask in a restaurant these days? I often wear it when talking to the host, just to be polite, but that is the only moment I wear a mask in a restaurant.
As for vaccines, they are the "answer" because they dramatically reduce hospitalizations and all of the downstream catastrophes that come from overwhelmed hospitals.
As for restaurants... where do you need to wear a mask in a restaurant these days? I often wear it when talking to the host, just to be polite, but that is the only moment I wear a mask in a restaurant.
As for vaccines, they are the "answer" because they dramatically reduce hospitalizations and all of the downstream catastrophes that come from overwhelmed hospitals.
>requiring vaccination instead
Why not natural immunity instead?
Why not natural immunity instead?
Natural immunity from which strain and how long ago? Does someone who recovered from the original strain 18 months ago have comparable protection to someone who recovered from Omicron yesterday? Or someone who has been vaccinated? We do not know these answers.
What we do know - based on mountains of data - is that vaccinated people take up hospital beds far, far less often than unvaccinated people.
What we do know - based on mountains of data - is that vaccinated people take up hospital beds far, far less often than unvaccinated people.
>Natural immunity from which strain and how long ago?
Doesn't matter. If you have already take the vaccines, it is my opinion that it is better to get the omicron variant and have natural immunity, (unless of course you are particularly vulnerable).
Your point that vaccinated people take up less beds is exactly right. Omicron is a highly contagious, weak strain and would provide and amazing opportunity for mass natural immunity, without the fear of hospitalization and death.
Doesn't matter. If you have already take the vaccines, it is my opinion that it is better to get the omicron variant and have natural immunity, (unless of course you are particularly vulnerable).
Your point that vaccinated people take up less beds is exactly right. Omicron is a highly contagious, weak strain and would provide and amazing opportunity for mass natural immunity, without the fear of hospitalization and death.
"without the fear of hospitalization and death."
Except for the 2,000 Americans dying from COVID each and every day, and the various hospitals that are at capacity.
Except for the 2,000 Americans dying from COVID each and every day, and the various hospitals that are at capacity.
"let god sort em out" is just eugenics.
>"let god sort em out" is just eugenics.
LOL its not eugenics, its the same for every other infectious disease without a vaccine. Everyone will get omicron/some variant at some point.
LOL its not eugenics, its the same for every other infectious disease without a vaccine. Everyone will get omicron/some variant at some point.
But we have a vaccine.
Not for omicron, or the next variant, or the one after that. At some point we have to face reality, and no it is not eugenics, it called "life".
We do have several vaccines for Omicron. They are the existing COVID vaccines. They aren't as effective as they were against prior variants, but they're still more effective than e.g. flu vaccines, which save many lives each year.
Note that I don't agree with the eugenics comments, but this misinformation about the effectiveness of COVID vaccines is getting out of hand.
Note that I don't agree with the eugenics comments, but this misinformation about the effectiveness of COVID vaccines is getting out of hand.
>but this misinformation about the effectiveness of COVID vaccines is getting out of hand.
Nothing I stated is misinformation. The the current vaccines are not effective at preventing the spread of omicron. So to say that the best approach, if you are already vaccinated, is to just get virus, is not a stretch. The same can apply to any future, (weak), variants as well.
Nothing I stated is misinformation. The the current vaccines are not effective at preventing the spread of omicron. So to say that the best approach, if you are already vaccinated, is to just get virus, is not a stretch. The same can apply to any future, (weak), variants as well.
You said:
> its the same for every other infectious disease without a vaccine.
To which someone responded:
> But we have a vaccine.
To which you responded:
> Not for omicron, or the next variant, or the one after that.
That last statement is incorrect. Yes, you can still get and spread the virus if you have received the vaccine. The same is true for almost all vaccines; they do not cease to be vaccines because of this.
I do support calling out the hyperbole of other people in the thread. Accepting that everyone likely will get the virus at some point is not remotely the same thing as eugenics. It does not become OK to make dangerous misstatements, if not outright lies, in the service of doing that.
For what it's worth, a little more precision (e.g. "every other infectious disease without a sterilizing vaccine") would have served you well here.
> its the same for every other infectious disease without a vaccine.
To which someone responded:
> But we have a vaccine.
To which you responded:
> Not for omicron, or the next variant, or the one after that.
That last statement is incorrect. Yes, you can still get and spread the virus if you have received the vaccine. The same is true for almost all vaccines; they do not cease to be vaccines because of this.
I do support calling out the hyperbole of other people in the thread. Accepting that everyone likely will get the virus at some point is not remotely the same thing as eugenics. It does not become OK to make dangerous misstatements, if not outright lies, in the service of doing that.
For what it's worth, a little more precision (e.g. "every other infectious disease without a sterilizing vaccine") would have served you well here.
>That last statement is incorrect.
Actually it is correct. The mRNA vaccine types target specific spike proteins of the virus. So no we do not currently have a vaccine, so the previous vaccines actually offer quite little protection, (other than any coincidental overlap of proteins). But my statement about it being the same for every other infectious disease is not false. If you have ever had the flu in your life, (or different corona virus cold for that matter), you have some degree of immunity from COVID-19. Just like if you received the vaccine you have some degree of immunity from omicron and future variants.
Actually it is correct. The mRNA vaccine types target specific spike proteins of the virus. So no we do not currently have a vaccine, so the previous vaccines actually offer quite little protection, (other than any coincidental overlap of proteins). But my statement about it being the same for every other infectious disease is not false. If you have ever had the flu in your life, (or different corona virus cold for that matter), you have some degree of immunity from COVID-19. Just like if you received the vaccine you have some degree of immunity from omicron and future variants.
So, I was trying to be charitable and assume you were simply being imprecise. I now believe you are intentionally lying, though I dont know why.
"A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease."[0] "Vaccines can be prophylactic (to prevent or ameliorate the effects of a future infection by a natural or "wild" pathogen)..." [0]. This is simply the definition of a vaccine. The mRNA vaccines do provide a substantial prophylactic amelioration of the symptoms of Omicron; this is simply an empirical fact[1]. Therefore we do have a vaccine against Omicron. It does not make the slightest difference whether the vaccine was developed for a slightly different disease.
[0]- wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine
[1]- first duckduckgo result: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-omicron-variant-p... but there's plenty of evidence, of which even a cursory review will lead you to the conclusion that the mRNA vaccines help a lot.
"A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease."[0] "Vaccines can be prophylactic (to prevent or ameliorate the effects of a future infection by a natural or "wild" pathogen)..." [0]. This is simply the definition of a vaccine. The mRNA vaccines do provide a substantial prophylactic amelioration of the symptoms of Omicron; this is simply an empirical fact[1]. Therefore we do have a vaccine against Omicron. It does not make the slightest difference whether the vaccine was developed for a slightly different disease.
[0]- wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine
[1]- first duckduckgo result: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-omicron-variant-p... but there's plenty of evidence, of which even a cursory review will lead you to the conclusion that the mRNA vaccines help a lot.
First of all, yes your definition of a vaccine is fine, but it doesn't negate what I said. Vaccines serve as a way to "train" your immune system to fight a specific thing by historically providing a weakened or impotent version that is easy to kill. However, mRNA vaccines are a much different methodology and can be very very specific on targeting, by creating individual spike proteins. However, they fail to provide significant protection against mutation in some cases.
The vaccines helped in the way that they prevented the virus from being able to replicate and cause serious illness, your immune system had to still figure out how to kill the thing on its own. So the vaccines on their own did not provide you with immunity, (not even close the level of historic, or "perfect" vaccines do), they did help train your immune system to kill the virus. That is how they are helpful for the symptoms of omicron not the spread. Because the spike proteins that were effective for alpa/delta are less effective for Omicron, it is still causing disease. Again, because your system has most likely already fought off the Alpha and Delta strains, you are unlikely to develop serious illness if you have natural immunity or have been vaccinated.
There is no "lying" here. And your sources of wiki-pedia vaccine definition and a CBS news article are not disproving anything that I have stated.
The vaccines helped in the way that they prevented the virus from being able to replicate and cause serious illness, your immune system had to still figure out how to kill the thing on its own. So the vaccines on their own did not provide you with immunity, (not even close the level of historic, or "perfect" vaccines do), they did help train your immune system to kill the virus. That is how they are helpful for the symptoms of omicron not the spread. Because the spike proteins that were effective for alpa/delta are less effective for Omicron, it is still causing disease. Again, because your system has most likely already fought off the Alpha and Delta strains, you are unlikely to develop serious illness if you have natural immunity or have been vaccinated.
There is no "lying" here. And your sources of wiki-pedia vaccine definition and a CBS news article are not disproving anything that I have stated.
But it doesn't work (well enough) to matter.
It's still really good at reducing hospitalization & death rates, anyway. That's not nothing.
Does seem to be nearly useless at preventing symptomatic Omicron, though. Just makes it, on average, much less awful.
Does seem to be nearly useless at preventing symptomatic Omicron, though. Just makes it, on average, much less awful.
The article is right that generic "masks" don't work well enough to see the effect. But N95 respirator masks do and we should all be wearing them if indoors in public for long periods.
Well fit N95 (or better) respirators are needed in schools. Not just "masks". Unfortunately this does imply that very young children cannot be effectively masked because they will seriously degrade the protection by not maintining fit and seal. That is if the N95 respirator masks fit their small faces well enough to seal at all. This isn't an all or nothing issue though. Even a badly or intermittently fit N95 on a young childs face will protect more than a strap of cloth.
The CDC (and other institutions) not only failed on mask messaging, they actively told people the wrong things for months and then years. But it's pretty obvious from first principles. It's aerosol spread so you need to actually filter the air, not just block spittle.
Well fit N95 (or better) respirators are needed in schools. Not just "masks". Unfortunately this does imply that very young children cannot be effectively masked because they will seriously degrade the protection by not maintining fit and seal. That is if the N95 respirator masks fit their small faces well enough to seal at all. This isn't an all or nothing issue though. Even a badly or intermittently fit N95 on a young childs face will protect more than a strap of cloth.
The CDC (and other institutions) not only failed on mask messaging, they actively told people the wrong things for months and then years. But it's pretty obvious from first principles. It's aerosol spread so you need to actually filter the air, not just block spittle.
There's no such thing as a child-sized N95 because N95 is an occupational standard, not a general population standard like KF94.
"Let's check research studies"
Okay, we found three studies.
- study A says that masks work, BUT xx
- study B says that masks work, BUT yy
- study C says that masks work, BUT zz
"The CDC also points to several other studies, BUT BUT BUT BUT". Therefore the obvious conclusion is that masks don't work.
Okay, we found three studies.
- study A says that masks work, BUT xx
- study B says that masks work, BUT yy
- study C says that masks work, BUT zz
"The CDC also points to several other studies, BUT BUT BUT BUT". Therefore the obvious conclusion is that masks don't work.
As ever, another pro Covid article makes it to the front page.
As ever, HN falls over itself to demonstrate ignorance and selfishness.
Meanwhile Covid continues killing and maiming. The butcher's bill for this our collective failure is going to be hard reading.
Shame on us all.
As ever, HN falls over itself to demonstrate ignorance and selfishness.
Meanwhile Covid continues killing and maiming. The butcher's bill for this our collective failure is going to be hard reading.
Shame on us all.
wait a minute, which ones are the pro-covid again?
just having a laugh in this crazy new dimension of ours
just having a laugh in this crazy new dimension of ours
My wife made my mask out of an old tee shirt using a pattern she gleaned from the internet. I’m sure that it works. But I can still smell the guy next to me at Wal Mart.
[deleted]
In a way it's reassuring that people of all political stripes can at least come together on one point: that the CDC has been asleep at the wheel during most of this pandemic. Hopefully at some point there will be a discussion about how to reform the body to be much more proactive.
The CDC is not so much asleep at the wheel, we just don't have any kind of coherent public health system in the USA. There's basically an independent public health officer for practically every county, and there's very little coordination between them and the CDC.
Michael Lewis' book "The Premonition" is eye-opening to how dysfunctional public health is in the US.
And it's not like he's alone, even the head of the CDC this week called for a reform of the public health system in the US (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/21/rochelle-walensky-c...). The only picture I'm getting is that the CDC doesn't really feel like they can do anything.
Michael Lewis' book "The Premonition" is eye-opening to how dysfunctional public health is in the US.
And it's not like he's alone, even the head of the CDC this week called for a reform of the public health system in the US (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/21/rochelle-walensky-c...). The only picture I'm getting is that the CDC doesn't really feel like they can do anything.
The CDC has never balanced risks in any reasonable way. If you listened to the CDC, you wouldn't eat sunny-side up eggs, medium-rare steak, and Prosciutto.
I'm not sure its limited to just the CDC. The entire medical field misapplied basic fluid dynamics for over 50 years and incorrectly concluded that covid couldn't be airborne.
I'm not sure its limited to just the CDC. The entire medical field misapplied basic fluid dynamics for over 50 years and incorrectly concluded that covid couldn't be airborne.
Surely mistakes have been made (proving that they are human) and we should always be ready to reassess something as important as a pandemic response but this seems ungenerous. The multitude of factors that make up the disease and how our bodies respond, along with externalities, is hugely complex. Trying to come up with a single unified response that is understandable by most people makes it harder. Lastly, the political situation just exasperated everything.
Imagine trying to design a national Kubernetes process that everyone would install in their home. ;)
Imagine trying to design a national Kubernetes process that everyone would install in their home. ;)
I have a mostly positive opinion on the CDC and I wonder if some of the problems are a result of political influence?
The WHO and their fight against the idea that COVID is airborne is even more confusing to me. It felt like they didn't even want the idea discussed.
The WHO and their fight against the idea that COVID is airborne is even more confusing to me. It felt like they didn't even want the idea discussed.
What gives you a positive opinion of the CDC? By their own admission they have lied to the public multiple times.
That's not something that is indicative of good leadership, even if supposedly done for benevolent reasons.
That's not something that is indicative of good leadership, even if supposedly done for benevolent reasons.
> What gives you a positive opinion of the CDC?
There are a lot of really great people working for the CDC and they are doing some excellent work. They also made some bad decisions around respect to COVID-19 that absolutely does affect their trustworthiness.
However, if I add up the positives and negatives, they still are come out with a net positive rating for me. There's a lot more to the CDC than their COVID response.
There are a lot of really great people working for the CDC and they are doing some excellent work. They also made some bad decisions around respect to COVID-19 that absolutely does affect their trustworthiness.
However, if I add up the positives and negatives, they still are come out with a net positive rating for me. There's a lot more to the CDC than their COVID response.
This is one of my main qualms with how public health does their work. Lying is justified if you think it will convince more people to do something that will improve metrics at a population level. Maybe that works for a period of time, but once people find out, it destroys their credibility.
A million times this.
Break it up and scatter it to the four winds. Being heavily taxed for the "privilege" of being lied to is anathema to democracy, even if all the cool politicians, media, fossil fuel and arms companies are doing it.
Break it up and scatter it to the four winds. Being heavily taxed for the "privilege" of being lied to is anathema to democracy, even if all the cool politicians, media, fossil fuel and arms companies are doing it.
>By their own admission they have lied to the public multiple times.
Supporting evidence please.
Supporting evidence please.
Good point I’m not sure they ever actually admitted to lying about masks.
"When science mixes with politics, what you mostly get is politics."
When policies masquerade as science, is nothing but politics.
CDC is the agency that was running the "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male" as recently as the 1970s.
I wish we could all come together and say, "this needs more study" too and admit we might not have enough data to actually make a real decision.
Two words: Stop Whining
The article talks a lot about how there's little or no evidence showing benefits of masking for kids, and also talks a lot about the unknown long-term effects of masking on kids. However, as with so many articles trying to make a point or persuade people, it barely mentions at all the unknown long-term effects of covid.
I'm willing to be persuaded by evidence, but (for me) any piece that fails to address such an obvious counterpoint immediately loses a great deal of credibility.
I'm willing to be persuaded by evidence, but (for me) any piece that fails to address such an obvious counterpoint immediately loses a great deal of credibility.
Thats not what the article is about. The article is showing the lack of evidence for masks at schools. If transmission isn't impacted by masks, then the severity of covid has nothing to do with the decision of whether to require masks or not.
But while it points out that the evidence for masks being effective is scarce, it does little to identify positive evidence that masks are specifically ineffective. So we just don't know as much as CDC's consistent guidelines seem to suggest, and it makes sense to weigh the risk. That the article neglects to frame it in this light highlights the one-sided nature.
In terms of weighing risk, find one IRB anywhere which would have approved an experiment to mask all of the students in a school district for a year.
There is plenty of evidence that masks work.
There is plenty of evidence that high quality, well fitted masks (N95 or equivalent) work in the sense of reducing the risk of transmission in any single close contact interaction. But so what? The virus is here to stay and can never be eradicated. Obviously people aren't going to spend the rest of their lives wearing masks. In fact outside the HN bubble in many areas people have already stopped. We're all going to be exposed multiple times throughout our lives no matter what. Masks can only slightly delay that at best.
Instead of fighting a futile battle by trying to prevent exposure we should instead accept that everyone will be exposed and try to maximize their odds of survival. That means encouraging eligible people to get vaccinated, and take other steps to mitigate co-morbid conditions.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
Instead of fighting a futile battle by trying to prevent exposure we should instead accept that everyone will be exposed and try to maximize their odds of survival. That means encouraging eligible people to get vaccinated, and take other steps to mitigate co-morbid conditions.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
[citation needed] Studies that don't use a model or beg the question? The Danish one that shows 3% effectiveness? Or the Bangladesh one that shows 11%?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/masks-protect-sch...
Also the minor detail that countries with masking cultures - like Japan - have relatively excellent Covid stats with minimal deaths.
Honestly, we're through the looking glass if we're even pretending there's any kind of debate about this.
Masks work for adults. Period. There are tens of papers proving that now. Any good faith web search will find them. For every cherry picked paper "proving" they don't there are ten much better designed studies proving they do.
If masks work for adults, they work for kids - not just to cut spread between kids, but also between kids and adults, and especially between kids and vulnerable adults.
The UK has decided to have an outbreak of political psychosis over this, and there are already significant - double digit - percentages of both teachers and kids off sick with Covid in many schools.
Risks to kids are relatively insignificant compared to the trauma of lost school friends, lost hours from school, lost relatives and - in too many cases - lost parents.
The promotion of irrational and human-hostile anti-masker anti-vaxxer nonsense really needs to stop.
Also the minor detail that countries with masking cultures - like Japan - have relatively excellent Covid stats with minimal deaths.
Honestly, we're through the looking glass if we're even pretending there's any kind of debate about this.
Masks work for adults. Period. There are tens of papers proving that now. Any good faith web search will find them. For every cherry picked paper "proving" they don't there are ten much better designed studies proving they do.
If masks work for adults, they work for kids - not just to cut spread between kids, but also between kids and adults, and especially between kids and vulnerable adults.
The UK has decided to have an outbreak of political psychosis over this, and there are already significant - double digit - percentages of both teachers and kids off sick with Covid in many schools.
Risks to kids are relatively insignificant compared to the trauma of lost school friends, lost hours from school, lost relatives and - in too many cases - lost parents.
The promotion of irrational and human-hostile anti-masker anti-vaxxer nonsense really needs to stop.
I'm not sure how "we're through the looking glass" because there is still debate on the issue, the Atlantic article lays out pretty strong evidence to suggest there is at the very least still plenty of room for debate. Further I don't understand how debating issues is "human-hostile" as you put it. All public measures should continuously be up for debate.
If there is little to no evidence that it reduces spread amongst children, the effects of covid on children is irrelevant. You wouldn't say an article shitting on
Ivermectin effacy failed to take into account Long COVID.
The article doesn't mention the other uncomfortable truth--every kid is getting covid sooner rather than later regardless of mask mandates. Even if masks are 50% effective at reducing the spread, Omicron variant is more contagious with a mask than the original variant was without one. And there is little reason to believe masks reduce 50% of spread.
Washington DC infection rate 20X'd in a month. Even if you reduce the slope of the curve, the area under it is going to be roughly the same.
The article doesn't mention the other uncomfortable truth--every kid is getting covid sooner rather than later regardless of mask mandates. Even if masks are 50% effective at reducing the spread, Omicron variant is more contagious with a mask than the original variant was without one. And there is little reason to believe masks reduce 50% of spread.
Washington DC infection rate 20X'd in a month. Even if you reduce the slope of the curve, the area under it is going to be roughly the same.
>there's little or no evidence showing benefits of masking for kids,
If the masks don't prevent the spread of COVID, or reduce the likelihood of having symptomatic illness, then the long term effects of COVID don't matter in regards to masking arguments.
If the masks don't prevent the spread of COVID, or reduce the likelihood of having symptomatic illness, then the long term effects of COVID don't matter in regards to masking arguments.
If you have small children you know what joke masks are in school. Little kids are not responsible adults. They touch their face, take their masks on and off, exchange them with their friends and even eat them.
Pretending that masks on young kids contribute anything to slowing the spread is complete wishful thinking.
Pretending that masks on young kids contribute anything to slowing the spread is complete wishful thinking.
Well, if you have elderly parents you will also learn a thing or five about mask-wearing discipline. They will do all of the things above (except maybe eating them). My personal favorite: removing the mask when they have to cough. And even in the in-between age groups, the "responsible adults" are fewer than you might think...
And yet my impression of slightly older children and teens (admittedly in Canada) is that they're better and more consistent at mask wearing than adults are. My son couldn't care less if he's wearing a mask or not -- heck I think he hates wearing socks more.
I wonder how much of these breathless articles against masking children is more about adults than about the children.
I wonder how much of these breathless articles against masking children is more about adults than about the children.
I second this. The article mentions how dubious it is that kids can wear their masks properly. I’ll site my own son who routinely pulls his down below his mouth and nose. I can imagine the stress on teachers who have to keep up appearances that masks are being enforced while also watching the kids in their class do anything but keep them on in an effective manner.
About 50% wear masks correctly when it's mandated. Correcting them works for 30s to 5 min.
[deleted]
Hell, quite a few adults do that stuff.
Demanding evidence of things we know nothing about in order to consider evidence of things we do know about is a rather tall order, even theoretically speaking.
That's a non sequitur. Forcing children to wear masks in schools won't prevent them from being exposed to SARS-CoV-2. The virus is highly contagious and can never be eradicated, so just because there might be some long-term effects for a minority of patients (as with any viral infection) that's not a valid reason to continue mask mandates.
We obviously can't expect healthy children to wear masks forever. That would be absurd and dystopian. So what are the exit criteria?
We obviously can't expect healthy children to wear masks forever. That would be absurd and dystopian. So what are the exit criteria?
The article also seems to contradict itself. It notes that there are negatives to mask wearing in terms of lip reading and clarity of voice, but the people in class that talk the most are the teachers, and they seem to show the most benefit from wearing masks. At least at my child's school, children don't have to wear masks at lunch and recess (which are held outside). This is when children mostly communicate with each other.
That said, the most compelling reason to get rid of mask mandates in the school is that they don't work. Kids wear them all over their face. As noted in the article, no one wears good ones, and no one wears them close to correctly. Part of the reason why I suspect we see evidence that teachers masking up is effective while children aren't effective is that teachers are more likely to wear their masks correctly.
That said, the most compelling reason to get rid of mask mandates in the school is that they don't work. Kids wear them all over their face. As noted in the article, no one wears good ones, and no one wears them close to correctly. Part of the reason why I suspect we see evidence that teachers masking up is effective while children aren't effective is that teachers are more likely to wear their masks correctly.
While your point is spot on, it probably won‘t matter in the long run. With the infection rate of Omicron, we as a society were faced between even more ridiculously restrictive measures to contain it after the first economy destroying measures — or just taking the jump into the unknown unknown of what will happen if we let everyone get infected and move into the endemic state.
With probably only the exception of China, most countries have decided that they will take the latter path, at various degrees of throttling.
With probably only the exception of China, most countries have decided that they will take the latter path, at various degrees of throttling.
That's assuming we're containing it at all. This all seems very hubristic to me, but I just wanted to point out the assumption. It's not because we do things that burden us to a degree that the virus' spread is also burdened to the same degree. I feel that this is an unconscious assumption that's made in this discussion.
We’re not, people are pretending that we are or still have the opportunity.
Most of the US is at or past the omicron peak, it stopped growing because it’s running out of people to infect. The more cautious people will make up a long fat tail, but it really seems doubtful that anything can be done.
We’ve had 72 million detected cases in the US, if you assume a certain number didn’t test and a big number never knew they had it at all… we are really running out of people to “save” from covid infections. During the national peak, there were something like a million infections a day.
Most of the US is at or past the omicron peak, it stopped growing because it’s running out of people to infect. The more cautious people will make up a long fat tail, but it really seems doubtful that anything can be done.
We’ve had 72 million detected cases in the US, if you assume a certain number didn’t test and a big number never knew they had it at all… we are really running out of people to “save” from covid infections. During the national peak, there were something like a million infections a day.
The CDC estimated that we're only detecting about a quarter of actual cases.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
In Santa Clara County CA wastewater monitoring data indicates that we're past the peak Omicron wave.
https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
In Santa Clara County CA wastewater monitoring data indicates that we're past the peak Omicron wave.
https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater
You wouldn't expect an article that talks about the long-term effects of COVID to also address the downsides of mask and restrictions, so why should the opposite be true? You can read independent arguments for both sides of the issue, judge their strengths and weaknesses, and then make up your own mind.
> You wouldn't expect an article that talks about the long-term effects of COVID to also address the downsides of mask and restrictions
The parallel of this example would be an article discussing the evidence for the effectiveness of masking, in which case you would be right -- discussion of long-term effects of COVID wouldn't be necessarily relevant.
But that isn't this article -- this article is discussing policy: should students mask in schools? In which case, weighing the long-term effects of covid is absolutely relevant.
The parallel of this example would be an article discussing the evidence for the effectiveness of masking, in which case you would be right -- discussion of long-term effects of COVID wouldn't be necessarily relevant.
But that isn't this article -- this article is discussing policy: should students mask in schools? In which case, weighing the long-term effects of covid is absolutely relevant.
The built in assumption is that you can stop it. Yup, masking usually slows down infection rates but when you roll those dice every day with a very infectious variant it doesn’t matter. If the hospitals aren’t full what difference have you made if everybody gets it over the course of two months instead of two weeks? (And hospitals aren’t full of children, the peak is past, so we’re definitely solidly entering “what’s the point” territory)
This is actually a thing I had my mind changed almost immediately upon hearing argument for primary and early secondary schools.
Children need facial expressions to read the emotions of teachers/peers and are important part of their development. So forcing them to wear mask impede that part of development. Now its up to you to decide whats more important.
Just to support the point. There are videos of mother interacting with a very toddler everything normal, then she is told to hold steady and neural face all the time. The baby quickly notices and becomes increasingly distressed.
Children need facial expressions to read the emotions of teachers/peers and are important part of their development. So forcing them to wear mask impede that part of development. Now its up to you to decide whats more important.
Just to support the point. There are videos of mother interacting with a very toddler everything normal, then she is told to hold steady and neural face all the time. The baby quickly notices and becomes increasingly distressed.
It's going to be darkly funny when all the people that thought infecting kids constantly was a good idea start to have to cope with the social and biological consequences of it for decades.
What you are suggesting is wildly speculative and not backed up by the science. Individuals not in high-risk groups nearly always make a full recovery from COVID infections.
Curious what you feel the biological consequences of in-school covid transmission will be decades from now.
And it gets worse. My daughter is in pre-med. Apparently people are dropping out like flies and not just because of the course load. They're watching how medical professionals are being treated and saying screw it! This should concern us all because we've had a marked uptick of medical professionals retiring/resigning since the pandemic started and now the pipeline is thinning out.
We're walking headlong into a disaster and nobody seems to care. And that's not even dealing with the problem of Global Climate Change which, guess what? Still hasn't gone away and there doesn't seem to be much interest in caring about that either, not that there ever was.
You can see what our child-bearing aged children think of all this - they're not having kids. I don't think this is a short-term aberration. We're a population literally in decline.