Anybody want a Corona?

[macphisto]

They should have governed us harder. If only we could be more like Shanghai.

[4/5]

And as usual I'll take the position that makes me unpopular with both sides. I don't doubt that masks provide some benefit on the micro level to the wearer or people who come into contact with her/him. However, I think the data is clear that mask mandates/lockdowns/NPI's have not been effective (at least enough to remain justified). We have two years of natural experiments and if it were true that mask mandates were effective then we should see a clear negative correlation between mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death and a clear positive correlation between a lack of mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death. That's not what we see, especially in age-adjusted data. Sweden and Florida didn't become death factories and New York and California didn't defeat it with their lockdowns and mandates.

Everyone’s running around in crummy cloth masks.

Yeah could be. Maybe it'd be different if it were N-95s or if there were stricter enforcement or if people weren't allowed to remove the masks to eat or drink outside of their home, but none of those things are true, so the reality is that the mandates haven't worked even if they may work if everything was done with 100% fidelity. I don't think the efficacy of policies should be measured based on "well if everybody acted perfectly..." because that just isn't the world we live in.

Yeah for sure, just wanted to be clear it wasn’t science that failed, but rather typical human behavior/apathy.

I suspect that it mostly fails even with humans who aren't apathetic and who have been extremely vigilant. But again to me this is less a science question and more a policy question. And now I'll say something more controversial, but this why I dislike the entire model of having supposed infectious disease gurus calling the shots because their sole concern is covid, but things that might help in fighting covid may cause other harms or exacerbate other problems like detection/treatment of other serious health problems, education, mental/emotional well-being, etc. There are always trade-offs. There's no such thing as a free covid protections. The question has to be whether the benefits sufficiently outweigh the costs.

[4/5]

They should have governed us harder. If only we could be more like Shanghai.

A slightly updated version of Federalist 10.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy [to destroy liberty], that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction a virus what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction a virus, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

[verb_to_trust]

Let's go n95s for all and life in prison for any non compliers. The astounding amount of mask garbage will get pushed into lake Michigan at the closest point to spikes gated community. Also, at his lake house.

[macphisto]

[spike]

Alt-right guys acting needlessly aggro as usual.

[Bammer]

And as usual I'll take the position that makes me unpopular with both sides. I don't doubt that masks provide some benefit on the micro level to the wearer or people who come into contact with her/him. However, I think the data is clear that mask mandates/lockdowns/NPI's have not been effective (at least enough to remain justified). We have two years of natural experiments and if it were true that mask mandates were effective then we should see a clear negative correlation between mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death and a clear positive correlation between a lack of mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death. That's not what we see, especially in age-adjusted data. Sweden and Florida didn't become death factories and New York and California didn't defeat it with their lockdowns and mandates.

Everyone’s running around in crummy cloth masks.

Yeah could be. Maybe it'd be different if it were N-95s or if there were stricter enforcement or if people weren't allowed to remove the masks to eat or drink outside of their home, but none of those things are true, so the reality is that the mandates haven't worked even if they may work if everything was done with 100% fidelity. I don't think the efficacy of policies should be measured based on "well if everybody acted perfectly..." because that just isn't the world we live in.

Yeah for sure, just wanted to be clear it wasn’t science that failed, but rather typical human behavior/apathy.

I suspect that it mostly fails even with humans who aren't apathetic and who have been extremely vigilant. But again to me this is less a science question and more a policy question. And now I'll say something more controversial, but this why I dislike the entire model of having supposed infectious disease gurus calling the shots because their sole concern is covid, but things that might help in fighting covid may cause other harms or exacerbate other problems like detection/treatment of other serious health problems, education, mental/emotional well-being, etc. There are always trade-offs. There's no such thing as a free covid protections. The question has to be whether the benefits sufficiently outweigh the costs.

Not a controversial statement

[Bammer]

Mac what in the fuck is that post and also you spelled lessen wrong

[macphisto]

Mac what in the fuck is that post and also you spelled lessen wrong

Peeps' words, Peeps' spelling error.

[E.H. Ruddock]

And as usual I'll take the position that makes me unpopular with both sides. I don't doubt that masks provide some benefit on the micro level to the wearer or people who come into contact with her/him. However, I think the data is clear that mask mandates/lockdowns/NPI's have not been effective (at least enough to remain justified). We have two years of natural experiments and if it were true that mask mandates were effective then we should see a clear negative correlation between mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death and a clear positive correlation between a lack of mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death. That's not what we see, especially in age-adjusted data. Sweden and Florida didn't become death factories and New York and California didn't defeat it with their lockdowns and mandates.

Everyone’s running around in crummy cloth masks.

Yeah could be. Maybe it'd be different if it were N-95s or if there were stricter enforcement or if people weren't allowed to remove the masks to eat or drink outside of their home, but none of those things are true, so the reality is that the mandates haven't worked even if they may work if everything was done with 100% fidelity. I don't think the efficacy of policies should be measured based on "well if everybody acted perfectly..." because that just isn't the world we live in.

Yeah for sure, just wanted to be clear it wasn’t science that failed, but rather typical human behavior/apathy.

I suspect that it mostly fails even with humans who aren't apathetic and who have been extremely vigilant. But again to me this is less a science question and more a policy question. And now I'll say something more controversial, but this why I dislike the entire model of having supposed infectious disease gurus calling the shots because their sole concern is covid, but things that might help in fighting covid may cause other harms or exacerbate other problems like detection/treatment of other serious health problems, education, mental/emotional well-being, etc. There are always trade-offs. There's no such thing as a free covid protections. The question has to be whether the benefits sufficiently outweigh the costs.

Not a controversial statement

Maybe in hindsight for this virus, it isn't. But what if the mortality rate was much higher? say even 10%? What is the line for having CDC make the guidelines vs. politicians? What death rate is acceptable for allowing people to have their freedoms vs. looking out for humanity as a whole?

[Bammer]

Mac what in the fuck is that post and also you spelled lessen wrong

Peeps' words, Peeps' spelling error.

Spelling error allegation retracted.

Still that post is fucking weird.

[macphisto]

Mac what in the fuck is that post and also you spelled lessen wrong

Peeps' words, Peeps' spelling error.

Spelling error allegation retracted.

Still that post is fucking weird.

I know, NPCs are the worst!

[Bammer]

And as usual I'll take the position that makes me unpopular with both sides. I don't doubt that masks provide some benefit on the micro level to the wearer or people who come into contact with her/him. However, I think the data is clear that mask mandates/lockdowns/NPI's have not been effective (at least enough to remain justified). We have two years of natural experiments and if it were true that mask mandates were effective then we should see a clear negative correlation between mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death and a clear positive correlation between a lack of mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death. That's not what we see, especially in age-adjusted data. Sweden and Florida didn't become death factories and New York and California didn't defeat it with their lockdowns and mandates.

Everyone’s running around in crummy cloth masks.

Yeah could be. Maybe it'd be different if it were N-95s or if there were stricter enforcement or if people weren't allowed to remove the masks to eat or drink outside of their home, but none of those things are true, so the reality is that the mandates haven't worked even if they may work if everything was done with 100% fidelity. I don't think the efficacy of policies should be measured based on "well if everybody acted perfectly..." because that just isn't the world we live in.

Yeah for sure, just wanted to be clear it wasn’t science that failed, but rather typical human behavior/apathy.

I suspect that it mostly fails even with humans who aren't apathetic and who have been extremely vigilant. But again to me this is less a science question and more a policy question. And now I'll say something more controversial, but this why I dislike the entire model of having supposed infectious disease gurus calling the shots because their sole concern is covid, but things that might help in fighting covid may cause other harms or exacerbate other problems like detection/treatment of other serious health problems, education, mental/emotional well-being, etc. There are always trade-offs. There's no such thing as a free covid protections. The question has to be whether the benefits sufficiently outweigh the costs.

Not a controversial statement

Maybe in hindsight for this virus, it isn't. But what if the mortality rate was much higher? say even 10%? What is the line for having CDC make the guidelines vs. politicians? What death rate is acceptable for allowing people to have their freedoms vs. looking out for humanity as a whole?

I don’t know. That’s why I am here posting on RM and not running the world.

[verb_to_trust]

And as usual I'll take the position that makes me unpopular with both sides. I don't doubt that masks provide some benefit on the micro level to the wearer or people who come into contact with her/him. However, I think the data is clear that mask mandates/lockdowns/NPI's have not been effective (at least enough to remain justified). We have two years of natural experiments and if it were true that mask mandates were effective then we should see a clear negative correlation between mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death and a clear positive correlation between a lack of mandates and transmission/hospitalization/death. That's not what we see, especially in age-adjusted data. Sweden and Florida didn't become death factories and New York and California didn't defeat it with their lockdowns and mandates.

Everyone’s running around in crummy cloth masks.

Yeah could be. Maybe it'd be different if it were N-95s or if there were stricter enforcement or if people weren't allowed to remove the masks to eat or drink outside of their home, but none of those things are true, so the reality is that the mandates haven't worked even if they may work if everything was done with 100% fidelity. I don't think the efficacy of policies should be measured based on "well if everybody acted perfectly..." because that just isn't the world we live in.

Yeah for sure, just wanted to be clear it wasn’t science that failed, but rather typical human behavior/apathy.

I suspect that it mostly fails even with humans who aren't apathetic and who have been extremely vigilant. But again to me this is less a science question and more a policy question. And now I'll say something more controversial, but this why I dislike the entire model of having supposed infectious disease gurus calling the shots because their sole concern is covid, but things that might help in fighting covid may cause other harms or exacerbate other problems like detection/treatment of other serious health problems, education, mental/emotional well-being, etc. There are always trade-offs. There's no such thing as a free covid protections. The question has to be whether the benefits sufficiently outweigh the costs.

Not a controversial statement

Maybe in hindsight for this virus, it isn't. But what if the mortality rate was much higher? say even 10%? What is the line for having CDC make the guidelines vs. politicians? What death rate is acceptable for allowing people to have their freedoms vs. looking out for humanity as a whole?

Ifs and buts

Candy and nuts

[E.H. Ruddock]

Read my post. I'm not saying "what if" in this scenario. I'm asking where the line is for CDC guidelines vs. social in the overall picture of diseases as a whole. Perhaps COVID would have been fine with less CDC guidelines and more political, but where is the line for future outbreaks? But thanks for reading and contributing with your mature post there, verb.

[verb_to_trust]

Idk about all that. My school house rock episode of how the government works didn't have the part about the CDC branch

[E.H. Ruddock]

Damn i must be stupid to expect an intelligent conversation in this thread.

[Bammer]

Damn i must be stupid to expect an intelligent conversation in this thread.

Only got a second here but the missing part of your question/post would be about separating those we know to be high risk from the rest (overwhelming majority) of the population and making decisions from there as far as stay at home orders, etc.

[verb_to_trust]

What did immunocompromised people do before covid? They presumably had to deal with any number of other mild illnesses.

[E.H. Ruddock]

Damn i must be stupid to expect an intelligent conversation in this thread.

Only got a second here but the missing part of your question/post would be about separating those we know to be high risk from the rest (overwhelming majority) of the population and making decisions from there as far as stay at home orders, etc.

I must not be posing my question right, based on 4/5's post.

He was saying maybe the CDC isn't the best agency to control the restrictions/guidelines because they don't take into account social and economic impacts of the restrictions. Which could very well be true for this virus. But is there a line where social and economic impacts don't or shouldn't matter? If a virus had even a 10% fatality rate, I would think "high risk" would pretty much include everyone. So then, I ask, who would be best to be in charge of public restrictions/guidelines in that scenario? And if it would be the CDC, then what is the death rate cutoff for when all people will follow them vs. only 50% or whatever it was during COVID?