Red Mosquito

If I was a newswriter who was asked to cover all the see-sawing Covid restrictions (X comapny requires this, X school district requires that, X company changes their requirements, then changes it back again the following week) I would consider suicide.

Before you would consider a career change?

Rob wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:I thought this was the coronavirus thread? Why are you talking about Trump?

Not about Trump. It’s about MAGA - an attitude. You got a bad case, bro.

Politics! YEAH

Bammer wrote:If I was a newswriter who was asked to cover all the see-sawing Covid restrictions (X comapny requires this, X school district requires that, X company changes their requirements, then changes it back again the following week) I would consider suicide.

If you don't have the balls to do it yourself just hang out at Sturgis and catch covid 9,999 times until you die.

Or at least spend a year posting the same trollish argument and see if that helps.

We've been over this. I have a stuffed animal. That's what helps.

There’s that trollish argument, right on cue.

Hate to say it, but you are no longer a verb to trust.

Rob

Bammer

McParadigm wrote:Before you would consider a career change?

Bammer wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Before you would consider a career change?

I’m 50/50 on whether Bammer knows he’s agreeing with McP.

Rob wrote:

Bammer wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Before you would consider a career change?

I’m 50/50 on whether Bammer knows he’s agreeing with McP.

McP is my boy

Rob wrote:Hate to say it, but you are no longer a verb to trust.

The guy who wrote that song is a big pharma shill now. Crazy.

Mr. Verb is taking Woke to a whole new level. Enlighten us further, please.

Green Habit wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:I bet boosters will be authorized by the end of next week.

Do we have good numbers on this yet? Something like going down from 90% to 80% doesn't alarm me too much. And I'd only be alarmed at severe symptomatic covid at that.

That being said, I would happily take a boosters if available. Jab me up, docs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/scie ... fizer.html

Israel launched an aggressive campaign with the Pfizer vaccine in January, and the country has achieved one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, with 58 percent of the population fully vaccinated. At the start of the campaign, government researchers began estimating how much the shot reduced people’s risk of getting Covid-19.

They published their results in May, based on records from Jan. 24 to April 3: They estimated that the vaccine was 95 percent effective in preventing infection from the coronavirus in the country. In other words, the risk of getting Covid-19 was nearly 100 percent reduced in vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated ones. The researchers also estimated that the vaccine was 97.5 percent effective against severe disease.

From a peak of over 8,600 cases a day in January, cases plummeted in the following months until only a few dozen people were testing positive on a daily basis across Israel. The vaccine most likely played a part in that drop, along with the tight restrictions that the government imposed on travel and meetings.

Israel began relaxing its restrictions in the spring. In late June, the cases surged again. Now, over a thousand people are testing positive each day, leading Israel to restore some restrictions this week.

Some of the people that tested positive for the coronavirus in the new surge were fully vaccinated. Epidemiologists had expected such breakthrough infections, as they do with all vaccines.

Researchers at the Ministry of Health took another look at the effectiveness of the vaccine, limiting their analysis to the surge from June 6 to July 3. In that period, they estimated, the effectiveness of the vaccine at preventing infections was down to 64 percent.

More recently, they ran another analysis. This time, they looked at cases between June 20 and July 17. In that period, they estimated, the vaccine’s effectiveness was even lower: just 39 percent against infection.

Still, they estimated that the vaccine’s effectiveness against serious disease remained high, at 91.4 percent.

The 39% cited in the article is a little misleading (shocking!), here's the results of the cited study:



That 39% is not just people who were vaccinated in January. Even the Pfizer CEO has said effectiveness wanes, but claims it's falling by about 6 percent every two months "against any symptomatic illness". (Though we should note he has an 8-figure financial motive to get boosters on the market this year.)

Delta itself is being portrayed problematically. Here's Delta in India, where sanitation and vaccination are far lower than say Florida.



What does this mean for us? Can we just sit it out for another 4 weeks and bingo it fades without going back to the lockdowns of 12 months ago? I don't even know where to look to find that discussion, it's only "get the vaccine".


So I think the real issue here is the way we are marketing not just the vaccine but anti-covid measures in general is not effective against the people who most need the encouragement. Too much over simplification, which opens the door for bad faith actors to come in with their "science", and too much partisanship, which invokes tribal identity over self-interest. Proclaiming your vaccine status is this year's black square on social media. It might go back to the BLM protests last year even... when the messaging became "you can't have a backyard bbq with your fam because you'll kill memaw, but these ten thousands person crowds can march in the streets" you destroyed any perception of objectivity and opened the door for Trumpism regardless of the data about transmission at that time (Shit, it probably goes back to Gore's dam hockey stick graph now that I ponder it). Plus having the same media who spent all of 2020 calling people racist now telling them to get the vaccine is going to have the opposite effect of what we need. Another example is how we dealt with schools. We kept kids out of school for a devastating 18 months even when the data suggested the risk was barely measurable. People will come to the conclusion that it wasn't for the kids, it was for the unions. Now that we are heading back in the fall we see teacher's unions opposing a vaccine mandate. We are gonna end up with parents who can't enter a school because they aren't vaccinated but unvaccinated teachers that can spend 9 hours there and the same leadership who will condemn those parents will be silent about the teachers. That's the wrong message to convince vaccine hold outs. Consistent, honest, and clear about what we know versus what we suspect is the only thing that works to build trust and that's what we really need here. Not shame, not fear, but trust because we are going to need to do the big push all over again in the fall as the protection fades and if we dont start explaining why now it's gonna be much, much harder. Trump spoke to their hearts and he won their allegiance, why not do the same here?

simple schoolboy wrote:What are the numbers on reduced transmission with masks?

Mask mandates were what, 2% reduction in transmission when (imperfectly) compared to equivalent regions without mask mandates?

I don't know the precise percentages, but that sounds plausible. Most unvaccinated people are going to end up catching it in their own homes or eating and drinking somewhere in public.

Bi_3 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:I bet boosters will be authorized by the end of next week.

Do we have good numbers on this yet? Something like going down from 90% to 80% doesn't alarm me too much. And I'd only be alarmed at severe symptomatic covid at that.

That being said, I would happily take a boosters if available. Jab me up, docs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/scie ... fizer.html

Thanks. The last line with protecting against serious disease still being in the 90s is key. It's not going to be comfortable to accept this, but we have to deal with the possible reality that everyone's going to encounter the virus at some point, and some will get mildly symptomatic as a result. If boosters can reduce the odds of mild symptoms, then great, but it also sounds like a scenario similar to the flu shot.

Bi_3 wrote:What does this mean for us? Can we just sit it out for another 4 weeks and bingo it fades without going back to the lockdowns of 12 months ago? I don't even know where to look to find that discussion, it's only "get the vaccine".

So I think the real issue here is the way we are marketing not just the vaccine but anti-covid measures in general is not effective against the people who most need the encouragement. Too much over simplification, which opens the door for bad faith actors to come in with their "science", and too much partisanship, which invokes tribal identity over self-interest. Proclaiming your vaccine status is this year's black square on social media. It might go back to the BLM protests last year even... when the messaging became "you can't have a backyard bbq with your fam because you'll kill memaw, but these ten thousands person crowds can march in the streets" you destroyed any perception of objectivity and opened the door for Trumpism regardless of the data about transmission at that time (Shit, it probably goes back to Gore's dam hockey stick graph now that I ponder it). Plus having the same media who spent all of 2020 calling people racist now telling them to get the vaccine is going to have the opposite effect of what we need. Another example is how we dealt with schools. We kept kids out of school for a devastating 18 months even when the data suggested the risk was barely measurable. People will come to the conclusion that it wasn't for the kids, it was for the unions. Now that we are heading back in the fall we see teacher's unions opposing a vaccine mandate. We are gonna end up with parents who can't enter a school because they aren't vaccinated but unvaccinated teachers that can spend 9 hours there and the same leadership who will condemn those parents will be silent about the teachers. That's the wrong message to convince vaccine hold outs. Consistent, honest, and clear about what we know versus what we suspect is the only thing that works to build trust and that's what we really need here. Not shame, not fear, but trust because we are going to need to do the big push all over again in the fall as the protection fades and if we dont start explaining why now it's gonna be much, much harder. Trump spoke to their hearts and he won their allegiance, why not do the same here?

Completely agreed. The only thing I would add is that securing trust is going to require different messaging depending on the priors of each specific person. That's not something that a mass media campaign can really do.

verb_to_trust wrote:How is saying "masks work, except during basically any relevant situation in your day to day life" any different than me saying "masks don't work"? I see the same amount of effort in our statements. You're SO CLOSE.

Go buy a teddy bear you absolute suckers.

His point is masks don’t work when people don’t wear them.

Green Habit wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:How is saying "masks work, except during basically any relevant situation in your day to day life" any different than me saying "masks don't work"? I see the same amount of effort in our statements. You're SO CLOSE.

Go buy a teddy bear you absolute suckers.

Yeesh, as usual when I post here I'm trying to find some common ground, and you're coming guns blazing at me. Obviously I was gone for a while, but I don't recall you being this trigger happy before.

covid broke him. he’s not kidding about the thumb sucking.