Red Mosquito

next thing you know they’ll make us strap our kids down when they’re in the car!

EU: boosters are safe for those over 18 and six months past their second shot, the immune compromised may get them sooner

US: put a fan in your window during thanksgiving dinner

Bi_3 wrote:EU: boosters are safe for those over 18 and six months past their second shot, the immune compromised may get them sooner

US: put a fan in your window during thanksgiving dinner

Medical providers are already providing Pfizer boosters to the immuno-compromised in the US. Not sure why they are dragging their feet on the general population other than stupid messaging concerns.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:EU: boosters are safe for those over 18 and six months past their second shot, the immune compromised may get them sooner

US: put a fan in your window during thanksgiving dinner

Medical providers are already providing Pfizer boosters to the immuno-compromised in the US. Not sure why they are dragging their feet on the general population other than stupid messaging concerns.

I’m sure it’s the same as why they call sections first and in a orderly fashion to board a plane. Otherwise it’s just a free for all

My dad's physical strength continues to improve, but got a somewhat (though not surprising) sobering life outlook from the pulmonologist last month.

He slept without oxygen last night for the first time since the diagnosis 9 months ago. He will likely need oxygen for the rest of his life, but has started going tubeless while in a resting state.

Monkey_Driven wrote:My dad's physical strength continues to improve, but got a somewhat (though not surprising) sobering life outlook from the pulmonologist last month.

He slept without oxygen last night for the first time since the diagnosis 9 months ago. He will likely need oxygen for the rest of his life, but has started going tubeless while in a resting state.

That's great, Monkey. Hopefully he continues to improve and be able to have more good days than bad.

very glad to hear that MD

Good news, MD.

Vox acknowledges the data that show that covid is very low risk for kids. Please let this represent a turning point.

A turning point for what?

spike wrote:A turning point for what?

I think that if people understand the minimal risk children face and the data that suggests they also spread covid less to each other and (far more importantly) to adults that hopefully mitigation policies can begin to become more proportional to the actual risks. IMO current policies (I'm specifically focused on schools) demonstrate a massive overestimation of the risks involved and are imposing significant costs with almost no benefit. I know we all have to make our own value judgements about how much risk is tolerable and how much isn't so there isn't a clear right/wrong answer to this. And I know you're on the more cautious side than I am but in my opinion the evidence is clear that mandating masks in schools or quarantining children (and therefore making them lose class time) who haven't tested positive doesn't do much good and in my cost/benefit analysis I think the costs outweigh the benefits. It strikes me as odd that we're returning to something closer to normalcy in most areas of life but not at schools which happen to be made up of the group that is by far the safest from covid.

The Vox article (and a similar CNN one yesterday) provide me with some hope because it isn't anti-vaxxers or anti-maskers pointing this out and therefore easily dismissed. It's liberal outlets using CDC data. I want this to be a turning point where people who are concerned about covid begin to come to terms with the idea that some mitigation policies are no longer supported by the evidence.

4/5 wrote:The Vox article (and a similar CNN one yesterday) provide me with some hope because it isn't anti-vaxxers or anti-maskers pointing this out and therefore easily dismissed. It's liberal outlets using CDC data. I want this to be a turning point where people who are concerned about covid begin to come to terms with the idea that some mitigation policies are no longer supported by the evidence.

While I hope the actual risk profiles for kids is understood, I do get very frustrated with; how long it has taken "liberal outlets" to read and analyze data that has been available for quite a while, and that valid analysis is ignored or besmirched if it comes from the wrong side. Neither side follows the science and the literacy required to even understand analysis made is lacking almost everywhere in politics, let lone the fortitude to speak to it meaningfully.

surfndestroy wrote:

4/5 wrote:The Vox article (and a similar CNN one yesterday) provide me with some hope because it isn't anti-vaxxers or anti-maskers pointing this out and therefore easily dismissed. It's liberal outlets using CDC data. I want this to be a turning point where people who are concerned about covid begin to come to terms with the idea that some mitigation policies are no longer supported by the evidence.

While I hope the actual risk profiles for kids is understood, I do get very frustrated with; how long it has taken "liberal outlets" to read and analyze data that has been available for quite a while, and that valid analysis is ignored or besmirched if it comes from the wrong side. Neither side follows the science and the literacy required to even understand analysis made is lacking almost everywhere in politics, let lone the fortitude to speak to it meaningfully.

Yeah, same. In the past I've had to go to the CDC reports for data or sometimes data would be kinda buried in a WaPo article with a scary headline, but in paragraph 20 it provides the data that suggests something else. It's been very frustrating.

4/5 wrote:

spike wrote:A turning point for what?

I think that if people understand the minimal risk children face and the data that suggests they also spread covid less to each other and (far more importantly) to adults that hopefully mitigation policies can begin to become more proportional to the actual risks. IMO current policies (I'm specifically focused on schools) demonstrate a massive overestimation of the risks involved and are imposing significant costs with almost no benefit. I know we all have to make our own value judgements about how much risk is tolerable and how much isn't so there isn't a clear right/wrong answer to this. And I know you're on the more cautious side than I am but in my opinion the evidence is clear that mandating masks in schools or quarantining children (and therefore making them lose class time) who haven't tested positive doesn't do much good and in my cost/benefit analysis I think the costs outweigh the benefits. It strikes me as odd that we're returning to something closer to normalcy in most areas of life but not at schools which happen to be made up of the group that is by far the safest from covid.

The Vox article (and a similar CNN one yesterday) provide me with some hope because it isn't anti-vaxxers or anti-maskers pointing this out and therefore easily dismissed. It's liberal outlets using CDC data. I want this to be a turning point where people who are concerned about covid begin to come to terms with the idea that some mitigation policies are no longer supported by the evidence.

Those mitigations aren’t going away til kids are vaccinated. Good news is that’s on the immediate horizon.

spike wrote: Those mitigations aren’t going away til kids are vaccinated. Good news is that’s on the immediate horizon.

I know they aren't going away yet. I just think they should. I also think that vaccine rates are going to be very disappointing whenever they do give the green light. The good news is the overwhelming majority of kids don't really need it, anyway.

4/5 wrote:

spike wrote: Those mitigations aren’t going away til kids are vaccinated. Good news is that’s on the immediate horizon.

I know they aren't going away yet. I just think they should. I also think that vaccine rates are going to be very disappointing whenever they do give the green light. The good news is the overwhelming majority of kids don't really need it, anyway.

Some European countries have stopped vaccinating younger kids, but clearly we know better.

One of the problems is that "the science" isn't an on/off light switch.

- Kids are safer than adults. Not completely safe.
- Masks are safer than no masks. Not completely safe.
- Vaccines are safer than no vaccine. Not completely safe.

So, you have to make decisions based on how much you're willing to life in the "not as safe" zone.

I have no problems with my kids wearing masks at school because it's a very small inconvenience that keeps kids safer.
The vaccine is a very small inconvenience that keeps kids safer.

One local rule that I hate is that my daughter's elementary school has the kids eat outside. They get 15 minutes to eat without their masks, no more, and they can't talk while eating.

They are outside and spread out for fuck's sake. The danger dimmer is pushed all the way down. They need to let the fucking kids talk to their friends.

B wrote:One of the problems is that "the science" isn't an on/off light switch.

- Kids are safer than adults. Not completely safe.
- Masks are safer than no masks. Not completely safe.
- Vaccines are safer than no vaccine. Not completely safe.

So, you have to make decisions based on how much you're willing to life in the "not as safe" zone.

I have no problems with my kids wearing masks at school because it's a very small inconvenience that keeps kids safer.
The vaccine is a very small inconvenience that keeps kids safer.

One local rule that I hate is that my daughter's elementary school has the kids eat outside. They get 15 minutes to eat without their masks, no more, and they can't talk while eating.

They are outside and spread out for fuck's sake. The danger dimmer is pushed all the way down. They need to let the fucking kids talk to their friends.

I agree with a lot of this, but I don't think any of this is really about "The Science," but rather our understanding of and tolerance for risks. Obviously we all have different levels of risk tolerance and therefore there isn't a single data point at which we all agree this is the point where more or less actions are justified. My interpretation of the data combined with my risk preferences make me comfortable with dramatically scaling back the mitigation policies aimed at kids. Hopefully vaccines for kids get approved sooner than later to help more people comfortable with the risks to children.

B wrote:
One local rule that I hate is that my daughter's elementary school has the kids eat outside. They get 15 minutes to eat without their masks, no more, and they can't talk while eating.

They are outside and spread out for fuck's sake. The danger dimmer is pushed all the way down. They need to let the fucking kids talk to their friends.

Yea that sucks. My 3rd grader eats in the lunch room, on the floor, everybody spread out 3ft away from each other, grouped by classroom, and they're allowed to talk to their neighbors. Doesn't sound too bad.