Printable View
So much for your superhuman immunity to everything. I suppose I should not indulge in schadenfreude, but it is kind of hilarious that you whine so much about your own discomforts when you have been so dismissive of other peoples' suffering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
The pandemic has sort of fixed for me the notion that seeing really despicable people suffer could do anything for me. I don't say this as a sanctimonious sort of the thing because I expected the afterglow of crackpot antivaxx radio hosts dying to last longer. It barely even registers and the fact is I know they went through some kind of personal hell. Four weeks in the hospital with a respiratory virus must be brutal. You could describe for them in advance how much that must suck and how you have no control over whether it happens once you're infected......they don't fucking get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
To be frank, I can't feel too much sympathy for people who have been indifferent to the health of others and have chosen to ignore scientific evidence. There is poetic justice to it: hubris leads to nemesis.
I guess ideally I would kind of like them to get just sick enough to learn a lesson. For some folks, unfortunately, the only way they can learn is through hard experience. I'm not sure whether Trump learnt a lesson, but he has at least been sensible on vaccines.
I recall being quite indifferent to the suffering of others at the cost of economic stability. But I don’t recall taking any pleasure in it. Oh well, one more difference in the liberal mind and the conservative mind I guess.
Wilkommen in Deutschland -Geimpft oder Genesen? Mit weder, bye-bye!
I've found I don't take pleasure in it and I don't feel sorrowful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
My reaction is similar to when I watched one of the guys from the Jackass movies ask Butterbean to punch him in the head. Then it happens. The utter lack of suspense, the inevitability of cause and effect being linked up, and the stupidity of the person ignoring both cause bewilderment and irritation.
Okay, I know I said I wasn't going to talk about Covid anymore. But then I found out about COVID DICK!!!!!
https://nypost.com/2022/01/13/man-cl...racting-covid/
Attachment 1360409
Nah, he is dyslexic, as in Honey I shrunk the Kids
Interesting stat - 85% of all Covid cases recorded in Australia so far have occurred in the past 4 weeks.
https://www.worldometers.info/corona...try/australia/
The real figure is certainly even higher because testing capacity has been overwhelmed and people are now being told to get a PCR test only if they have symptoms or a positive rapid antigen test. The problem is that RATs are in very short supply (and increasingly expensive). Apparently it never occurred to anyone that removing most restrictions at the same time omicron emerged would lead to a huge upsurge in cases.
I just saw that you guys have 92.6% of the population over 16 at least double jabbed. That should help a lot in the long run. The transmissibility of omicron must be off the charts given what is happening everywhere. Probably a combination of that and lower appetite for caution given that it's less deadly (whether bc of prior immunity or intrinsically). Clearly a lot of lives have been saved by your public health measures.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I was just trying to figure out the case fatality rate in the US knowing that we probably are not detecting a large percent of cases. If death lags three weeks, the denominator is about 300,000 and the numerator about 1700. That's a cfr of about .55%. If only one third of cases are picked up it could be an ifr of .17%....and ifr obviously varies a lot based on comorbities and amount of prior immunity. I know this is very rough math (for instance I completely made up one third but we know ifr is probably a significant multiple lower than cfr).
I don't think 1700 deaths in the US is trivial but when you have 1700 deaths on lots of infections it does mean lots of people are getting some immunity. The problem is that immunity doesn't last forever and new variants could reduce the significance of that. It also means that if the cfr holds then in three weeks we might be seeing about 4000 deaths a day here (against 800,000 current infections per day). So even while cfr and ifr are lower there's still a huge toll of death!
This doesn't make perfect sense. I know ifr is an average calculated among a population with a variety of different risk factors. At the very least though the ifr could be broken into two groups. Those with some immunity and those with none. But that's tricky because age is correlated with both vaccination status and risk of death. So anyway I wouldn't be the one doing the calculating but it can be done:DQuote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
This article suggests that even though antibodies decline over time there are other ways by which the body can learn to strengthen its immune response over time. If this process and new vaccines can outpace the development of new variants we may be able to achieve the elusive herd immunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
https://www.vox.com/22878133/omicron...bodies-vaccine
There's been some really good science writing since this pandemic started. This is a great article, thanks. Not to be annoying but I recommend anyone interested in understanding how our immune system works and where the pandemic might be headed take a look.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Boris Johnson has announced significant relaxations in the rules. Desperate to save his job, he seems to think 'we' are at the tail end of the Pandemic and that such relaxations are not going to lead to another spike in infections, of either Covid-19 and/or its known variants, the assumption being there won't be any new ones. He could be doing the right, thing, or he could as he usually does, be gambling with the health of England, we have to wait and see.
"Boris Johnson has announced the end of all Covid measures introduced to combat the Omicron variant – compulsory mask-wearing on public transport and in shops, guidance to work from home and vaccine certificates – from next week.
The prime minister also told the Commons that the legal requirement on people with coronavirus to self-isolate would be allowed to lapse when the regulations expired on 24 March, and that date could be brought forward.
To cheers from some on the Conservative benches, Johnson announced an immediate end to the need for pupils to wear masks at secondary schools.
...
A director of public health at a city in the north of England said they were also concerned at the move. “This feels like more of a political decision than a decision based on the evidence and the science, and it could be quite London-centric,” they said.
“We’re seeing a reduction in cases, but they’re still incredibly high. Taking out all these measures does feel risky. And if our focus is keeping kids in schools as much as possible, this may result in more disruption to education. I worry the decision has not been made for the right reasons.”
The changes apply only to England, as Covid restrictions, as part of health policy, are a devolved matter. "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ons-in-england
I agree with Broncofan so thanks for linking this clearly written and informative article. Other than the clinical aspects of this and any potential new viruses, it is clear to me that we -and I don't just mean the UK- need to have more robust systems in place that can go into action when something like Covid arrives in the population. In the UK it means both better funding for the NHS, but also better prepared contingency planning which was so clearly lacking in January-March 2020. In the US it means the time has come for the country to accept that it needs to overhaul the health sector.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
What we also need is the intelligence that is in short supply, from the anti-Vaxx idiots we have in the UK, to their American 'cousins' and the truly nasty, stupid, ignorant and dangerous lunatics like Rand Paul who place a higher value on some fantasy they call 'freedom' than on human life.
We might get the practical stuff organized, it seems we need an intellectual revolution to save Science from the Cretins who think they know better. Looks like a log-term struggle.
Don't hold your breath. Our political systems seem to have lost any capacity for contingency planning. Even in Australia, which dealt with this pandemic better than most countries, there has been little evidence of planning for the surge in cases that followed inevitably the removal of most restrictions. https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/f...m-alan-kohler/Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
This can be attributed in part to the continuing influence of neo-liberalism and the idea that things should be left to the market. Even conservative governments are willing to set this aside in a crisis - the prospect of losing the next election tends to concentrate the mind wonderfully - but the prevailing assumption is that this should be temporary. Ignoring pessimistic scenarios is easier than expending resources now to avoid problems that may emerge only after you've left office.
In addition, most politicians these days are people whose experience and skills relate largely to politics, rather than running things in the 'real world'. This used to be offset to a degree by the expertise of the permanent public service, but this has been degraded over a long period. I don't know how it is in the UK but in Australia public servants are now told that their job is to do the government's bidding rather than any long term thinking of their own. Not surprisingly, they have learnt not to provide unsolicited advice and, in any case, staffing cuts have reduced their capacity to do more than the government demands.
Here's an example of how inefficient the US system is: in the year 2022 many people still have to submit reimbursement forms by post or fax. I assume the health funds do this deliberately to discourage claims. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-reimbursementQuote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I remember seeing Governor Phil Murphy (NJ) on Meet the Press shortly after it was confirmed that he had won his reelection bid. The feeling I took away from his appearance was that he was someone who realized that even though he had won, the slim margin told him that he was going to have to make some changes during his second term in office.
http://https://www.nytimes.com/2022/...k-mandate.html
Dropping Indoor Mask Mandate, New York Joins Blue States Easing Covid Rules
After a scare in November, New Jersey’s governor and other Democratic leaders held back-channel talks over lifting mandates and helping voters impatient with restrictions reclaim a sense of normalcy.
Gov. Kathy Hochul will drop New York’s stringent indoor mask mandate on Wednesday, ending a requirement that businesses ask customers for proof of full vaccination or require mask wearing at all times, and marking a turning point in the state’s coronavirus response, according to three people briefed on her decision.
The decision will eliminate a rule that prompted legal and interpersonal clashes over mask wearing, especially in conservative parts of New York. It was set to expire on Thursday and would have required renewing.
Ms. Hochul’s decision will let the mask mandate lapse just as a crushing winter surge in coronavirus cases is finally receding. But it was not yet clear whether the governor would renew or drop a separate mask mandate in New York schools that is set to expire in two weeks.
The easing of New York’s pandemic restrictions on businesses comes as Democratic-led states from New Jersey to California have announced similar moves this week, in a loosely coordinated effort that is the result of months of public-health planning, back-channel discussions and political focus groups that began in the weeks after the November election.
It was Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey who began the effort last fall, weeks after he was stunned by the energy of right-wing voters in his blue state, who nearly ousted him from office in what was widely expected to be an easy re-election campaign. Arranging a series of focus groups across the state to see what they had missed, Mr. Murphy’s advisers were struck by the findings: Across the board, voters shared frustrations over public health measures, a sense of pessimism about the future and a deep desire to return to some sense of normalcy.
Then, Omicron hit, delaying any easing of restrictions.
But slowly, as case rates began to fall again in January, conversations between Mr. Murphy’s aides and senior officials in other states began to pick back up. No actions could be taken until the virus eased its grip, the officials acknowledged.
But even Democratic voters, they agreed, were wearying of the toughest restrictions, growing increasingly impatient with mandates and feeling ready to live with the risk that remained. As cases plummeted, the public health dynamics were shifting, too, giving the governors the opportunity to figure out how to arrive at a new sense of normal.
Last week, they took their concerns to the White House. As members of the National Governors Association gathered for a meeting in the East Room, several asked President Biden to provide clear guidelines for their states to move from the crisis footing of a pandemic to a recognition that the virus was here to stay — and that it could be managed without completely upending daily life.
“What does the road from pandemic to endemic look like, and how do we keep score?” Mr. Murphy, the association’s vice chairman, later told reporters, describing the discussion. “There was broad agreement that that’s the task before us.”
The administration’s guidance didn’t come quickly enough for Mr. Murphy, however. On Monday, he acted — without White House support — by announcing that New Jersey would no longer require students and school employees to wear masks, in defiance of the current recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The rest of the article:
With that, a dam had broken. Within hours, Democratic governors in California, Connecticut, Delaware and Oregon moved to lift some mask mandates, and other states and cities indicated that mandates may be ending soon. In Boston, Mayor Michelle Wu laid out benchmarks on Tuesday for when the city would lift proof-of-vaccine requirements if hospitalizations and case numbers continued to fall.
Even in Virginia, where an executive order making masks optional in schools, by Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, is tied up in legal challenges from liberal school districts, 10 out of 21 Democratic state Senators joined with Republicans on Tuesday to advance legislation that would do just that.
While the specific steps vary by state, the message was the same: It’s time to move on.
In New York, the lifting of the mandate on businesses would have far-reaching effects on many public settings, including retail shops, restaurants and malls as well as workplaces — a boon for companies struggling to attract workers back to their offices.
Ms. Hochul’s move would not affect the mask mandate in New York schools, which expires on Feb. 21 and has become increasingly contentious, sparking heated feuds among parents, teachers and students over public health and individual liberties.
Ms. Hochul said this week that she hoped to ease mask rules in schools eventually, but that the state first needed to scrutinize public health metrics. “I am optimistic that we’re trending in that direction, but I still need the time,” she said on Monday.
Her decision also would not appear to affect certain local, federal and other requirements around masking in specific settings, meaning masks would still be required on trains, airplanes and buses and in health care facilities like hospitals and nursing homes.
It is unclear if some localities with their own strict mask and vaccination rules might follow Ms. Hochul’s lead and potentially lift their restrictions, too.
In New York City, for example, proof of vaccination is required to dine indoors, attend events at arenas, work out at gyms and go to the movies. That requirement has been in place through a program known as “Key to NYC,” which was implemented through an executive order from the mayor and must be renewed every five days. City officials said Tuesday that the order was being renewed.
While the movement to loosen pandemic restrictions began in swing states like Colorado, Pennsylvania and Michigan, its spread to some of the bluest states reflects a country entering a new political phase in the nearly two-year-long pandemic. After years of urging their voters to follow the science, Democrats in the states are moving more quickly to lift restrictions than the Biden administration, which remains scarred after all but declaring victory against the virus last summer only to greet the Delta variant.
Driving these decisions are the growing numbers of voters signaling that they are prepared to live with the virus as it is now, and political calculations about looming midterm elections that already have Democrats on the defensive.
Democrats used their “trust the science” mantra in the pandemic’s early days to project competence and skewer Republicans who were flouting public health guidance, but even the White House now acknowledges the growing gap between public opinion and the advice of the president’s public health advisers.
Moreover, some health experts warn that daylight on Covid restrictions between the Democratic administration and Democratic governors could undermine the already weakened federal public health authorities.
It’s a serious problem when most of the country is actively defying C.D.C. recommendations,” said Dr. Leana Wen, a public health professor at George Washington University. “Governors and local officials are seeing the sentiments of the people they’re serving. And public health has to meet people where they are.”
In a new wave of national polls, growing numbers of Americans have expressed a willingness to move on from the strictest mandates. Seven in 10 respondents to a recent poll by Monmouth University agreed that “it’s time we accept Covid is here to stay and we just need to get on with our lives.”
The rush to turn the page also risks missing an opportunity for Democrats to claim credit for successfully managing the pandemic at a moment when they sorely need to be able to point to major accomplishments, party strategists say.
“We should be pointing to the fact that these successes are because of things that we did,” said Brian Stryker, a partner at the polling firm ALG Research, pointing to vaccination rates and the expected release of vaccines for young children in the next several weeks. “Democrats need to take the win on how far we’ve come.”
Mr. Stryker, whose work on Virginia’s elections last year indicated that school closures hurt Democrats, said that moving past the crisis point of the pandemic would allow Democrats to focus more heavily on the economy and personal finances — issues that he said were increasingly overshadowing concerns about the pandemic.
“This is a moment for us to say that this phase of the pandemic, where you as a vaccinated person need to be scared all the time, is over and it is time to live again,” he said. “It will be well received by voters and also gives us the space to talk about other things voters are really concerned about.”
At the same time, Democrats at the state and local level face a more pressing political challenge than the White House. In midterm races, Republicans are eager to shame and name liberal opponents over the tough restrictions they imposed — and over instances in which they personally appear to flout them.
Republicans excoriated Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles after they were photographed without masks at an N.F.L. playoff game on Jan. 30. (Mr. Garcetti said he held his breath during the photo, creating a “zero percent chance of infection.”)
On Monday, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, called Representative Elissa Slotkin of Michigan “another Democrat hypocrite” after Ms. Slotkin posted a photo of herself unmasked at an indoor campaign event.
And over the weekend, Stacey Abrams, the Georgia Democrat running for governor, deleted a photograph she had tweeted that showed her smiling, mask-free, in front of a classroom full of children wearing masks at a Georgia school.
“This is the Georgia Stacey Abrams wants,” warned a digital ad with which the campaign of former Senator David Perdue, a Republican running for governor, sought to capitalize on the misstep. “Unmask our kids.”
Tuesday night, Ms. Abrams said she had erred by taking the photograph. “Protocols matter,” she said on CNN. “And protecting our kids is the most important thing. And anything that can be perceived as undermining that is a mistake, and I apologize.”
The newest monoclonal antibody treatment to get emergency use authorization for omicron by the fda is bebtelovimab. It is produced by Eli Lilly, which had a previous antibody treatment that was no longer effective against omicron. Regeneron also had an antibody treatment that was effective against previous variants but not omicron. My understanding is that glaxosmithkline also has an antibody treatment that is still effective against omicron called sotrovimab.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pres...vid-19-retains
https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lillys-bebtelovimab-receives-emergency-use-authorization
GSK Sotrovimab Fact Sheet for HCP 12222021 (fda.gov)
This is a long but absorbing article in which Musa al-Gharbi tries to explain why people are 'vaccine hesitant' or outright opposed to vaccination, but sees not so much a medical, as a political reason for it, and one that can be explained by the lack of trust people have in politicians, and in the case of Covid, the scientists they have relied on. On the one hand there is the fact that many more people have been vaccinated than have not, but that over the course of the pandemic positions have changed, and mandates and vaccine passports generate hostility. I think it is a fair assessment. My only additional point would be that people who are opposed to Mandates and Vaccine Passports should know these are not permanent, but temporary requirements, and that they work to help reduce the spread of the virus.
I think it was first published in The Guardian but is reprinted via Yahoo
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/why-people...112524888.html
The data from the trials have been published. Even if you're not an expert in statistics the numbers are pretty straightforward and you would have to believe dozens of people are concocting a fraud in order to disbelieve raw data comparing placebo with treatment arm.
Not believing that scientists are doctoring results from a clinical trial is not very much trust. It doesn't mean I blindly believe or accept every conclusion or opinion. It means I don't think there is a deliberate plot to give people a harmful vaccine and that dedicated medical professionals are lying about its efficacy.
Understanding why people would believe this is definitely something worth investigating because its effects are catastrophic. But I don't really think it removes culpability or blameworthiness from the people who subscribe to these views. I've said before I have a first cousin who is an antivaxxer and I think what she is doing to her family and neighbors by adopting these beliefs is unconscionable.
Very good, well balanced article from Musa al-Gharbi trying to explain it all. Thanks for posting this Stavros. His upcoming book , as mentioned at the end of the article, may well be an excellent read also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Your post is an example of a moral argument shaped by reason, where the contrast is between Emotion and Reason, or as Hobbes put it, between a State of Nature and a State of Government. One could also frame it has the contrast between Faith and Science. It begs the question which to some extent is answered in the link I offered above, what do people want who are so opposed to vaccination?
There seems to be no science in their argument, but an emotional reaction to a diemma oft discussed in politics -does a Liberal Democracy prefer to give the Citizen freedom to do, or freedom from? Hobbes would argue the State takes away part of your freedom in return for security -the citizen should know freedom from fear, of which the fear of death is absolute. It seems those who believe they should have freedom to do, to make their own choices, are willing to leave life or death to chance rather than to the State, even when it has laws, and in some cases a writte Constitution.
Moreover, is it not ironic, that in a State like Texas, where Greg Abbott appears to prefer the Bible to the Constitution, decisions shaped by Faith have bad outcomes politically- that using religious faith as the basis of political decision making is little different from what happens in Pakistan, or Iran or Afghanistan? The same man who declares a 'heartbeat' proof of life that must not be terminated, has no moral anguish in terminating the lives of men on death row, even though it is as clear a violation of the Gospels as can be found.
Thus to me, a politics shaped by emotion, by fear, by resentment, is a form of anarchy, because it resists and opposes rational decision making. It is fundamental to human behaviour, but is not its only form, and maybe in the US, it is the cause of the 'anti-Fed' ideology at the root of 'anti-vaxx' protest. An appeal to reason, or science, thus falls on deaf ears, because the exchange of views is shaped by contradictions -we cannot understand their rejection of reason, they cannot understand our rejection of their feelings.
Trust thus lies at the intersection of our dilemma, just as in the UK, Boris Johnson has lost the trust of many through his cavalier attitude to laws and regulations he told us to obey. And if trust is truly broken, does it matter who replaces Johnson, or Biden, or Trump? We live in interesting, but dangerous times.
Thanks for the endorsement Fred. Hope all is well with you and the Big Apple!Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
I disagree with a large portion of the article. There's simply no way that a large number of experts could have the same view about every aspect of the pandemic across time, even when the situation is constantly changing. It basically uses the existence of uncertainty in a dynamic situation as an excuse for cherry-picking those facts convenient to the conspiracy narrative and ignoring everything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
But who is responsible for compiling and collating every stupid statement and presenting them in isolation in order to undermine confidence in vaccines? If you want to discredit the politician who made the statement then fine. But why attempt to pitch ivermectin or undermine public health protocols?
Who is responsible for using the fact that what is known changes over time to undermine conclusions that were drawn at an earlier time?
Initially the rationale for getting the vaccine is that it was effective against all endpoints studied, from infection, to severe disease, to death. It was stated very clearly by most health professionals that the duration of effectiveness was unknown. It was discussed immediately that boosters might be needed at some point and the only way to find out was to wait. There was also concern about whether the vaccines would be effective if there were new variants.
The mask guidance was inherently tricky because it wasn't known initially whether the virus spread before the onset of symptoms. Once it became clear that the virus spread before onset of symptoms the guidance was that masks could be helpful. It's very difficult to study the real world effectiveness of masks because it's difficult to find a control.
Several bullet points are simply wrong. He says initially people were told one shot might be enough. Both Moderna and Pfizer were tested with two shots and were never approved for use with one shot. It was only when delta emerged that it looked like boosters might be a good idea.
He then points out that 12,000 people died shortly after their shots and that this isn't a miniscule number. Nobody is claiming it's a miniscule number. The question is whether the shots caused people's deaths as 12,000 is small relative to the number of people who have been vaccinated. If the shots caused people's deaths how did they do so? Was it an immunological response? It could not have been the result of infection from the vaccine so what occurred etc.
It really seems to me akin to someone blaming the reporting of the wtc attacks for people making bullshit documentaries like loose change. You can't prevent anomalies, or uncertainty, or dumb statements that can be seized on as convenient by these folks...
I am well thank you….the Big Apple - well, we will have to wait and see. If I had small children I would’ve either moved to the suburbs, small town or perhaps a different State, but we have a new Mayor and I am somewhat hopeful that he will create a better environment in NYC. I could elaborate further…but this is the Covid thread so I’ll leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I’m fully vaxxed and boostered and will continue with the recommended regimen. For myself, this is the most logical course of action on all fronts. I’m not overweight, don’t smoke nor have any immune compromises at the moment, but I’ll be 60 in a few months - in one of the densest cities in the U.S…where vaccination rates are high…but fully aware that they’ll never be at 100%. Also, I enjoy going to restaurants, pubs, gyms and shows, none of which can be comfortably traversed without some medical protection…especially when ones decision making process is often hindered by ones own vices…and probably - ones own stupidity..lol.
It seemed like almost everyone in NYC had Omicron during the Christmas holidays, but most of my friends and relatives are vaccinated so that , for those who were infected, the symptoms were either mild (much like a cold) or non existent. I had either the flu or Omicron - I’ll never know for sure, because the only test I could get at the time was a PCR test which results were deemed invalid…two Rapid tests I was able to procure much later came back negative. At present, you can get either test for free all over the city (there’s one up the block from my address).
I hope you and everyone here remains healthy. I often continue to read some of the threads, but just don’t have the desire or personal drive to post.
Be well.
Bronco, I believe you are looking at the article from a wrong perspective. You are a college educated man with a clearly higher-than average IQ , who is a single white collar employee who has the time and intellectual acuity to read, digest and debate all the medical and political news available to him. That is simply not true of a segment of our population. Many don’t have the intellect, education or work one or multiple blue collar jobs and most likely get their news from soundbites….that’s why what a leading politician says or does is so important. Mistakes can often be understandably forgiven, but insincerity by word or (perhaps more important) deed will always leave its mark. As the article points out - Many times , Science…at least ‘seems’ to, sometimes take a back seat to political concerns…by both elected representatives ..and medical staff. This will erode trust in people, especially if they are inherently suspicious to begin with. I don’t believe any of that is a justifiable excuse…but an attempt at explanation. To me, one or two of the author’s points can be debated on technicality…at least as memory may serve., but overall I think he gives a good attempt at explanation
This is very succinctly put and I should have said I agree with a lot of the bullet points in the article too. I know nobody's keeping tabs on my positions but I thought the statement by some Democrats about a "Trump vaccine" was stupid because the decision was never going to be his and the data was always going to be published. It is a very good example of playing politics with science. If the vaccine is approved with insufficient data because of political pressure say so but telling people you'll always be skeptical of a vaccine released under a Trump Administration is dangerous and crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
In one of my posts I blame the average person, including my cousin who is actually a sweet person (I contradict myself). But I actually feel there is a kind of cottage industry of people with a weird semi-lucid mental state who are taking advantage of other people. They kind of believe the things they say but also are aware they're being shifty.
A woman who works for my brother lost her unvaccinated brother to covid and her sister in law and still won't get vaccinated. I find something about that level of delusion threatening. I sometimes have trouble believing that kind of willful blindness can be a product of innocent naivete but maybe it is sometimes.
In honesty, could you imagine thousands of health professionals and politicians navigating this crisis without someone providing fodder at some point? We know health precautions are inconvenient so at some point there was going to be a movement to resist them.
There's a lot of blame to go around. Someone who is dishonest can weaken people's trust but I think there's also been many attempts to amplify these mistakes in a willful way.
There is a lot of truth in what you say, but the lack of sophistication of many people is also the reason why the authorities often oversimplify their messages in the first place. They know that if they give a nuanced message with qualifications it is likely to be either misunderstood or interpreted selectively. Sometimes they have erred too much in the direction of spin, but it's a difficult balancing act.Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
In addition, this is a very asymmetric game, which is why combatting misinformation is so difficult. The authorities are picked up on every error or inconsistency, but the same standard is rarely applied to their critics.
Also, many of the apparent misjudgements that led to changing advice occurred in a public health emergency where there was little information about a new virus. Inevitably some mistakes will be made in such a situation, but waiting for more information before making decisions would very likely have been more risky. Perhaps they didn't give enough thought to how things might pan out two years later, but can they be blamed for that? It's all too easy for armchair critics to find fault with hindsight, knowing that they will never have to account for their own judgments.
Some of the hypocrisy is cringeworthy though. L.A Mayor Garcetti (who seems like a particular Eely individual) , when caught maskless with Mayor Breed and Magic Johnson, could’ve simply stated that they were all vaccinated and outside , so the threat seemed minimal. Instead , he stated that he held his breath when he took his mask off…really?! Stacey Abrams , who is often deemed a political genius, couldn’t see the potential political damage of taking a picture with an elementary school class, where all the tykes were masked, but she is without. Especially since masking young children is still a touchy subject. When confronted, she immediately went to a race based defense…until much later on , when she admitted her folly. There are lots of examples …some of them are clear mistakes…some of them are calculated…but the defensiveness is childish. Talk about weakening trust.
I guess that goes to my point about asymmetry. Democrats have to be very careful about mistakes, inconsistencies and appearances of hypocrisy because they believe in a greater role for government, so trust is important. Republicans, on the other hand, don't seem to care so much about these things because they don't believe in government. For some of them, mistrust in government is a thing to be encouraged.
The Pandemic was a shock to all of those for whom it was not a shock, who not only predicted a global pandemic or a more local epidemic, but then planned for it, only to see the plans ignored or abandoned, or replaced by something that was the opposite of what had been intended: instead of a co-ordinated campaign nationally and internationally, we had fractured responses within States, eg the US and the UK, and within blocs, eg the EU supposedly far down the road of 'ever close union'. It might be the only consistent point I have made, as the 'lab leak' theory which I have queried before, might have traction now, but as an accident rather than a deliberate act, though we still don't know enough about the conditions in Wuhan, and the Chinese in their present state are not going to reveal all that they know.
As for individual politicians, whether they are admired -as I think Stacey Abrams is- or reviled, as I think is now the case for both Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock, I am at a loss to explain their failures, other than to say they were never good enough to do the job. In Johnson's case, this was more his 'Churchillian' moment than Brexit, but he flunked it, because -and he should know this having written a book on the man- Churchill was far more collegiate in his management of the Wartime Cabinet than Johnson could ever be. Churchill had the greatest of respect for Labour leader Clement Attlee, both for his moral integrity, and the fact he had a better (First World) War than he did -Johnson has no respect for any of his peers, considering himself to be superior to everyone around him, a fate I suspect that knackered Trump who could have been 'Presidential' and saved his career, whereas he was just Trump, an ignorant, lazy man indifferent to the fate of others.
The rift between feelings and facts runs deep, and it doesn't matter if the mandates are temporary, the crisis on a long trajectory downhill, confidence in government is at an all time low. And feelings are important too -one recalls the mood when Mandela was released from prison in 1990, or when Tony Blair was elected Prime Minister in 1997 -yes, he really was popular once upon a time- and Obama had that singular quality of being likeable, which is gold for any aspiring politician. I look around and don't see many I like, and even fewer with a vision or a 'story' to tell that captures the imagination and wins elections. I think in 2024 in the US people will want a positive message, not a re-run of all the bad stuff, which is all Trump has.
Moreover, I fear that people will be so keen to put Covid into a box and send it to the Archive, that we will not use the Pandemic to investigate what went wrong in order to ensure it goes right next times. In the UK, Matt Hancock's utterly shocking lies and lethal consequences of the elderly sent from hospital to care homes where they died, is in need of an enquiry with legal instruments attached. After all, the Iraq Enquiry established that Tony Blair lied to us all, which we knew anyway, and where is he now? Untouched, undamaged.
Not just trust, but accountability too, is lacking. And without it, Liberal Democracy is weakened.
So there are people who do stupid things. And there are people who believe stupid things. But aren't there at least some cynical people who are using all of this as a wedge issue when the predictable result is fewer vaccinated people and fewer people wearing masks?Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
I'm not trying to detract from the obnoxiousness of people doing stupid things, but I've never wanted to seize on a stupid action by promoting a dangerous behavior. When Eliot Spitzer overpaid a prostitute for sex I didn't say "why don't I get to pay 4,300 dollars to sleep with a woman who is not super attractive." Okay that was a reach but I wanted a NYC example for you.
Fox News spent the early part of the pandemic telling its viewers that covid wasn't that dangerous. And I know occasionally Democrats also said stupid things but it was an everyday occurrence on Fox. When it became clear that Trump's response to covid was being scrutinized Fox mobilized in order to downplay the seriousness of covid as an agenda item instead of defending his response to it.
When hydroxychloroquine was proposed as a treatment somehow Trump thought he should get credit for an old anti-malarial drug that doesn't work for covid and it was a right-wing news item. And they literally promoted people yelling and screaming at their state capitols without masks early on as well.
I guess I'm asking myself this question: are most of the people who are unvaccinated refusing the shot because of hypocrisy by Democratic politicians and the occasional overreach of local authorities, or because there has been a consistent effort to amplify crankery on the right? Educated right-wing pundits are saying stuff like "I see Chris Rock was vaccinated and got covid. What was the point of vaccination again?" on their twitter accounts. This kind of sophistry helps make vaccine refusal a tribal marker for some Republicans.
When I see a Democratic politician not wear a mask when they should I think less of that politician. Why are Republicans being told that this means covid is like the flu and masks are worthless?
This is only somewhat related but early in the pandemic a 50 year old man who thought covid was like the common cold went to Mardi Gras, got covid, and died. When his family was interviewed they said something to the effect of, "Okay so it is serious and deadly but we would have believed that if Democrats hadn't politicized it."Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
How did Democrats politicize it? By responding to right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh and Jesse Waters who were saying it was mild by saying it was deadly? This is a kind of asymmetry. They were literally told by pundits they trusted that the virus wasn't anything to worry about, they believed it, got sick and died. But those people who tried to get them to take it seriously caused them not to because they were criticizing pundits and politicians that they love.
I'm not saying there isn't a right way to try to win people over. But as you kind of indicate there are some people who were not trying to encourage people to behave in a responsible way but had vested interests in doing the opposite. There was scheduled programming and punditry that had the intent of promoting treatments that weren't effective, of casting doubt on the effectiveness of vaccines in ways that were not skeptical but dishonest, and undermining public health guidance bc it could be seized on for ratings.
I probably look rigid in this but I suppose I now accept many of the premises of the article. There were missteps and they caused some harm but I think the willful stuff was much more influential and it was rife as can be.
There is a paradox here. On the one hand, the public critics who saw an opportunity to attack the institutions of the US on the basis that nobody needs them, and they mislead the public anyway, I am not sure but Rand Paul seems to be on a mission to discredit not just Fauci but the science he represents. In addition, the sectarian nature of US politics meant that instead of creating a sense of solidarity, of 'we are all in this together', Trump went out of his way to deepen the divisions -consider that when Washington State and New York State were in the front line of the crisis, he did not offer help, or support or sympathy -he insulted and abused the Governors, while it is claimed Jared Kushner deliberately withheld Federally available PPE to the State of New York so that the Democrat Governor would look incapable and lose voters support. This kind of behaviour from the top was disgraceful, but was anyone surprised Trump behaved as he did, and that his supporters in the media waxed lyrical in their ridicule of science because of their ideological fixation on ending 'Big Government' and the 'Deep State'?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
And yet, is it not also the case that on the ground, in communities and on the front line across the US, many more Americans went 'the extra mile' to help people they did not know, that they, in practical terms, ignored whatever drivel was coming out of the White House, and got on with the more important business of helping people affected by the virus? The Silent Majority creating a Silent Solidarity.
It begs the question -will Covid be seen as a moment that has changed the US for the better? Or have the weirdos and extremists so captured the 'centre ground' that talk of executions, rigged elections and voter suppression are delivering a fatal blow to the experiment in democacy that began in 1776, as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez said the other day?
The Constitution is a document created by Compromise, yet now we are led to believe Compromise is not good politics, but a form of surrender. So is the US stronger as a consequence of Covid, or weaker?
Just to piggyback on what you're saying about life here in NYC. If I had small children, I would move from here too. As of right now, the only thing keeping me here is the fact that I help look after two elderly parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
I acknowledge the fact that reducing the size of government is an ideological position held by Republicans but I also think some of what happened was based on political expediency. Trump has always been successful when he's been able to vilify someone. Even during the Republican primaries he had Little Marco to mock or Lyin Ted to set up as the enemy. So when the virus started spreading and Jared Kushner came up with the harebrained idea that it showed a media double standard because nobody was so concerned about swine flu, he was ready to dust off the old playbook.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The things that Trump said were not just normal political truth stretching but showed a sociopathic indifference to the effects of his self-serving statements. He accused doctors of inflating covid death numbers. He fired Rick Bright, a man who is a noted vaccine maker, because Bright said he didn't think hydroxychloroquine (hcq) was an effective Covid treatment. He called researchers at Johns Hopkins "Trump haters" when they found hcq was not better than placebo. He called covid "a flu" even if he later backtracked on that. After he got covid he said that he wasn't sure whether masks were effective. I am probably forgetting some notable statements but these are not unforced errors. These are self-serving falsehoods that got people killed and set the tone of antagonism towards public health. And they weren't intended to serve anyone but himself.
If you then look at the direction right-wing media took, I think they were boxed into tying it to ideology. They couldn't outright say vaccines are dangerous without destroying their credibility so they attacked employer mandates as encroachments on freedom but this conflicts with another ideological commitment they have; the commitment to free markets. In the past they have consistently held that employers have the prerogative to put whatever conditions they want on employment and on patronizing private places of business. So what was different here? It was no longer about free market ideology but about naked selfish ambition.
I have watched segments from the talking heads on Fox. To me it is clear that the segments have the effect of glorifying resistance to vaccines and championing people who refuse to get them. Some of the people who have appeared in these interviews with Laura Ingraham for instance have since died of covid.
I think there is a deeper problem than just political expediency. It is hard to know with Trump because he is just not intelligent enough to have thought deeply about the US political system, but there are around him people who do have an agenda for change, Bannon being the most obvious one.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
We have dealt with Conspiracy theories before on HA, and the ease with which the multi-layered US political system encourages cospiracies because decison-making can often get lost in the corridors of power at county, state and Federal levels. But most theories can be and are debunked, the latest nonsense being that the Clinton campaign spied on the Trump campaign in 2016. The obsession Trump has with Hillary Clinton is probably something only a Psychologist can explain, but the tactic to divert attention away from his real problems does at least create a story for Fox to follow even if they know it is just pigswill. Though there is the irony that if there were Russian smart phones in Trump Tower in 2016 they were more likely to have been in the Trump campaign's pockets. Whatever.
The real danger here is that Democracy and the Rule of Law is being challenged at a level that should have you worried as an American more than anything else. I have pointed out in other posts that States which have Rights, are now transforming those Rights into a form of Power that in effect, repudiates any law passed by the US Congress. The clearest example is the use States are making of their Right to define term limits to deny American women their legal right to an Abortion, by making a termination all but impossible in the State. The use of State laws on elections to deny Americans the right to vote, if they have a criminal record, or to make the registration and actual voting so hard people don't bother, is another example of the Voting Rights of citizens 'guaranteed' by Congress interfered with and in some cases, transparently aimed at minority communities.
Lastly, consider the claim of a protestor in Ottawa -"“I ain’t going anywhere,” said Pat King, one of protest organizers. “I haven’t overstayed my welcome. My taxes paid for me to be here.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...lice-crackdown
We can ignore the comparisons of Justin Trudeau with Hitler and other dictators, most people don't take that seriously, but when it comes to the Rule of Law, you have a serious problem when the concept of the 'Sovereign Citizen' is used. To me this appears to be an indivdual deciding what the law is, and not Congress, or the Supreme Court or even the local police, if they disagree with something, or protest in such a way that appears to either break the law, or interfere with other people's lives- they not only choose to behave in this way, they believe they have a Right to do so.
It is a peculiar form of solipsism that would not stand up to scrutiny in any Court, but what it also does is register the alienation with the Rule of Law and the status quo that Trump has sought to change. In this sense, Trump represents a threat to US democracy and the Rule of Law because he not ony believes it does not apply to him and his ambitions, but it has become the central theme in his supporters in the Republican Party and beyond. At a very crude level, the murder of Ahmaud Arbery is an example of some White men deciding they are the law in Georgia, and killing someone as a result. At a supposedly more sophisticated level, it is the criticism of Fauci, of Vaccines, and Vaccine Mandates, from the law protecting the citizen, to the law penalizing the citizen.
Dismantling the Rule of Law is a key weapon in the New Wave Fascism that Bannon has been promoting. It starts by attacking the 'system' as it is -corrupt, dysfunctional, partisan- and seeks to replace it, using historic examples in US law as if this gives their agenda for change its legitimacy. The use of the 'cultural' agenda introduces critical issues of Race and Gender into the debate on the basis that it is what the 'White Heterosexual Christians' of America want to hear, though I think they exaggrate ther importance to all but some hysterical parents; but what it does is seek to re-habilitate Race as the defining issue in the US, where the definition is simple -if you ain't white like me you don't belong here.
So wrapped up in that anti-science rhetoric is a much more insidious poison. It gnarls on the bark of the tree of knowledge, slowly eating away the fabric until it falls apart.
Perhaps though, it will be the Rule of Law that brings the Trump era to its close. The time has come when he can't plead the Fifth forever.
"During his 2016 presidential election campaign, he ridiculed the practice, saying “the mob takes the fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the fifth amendment?”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-investigation