PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The NY Times just had a recent podcast that revealed the results of a poll that indicated that those who are vaccinated are MUCH more fearful of COVID than those unvaccinated. Similarly, those that are vaccinated are more likely to wear masks and support those mandates. We live in opposite world.

This makes sense to me, looking around at who is doing what. There's a group of people who understand risk and science and a group who are defiant.

[Bluedog]

This makes sense to me, looking around at who is doing what. There's a group of people who understand risk and science and a group who are defiant.

That's one take certainly. I would also conclude that we (as an aggregate group) are poor at risk assessment and people have "dug their heels in" on their perspectives of COVID and don't evolve all that much when situations change. I don't think a healthy fully vaccinated boosted 30-year old who is afraid to go eat at a restaurant "understand[s] risk and science." I actually put myself in that group somewhat! I do get anxious and wish I wasn't. It's hard to change the mindset this far in and takes time.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

We can agree to disagree. I've seen how kids at both schools my kids attend wear masks. The masks don't fit properly and slide up and down, despite best efforts of the teachers to maintain them. When the CDC says a "well fitting mask" that means something very different than a mask that covers nose and mouth. Our daughter was thrilled to get vaccinated as soon as she was eligible and my wife and I are both vaxxed and boosted. We are two year into this pandemic - my 4 year old doesn't know anything other than Covid protocols. To be clear - both of my kids wear masks and do so without a second thought. However, they are both linguistically delayed and their doctors and therapists have resigned themselves to teh fact that their delay is going to continue to be exarcerbated by the mandatory masking in schools.

Anyone that is being honest with themselves has to realize, at least in my opinion, that this is now endemic rather than pandemic. Is the idea that we continue with these protocols forever? I am too scared to take my family to visit cousins overseas for fear of getting stuck there for two weeks. Why do we have policy that says I can fly domestically without a Covid test but I can't fly back from an international location? Why are my kids allowed to eat lunch at school with their masks down but not sit and learn? Why is the basketball team at the high school allowed to play a game with no masks on but aren't allowed to sit in class with no masks on? Why in DC am I allowed to sit at a table, fully vaxxed, and eat a meal with my mask off but I need to put the mask on walking to the table (when we know that simply walking by someone infected has almost a zero percent chance of infection)? I know the policy all came from a good place - and we have followed it very closely to date. At this point, though, the policy (at least to me) seems to be completely ad hoc and politically driven.

I think I saw this morning that Denmark has joined England in dropping Covid restrictions. Israel has been as highly focused on Covid restrictions as any country and they continue to have very high infection numbers. Everyone's scientists are presumably looking at the same data - I just continue to struggle to see the justification at this point when there is so much available for people to protect themselves. Again, if someone has multiple comorbidities and generally unhealthy, I am all for that person protecting themselves and society helping to protect them by providing N95s at an affordable cost and reserving therapeutics for those at higher risk. This isn't to short change the value of life for disabled and chronically ill persons - it is just to say that, at least in my view, a lot of the protocols have shifted from being medically and scientifically driven to being politically driven.

Is the fact that the kids at your schools don't wear masks a reason to abandon masks. Or is it a sign that the parents and administration of these schools aren't taking this seriously enough. As I mentioned above, at our schools, the vast majority of the families are taking this very seriously, and that trickles down to their children. Most kids (there are definitely exceptions) have appropriate masks and wear them correctly. My second grader has completely understood this since the start - it is not that hard to figure out. And as I noted, our principals have made this a priority. My second grader also does speech therapy, and one of his major development issues is understanding social cues. Wearing a mask definitely makes this a lot harder to work on. But his therapists are smart and creative and are making the best of the situation, and we work hard at home to reinforce what they are teaching when we aren't wearing masks. Regarding your comment about eating at schools, this is just common sense. At our schools the kids are kept as far apart as possible while eating, though there still definitely is social interaction. But they wear the masks the rest of the time. I really don't find this to be at all inconsistent - they are wearing masks as much as humanly possible but the need to eat takes precedent over that.

One side (Fauci and others) has largely been treating this as it would have been treated for most of this country's existence. They are being cautious and thoughtful. They have definitely made plenty of mistakes, but this situation is rapidly evolving so that is to be expected. I agree that at times they have definitely dug in their heals too much and taken too long to backtrack on things, such as overly restrictive protocols. Unfortunately, the flip side of this is those who have been conditioned to say "black" when the "mainstream" leaders say "white." These leaders, again, are not behaving largely differently than how mainstream leaders of all backgrounds and beliefs have behaved for the last 200+ years of this country's existence. But they are looking for reasons to be defiant and stubborn. And again, if they had just gotten with the program from the start, we might be done with this.

We do need to think seriously about the end game, because a zero Covid solution is not reasonable. And we need to constantly be re-evaluating our restrictions to make sure they make sense, and be thoughtful about where they are being applied - most solutions are not one size fits all. But this is not a reason for so many to take cheap shots at those making the decisions (not saying you are doing this, but many are). Common sense goes a long way. My kids have been conditioned to wear masks all the time, and I explain to them that it is safe to walk down the street by yourself not wearing a mask as the likelihood of infecting someone is nearly zero, so these people are not being anti-mask. But if you are approaching a crowd (such as at school drop off), it is a good idea to put on a mask. There are shades of gray.

[sagegrouse]

We can agree to disagree. I've seen how kids at both schools my kids attend wear masks. The masks don't fit properly and slide up and down, despite best efforts of the teachers to maintain them. When the CDC says a "well fitting mask" that means something very different than a mask that covers nose and mouth. Our daughter was thrilled to get vaccinated as soon as she was eligible and my wife and I are both vaxxed and boosted. We are two year into this pandemic - my 4 year old doesn't know anything other than Covid protocols. To be clear - both of my kids wear masks and do so without a second thought. However, they are both linguistically delayed and their doctors and therapists have resigned themselves to teh fact that their delay is going to continue to be exarcerbated by the mandatory masking in schools.

Anyone that is being honest with themselves has to realize, at least in my opinion, that this is now endemic rather than pandemic. Is the idea that we continue with these protocols forever? I am too scared to take my family to visit cousins overseas for fear of getting stuck there for two weeks. Why do we have policy that says I can fly domestically without a Covid test but I can't fly back from an international location? Why are my kids allowed to eat lunch at school with their masks down but not sit and learn? Why is the basketball team at the high school allowed to play a game with no masks on but aren't allowed to sit in class with no masks on? Why in DC am I allowed to sit at a table, fully vaxxed, and eat a meal with my mask off but I need to put the mask on walking to the table (when we know that simply walking by someone infected has almost a zero percent chance of infection)? I know the policy all came from a good place - and we have followed it very closely to date. At this point, though, the policy (at least to me) seems to be completely ad hoc and politically driven.

I think I saw this morning that Denmark has joined England in dropping Covid restrictions. Israel has been as highly focused on Covid restrictions as any country and they continue to have very high infection numbers. Everyone's scientists are presumably looking at the same data - I just continue to struggle to see the justification at this point when there is so much available for people to protect themselves. Again, if someone has multiple comorbidities and generally unhealthy, I am all for that person protecting themselves and society helping to protect them by providing N95s at an affordable cost and reserving therapeutics for those at higher risk. This isn't to short change the value of life for disabled and chronically ill persons - it is just to say that, at least in my view, a lot of the protocols have shifted from being medically and scientifically driven to being politically driven.

I am guilty, more than most people, when I have made up my mind about something, of being closed to the other side of the argument. So goes it with vaccines and safety measures with Covid. But hear me out. Riffing on Typhoid Mary from the 19th century, let's imagine a Covid Charlie, carrying the infection, who believes he has every right -- as a citizen of Planet Earth -- to go anywhere he wants, with or without masks or other protections -- and spread this highly infectious Omicron variant. And he does, infecting many others and leading to hospitalization or death of those especially vulnerable. After all!! Individual rights!!

I think it is well established that the government has the obligation to protect public health and has the ability, even the duty, to put in place limits on the individual freedom of Covid Charlie and others to do so -- denying entry for those not vaccinated, requiring masks for all, etc., etc. Covid is the clearest case in the last 50 years. In fact, when I was getting childhood diseases in the first and second grade, our SC school system had an official quarantine period before an infected pupil could return to school. Various court cases have supported the government's right to impose restrictions in the interest of public health.

How have these measures worked in the past? Well, we have eliminated in the U.S. through vaccination programs a long list of diseases -- smallpox, polio, rubella, measles, whooping cough, tetanus, mumps, chickenpox and others. Many of these involved compulsory vaccinations for school attendance.

Is the threat worth these restrictions on personal liberties of Covid Charlie and the rest of us? Yes, resoundingly so. The mRNA vaccines have proven to be enormously effective -- much more effective than flu vaccines, for example --and that hospitalizations are dominated by the minority of the population that has spurned Covid vaccination. How could governments not act, when 900,000 Americans have died from Covid and hospitals are overrun, affecting the accessibility of medical care to people who are truly sick with other diseases?

Anyway, that's my reasoning.

[Bostondevil]

As an example, in my community, I would be a proponent of allowing my 2-year old to take her mask off when outside at daycare. But that is considered a ridiculous proposal in my area. I don't think my position is that extreme...Incidentally, she got COVID from daycare while wearing a mask a couple weeks ago...as did many in her class. I live in a community where 5+ is 95% vaccinated. I am also a proponent of not having my (vaccinated) 5-year old wear a mask outside now personally. Is wearing a mask outside the worst thing in the world? No. But I just find it silly, particularly in the summers nowadays when it's hot or when it can get wet, or when everybody is vaccinated/distanced anyways. The toddlers could use a break and enjoy the fresh air. In my area, this position is considered an "anti-masker" essentially. I recall the time when my 3-year got admonished for sticking out his tongue to taste the first snowfall of the season...It's just sad. We can take reasonable precautions, but should also be somewhat logical.

As stated above, we will never be able to reduce ALL risk. Many children die from drowning in pools each year (more than COVID deaths), but we don't say kids can't go into pools. We should make sure they have flotation devices/pools have fences around them, they learn how to swim, etc. Challenge is of course balancing the risk with the precautions, and nobody agrees.

The NY Times just had a recent podcast that revealed the results of a poll that indicated that those who are vaccinated are MUCH more fearful of COVID than those unvaccinated. Similarly, those that are vaccinated are more likely to wear masks and support those mandates. We live in opposite world.

Very highly correlated with SEC. Very. Many children die from drowning - they don't all drown in pools.

[Stray Gator]

As an example, in my community, I would be a proponent of allowing my 2-year old to take her mask off when outside at daycare. But that is considered a ridiculous proposal in my area. I don't think my position is that extreme...Incidentally, she got COVID from daycare while wearing a mask a couple weeks ago...as did many in her class. I live in a community where 5+ is 95% vaccinated. I am also a proponent of not having my (vaccinated) 5-year old wear a mask outside now personally. Is wearing a mask outside the worst thing in the world? No. But I just find it silly, particularly in the summers nowadays when it's hot or when it can get wet, or when everybody is vaccinated/distanced anyways. The toddlers could use a break and enjoy the fresh air. In my area, this position is considered an "anti-masker" essentially. I recall the time when my 3-year got admonished for sticking out his tongue to taste the first snowfall of the season...It's just sad. We can take reasonable precautions, but should also be somewhat logical.

As stated above, we will never be able to reduce ALL risk. Many children die from drowning in pools each year (more than COVID deaths), but we don't say kids can't go into pools. We should make sure they have flotation devices/pools have fences around them, they learn how to swim, etc. Challenge is of course balancing the risk with the precautions, and nobody agrees.

The NY Times just had a recent podcast that revealed the results of a poll that indicated that those who are vaccinated are MUCH more fearful of COVID than those unvaccinated. Similarly, those that are vaccinated are more likely to wear masks and support those mandates. We live in opposite world.

I agree that the measures you describe for pre-school children seem unnecessarily extreme. Our 2-year-old granddaughter (who will soon turn 3) has been in daycare Monday through Friday from 8:30 to 5:00 since late May 2020, and they have never required the children to wear masks -- only the staff. They have shut down operations temporarily a few times for 1-2 weeks due to reported infections or known exposures, but more recently have only closed the specific classes in which the affected child was a member. When we take her out to the playground by the lake, or to the Disney World parks, or to the mall, she has only been required to wear a mask during the time we're indoors. I believe that requiring masks for kids under 5 is excessive and probably accomplishes little to reduce the risks of serious illness.

As for the NY Times poll you reference, I can't imagine anyone is shocked to learn that vaccinated people are more fearful of COVID, more likely to comply with the recommended protective measures of masking and social distancing, and more supportive of mandates. It's equally unsurprising that the overwhelming majority of deaths attributable to COVID have been among the unvaccinated. https://www.vox.com/22894978/covid-1...-omicron-chart

The simple fact is that some people don't see the virus as a serious threat, some people don't accept that the protective measures advocated by public health authorities are really effective or justified in light of what they perceive as the countervailing costs, and some people just believe that their freedom to disregard the mandates and recommended restrictions is more important than the health and safety of others. Given the evidence that has been accumulated over the past two years, it seems doubtful that any of those people are now likely to change their positions. IMO, it is those people who are principally responsible for the unfortunate fact that we haven't already succeeded in emerging from this pandemic, and whose continued resistance poses the greatest risk that new variants will develop to prolong this tragic global disaster.

I won't be around to witness it, but it will be interesting to see which of the two groups -- those who comply with the restrictions and those who reject them -- history ultimately judges more harshly.

[Indoor66]

I agree that the measures you describe for pre-school children seem unnecessarily extreme. Our 2-year-old granddaughter (who will soon turn 3) has been in daycare Monday through Friday from 8:30 to 5:00 since late May 2020, and they have never required the children to wear masks -- only the staff. They have shut down operations temporarily a few times for 1-2 weeks due to reported infections or known exposures, but more recently have only closed the specific classes in which the affected child was a member. When we take her out to the playground by the lake, or to the Disney World parks, or to the mall, she has only been required to wear a mask during the time we're indoors. I believe that requiring masks for kids under 5 is excessive and probably accomplishes little to reduce the risks of serious illness.

As for the NY Times poll you reference, I can't imagine anyone is shocked to learn that vaccinated people are more fearful of COVID, more likely to comply with the recommended protective measures of masking and social distancing, and more supportive of mandates. It's equally unsurprising that the overwhelming majority of deaths attributable to COVID have been among the unvaccinated. https://www.vox.com/22894978/covid-1...-omicron-chart

The simple fact is that some people don't see the virus as a serious threat, some people don't accept that the protective measures advocated by public health authorities are really effective or justified in light of what they perceive as the countervailing costs, and some people just believe that their freedom to disregard the mandates and recommended restrictions is more important than the health and safety of others. Given the evidence that has been accumulated over the past two years, it seems doubtful that any of those people are now likely to change their positions. IMO, it is those people who are principally responsible for the unfortunate fact that we haven't already succeeded in emerging from this pandemic, and whose continued resistance poses the greatest risk that new variants will develop to prolong this tragic global disaster.

I won't be around to witness it, but it will be interesting to see which of the two groups -- those who comply with the restrictions and those who reject them -- history ultimately judges more harshly.

I won't be around either but I doubt many will remember.

[CDu]

As stated above, we will never be able to reduce ALL risk. Many children die from drowning in pools each year (more than COVID deaths), but we don't say kids can't go into pools. We should make sure they have flotation devices/pools have fences around them, they learn how to swim, etc. Challenge is of course balancing the risk with the precautions, and nobody agrees.

There are a few things to expand upon in this comment.

1. Drowning is not contagious (duh). The person(s) assuming the risk by letting their kid into a pool is/are largely threatening themselves, along with - to a lesser degree - themselves. The problem with a contagious disease is that people who choose to not take precautions are inherently increasing everyone else's risk. If a kid goes swimming in a pool, their risk of drowning as a result of swimming in the pool (as well as the indirect risk to anyone else swimming with them who might drown as a result of the kid struggling in the water) goes away when the kid leaves the pool. But with a contagious disease, "the kid in the pool" then carries that drowning risk to everyone who he/she comes into contact with in the short term thereafter. And then those infected by that kid spread the risk. And so on. So...

2. I completely agree with your second sentence. And that is exactly what mask rules, vaccination rules, social distancing rules, etc. are. They are the flotation devices/fences. The thing is, these "fences" are much more important because they affect so many more people than the fences around a family pool.

[Skydog]

My best friend in high school didn’t fear driving without a seatbelt. That wasn’t because he was courageous- it was because he was a dumbaxx a lot of the time.

Hi Jerry, wherever you are now!

[freshmanjs]

I agree that the measures you describe for pre-school children seem unnecessarily extreme. Our 2-year-old granddaughter (who will soon turn 3) has been in daycare Monday through Friday from 8:30 to 5:00 since late May 2020, and they have never required the children to wear masks -- only the staff. They have shut down operations temporarily a few times for 1-2 weeks due to reported infections or known exposures, but more recently have only closed the specific classes in which the affected child was a member. When we take her out to the playground by the lake, or to the Disney World parks, or to the mall, she has only been required to wear a mask during the time we're indoors. I believe that requiring masks for kids under 5 is excessive and probably accomplishes little to reduce the risks of serious illness.

As for the NY Times poll you reference, I can't imagine anyone is shocked to learn that vaccinated people are more fearful of COVID, more likely to comply with the recommended protective measures of masking and social distancing, and more supportive of mandates. It's equally unsurprising that the overwhelming majority of deaths attributable to COVID have been among the unvaccinated. https://www.vox.com/22894978/covid-1...-omicron-chart

The simple fact is that some people don't see the virus as a serious threat, some people don't accept that the protective measures advocated by public health authorities are really effective or justified in light of what they perceive as the countervailing costs, and some people just believe that their freedom to disregard the mandates and recommended restrictions is more important than the health and safety of others. Given the evidence that has been accumulated over the past two years, it seems doubtful that any of those people are now likely to change their positions. IMO, it is those people who are principally responsible for the unfortunate fact that we haven't already succeeded in emerging from this pandemic, and whose continued resistance poses the greatest risk that new variants will develop to prolong this tragic global disaster.

I won't be around to witness it, but it will be interesting to see which of the two groups -- those who comply with the restrictions and those who reject them -- history ultimately judges more harshly.

It’s interesting that you see only the errors from those that underestimate the risks of covid and not from those that overestimate the risks. Obviously the two types of errors are very different in their implications, but both are prevalent and both have real (but not equal) costs.

[Skydog]

There are a few things to expand upon in this comment.

1. Drowning is not contagious (duh). The person(s) assuming the risk by letting their kid into a pool is/are largely threatening themselves, along with - to a lesser degree - themselves. The problem with a contagious disease is that people who choose to not take precautions are inherently increasing everyone else's risk. If a kid goes swimming in a pool, their risk of drowning as a result of swimming in the pool (as well as the indirect risk to anyone else swimming with them who might drown as a result of the kid struggling in the water) goes away when the kid leaves the pool. But with a contagious disease, "the kid in the pool" then carries that drowning risk to everyone who he/she comes into contact with in the short term thereafter. And then those infected by that kid spread the risk. And so on. So...

2. I completely agree with your second sentence. And that is exactly what mask rules, vaccination rules, social distancing rules, etc. are. They are the flotation devices/fences. The thing is, these "fences" are much more important because they affect so many more people than the fences around a family pool.

The post you replied to is not mine but in your posting it erroneously shows my name attached to it. Maybe you were editing and accidentally combined posts? In any case I have posted nothing about children and swimming pools. (Even though my cousin lost his 4 yo son this way.)

[Phredd3]

As stated above, we will never be able to reduce ALL risk. Many children die from drowning in pools each year (more than COVID deaths), but we don't say kids can't go into pools. We should make sure they have flotation devices/pools have fences around them, they learn how to swim, etc. Challenge is of course balancing the risk with the precautions, and nobody agrees.

"Nobody agrees" is nothing new. It's happened from time out of mind in human history. What's new is the unwillingness to rationally discuss our disagreements so that we can come to a consensus. The worst thing that has happened in modern America, in my not-so-humble-opinion, is the banning of public political discourse, this forum included.* I remember clearly my father inviting people to dinner at our house while I was growing up with whom he very, very strongly disagreed. He and our invitee would have great conversations and spar repeatedly over the course of the evening over various political issues, even while enjoying each other's company and sharing many common bonds. These days, people unfriend you on social media and the dinner invitation never comes.

How do we solve problems with this as the norm?

*Not that I'm advocating for a policy change on this website. I understand why the policy is there, since online discussions can quickly become the online equivalent of fistfights and tend to bring to a halt discussions about the primary topic we are all here to share. But it is a symptom of the larger problem that this happens. People, particularly people online, can't seem to just disagree and let it go. Every dispute becomes an existential threat.

Again, how do we solve that problem? Darned if I know.

[Bluedog]

"Nobody agrees" is nothing new. It's happened from time out of mind in human history. What's new is the unwillingness to rationally discuss our disagreements so that we can come to a consensus. The worst thing that has happened in modern America, in my not-so-humble-opinion, is the banning of public political discourse, this forum included.* I remember clearly my father inviting people to dinner at our house while I was growing up with whom he very, very strongly disagreed. He and our invitee would have great conversations and spar repeatedly over the course of the evening over various political issues, even while enjoying each other's company and sharing many common bonds. These days, people unfriend you on social media and the dinner invitation never comes.

How do we solve problems with this as the norm?

*Not that I'm advocating for a policy change on this website. I understand why the policy is there, since online discussions can quickly become the online equivalent of fistfights and tend to bring to a halt discussions about the primary topic we are all here to share. But it is a symptom of the larger problem that this happens. People, particularly people online, can't seem to just disagree and let it go. Every dispute becomes an existential threat.

Again, how do we solve that problem? Darned if I know.

Wholeheartedly agree. This is the #1 sad thing about these sorts of conversations for me...People think the "other side" is totally insane/ridiculous and respectful discourse is almost impossible. We should be teaching our children to expose themselves to different opinions/perspectives in the world, and how to think critically against those, but also in a respectful manner and not try to label/impart false motivations on those that may have a slightly different view.

And, yes, good points above (from CDU, others) about contagiousness certainly being a huge difference for COVID than my drowning example (and yeah, I acknowledge most not in pools). My only point was that we accept certain risks in life based on tradeoffs. Of course, COVID mitigation is undoubtedly a much more 'shared risk'/'mitigation' effort, but that doesn't preclude individuals from making a self-risk assessment based on tradeoffs. We also can't fully control if we die in a car crash if somebody runs into us, so death by automobile could be considered 'contagious' in that regard to an extent (i.e. not fully in the individual's control). I get totally that it's at a different level, I'm merely suggesting that we make risk assessments of things outside our control all the time (and act accordingly) and most data suggest that people are REALLY poor at assessing risk from COVID and those at least risk feel most fearful and those most at risk feel the least fearful by and large.

I agree that the measures you describe for pre-school children seem unnecessarily extreme. Our 2-year-old granddaughter (who will soon turn 3) has been in daycare Monday through Friday from 8:30 to 5:00 since late May 2020, and they have never required the children to wear masks -- only the staff. They have shut down operations temporarily a few times for 1-2 weeks due to reported infections or known exposures, but more recently have only closed the specific classes in which the affected child was a member. When we take her out to the playground by the lake, or to the Disney World parks, or to the mall, she has only been required to wear a mask during the time we're indoors. I believe that requiring masks for kids under 5 is excessive and probably accomplishes little to reduce the risks of serious illness.

As for the NY Times poll you reference, I can't imagine anyone is shocked to learn that vaccinated people are more fearful of COVID, more likely to comply with the recommended protective measures of masking and social distancing, and more supportive of mandates. It's equally unsurprising that the overwhelming majority of deaths attributable to COVID have been among the unvaccinated. https://www.vox.com/22894978/covid-1...-omicron-chart

The simple fact is that some people don't see the virus as a serious threat, some people don't accept that the protective measures advocated by public health authorities are really effective or justified in light of what they perceive as the countervailing costs, and some people just believe that their freedom to disregard the mandates and recommended restrictions is more important than the health and safety of others. Given the evidence that has been accumulated over the past two years, it seems doubtful that any of those people are now likely to change their positions. IMO, it is those people who are principally responsible for the unfortunate fact that we haven't already succeeded in emerging from this pandemic, and whose continued resistance poses the greatest risk that new variants will develop to prolong this tragic global disaster.

I won't be around to witness it, but it will be interesting to see which of the two groups -- those who comply with the restrictions and those who reject them -- history ultimately judges more harshly.

Thanks for the post Stray. I will say that you said: "some people don't accept that the protective measure advocated by public health authorities and really effective or justified" but earlier in your post you say "I believe that requiring masks for kids under 5 is excessive and probably accomplishes little to reduce the risks of serious illness. " So, in that specific case, YOU are against the CDC guidelines. I'm not saying you're wrong -- I agree with you as I said in my post although I only said outside. I'm merely saying it's not an "all or nothing" thing, and some people may agree with 90% of the precautions and not 10%, and that's okay. I suppose there's also some complexities given the "public health authorities" don't even agree on the details, and different bodies have different recommendations.

[Stray Gator]

It’s interesting that you see only the errors from those that underestimate the risks of covid and not from those that overestimate the risks. Obviously the two types of errors are very different in their implications, but both are prevalent and both have real (but not equal) costs.

I thought the first paragraph of my message acknowledged that, in at least some respects, mask mandates and other pandemic restrictions overestimate the risks, thereby promoting a policy in which the costs can outweigh the net benefits. Of course, the problem is that, due to the constantly evolving nature of both the virus and our scientific knowledge about its effects, we lack objective "scales" by which the relative costs and benefits of each proposed restriction can be measured to produce results upon which everyone can agree. As a result, the recommendations of public health experts are accepted by those whose cautiousness -- or fear if you prefer -- leads them to believe that those authorities should be trusted even if some of the evidence on which they rely is still less than conclusive, but are rejected by others who are skeptical of the science, even where the evidence is strong, because they are inherently untrusting of or resistant to authority, or because they value their personal comfort and convenience over the potential adverse consequences for themselves and others, or simply because they don't take the threat seriously.

To me, the most apt analogy is still that of drivers who have been drinking. By getting on the road, those drivers unquestionably increase the likelihood of causing an accident that results in injury or death to themselves or others, and they knowingly invite that risk. They might, and often do, get lucky and arrive safely at their destination, without hurting anyone. But sometimes they don't; and when they don't, others usually suffer -- physically, financially, and emotionally. The others can include their own family members and friends, as well as those of the other driver(s) or passenger(s) or pedestrian(s); and that suffering can endure for the lifetimes of the people affected. All because the impaired drivers didn't take the risks seriously, or simply didn't care enough to comply with safe practices. Of course, accidents still happen even when the drivers are sober. But that's hardly justification for concluding that the restrictions against impaired driving, which if respected can reduce the number of avoidable accidents, are of little benefit.

No one has ever posited that wearing masks and getting vaccinated provide absolute protection against COVID. But we know that proper masking reduces infections. And we know that vaccines reduce hospitalizations and death. Granted, at some point the restrictions can be imposed to an extreme that is not warranted by the costs. But when that happens, I believe the appropriate response is to persuade the authorities that the restriction should be re-evaluated and adjusted. As others have observed, our approach doesn't need to be all or nothing; there are shades of gray that provide room for effective compromises.

[ClemmonsDevil]

It’s interesting that you see only the errors from those that underestimate the risks of covid and not from those that overestimate the risks. Obviously the two types of errors are very different in their implications, but both are prevalent and both have real (but not equal) costs.

One is a discernable catastrophe and the other is mostly just a bummer. This is the type of false equivalency that doesn't seem reasonable to me. It's not insane to take an abundance of precautions, even if they are not reasonable from a scientific perspective. It may be bad math and over the top. People who are at high risk of hospitalization and death because of comorbidities who choose not to become vaccinated, wear masks or socially distance are quite literally playing Russian roulette. There's a body count here that we probably shouldn't gloss over with both sidesisms.

[Bluedog]

One is a discernable catastrophe and the other is mostly just a bummer. This is the type of false equivalency that doesn't seem reasonable to me. It's not insane to take an abundance of precautions, even if they are not reasonable from a scientific perspective. It may be bad math and over the top. People who are at high risk of hospitalization and death because of comorbidities who choose not to become vaccinated, wear masks or socially distance are quite literally playing Russian roulette. There's a body count here that we probably shouldn't gloss over with both sidesisms.

I don't think closing schools/having adolescents (or even college students) be isolated and the like is "just a bummer"...

NY Times:

Three medical groups — representing pediatricians, child psychiatrists and children’s hospitals — recently declared “a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health.” The worst effects have been on Black and Latino children, as well as children in high-poverty schools.

Many Democrats are effectively dismissing these costs and instead focusing on the minuscule risks of Covid hospitalization or long Covid among children. Most Democrats, for example, say they favor moving classes online in response to Omicron, despite widespread evidence that remote school has failed and little evidence that shutting schools leads to fewer Covid cases.

Closed schools almost certainly do more damage to children and vaccinated adults than Omicron does...Democrats like to think of their political party as the one that respects science and evidence. And on several issues — vaccines, climate change, voter fraud, Barack Obama’s birthplace and more — that certainly seems to be the case. But just because something is usually true doesn’t mean it always is.

On Covid, both political tribes really do seem to be struggling to read the evidence objectively. As a result, the country is suffering thousands of preventable deaths every week while also accepting a preventable crisis of isolation that’s falling particularly hard on children.

[ClemmonsDevil]

I don't think closing schools/having adolescents (or even college students) be isolated and the like is "just a bummer"...

NY Times:

Cite the body count. I'm not arguing this is consequence-free. I am arguing against both-sides-isms.

[CDu]

The post you replied to is not mine but in your posting it erroneously shows my name attached to it. Maybe you were editing and accidentally combined posts? In any case I have posted nothing about children and swimming pools. (Even though my cousin lost his 4 yo son this way.)

I have no idea how that happened, but yes I was responding to Bluedog's post. Apologies for whatever happened there. I was most certainly not intending for you to be signaled in that post.

And, yes, good points above (from CDU, others) about contagiousness certainly being a huge difference for COVID than my drowning example (and yeah, I acknowledge most not in pools). My only point was that we accept certain risks in life based on tradeoffs. Of course, COVID mitigation is undoubtedly a much more 'shared risk'/'mitigation' effort, but that doesn't preclude individuals from making a self-risk assessment based on tradeoffs. We also can't fully control if we die in a car crash if somebody runs into us, so death by automobile could be considered 'contagious' in that regard to an extent (i.e. not fully in the individual's control). I get totally that it's at a different level, I'm merely suggesting that we make risk assessments of things outside our control all the time (and act accordingly) and most data suggest that people are REALLY poor at assessing risk from COVID and those at least risk feel most fearful and those most at risk feel the least fearful by and large.

But even here the example isn't great: driving accidents are not notably more "contagious" than the swimming pool example. And even still, there are tons of rules we have to folllow: have to have a driver's license, have to follow speed limits and other traffic laws, can't drink and drive, have to wear seat belts, kids have to have carseats/boosters, etc. If caught disobeying, you get punished by the law.

[rsvman]

We also don't have a sizable proportion of the populace arguing that fences around pools are ridiculous or that flotation devices take away their freedom and are unconstitutional.

Not to mention that drowning isn't contagious, and that we aren't in the middle of a huge surge of drowning deaths.

[Bluedog]

I have no idea how that happened, but yes I was responding to Bluedog's post. Apologies for whatever happened there. I was most certainly not intending for you to be signaled in that post.



But even here the example isn't great: driving accidents are not notably more "contagious" than the swimming pool example. And even still, there are tons of rules we have to folllow: have to have a driver's license, have to follow speed limits and other traffic laws, can't drink and drive, have to wear seat belts, kids have to have carseats/boosters, etc. If caught disobeying, you get punished by the law.

I am not suggesting that I am against safeguards. Again, the only thing I'm saying is that we need to try to be as honest as possible with risk assessments of a specific possible bad outcome and balance that with tradeoffs/negative impacts of those said safeguards based on data. I'm not trying to equate the two as the same situations -- just that we make these sorts of risk assessments in other areas all the time, and that should extend to this circumstance. And not everything is "super clear"/black and white, of course. Sorry if I got us sidetracked here and was unclear. Sorry guys. I got your points and would welcome us moving on from the comparisons.

I am somebody who is triple vaxxed, have worn a mask indoors since the beginning of the pandemic, got my 5-year old vaccinated first week of eligibilty, and have a toddler and a young child that wear a mask 9+ hours a day indoors and outdoors. It's not like I'm not taking precautions...I have dined indoors ONCE over the last 1.5 year while dining was one of my favorite things to do pre-pandemic. But at some point, I do want to be able to live life a bit more and have my children participate in culturally enriching experiences...Maybe the "regulations" allow me to do that now, but my local bubble of society does not really as well as possible ramifications from a single positive test of 10+ days of quarantine. My "fear" is not of the disease itself, but of the impact to my children's education and their classrooms with a single test. To me, that is just odd. But maybe I'm alone here...

I think I would feel a lot differently about everything if I didn't have young children and/or I lived in an area that wasn't as "extreme."