COVID-19

[taxi1]

It reminds me of hurricane forecasting. The NWS ends up drawing a line with a best estimate of the path along with bounds. Seems neat and clean until you look behind the curtain at model runs (spaghetti charts) where you see just spread-out the raw estimates are. Not what you show Joe Public.

Maybe a mil planning approach, talk about best case, worst case, and most likely case.

 

[wink]

???

This . . . X 1,000

It’s called intellectual integrity from government officials, the ones were supposed to trust. It’s OK to say “we’re not sure” or “we need some more time/data” before we’ll know for sure.”

The CDC, NIH, WHO failed miserably at this. And that’s why people are pissed. And we’re all still waiting for some level of “official” acknowledgment and accountability.

All that is true enough, but saying "we're not sure" or "give us time to gather data", or "too soon to tell", etc does not fly. Unfiltered, I think the public would buy it. But the press will not let statements like that stand. They want answers. Those are not answers the press can sensationalize or get behind and promote. They are not headlines. Those answers do not constitute news in the way the media operates today. So the press keeps badgering and in the absence of officials giving them solid finite answers, they make stuff up or find someone that will give them the money quote or headline. And there you have the rise of the fringe, or weak officials, who are willing to give specific answers before the degree of certainty can be reduced to an acceptable level.

 

[robav8r]

All that is true enough, but saying "we're not sure" or "give us time to gather data", or "too soon to tell", etc does not fly. Unfiltered, I think the public would buy it. But the press will not let statements like that stand. They want answers. Those are not answers the press can sensationalize or get behind and promote. They are not headlines. Those answers do not constitute news in the way the media operates today. So the press keeps badgering and in the absence of officials giving them solid finite answers, they make stuff up or find someone that will give them the money quote or headline. And there you have the rise of the fringe, or weak officials, who are willing to give specific answers before the degree of certainty can be reduced to an acceptable level.

So the press and MSM dictate to our government officials what the depth and breadth of intellectual and professional integrity is - got it.

 

[wink]

So the press and MSM dictate to our government officials what the depth and breadth of intellectual and professional integrity is - got it.

Not what I said at all. And just because someone under pressure from the press, or higher policy makers, for definitive answers that can not be support by the information at hand, isn't necessarily an integrity matter. It means they are ill prepared for the spotlight or pressure from above. In fact, as far as I am concerned, people like Fauci, and Walensky, never should have had the spotlight. Get a policy maker or trained PIO/spokesman out there with the SME standing behind to take questions or elaborate at the invitation of the briefer. I know why they didn't do that, and it is a symptom of what is wrong with our government.

 

[Spekkio]

All that is true enough, but saying "we're not sure" or "give us time to gather data", or "too soon to tell", etc does not fly.

The thing is, they had the data. The fields of epidemiology and immunology existed well before the year 2020.

 

[DanMa1156]

The thing is, they had the data. The fields of epidemiology and immunology existed well before the year 2020.

They had the data to support... what conclusion that you think they didn't make?

 

[robav8r]

Well, this will surely muddy the waters . . .

 

[robav8r]

A "Pandemic of Bureaucracy" . . . .

 

[Spekkio]

A "Pandemic of Bureaucracy" . . . .

Bill Maher has been advocating against COVID-19 restrictions for well over a year now.

 

[Spekkio]

They had the data to support... what conclusion that you think they didn't make?

It's more the knowingly false conclusions they did make.

"Two weeks to flatten the curve..."

"Get the vaccine even if you had COVID-19 because the vaccine offers longer immunity."

"Shut down education to protect the children..."

"Wear cloth masks to prevent spreading COVID-19..."

 

[DanMa1156]

It's more the knowingly false conclusions they did make.

"Two weeks to flatten the curve..."

"Get the vaccine even if you had COVID-19 because the vaccine offers longer immunity."

"Shut down education to protect the children..."

"Wear cloth masks to prevent spreading COVID-19..."

What's your evidence that those were knowingly wrong statements? Have the Health Authorities made some statments that have turned into messaging/PR nightmares? Yes. I think for those of us in the military who understand the importance of messaging, it's all the more cringey to watch.

However, I don't think thy are blatantly lying. If they are, what's their incentive?

The 2 weeks to flatten the curve thing was based on the belief we could keep it off our shores once we got past the initial group of infections. Bad assumption for sure, but given the recent history of things like avian flu and swine fever, etc., we had successfully avoided mass disruptions with those. Let's also not forget the President at the time genuinely believed and stated warmer weather with people outdoors more would solve the problem.

The vaccine vs. natural immunity thing as far as I'm aware is still possibly up for debate depending on which variant and which vaccine, no?

I don't think people at the time with shutting down the education considered it would be long term given the "2 week" messaging; the CDC later came out and recommended that kids go back to school as fast as possible going into the second affected school year, no (Aug/Sep of 2020? Am I wrong on that? I know my kid's school took that advice. So far she's had 6 weeks virtual over the course of the pandemic... Miserable, but bearable and was a reasonable course of action with what we knew at the time).

Show me a peer reviewed paper that shows the masks are not at least, in some small way reducing the spread of COVID-19...

 

[taxi1]

"Get the vaccine even if you had COVID-19 because the vaccine offers longer immunity."

Being vaccinated and having recovered from Covid (which variant?) is definitely more protective than just having had it prior. Of course.

 

[JoeBob1788]

Here’s at least one peer reviewed source from 2017: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article-pdf/65/11/1934/21677308/cix681.pdf


The first study I found that recommended N95 masks or respirators, and cautioned against cloth masks or any mask used more than once as counter productive has been recently revised. I originally found it on the CDC’s website last fall, and at that time it agreed with the first article. Alas I didn’t save it before it was changed.


So either employ a respirator or single-use medical grade masks. Cloth masks or any mask used more than once can be harmful, although excellent for virtue signaling, or as a Linus-style security blanket to make you feel safe… even if the CDC’s own studies after the 2015-2016 SARS scare don’t support the efficacy.

 

[Brett327]

@Spekkio's post is one of the byproducts of people making up their own "facts." Now, even relatively reasonable people don't seem to understand what is or is not true. Bill Maher's show last night is a prime example. Both he and Bari Weiss were tossing out some pretty cringe-worthy COVID "facts" because they've both clearly reached a state of COVID exhaustion. I completely get that sentiment, but they're engaging in the same kind of thinking that the anti-vax crowd practices... not helpful.

 

[Spekkio]

@Spekkio's post is one of the byproducts of people the CDC and Dr Fauci making up their own "facts."

FIFY.