Coronavirus

As for water drinking, I didn't exactly follow their mandate (had two pints about three hours before), but this was the only time I hydrated at all beforehand, and has been the only time I didn't end up getting noticeable side effects

There's a sometimes confusing distinction between percent difference and percent change.

Percent difference is just nominal: 5% to 10% is a 5% difference.

Percent change is relative to the starting number. 5% to 10% is a 100% change, because the number doubled (100% of it was added to itself).

Percent change is important for measuring speed/trajectory, so it's used a lot for things like disease spread.

RE: masks

I believe the CDC statement said that some masks, if I recall, the cloth ones, are basically ineffective. I mean, it says that right on the box, for one: These masks do not prevent the spread of viruses.

I think the N95 are still considered to be effective by the CDC.

I would also point out that erosion of trust in much of this is due to the poor track record and constant readjusting of goal posts by the powers that be. When all this started, I think for the most part, people were willing to cooperate, questioning things a lot less.

__________________

Ok that I understand.

See I don't know why we would need a study from Stanford that contains so many variables. To me it's common sense that masks, depending on the type, would offer various levels of protection. Did someone here say that masks offered no protection or people shouldn't wear them?

Yes, the box certain types of masks come in says that. The CDC also said that about certain types. So, like you said, it depends on the type etc.

The key word listed on the box is 'prevent'. Masks, especially cloth ones, do not stop the spread of the disease. How could they? But they can slow it. Sort of like I don't expect someone who puts their hands in front of their face before sneezing are preventing the spread of their germs. But they are, at the very least, limiting it.





I think there is some truth to this. I think there have been lots of areas open to criticism. The way they have handled lockdowns (and subsequent re-openings) of both schools and business where I come from, has left a lot to be desired. It is also sometimes confusing to wade through messaging that isn't always communicated particularly well (we have a borderline illiterate in charge of our messaging in Ontario), and there have been constant readjustments towards determining what is the best way to proceed in this situation. It's been understandably frustrating for everyone.



But, it's also important to recognize that this is a situation that is unfolding in real time. The science is always playing catch up to the reality of what is happening. What might have made sense six months ago, can become suspect or flat out wrong as we continue to learn about all the factors that are in play here. Learn more about the nature of this virus. Adjust to its variants.



Ideally, our health professionals would have been 100 percent accurate on everything they have told us. And frankly, considering how little faith there is in anything these days (for both legit reasons and absurdly stupid ones), they kind of had to be. But that is also an unreasonable expectation. They were not likely to ever get close to that. As much as there have been legitimate areas of complaint, to expect all the advice we have received to have been on point from the get go was never going to happen. And those who point to every decision that has been walked back from as proof that experts don't know what they are talking about can be a fairly destructive exercise.

As for the above image, while I haven't seen that particular disclaimer before, the key word there is 'protect'. And at no time, at least not in Canada, has there ever been any official claim that cloth masks will stop you (the wearer) from getting sick. It has constantly been reinforced to us that we wear them to not spread the disease to others. The good and proper neighbourly thing to do.



To keep ourselves from getting sick, that is where the medical grade masks become necessary.

I have the thought, and I could be wrong, that while masks offer a certain level of protection, they are not a long term answer. If Covid is here to stay, aren't they just delaying the inevitable until herd immunity?

Fair points Crumbs. I think if TPTP had just stopped and said "We don't have enough info yet, and we don't have any idea when things will return to normal, we need more data," instead of several instances of "Once we do this, we get back to normal."

A few instances of that had people firing up their conspiracy engines and deciding to stop listening and following guidance.

Fauci admitting he bent the truth in regards to herd immunity percentile definitely didn't help.

I think any reasonably intelligent person should be able to understand that things change as more info is gathered. My only point in bringing it up is that I can somewhat see why another person could have belief or trust issues.

Right, I think whether masks are effective in reducing spread is not really the question here. That's just the first question.

Once you establish masks are effective, the second question is "are they effective enough to stop the overall spread of the virus, or do they just delay it?"

When you answer that, then the third question is "is that delay highly important given the very low hospitalization rates for vaccinated people?" That is the actual question we're wrestling with, I think.

In other words, marginal differences to transmission may matter a lot when there's a potential to overwhelm our system (hence the whole "two weeks to bend the curve" thing, which made perfect sense and was well worth even seemingly overreacting for). But if vaccines are widely available and both deaths and hospitalizations plummet among the vaccinated, I'm not sure why the moderate effectiveness of masks represents a moral imperative, rather than, as was suggested earlier, just a slight delay in the spread through the population.

My assumption is that while maybe (especially with this super virulent Omicron strain) it is inevitable that most of us end up contracting this eventually, masks allow the spread of the virus to trickle out into the population, instead of exploding. So far hospitals and their staff have just barely been able to keep it together with the spread being slowed. An increase in the quickness of the spread, even if just by a few percentile points, has the potential to be completely crippling. And, as said before, this doesn't just affect those infected with the virus, but anyone who needs emergency or preventative care from other maladies.

By the way Sedai, I dropped off a ton of covid tests near your house Saturday night. They were coming in like mad.

I agree! Sadly, the world has a fair percentage of people that do not qualify for your descriptors...

Where? I would like to pick a couple up.

Agree with all of this.

Keep in mind, my issue coming into this thread was that a vaccinated person wanted to have a say in what a vaccinated co-worker did or did not do during off work hours, for their own personal protection. I thought it was too much-that's all.

Well they were used and I brought them to Quest on Forest St. to be tested.

Re: trust issues.

Yeah, a lot of people burned a lot of trust and goodwill during this, and it's a real shame. It's going to make things much harder next time.

I'm not talking about "well, people have to respond to changing data" or "it's hard to know things in the early going," both of which are true, but both of which require humility about those initial conclusions before they're superseded by new data, too. No, I mean the, eh, fibbing about mask efficacy to try to avoid shortages, as well as the political editorializing (don't gather, but if your protest is really really important we understand).

If we implore people to "trust the science," that necessarily implies trusting the scientists, and that means they need to be rigorously impartial. They can't be politicians, carving out exceptions for non-medical things or withholding their best judgment because they worry how it may be received. They need to speak the truth as they understand it, period. That did not happen here in at least two very important ways, and I'm genuinely fearful for the erosion of public trust that's clearly resulted.

I wouldn't have minded a little of this as well. Personally, I generally respond better to systems that acknowledge some level of humility. But, that said, there probably is a bit of a highwire act going on even when it comes to how you inform the public about a pandemic like this in the initial stages. Play it humble, as you suggested, you may have people not taking the threat very seriously.



But, yeah, constantly dangling the carrot of 'normalcy' in front of everyone in hopes of getting them to act appropriately, was inevitably going to backfire if things didn't 'get back to normal' swiftly. Maybe, they legitimately though this would happen..but I doubt they could have been that sure. I imagine it was more a situation of 'let's get them to do this, even if we have to fib a little, and we'll deal with the fall out later'. Unfortunately, the fallout from this (on top of how much misinformation there is about this to begin with) has been catastrophic.