Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
That was like what? February? Maybe before. I know a few scrub their comment history here, but I don't, feel free to bump it. It's ok to be wrong about stuff, happens a lot, it's how we get better. At the time we were looking at a disease that was not killing very many people, and seemed to be well circled up in a single province in China.
In general I agree, but we were brow beat to follow the "experts" by several in this thread back in February and March. At the time I argued that we don't know enough to make certain statements with such conviction because the experts were still trying to get a handle on the virus.
That’s the point: in February or March you made the mistake of being rude and dismissive to people like me and a few others that were pretty much exactly right about it. Don’t make that mistake of being dismissive again. Your track record on the topic justifies not being dismissive of others. I encourage you to watch the Rogan/Weinstein clip I posted above and then see if you are dismissive
I saw it five months ago when it aired. Hell, I probably linked it then. I understand the concepts here.
I appreciate you dropping the snarkiness. A "con" is not a requirement for covid 19 to be a result of a laboratory accident. That narrative needs to be completely erased. Neither myself or Bret Weinstein ever made any claims that a con was the reason behind Covid. Accidents and sloppy work happen--and when they do--protocols moving forward change to prevent those things from happening again. Chernobyl, three mile island, and the Fukushima nuclear accidents weren't cons--but they sure as hell changed the landscapes and protocols for the full endorsements of nuclear power. If it becomes evident that covid 19 was a result of a lab escape of scientific research--the landscape and parameters of how research is conducted will change dramatically. That's just a reality.
I'm one of those people.
Could you point me to the inaccuracy? Even Chad and Karen are right sometimes. If the narrative fits, there's a different set of rules.
I don't know ... I think the stance of a lot of the media was something like "Well, for them ... the George Floyd issue, in the moment, dwarfs their immediate concerns about COVID. Are we going to sit here in this studio and spend every night criticizing them for spreading COVID? Or are we going to cover their protests in their intended context -- as protests against social injustice?"
It's not like the protestors were going to stop in their tracks and go home because of anything said about them in the media regarding COVID spread. "The media" wasn't controlling the protestors -- sometimes, I get the feeling that some think "the media" could have "said something" and completely nipped the protests in the bud. That's not the way it works.
Maybe I misinterpreted your intent. I thought you were mocking them for that line of thought. And while that's certainly an easy path in most cases, I'm just saying that they aren't necessarily wrong in this instance. The messaging has been very inconsistent based on-- at my best guess-- media narratives.
This feels like a dangerous tightrope to walk.I don't know ... I think the stance of a lot of the media was something like "Well, for them ... the George Floyd issue, in the moment, dwarfs their immediate concerns about COVID. Are we going to sit here in this studio and spend every night criticizing them for spreading COVID? Or are we going to cover their protests in their intended context -- as protests against social injustice?"
Making the protests - in that moment - about COVID spread probably seemed super tone deaf. A protestor could have perhaps credibly said "Some things are bigger than COVID"
It's still not clear to me one way or the other whether the summer protests outdoors were big spreading events (probably difficult to conclusively establish, though). To be fair, IMHO the outdoor activities at Sturgis likely weren't, either (although crowding up into dive bars certainly was).
Well said. Personally, I think in a lot of ways our response has been pretty ham-handed, and I think there are some things that are "bigger than Covid." We should be focusing on stopping things that are truly high risk, rather than things that are just in the noise but cause a lot of pain and animosity. I have a relative who was very sick and spent most of the year in and out of the hospital, who has since passed. I think the hospital procedures that didn't permit his lifelong companion to be with him for most of his last months on earth are monstrous and unbecoming of a civilized society.
What, exactly, was the media supposed to do about throngs of protestors? You can't go after them for flouting COVID safety without totally sounding like you're heaping dung on their social-justice message.
It's the way they shaped the narrative that is the issue, Doug.
I never got anything like the point in red from the media. To me, it was more like: "What can we say?" The narrative, such as it was, was simply that the protests were taking place -- that they were taking place without sanction was implicit in the act of protesting. Protestors weren't seeking permission from anyone.
Nothing to do with facts or feelings. The point is: the protestors wouldn't have given a rip, and the media would've come off as tone deaf. No upside at all for the media to make COVID non-compliance the centerpiece of their protest coverage.
This entire subject has everything to do with feelings. Otherwise all of the facts would be in the news cycle; not just those that play well to their audience.
With all due respect, they’re hardly saying protests are “safe and a-ok”.
This response was 100% predictable. The letter is clear in its intent.
The whole mask thing early on was to prevent hoarding and a run on them because the hospitals and PPE stockpiles were insufficient and healthcare workers needed to survive the first wave. I think everyone always knew masks were key, but the USA couldn't afford panic-buying of masks by the public like we had on toilet paper . . . .
This is not true -- I'm talking about cloth face coverings here, not N95s. Cloth masks were never in short supply.
I'd argue there is a subset of the American population that vehemently disagrees. No thanks to our message out of the gate which they routinely point to as evidence for their stance. Just had a discussion with one of them on FB last night, we're what? 9 months in and still talking about this.
Again, I think they said none were necessary, even the cloth ones, because people would have gone out and bought the PPE (a term none of us knew before March).
I think the early-stance of CDC and Trump's mask position/use/rhetoric are the main reasons for this. Had we said they were necessary from the beginning and Trump been behind it, then we would have been in good shape. Hell, if Trump would have OKd the proposal for the post-office to send five cloth masks to every household, he would have been a hero -- leveraging a private-public partnership to save lives would have magnified everything he said he was good at, and he wins reelection. But I guess that is for another thread.
This maybe could be true, but it further illustrates how ill equipped our public health officials are at messaging if it is.
That is exactly what I was trying to allude to without triggering the "TAKE IT TO THE POLITICS FORUM" crowd
I had a big argument with my wife about this issue. I still think more could have been done on the messaging about "how to protest safely".
I feel for you. That is tough. Can you require people in this questionable group to wear an N95 at work? Not foolproof of course, but maybe makes you feel more comfortable?
IK, you make some good points, I won't argue that our public health authorities were incorrect on the mask wearing and that likely contributed to some of the reluctance to adhere to mask wearing by sections of the public now. But hindsight is 2020 here, and there was really sparse data on the subject, particularly with a novel virus back in March and April. To ask a scientist to give a definitive answer with sparse or non-existent statistical data is really problematic.
China knew early that masks were essential. I recall a chinsese-american reporter who was imbedded over there stating as much on twitter. That everything revolved around mask-wearing and she didn't understand why the US was not advocating as much.
We have had a couple times where a parent has bowed up over making their kid wear a mask. In both they had autism issues which are exempt under our county mask ordinance. We have provided N-95's to instructors in both those instances but neither were situations where covid was a known factor.
Because the west has never gone for mask wearing prior to COVID19. There was cultural bias and hubris.
While everyone obsessed about the masks, I don't understand why the ventilation aspect has virtually been ignored, especially with more and more focus on aerosol spread. If you can make inside more like outside, I suspect it would go a long way in breaking the transmission chain.
but, re: much of the last couple pages, please take it to the politics forum. (which i also like)That is exactly what I was trying to allude to without triggering the "TAKE IT TO THE POLITICS FORUM" crowd
I dont understand why that study was done. They studied the effectiveness of masks in a country with low prevalence during a time that was strictly locked down and they didnt control for time outdoors vs indoors and excluded people that wore them at work and had less than 50% compliance?
Meh, I don’t understand why people are so petty. This isn’t a competition to see who can best skirt the guidelines. The existence of a few hypocrites and policy inconsistencies doesn’t invalidate the overall utility of NPIs in managing the pandemic.The Z Machine said:
