Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[jhkim]

Julia Marcus is a good one to follow on these things, and she's not some right-winger rejecting stuff for the sake of it, she's very lefty, has she/her in her profile, etc. She has a series of articles on these topics at the Atlantic and the one I found most interesting was her comparing the covid restrictions to the "just say no" and "abstinence" approaches with drugs and HIV/AIDS here. For reference, she wrote this in May last year.

In all of these examples, a concern about the promotion of risky behavior masquerades as a concern about health. But in reality, resistance to harm reduction is typically a cloak for moral judgments about what constitutes responsible behavior. When people express worry that PrEP will promote condomless sex, it just reveals their preconceptions about what counts as responsible sex. This bias, in turn, perpetuates stigma, the low uptake of PrEP, and preventable HIV infections. Likewise, a moralistic approach to coronavirus prevention—including shaming anyone whose adherence to social-distancing measures is less than 100 percent—will ultimately fail. If public-health officials assume that guidance on strategies such as seksbuddies or double bubbles will promote risky behavior, they will miss a crucial opportunity to reduce the potential harms of actions that some Americans are already taking.

Instead of moralizing, harm reduction comes from a place of pragmatism and compassion. It accepts that compromises will happen—usually for perfectly understandable reasons—and aims to reduce any associated harms as much as possible.

I don't think I agree with her on a lot of the specifics, but I'm firmly behind that kind of approach. As I've said many times, I think the public health messaging during the pandemic has been disastrously bad. Their job -- their only real job -- is to assess threats, and then educate and persuade the public. They failed, and failed at a spectacular level. Though I think it's more than just the hectoring and moralizing, public health also failed to address the uncertainty when it came to a lot of their conclusions (granted, that's hard in the first place, and there's a lot of pressure to do otherwise because the public always wants clear answers even when they don't exist), and they also destroyed the trust the public had in them by lying. The last is probably the worst, because it might be a generation before significant chunks of the public believe them again.

Pat - Worldwide, are there any governments or institutions that you think have done a good job of communicating on public health during the pandemic?

I agree that not moralizing is good in messaging, but really, I don't know what would work best given the hyper-partisan and social-media-dominated landscape. I feel like anything that splits along partisan political lines will end up being politicized and moralized about on social media, and the outrage and moralizing will occupy more attention than factual discussion.

[Pat]

Pat - Worldwide, are there any governments or institutions that you think have done a good job of communicating on public health during the pandemic?

I agree that not moralizing is good in messaging, but really, I don't know what would work best given the hyper-partisan and social-media-dominated landscape. I feel like anything that splits along partisan political lines will end up being politicized and moralized about on social media, and the outrage and moralizing will occupy more attention than factual discussion.

I'm not familiar with any, though I don't think public health has any control over the partisanship of the wider society. The way they can rise above that is to studiously avoid taking sides, sticking purely to facts, not stepping outside their boundaries (no suggestions on what to do "to help the economy", for instance), admitting areas of uncertainty, and never ever manipulating the truth. I'll step back a bit from saying it's their job to persuade, because while that should be the end result of their messaging, I think making it a goal creates too much pressure to sacrifice the truth in favor of attempting to change behavior, like Fauci's lies about masks and herd immunity. But in the mid and long term, that doesn't help. In fact it's horribly damaging, because the distrust it creates may never be overcome. So truth should take priority over anything else. It's okay to not know, or to be wrong. It's not okay to mislead or deceive, and every effort should be taken to avoid even the appearance of dishonesty.

[Kyle Aaron]

I agree that not moralizing is good in messaging, but really, I don't know what would work best given the hyper-partisan and social-media-dominated landscape.

Julia Marcus talks about this, noting that males are less likely to mask up than women, and how once you engage with them, acknowledge, respect and address their concerns, they're more likely to do it.

She points out that the messaging from public health authorities has been mixed and inconsistent, and that political leaders have politicised the issue. We can't do much about political leaders, but public health messaging could be better. She also says,

But even macho men like Huff, whose Twitter bio declares, "I support Toxic Masculinity," aren't immune to public-health advice: In his video, he appears to be wearing a seatbelt.

But some years ago, refusing to wear a seatbelt was likewise a statement of macho. Over time the message got across, so much so that the guy wouldn't even have thought of it, but just belted up as he got in.

Yet unlike a seatbelt, which directly benefits the user, masks primarily protect everyone else, particularly people who are older or have underlying health conditions that make them vulnerable to the coronavirus.

There are things like breath tests, zebra crossings, traffic lights and indicators which do benefit the user, but primarily benefit others. I doubt this mask-refuser just barrels across children's crossings at 60 miles an hour. In that case, the danger to others is clear, and ordinary decent people will act accordingly. Masks are less clear, and part of the reason for that lack of clarity is the mixed messaging from public health authorities.

Anyway, her article is good and you should read it. It's evidence-based practice for public health messaging.

[Garry G]

Bottom line, CDC proof masks help reduce the risk you infect others. Your studies were talking about the protective effect for the person wearing the mask, which ignores the point you were responding to.

If you were actually ill, and wearing a proper mask, not a filthy rag, of course. Because "asymptomatic transmission" is utter bollocks.

Asymptomatic transmission is arguable amongst the not mentally ill with a leaning towards best wear a mask just in case. I noted today whilst picking up my kids that the loudest anti-vaxxer mother wasn't wearing a mask putting her clearly in Keiro's company.

[horsesoldier]

Julia Marcus is a good one to follow on these things, and she's not some right-winger rejecting stuff for the sake of it, she's very lefty, has she/her in her profile, etc. She has a series of articles on these topics at the Atlantic and the one I found most interesting was her comparing the covid restrictions to the "just say no" and "abstinence" approaches with drugs and HIV/AIDS here. For reference, she wrote this in May last year.

In all of these examples, a concern about the promotion of risky behavior masquerades as a concern about health. But in reality, resistance to harm reduction is typically a cloak for moral judgments about what constitutes responsible behavior. When people express worry that PrEP will promote condomless sex, it just reveals their preconceptions about what counts as responsible sex. This bias, in turn, perpetuates stigma, the low uptake of PrEP, and preventable HIV infections. Likewise, a moralistic approach to coronavirus prevention—including shaming anyone whose adherence to social-distancing measures is less than 100 percent—will ultimately fail. If public-health officials assume that guidance on strategies such as seksbuddies or double bubbles will promote risky behavior, they will miss a crucial opportunity to reduce the potential harms of actions that some Americans are already taking.

Instead of moralizing, harm reduction comes from a place of pragmatism and compassion. It accepts that compromises will happen—usually for perfectly understandable reasons—and aims to reduce any associated harms as much as possible.

I don't think I agree with her on a lot of the specifics, but I'm firmly behind that kind of approach. As I've said many times, I think the public health messaging during the pandemic has been disastrously bad. Their job -- their only real job -- is to assess threats, and then educate and persuade the public. They failed, and failed at a spectacular level. Though I think it's more than just the hectoring and moralizing, public health also failed to address the uncertainty when it came to a lot of their conclusions (granted, that's hard in the first place, and there's a lot of pressure to do otherwise because the public always wants clear answers even when they don't exist), and they also destroyed the trust the public had in them by lying. The last is probably the worst, because it might be a generation before significant chunks of the public believe them again.

Pat - Worldwide, are there any governments or institutions that you think have done a good job of communicating on public health during the pandemic?

I agree that not moralizing is good in messaging, but really, I don't know what would work best given the hyper-partisan and social-media-dominated landscape. I feel like anything that splits along partisan political lines will end up being politicized and moralized about on social media, and the outrage and moralizing will occupy more attention than factual discussion.

Facui was given a good amount of rope before he hung his credibility on lies. The man from the word go was trying to mislead people. People in America have huge amounts of respect for the lab coat and the title of Doctor. He has proven himself to be another civil "servant" who is immune to consequences for doing a bad job.

The WHO also hurt its credibility nearly immediately, by covering for China.

[KingCheops]

Julia Marcus is a good one to follow on these things, and she's not some right-winger rejecting stuff for the sake of it, she's very lefty, has she/her in her profile, etc. She has a series of articles on these topics at the Atlantic and the one I found most interesting was her comparing the covid restrictions to the "just say no" and "abstinence" approaches with drugs and HIV/AIDS here. For reference, she wrote this in May last year.

In all of these examples, a concern about the promotion of risky behavior masquerades as a concern about health. But in reality, resistance to harm reduction is typically a cloak for moral judgments about what constitutes responsible behavior. When people express worry that PrEP will promote condomless sex, it just reveals their preconceptions about what counts as responsible sex. This bias, in turn, perpetuates stigma, the low uptake of PrEP, and preventable HIV infections. Likewise, a moralistic approach to coronavirus prevention—including shaming anyone whose adherence to social-distancing measures is less than 100 percent—will ultimately fail. If public-health officials assume that guidance on strategies such as seksbuddies or double bubbles will promote risky behavior, they will miss a crucial opportunity to reduce the potential harms of actions that some Americans are already taking.

Instead of moralizing, harm reduction comes from a place of pragmatism and compassion. It accepts that compromises will happen—usually for perfectly understandable reasons—and aims to reduce any associated harms as much as possible.

I don't think I agree with her on a lot of the specifics, but I'm firmly behind that kind of approach. As I've said many times, I think the public health messaging during the pandemic has been disastrously bad. Their job -- their only real job -- is to assess threats, and then educate and persuade the public. They failed, and failed at a spectacular level. Though I think it's more than just the hectoring and moralizing, public health also failed to address the uncertainty when it came to a lot of their conclusions (granted, that's hard in the first place, and there's a lot of pressure to do otherwise because the public always wants clear answers even when they don't exist), and they also destroyed the trust the public had in them by lying. The last is probably the worst, because it might be a generation before significant chunks of the public believe them again.

Pat - Worldwide, are there any governments or institutions that you think have done a good job of communicating on public health during the pandemic?

I agree that not moralizing is good in messaging, but really, I don't know what would work best given the hyper-partisan and social-media-dominated landscape. I feel like anything that splits along partisan political lines will end up being politicized and moralized about on social media, and the outrage and moralizing will occupy more attention than factual discussion.

Facui was given a good amount of rope before he hung his credibility on lies. The man from the word go was trying to mislead people. People in America have huge amounts of respect for the lab coat and the title of Doctor. He has proven himself to be another civil "servant" who is immune to consequences for doing a bad job.

The WHO also hurt its credibility nearly immediately, by covering for China.

Trying to explain the difference between doctors/scientists who actually practice/research both medicine and science and "doctors" and "scientists" who are policy wonks has been one of my biggest hurdles in the "pandemic" (even that term pisses me off and I need to explain that too).  People think that someone who's a doctor who does nothing but make rules/regulations/policy documents is the same as a top notch heart surgeon.

NO they are bureaucrats with slightly better education to be able to understand the really smart people.

[Kiero]

Fresh off getting poked by the gracious host (I deserved it; bad choice of words on my part elsethread), let's go for the gusto here!

Let's talk about Surgisphere, shall we?

The Lancet, to much ballyhoo and left-leaning media cheering, publishes a study showing, purportedly, that the 'cocktail' (hydroxylchloroquine + zinc and something else I can't remember) isn't effective against Covid-19. Much hooting and sneering from the peanut gallery, since U.S. President Trump had suggested it as a possible treatment.

Skip ahead a week or two, and people start asking -questions- about the Lancet study. Turns out their data comes from a org called 'Surgisphere', whose origins seem... kinda murky. Anyone familiar with climate change shenanigans is probably getting a funny sense of deja vu.

And then Surgisphere just ... vanishes, as though they'd been crafted for one role and were no longer needed, especially with people asking why their science advisor was a SF/F author. The Lancet retracts their study, but the damage is done.

So the question is, cui bono? Who profits? Certainly Trump's political enemies (which covers most of the left side of the spectrum). There's also been questions about money raised; a competing treatment, Remdesivir, would be far more expensive and lucrative than the HCQ cocktail.

So, who's up for signing onto that mission to colonize Mars? Cause I gotta tell you, clown world is losing its charm.

The "study" where they deliberately gave already gravely ill people lethal doses of HCQ, you mean?

[Kiero]

Asymptomatic transmission is arguable amongst the not mentally ill with a leaning towards best wear a mask just in case. I noted today whilst picking up my kids that the loudest anti-vaxxer mother wasn't wearing a mask putting her clearly in Keiro's company.

Just in case what? You want to tell everyone else you're really not a sheep, just a virtue-signalling cunt who wants everyone to know how magnanimous and wonderful you are for "considering others"?

Please.

Massive Chinese study showed it was statistically insignificant. Which would be why all the mask mandates have done precisely fuck all.

[Garry G]

Asymptomatic transmission is arguable amongst the not mentally ill with a leaning towards best wear a mask just in case. I noted today whilst picking up my kids that the loudest anti-vaxxer mother wasn't wearing a mask putting her clearly in Keiro's company.

Just in case what? You want to tell everyone else you're really not a sheep, just a virtue-signalling cunt who wants everyone to know how magnanimous and wonderful you are for "considering others"?

Please.

Cunt really is your go to word isn't it?

On balance it's a small thing to do if there is a reasonable chance of reducing risk to theirs. I know you don't care about other people, that's not you being a mental it's a straightforward personality disorder, but here in normal world we do. In the end it's not that unreasonable and has probably helped with the flu virus as well.

I've actually been wanting to ask about how the worldwide conspiracy works in your eyes. Who is behind it, how are they coordinating it between so many nations and what are they're ultimate goals? Lay it out.

[Kiero]

Cunt really is your go to word isn't it?

On balance it's a small thing to do if there is a reasonable chance of reducing risk to theirs. I know you don't care about other people, that's not you being a mental it's a straightforward personality disorder, but here in normal world we do. In the end it's not that unreasonable and has probably helped with the flu virus as well.

I've actually been wanting to ask about how the worldwide conspiracy works in your eyes. Who is behind it, how are they coordinating it between so many nations and what are they're ultimate goals? Lay it out.

Funny, "cases" everywhere went up following mask mandates, not down. So it's questionable that it's helping.

[horsesoldier]

Cunt really is your go to word isn't it?

On balance it's a small thing to do if there is a reasonable chance of reducing risk to theirs. I know you don't care about other people, that's not you being a mental it's a straightforward personality disorder, but here in normal world we do. In the end it's not that unreasonable and has probably helped with the flu virus as well.

I've actually been wanting to ask about how the worldwide conspiracy works in your eyes. Who is behind it, how are they coordinating it between so many nations and what are they're ultimate goals? Lay it out.

Which is why the flu shot is encouraged in at risk populations and it isn't that big a deal for healthy people.

COVID-19 is different though. Everything is different! Forget all you knew and despair!

Check Public Health England's own report suggesting the immunity provided by the "vaccines" are inferior to that acquired by exposure to the virus and recovery. Which incidentally, might be fostering mutations. In other words if you're otherwise healthy, you may be making things worse being vaccinated. Never mind that if you've had it, you don't need vaccinating.

As for the flu jab, equally pointless. In "good" years it's 40% effective, in bad ones 5-10%. And even then it doesn't even make you immune, but might lessen your symptoms.

[rgalex]

Funny, "cases" everywhere went up following mask mandates, not down. So it's questionable that it's helping.

A recent CDC study (which unfortunately I can't look for while at work) showed that mask mandates had no statistically significant effect on transmission reduction. 

Off the top of my head I believe the data showed that where strict masking mandates were followed, after 60 days there was a 0.5 - 0.7% reduction in transmission.  After 100 days of strict masking that % increased to something like 1.6% in reduction of transmission.

[Brad]

A recent CDC study (which unfortunately I can't look for while at work) showed that mask mandates had no statistically significant effect on transmission reduction. 

Off the top of my head I believe the data showed that where strict masking mandates were followed, after 60 days there was a 0.5 - 0.7% reduction in transmission.  After 100 days of strict masking that % increased to something like 1.6% in reduction of transmission.

That's because they weren't wearing TWO masks!

[jhkim]

Funny, "cases" everywhere went up following mask mandates, not down. So it's questionable that it's helping.

A recent CDC study (which unfortunately I can't look for while at work) showed that mask mandates had no statistically significant effect on transmission reduction. 

Off the top of my head I believe the data showed that where strict masking mandates were followed, after 60 days there was a 0.5 - 0.7% reduction in transmission.  After 100 days of strict masking that % increased to something like 1.6% in reduction of transmission.

Are you referring to this study?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

If so yes, a 1.8% reduction in cases and 1.9% reduction in deaths after 100 days. Based on U.S. death rates since last April, that would be around 35 lives saved every day from masking - less because some states have not had mask mandates.

[Brad]

url="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm"]https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm[/url]

If so yes, a 1.8% reduction in cases and 1.9% reduction in deaths after 100 days. Based on U.S. death rates since last April, that would be around 35 lives saved every day from masking - less because some states have not had mask mandates.

Almost 2000 people die every day from heart disease, and ~130 every day from suicides. 35/day is pretty insignificant comparatively, ergo, the effect of wearing masks is statistically insignificant unless you are a fucking moron.