Yeah, after the 6th spelling mistake in the first three paragraphs and checking the writers credentials further than the nice looking bio at the bottom I would flag it if I could.
Even if I didnt know already that Brownstone is more akin to Clownstone (really, its founder is someone Ayn Rand might have an onanistic seizure for, with all the self-righteous dweebishness that implies) and I'm pretty sure editing is one of the last things that it cares about, as long as its anti-mask, anti-vax, anti governments of any kind schtick is maintained.
I just skimmed the first several paragraphs and the only spelling mistake is "no where" instead of "nowhere". Though if imaginary spelling mistakes help you believe in the obvious BS coming out of the CDC and if that's necessary for your sanity, let's call it 6 mistakes.
> Overall, we rate the Brownstone Institute Right Biased based on editorial positions that favor a conservative-libertarian perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed fact check and the promotion of misinformation regarding Covid-19.
It's a bit worse than that. Its the Brownstone "Institute", basically a front for 'anarcho-capitalist' (read: wannabe Peter Thiel on steroids and bitcoin) Jeffrey Tucker.
For the author: The solution is to ask for their sources - not to speculate that it’s all a sham (while conveniently also not providing any data to back up such a claim.)
Meanwhile a single search pulls a possible source for the 80% figure:
But talking about that source is inconvenient to the author because it provides ample support over a range of real world and laboratory studies (with both types demonstrating the 80% figure)
But even without looking deeply into this - what motive would the CDC have for making everyone run around in little fabric masks versus the very well known disinformation efforts.
At this stage of the pandemic: the science is abundantly clear - masks work.
Right.
Did you even read the “source” you provided?
Anyone who uses the 2 infected hairdressers as proof masks work has lost all credibility.
Its the kind of scientism that thrives on social media.
You do realize that half of the supposedly covid free clientel declined a pcr test?
They just said they felt fine.
I would not have gotten a passing grade in high scool if I had turned that paper in as proof of masking.
Since 2020 any crap, no matter how idiotic, as long as it supports masking,
is passed off as science.
Sorry but masks are not a very disputes issue anymore. I mean it is a airborne virus, how other than filtering air you breath in and out would you practically target it?
Weirdly enough nobody seems to doubt HEPA filters work. Maybe because they are more convenient and don't demand that you wear a piece of cloth in your face?
Gee, why would a filter designed and proven to filter certain particles work, and a piece of cloth designed to be clothing not work? It must be an anti mask conspiracy!
It doesn't matter what the truth is at this point because the majority of scientist have demonstrated they are massive cowards and won't speak out against patently false information in the mainstream for fear of becoming pariahs.
> It doesn't matter what the truth is at this point because the majority of scientist have demonstrated they are massive cowards (...)
Before you go on attacking others for being cowards, what would you do if you started receiving death threats because you chose to speak publiy about an issue which an extremist political movement frowns upon?
If you don't possess some means of defending your family from real threats, you've already failed at your job. I understand HN leans left, but buy guns and learn to use them. The police will not be there to help you when you need it.
That your mind equates speaking freely to poking a bear says a lot. What makes you feel safe? Someone else being paid by your taxes to have the arsenal of guns?
> That your mind equates speaking freely to poking a bear says a lot.
Yes, it does speak volumes on the problem the US is facing with its authoritarian, anti-intellectual, proto-fascist political movements. The science community should be free from persecution just because extremists have a hard time dealing with inconvenient info.
> What makes you feel safe?
Personally I feel safe when I don't have terrorists threatening me and my family with violence and murder just because I pointed the fact that vaccines work. It seems academia shares this opinion with me.
Which ones? The covid-19 ones? Their efficacy is waning at best. Multiple nations with >80% vaccination rate were still dealing with outbreaks last I checked. And before you talk mortality/hospitalization rates, those are down across the board, and clearly would have gone down regardless.
Science is being attacked by both sides. When I say they are being cowards, I mean that they have let 100 years of knowledge go out the window. Efficacy of masks was well understood pre-2020, and a vaccine actually stopped you from getting a virus pre-2020. Try stating that cloth masks do nothing but embolden people to partake in more risky behavior. And that perhaps it was a bad idea to rush out a vaccine given what we know about doing that (see: dengue fever). When scientist are too scared to admit ADE is a real possibility, they have put their paycheck before the safety of humanity.
The current covid vaccines are some of the most efficacious vaccines we have ever had. Even with efficacy waning due to variants, they are still very effective.
And no, not all vaccines prevent infection. It has long been well understood in immunology that some vaccines do not prevent infection but rather poor outcomes.
The vaccine reduces level and length of infectivity by anywhere between 50% and 80% depending on which study and which variant.
The anti COVID vaccine rhetoric is directly responsible for the lives of hundreds of thousands. And it may yet lead to many more.
Every faux pas will earn you a death threat these days. They are trite and meaningless.
Taking anyone on the far right/left seriously is like giving in to a child throwing a tantrum. People need to stop being so spineless and develop some convictions. We are regressing to a point where people are afraid to exercise their freedom of speech.
> (while conveniently also not providing any data to back up such a claim.)
"The intervention increased proper mask-wearing from 13.3% in control villages (N=806,547 observations) to 42.3% in treatment villages (N=797,715 observations) (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.29 \[0.27, 0.31\]). This tripling of mask usage was sustained during the intervention period and two weeks after. \[...\] The proportion of individuals with COVID-like symptoms was __7.62%__ (N=13,273) in the intervention arm and __8.62%__ (N=13,893) in the control arm." - ["The Impact of Community Masking on COVID-19: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Bangladesh" (2021)](https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publicati...)
"SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021." - ["Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections" (2021)](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...)
Uhhhmmm... Excuse me sweaty, but you're arguing with a professor of epidemiology based on your Google "research", so uhh, how about you leave the science to the experts and sit this one out.
Unfortunately at this stage of the pandemic, most peoples minds are made up about everything. There's enough refusenics that the virus will find a reservoir to do its mutating thing, so I think no matter what sensible people say its just a moot point.
> Somehow vaccinated people are scared of unvaccinated or vaccinated-but-unmasked people
I can't speak for everyone, but even with a vaccine I can still transmit covid to my young children. I'll breathe easier once they are vaccinated too.
> Then, all schools in US are open to kids who cannot even be vaccinated
There are other factors besides COVID. Quarantine was not good for our kids, and we made the decision to send them back too school when we saw how much they were suffering due to lack of socialization.
Additionally, working with kids at home was next to impossible. We are taking a calculated risk sending them back because the bills, unfortunately, do not pay themselves. It was not an easy decision.
Your decision is absurd because that was exactly why you chose to set your strawman like that.
If you take a step back and force yourself to take a honest and reasonable look at what the OP really said, you'll quickly understand that all caring parents, even when considering that the average children's risk of serious illness is relatively low, do have a high risk aversion regarding their well-being. Therefore, they breathe easier if their kids' immune system is well trained and prepared to handle an infection, which is precisely what you get when you're vaccinated.
Nobody knows what the long-term effects of covid in developing kids could be. I'm not worried about them dying of covid, but having their lives altered.
> But unvaccinated 20-29 years old is like the biggest deal ever
Don't know exactly what you're referring to since all the unvaxxed people I know are old, but it's irresponsible not to get it.
Honestly it just sounds like you’ve bought into the politics of it all. This is (mostly) a scientific issue, and inherent in that is the fact that the body of knowledge changes as a result of new observations.
> If you point that out, people will counter back with covid doesn't impact kids. Well, okay?
Who is “people”?
Are you using a consistent source?
If your point is that people have different understandings of appropriate COVID responses, then I guess I agree, but I don’t think that that’s the point that you’re trying to make.
More to the point, I can’t see how any government response could combat the fact that in 2021 everyone is an expert and disinformation is rife. This is a pre-existing condition.
The obvious conclusion is that it’s total bullshit: the two mechanisms driving this are
“I want to keep working from home.”
AND
“I am not an individual, therefore no one else is.”
THEREFORE
“Blah blah blah lies and crap”
>.Majority of people agree with school opening. Therefore, covid is seen as not a big deal.
COVID-19 is not the big deal it was a few months ago because back then vaccine rollout barely started. Right now, those who still haven't got the jab either can't take it yet or are outright refusing to take it.
Meanwhile, children can't be vaccinated but enjoy a low risk of developing serious illness.
Given the scenario, it was necessary to evaluate the risk of deciding whether to impose a lockdown onto the school population, which would be largely incoherent and disproportionate to the risk, or returning to school while enforcing basic and low-effort health and safety measures, such as wearing masks and respect social distancing. Most of the world, if not all, chose to resume the school year with students returning to school.
I think you’re talking about the opinions of two different groups which is why they conflict.
I’m fully vaxxed plus a booster and I don’t really want to be around unmasked unvaxxed people if I can help it. Like the vaccine isn’t magic, the effectiveness drops over time and more exposures compounds the risk. There’s zero gain to be around a high risk group, especially when it’s so easy to avoid right now. And I still wear a mask and encourage others to as well (not that it matters
because there are still mandates) because I don’t want to accidentally be an asymptotic carrier to someone, especially someone unvaccinated — I have friends and family with weak immune systems and kids. Wearing a mask costs me nothing, especially now that it’s cold and keeps my face warm, and might do some good.
I also think it is monumentally stupid that schools around here opened. Sure yeah, pack kids in poorly ventilated rooms for 8 hours a day, nothing bad will happen there.
> The question now is for how long we will need to keep prevent weakimmune people.
Why must a timeline be put on it? The people asking "how long do we need to do this" kind of remind me of the kids in the back seat on a long trip asking every 10 minutes "are we there yet?"
It's a global pandemic the likes the which no living generation has witnessed before. No one can tell you the future. Anyone putting a timeline on it is giving you their best guess, not a guarantee.
I understand that is mentally and emotionally tough to deal with for a lot of people, but that's the sober reality of our current situation.
We have vaccines (miraculously) but only a partially vaccinated planet. We have promising therapeutics on the horizon (see last week's news about Pfizer's new drug), but we are many months or years away from them being available as ubiquitously as we need them to be.
> Didn't they have this exact problem before covid with 1000 other diseases?
That were as 1) widespread, 2) severe and 3) as contagious as COVID-19? I can't think of any.
of all the disruption the world has gone through - death, idleness, economic dysfunction, loss of international travel, schools cancelled for more than a year..
wearing a goddamn mask in public is what really got to us
Because it has completely disrupted our society, and widespread vaccinations have reduced the <1% chance of non-elderly people dying to much lower than that. Many kids have lost more than a year of education. Suicide and depression rates are skyrocketing among people of all age groups. "15 days to flatten the curve" has morphed into, "we must wear masks and stay locked down forever even if it only saves 1 life". Many of us reject this safetyism. Life is inherently risky. The vast majority of non-elderly people face far more of a risk of injury and death from their daily commute than they do dying of covid. Everyone is free to make their own personal risk assessment and wear a mask and/or hide in their homes forever. The rest of us are going to accept covid as another one of the many risks we all face in life and move on and start living again.
Huh? The current situation in most places is be vaccinated or have a negative covid test to go to events with large crowds and wear a mask when indoors. Other than wearing a mask sometimes and showing my vaccine card at concerts life has gone completely back to normal.
The problem with the "personal risk assessment" argument is that you wear masks to protect other people, not yourself. This is a decision that must be made collectively for or against.
>Huh? The current situation in most places is be vaccinated or have a negative covid test to go to events with large crowds and wear a mask when indoors. Other than wearing a mask sometimes and showing my vaccine card at concerts life has gone completely back to normal.
Tell that to the tens of millions of children - including pre-schoolers - who are forced to wear masks all day, every day, which greatly inhibits their learning and social development. Further, the fact is that places with "mask" (gauze masks and face covers - not actual N95 masks) mandates have not shown to have lower covid transmission rates than places without such mandates. That's the reality of the situation no matter what the so-called experts say.
While this assessment focuses on the “personal risk” side of things (yes, we are all aware that most of us who have been vaccinated should expect nothing more than a bad cold if we end up getting infected with covid), where your assessment falls apart is that it doesn’t take into account public health.
COVID continues to overwhelm healthcare system ICU capacity. It continues to result in an unsustainable level of death and disability among the massive portion of the population that remains unvaccinated.
Where I live, and in other jurisdictions, public health authorities are telling citizens, “Hey, try to avoid getting into a car accident or having a heart attack because our ICU capacity is extremely limited”
So long as these systems are not operating normally, society cannot function as it usually would. And we certainly can’t pretend covid is over because we have lost patience and exacerbate those problems further.
Lastly, your assertion that suicides have increased due to COVID is false. [0][1]
>Lastly, your assertion that suicides have increased due to COVID is false. [0][1]
>Why are you telling people that?
Take it up with the CDC.
>In August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the results of a nationwide survey conducted during the last week in June: More than 40 percent of those who responded reported symptoms of anxiety or depression or increased substance use, in addition to other struggles. And more than 10 percent said that they had seriously considered suicide in the past 30 days, compared with just over 4 percent who said the same thing in 2018 — and who were referring to suicidal ideation over the previous 12 months.
That article says nothing about suicides increasing, which was your assertion. In fact, most data, including the data the CDC has available and the studies I referenced above, shows suicides are down, in some cases sharply.
This willingness to spread falsehoods in order to bolster a political view really needs to end.
Nevermind the irony of claiming that it's essential that everyone must stop "living in fear" immediately... which is then substantiated using inaccurate, fear-mongering claims of increased suicides and children experiencing learning and social development delays due to masks.
Your argument would be stronger if you had made an honest claim, and if you had linked to the CDC rather than a newspaper article.
The fact you didn't link to the CDC data tells me that you lack familiarity with the way the CDC works, and that's important because suicide data is complicated.
The data we have so far doesn't support the points you've made.
That’s kinda the thing, no. I had no idea my friend had a compromised immune system until Covid and they stopped being able to go outside, had to go full time remote, got groceries delivered. We had to bring them some emergency cat food at one point.
They’re planning on benefiting from herd immunity at some point once the virus has been beaten back but while it’s still spreading like crazy they’re stuck. It’s the fact that Covid is so contagious that makes it such a PITA.
So to answer the question of how long, how ever long it takes for there to stop being so many new cases. It’s not forever.
Covid-19 will never go away though. It will circulate forever and spike whenever peoples immunity starts to fade. I take the timeline question to be "When do we accept Covid as endemic and get on with our lives?"
I have a close friend that is immune compromised and can't take a lot of vaccines due to allergies. It has been a life long struggle for them. It was a struggle long before covid and I imagine it will be a struggle long after. To say its not forever may be the case for some but not all. Many people will continue to have issues long after new cases die down.
> Vaccine prevents covid (e.g. death and major injury). Somehow vaccinated people are scared of unvaccinated or vaccinated-but-unmasked people. Huh?
You need to get your story straight. Things are quite simple as easy to understand once you take an honest look at the issue. For instance:
* The current generation of COVID-19 vaccines trains the immune system to have a fighting chance against COVID-19 and are effective at practically eliminating the risk of serious illness, but they do not prevent infection or spread.
* Some people cannot take the vaccine, such as the case of pregnant women until recently. Others do continue to be at risk even after taking the vaccine such as those plagued with comorbidities. See Colin Powell.
* The risk of spawning a new strain that is not handled by the vaccine is proportional to the number of infections, thus contributing to it's spread endangers us all. See how the Delta variant was spawned in India.
This is widely known by anyone who honestly cares about the subject and did a cursory search on the topic. In my case, the local vaccination drive distributed a leaflet explaining everything. Is any of this info new to you?
"Most children do not develop symptoms when infected with the virus, or they develop a very mild form of the disease. However, research has shown that children can become infected, and can spread the virus to other children and adults while they are infectious."
>The current generation of COVID-19 vaccines trains the immune system to have a fighting chance against COVID-19 and are effective at practically eliminating the risk of serious illness, but they do not prevent infection or spread.
It does prevent infection and spread. 10% of the time there's a breakthrough case. That is still effective often enough to bring us to herd immunity despite the high infectiousness of Delta.
Every time these kind of articles come up, either from people for or against the mandates or vaccines, I want to remind everyone that you judge veracity by considering the circumstances of the source, never the source itself. The exact same words coming from someone working for a cigarette company versus someone working for a renowned research institution cannot be construed in the same way, even if they are the exact same person at two points in time.
Even if they do work for a cigarette company or a research institution, they also have their own biases separate from the organization that they work for.
Yes, we should ask basic questions as "How many people do you know personally that was healthy and suddenly die for virus with uknown origin?" or "How many people do you know personally that died or has serious side effects from vaccines?" We shouldn't let media and data etc. think for ourselves.
73 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 99.8 ms ] threadJust to spare others the click.
Continues without providing data.
It's buffoonish, but easy to spot.
Meanwhile a single search pulls a possible source for the 80% figure:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
But talking about that source is inconvenient to the author because it provides ample support over a range of real world and laboratory studies (with both types demonstrating the 80% figure)
But even without looking deeply into this - what motive would the CDC have for making everyone run around in little fabric masks versus the very well known disinformation efforts.
At this stage of the pandemic: the science is abundantly clear - masks work.
You do realize that half of the supposedly covid free clientel declined a pcr test? They just said they felt fine.
I would not have gotten a passing grade in high scool if I had turned that paper in as proof of masking.
Since 2020 any crap, no matter how idiotic, as long as it supports masking, is passed off as science.
Some days reddit clearly leaks into HN.
Weirdly enough nobody seems to doubt HEPA filters work. Maybe because they are more convenient and don't demand that you wear a piece of cloth in your face?
Before you go on attacking others for being cowards, what would you do if you started receiving death threats because you chose to speak publiy about an issue which an extremist political movement frowns upon?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02757-3
Like saying, hey poking that bear is no big deal because I have a gun.
Threats alone are enough to make life miserable. Having an arsenal of guns will be of little comfort to your family.
Yes, it does speak volumes on the problem the US is facing with its authoritarian, anti-intellectual, proto-fascist political movements. The science community should be free from persecution just because extremists have a hard time dealing with inconvenient info.
> What makes you feel safe?
Personally I feel safe when I don't have terrorists threatening me and my family with violence and murder just because I pointed the fact that vaccines work. It seems academia shares this opinion with me.
Which ones? The covid-19 ones? Their efficacy is waning at best. Multiple nations with >80% vaccination rate were still dealing with outbreaks last I checked. And before you talk mortality/hospitalization rates, those are down across the board, and clearly would have gone down regardless.
Science is being attacked by both sides. When I say they are being cowards, I mean that they have let 100 years of knowledge go out the window. Efficacy of masks was well understood pre-2020, and a vaccine actually stopped you from getting a virus pre-2020. Try stating that cloth masks do nothing but embolden people to partake in more risky behavior. And that perhaps it was a bad idea to rush out a vaccine given what we know about doing that (see: dengue fever). When scientist are too scared to admit ADE is a real possibility, they have put their paycheck before the safety of humanity.
And no, not all vaccines prevent infection. It has long been well understood in immunology that some vaccines do not prevent infection but rather poor outcomes.
The vaccine reduces level and length of infectivity by anywhere between 50% and 80% depending on which study and which variant.
The anti COVID vaccine rhetoric is directly responsible for the lives of hundreds of thousands. And it may yet lead to many more.
Oh, it would have been much worse if they weren’t vaccinated?
I guess we’ll just have to take the experts word for it...
Hmm...
Taking anyone on the far right/left seriously is like giving in to a child throwing a tantrum. People need to stop being so spineless and develop some convictions. We are regressing to a point where people are afraid to exercise their freedom of speech.
"The intervention increased proper mask-wearing from 13.3% in control villages (N=806,547 observations) to 42.3% in treatment villages (N=797,715 observations) (adjusted percentage point difference = 0.29 \[0.27, 0.31\]). This tripling of mask usage was sustained during the intervention period and two weeks after. \[...\] The proportion of individuals with COVID-like symptoms was __7.62%__ (N=13,273) in the intervention arm and __8.62%__ (N=13,893) in the control arm." - ["The Impact of Community Masking on COVID-19: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Bangladesh" (2021)](https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publicati...)
"SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021." - ["Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections" (2021)](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...)
Vaccine prevents covid (e.g. death and major injury). Somehow vaccinated people are scared of unvaccinated or vaccinated-but-unmasked people. Huh?
Then, all schools in US are open to kids who cannot even be vaccinated (this is since a few months back).
If you point that out, people will counter back with covid doesn't impact kids. Well, okay?
We try too hard to use unvaccinated as a scapegoat of the bad crisis management.
Do you remember how Fauci undermined all masks in the beginning? I do.
Fauci still try to pin it on unvaccinated when schools are still open..
I can't speak for everyone, but even with a vaccine I can still transmit covid to my young children. I'll breathe easier once they are vaccinated too.
> Then, all schools in US are open to kids who cannot even be vaccinated
There are other factors besides COVID. Quarantine was not good for our kids, and we made the decision to send them back too school when we saw how much they were suffering due to lack of socialization.
Additionally, working with kids at home was next to impossible. We are taking a calculated risk sending them back because the bills, unfortunately, do not pay themselves. It was not an easy decision.
I suppose dead kids is cheaper than working with kids at home.
That is an absurd decision.
Your decision is absurd because that was exactly why you chose to set your strawman like that.
If you take a step back and force yourself to take a honest and reasonable look at what the OP really said, you'll quickly understand that all caring parents, even when considering that the average children's risk of serious illness is relatively low, do have a high risk aversion regarding their well-being. Therefore, they breathe easier if their kids' immune system is well trained and prepared to handle an infection, which is precisely what you get when you're vaccinated.
There you go. As I mentioned, when pointing out about school reopening, now covid isn't a huge deal.
But unvaccinated 20-29 years old is like the biggest deal ever.
> But unvaccinated 20-29 years old is like the biggest deal ever
Don't know exactly what you're referring to since all the unvaxxed people I know are old, but it's irresponsible not to get it.
What if vaccination won't help to reduce your anxiety?
> If you point that out, people will counter back with covid doesn't impact kids. Well, okay?
Who is “people”?
Are you using a consistent source?
If your point is that people have different understandings of appropriate COVID responses, then I guess I agree, but I don’t think that that’s the point that you’re trying to make.
More to the point, I can’t see how any government response could combat the fact that in 2021 everyone is an expert and disinformation is rife. This is a pre-existing condition.
Because if covid is a huge deal, we wouldn't trade dead kids with educating kids. Being alive would almost always come first
COVID-19 is not the big deal it was a few months ago because back then vaccine rollout barely started. Right now, those who still haven't got the jab either can't take it yet or are outright refusing to take it.
Meanwhile, children can't be vaccinated but enjoy a low risk of developing serious illness.
Given the scenario, it was necessary to evaluate the risk of deciding whether to impose a lockdown onto the school population, which would be largely incoherent and disproportionate to the risk, or returning to school while enforcing basic and low-effort health and safety measures, such as wearing masks and respect social distancing. Most of the world, if not all, chose to resume the school year with students returning to school.
Studies have shown that people fare poorly with judging non-immediate risk. Look how many people deal with type II diabetes.
I’m fully vaxxed plus a booster and I don’t really want to be around unmasked unvaxxed people if I can help it. Like the vaccine isn’t magic, the effectiveness drops over time and more exposures compounds the risk. There’s zero gain to be around a high risk group, especially when it’s so easy to avoid right now. And I still wear a mask and encourage others to as well (not that it matters because there are still mandates) because I don’t want to accidentally be an asymptotic carrier to someone, especially someone unvaccinated — I have friends and family with weak immune systems and kids. Wearing a mask costs me nothing, especially now that it’s cold and keeps my face warm, and might do some good.
I also think it is monumentally stupid that schools around here opened. Sure yeah, pack kids in poorly ventilated rooms for 8 hours a day, nothing bad will happen there.
Didn't they have this exact problem before covid with 1000 other diseases?
At this point, it seems weak immune people are weaponized.
Why must a timeline be put on it? The people asking "how long do we need to do this" kind of remind me of the kids in the back seat on a long trip asking every 10 minutes "are we there yet?"
It's a global pandemic the likes the which no living generation has witnessed before. No one can tell you the future. Anyone putting a timeline on it is giving you their best guess, not a guarantee.
I understand that is mentally and emotionally tough to deal with for a lot of people, but that's the sober reality of our current situation.
We have vaccines (miraculously) but only a partially vaccinated planet. We have promising therapeutics on the horizon (see last week's news about Pfizer's new drug), but we are many months or years away from them being available as ubiquitously as we need them to be.
> Didn't they have this exact problem before covid with 1000 other diseases?
That were as 1) widespread, 2) severe and 3) as contagious as COVID-19? I can't think of any.
wearing a goddamn mask in public is what really got to us
Because it has completely disrupted our society, and widespread vaccinations have reduced the <1% chance of non-elderly people dying to much lower than that. Many kids have lost more than a year of education. Suicide and depression rates are skyrocketing among people of all age groups. "15 days to flatten the curve" has morphed into, "we must wear masks and stay locked down forever even if it only saves 1 life". Many of us reject this safetyism. Life is inherently risky. The vast majority of non-elderly people face far more of a risk of injury and death from their daily commute than they do dying of covid. Everyone is free to make their own personal risk assessment and wear a mask and/or hide in their homes forever. The rest of us are going to accept covid as another one of the many risks we all face in life and move on and start living again.
The problem with the "personal risk assessment" argument is that you wear masks to protect other people, not yourself. This is a decision that must be made collectively for or against.
Tell that to the tens of millions of children - including pre-schoolers - who are forced to wear masks all day, every day, which greatly inhibits their learning and social development. Further, the fact is that places with "mask" (gauze masks and face covers - not actual N95 masks) mandates have not shown to have lower covid transmission rates than places without such mandates. That's the reality of the situation no matter what the so-called experts say.
COVID continues to overwhelm healthcare system ICU capacity. It continues to result in an unsustainable level of death and disability among the massive portion of the population that remains unvaccinated.
Where I live, and in other jurisdictions, public health authorities are telling citizens, “Hey, try to avoid getting into a car accident or having a heart attack because our ICU capacity is extremely limited”
So long as these systems are not operating normally, society cannot function as it usually would. And we certainly can’t pretend covid is over because we have lost patience and exacerbate those problems further.
Lastly, your assertion that suicides have increased due to COVID is false. [0][1]
Why are you telling people that?
[0] https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n834 [1] https://sunnybrook.ca/media/item.asp?c=1&i=2306&f=covid-19-s...
>Why are you telling people that?
Take it up with the CDC.
>In August, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the results of a nationwide survey conducted during the last week in June: More than 40 percent of those who responded reported symptoms of anxiety or depression or increased substance use, in addition to other struggles. And more than 10 percent said that they had seriously considered suicide in the past 30 days, compared with just over 4 percent who said the same thing in 2018 — and who were referring to suicidal ideation over the previous 12 months.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/magazine/will-the-pandemi...
This willingness to spread falsehoods in order to bolster a political view really needs to end.
Nevermind the irony of claiming that it's essential that everyone must stop "living in fear" immediately... which is then substantiated using inaccurate, fear-mongering claims of increased suicides and children experiencing learning and social development delays due to masks.
The fact you didn't link to the CDC data tells me that you lack familiarity with the way the CDC works, and that's important because suicide data is complicated.
The data we have so far doesn't support the points you've made.
They’re planning on benefiting from herd immunity at some point once the virus has been beaten back but while it’s still spreading like crazy they’re stuck. It’s the fact that Covid is so contagious that makes it such a PITA.
So to answer the question of how long, how ever long it takes for there to stop being so many new cases. It’s not forever.
You need to get your story straight. Things are quite simple as easy to understand once you take an honest look at the issue. For instance:
* The current generation of COVID-19 vaccines trains the immune system to have a fighting chance against COVID-19 and are effective at practically eliminating the risk of serious illness, but they do not prevent infection or spread.
* Some people cannot take the vaccine, such as the case of pregnant women until recently. Others do continue to be at risk even after taking the vaccine such as those plagued with comorbidities. See Colin Powell.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/colin-powell-suffered-from-a...
* The risk of spawning a new strain that is not handled by the vaccine is proportional to the number of infections, thus contributing to it's spread endangers us all. See how the Delta variant was spawned in India.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rising-covid-19-breakthrough-ca...
This is widely known by anyone who honestly cares about the subject and did a cursory search on the topic. In my case, the local vaccination drive distributed a leaflet explaining everything. Is any of this info new to you?
So, what is with the contradictory actions?
Taken from:
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/questions-answers/que....
"Most children do not develop symptoms when infected with the virus, or they develop a very mild form of the disease. However, research has shown that children can become infected, and can spread the virus to other children and adults while they are infectious."
It does prevent infection and spread. 10% of the time there's a breakthrough case. That is still effective often enough to bring us to herd immunity despite the high infectiousness of Delta.
Everything else is accurate.
Even if they do work for a cigarette company or a research institution, they also have their own biases separate from the organization that they work for.
Their title is only a minor consideration.
Sums up the quality of the "article" pretty well