3 ms·

> But mitigations aren't bad I support wearing a mask for individuals who are symptomatic or have a positive test result. Beyond that, it's likely that mandat

> But mitigations aren't bad I support wearing a mask for individuals who are symptomatic or have a positive test result. Beyond that, it's likely that mandatory nonpharmaceutical interventions such as masks and lockdowns will be bad for public health in the long run. Consider the possibility that all the masking and isolation we've done is setting us up for an extremely bad flu season in the coming year or two [1]. We see the same pattern in forest management, where by constantly preventing the small natural forest fires, we unintentionally set the stage for massive record breaking wildfires. [1] The impact of COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions on the future dynamics of endemic infections https://www.pnas.org/content/117/48/30547 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/48/30547

tablespoon 5y ago
> Beyond that, it's likely that mandatory nonpharmaceutical interventions such as masks and lockdowns will be bad for public health in the long run. > Consider the possibility that all the masking and isolation we've done is setting us up for an extremely bad flu season in the coming year or two [1]. That logic is frankly messed up. That's like saying better die now, because if don't you're just setting yourself up to die later. In most situations, that extra span of life is worth it. Even if that's true about the next flu season, it's not an argument against masks. It's a warning not to declare premature victory.
mmastrac 5y ago
This is not a great analogy, because you don't accumulate susceptibility to disease by avoiding it. Your immune system will work either way. And as long as we continue social distancing and masking, these other viruses will have their R0 reduced at the same time. If anything, this is a better argument for continuing the mitigations and slowly removing them over time rather than going all in on removing all restrictions like some jurisdictions are doing.
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  > you don't accumulate susceptibility to disease by avoiding it But you do accumulate protection against pathogens by being exposed to them. > as long as we continue social distancing and masking The source I cited mentions that one of the primary risks is overwhelming medical facilities with huge waves of people who are all sick at the same time with endemic illnesses like the flu, RSV, etc. > this is a better argument for continuing the mitigations and slowly removing them over time An idea worth exploring for sure, but I think it will be difficult to achieve practically. At some point in that process there is going to be a majority of people out living their lives and not adhering to the mitigations, which is when the aforementioned consequences of these NPI's will become relevant.

tablespoon 5y ago

> Beyond that, it's likely that mandatory nonpharmaceutical interventions such as masks and lockdowns will be bad for public health in the long run. > Consider the possibility that all the masking and isolation we've done is setting us up for an extremely bad flu season in the coming year or two [1]. That logic is frankly messed up. That's like saying better die now, because if don't you're just setting yourself up to die later. In most situations, that extra span of life is worth it. Even if that's true about the next flu season, it's not an argument against masks. It's a warning not to declare premature victory.

mmastrac 5y ago

This is not a great analogy, because you don't accumulate susceptibility to disease by avoiding it. Your immune system will work either way. And as long as we continue social distancing and masking, these other viruses will have their R0 reduced at the same time. If anything, this is a better argument for continuing the mitigations and slowly removing them over time rather than going all in on removing all restrictions like some jurisdictions are doing.

criticaltinker 5y ago
> you don't accumulate susceptibility to disease by avoiding it But you do accumulate protection against pathogens by being exposed to them. > as long as we continue social distancing and masking The source I cited mentions that one of the primary risks is overwhelming medical facilities with huge waves of people who are all sick at the same time with endemic illnesses like the flu, RSV, etc. > this is a better argument for continuing the mitigations and slowly removing them over time An idea worth exploring for sure, but I think it will be difficult to achieve practically. At some point in that process there is going to be a majority of people out living their lives and not adhering to the mitigations, which is when the aforementioned consequences of these NPI's will become relevant.