7 ms·

Entirely fed up with these articles. The debate is whether these things should be mandated or let to the appreciation of the people. Let me keep my kids at hom

by hirako2000 5y ago

Entirely fed up with these articles. The debate is whether these things should be mandated or let to the appreciation of the people. Let me keep my kids at home, or get them to a school, or socialise, or wear a mask, or get vaccinated. Enough. Enough of this non sensical noise about whether x or y is better. Let people be. Stop coercing people to follow the potential idiocy of some group sitting in an office think will be wiser for society. The scandal isn't that deprived kids suffer social distancing most, the scandal is that governments around the globe have been telling people to cover their face wherever they go, to not meet their friends, to find themselves a other job because their industry is shut, to get infected or be banned from travels and other public places if they don't. Let people be. We don't care what you think is better for people. They know better.

kingkawn 5y ago
This strain of opinion is why the US still has >2,000 deaths per day from COVID, and has the highest death toll of any wealthy country.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Fellshard 5y ago
  That is malign use of data, undifferentiated by vastly different locales and policies across the nation, and not even accounting for per-capita.
  - bena 5y ago
    I don't think differentiating is going to help your argument any. We're approaching two very different situations in the U.S. Health outcomes with regards to COVID are following political leanings. And it is not looking good for one of them.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > We're approaching two very different situations in the U.S. Health outcomes with regards to COVID are following political leanings Which group do you think is doing worse? Whatever that opinion is, it's not supported by the data: Highest covid deaths per 100,000 are in Mississippi at 317 but New Jersey is #2 at 308. Alabama is high at 286 but NY is right there at 284. Arkansas is terrible at 252, but Massachussets is worse at 269. Texas at 221 is better than Connecticut at 238 and much better than Rhode Island at 266, but worse than Illinois at 215, which itself is worse than Ohio at 187. Given the disparities in poverty and obesity and how both of these lead to much higher mortality rates, the red states are doing much better than the blue states on a wealth/obesity adjusted basis, and are the same on an absolute basis. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi... I suspect the mistake you are making is the same kind of observational bias that is common in these culture wars -- e.g. bad things happening to your side are a terrible tragedy whereas bad things happening to the other side is proof of their misguided policies. But the facts don't show any meaningful difference in total deaths, even though deaths in any given week swing wildly as the disease burns through some states before others. E.g. NY was hit hardest in the beginning, and then it spread to other states when NY was already recovering, then those states recovered and it spread to others, etc. It would be extremely foolish to look at only a snapshot in time rather than cumulative deaths since 2019.
      - bena 5y ago
        You know doing it from the start of things is a bit misleading, right? Of course you do. You do it because it misleads. Do the daily average. Do it since April. Because that's what it means when one says "we're approaching". Things are changing in two different directions. You only think it's foolish to disregard the rolling average rather than the cumulative deaths because it's only by considering the cumulative deaths can you ignore the pattern forming. COVID is becoming an epidemic of the unvaccinated. Even with daily variations, the trends are moving in two directions. That's what the facts are showing. Disregard them at your own peril.
        5y ago
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  > the highest death toll of any wealthy country. And the largest population of any 'wealthy' country.
  - nivenkos 5y ago
    And higher rates of obesity and diabetes. Just looking at the data, it's clear mask mandates and lockdowns don't work at scale. Compared to the vaccines, the effect size is minuscule, and the fact it's even debatable (unlike the vaccines) means that it definitely isn't worth the costs. If anything they should mandate vaccines, and end all restrictions and mask mandates.
    - hirako2000 5y ago
      That is why we got the lockdowns, pretty much worldwide. Either governments are obsessed with making things worse, or the pressure came from somewhere to make global vaccination programs feel like the obvious solution.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  > This strain of opinion is why the US still has >2,000 deaths per day from COVID, and has the highest death toll of any wealthy country. Is it though? Or is it some people trying to moralize catching a highly infectious respiratory virus? I know plenty of people who “took this serious” and did all the double masks, washing mail and quarantining groceries and they still caught covid. Until I see actual research done when people have a level head that suggests “not taking it seriously” actually changed things… it’s all just wild conjecture.
  - kingkawn 5y ago
    Yes, this is the nature of probability. We know how to lower the probability of infection. Even someone doing everything right can get it, but are less likely to. The inability to grasp this type of thinking is why America is so unique in its staggering death toll.
eropple 5y ago
There are plenty of public-health mandates out there--because it's not about you, it's about the people you impose upon with your unmasked, unvaccinated presence--and even if you think lockdowns weren't a good idea (which I think is an arguable point, even if it's one with which I disagree) to try to contest that one about a mask over your nose and mouth reveals your position as an unserious one. There's no serious objection in the whole of existence to "wear a mask to reduce transmission", and you tip off your false reasonableness by trying to sliiiide that one in there.
- nradov 5y ago
  You cannot expect asymptomatic people to wear masks in public indefinitely. That is an unserious position. So what are the exit criteria? Several European countries either never had much in the way of mask mandates, or have recently removed them.
  - eropple 5y ago
    That's not what the prior poster was referring to, and if we're being honest we both know that, but you and I can have that conversation, sure. Given the general benefits to public health and how frankly effortless wearing a mask has been every day since March before last, my S1 response is 99% vaccination coverage, which at least where I live is in line with the vaccination coverage of most other major vaccines, and two cases a day in whatever reasonably sized area (metro, county, whatever)--what's yours?
- ghoward 5y ago
  Not GP. There are serious objections to masks: they make people more anonymous (which is hard on everyone, but especially kids), they increase carbon dioxide intake, and the ones people generally use may not be effective against something as small as the COVID virus.
  - bena 5y ago
    The COVID virus is 20 nanometers in diameter at its smallest. Carbon Dioxide is one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. Its diameter is 0.33 nanometers. If a mask increases carbon dioxide intake, then it can stop the COVID virus. If masks are not effective against something as small as the COVID virus, then it wouldn't increase carbon dioxide intake.
NineStarPoint 5y ago
First major issue is that you can’t get your kids to school if there aren’t enough teachers willing to teach there. Whether it’s even worth paying a teacher to be there depends on the aggregate of the decisions of other parents as well. We’ve decided on a very standardized way of doing public schooling, and that goes beyond just what is taught. But the bigger issue is that you’re talking almost entirely about decisions that only have effects with society wide adoption. Me wearing a mask doesn’t help, everyone wearing a mask does. Me getting vaccinated gives me 70% protection, everyone getting vaccinated creates herd immunity. There are classes of decision that only have an effect if almost everyone in society has to make them, you can’t just say “you do what you want and I do what I want” and expect that to make any sense when we are talking about that kind of decision. Which isn’t to say we should force everyone to do things like get vaccinated. Arguing that choice and liberty are more important than safety is reasonable (as is arguing that the system is too incompetent to be trusted with that sort of power). But you have to argue for that specifically, not say “let me do what you want and I’ll do what I want” as if that’s a valid way to handle this type of situation. When we’re talking about things that only help if everyone does them, the choice is to enforce it or accept we won’t get the benefits.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  But your first assumption is incorrect I think. Yes it is a major issue for schooling kids of not enough teachers accept to go teach. But the reality is that teachers cannot teach. The school shuts because of pressure or coercion. Then there is no teacher. And if the school reopens, good chances teachers are for the most part not willing to get on with it immediately. And the bureaucratic chaos continues. People know better what is right. That includes school adminostrators. Let them do. And let parents do. And let teachers do. We can apply this to most sectors. Why? Because that's how things have been _working_. Even public administrations figure out what works. They get pressured by the actors in their administration and consumer of their services. There are issues of course, but mandating prevention measures top down entirely breaks the natural dynamic that keep things somewhat afloat. Of course there is some coordination taking place, but right now the debate is about what is right for people and what isn't right. Each side claiming they know better, each idea succeeding the previous one after it failed and its consequences known. We don't need to enforce teachers to come to work. They can stay home or find another job and seek other streams of revenue. It always worked that way, we haven't suddenly became slaves or robots to systems where we got to collectively agree where to place them. It has never worked that way, even when it did, aside the misery it generated it always eventually collapsed.

kingkawn 5y ago

This strain of opinion is why the US still has >2,000 deaths per day from COVID, and has the highest death toll of any wealthy country.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Fellshard 5y ago
That is malign use of data, undifferentiated by vastly different locales and policies across the nation, and not even accounting for per-capita.
- bena 5y ago
  I don't think differentiating is going to help your argument any. We're approaching two very different situations in the U.S. Health outcomes with regards to COVID are following political leanings. And it is not looking good for one of them.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > We're approaching two very different situations in the U.S. Health outcomes with regards to COVID are following political leanings Which group do you think is doing worse? Whatever that opinion is, it's not supported by the data: Highest covid deaths per 100,000 are in Mississippi at 317 but New Jersey is #2 at 308. Alabama is high at 286 but NY is right there at 284. Arkansas is terrible at 252, but Massachussets is worse at 269. Texas at 221 is better than Connecticut at 238 and much better than Rhode Island at 266, but worse than Illinois at 215, which itself is worse than Ohio at 187. Given the disparities in poverty and obesity and how both of these lead to much higher mortality rates, the red states are doing much better than the blue states on a wealth/obesity adjusted basis, and are the same on an absolute basis. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi... I suspect the mistake you are making is the same kind of observational bias that is common in these culture wars -- e.g. bad things happening to your side are a terrible tragedy whereas bad things happening to the other side is proof of their misguided policies. But the facts don't show any meaningful difference in total deaths, even though deaths in any given week swing wildly as the disease burns through some states before others. E.g. NY was hit hardest in the beginning, and then it spread to other states when NY was already recovering, then those states recovered and it spread to others, etc. It would be extremely foolish to look at only a snapshot in time rather than cumulative deaths since 2019.
    - bena 5y ago
      You know doing it from the start of things is a bit misleading, right? Of course you do. You do it because it misleads. Do the daily average. Do it since April. Because that's what it means when one says "we're approaching". Things are changing in two different directions. You only think it's foolish to disregard the rolling average rather than the cumulative deaths because it's only by considering the cumulative deaths can you ignore the pattern forming. COVID is becoming an epidemic of the unvaccinated. Even with daily variations, the trends are moving in two directions. That's what the facts are showing. Disregard them at your own peril.
      - 5y ago
Mikeb85 5y ago
> the highest death toll of any wealthy country. And the largest population of any 'wealthy' country.
- nivenkos 5y ago
  And higher rates of obesity and diabetes. Just looking at the data, it's clear mask mandates and lockdowns don't work at scale. Compared to the vaccines, the effect size is minuscule, and the fact it's even debatable (unlike the vaccines) means that it definitely isn't worth the costs. If anything they should mandate vaccines, and end all restrictions and mask mandates.
  - hirako2000 5y ago
    That is why we got the lockdowns, pretty much worldwide. Either governments are obsessed with making things worse, or the pressure came from somewhere to make global vaccination programs feel like the obvious solution.
spookthesunset 5y ago
> This strain of opinion is why the US still has >2,000 deaths per day from COVID, and has the highest death toll of any wealthy country. Is it though? Or is it some people trying to moralize catching a highly infectious respiratory virus? I know plenty of people who “took this serious” and did all the double masks, washing mail and quarantining groceries and they still caught covid. Until I see actual research done when people have a level head that suggests “not taking it seriously” actually changed things… it’s all just wild conjecture.
- kingkawn 5y ago
  Yes, this is the nature of probability. We know how to lower the probability of infection. Even someone doing everything right can get it, but are less likely to. The inability to grasp this type of thinking is why America is so unique in its staggering death toll.

eropple 5y ago

There are plenty of public-health mandates out there--because it's not about you, it's about the people you impose upon with your unmasked, unvaccinated presence--and even if you think lockdowns weren't a good idea (which I think is an arguable point, even if it's one with which I disagree) to try to contest that one about a mask over your nose and mouth reveals your position as an unserious one. There's no serious objection in the whole of existence to "wear a mask to reduce transmission", and you tip off your false reasonableness by trying to sliiiide that one in there.

nradov 5y ago
You cannot expect asymptomatic people to wear masks in public indefinitely. That is an unserious position. So what are the exit criteria? Several European countries either never had much in the way of mask mandates, or have recently removed them.
- eropple 5y ago
  That's not what the prior poster was referring to, and if we're being honest we both know that, but you and I can have that conversation, sure. Given the general benefits to public health and how frankly effortless wearing a mask has been every day since March before last, my S1 response is 99% vaccination coverage, which at least where I live is in line with the vaccination coverage of most other major vaccines, and two cases a day in whatever reasonably sized area (metro, county, whatever)--what's yours?
ghoward 5y ago
Not GP. There are serious objections to masks: they make people more anonymous (which is hard on everyone, but especially kids), they increase carbon dioxide intake, and the ones people generally use may not be effective against something as small as the COVID virus.
- bena 5y ago
  The COVID virus is 20 nanometers in diameter at its smallest. Carbon Dioxide is one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. Its diameter is 0.33 nanometers. If a mask increases carbon dioxide intake, then it can stop the COVID virus. If masks are not effective against something as small as the COVID virus, then it wouldn't increase carbon dioxide intake.

NineStarPoint 5y ago

First major issue is that you can’t get your kids to school if there aren’t enough teachers willing to teach there. Whether it’s even worth paying a teacher to be there depends on the aggregate of the decisions of other parents as well. We’ve decided on a very standardized way of doing public schooling, and that goes beyond just what is taught. But the bigger issue is that you’re talking almost entirely about decisions that only have effects with society wide adoption. Me wearing a mask doesn’t help, everyone wearing a mask does. Me getting vaccinated gives me 70% protection, everyone getting vaccinated creates herd immunity. There are classes of decision that only have an effect if almost everyone in society has to make them, you can’t just say “you do what you want and I do what I want” and expect that to make any sense when we are talking about that kind of decision. Which isn’t to say we should force everyone to do things like get vaccinated. Arguing that choice and liberty are more important than safety is reasonable (as is arguing that the system is too incompetent to be trusted with that sort of power). But you have to argue for that specifically, not say “let me do what you want and I’ll do what I want” as if that’s a valid way to handle this type of situation. When we’re talking about things that only help if everyone does them, the choice is to enforce it or accept we won’t get the benefits.

hirako2000 5y ago
But your first assumption is incorrect I think. Yes it is a major issue for schooling kids of not enough teachers accept to go teach. But the reality is that teachers cannot teach. The school shuts because of pressure or coercion. Then there is no teacher. And if the school reopens, good chances teachers are for the most part not willing to get on with it immediately. And the bureaucratic chaos continues. People know better what is right. That includes school adminostrators. Let them do. And let parents do. And let teachers do. We can apply this to most sectors. Why? Because that's how things have been _working_. Even public administrations figure out what works. They get pressured by the actors in their administration and consumer of their services. There are issues of course, but mandating prevention measures top down entirely breaks the natural dynamic that keep things somewhat afloat. Of course there is some coordination taking place, but right now the debate is about what is right for people and what isn't right. Each side claiming they know better, each idea succeeding the previous one after it failed and its consequences known. We don't need to enforce teachers to come to work. They can stay home or find another job and seek other streams of revenue. It always worked that way, we haven't suddenly became slaves or robots to systems where we got to collectively agree where to place them. It has never worked that way, even when it did, aside the misery it generated it always eventually collapsed.