3 ms·

Because the media/political narrative is to sustain continual panic. If you state that "the new strain is more contagious but the symptoms are basically the sam

by pwned1 5y ago

Because the media/political narrative is to sustain continual panic. If you state that "the new strain is more contagious but the symptoms are basically the same as a common cold" then the panic will subside. Be we immediately saw even greater panic and now even more "containment" actions that further disrupt society. Despite there being no evidence that it's more virulent. In fact, the evidence seems to be that it's much less virulent. If this new strain is basically a common cold, then it's in our best interest for it to spread as quickly as possible. And that's normally what viruses do, they get less virulent. The vaccines have obviously failed at slowing the spread and have put evolutionary pressure on the virus to evade the very specific spike protein that the vaccines contain. If we all get broader protection, then this thing will be over without the need for liberty-crippling mandates. Instead, it's almost impossible to get any sort of sober analysis of how this variant's symptoms differ from other variants.

michaelmrose 5y ago
While data is lacking, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the symptoms are the same as the common cold for the unvaccinated. Vaccines have both reduced spread and more importantly yet reduced deaths. The strategy moving forward is to both continue to press the vaccination strategy as well as mass manufacture new antivirals so we can save as many of those too short sighted to vaccinate despite themselves. It's also liable that we will be stuck with another shot in 2022. The strategy of just let it wash over us so we can get back to normal is not quite as horrifying as it was in 2020 when it meant hundreds of millions of damaged bodies and 3 million dead but it remains ridiculous. The unvaccinated who are liable to experience something no better than earlier strains aren't evenly distributed and areas where they are concentrated are especially vulnerable to their health care systems being overwhelmed but the truth is even in areas where ONLY 1 in 3 is unvaccinated we don't have the capacity for much of the population to linger in the hospital for weeks or months before deciding whether to die or not. We don't have enough antivirals manufactured yet nor do we know the long term outlook of survivors even after we can manufacture more. We don't even know if they will be as effective with the new strain! We don't have such a healthy economy that we can afford to go through another covid induced slump and believe me if deaths and illness start going up we will have another big ass slump whether an official lock down is declared or not. For at least 2022 covid is going to be a substantial workplace hazard and it is absolutely reasonable that if someone gets sick at work and experiences substantial costs, disability, or death they treat it just like a workplace accident and if we do that then mandates become the only tenable option to reduce liability and OSHA will be only a convenient excuse for your employer is in fact doing to cover their own asses. From the perspective of a worker why should I work at a place that wont even make you get a shot so you don't murder me. It seems to me a lot like letting you drive the forklift drunk an entirely unnecessary risk. It's a sellers market and I can sell my labor elsewhere.
- landemva 5y ago
  'We don't have enough antivirals manufactured yet' We have lots of Ivermectin, an antiviral, but it is politically difficult to discuss it rationally. It is also ridiculously cheap, so the manufacturers look for the next expensive treatment to push. 'why should I work at a place that wont even make you get a shot so you don't murder me.' If you believe your vaccinations protect you, then your statement is nonsensical. If your vaccinations don't protect you, then forcing others to take what does not work is also nonsensical. I doubt you run a forklift.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    There is no reason to believe Ivermectin works. The single conclusive study was found to have fabricated their data. The meta analysis in the legit journal relied on that fabricated data. It is a deep irony that Ivermectin truthers search for the "truth" that the medical community was withholding an effective drug represents a rejection of the actual truth seeking process which so effectively uncovered the actual "truth" about Ivermectin after many official sources bought the lying paper. People, including actual scientists, literally "did their own research" after 30 papers had cited the lies and uncovered the various irregularities. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w Absent that there is no reason to believe its effective. Conversely we actually have data that Pfizers pill is up to 90% effective at preventing severe covid symptoms. > If you believe your vaccinations protect you, then your statement is nonsensical. If your vaccinations don't protect you, then forcing others to take what does not work is also nonsensical. This is a common rejoinder so its worthy of addressing again. I have every reason to believe that vaccines as of delta greatly decrease my chance of getting covid and greatly decrease my chances of dying of it. Nobody ever claimed that they are 100% proof against covid. Individuals can still get covid. They can still get damaged cardiovascular systems and lungs. They can still die. This is more true for some people than others. Every medium to large workplace surely has several who are far more vulnerable than others who deserve to be safe.
BoxOfRain 5y ago
I don't believe there's something along the lines of a conspiracy or anything nearly as dramatic as that, but it does surprise me how little the whole 'enragement is engagement' dynamic gets brought up in discussions around COVID coverage. Half the world being scared shitless of COVID and the other half being scared shitless of being plunged into yet another lockdown means lots of people doomscrolling news sites past ad after ad. There's no real incentive not to sensationalise things, if later things turned out to be not so bad as the media outlet claimed they a) still get their ad revenue and b) nobody will care in a week's time when the next inevitable scandal happens and the news cycle moves on. If they choose to be cautious and not sensationalise things and it later turns out to be worse than reported then that's a lot of panicky, desperate scrolling not to get a slice of. I'm actually flirting with the belief that the post-War on Terror 24/7 news cycle combined with the above incentives is doing Western society a huge amount of avoidable harm. I'm not sure how this issue can be solved to be honest, while my go-to answer is to have a strictly apolitical regulatory board which can demand retractions are published (after a transparent investigation) with the same headline prominence and ad spend as the initial article or video that was deemed to be alarmist or misleading but that has problems in itself; such a system introduces a "who is fit to determine objective truth?" debate where the regulatory board could determine 2 + 2 = 5 and there'd be very little that could be done to oppose this obvious falsehood.

by pwned1 5y ago

michaelmrose 5y ago

While data is lacking, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the symptoms are the same as the common cold for the unvaccinated. Vaccines have both reduced spread and more importantly yet reduced deaths. The strategy moving forward is to both continue to press the vaccination strategy as well as mass manufacture new antivirals so we can save as many of those too short sighted to vaccinate despite themselves. It's also liable that we will be stuck with another shot in 2022. The strategy of just let it wash over us so we can get back to normal is not quite as horrifying as it was in 2020 when it meant hundreds of millions of damaged bodies and 3 million dead but it remains ridiculous. The unvaccinated who are liable to experience something no better than earlier strains aren't evenly distributed and areas where they are concentrated are especially vulnerable to their health care systems being overwhelmed but the truth is even in areas where ONLY 1 in 3 is unvaccinated we don't have the capacity for much of the population to linger in the hospital for weeks or months before deciding whether to die or not. We don't have enough antivirals manufactured yet nor do we know the long term outlook of survivors even after we can manufacture more. We don't even know if they will be as effective with the new strain! We don't have such a healthy economy that we can afford to go through another covid induced slump and believe me if deaths and illness start going up we will have another big ass slump whether an official lock down is declared or not. For at least 2022 covid is going to be a substantial workplace hazard and it is absolutely reasonable that if someone gets sick at work and experiences substantial costs, disability, or death they treat it just like a workplace accident and if we do that then mandates become the only tenable option to reduce liability and OSHA will be only a convenient excuse for your employer is in fact doing to cover their own asses. From the perspective of a worker why should I work at a place that wont even make you get a shot so you don't murder me. It seems to me a lot like letting you drive the forklift drunk an entirely unnecessary risk. It's a sellers market and I can sell my labor elsewhere.

landemva 5y ago
'We don't have enough antivirals manufactured yet' We have lots of Ivermectin, an antiviral, but it is politically difficult to discuss it rationally. It is also ridiculously cheap, so the manufacturers look for the next expensive treatment to push. 'why should I work at a place that wont even make you get a shot so you don't murder me.' If you believe your vaccinations protect you, then your statement is nonsensical. If your vaccinations don't protect you, then forcing others to take what does not work is also nonsensical. I doubt you run a forklift.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  There is no reason to believe Ivermectin works. The single conclusive study was found to have fabricated their data. The meta analysis in the legit journal relied on that fabricated data. It is a deep irony that Ivermectin truthers search for the "truth" that the medical community was withholding an effective drug represents a rejection of the actual truth seeking process which so effectively uncovered the actual "truth" about Ivermectin after many official sources bought the lying paper. People, including actual scientists, literally "did their own research" after 30 papers had cited the lies and uncovered the various irregularities. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w Absent that there is no reason to believe its effective. Conversely we actually have data that Pfizers pill is up to 90% effective at preventing severe covid symptoms. > If you believe your vaccinations protect you, then your statement is nonsensical. If your vaccinations don't protect you, then forcing others to take what does not work is also nonsensical. This is a common rejoinder so its worthy of addressing again. I have every reason to believe that vaccines as of delta greatly decrease my chance of getting covid and greatly decrease my chances of dying of it. Nobody ever claimed that they are 100% proof against covid. Individuals can still get covid. They can still get damaged cardiovascular systems and lungs. They can still die. This is more true for some people than others. Every medium to large workplace surely has several who are far more vulnerable than others who deserve to be safe.

BoxOfRain 5y ago

I don't believe there's something along the lines of a conspiracy or anything nearly as dramatic as that, but it does surprise me how little the whole 'enragement is engagement' dynamic gets brought up in discussions around COVID coverage. Half the world being scared shitless of COVID and the other half being scared shitless of being plunged into yet another lockdown means lots of people doomscrolling news sites past ad after ad. There's no real incentive not to sensationalise things, if later things turned out to be not so bad as the media outlet claimed they a) still get their ad revenue and b) nobody will care in a week's time when the next inevitable scandal happens and the news cycle moves on. If they choose to be cautious and not sensationalise things and it later turns out to be worse than reported then that's a lot of panicky, desperate scrolling not to get a slice of. I'm actually flirting with the belief that the post-War on Terror 24/7 news cycle combined with the above incentives is doing Western society a huge amount of avoidable harm. I'm not sure how this issue can be solved to be honest, while my go-to answer is to have a strictly apolitical regulatory board which can demand retractions are published (after a transparent investigation) with the same headline prominence and ad spend as the initial article or video that was deemed to be alarmist or misleading but that has problems in itself; such a system introduces a "who is fit to determine objective truth?" debate where the regulatory board could determine 2 + 2 = 5 and there'd be very little that could be done to oppose this obvious falsehood.