3 ms·

>>their strategy is no longer tenable It was never tenable. >>It was proof that lockdowns and masks could have ended the pandemic Research in January of 2020

>>their strategy is no longer tenable It was never tenable. >>It was proof that lockdowns and masks could have ended the pandemic Research in January of 2020 indicated that the virus was known to species hop with ease. Research also indicated there was ample evidence of animal population reservoirs of virus. Thus, any lockdown of human populations, even quarantining us to different planets, would be irrelevant. Animal populations would function as reservoirs that will bring the virus back to a stage of infecting us as soon as we come out of hiding. >>if they had been implemented rigorously and early enough. This is a completely bonkers view point (as it has no basis in science) and it is sadly the view of many people who have been conditioned to believe authority figures are infallible. >> irritating things is that a lot of people who now claim mask mandates and lockdowns don't work were also the people who were sabotaging them, and they failed in large part because of that sabotage. The virus is airborne. It travels between 27-42 feet in the air. Proper PPE in the quantities needed does not exist. Social distancing at 6 feet? Pseudoscientific recommendation coming from pre-covid infection control practices designed to prevent the spread of influenza droplets (which are known to travel less than six feet). Paper masks? Cloth masks? Pseudoscientific recommendation coming from a government wanting to be percieved as doing something. Every professional knows none of that gear is rated or known to stop viral transmission. Even a properly used N95 has a very short lifespan proportionate to the electric charge on the cloth material (which can fade after minutes of use, at which point, when the charged sides of the mask lose their charge, the filtration of viral particles ends despite the masks bulkier size). >>Locking people in their homes, welding them into prisons, shooting people who violate curfew? etc?? Draconian, pseudoscientific shit that has no place in any society or civilization. It also didn't work. In all societies, regardless of these pseudoscientific measures being implemented or not, the virus still spread. I guess you can use the virus as fuel for your hatred of some political adversary and scapegoat them for the virus. Apes and authoritarians have been doing that for all of human history with many different viruses. >> About me? Come from a family of doctors. Ran a team at a viral research lab in a very relevant country. Have done graduate study in virology. Have attended various infection control and pandemic response seminars prior to the pandemic. Have dealt with SARS and MERS in person prior to covid. I, like many others, have had these positions since January 2020. Educated professionals who talk of facts are constantly silenced or bullied or threatened by authoritarian systems. I do not matter and my background does not give my comments merit. The comments more or less stand on their own.

tablespoon 5y ago
>> their strategy is no longer tenable > It was never tenable. I disagree. And even if it couldn't 100% eradicate the virus, those strategies certainly seemed capable enough to limit it until vaccines could be brought strongly to bear. However, that runs into another area where many people seem to be more interested in sabotaging things in order to be "proven" right. > Research in January of 2020 indicated that the virus was known to species hop with ease. > Research also indicated there was ample evidence of animal population reservoirs of virus. So, for quite some time China (and several other countries), had locally eradicated the virus in the human population. Is there any evidence that those animal reservoirs were a source of reinfection in those places? > Come from a family of doctors. Ran a team at a viral research lab in a very relevant country. Have done graduate study in virology. Have attended various infection control and pandemic response seminars prior to the pandemic. Have dealt with SARS and MERS in person prior to covid. And I get the strong impression your views are mostly derived from political beliefs rather than professional ones, dispute the credential dropping and appeals to "science." You're basically disputing every virus control measure proposed, despite the glaring evidence that they worked for quite some time in some areas. By the way, have you participated in a video where they collect anyone they can manage with a shred of a medical of scientific credential to read some statement about how "masks don't work", "vaccines are dangerous", etc.? I've seen a bunch of those claiming all kinds of things. > I do not matter and my background does not give my comments merit. That's definitely true.
- champagnois 5y ago
  >>disputing every virus control measure proposed, despite the glaring evidence that they worked Not only did the measures not work, they were doomed to fail from the start and could not have possibly worked. You've provided little more than your own disagreement, but no supporting arguments as to why. Political leaders and authorities knew this, but acted in the ways that they did for their own reasons. My position here puts me at odds with political partisans, but not scientists.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> disputing every virus control measure proposed, despite the glaring evidence that they worked > Not only did the measures not work, they were doomed to fail from the start and could not have possibly worked. From mid-2020 to mid-2021, what were the average case counts in Australia or China vs. the US? That's proof there were measures that worked. If every country performed as well, or if China had acted as it did but earlier, it's quite possible that COVID would have gone extinct by now from that alone. If we were doomed to fail, it was because of the perennial problems of human stupidity and selfishness. > You've provided little more than your own disagreement, but no supporting arguments as to why. I have: counterexamples. The bulk of your augment consists of adjectives and counterfactual assertions that things that did work well in places, couldn't work. My argument is if the rest of the world did as well as they actually did, then every place would have done even better, because "imported" cases wouldn't be a thing. You brought up animal reservoirs, but that seems to be pure speculation, since I've seen nothing to indicate they've played a role, let alone an important one (excluding the initial human case). The counterexample countries seem like they'd be good natural experiments to actually provide data about how significant animal reservoirs actually are. > My position here puts me at odds with political partisans Only with some partisans, you're in quite good alignment with others.

tablespoon 5y ago

>> their strategy is no longer tenable > It was never tenable. I disagree. And even if it couldn't 100% eradicate the virus, those strategies certainly seemed capable enough to limit it until vaccines could be brought strongly to bear. However, that runs into another area where many people seem to be more interested in sabotaging things in order to be "proven" right. > Research in January of 2020 indicated that the virus was known to species hop with ease. > Research also indicated there was ample evidence of animal population reservoirs of virus. So, for quite some time China (and several other countries), had locally eradicated the virus in the human population. Is there any evidence that those animal reservoirs were a source of reinfection in those places? > Come from a family of doctors. Ran a team at a viral research lab in a very relevant country. Have done graduate study in virology. Have attended various infection control and pandemic response seminars prior to the pandemic. Have dealt with SARS and MERS in person prior to covid. And I get the strong impression your views are mostly derived from political beliefs rather than professional ones, dispute the credential dropping and appeals to "science." You're basically disputing every virus control measure proposed, despite the glaring evidence that they worked for quite some time in some areas. By the way, have you participated in a video where they collect anyone they can manage with a shred of a medical of scientific credential to read some statement about how "masks don't work", "vaccines are dangerous", etc.? I've seen a bunch of those claiming all kinds of things. > I do not matter and my background does not give my comments merit. That's definitely true.

champagnois 5y ago
>>disputing every virus control measure proposed, despite the glaring evidence that they worked Not only did the measures not work, they were doomed to fail from the start and could not have possibly worked. You've provided little more than your own disagreement, but no supporting arguments as to why. Political leaders and authorities knew this, but acted in the ways that they did for their own reasons. My position here puts me at odds with political partisans, but not scientists.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> disputing every virus control measure proposed, despite the glaring evidence that they worked > Not only did the measures not work, they were doomed to fail from the start and could not have possibly worked. From mid-2020 to mid-2021, what were the average case counts in Australia or China vs. the US? That's proof there were measures that worked. If every country performed as well, or if China had acted as it did but earlier, it's quite possible that COVID would have gone extinct by now from that alone. If we were doomed to fail, it was because of the perennial problems of human stupidity and selfishness. > You've provided little more than your own disagreement, but no supporting arguments as to why. I have: counterexamples. The bulk of your augment consists of adjectives and counterfactual assertions that things that did work well in places, couldn't work. My argument is if the rest of the world did as well as they actually did, then every place would have done even better, because "imported" cases wouldn't be a thing. You brought up animal reservoirs, but that seems to be pure speculation, since I've seen nothing to indicate they've played a role, let alone an important one (excluding the initial human case). The counterexample countries seem like they'd be good natural experiments to actually provide data about how significant animal reservoirs actually are. > My position here puts me at odds with political partisans Only with some partisans, you're in quite good alignment with others.