6 ms·

what? do you really not remember "flatten the curve"? https://www.nytimes.com/article/flatten-curve-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/flatten-cur

what? do you really not remember "flatten the curve"? https://www.nytimes.com/article/flatten-curve-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/flatten-curve-coronavirus.ht...

tomrod 5y ago
I was speaking more about not immediately mandating masks, given they were concerned about protective gear shortages and people were supposed to be staying home. Flatten the curve worked well in places that people actually adhered to public health protocols. New Zealand, several places in Europe and Asia, several US states that adopted sufficient NPI. But flattening the curve didn't work in many places in the US due to the behavioral response of people, where many people felt entitled to break protocols (they aren't) or were forced to due to economic necessity, or whose leaders lacked the will to actually implement the necessary protocols.[0] There is a correlation to political party support, since Trump was a mixed bag of recommendations due to his apprehension of appearing unpopular as a populist. Not that I am a supporter, but IMHO it was Trump's greatest loss -- it would have been an easy win had he actually been effectual with COVID-19 protocols instead of trying to just look more effective. Though, to be fair, the US doesn't have the right centralization for public health authority given our open trade and travel between states. Perhaps that changes in the next pandemic or two. [0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.754696/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.7546...
- native_samples 5y ago
  You should know that you're repeating what you might call a gish gallop of leftwing propaganda points here (hey, you started it). Analyses of the entire global data set shows no correlation between lockdown severity, starting time, compliance levels and results. Ditto for masks. Mask mandates had no effect. There are control cases where people who are otherwise very similar got split on whether they were wearing masks or not due to rule differences. People generally didn't wear masks unless they had to, and yet there were no differences in outcomes. There was very recently a very highly powered Spanish study on children that confirmed this yet again, but it'd been proven many times in the past two years with other cases, often geographical regions that were right next to each other and only differed in terms of mandates. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046809 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046809 Health officials were not concerned about protective gear shortages at the start of the pandemic. That's a lie, obviously an effective one as you're repeating it. Interestingly, it's also actually a conspiracy theory; they were globally united in saying that masks had no effect because that's what the available evidence says. Not just Fauci but other governments too, all made this claim. And then they inverted it. To claim this was actually all a ruse from the start would require a global conspiracy of health officials that was never detected. We know the claim their reversal was a "noble lie" is itself a lie because of the release of private emails between public health officials who were saying to each other at the start that masks don't work, not just to the public. And indeed that's what they should have been saying, because the evidence base for masks was very poor. It was only after politicians decided they needed to do something that public health suddenly inverted its position.

what? do you really not remember "flatten the curve"? https://www.nytimes.com/article/flatten-curve-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/flatten-curve-coronavirus.ht...

tomrod 5y ago

I was speaking more about not immediately mandating masks, given they were concerned about protective gear shortages and people were supposed to be staying home. Flatten the curve worked well in places that people actually adhered to public health protocols. New Zealand, several places in Europe and Asia, several US states that adopted sufficient NPI. But flattening the curve didn't work in many places in the US due to the behavioral response of people, where many people felt entitled to break protocols (they aren't) or were forced to due to economic necessity, or whose leaders lacked the will to actually implement the necessary protocols.[0] There is a correlation to political party support, since Trump was a mixed bag of recommendations due to his apprehension of appearing unpopular as a populist. Not that I am a supporter, but IMHO it was Trump's greatest loss -- it would have been an easy win had he actually been effectual with COVID-19 protocols instead of trying to just look more effective. Though, to be fair, the US doesn't have the right centralization for public health authority given our open trade and travel between states. Perhaps that changes in the next pandemic or two. [0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.754696/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.7546...

native_samples 5y ago
You should know that you're repeating what you might call a gish gallop of leftwing propaganda points here (hey, you started it). Analyses of the entire global data set shows no correlation between lockdown severity, starting time, compliance levels and results. Ditto for masks. Mask mandates had no effect. There are control cases where people who are otherwise very similar got split on whether they were wearing masks or not due to rule differences. People generally didn't wear masks unless they had to, and yet there were no differences in outcomes. There was very recently a very highly powered Spanish study on children that confirmed this yet again, but it'd been proven many times in the past two years with other cases, often geographical regions that were right next to each other and only differed in terms of mandates. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046809 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4046809 Health officials were not concerned about protective gear shortages at the start of the pandemic. That's a lie, obviously an effective one as you're repeating it. Interestingly, it's also actually a conspiracy theory; they were globally united in saying that masks had no effect because that's what the available evidence says. Not just Fauci but other governments too, all made this claim. And then they inverted it. To claim this was actually all a ruse from the start would require a global conspiracy of health officials that was never detected. We know the claim their reversal was a "noble lie" is itself a lie because of the release of private emails between public health officials who were saying to each other at the start that masks don't work, not just to the public. And indeed that's what they should have been saying, because the evidence base for masks was very poor. It was only after politicians decided they needed to do something that public health suddenly inverted its position.