4 ms·

Is that really the consensus where you are? In my experience, it’s at best and mild aversion, but usually tempered with a pragmatic indifference to being infec

Is that really the consensus where you are? In my experience, it’s at best and mild aversion, but usually tempered with a pragmatic indifference to being infected. Virtually no one here (UK) takes visible actions anymore. Only a few seem to care. Get closer to healthcare settings, and things change a little, but not a lot. A few more people take preventative measures, but not many, and interestingly not healthcare staff themselves.

thenerdhead 3y ago
The UK has a covid inquiry going on right now and I believe the former PM expressed their regret for how much they downplayed it alongside explaining their rationale of using the limited tools they had at their disposal. Very uncharacteristic for what their actions were during it. You also have countries like Germany who are starting to realize the actual burden of infecting the general population and necessity to follow what current evidence we have to tackle the long-tail issues: https://twitter.com/zurnull/status/1731941221503812060 https://twitter.com/zurnull/status/1731941221503812060
- dent9876543 3y ago
  True enough. But that was the consensus back in March 2020. The consensus now is quite different. Maybe you were referring to March 2020, in which case I agree that it did humanity very little good, at least in regard of its application to children.
  - thenerdhead 3y ago
    No, I am saying that the consensus has largely not changed(i.e. "Don't get infected") although we are ~4 years wiser and have ~400k research publications knowing how this single pathogen affects humanity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/ I'm not arguing for or against preventative measures. I am arguing that our health officials could do a better job discussing what we know about it now to help individuals make choices.
    - dent9876543 3y ago
      Hmm. That’s interesting, and it seems to come down to how consensus is defined. You highlight the quantity of publications. You’re right. The narrative is already set. The volume is so large. But what is happening in practice, even in healthcare (at least in the UK), is that little of the theatre is performed anymore. Doctors are mostly unmasked, no one does distancing, and the mandates were unwound long ago. Not sure about testing, but the odd hacking cough here and there draws no petrified stare. So I guess that’s where I disagree: the consensus in practice is running far ahead of the average tone in published science. I wonder how much that will percolate down. Perhaps we’ll just learn to live with a published scientific position that is grossly at odds with day to day behaviour — how odd! It will give the behavioural scientists something new to work on. But your basic thesis (that “don’t get infected” is unhelpful advice) is right. It’s simply not actionable.

thenerdhead 3y ago

The UK has a covid inquiry going on right now and I believe the former PM expressed their regret for how much they downplayed it alongside explaining their rationale of using the limited tools they had at their disposal. Very uncharacteristic for what their actions were during it. You also have countries like Germany who are starting to realize the actual burden of infecting the general population and necessity to follow what current evidence we have to tackle the long-tail issues: https://twitter.com/zurnull/status/1731941221503812060 https://twitter.com/zurnull/status/1731941221503812060

dent9876543 3y ago
True enough. But that was the consensus back in March 2020. The consensus now is quite different. Maybe you were referring to March 2020, in which case I agree that it did humanity very little good, at least in regard of its application to children.
- thenerdhead 3y ago
  No, I am saying that the consensus has largely not changed(i.e. "Don't get infected") although we are ~4 years wiser and have ~400k research publications knowing how this single pathogen affects humanity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/ I'm not arguing for or against preventative measures. I am arguing that our health officials could do a better job discussing what we know about it now to help individuals make choices.
  - dent9876543 3y ago
    Hmm. That’s interesting, and it seems to come down to how consensus is defined. You highlight the quantity of publications. You’re right. The narrative is already set. The volume is so large. But what is happening in practice, even in healthcare (at least in the UK), is that little of the theatre is performed anymore. Doctors are mostly unmasked, no one does distancing, and the mandates were unwound long ago. Not sure about testing, but the odd hacking cough here and there draws no petrified stare. So I guess that’s where I disagree: the consensus in practice is running far ahead of the average tone in published science. I wonder how much that will percolate down. Perhaps we’ll just learn to live with a published scientific position that is grossly at odds with day to day behaviour — how odd! It will give the behavioural scientists something new to work on. But your basic thesis (that “don’t get infected” is unhelpful advice) is right. It’s simply not actionable.