791–800 of 925 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they've been vaccinated and still insist on wearing the masks, I kinda think you're proving OP's point here. What do you even mean with "waiting for this to be over"? You're vaccinated, it's over, are you now waiting for a super-vaccine or something?
Some of us invested in nice masks, or enjoy not being told to smile. Not everything people do is with politics in mind.
I find it interesting that the people who screamed "trust/listen to the CDC!" the loudest when the CDC's position was "everyone wear your mask and stay home as much as you can" are now the ones looking hardest for reasons to ignore/downplay/criticize the CDC's guidance.
One must evaluate the consequences of not following a particular piece of advice. If masks work, and you don’t wear one, you are potentially killing people and worsening the pandemic. If they aren’t needed, and you do wear one anyways, no harm has been done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you actually remember this in real time? Do you remember at the beginning when everyone was wondering what to do and they said wear a mask and then they said not wear a mask and everyone around you was like, "What?? What is going on??" And then a short while later they said wear a mask again. These things have real world ramifications. You can't just point to a snopes a year later and retain the context within whi…
> People have memories. And sometimes they have false memories. For example, regarding: > 8 Months ago Kamala Harris herself said she would NOT get Trump's Vaccine. What she said was that she would take the vaccine if the professionals said it was safe, not if Trump told her to take it [1]. A rather understandable level of skepticism given Trump's peddling of miracle cures such as hydroxychloroquine. [1] https://www.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “There is no reason for anyone right now in the United States, with regard to coronavirus, to wear a mask” Isn’t this defensible if it was indeed true that there was a temporary shortage of masks for health care workers?
If that was their reason, then why did the change the recommendation while still in the middle of the shortage? Here's an article from months after the CDC started recommending masks, showing that widespread PPE shortages among healthcare workers were still common[1]. There seems to be a lot of post hoc rationalization for what appears to simply be a mistake. This is why accountability is so difficult. People decide…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the citation I found for this claim: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/06/the-cdc-now-recommend... Overall, science is a process. If research came out that changed the recommendations, well, that's how science works. This is no different in my mind than the gradual change in the recommendations towards cigarette smoking over the decades, only in this case it played out over weeks and months (that article wa…
> If research came out that changed the recommendations, well, that's how science works. But that's not what happened. There was plenty of studies showing that masks could be effective before the pandemic started[1]. Here are a couple of Hacker news discussions from early March 2020 about studies done years earlier showing that mask use is effective[2][3]. And this article from right before the CDC changed it's recom…
Rather than saying "Hey lets hold off on buying masks so that we have enough for essential care workers" they instead said "do not buy masks because they aren't effective, or might even make risk of infection higher!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “There is no reason for anyone right now in the United States, with regard to coronavirus, to wear a mask” Isn’t this defensible if it was indeed true that there was a temporary shortage of masks for health care workers?
No, because ultimately the lie will be exposed and then your credibility is (rightly!) done for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What changed? It's the same number of dead people, right? Aside from general aviation concerns, that 747-400 will have young families, infants and children on board, whereas exposing everyone on that 747-400 to COVID-19 would mostly result in the deaths of the elderly and the infirm. If we had an outbreak of Spanish flu with the same overall death rate it would not be as bad. It would be much worse. The deaths of t…
> I genuinely don't understand why everyone has insisted on talking about COVID-19 in terms of absolute deaths. For everything else like heart disease etc. we talk about statistically "losing X years of life". We do this because people misunderstand the "losing x years of life" statistics... > The median age of death for COVID-19 has been at or above the statistical life expectancy. ...just like you've done here. htt…
> We do this because people misunderstand the "losing x years of life" statistics...
It makes sense, but this is honestly the first time I've heard anything expressed this way. Perhaps geographical differences.
What I thought you were going to say was what's been annoying the hell out of me all pandemic: no shit [very populous country] has massively higher #new infections and #deaths than [tiny country]..
There's just no value in it beyond internal comparisons over time (which you could do with any externally relevant relative measure too), but that won't stop the press of course! Absolute numbers are bigger!
(Perhaps one day they'll work out they could use it to their advantage - '#UK deaths per billion'...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CDC/surgeon general recommended not wearing masks at the beginning of the pandemic, while Silicon Valley was way ahead of the curve (meanwhile hit pieces were posted by journalists with an axe to grind saying they we’re overreacting). So yes it has lost its credibility.
> So yes it has lost its credibility. I feel like this black and white, "you get one chance" kind of bridge burning is very unproductive. When you look at these agencies not as omniscient entities but as what they are - a collaborative effort of many individuals - then you allow for the evolution of understanding. People can be wrong, especially in regards to more novel situations, so why should we view our instituti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anecdotally, dozens of people in my social circle (aged 25-45 or so reported severe side effects, including at least three or four of sore arm, fever, chills, headaches, exhaustion, body aches, nausea, and brain fog. My girlfriend and I had five of them, for an entire day. I'm not sure if your group's experience or mine is more typical. That's why comprehensive data is required to sort things out, and limited-number…
People with more robust immune systems (young people often) experience higher side effects from vaccination.
The risk of hospitalization among even 18-29 year olds is not negligible. Neither is the risk of permanent side effects like diabetes. Those autoimmune conditions can and do strike even perfectly healthy individuals.
It is weird how the vaccine is probably 1000x safer than getting the virus, but young people in particular are happy with the idea that "that won't happen to me, I'm healthy and young" when it comes to the virus, while they're deeply concerned about vaccine side effects that really aren't concerning at all.
(And BTW "robust immune system" doesn't help you if your own immune system turns on you due to the virus).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's (not) worth, it prompted me to sign up today. :)
> For what it's (not) worth, it prompted me to sign up today. :) More for my understanding than anything else, and with every guarantee that I won't present any follow-up questions or statements, but why was this the tipping point and not the actual disease risk mitigation resulting from the vaccine?