When Will You Take a Vaccine?

[LongHaul]

Has anyone seen any good data on covid transmission reduction with vaccination?

 

[KJP]

7 hours ago, LongHaul said:

Has anyone seen any good data on covid transmission reduction with vaccination?

 

The research that I have seen to date suggests that at least Pfizer and Moderna significantly reduce asymptomatic cases, which ought to render fewer people infectious.  See, e.g.,

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3790399

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/pfizer-vaccine-shows-94-effectiveness-asymptomatic-transmission-covid/story?id=76389615&cid=social_twitter_abcn

 

If that common-sense inference is correct, then there should be fewer cases among those exposed to vaccinated as opposed to unvaccinated people.  Here's one study that produces that result:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.11.21253275v1.full-text

[Cigarbutt]

8 hours ago, LongHaul said:

Has anyone seen any good data on covid transmission reduction with vaccination?

 

The work mentioned by KJP involved healthcare workers (certain risk to generalize conclusions) but the percentages mentioned involved both symptomatic and asymptomatic disease and the study was done at a time when the B117 strain was dominant in general UK community transmission. 

At this point (that may change over time), there is no definitive and direct evidence answering your question. When studies are made in initial vaccine trials, design setup involves to focus on efficacy of vaccines for individuals. Testing for efficacy against community transmission or the formation of clusters is a completely different ball game. At this point, given the well established efficacy of vaccines at the individual level, it would be problematic (one could say wrong) to set up randomized controlled trials with a control group not receiving the vaccines. Some suggest doing human challenge trials (there are many individuals ready to volunteer for that) but this is also problematic. So, to try to answer the question, one could use observational studies which are less robust and may take a while to accomplish at a time where the level of evidence for transmission (indirect combined with already established knowledge about other vaccines) is strong enough to use vaccines and inflect disease burden curves at both the individual and community levels.

The community transmission evidence for vaccines from the past for example has been done for varicella. It's not surprising to find that transmission efficiency is in correlation to efficacy at the individual level (sort of the common-sense inference mentioned above). You may be interested to know that vaccines used for the HPV (vaccine given to young girls to prevent human papilloma virus disease, ie to prevent the sexually transmitted disease and the associated uterine cancer risk) is used based on that very premise (ie boys also get the 'benefit' even if they have no uterus).

Does your question matter? i guess that individuals who are favorable to vaccines will not wait for such community transmission evidence. i also guess that it may matter for a very small portion in the hesitant group. However, IMHO, this argument (attempt at rationalization of a process that is not; BTW it's OK not to get the vaccine, whatever your 'reasons') is a typical exploitation of uncertainty and factors hard to prove/disprove when the underlying thought process has nothing to do with the specific question. This has been a recurrent theme with the virus ie the 'false-positives' and CT-threshold 'questions'. Science and beliefs (like oil and water) don't mix well together. The idea is to exploit the confusion related to uncertainty. This aspect was also well covered in the Galileo trial. And it took centuries for the water and the oil to (partially) separate.

[Gregmal]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michigans-virus-cases-control-putting-152045172.html

 

Interesting. Michigan, one of the most egregious states as far as draconian measures are concerned; is a total disaster. Yet, unlike last year, she's not locking things down. Hmmmm. Whatever could be at play here? Meanwhile, Arizona.....

[cubsfan]

^ Another example of listening to idiots and "experts". Give me a break.

[wachtwoord]

@Cigarbutt I advise you to read your own posts here again. Pay special attention to both content and tone and then decide whether you are not actually guilty of what you are accusing others of.

[Investor20]

On 4/10/2021 at 7:03 AM, Cigarbutt said:

All in all, vaccines are proving to be a very effective tool. For ivermectin and others, more work needs to be down but from an opportunity cost point of view at this point, ivermectin (and a few other options) look like rotten apples.

Ivermectin, Convalescent Plasma and Hydroxychloroquine: One Year of Rotten Apples | Office for Science and Society - McGill University

 

This article had selective citations.  I have written before about Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.  But let us look at Convalescent plasma.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2033700

Early High-Titer Plasma Therapy to Prevent Severe Covid-19 in Older Adults

Conclusions

Early administration of high-titer convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 to mildly ill infected older adults reduced the progression of Covid-19.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2031304

A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia

Conclusions

No significant differences were observed in clinical status or overall mortality between patients treated with convalescent plasma and those who received placebo.

.........

So medicines work better when patient is treated early...hardly a noble laureate level finding.

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Investor20

[Investor20]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00160-0/fulltext

April 09, 2021

Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 (STOIC): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial

"....indicating a relative risk reduction of 91% for budesonide."

Interpretation

Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery after early COVID-19.

 

Note: Please consult a physician for any treatment.  Any medication has contraindications.  Only for discussion.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Investor20

[Gregmal]

3 hours ago, wachtwoord said:

@Cigarbutt I advise you to read your own posts here again. Pay special attention to both content and tone and then decide whether you are not actually guilty of what you are accusing others of.

I am not referring to Cigarbutt but I think the general gist of your comment alludes to a major issue that has largely been scrubbed and/or ignored. How badly the experts, the scientists, and the doctors have gotten this. How much they have undermined the very system of healthcare, medicine, and science. 

Repeatedly, from the get go, they've made outrageous predications. They've repeatedly jumped up on the podiums they've been given to spew viewpoints and narratives that have been unsubstantiated and downright wrong. Yet, they've continuously been given passes for this. The greatest example being the "wear masks, dont wear masks, no wear them actually, wait wear two!" from people like Fauci. Who at the very same time was doing every talk show he could appear on and attending baseball games. But it goes well beyond that. "Oh its spread by contact. Oh actually no, just by standard flu like transmission. You can stop ordering Clorox products now!". Its been a total embarrassment, meanwhile, they are the first ones to arrogantly snide people, or condescendingly preach at how irresponsible and stupid anyone who questions things like masks or now "the vaccine" are. The slogans about "savings lives" via vaccination when actually, no, when vaccinated you are just asymptomatic...whoops! The best we get in terms of accountability is a half assed mea culpa about "the facts evolving" or how actually they are absolved because while they said what they did, they kind of minced words and were purposely vague or noncommittal. 

The lockdowns were a total disgrace and now its coming out to an undeniable degree that the motive behind them was impure. As if you need anymore evidence, now see Whitmers take on it. None of the "experts" can explain why the states doing it the right way have similar/better figures than the states abusing people. They just ignore it. Here when people hear things they dont want to they scream politics. But this has nothing to do with politics. 

I asked my brother, a real PHD doctor(you need to distinguish these days because of all the academics trying to take credit for being a Dr) why these people made such fools of themselves. He had a good point in saying "doctors are by very nature people who need to be told their direction. They spend their 20s in school and you either regurgitate whats in the books, or you fail. Then you spend a big chunk of time in residency...working for BSDs and doing exactly as you are told. Where to show up, how long to work, etc. You have zero say in anything. And even once you get past that decade plus of molding, you are subject to "information" and "data", which is largely derived from the same academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies with agendas, or like minded peers. Its a process and if you want the white coat, you have to become subservient to it. There is also a big emphasis on being noncommittal, and you are trained to pitch people the worst case scenario"

So I think a lot of the issue is simply why we care what these people have to say? They're trained by nature to take what they are fed by "their sources" and to basically look down on others. They either dont have it in them to take a real, concrete stance; or when they do, go way off the deep end in terms of negativity and pessimism. Perhaps folks just need to rely on common sense instead of "expert" opinions? I've basically said since day one back in March 2020, live life how you wish. How am I doing it? Wear a mask, dont go around hugging everyone, and do exactly what you would have been prior to this whole escapade. Worked well so far. Cant say the same for the folks who have literally wasted significant portions of the last year taking direction from master(while master continues to live the high life). 

[Cigarbutt]

^There was this 'case' a while back and one of the lawyers asked the two (opposing view) 'experts' how they could make sure that bias was not clouding their judgement. One of the two answered that this was not a problem because he did not have a bias problem. The other answered that bias was a significant issue and explained constructive ways to minimize the impact on reasoning. As a consumer of general information, which 'expert' do you rely on?

-----

@Investor20 The Lancet article is interesting (thanks). The asthma inhaler (steroid-derived) story is relevant to this specific discussion. At first, 'they', on the ground, had concerns about using steroids (an immune depressant) to people becoming very sick with a Covid infection. This was not a political stance, a sign of weakness or of stupidity. It's sort of common sense to question the use of something that potentially decrease your immunity potential at a time when your immune system is tested. The last thing 'they' tell you before graduating is to go ahead and try not to kill 'them'. Anyways, it was established that steroids, on a net basis and because of the peculiar covid interactions with the immune system, were beneficial at various stages and steroid use became standard of practice to help alleviate consequences of the disease. Last summer when this knowledge was being refined, some took the microphone and announced that steroids (inhaled or else) were the 'magic bullet', without sufficient support for those claims. Over time, the picture is becoming clearer and the research you mention helps in further defining the role of steroids in covid.

-----

@wachtwoord You are allowed to decide what you want for the vaccines, whatever your reasons. However, if you enter this space and aim to rationally prove your point with data and analysis, i'm open to be convinced but you should reasonably expect reasonable pushback.

-----

The above comments about Michigan aim to divide, insult etc but there is something to learn. Comparing different regions is a challenge (multi-variable including many soft inputs) so one could get away with weird claims and grotesque conclusions. A few posts above, there was a reference to a fairly balanced comparison between Sweden and neighbors and it seemed like there was something to learn (the offered definition of learning is becoming less idiot but i'm open to debate on that one too).

After all this time, it's become fairly clear that once the covid virus is allowed to circulate (to various degrees), there is some kind of trade-off between the economic cost and the virus burden (direct and indirect). There are many factors that can confound the picture but the trade-off implies to balance a higher (lower) economic cost to the 'we' in order to result in a lower (higher) virus burden to some. It's a hard discussion but one that could be constructively handled.

Arizona and Michigan are very similar along most parameters but they are examples of what marginal differences can produce. Arizona (with changes at the margin) exchanged a lower economic cost (GDP hit, unemployment etc) with a higher disease burden. The covid cumulative cases for AZ and MI are quite similar but AZ took the lead (towards herd immunity) and MI is sort of catching up. Last summer, Arizona and a few comparable southern states, had very high community spread with a very clear pattern of first spread in the younger, active and mobile cohorts and then spread into older and more frail populations. It is what it is.

Numbers (all per 100K population)

          covid deaths     covid cumulative cases     flu deaths (average last 3 years)     covid vaccination rate

MI            174                             8000                                           14                                             53800

AZ           234                            11600                                           11                                             55700 

Arizona and Michigan have much more in common than what separates them and this current year (whoever sits in the governor's office), both states achieved similar (and remarkable) decreases in flu cases, hospitalizations and deaths. It appears that the influenza virus cannot distinguish between a Republican and a Democrat but it sure seems to fail to adapt to systematic changes in bipartisan human behaviors.

[RichardGibbons]

12 hours ago, Gregmal said:

I am not referring to Cigarbutt but I think the general gist of your comment alludes to a major issue that has largely been scrubbed and/or ignored. How badly the experts, the scientists, and the doctors have gotten this. How much they have undermined the very system of healthcare, medicine, and science. 

Repeatedly, from the get go, they've made outrageous predications. They've repeatedly jumped up on the podiums they've been given to spew viewpoints and narratives that have been unsubstantiated and downright wrong. Yet, they've continuously been given passes for this. The greatest example being the "wear masks, dont wear masks, no wear them actually, wait wear two!" from people like Fauci. Who at the very same time was doing every talk show he could appear on and attending baseball games. But it goes well beyond that. "Oh its spread by contact. Oh actually no, just by standard flu like transmission. You can stop ordering Clorox products now!". Its been a total embarrassment, meanwhile, they are the first ones to arrogantly snide people, or condescendingly preach at how irresponsible and stupid anyone who questions things like masks or now "the vaccine" are. The slogans about "savings lives" via vaccination when actually, no, when vaccinated you are just asymptomatic...whoops! The best we get in terms of accountability is a half assed mea culpa about "the facts evolving" or how actually they are absolved because while they said what they did, they kind of minced words and were purposely vague or noncommittal. 

The lockdowns were a total disgrace and now its coming out to an undeniable degree that the motive behind them was impure. As if you need anymore evidence, now see Whitmers take on it. None of the "experts" can explain why the states doing it the right way have similar/better figures than the states abusing people. They just ignore it. Here when people hear things they dont want to they scream politics. But this has nothing to do with politics. 

I asked my brother, a real PHD doctor(you need to distinguish these days because of all the academics trying to take credit for being a Dr) why these people made such fools of themselves. He had a good point in saying "doctors are by very nature people who need to be told their direction. They spend their 20s in school and you either regurgitate whats in the books, or you fail. Then you spend a big chunk of time in residency...working for BSDs and doing exactly as you are told. Where to show up, how long to work, etc. You have zero say in anything. And even once you get past that decade plus of molding, you are subject to "information" and "data", which is largely derived from the same academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies with agendas, or like minded peers. Its a process and if you want the white coat, you have to become subservient to it. There is also a big emphasis on being noncommittal, and you are trained to pitch people the worst case scenario"

So I think a lot of the issue is simply why we care what these people have to say? They're trained by nature to take what they are fed by "their sources" and to basically look down on others. They either dont have it in them to take a real, concrete stance; or when they do, go way off the deep end in terms of negativity and pessimism. Perhaps folks just need to rely on common sense instead of "expert" opinions? I've basically said since day one back in March 2020, live life how you wish. How am I doing it? Wear a mask, dont go around hugging everyone, and do exactly what you would have been prior to this whole escapade. Worked well so far. Cant say the same for the folks who have literally wasted significant portions of the last year taking direction from master(while master continues to live the high life). 

One of the challenging things with evidence-based reasoning and science is a lot of the time, it's difficult to measure the impact of people who are skeptical because of ignorance. Science is complex now, so the Dunning Kruger effect is particularly impactful.

With things like climate change or improvements in drugs or many other things, it can be difficult to measure the impact of people being skeptical out of ignorance. In some cases, with things like climate change, the impacts are so broad and distributed that it's difficult to prove that those broad impacts are from that one particular cause. And in other cases, such as, say, drug development, it doesn't actually matter if the person is skeptical about the drug because their skepticism is largely irrelevant to the outcome if they're still treated by the drug. And I doubt there are statistics where people are offered the drug, refuse it due to Dunning Kruger, and then die.

The interesting thing with COVID is that it's easier to approximate how much this sort of ignorant skepticism costs. It's not perfect, because there are always confounding factors. But the death numbers are pretty black and white, even before you take in to account long-term health impacts that can result from getting COVID. Things like USA losing 1,700 people per million to COVID compared to Canada's 617 people.

So, basically a 250% increase in deaths to a large degree as a result of skepticism borne of ignorance. The unfortunate thing is that those deaths aren't actually confined to the skeptically ignorant, but also the people they infect as a result of their disbelief in science. The Libertarian in me wants to say, if people want to make stupid decisions, they ought to be able to. But the issue is that those decisions have negative externalities--the deaths of other people that they infect.

[Gregmal]

Good article on "the science"...

https://zeynep.substack.com/p/the-gaslighting-of-science

In regards to your point, Richard, you can compare to the US vs Canada deaths and draw conclusions. I am sure they are there. But I dont know if we get to the root of the issue entirely. The leading states by death rate are NY, NJ, MA...Ones that stole peoples rights, talked about "saving lives" and then led the country is deaths....So the approach can obviously not be viewed as a "success". For all the talk about density, which is valid, especially with airborne transmission, you have things swinging equally back to the other side in places less dense. For instance NYC is massively dense. But everything was closed and people trapped in their homes..not allowed to see friends or family. Not allowed to work out. Not even allowed to go for walks at one point. In FL, there's obviously less density, but troves of young people, many still living at home, running out to bars, restaurants and parties at will and then coming home. While its hard to quantify the +/- for each, what is clear is that usurping the rights of people and yet not showing any material benefit justifying it, is one of the biggest injustices in American history. And we talk about the facts, but it was clear very early on, like the above piece laid out, what the approaches should have been to take meaningful action. And yet, the politicians, the scientists, and the experts, did nothing but double down on failure, grandstand at their daily "look at me" press conferences, and hired help to book all their tv appearances. When they "changed their minds" or got "new info" they made it into a media spectacle. They could have easily reversed course or changed the approach, but they let personal incentives get in the way. Its a disgrace and they should, but won't, be held accountable for it. 

[RichardGibbons]

1 hour ago, Gregmal said:

While its hard to quantify the +/- for each, what is clear is that usurping the rights of people and yet not showing any material benefit justifying it, is one of the biggest injustices in American history.

Wow.  Just... wow.

If you think that a lockdown to save people's lives is one of the biggest injustices in American history then we're so far apart on our views that there's really not much to say.

Thanks for the response, though....

[Gregmal]

I can literally make up a reason for doing anything and claim I'm trying to save lives. Believe me, I heard non stop here in NJ from Phil Murphy over the past year about how we're "saving lives"...except, they weren't. NJ leads the entire USA in death rate. There is more excuse for error in the beginning. But once there was a handle on the subject, it's entirely inexcusable to keep doing things that so horrifically infringe upon peoples rights. Maybe in other countries...but not in America. Let alone continuing to lie to people and use slogans like "saving lives" that have zero proof or substance by the way of evidence or by comparison to others. These people knowingly turn it into a "we're saving lives" issue because who is going to argue against that? And no one in the media will call it out. But if we go by the numbers, they didnt save anything in excess of what others did without all the nonsense. And they should have cut it out a while ago, but chose not to. And yet, its amazing, in a really messed up way, that despite such blatantly power hungry, attention seeking, self aggrandizing, personal ambition driven snakes, people still credit them with "saving lives".  

[StevieV]

7 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

Wow.  Just... wow.

If you think that a lockdown to save people's lives is one of the biggest injustices in American history then we're so far apart on our views that there's really not much to say.

Thanks for the response, though....

As I read Gregmal's post, he is saying there is no clear correlation between lockdowns and mortality from COVID.  He pointed to three states with high mortality rates and high lockdown rates (I haven't checked Gregmal's work to confirm, but I believe he is correct with at least NJ and NY).  When I look at the numbers, I can see no obvious pattern.

Lockdowns are a huge and costly action, not just monetary cost, but human cost.  Such drastic action should only be taken if there is a big benefit.  Lockdowns mean high unemployment.  Small businesses shutting down.  It means kids not going to school in person.  That is going to have a negative effect on many kids for years, especially those who were already struggling to get by in school.  Many people have been isolated and depressed.  I expect a number of lives have been lost directly related to the lockdowns and overall an unfortunately high bit of misery.

[Cigarbutt]

^

1-Have NY, NJ and MA applied more restrictive measures vs the virus? Yes

2-Have NY, NJ and MA reported the highest covid-19 deaths per capita in the US? Yes

There is a huge problem however with the cause and effect between 1- and 2-.

The following is based on very concrete on-the-ground inputs as well as other sources that have aggregated the data over time.

When New Jersey reported its first COVID-19-related death, a 69-year-old man from Bergen County, concurrently New York unveiled the most stringent measures seen in the US and deployed the National Guard, but most of what was coming was already baked in the cake because the Trojan Horse had already been introduced and freed of its content. By the time the restrictive measures were considered, the die had already been cast, especially for communities of color, high-poverty areas, and among persons aged ≥75 years or with underlying conditions. During February 29 to June 1st, 2020, a total of 203,792 COVID-19 cases were diagnosed and reported among residents of NYC, including 54,211 (26.6%) in persons known to have been hospitalized and 18,679 (9.2%) in persons who died.

Concerning what happened over time, the relation between contagious disease spread and various restrictive measures is not exactly a new or esoteric topic.

Comparing NY to others should at least take into consideration the very unusual confluence of circumstances (location as international transport hub, density, social landscape, one of the first real hits in the US) that led to the initial surge that preceded the restrictive measures that were elaborated and applied after.

Otherwise, using the same reasoning template, one would tend to conclude that Vermont has had the best policies in place to mitigate community spread, once established.

-----

Here is a piece of international news that may interest some. There was this leading voice (he was the owner of a large gym in the second most populated city in my province) against ‘experts’ and had a very low threshold to call others stupid. The city is now going through a Covid surge (vaccine rollout has been much slower around here) and a significant fraction of the developing surge has been linked to the gym that this gentleman owns. So far, at least one dead (young and healthy), over 100 documented cases and growing in clusters (different work environments) etc etc. The owner is no longer available for interviews because he apparently has a tube in his throat. I would bet that he has now put his confidence in subservient ‘academics’ who can regurgitate whats in the books.

-----

Back to the vaccines, there is mounting evidence that there is potential for variants (especially the South African variant) to escape, at least partially, the vaccines. Also, the variants seem to have a higher propensity to re-infect people who had previously contracted the initial variant of Covid, an evolution that is similar to previously known coronaviruses that have previously connected with humans. This development is not that significant for now and vaccines could be ‘tweaked’ and effectively targeted but this is another factor suggesting longer term endemicity.

[StevieV]

Just now, Cigarbutt said:

^

1-Have NY, NJ and MA applied more restrictive measures vs the virus? Yes

2-Have NY, NJ and MA reported the highest covid-19 deaths per capita in the US? Yes

There is a huge problem however with the cause and effect between 1- and 2-.

The following is based on very concrete on-the-ground inputs as well as other sources that have aggregated the data over time.

When New Jersey reported its first COVID-19-related death, a 69-year-old man from Bergen County, concurrently New York unveiled the most stringent measures seen in the US and deployed the National Guard, but most of what was coming was already baked in the cake because the Trojan Horse had already been introduced and freed of its content. By the time the restrictive measures were considered, the die had already been cast, especially for communities of color, high-poverty areas, and among persons aged ≥75 years or with underlying conditions. During February 29 to June 1st, 2020, a total of 203,792 COVID-19 cases were diagnosed and reported among residents of NYC, including 54,211 (26.6%) in persons known to have been hospitalized and 18,679 (9.2%) in persons who died.

Concerning what happened over time, the relation between contagious disease spread and various restrictive measures is not exactly a new or esoteric topic.

Comparing NY to others should at least take into consideration the very unusual confluence of circumstances (location as international transport hub, density, social landscape, one of the first real hits in the US) that led to the initial surge that preceded the restrictive measures that were elaborated and applied after.

Otherwise, using the same reasoning template, one would tend to conclude that Vermont has had the best policies in place to mitigate community spread, once established.

-----

Here is a piece of international news that may interest some. There was this leading voice (he was the owner of a large gym in the second most populated city in my province) against ‘experts’ and had a very low threshold to call others stupid. The city is now going through a Covid surge (vaccine rollout has been much slower around here) and a significant fraction of the developing surge has been linked to the gym that this gentleman owns. So far, at least one dead (young and healthy), over 100 documented cases and growing in clusters (different work environments) etc etc. The owner is no longer available for interviews because he apparently has a tube in his throat. I would bet that he has now put his confidence in subservient ‘academics’ who can regurgitate whats in the books.

-----

Back to the vaccines, there is mounting evidence that there is potential for variants (especially the South African variant) to escape, at least partially, the vaccines. Also, the variants seem to have a higher propensity to re-infect people who had previously contracted the initial variant of Covid, an evolution that is similar to previously known coronaviruses that have previously connected with humans. This development is not that significant for now and vaccines could be ‘tweaked’ and effectively targeted but this is another factor suggesting longer term endemicity.

There are definitely confounding factors, but at this point, the burden should be to show the interventions are effective.  Given the costs of lockdowns, there should be large and obvious benefits.  Where are they?  Not in NY.  Not in NJ.  Not in MA.

We shut down schools and there doesn't seem to be evidence that they are a significant spreader.  Huge cost for many kids and families.  Shouldn't we require at least pretty good evidence?

Happens time after time that doom is predicted if the "right" policies aren't enacted, and it doesn't happen.  The president called out Texas and Mississippi when the lifted mask mandates.  Called it "Neanderthal Thinking."  If that's correct, if the policy is so terrible and backwards, then why haven't we seen it (see link below)?  Why hasn't removing the mandate led to bad results?

I'm open to changing my mind, but this is how it has seemed to go through the whole thing.  Best I can tell, policy choices matter much less than many people think.  Maybe people like doing something.  Maybe an illusion of control.

IM on Twitter: "The President of the United States when Texas and Mississippi announced they were lifting mask mandates: That’s “Neanderthal thinking” Reality 5 weeks later: Hospitalizations in enlightened, progressive masked states Michigan, New York & New Jersey are 164% higher https://t.co/OsK3UztPza" / Twitter

[Gregmal]

10 minutes ago, Cigarbutt said:

 

-----

Here is a piece of international news that may interest some. There was this leading voice (he was the owner of a large gym in the second most populated city in my province) against ‘experts’ and had a very low threshold to call others stupid. The city is now going through a Covid surge (vaccine rollout has been much slower around here) and a significant fraction of the developing surge has been linked to the gym that this gentleman owns. So far, at least one dead (young and healthy), over 100 documented cases and growing in clusters (different work environments) etc etc. The owner is no longer available for interviews because he apparently has a tube in his throat. I would bet that he has now put his confidence in subservient ‘academics’ who can regurgitate whats in the books.

-----

This is basically a regurgitation of the classic MSM favorite headline of "he doubted the virus, AND THEN IT GOT HIM!" that we've seen a million times over the past year. However its void of the basic fact that the numbers are the numbers and while young people can get it and die, it is extremely unlikely. There will be casualties, but its no reason, at least in the land of the free, to take control over everyone's lives, and punish or vilify anyone who disagrees. Theres' plenty of gyms and owners, such as the one in NJ Murphy has levied over $1m USD in fines against, who are fine and just want to work/run their business/be left alone by big government. 

There's nothing wrong with subservient academics, they have a place and serve a purpose...but they certain dont belong in the discussion of how to run economies or manage people. Its like saying analysts should run hedge funs. If they were any good at it, they'd be doing it. 

 

 

 

[Cigarbutt]

^

-Costs related to restrictive measures (from spontaneous at individual levels to mandated) have been very high. 

-"Best I can tell, policy choices matter much less than many people think"---) yes and the 'color' of the state/jurisdiction has limited impact.

-Also, we can agree on the value of small and limited government.

But to suggest that restrictive measures have no significant effect or even a negative effect on the burden of a contagious disease is very unusual and hard to reconcile with a logical process...

Take a look, from a US relatively comparable neighbor (see image):

This is not to say that Canada's approach has been superior (that is another debate and perhaps not one worth having here: costs, benefits trade-offs etc), this is to say that restrictive measures applied more homogeneously and improved at the margin can reduce the burden of a contagious disease at the population level (yes other factors are also at play). 

Let's say you're the CEO, the President or something, when dealing with an issue (about which your knowledge is limited), in order to take the best decision, will you go strictly by instinct or will you rely (as inputs) on weighted, balanced and diversified sources of information, including 'expert' advice?

If one cannot build on the very basic assumptions that humans somehow can improve the outcome of a contagious disease at the group level, it will be difficult to get somewhere useful.

This is not about running a hedge fund, it's about the process guiding assembly of inputs and decision-making.

In a way, this feels like the demand to 'prove' that vaccines prevent community transmission when the weight of evidence (and common sense) heavily suggests so. At some point, it becomes pointless.

[Parsad]

Ok All,

This one is locked.  You are all more than welcome to start it up again on the Politics forum...go over there for this stuff!

Cheers!