[am1m]

As we start to look at another round of local restrictions, travel restrictions, and outdoor activity restrictions by state and local governments bent on being seen to be doing 'something' (instead of actually doing something that works!), a good read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...kfired/618147/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Much of the public messaging focused on offering a series of clear rules to ordinary people, instead of explaining in detail the mechanisms of viral transmission for this pathogen. A focus on explaining transmission mechanisms, and updating our understanding over time, would have helped empower people to make informed calculations about risk in different settings. Instead, both the CDC and the WHO chose to offer fixed guidelines that lent a false sense of precision."

"There is a solid scientific reason for the fact that there are relatively few documented cases of transmission outdoors, even after a year of epidemiological work: The open air dilutes the virus very quickly, and the sun helps deactivate it, providing further protection. And super-spreading—the biggest driver of the pandemic— appears to be an exclusively indoor phenomenon. I’ve been tracking every report I can find for the past year, and have yet to find a confirmed super-spreading event that occurred solely outdoors. Such events might well have taken place, but if the risk were great enough to justify altering our lives, I would expect at least a few to have been documented by now."

"On social media, meanwhile, pictures of people outdoors without masks draw reprimands, insults, and confident predictions of super-spreading—and yet few note when super-spreading fails to follow."

"While visible but low-risk activities attract the scolds, other actual risks—in workplaces and crowded households, exacerbated by the lack of testing or paid sick leave—are not as easily accessible to photographers."

"Stefan Baral, an associate epidemiology professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says that it’s almost as if we’ve “designed a public-health response most suitable for higher-income” groups and the “Twitter generation”—stay home; have your groceries delivered; focus on the behaviors you can photograph and shame online—rather than provide the support and conditions necessary for more people to keep themselves safe.""

"The top-down messaging is not the only problem. The scolding, the strictness, the inability to discuss trade-offs, and the accusations of not caring about people dying not only have an enthusiastic audience, but portions of the public engage in these behaviors themselves. Maybe that’s partly because proclaiming the importance of individual actions makes us feel as if we are in the driver’s seat, despite all the uncertainty."

"The desire to exercise personal control against an invisible, pervasive enemy is likely why we’ve continued to emphasize scrubbing and cleaning surfaces, in what’s appropriately called “hygiene theater,” long after it became clear that fomites were not a key driver of the pandemic. Obsessive cleaning gave us something to do, and we weren’t about to give it up, even if it turned out to be useless. No wonder there was so much focus on telling others to stay home—even though it’s not a choice available to those who cannot work remotely—and so much scolding of those who dared to socialize or enjoy a moment outdoors."

"The poor and minority groups are dying in disproportionately large numbers for the same reasons that they suffer from many other diseases: a lifetime of disadvantages, lack of access to health care, inferior working conditions, unsafe housing, and limited financial resources."

"Many lacked the option of staying home precisely because they were working hard to enable others to do what they could not, by packing boxes, delivering groceries, producing food. And even those who could stay home faced other problems born of inequality: Crowded housing is associated with higher rates of COVID-19 infection and worse outcomes, likely because many of the essential workers who live in such housing bring the virus home to elderly relatives."

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by am1m

"Stefan Baral, an associate epidemiology professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says that it’s almost as if we’ve “designed a public-health response most suitable for higher-income” groups and the “Twitter generation”—stay home; have your groceries delivered; .......""

The so-called Covid public-health response is the biggest organized looting of the poor and lower-income groups by the elites and entrenched. Small businesses close down and suffer, but Amazon has quarter after quarter of blow out results. Schools are closed for poorer section kids, but the elite kids can study online.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by am1m

As we start to look at another round of local restrictions, travel restrictions, and outdoor activity restrictions by state and local governments bent on being seen to be doing 'something' (instead of actually doing something that works!)

As with so many things, it seems to be a lot of muddled and confused thinking scattered with actual truths. The end result is a piece of writing which various people, with various points of view, will take to support those points of view.

Yes, I like the idea of the hygiene theatre. Like the security theatre, which is a whole industry, to which we are subjected, for example, at airports, and yet which has never been shown to prevent one single attack. I expect covid theatre will leave us with entrenched rituals that become a part of our lives and just don't go away. What actual use would there be in pointing a temperature sensing instrument at people entering shops for the foreseeable future? Probably not much: watch it happen!

Taking control is, for many, a good feeling. It may well also be as illusory as the sensation of invincible safety we get from the thin sheet metal around us that is our cars!

Stuff like wearing masks does not put is in control. But it might protect us (and others from us) to some small degree. And it might just be that degree that matters.

So are masks mostly useless? Well, probably... But so are condoms. Most sex results in neither pregnancy nor transmission of disease, but hey, sometimes it does.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Stuff like wearing masks does not put is in control. But it might protect us (and others from us) to some small degree. And it might just be that degree that matters.

So are masks mostly useless?

Am really not sure where the article recommends not wearing masks at all. Perhaps I missed that.

Anyway, was just sharing something that resonated based on what I saw around me. People wear masks while walking on the street, take them off indoors at restaurants and lift them when talking to other people! Yes, that certainly doesn't make sense. No one says wearing masks is completely useless. But we need to ensure that we wear them when necessary and what I see happening is the opposite precisely because the messaging has been wrong and emphases the wrong thing, which is the basic premise of the article.

Another thing from the article was how most of us who are nit picking about the finer points of these things are sitting pretty and safe indoors because of the thousands (like the delivery people, utilities people, hired help) who don't have the luxury of debating the ideas we nit pick about! Again, resonated with what we've been seeing all along.

[vb-saan]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Stuff like wearing masks does not put us in control. But it might protect us (and others from us) to some small degree. And it might just be that degree that matters.

That small degree makes a big impact. As someone living in a location where masks are mandatory to step out, I feel it really helps. Yes, wearing mask and pulling it down while talking make it pointless but that discipline is something ideal for the public to develop.

It is not pleasant, it is not ideal, but these small efforts will do a world of difference in containing the spread - mentioning from our experience here.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by am1m

Am really not sure where the article recommends not wearing masks at all. Perhaps I missed that.

No, you are right. My post was stimulated by, rather than an answer to, the article. If you want to say I was "mouthing off," I won't take offence!

But we need to ensure that we wear them when necessary and what I see happening is the opposite precisely because the messaging has been wrong and emphases the wrong thing, which is the basic premise of the article.

Yes, I totally agree.

Another thing from the article was how most of us who are nit picking about the finer points of these things are sitting pretty and safe indoors because of the thousands (like the delivery people, utilities people, hired help) who don't have the luxury of debating the ideas we nit pick about! Again, resonated with what we've been seeing all along.

Yes, that is absolutely true too.

[proton]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

No, you are right. My post was stimulated by, rather than an answer to, the article. If you want to say I was "mouthing off," I won't take offence!
Yes, I totally agree.

Yes, that is absolutely true too.

The second and third paragraphs of the quote questions the need for using masks in an outdoor setting.

The problem with this pandemic is the need to formulate graded responses to different situations and the government has placed broad restrictions to cover all possibilities, possibility impacting negatively certain groups. But it's difficult for individuals of different abilities to make judgment calls themselves, so the Government acted overcautiously.

I can relate.

The pandemic has caused rise to a new form of political correctness. The number of cases to my knowledge was roughly in line with the statistics, about 5 percent fatalities, but I wondered if it was more serious, because my sample size wasn't representative. Among the cases was a person in my special interest group. The head of the group sent out a notice, but didn't mention it was covid-19, and no warning was given to avoid gatherings for the funeral. Since someone in another circle of my friends was a neighbour and had told me about it, I casually posted back that I had been informed about cause of death. The reason I was cautious was because I kept an open mind to the possibility that I was over reacting to the situation, and in this case, did not want to be the cause for stigmatizing the family of the bereaved (rocks have been thrown in the direction of those tested positive!).

There was a funeral held, some people immediately felt affected! My friend was admitted, but fortunately it was a mild infliction.

Apparently, no one knew cause of death was Covid-19, except the family, who kept quiet because of above reasons.

I came to know about my friend's case and called him to ask why he didn't avoid attending the funeral. He said he did not see a reason not to, except for the general instruction not to gather in large groups. He was shocked when I told him I had knowledge that it was a Covid-19 related death!

So maybe there is a need to have more detailed instructions of how to respond, to cover more situations. Or be harsher with implementing its broad guidelines. It may have helped in the above case.

[DigitalOne]

Good time to see what experts were recommending about an year back.

This one is from 17-Feb-2020.

Fauci doesn't want people to worry about coronavirus, the danger of which is "just minuscule." But he does want them to take precautions against the "influenza outbreak, which is having its second wave."

•Masks. The only people who need masks are those who are already infected to keep from exposing others. The masks sold at drugstores aren't even good enough to truly protect anyone, Fauci said.

"If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn't really do much to protect you," he said. "People start saying, 'Should I start wearing a mask?' Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask."

Fauci also doesn't want people to worry, but many are.

Source: USA Today dated 17-Feb-2020

-----

Dr. Fauci on 29-Feb-2020

Dr. Fauci on coronavirus fears: No need to change lifestyle yet

Source : Video

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Good time to see what experts were recommending about an year back.

Doesn't cure depend on symptoms? On Feb 17th 2020, whole of USA had 15 cases. What would be you recommend then? Lock down? Quarantine? Compulsory masks? Hand wash? Sanitizer? Travel restriction? Herd immunity?

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Good time to see what experts were recommending about an year back. ...

Ahhh... How happily I remember February 2020. Audiences were still thronging to concert halls; concerts going on happily... There was some vague news/rumours of a new flu in China.

Maybe its a good time to see what experts were recommending a week back...

Feb. 23, 2021 -- Americans may still need to wear face masks through 2022 to protect against the spread of the coronavirus and emerging variants, Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Sunday.

As cases decline and vaccines roll out across the country, the U.S. will likely reach a “significant degree of normality” by the end of the year, he said, though masks could remain an important part of everyday life for some time.

(my bold)

[ecenandu]

I would like to thank all the frontline workers who worked tirelessly during the pandemic.

My dad, a paediatrician also worked during the pandemic bar one week where there was a total lockdown due to an increase in corona cases at our locality. What makes him special is, a cancer survivor(sarcoma, left leg amputated, 1989), open-heart surgery(2011), currently undergoing treatment for liver cancer(since 2018). We were worried about his health risk given the pandemic, but he refused to stay back at home, wore the PPE kit and continued his medical practice as normal.

There are a lot of selfless people like him out there, to all of them, a big thank you from bottom of my heart.

[Chetan_Rao]

I'd be more inclined to NOT believe an 'expert' with a rigid opinion! Those are best left to the armchair dweller variety to propagate via their social media universities.

[am1m]

Great to see the way the vaccination effort is going on, one thing the government is certainly getting done right! Nice stat is the daily rate of doses administered where we're at 6.5Lakh+ which is second in the World! (source:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/c...-distribution/) And once the govt allows all private sector hospitals to start giving shots; only a matter of time before that happens, it'll pick up even more.

Also truly amazing job by the Serum Institute, they took a big gamble starting production of the vaccine even before approvals and it paid off.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by am1m

Great to see the way the vaccination effort is going on, one thing the government is certainly getting done right! Nice stat is the daily rate of doses administered where we're at 6.5Lakh+ which is second in the World! (source:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/c...-distribution/) And once the govt allows all private sector hospitals to start giving shots; only a matter of time before that happens, it'll pick up even more.

Also truly amazing job by the Serum Institute, they took a big gamble starting production of the vaccine even before approvals and it paid off.

I view it differently. Have not been able to understand why the Govt is limiting the vaccination to groups and going serially. First it was only health care workers and those on the frontline. Now it is over 60 and those above 45 with co-morbidities. And only now after several weeks that a limited number of private hospitals/clinics are permitted to vaccinate. We have no shortage of the vaccine. It is being exported and gifted to other countries as part of soft diplomacy - is it at the expense of adequate numbers being made available to Indians? Makes me wonder. Why can it not be opened to all and be permitted to be injected by thousands of hospitals/clinics instead of a list numbering in hundreds for a population bigger than the Two American continents combined. Interestingly the Delhi High Court had asked the same question. Sadly our Courts are being forced to play the role of the balancing opposition.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Have not been able to understand why the Govt is limiting the vaccination to groups and going serially.

Fair point sir, I assumed this was because there aren't enough doses to go around yet. Or to manage the rush at vaccination centers. But if we do have enough doses, they should allow everyone to get it, paid for private sector hospitals and free for those who can't afford.