I wonder... can we have a civilized COVID discussion as things (hopefully) wind down?

There has been a multiyear drop in life expectancy

400 Americans are still dying every day. Death rates are 10% above "expected" even today, when vaccines are widely available and when the variant is far gentler than the original. We (GRM) lost at least one member (Paul). 

Read this as thoroughly as you can before writing too much:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01585-9/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR30VZaXpqznyE2r9dT6oQ7E9msMNEIwh990019tOAjvuzoCyjI-QgD4MoM

But a good summary of my problem is here in this bullet

Epidemic control was seriously hindered by substantial public opposition to routine public health and social measures, such as the wearing of properly fitting face masks and getting vaccinated. This opposition reflects a lack of social trust, low confidence in government advice, inconsistency of government advice, low health literacy, lack of sufficient behavioural-change interventions, and extensive misinformation and disinformation campaigns on social media. Public policies have also failed to draw upon the behavioural and social sciences; doing so would have led to more successful implementation of public health interventions and helped to increase social trust, prosociality, equity, and wellbeing. In many cases, policies and decision making have not been informed by robust and continuously updated evidence syntheses.

I know a flat earther, I know multiple people who think 9/11 was an inside job. I know people who think a missile hit the Pentagon. I know a guy who thinks Pearl Harbor was an inside job (I have not asked the flat earth guy how Pearl Harbor happened, it would be a really long flight!). I know people who think Russia is righteous in the war on Ukraine. I know people who think the 2020 election was stolen. I know people who think fluoride is an insidious plot. I know people who think the most crazy things, left and right. I know people who think the world is run by giant corporations. I know people who think rich people run the world and everything is just window dressing. What I see is people who won't trust anyone, until they adhere to someone and stick to them like glue no matter what BS they spout, and this happens on both sides. They pick "a guy" and then decide that person is always right, anyone questioning their guy is lying. See Alex Jones, see Rachel Maddow, etc.

Here's the rub. Governments around the world have earned that distrust to some extent. Companies really have done terrible things and gotten away with it (Dupont and PTFE for instance) There are elements of truth to most of these stupid ideas (except the flat earth thing). Fauci did say we should not wear masks, then he said we should wear one, then he said we should wear two. The man screwed up, but that doesn't mean that masks don't have a place. It means one man screwed up. I do not know why we cannot disassociate those two things. 

Covid taught me a lesson. I am reminded of wisdom from Men in Black: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. I used to think the world was run by adults, and quickly the fringe lunacy and the childishness would naturally be pushed away. I have since learned that people generally behave like petulant children. I said something to that affect about our past two Presidents, and the listener asked how far back would I have to go to find a President who wasn't. I had to go back so far that I simply don't think there is enough information to glean the reality of that question. I've heard Nixon who recorded himself on the phone basically begging for his cabinet members to tell him how great he was, JFK had a guy in his cabinet to find a lady for him each evening. Where are the adults? I don't think there are enough to find regularly.

Happily I find a lot of them here. A lot of us disagree (you know who you are), but I really respect and enjoy the discourse. I hope we can figure something out here. How do we raise our kids, and how do we act in our communities, to both not be overly afraid, but also not pretend there is no danger? How do we avoid unnecessary deaths during this pandemic, and during the next?

What's the spread on those daily deaths of vaccinated/unvax/doublevax/etc?

The government is going to have a difficult time telling the country what they should do and what's safe and prudent when most of the country doesn't trust them, either side. It's a bummer that governments/people have gotten this far out.

Russian Warship, Go Berkeley Yourself said:

What is that thing that AngryCorvair is so fond of saying lately?

Now see, that's pretty unhelpful. Nothing in there is political, and no opinions were dismissed (unless you're a flat earther I suppose).

iansane said:

What's the spread on those daily deaths of vaccinated/unvax/doublevax/etc?

The government is going to have a difficult time telling the country what they should do and what's safe and prudent when most of the country doesn't trust them, either side. It's a bummer that governments/people have gotten this far out.

 Public policies have also failed to draw upon the behavioral and social sciences; 

This is a HUGE miss in a lot of areas of governance.  Certainly not saying behavioral sciences are perfect, but there seems to not even be a consideration in many cases where it could certainly at least provide some ideas of causes and you can't change what you can't measure.

I would also say to be careful with the "numbers", especially in medical sciences, there are a LOT of potential confounding variable (things that affect measurements that are not related to what you are trying to measure).

I am also not sure GRM (the board, not the members) really feels comfortable with discussions on this.  I really think it needs to happen (as I always do), but it could easily go sideways and there are aspects that some simple do not want to discuss and of course many who cannot discuss such things rationally.

tuna55 said:

Fauci did say we should not wear masks, then he said we should wear one, then he said we should wear two. The man screwed up, but that doesn't mean that masks don't have a place. It means one man screwed up. I do not know why we cannot disassociate those two things.

Whether he screwed up by saying these things is debatable. He gave ideal advice fit for a society of scientists. At first he told people not to wear masks to prevent a supply shortage in medical facilities where they were most needed, while the virus was not widely circulating. Then (once the equipment shortage was over, and the virus was circulating more widely) he gave good up-to-date advice based on the latest bleeding-edge scientific knowledge. To a layman that might sound like a lot of flip-flopping from someone who's not sure of what they're saying.

Maybe he should've "dampened" his changes to advice on how many masks you should wear, sacrificing theoretically ideal bleeding-edge information dissemination to preserve credibility with a layman audience? That's a hard question with public health and ethics implications.

GameboyRMH said:

tuna55 said:

Fauci did say we should not wear masks, then he said we should wear one, then he said we should wear two. The man screwed up, but that doesn't mean that masks don't have a place. It means one man screwed up. I do not know why we cannot disassociate those two things.

Whether he screwed up by saying these things is debatable. He gave ideal advice fit for a society of scientists. At first he told people not to wear masks to prevent a supply shortage in medical facilities where they were most needed, while the virus was not widely circulating. Then he gave good up-to-date advice based on the latest bleeding-edge scientific knowledge. To a layman that might sound like a lot of flip-flopping from someone who's not sure of what they're saying.

Maybe he should've "dampened" his changes to advice on how many masks you should wear, sacrificing theoretically ideal bleeding-edge information dissemination to preserve credibility with a layman audience? That's a hard question with public health and ethics implications.

Interesting take.

In my home, I tend to adhere to the data. When this thing started there was very little data on masks preventing viruses. At first I was pretty convinced that they didn't work, I found the size of the virus and the size of the mask openings, and saw Fauci telling us not to wear them, and concluded that I was right.

I later found, through data, especially whichever carrier had that outbreak, that they did. Later on proof convinced me that they do work, and obviously the virus isn't just floating around in the air, it's stuck to (relatively) giant globs of spit and mucus.

This is just me. Other people stick to their guns no matter what, and don't change what they think ever.

If Fauci had said "Please don't buy masks yet, we need them for healthcare workers" It would be totally legit.

Since you are focusing on fatalities, I believe the data (related to the latest strain) shows that death only realistically occur in those with multiple or very serious co-morbidities.

Obviously still a serious issue, but far more focused on who it is an issue for.

Can you provide some data for that? (I will see if I can find something myself)

aircooled said:

 Public policies have also failed to draw upon the behavioral and social sciences; 

This is a HUGE miss in a lot of areas of governance.  Certainly not saying behavioral sciences are perfect, but there seems to not even be a consideration in many cases where it could certainly at least provide some ideas of causes and you can't change what you can't measure.

I would also say to be careful with the "numbers", especially in medical sciences, there are a LOT of potential confounding variable (things that affect measurements that are not related to what you are trying to measure).

 

I am also not sure GRM (the board, not the members) really feels comfortable with discussions on this.  I really think it needs to happen (as I always do), but it could easily go sideways and there are aspects that some simple do not want to discuss and of course many who cannot discuss such things rationally.

Indeed people can lie with numbers.

That said, people seem to be comfortable assuming ever number is a lie if they don't like it. I know a very intelligent engineer, a Trump fan, who watched a series on various historical personalities. He watched, and espoused what he had learned from each of them, and character flaws which he didn't know about and such. The same series did an episode on Trump. He would not watch it, in his words, because he knew it would all be lies. How does that work? He continues to watch the subsequent episodes, he continues to believe those other episodes. Why does this happen?

::note, despite naming President Trump here, it is in no way isolated to him or political in any way, it was just used to highlight the cult of personality surrounding so many.

Probably not. 

That Michigan graph is interesting but that brings up that discussion about hospitals saying all Covid cases are in because OF it rather than possibly other cases.  

aircooled said:

Since you are focusing on fatalities, I believe the data (related to the latest strain) shows that death only realistically occur in those with multiple or very serious co-morbidities.

Obviously still a serious issue, but far more focused on who it is an issue for.

Can you provide some data for that? (I will see if I can find something myself)

We have Paul, who dies of Covid right before our eyes with no comorbidities. My financial advisor died with no comorbidities. My VP was on a ventilator for three days unconscious with no comorbidities. I have some real life data.

I have some data, but there is more to find. Definitely comorbidities make things worse, but the thing is that tends to make people blase. A whole lot of people have diabetes, for instance, or asthma, or hypertension, which are leading comorbidity fatalities. That doesn't mean anything really in terms of how to react. Shouldn't we care about those people too?

jmabarone said:

Probably not. 

That Michigan graph is interesting but that brings up that discussion about hospitals saying all Covid cases are in because OF it rather than possibly other cases.  

Again, why would one just assume that the data is lying at the first glance?

I have a good friend in the ICU as a nurse. She can attest to the general trends based on her own personal observations. She's held a tablet up for many dying patients so they could talk to their family one last time.

In reply to tuna55 :

I don't really have anything to add since the issues of low trust on many fronts and that of information and how it is communicated have been raised (rather even-handedly I think). I just want to thank you for your efforts. Humans don't "correct" well in most cases; we over-center and pendulum and oscillate. I'm hopeful that we'll get at some point to a better answer for agreeing on how to trust sources of information, so that even as we debate interpretation and reaction, we can agree on the underlying facts to a greater extent.

Jesse Ransom said:

In reply to tuna55 :

I don't really have anything to add since the issues of low trust on many fronts and that of information and how it is communicated have been raised (rather even-handedly I think). I just want to thank you for your efforts. Humans don't "correct" well in most cases; we over-center and pendulum and oscillate. I'm hopeful that we'll get at some point to a better answer for agreeing on how to trust sources of information, so that even as we debate interpretation and reaction, we can agree on the underlying facts to a greater extent.

Thanks, dude! I figure the best thing I can do is teach my children not to act like petulant children. The problem is that bright now they're literally petulant children.

Seriously though, I try to teach them to think and to act in a responsible and loving way towards those around them.

tuna55 said:

 

...I have some data, but there is more to find. Definitely comorbidities make things worse, but the thing is that tends to make people blase. A whole lot of people have diabetes, for instance, or asthma, or hypertension, which are leading comorbidity fatalities. That doesn't mean anything really in terms of how to react. Shouldn't we care about those people too?

Absolutely not saying that.  I am concerned with the focus.   If Miata's have a know fire risk when started hot, would you restrict all cars from starting hot, or would you specifically recall / restrict Miata's?

Some answers I found: Basic, from these, is that the Omicron strain seems to care less about co-morbidities, although it seemed to be a big factor in earlier strains (although it should be noted the study listed was not specifically looking at the co-morbidity issue, more the risk of death.)

Results: The risk of covid-19 death was 66% lower (95% confidence interval 54% to 75%) for omicron BA.1 compared with delta after adjusting for a wide range of potential confounders. The reduction in the risk of covid-19 death for omicron compared with delta was more pronounced in people aged 18-59 years (number of deaths: delta=46, omicron=11; hazard ratio 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.27) than in those aged ≥70 years (number of deaths: delta=113, omicron=135; hazard ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.61, P<0.0001). No evidence of a difference in risk was found between variant and number of comorbidities.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35918098/

The most common comorbidities that are identified in hospitalized COVID-19 patients include obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, along with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Cancer, chronic kidney disease, and immune disorders have also been implicated with severe infections.

There remains contradictory information on the extent to which a specific comorbidity increases the risk of severe COVID-19. Further research is also needed to determine how the previous immune status of an individual can determine their response to COVID-19.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220620/How-specific-comorbidities-impact-severity-of-COVID-19.aspx

tuna55 said:

Russian Warship, Go Berkeley Yourself said:

What is that thing that AngryCorvair is so fond of saying lately?

Now see, that's pretty unhelpful. Nothing in there is political, and no opinions were dismissed (unless you're a flat earther I suppose).

i think he means "IBTL", and i'm sad to say that the first thing i thought when i saw the thread title was indeed "IBTL".  and it has nothing to do with either of you.  it's me (1) trying to be funny while (2) expressing my disappointment that, no, we can't.

but he could mean something else.  i'm fond of saying lots of things.

tuna55 said:

If Fauci had said "Please don't buy masks yet, we need them for healthcare workers" It would be totally legit.

I think trust falls away here because this original message seems like a calculated decision. "We know you should be wearing masks; but we're hoping if we tell you not to, that you won't" over a "We're telling you this because we think it's correct right now." 

I am only going to touch on one small portion of this topic because it'll turn into a E36 M3 show if I go in depth. There's a lot of misinformation STILL on this but I no longer care to try and correct it. People believe what they want to believe and if it supports that belief they're all in.

What I will say is that there were many deaths that could have been prevented with just minimal guidance on what to do post infection. I understand that March 2020 they didn't know what was going on, hell to the point that it wasn't in the US (which we learned was a lie, shown to have been present as early as late October 2019). So I am not surprised we didn't have effective treatment at that time. Hell, I didn't even know that is what it was at the time. I knew it f'n sucked and knocked me on my ass for 2 full weeks and was fatigued for a month after that. 

But by December 2021? There were home remedies to help lessen the effects. The standard things one does for a flu was even more important for this. Certain vitamin supplements helped with the symptoms, and to stay hydrated. At one point, the #1 reason people were being admitted for covid was dehydration. But none of this information was provided by the CDC nor dept of health. What was their recommendations if you were infected? Stay home.Go to the hospital in symptoms get worse. Thats it. Now they offer a drug you can take to help with symptoms and still mention none of the other things to do. I'm not even talking about the potential other ots drugs that people were trying (HoRsEPaStE!). Just simple take your vitamin C, D3 and Zinc, drink gatorade or other fluids to stay hydrated and rest. 

The way we as a society have treated one another over this topic is absolutely disgusting. So with this, I am out. I am so over this topic at this time and disgusted with society as a whole I literally can no longer discuss it anymore. 

Russian Warship, Go Berkeley Yourself said:

What is that thing that AngryCorvair is so fond of saying lately?

In before the lock?

Russian Warship, Go Berkeley Yourself said:

What is that thing that AngryCorvair is so fond of saying lately?

"I'm literally insane"?

tuna55 said:

 

Again, why would one just assume that the data is lying at the first glance?

I have a good friend in the ICU as a nurse. She can attest to the general trends based on her own personal observations. She's held a tablet up for many dying patients so they could talk to their family one last time.

It's already been said in this thread..."authorities" flip flop on positions or get caught misleading the public and thus lose their credibility.  Going back to the "no mask, yes mask, no mask, now double mask" discussions, IF leaders had said outright to not purchase masks because healthcare workers needed them, then I am 100% on board.  But instead, they said "oh, masks don't work, so don't buy them"..."oh wait, yeah they do"...why would I trust anything they say in the future?  

There are documented cases of hospital officials stating that they need to juice the numbers of COVID patients so everyone will be concerned and get vaccinated.  Fool me once, shame on you...  

You cannot blame the public for doubting public health officials and politicians when they have been caught misleading the public or violating their own directives.  

The very first death WITH Covid at the hospital in the next county was a man with stage 4 lung cancer who happened to get it while in the hospital.  He was there literally 12 hours, contracted it, and died 6 hours later.  Now did Covid do that (being the straw that broke the camel's back) or was it just incredibly poor timing?  A close friend lost his mother (who lived in Alaska) in late January of 2020 due to aggressive breast cancer.  When they were finalizing the death certificate, he was asked if they could list Covid as the cause of death, even though she had not been tested for it before she passed and she had no exposure or symptoms.  

Now I have 3 good examples of questionable reporting on Covid from hospital officials...why should I trust everything they say?  

Like I said earlier...probably not.  

iansane said:

tuna55 said:

If Fauci had said "Please don't buy masks yet, we need them for healthcare workers" It would be totally legit.

I think trust falls away here because this original message seems like a calculated decision. "We know you should be wearing masks; but we're hoping if we tell you not to, that you won't" over a "We're telling you this because we think it's correct right now." 

Both statements were true at points in time.  The second statement was absolutely true initially.  

Everyone seems to forget the early obsession with how long the virus lived on surfaces.  I recall reading a letter from a doctor in Italy (who were hit early and hard) that discussed it.  Touch was thought to be the primary method of exposure at the beginning.  My own company has 20 epidemiologists on staff and our CTO has an MD.  At our first COVID all-hands meeting in early March 2020 when they told us to go home, his comment on masks was "well, they might help prevent you from touching your face".

jmabarone said:

tuna55 said:

 

Again, why would one just assume that the data is lying at the first glance?

I have a good friend in the ICU as a nurse. She can attest to the general trends based on her own personal observations. She's held a tablet up for many dying patients so they could talk to their family one last time.

It's already been said in this thread..."authorities" flip flop on positions or get caught misleading the public and thus lose their credibility.  Going back to the "no mask, yes mask, no mask, now double mask" discussions, IF leaders had said outright to not purchase masks because healthcare workers needed them, then I am 100% on board.  But instead, they said "oh, masks don't work, so don't buy them"..."oh wait, yeah they do"...why would I trust anything they say in the future?  

There are documented cases of hospital officials stating that they need to juice the numbers of COVID patients so everyone will be concerned and get vaccinated.  Fool me once, shame on you...  

You cannot blame the public for doubting public health officials and politicians when they have been caught misleading the public or violating their own directives.  

The very first death WITH Covid at the hospital in the next county was a man with stage 4 lung cancer who happened to get it while in the hospital.  He was there literally 12 hours, contracted it, and died 6 hours later.  Now did Covid do that (being the straw that broke the camel's back) or was it just incredibly poor timing?  A close friend lost his mother (who lived in Alaska) in late January of 2020 due to aggressive breast cancer.  When they were finalizing the death certificate, he was asked if they could list Covid as the cause of death, even though she had not been tested for it before she passed and she had no exposure or symptoms.  

Now I have 3 good examples of questionable reporting on Covid from hospital officials...why should I trust everything they say?  

Like I said earlier...probably not.  

Sure, you have evidence now that everyone screws up.

So why does that equate to "Distrust anything anyone other than Alex Jones says" - which is where a friend of mine ended up instead of :: Let's get down to the actual data and parse through this little by little :: which is what I chose to do. 

mfennell said:

iansane said:

tuna55 said:

If Fauci had said "Please don't buy masks yet, we need them for healthcare workers" It would be totally legit.

I think trust falls away here because this original message seems like a calculated decision. "We know you should be wearing masks; but we're hoping if we tell you not to, that you won't" over a "We're telling you this because we think it's correct right now." 

Both statements were true at points in time.  The second statement was absolutely true initially.  

Everyone seems to forget the early obsession with how long the virus lived on surfaces.  I recall reading a letter from a doctor in Italy (who were hit early and hard) that discussed it.  Touch was thought to be the primary method of exposure at the beginning.  My own company has 20 epidemiologists on staff and our CTO has an MD.  At our first COVID all-hands meeting in early March 2020 when they told us to go home, his comment on masks was "well, they might help prevent you from touching your face".

I do remember that! There is a certain part of this which is baked in with seeing the sausage made. It's disgusting to watch, but everyone loves to eat sausage. It's totally expected and normal that theories get bandied about and tossed out and reformulated. I expect that. Even as an engineer (and not a doctor) I see that all the time at work. I don't know why this surprises people. With a novel disease, we're going to get some things wrong from time to time. What's weird is that people cling stubbornly to certain points in the sausage making and declare that ultimate truth. People still have chicken pox parties because they haven't unlearned that awful 80s mentality, for instance.