To Mask or Not to Mask?

[churchmouse]

No, it's certainly not all the fault of the government response, I'd argue that the media encouraged panic for political gain had as great or greater role in the economic problems than the actual government response in most cases, especially here in Indiana. Economic disruptions caused by the actual pandemic are a distant third in my opinion.


On another note this song seems apropos...
[video=youtube;gtAK1xCZ_8I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtAK1xCZ_8I[/video]

And we have a winner.

I have lived through several epidemics of the flu/influenza call them what you will. Sars...????? and I survived Cancer when they gave me a time clock to run out.

The economy chugged right along so I call Bull.........Bravo Sierra.

 

[jamil]

I don't know the specifics of your situation and you have every right to be angry.

I did not mean to imply businesses are not suffering.

My point was (rather) that a pandemic itself is going to be a big contributor to economic problems without shutdowns. It's not all the fault of the government mitigation actions.

That’s a good way to say it. Even if there were no shutdown, many people would have canceled appointments, foregone projects, skipped the usual Friday night out, avoided theaters, airlines, vacations. For example we were going to build a 2nd garage this spring but decided not to because of the uncertainty. That’s business that some contractor would have gotten. But, they’ll likely get it next year.

It’s not *all* and probably not close to all. It’s fair to say that without shutting business down many businesses would have gone under anyway, especially businesses that deal with large gatherings of people. The hospitality industry, transportation, were gonna get screwed regardless. Just a bad time to be in those businesses. But other businesses that are dead now would have been fine. Degraded yes, dead, no. So to the extent that’s all true, if it still makes your point, it’s a fair point. I just don’t remember what the point was.

 

[Ingomike]

Man this is getting a bit twisted.

I know that personally my business is absolutely dead in the water thank you very much. We had projects set up out to this month and they all canceled when the idiots shut down the world for what...????

We are dead. NADA. I am pissed. My help is pissed. And for what. Show me the bodies. Show me the terribly effected children. Show me the non-manipulated statistics. Show Fauci the door with a big boot in his tiny little ass.

I don't know the specifics of your situation and you have every right to be angry.

I did not mean to imply businesses are not suffering.

My point was (rather) that a pandemic itself is going to be a big contributor to economic problems without shutdowns. It's not all the fault of the government mitigation actions.

Can we all agree this thing, C-19, is real and here? Can we agree that puny humans can do nothing to stop it? Can we agree the best humans can do right now is delay the spread?

I have said repeatedly that the majority of us will get this until such time as herd immunity is reached. We almost all will have to deal with this, short of a vaccine. (Been over 40 years and trillions of dollars but we still have no HIV vaccination.) Most of us will never know they had it, many will think they have a cold or flu, a few will get very sick and recover, while a very few will die. If this is wrong, I ask HoosierDoc to correct my errors.

Our country used to be just filled with bold risk takers, the type that crossed dangerous seas to a largely unknown for a chance to work at a new life, our neighbors form the south didn't just lay there, the found their way here, took a bold risk to get to America. Many of those folks understand what I wrote about the virus and just want to rip the bandage off and resume life as best we can. Others seem to want to shutdown, lockdown, and restrict businesses, and the people from providing for their families.

I get it, it is a tougher choice for some than others. What choice? Shutdowns and lockdowns trying to hide vs. ripping the bandage off, taking our lumps and getting on with it. Neither is right or wrong but rather a difference in how people process problems. Again, we are all going to have to deal with this, the only reason I can support shutdowns is to delay enough to not overwhelm healthcare. We did that. May have to adjust if that changes.

In in looking at the people that support shutdowns and lockdowns, many are those that are enjoying working from home, being with their dog, living a comfortable life as they are still employed. Some are very scared illogically as they would have little risk but the media scared them, and some are at risk, mostly retired or on assistance, but don't want the rest of the world to move on while they have to hunker down to protect themselves.

Those against shutdowns and lockdowns are generally small business, folks that need their jobs to feed their families and pay their bills. People that cannot get paid hiding in the house watching CNN. They need to move about unfettered and have customers that they can do business with.

It all distills down to the fact that many believe we are "saving lives" when in fact we are only delaying the battle with the virus. There is little humans can do to change the death rate. So is delaying the battles worth the damage inflicted on families and small businesses and their employees?

So the above is my logic side. The following is my political side.

The majority of the shutdowns and lockdowns would never have taken place without social media stoked by media. A political advantage was seen in C-19 and it was exploited to take down Trump. If this was not an election year this would have been different. The democrats needed to slow the economy, several are on record saying so. The shutdowns and lockdowns have greater affect on Trump small business supporters than big businesses. Mail in voting is what I suspect this prolonged overreaction is all about, so one activist can go to a group home or nursing home and produce 20-30 votes a day. Those can make a big difference in a close state like Pennsylvania or Michigan.

Thanks for for reading this far and thinking about others that are being hurt by this...

 

[dusty88]

Can we all agree this thing, C-19, is real and here? Can we agree that puny humans can do nothing to stop it? Can we agree the best humans can do right now is delay the spread?

I have said repeatedly that the majority of us will get this until such time as herd immunity is reached. We almost all will have to deal with this, short of a vaccine. (Been over 40 years and trillions of dollars but we still have no HIV vaccination.) Most of us will never know they had it, many will think they have a cold or flu, a few will get very sick and recover, while a very few will die. If this is wrong, I ask HoosierDoc to correct my errors.

Our country used to be just filled with bold risk takers, the type that crossed dangerous seas to a largely unknown for a chance to work at a new life, our neighbors form the south didn't just lay there, the found their way here, took a bold risk to get to America. Many of those folks understand what I wrote about the virus and just want to rip the bandage off and resume life as best we can. Others seem to want to shutdown, lockdown, and restrict businesses, and the people from providing for their families.

I get it, it is a tougher choice for some than others. What choice? Shutdowns and lockdowns trying to hide vs. ripping the bandage off, taking our lumps and getting on with it. Neither is right or wrong but rather a difference in how people process problems. Again, we are all going to have to deal with this, the only reason I can support shutdowns is to delay enough to not overwhelm healthcare. We did that. May have to adjust if that changes.

In in looking at the people that support shutdowns and lockdowns, many are those that are enjoying working from home, being with their dog, living a comfortable life as they are still employed. Some are very scared illogically as they would have little risk but the media scared them, and some are at risk, mostly retired or on assistance, but don't want the rest of the world to move on while they have to hunker down to protect themselves.

Those against shutdowns and lockdowns are generally small business, folks that need their jobs to feed their families and pay their bills. People that cannot get paid hiding in the house watching CNN. They need to move about unfettered and have customers that they can do business with.

It all distills down to the fact that many believe we are "saving lives" when in fact we are only delaying the battle with the virus. There is little humans can do to change the death rate. So is delaying the battles worth the damage inflicted on families and small businesses and their employees?

So the above is my logic side. The following is my political side.

The majority of the shutdowns and lockdowns would never have taken place without social media stoked by media. A political advantage was seen in C-19 and it was exploited to take down Trump. If this was not an election year this would have been different. The democrats needed to slow the economy, several are on record saying so. The shutdowns and lockdowns have greater affect on Trump small business supporters than big businesses. Mail in voting is what I suspect this prolonged overreaction is all about, so one activist can go to a group home or nursing home and produce 20-30 votes a day. Those can make a big difference in a close state like Pennsylvania or Michigan.

Thanks for for reading this far and thinking about others that are being hurt by this...

Thanks for a thoughtful post Mike.

I've been assumed to support shutdowns when in reality I've never taken a specific position. I've simply said that I think it's rational and constitutional for a government to control disease spread and that disease spread is a situation where personal rights conflict. I may be influenced by a background in epidemiology and controlling disease spread.
There is no rational way to do that for a highly-contagious disease without some structured community plan. For me, discussing "what to do" falls within those boundaries. And then it gets really hard because we obviously don't shut down for a cold but we obviously would for zombie apocalypse. I do think Indiana is at least being transparent with data and patterns. And to that end, I expect that today's presser will highlight the concerning uptick and what we might be doing next. Anyway, we don't get into that conversation here about weighing risks because the conversation tends to be the debate about whether the government has the right to do any of it.

As for the bolded part, if this is about taking down Trump, why do you think guys like Abbott (Texas) and Reeves (Mississippi) are reversing their positions?

I do disagree with one thing you said: that we are only delaying the loss of life. In addition to maintaining a level where hospital workers can do their best, we have already learned a lot about treatment and will likely keep learning more. It's a lot better to have a disease after the medical community has had months of experience with it than in the beginning.

 

[Ingomike]

Thanks for a thoughtful post Mike.

I've been assumed to support shutdowns when in reality I've never taken a specific position. I've simply said that I think it's rational and constitutional for a government to control disease spread and that disease spread is a situation where personal rights conflict. I may be influenced by a background in epidemiology and controlling disease spread.
There is no rational way to do that for a highly-contagious disease without some structured community plan. For me, discussing "what to do" falls within those boundaries. And then it gets really hard because we obviously don't shut down for a cold but we obviously would for zombie apocalypse. I do think Indiana is at least being transparent with data and patterns. And to that end, I expect that today's presser will highlight the concerning uptick and what we might be doing next. Anyway, we don't get into that conversation here about weighing risks because the conversation tends to be the debate about whether the government has the right to do any of it.

As for the bolded part, if this is about taking down Trump, why do you think guys like Abbott (Texas) and Reeves (Mississippi) are reversing their positions?

I do disagree with one thing you said: that we are only delaying the loss of life. In addition to maintaining a level where hospital workers can do their best, we have already learned a lot about treatment and will likely keep learning more. It's a lot better to have a disease after the medical community has had months of experience with it than in the beginning.

Good questions...

To your question about the governors, they are under immense political pressure since the media switched from the failed death counts of March and April to case counts that were always going to exist. (Remember we are all likely to get it somehow.). With the first wave the weakest and most vulnerable succumbed, and each additional wave will generate fewer and fewer deaths as there are fewer vulnerable. So case counts it is for sensationalism media and political pressure.

I agree that healthcare went through a learning curve and learned to deal with it better but further gains will be far slower and likely less impactful to the death rate. So while I can agree with your statement I doubt it will be statistically significant in the long run. Then that statistic must be looked at through the prism of ancillary damage done to others lives to achieve it.

 

[BugI02]

This is an example of what I was talking about in that long post. You’re saying they’re saying that it’s zero, while asserting yourself that it’s all. A reasonable belief about how much impact not shutting everything down would have had would be that it would have had some impact. Perhaps even a lot of impact. But you’re asserting in a sort of guarded way, by saying “you don’t know if it wouldn’t have had the same impact,” that it would have had the same. I don’t think people are saying it would have had zero impact. And I don’t think they’re advocating that we should have done nothing. The all or nothing accusations makes me think you’re frustrated because you can’t get them to see your reason. And you can’t. And you can’t see theirs either. This is how these kinds of conversations eventually infuse a lack of thought into understanding the other. Frustration on both sides make you resolve that they’re saying things they aren’t saying.

I’ve been involved in these coronavirus threads since it started. I’ve argued various points with the same people. I’ve agreed with some of the points they make as well. With some exceptions of a very few people suggesting that it’s all a hoax or whatever, no one has said that we should all just just ignore it. In fact, Doc came the closest to representing the majority position here, which is essentially, live your life. If you’re vulnerable stay isolated. If you have it. Stay isolated. That’s not representative of my own thoughts. But it pretty succinctly represents theirs from the various points they’ve raised. That’s not ignoring it. It’s another policy suggestion. If you disagree with that, stop arguing against ignoring it. Argue with that. And also don’t take it that they don’t care as much as you do.

Let me ask you this: if you were able to get them to understand every point you’re making exactly the way you understand it, and they still disagree with you, is that okay, and would that make you think they don’t care?

Nice post. IMO it only left out mention of what I call 'Coronavirus Change', the starting from the belief that 'the science is settled', that they have perfect understanding of the science and of course any moral, right thinking person should agree with their interpretations

It is no less annoying when someone does it on INGO than it is when Thunberg does it

 

[BugI02]

https://youtu.be/GbfiqxDgOZ0

Turns out I was right about Fauci and masks. I’ve said since his statement about masks back in March that he lied to the public to get them to stop buying up the masks. He admits it to congress. That mother****er is just too willing to manipulate circumstances. A ****ing schemer. He believed then that people wearing masks would retard the spread but lied to us and said they wouldn’t.

That said, when you’re out and about and find yourself in close proximity to people, maybe consider wearing a mask. I’ll probably start wearing one more often. I think I want a new one. Something that makes a political statement. Maybe an image of the commie fist modified to be a middle finger back at them.

Redbubble, among many others (thousands, really), has ones printed with the ChiCom flag. Not sure about the choice of fabrics, though

I saw one where a woman mapped her photo to the mask and made one that just looks like her face would w/o a mask

 

[two70]

I'm sure this is just a coincidence:

“Countless labs have reported a 100 percent positivity rate, which means every single person tested was positive,” Fox 35 News reported Tuesday. “Other labs had very high positivity rates.”

 

[two70]

And we have a winner.

I have lived through several epidemics of the flu/influenza call them what you will. Sars...????? and I survived Cancer when they gave me a time clock to run out.

The economy chugged right along so I call Bull.........Bravo Sierra.

The only real economic disruption directly related to the pandemic itself that I'm aware of was that of a handful of meat processing facilities, which had a brief spike and then quickly returned to normal. A few facilities, in one industry, among all the businesses deemed essential and that was it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

https://youtu.be/GbfiqxDgOZ0

Turns out I was right about Fauci and masks. I’ve said since his statement about masks back in March that he lied to the public to get them to stop buying up the masks. He admits it to congress. That mother****er is just too willing to manipulate circumstances. A ****ing schemer. He believed then that people wearing masks would retard the spread but lied to us and said they wouldn’t.

That said, when you’re out and about and find yourself in close proximity to people, maybe consider wearing a mask. I’ll probably start wearing one more often. I think I want a new one. Something that makes a political statement. Maybe an image of the commie fist modified to be a middle finger back at them.

When you try it on, make sure you check it out to make sure you like it before you buy it.

 

[BugI02]

Thank you. I see your point that when arguments continue it begins to look like both sides are arguing a strawman (the extreme view rather than the differences).
To be clear, my position on economic effects is that we would have significant ones from a pandemic regardless of what the government did and we'll never be able to fully separate the effects of the two.


Also to clarify : I don't think the problem is most people "not caring". What I see are the same people who had the position in March that this was "like the flu" continue to take every position that supports that original position. That's cognitive dissonance. I know I've participated in cognitive dissonance before in other issues. I try to check myself when I see signs of it, but I'm sure I still do it on some level.

When it comes to "we should isolate the vulnerable" I have seen few with that position who modify it when faced with realities. FWIW, my husband was one who has modified from that position and it's not like he's easily swayed by me. (we disagree on plenty of things ).
He saw that idea falls flat when you have high community transmission, and anyone who is paying attention should be able to see that by now. When you have high transmission the virus easily creeps into all healthcare settings which is exactly where the vulnerable have to go frequently. The protection of healthcare settings and group homes becomes further impossible because those same areas run behind on test results. How does someone answer that problem and still hold the position that "people who are worried should just stay home"?

Also, in spite of conversations here the past few days, I've gained no empathy into the viewpoint of refusal to wear masks. If it helps even a small %, it helps keep the economy open. So it's counterproductive to refuse. If it's the "we have to resist government force" at least pick something useful. Maybe my perspective here is colored by the way I live life. I've participated in high risk sports but have always felt I can do so while taking precautions. And as a woman, maybe those are more comfortable than it is for men? When full-face skydiving helmets first became a thing (prior to that it was just leather hats, or no helmets at all) I was the first to get one in this area and got some sideways looks for it. Same with snow skiing: I was the first in my group to put on a helmet. Anyway, I'm trying to understand this mentality and still haven't seen a good enough explanation that justifies not making an attempt to contribute to reducing disease transmission.

This article in the Atlantic discusses cognitive dissonance in regards to the pandemic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/role-cognitive-dissonance-pandemic/614074/

If I recall correctly, many people here blamed the Democrat governors for their more extreme stances with shutdowns earlier in the pandemic. What do those people think now that Abbott in Texas closed bars and put out a statewide mask mandate? Unfortunately I can't remember everyone's positions with enough certainty but if there is a volunteer who had that political view I would really like to hear what their new perspective is.

I see Texas with 2.6% of the total US deaths where NY has 23.2% despite Texas having 49% greater population. I see Texas had a steady baseline of around 1500 to 2000 new cases per day steadily from opening (April 27th, I believe) until the beginning of the third week of June. In the third week of June the new case rate went to about 4000, ~6000 one week later, ~8000 the first week of July and ~10000 currently. Source is TXDSHS and they don't report rates of testing. While it is difficult to sort out any effects of any increase in rate of testing, what I do see is the spike in case rate begins 7 weeks after opening but only 3 weeks after mass protests began - for a disease known to take, on average, 4 to 7 days to display symptoms and with the trajectory of either hospitalization or recovery established by 11 to 14 days. I further see that some wish to blame the spike in cases on re-opening when the numbers and timing should point to another conclusion and I think that's the epitome of an agenda

 

[BugI02]

That’s a good way to say it. Even if there were no shutdown, many people would have canceled appointments, foregone projects, skipped the usual Friday night out, avoided theaters, airlines, vacations. For example we were going to build a 2nd garage this spring but decided not to because of the uncertainty. That’s business that some contractor would have gotten. But, they’ll likely get it next year.

It’s not *all* and probably not close to all. It’s fair to say that without shutting business down many businesses would have gone under anyway, especially businesses that deal with large gatherings of people. The hospitality industry, transportation, were gonna get screwed regardless. Just a bad time to be in those businesses. But other businesses that are dead now would have been fine. Degraded yes, dead, no. So to the extent that’s all true, if it still makes your point, it’s a fair point. I just don’t remember what the point was.

But I think the crux is, was that damage to business necessary, and that speaks directly to the question of whether the shut-downs were necessary - and right or wrong, a fair number of people do not think they were necessary. I am aware of some states even shutting down landscaping businesses even though one or two guys mowing and trimming your lawn outside, away from anybody else doesn't seem such a risky endeavor. Much of it seems like knee-jerk gotta do something by politicians in order to try to dodge the blame for anything. And some of them, like Witchmer seem to revel in the damage they're doing

 

[Tombs]

That’s a good way to say it. Even if there were no shutdown, many people would have canceled appointments, foregone projects, skipped the usual Friday night out, avoided theaters, airlines, vacations. For example we were going to build a 2nd garage this spring but decided not to because of the uncertainty. That’s business that some contractor would have gotten. But, they’ll likely get it next year.

It’s not *all* and probably not close to all. It’s fair to say that without shutting business down many businesses would have gone under anyway, especially businesses that deal with large gatherings of people. The hospitality industry, transportation, were gonna get screwed regardless. Just a bad time to be in those businesses. But other businesses that are dead now would have been fine. Degraded yes, dead, no. So to the extent that’s all true, if it still makes your point, it’s a fair point. I just don’t remember what the point was.

This could all wrap up in a few months and be forgotten, but I don't believe that is likely in the cards.

If it doesn't wrap up soon, I don't see people financially extending themselves any time soon, certainly not in a year's time.

If anything, we'll see another lockdown before we see people frivolously blowing large sums of money on unnecessary things. This whole affair has to be altering people's psyche to a certain extent, which is very bad news for many of these businesses that almost entirely rely on such things. I'd wager that the only ones able to sit comfortably are repair businesses.

 

[dusty88]

Nice post. IMO it only left out mention of what I call 'Coronavirus Change', the starting from the belief that 'the science is settled', that they have perfect understanding of the science and of course any moral, right thinking person should agree with their interpretations

It is no less annoying when someone does it on INGO than it is when Thunberg does it

You might appreciate Dr Michael Osterholm from U of Minnesota. They put out a weekly podcast. I like his balance and emphasis on "what is unknown" and the reality that we have to deal with what we know and what we don't

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/podcasts-webinars

 

[jamil]

I get it, it is a tougher choice for some than others. What choice? Shutdowns and lockdowns trying to hide vs. ripping the bandage off, taking our lumps and getting on with it. Neither is right or wrong but rather a difference in how people process problems. Again, we are all going to have to deal with this, the only reason I can support shutdowns is to delay enough to not overwhelm healthcare. We did that. May have to adjust if that changes.

It all distills down to the fact that many believe we are "saving lives" when in fact we are only delaying the battle with the virus. There is little humans can do to change the death rate. So is delaying the battles worth the damage inflicted on families and small businesses and their employees?

Good post. About the idea that humans can't do much to change the death rate, I don't think that's correct. For example, I don't think GFGT would mind of I cross post this:

https://m.jpost.com/health-science/...-eradicate-covid-19-from-lungs-in-days-635028

As such, Nahmias and tenOever spent the last three months studying what SARS-CoV-2 is doing to human lung cells. What they found is that the novel coronavirus prevents the routine burning of carbohydrates, which results in large amounts of fat accumulating inside lung cells – a condition the virus needs to reproduce.
“By understanding how the SARS-CoV-2 controls our metabolism, we can wrestle back control from the virus and deprive it from the very resources it needs to survive,” Nahmias said, noting that it also may help explain why patients with high blood sugar and cholesterol levels are often at a particularly high risk to develop COVID-19.

One thing that delaying the battle does, it allows researchers to find better ways to fight it. Fewer people getting it now means if/when they get it later, they may have a much better chance of surviving it.

That said, I don't think we have to shut everything down to get that delay. Maybe just get the young people to take it more seriously. I keep hearing from media that oh, it's those knuckle dragging rubes who refuse to wear masks causing the uptick. Well, first, maybe the uptick isn't as bad as reported if the misreporting like what happened in FL is widespread and more than just in FL. Second, it's the young people this time around that are primarily getting covid and I'm pretty sure the majority of those are not conservatives or Republicans.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

ACS Nano - American Chemical Society - Nanoscience:
Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks

Study in April edition:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252

With corrections/errata in June:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c04676


Short version, multi-layer cloth masks work ok but need to fit , so that you breath through the mask, not around it.

 

[BugI02]

[snip]
It all distills down to the fact that many believe we are "saving lives" when in fact we are only delaying the battle with the virus. There is little humans can do to change the death rate. So is delaying the battles worth the damage inflicted on families and small businesses and their employees?

Dr Robert Katz, founding director of the Yale‐Griffin Prevention Research Center, observed that by flattening the curve “you don't prevent deaths, you just change the dates.”

*.*

 

[Ingomike]

Good post. About the idea that humans can't do much to change the death rate, I don't think that's correct. For example, I don't think GFGT would mind of I cross post this:



One thing that delaying the battle does, it allows researchers to find better ways to fight it. Fewer people getting it now means if/when they get it later, they may have a much better chance of surviving it.

That said, I don't think we have to shut everything down to get that delay. Maybe just get the young people to take it more seriously. I keep hearing from media that oh, it's those knuckle dragging rubes who refuse to wear masks causing the uptick. Well, first, maybe the uptick isn't as bad as reported if the misreporting like what happened in FL is widespread and more than just in FL. Second, it's the young people this time around that are primarily getting covid and I'm pretty sure the majority of those are not conservatives or Republicans.

You just have a far more optimistic outlook on science curing this and that these small changes will add up to a better outcome overall when the carnage done to business and families is tallied. Seems few want to talk about that, it doesn't fit their narrative...

 

[BugI02]

You just have a far more optimistic outlook on science curing this and that these small changes will add up to a better outcome overall when the carnage done to business and families is tallied. Seems few want to talk about that, it doesn't fit their narrative...

I don't think the left is all that worried about the carnage done to business and families being tallied. The goal is to push Biden across the finish line; then the green terror, reparations, more new and onerous regulations and high rates of taxation will be so awful the depredations of lockdowns will be thought of as the good old days

 

[dusty88]

You just have a far more optimistic outlook on science curing this and that these small changes will add up to a better outcome overall when the carnage done to business and families is tallied. Seems few want to talk about that, it doesn't fit their narrative...

I don't think it's possible to determine with any accuracy how the economy would look without virus mitigation. It's bad either way, IMO

I think a healthy economy should bounce back from a temporary issue, but we didn't have a healthy economy. We had a debt-based economy. That's not directed at Trump. That's something we've been building for a few decades. Something was going to prick that debt bubble. That doesn't really change the debate of which economic effects are worse, but to me it's a bigger issue for the long run.