This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II

[Peelee]

That's great! Which health authority?

WHO and CDC are typically both fairly reliable.

If two healthy authorities disagree which do you pick?

"Disagree" is an interesting term here. It won't be "one says black, one says white" polar disagreement. It will be more along theines of, for example, one says to wear a mask in public at all times while another says only to do so if you are taking care of an infirm relative, the reasoning for which is based on global concerns (the one recommending all times might be in an area where masks are readily available and in good supply, while this may not be true for other areas that the second authority is concerned with). All authorities could ignore practicalities and probably agree quite easily, but they consider practicalities in their recommendations, and I believe you were interested in practicalities concerning these things.

So, to answer, whichever one applied more to my situation (eg if I was in a place where maslsneere plentiful and available, the "mask at all times" authority, while if I was in a place where a run on masks might create a shortage for medical personnel who have a significantly greater need of them, then I would go with the "only if caring for an infirm relative" authority. I think you would admire such practicality.

How do you know which one hasn't been paid off or is being intimidated by the local authorities?

How do you know the information you look up online hasn't been paid off or is being influenced by local (or even non-local) authorities (or even non-authorities who simply have money, influence, or even simply a glut of free time and an agenda and the desire to spread misinformation)?

All other things being equal, I'm going to go with people who dedicated their lives to knowing about these things than people who have not.

Do you prefer the WHO or CDCs statements?

Typically CDC, since they are concerned with the country I live in while the WHO has global considerations, but of course this also depends on if a different authority than the CDC gives recommendations that are more practical.

Unless, of course, you believe that a random person with a computer is better at preventing disease and illness than the overall medical community. My only request for those who believe this is that they do not bother to tie up the time of those doctors so that the people who do not hold such beliefs can have easier access to the doctors.

[Tvtyrant]

WHO and CDC are typically both fairly reliable.

"Disagree" is an interesting term here. It won't be "one says black, one says white" polar disagreement. It will be more along theines of, for example, one says to wear a mask in public at all times while another says only to do so if you are taking care of an infirm relative, the reasoning for which is based on global concerns (the one recommending all times might be in an area where masks are readily available and in good supply, while this may not be true for other areas that the second authority is concerned with). All authorities could ignore practicalities and probably agree quite easily, but they consider practicalities in their recommendations, and I believe you were interested in practicalities concerning these things.

So, to answer, whichever one applied more to my situation (eg if I was in a place where maslsneere plentiful and available, the "mask at all times" authority, while if I was in a place where a run on masks might create a shortage for medical personnel who have a significantly greater need of them, then I would go with the "only if caring for an infirm relative" authority. I think you would admire such practicality.

How do you know the information you look up online hasn't been paid off or is being influenced by local (or even non-local) authorities (or even non-authorities who simply have money, influence, or even simply a glut of free time and an agenda and the desire to spread misinformation)?

All other things being equal, I'm going to go with people who dedicated their lives to knowing about these things than people who have not.

Typically CDC, since they are concerned with the country I live in while the WHO has global considerations, but of course this also depends on if a different authority than the CDC gives recommendations that are more practical.

Unless, of course, you believe that a random person with a computer is better at preventing disease and illness than the overall medical community. My only request for those who believe this is that they do not bother to tie up the time of those doctors so that the people who do not hold such beliefs can have easier access to the doctors.

I doubt most people really believe that last one. I'm trying hard not to return snarky comments because I don't think it helps.

My basic point was against this "I suspect people who try to educate themselves about the pandemic and make decisions accordingly actually make worse decisions with respect to it than those who simply follow the advice from whatever health authority there is in their country. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Which even in your point argument you would require information to be able to make a choice. I don't want to get into a fight about medicine's historical issues, so I'll retract that and just move along.

[Peelee]

I doubt most people really believe that last one. I'm trying hard not to return snarky comments because I don't think it helps.

My basic point was against this "I suspect people who try to educate themselves about the pandemic and make decisions accordingly actually make worse decisions with respect to it than those who simply follow the advice from whatever health authority there is in their country. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Which even in your point argument you would require information to be able to make a choice. I don't want to get into a fight about medicine's historical issues, so I'll retract that and just move along.

I understand. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who aim they "educate themselves" are not referring to making reasonable decisions on, for example, deciding whether to go with the WHO's or CDC's recommendations, but rather doing armchair "research" from the ground upon the internet and finding anecdotal evidence from Facebook, or sourcing bad papers from disgraced or censured former doctors, or going to straight-up propaganda sources that conform to their already-formed beliefs, or....

Where I live, there is at this moment a billboard on the interstate that says, in enormous letters, "VACCINES KILL!" with a website listed below (which I will not link to or otherwise provide, as i refuse to share such quackery). So I have a rather pointed view of the typical people who say "do your own research", and I tend to err in the side of distrust when people even begin to veer in that direction. It may well be due to my surroundings, but that's what I have to deal with on a daily basis.

[Tvtyrant]

I understand. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who aim they "educate themselves" are not referring to making reasonable decisions on, for example, deciding whether to go with the WHO's or CDC's recommendations, but rather doing armchair "research" from the ground upon the internet and finding anecdotal evidence from Facebook, or sourcing bad papers from disgraced or censured former doctors, or going to straight-up propaganda sources that conform to their already-formed beliefs, or....

Where I live, there is at this moment a billboard on the interstate that says, in enormous letters, "VACCINES KILL!" with a website listed below (which I will not link to or otherwise provide, as i refuse to share such quackery). So I have a rather pointed view of the typical people who say "do your own research", and I tend to err in the side of distrust when people even begin to veer in that direction. It may well be due to my surroundings, but that's what I have to deal with on a daily basis.

I hear you on that. We had a measles outbreak just before covid started because of the anti-vaxxer movement here, it is incredibly frustrating.

[Rater202]

I understand. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who aim they "educate themselves" are not referring to making reasonable decisions on, for example, deciding whether to go with the WHO's or CDC's recommendations, but rather doing armchair "research" from the ground upon the internet and finding anecdotal evidence from Facebook, or sourcing bad papers from disgraced or censured former doctors, or going to straight-up propaganda sources that conform to their already-formed beliefs, or....

Where I live, there is at this moment a billboard on the interstate that says, in enormous letters, "VACCINES KILL!" with a website listed below (which I will not link to or otherwise provide, as i refuse to share such quackery). So I have a rather pointed view of the typical people who say "do your own research", and I tend to err in the side of distrust when people even begin to veer in that direction. It may well be due to my surroundings, but that's what I have to deal with on a daily basis.

I hate that these people exist and I hate that people keep giving them platforms.

People are dying becuase of this quackery.

[Liquor Box]

Considering medicine's garbage track record in the past... I'm going to go with no on that. Early on experts were arguing that you needed to wash everything and masks did nothing, despite this being the opposite of Asian countries' approach.

In a wider context, western medicine has had over one hundred years of giving out counterproductive diet advice, HIV recommendations, has failed to put any effort into male birth control, the list goes on.

If you go to your doctor today they will tell you to lose weight and give you a recipe for weight gain to follow, just as an example. From a purely practical point of view what western medicine does best is triage and what it does worst is preventing disease and illness, which is exactly what we find with covid.

My point was that the experts (national health authorities) are generally going to do a better job than individuals trying to read research and figure it out themselves. Pointing out that one set of experts had a different opinion than another doesn't change the fact that experts > non-experts.

That's great! Which health authority? If two healthy authorities disagree which do you pick? How do you know which one hasn't been paid off or is being intimidated by the local authorities? Do you prefer the WHO or CDCs statements?

I'd suggest whoever is the health authority in your home country - if you are in USA that would be CDC. If you are in another country it would be someone else.

I personally got my vaccines and wear a mask indoors in public spaces, but here we had an outdoor mask mandate until November 23rd and then lifted it just in time for Holiday crowds. Eating at a restaurant without your mask has been allowed for a year despite being the dumbest of all possible policies (the viruses take a nap while we eat on an airplane I guess.)

i suggest that all relevant health authorities are aware that viruses are still communicable while we are eating (take our masks off when eating is also a policy in my country too). But it's a tradeoff they have decided to make with saving restuarants from going out of business. I think they know that the idea of people walking around in masks isn't perfect anyway, but they are trying to strike a balance between competing concerns. In my country they mitigate the risk by making diners sit a couple of meters apart from one another.

[Peelee]

My point was that the experts (national health authorities) are generally going to do a better job than individuals trying to read research and figure it out themselves. Pointing out that one set of experts had a different opinion than another doesn't change the fact that experts > non-experts.

Also agreed 100%

[NichG]

i suggest that all relevant health authorities are aware that viruses are still communicable while we are eating (take our masks off when eating is also a policy in my country too). But it's a tradeoff they have decided to make with saving restuarants from going out of business. I think they know that the idea of people walking around in masks isn't perfect anyway, but they are trying to strike a balance between competing concerns. In my country they mitigate the risk by making diners sit a couple of meters apart from one another.

This bit is the kind of thing which causes long-term problems with respect to trust. If you get an agency that says 'you can go back to eating in restaurants now' on the basis of desired economic policy, but suggests indirectly via talking up its expertise that the reason for that announcement is due to some new scientific evidence which has emerged, then that agency is ultimately taking actions which will undermine trust in science and in itself. Complaining on a forum thread isn't going to stop that kind of thing from happening at the agency level. But if people have the literacy to realize that, no, that particular recommendation didn't come from new scientific evidence about the risk, it came from a re-evaluation of priorities at the agency level, then at least they'll only blame the agency if that change in guidance causes problems for them and not blame 'science as a whole' or 'experts as a whole' or start to think that there's no such thing as facts and everything is just about who you choose to listen to.

This is not 'can a random person discern available evidence to determine facts better than a virologist', this is about incorrectly ascribing economic policy decisions to virological science.

[Liquor Box]

This bit is the kind of thing which causes long-term problems with respect to trust. If you get an agency that says 'you can go back to eating in restaurants now' on the basis of desired economic policy, but suggests indirectly via talking up its expertise that the reason for that announcement is due to some new scientific evidence which has emerged, then that agency is ultimately taking actions which will undermine trust in science and in itself. Complaining on a forum thread isn't going to stop that kind of thing from happening at the agency level. But if people have the literacy to realize that, no, that particular recommendation didn't come from new scientific evidence about the risk, it came from a re-evaluation of priorities at the agency level, then at least they'll only blame the agency if that change in guidance causes problems for them and not blame 'science as a whole' or 'experts as a whole' or start to think that there's no such thing as facts and everything is just about who you choose to listen to.

This is not 'can a random person discern available evidence to determine facts better than a virologist', this is about incorrectly ascribing economic policy decisions to virological science.

I don't know the specifics from where you are from but I'd find it surprising if a national health authority implied that there was a scientific breakthrough which meant eating people were immune to the virus. If that's an inference that people are drawing from the simple fact that you can take your masks off to eat (which I very much doubt), then I suppose a case could be made for explicitly saying that's not the case though. I also don't think the best way to dispel that sort of assumption would be read primary material.

[NichG]

I don't know the specifics from where you are from but I'd find it surprising if a national health authority implied that there was a scientific breakthrough which meant eating people were immune to the virus. If that's an inference that people are drawing from the simple fact that you can take your masks off to eat (which I very much doubt), then I suppose a case could be made for explicitly saying that's not the case though. I also don't think the best way to dispel that sort of assumption would be read primary material.

I was just using the example you were defending in conversation there, but for something concrete we can replace that with for example the early pandemic recommendation against people using N95 masks, which was motivated at least in part by a surge of mask hoarding and shortage of masks for medical workers but ended up doing a lot of damage in fueling anti-mask sentiments after that shortage period ended including leading to hospital-level policies forbidding some staff from wearing N95 masks. As public health policy, was the statement 'stop hoarding N95 masks' correct? Sure, it was creating a shortage and one mask on a health care worker probably did more good than one mask on an office worker. But the error (from the public health side) was saying it as if it were a matter of expertise, e.g. the 'stop using N95 masks, they won't help you/there's no need/it may make things worse (by making you overconfident/etc)' message.

And again, the issue isn't people not reading the primary material, it's people not knowing how scientific literature is used and what sorts of things are conclusions from evidence, versus what sorts of things indicate e.g. a fusion of evidence and policy. Even if no one ever reads a scientific paper directly to decide what to do, I think people having a greater understanding what a scientific paper is and how it's used by scientists would help reduce this sort of redistribution of blame. It should be patently obvious to people that something like 'the science says you can go back to work now' is someone injecting their agenda on top of data, rather than the kind of thing that can be the outcome of an experiment on its own.

In general, I've seen too much of people looking at e.g. social media surrounding some paper or result coming out and saying 'just tell us what this paper says we should do'. It's not that they don't read enough papers, it's that their stance about what science is and does treats it more like an authority figure than a process for trying to establish knowledge.

[Liquor Box]

I was just using the example you were defending in conversation there, but for something concrete we can replace that with for example the early pandemic recommendation against people using N95 masks, which was motivated at least in part by a surge of mask hoarding and shortage of masks for medical workers but ended up doing a lot of damage in fueling anti-mask sentiments after that shortage period ended including leading to hospital-level policies forbidding some staff from wearing N95 masks. As public health policy, was the statement 'stop hoarding N95 masks' correct? Sure, it was creating a shortage and one mask on a health care worker probably did more good than one mask on an office worker. But the error (from the public health side) was saying it as if it were a matter of expertise, e.g. the 'stop using N95 masks, they won't help you/there's no need/it may make things worse (by making you overconfident/etc)' message.

And again, the issue isn't people not reading the primary material, it's people not knowing how scientific literature is used and what sorts of things are conclusions from evidence, versus what sorts of things indicate e.g. a fusion of evidence and policy. Even if no one ever reads a scientific paper directly to decide what to do, I think people having a greater understanding what a scientific paper is and how it's used by scientists would help reduce this sort of redistribution of blame. It should be patently obvious to people that something like 'the science says you can go back to work now' is someone injecting their agenda on top of data, rather than the kind of thing that can be the outcome of an experiment on its own.

In general, I've seen too much of people looking at e.g. social media surrounding some paper or result coming out and saying 'just tell us what this paper says we should do'. It's not that they don't read enough papers, it's that their stance about what science is and does treats it more like an authority figure than a process for trying to establish knowledge.

I appreciate that the messaging may not have been good in a few countries. As I mentioned earlier, I expect that sometimes they were simply wrong.

But that doesn't change my view that the best thing a person could do is to follow the advice of their local health agency, and that beats reading more deeply and making decisions that may contrast with that advice. So in your example a person would be better to not buy masks when there was a shortage for medical personnel, and then to buiy and wear them when that shortage subsided.

[Lord Torath]

I heard on Morning Edition from NPR this morning (Dec 30th) that one probable reason the Omicron variant is sending fewer people to the hospital than Delta is because many people are vaccinated, and thus their cases are less severe than the unvaccinated. So Omicron might not really be any less severe than Delta.

[factotum]

If that were the case, though, it would equally affect all Covid variants, so you'd expect the numbers for the Delta variant to be far lower as well? If the numbers of hospitalisations down to Omicron are significantly lower than Delta (per infected person) then that can't be due to vaccines.

[NichG]

I appreciate that the messaging may not have been good in a few countries. As I mentioned earlier, I expect that sometimes they were simply wrong.

But that doesn't change my view that the best thing a person could do is to follow the advice of their local health agency, and that beats reading more deeply and making decisions that may contrast with that advice. So in your example a person would be better to not buy masks when there was a shortage for medical personnel, and then to buiy and wear them when that shortage subsided.

I think we're talking past one another. You're talking in terms of how you'd ideally like people to make decisions. I'm saying that you don't just get to pick that. People will choose to do what they choose to do based on factors like trust and their understanding of the situation. If a local authority has a history of being inconsistent, if it does things which seem manipulative or to serve particular interests, if people end up feeling betrayed by it because of what ends up happening due to those advisories, then whether you want them to or not people are going to stop following that authority's recommendations.

When, not if, that happens, there's the added question of collateral damage. If after the mask thing people said e.g. 'okay, we're just going to ignore the WHO now' then at least it would be localized. But instead people said 'because one group of experts was clearly abusing our trust in them, we're not going to trust any product of expertise'. So you e.g. get bad mask messaging giving ammo to antivaxxers. That's the connection I want to break. If a local health authority ends up with such inconsistent policies that people don't follow them, there's still a lot of fall back ways to come to good decisions. But if that leads to people losing trust in anything anyone says except e.g. their favorite politician, that becomes a much larger problem.

[Liquor Box]

I think we're talking past one another. You're talking in terms of how you'd ideally like people to make decisions. I'm saying that you don't just get to pick that. People will choose to do what they choose to do based on factors like trust and their understanding of the situation. If a local authority has a history of being inconsistent, if it does things which seem manipulative or to serve particular interests, if people end up feeling betrayed by it because of what ends up happening due to those advisories, then whether you want them to or not people are going to stop following that authority's recommendations.

When, not if, that happens, there's the added question of collateral damage. If after the mask thing people said e.g. 'okay, we're just going to ignore the WHO now' then at least it would be localized. But instead people said 'because one group of experts was clearly abusing our trust in them, we're not going to trust any product of expertise'. So you e.g. get bad mask messaging giving ammo to antivaxxers. That's the connection I want to break. If a local health authority ends up with such inconsistent policies that people don't follow them, there's still a lot of fall back ways to come to good decisions. But if that leads to people losing trust in anything anyone says except e.g. their favorite politician, that becomes a much larger problem.

I think you are right, we were talking about different things.

My point was only that people are better to rely on the experts than to do their own research and make their own decisions.

Your point seems to be that the experts in your home country have made some miss-steps which have diminished people's trust. You may be right about that, I expect it differs from place to place.

Having said that am I understanding you correctly that your local health authority actually stated that something that was false. Or, are you just saying they didn't recommend or mandate mask use, and some people assumed that this meant masks weren't useful.

[Tyndmyr]

WHO and CDC are typically both fairly reliable.

They are, right now, at odds over if one should get boosted or not.

The CDC is actively promoting boosters. WHO has called for a complete booster moratorium through at least the end of the year, perhaps longer From the standpoint of an individual deciding on a booster, that's a pretty straightforward conflict.

I agree that both are prominent organizations with a long history of involvement in this area, but it is a good deal more complicated than "trust the experts." One is still left with the problem of which experts to trust.

How do you know the information you look up online hasn't been paid off or is being influenced by local (or even non-local) authorities (or even non-authorities who simply have money, influence, or even simply a glut of free time and an agenda and the desire to spread misinformation)? [

All other things being equal, I'm going to go with people who dedicated their lives to knowing about these things than people who have not.

People who have dedicated their lives to understanding things disagree with one another all the time, often quite emphatically.

Hell, listen to a bunch of D&D nerds who have played D&D their entire lives talk about what the best version of D&D is or something, and you'll get a whole lot of opinion. Informed opinion, but opinion nevertheless. Every subject is like this.

Typically CDC, since they are concerned with the country I live in while the WHO has global considerations, but of course this also depends on if a different authority than the CDC gives recommendations that are more practical.

The NIH is another authority in the same country. It has also disagreed openly with the CDC on policy. Country specific is not always a sufficient rule to handle disagreement.

Unless, of course, you believe that a random person with a computer is better at preventing disease and illness than the overall medical community. My only request for those who believe this is that they do not bother to tie up the time of those doctors so that the people who do not hold such beliefs can have easier access to the doctors.

Nobody's really arguing for the primacy of random people. Not here, at least. Pretty much everyone accepts that society and specialization requires some trust, the question is how we can agree on who to trust.

I don't know the specifics from where you are from but I'd find it surprising if a national health authority implied that there was a scientific breakthrough which meant eating people were immune to the virus. If that's an inference that people are drawing from the simple fact that you can take your masks off to eat (which I very much doubt), then I suppose a case could be made for explicitly saying that's not the case though. I also don't think the best way to dispel that sort of assumption would be read primary material.

One can look at say, the CDC's guidance. It does repeatedly reference knowledge of viruses as its basis for its recommendations. It does not mention economic or similar motivations anywhere.

It is certainly reasonable to suppose that economic and other considerations do play a part in decision-making, but this fact does not appear to be a priority for public communications. I don't know that reading all the primary material is a practical solution for that...I would presume that is an unreasonably large burden for most people to take on, but I don't object to anyone attempting to learn if they wish to do so.

That said, there does seem to be a tendency to lean heavily on virology as the basis for policy, rather than other explanations. So, perhaps that is part of the trust problem.

I was just using the example you were defending in conversation there, but for something concrete we can replace that with for example the early pandemic recommendation against people using N95 masks, which was motivated at least in part by a surge of mask hoarding and shortage of masks for medical workers but ended up doing a lot of damage in fueling anti-mask sentiments after that shortage period ended including leading to hospital-level policies forbidding some staff from wearing N95 masks. As public health policy, was the statement 'stop hoarding N95 masks' correct? Sure, it was creating a shortage and one mask on a health care worker probably did more good than one mask on an office worker. But the error (from the public health side) was saying it as if it were a matter of expertise, e.g. the 'stop using N95 masks, they won't help you/there's no need/it may make things worse (by making you overconfident/etc)' message.

This is a good example. Putting PPE in the hands of people who needed it most is likely a sound resource allocation decision.

However, people who were told to not mask on another basis will definitely feel lied to and distrustful. This did happen with masks.

It is, honestly, a little odd that so much emphasis is still being put on cloth masks now that N95s have become more available. Improvised tools may be better than nothing, and if the best available option...fair enough. But the thing that has been reliably tested and certified for a task is usually a better choice than the thing with "not for medical use" stamped on the package.

This is...still a current issue in my area. There's also some severe test availability problems.

In fact, that makes a very strong counterpoint to the "it would be best if everyone did as the authorities said" argument. For quite some time, testing has been required or strongly encouraged in my area. A great many people were required to test weekly, regardless of symptoms or contact. Even if vaccinated, in some circumstances. Many people did just this, and as a result, testing capacity has been overwhelmed for weeks. Everyone seems to agree that it would be best if those at high risk(recent contacts, possible symptoms, etc) were tested, but they are going untested because no more home tests are on the shelves, and the test sites are overwhelmed.

If fewer low risk people had used up all the over the counter tests before the surge, we'd have had them available when the surge hit. As it sits, almost nobody can test, and when you *do* get a limited slot at a test site by going to wait there at 5am and staying until noon or so, you will generally not be given any result for several days. Cars are lined up for miles, and most of them are told to come back the next day. It's a mess.

[NichG]

I think you are right, we were talking about different things.

My point was only that people are better to rely on the experts than to do their own research and make their own decisions.

Your point seems to be that the experts in your home country have made some miss-steps which have diminished people's trust. You may be right about that, I expect it differs from place to place.

Having said that am I understanding you correctly that your local health authority actually stated that something that was false. Or, are you just saying they didn't recommend or mandate mask use, and some people assumed that this meant masks weren't useful.

Not just my local health authority, even by December 2020 the WHO was actively recommending against people wearing medical-grade masks and recommending only non-medical masks indoors (and that only in the absence of 'adequate ventilation'), and recommended that health personnel only use N95 masks if participating in aerosol-generating procedures rather than across the board (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/...=1&isAllowed=y). The justification given was that Covid was droplet-spread rather than aerosol-spread, rather than e.g. 'save a limited resource for the most efficient uses'. Also at that time, stuff like reusable masks with swappable N95 filters existed, as did evidence about reusability and methods for decontamination of N95s without harming filter efficiency.

Edit: The March 2020 guidance (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/...14&isAllowed=y) is in some ways both better and worse on this kind of messaging. It says:

Wearing medical masks when not indicated may result in unnecessary costs and procurement burdens and create a false sense of security that can lead to the neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices. Further, using a mask incorrectly may hamper its effectiveness in reducing the risk of transmission.

So it acknowledges the resource optimization thing, but there's also a bunch of FUD about 'well, you won't even use it right, so what's the point'.

Anyhow there's been a lot of really terrible public health messaging this pandemic from everywhere basically. I'm not sure any organization came out of this with a sterling record for consistency and good outcomes... South Korea and New Zealand maybe?

[Squire Doodad]

My point wasn't that you, specifically, should trust VAERS. The point is that, if you do not, what do you trust instead, and why?

I'm not merely pointing out that wrong information exists...it does, but that is only part of the problem, and to some extent, always exists. Knowledge is never perfect, especially about emerging events, and frequently needs later correction. However, this scenario seems to have gotten worse than most, and credibility has become...incredibly subjective. There have been so very many reversals and modifications of both policy and data that what one believes becomes...while not quite arbitrary, enough so as to have divided the public.

Aside from what Liquor and Peelee said, both of which were very much on the money, and to recap:
You suggested that there is some unclear information, and then used VAERS as an example.
I then pointed out that VAERS, in of itself, is a database of raw, unverified data that is meant to be processed heavily and interpreted accordingly.
In this post, you argued that knowledge is never perfect and subject to correction, then saying credibility feels subjective because there have been modifications and corrections to policy, which frankly feels...circuitous, so to speak.
My apologies, but I do find it easily confusing.

One such hospital is near me. It's down to eight nurses, because a majority of the nursing staff rejected the vaccine and either quit or were fired as a result. This has greatly hampered capacity, and they have hit it...and the resulting overflow is stressing other local hospitals.

You're in the minority here, then, or it was a small hospital to begin with.
In my experience, most of the nursing staff has already been vaccinated in my area. I know someone who was a straggler until June-ish because they were afraid of needles, but otherwise the vast majority are vaccinated.
I have been seeing a lot of nurses quitting because of stress, too many hours, and overall having to cope with being a nurse during a worldwide pandemic.


Also, in a general sense, about the arguments of the science community's credibility being subjective... Without going into politics, not everyone making decisions here is a doctor. Governors and mayors can be making decisions on political or economic grounds instead of health ones. Accordingly, not everyone's opinion has the same value, as some people have indeed spent years researching this filed in excruciating detail. A plumber's opinion on how to fix your pipes is typically more valuable than a marine biologist's.
To use an overly general example, someone who has become a top medical official will most likely have a better educated stance on this than a politician. Random people on the internet are less likely to have well-educated stances than either.
That there are thousands of people on the internet with poorly conceived takes on how to handle the pandemic does not take away in the slightest that there is reasonably firm consensus in accordance with our knowledge within the medical community. A hundred drops of water does not mean your 50 liter barrel of beer is any less beer.
Or for a more extrapolation-proofed argument, a thousand 1 damage hits still do nothing against someone with -5 flat damage reduction per hit

If that were the case, though, it would equally affect all Covid variants, so you'd expect the numbers for the Delta variant to be far lower as well? If the numbers of hospitalisations down to Omicron are significantly lower than Delta (per infected person) then that can't be due to vaccines.

It may also just be time; we'll see within a few weeks how Omciron plays out relative to Delta.

[NichG]

Also, in a general sense, about the arguments of the science community's credibility being subjective... Without going into politics, not everyone making decisions here is a doctor. Governors and mayors can be making decisions on political or economic grounds instead of health ones. Accordingly, not everyone's opinion has the same value, as some people have indeed spent years researching this filed in excruciating detail. A plumber's opinion on how to fix your pipes is typically more valuable than a marine biologist's.
To use an overly general example, someone who has become a top medical official will most likely have a better educated stance on this than a politician.

The issue being, a politician will hire a bunch of doctors, make a political decision, then say 'look, we have lots of doctors, this decision was supported by medical expertise!' rather than saying e.g. 'this decision was motivated by balancing political and economic considerations with health ones'. Or you get a scientist who wields their scientific credentials to push a public agenda with an implicit set of values to it which may not be shared by the people they're trying to persuade with 'trust me, just do it'. Then if and when those decisions end up being personally harmful to people, especially when it comes out that those decisions were motivated by some agenda they didn't sign on for, then they don't just lose trust in the politician, they lose trust in doctors or modern medicine or science as a whole.

That's why I think it's valuable if people can perform the sniff test to at least figure out whether for a given decision it's the kind of thing that can actually result from the source of authority they're associating with it. And I don't even mean 'if it smells like BS, disregard the authority', but just to be able to assign blame appropriately when things go wrong.

[Liquor Box]

Anyhow there's been a lot of really terrible public health messaging this pandemic from everywhere basically. I'm not sure any organization came out of this with a sterling record for consistency and good outcomes... South Korea and New Zealand maybe?

In terms of outcomes, Denmark does very well in terms of both deaths per capita and the Economists assessment of economic harm.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/wor...g-the-pandemic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-...tes_by_country

Korea and NZ both do well in terms of death rate, but isn't assessed by the article in terms of economic outcomes.

NZ was stronger than most countries in terms of lockdowns and other such restrictions, but lagged slightly behind comparable countries in terms of vaccinations and was a slow adopter of mask use (they've only been required in shops for a few months). There is some concern that the lower rate of infections to date means NZ is more vulnerable to the new variants - some countries have already had their shower.

[NichG]

In terms of outcomes, Denmark does very well in terms of both deaths per capita and the Economists assessment of economic harm.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/wor...g-the-pandemic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-...tes_by_country

Korea and NZ both do well in terms of death rate, but isn't assessed by the article in terms of economic outcomes.

NZ was stronger than most countries in terms of lockdowns and other such restrictions, but lagged slightly behind comparable countries in terms of vaccinations and was a slow adopter of mask use (they've only been required in shops for a few months). There is some concern that the lower rate of infections to date means NZ is more vulnerable to the new variants - some countries have already had their shower.

Raw death rates might be a bit tricky to use for this, because demographic shifts can make a huge difference. Africa on the whole has done very well in raw numbers, comparable to New Zealand basically. But the fraction of people 60+ is only about 3-6% percent in Africa, where the world-wide average is something like 25%, so that could be a factor of 5 effect on death rates right there...

And Japan is kind of a total mystery. They're at 145 per million, which is an order of magnitude worse than New Zealand but still 5x better than the rest of the world, they have a population that skews old relative to the global average (38% of people are over 60), a very high population density including packed public transportation, and their official policy has been relatively hands-off. However local sentiment seemed to skew more towards caution than the official health policy in Japan at least when I was there, with e.g. companies going full WFH even if they weren't required to or even directly recommended to, and despite a pretty strong reluctance to adopt WFH outside of pandemic conditions. Is that enough to account for the discrepancy? I think its hard to say... It looks like they might have just started their Omicron surge though so I guess we'll see if there are any surprises.

Bhutan is also an interesting case. They reserved their vaccine doses and synchronized the entire population's vaccination schedule to a single day more or less, and you can really see the sharp drop off in cases right after people got their second dose. They're at 3 deaths per million, but in general they seem to have had a fairly light experience with Covid in general.

[Liquor Box]

Raw death rates might be a bit tricky to use for this, because demographic shifts can make a huge difference. Africa on the whole has done very well in raw numbers, comparable to New Zealand basically. But the fraction of people 60+ is only about 3-6% percent in Africa, where the world-wide average is something like 25%, so that could be a factor of 5 effect on death rates right there...

And Japan is kind of a total mystery. They're at 145 per million, which is an order of magnitude worse than New Zealand but still 5x better than the rest of the world, they have a population that skews old relative to the global average (38% of people are over 60), a very high population density including packed public transportation, and their official policy has been relatively hands-off. However local sentiment seemed to skew more towards caution than the official health policy in Japan at least when I was there, with e.g. companies going full WFH even if they weren't required to or even directly recommended to, and despite a pretty strong reluctance to adopt WFH outside of pandemic conditions. Is that enough to account for the discrepancy? I think its hard to say... It looks like they might have just started their Omicron surge though so I guess we'll see if there are any surprises.

Bhutan is also an interesting case. They reserved their vaccine doses and synchronized the entire population's vaccination schedule to a single day more or less, and you can really see the sharp drop off in cases right after people got their second dose. They're at 3 deaths per million, but in general they seem to have had a fairly light experience with Covid in general.

Yeah, there's lots of variables which are outside control. I think Africa was also advantaged by its hot dry climate. By that measure, very cold countries (like Sweden) who got away with moderate death rates did very well.

Japan (like Korea) has a very rule following culture, and also responded to some of the recent asian viruses like Sars. I don't think it was unusual to see people wearing masks prior to Covid in Japan.

[Peelee]

Japan (like Korea) has a very rule following culture, and also responded to some of the recent asian viruses like Sars. I don't think it was unusual to see people wearing masks prior to Covid in Japan.

Back in the early teens I went to Korea to visit wife's extended family. It was definitely not unusual to see people masked up out and about.

[NichG]

Yeah, there's lots of variables which are outside control. I think Africa was also advantaged by its hot dry climate. By that measure, very cold countries (like Sweden) who got away with moderate death rates did very well.

Japan (like Korea) has a very rule following culture, and also responded to some of the recent asian viruses like Sars. I don't think it was unusual to see people wearing masks prior to Covid in Japan.

Yeah, though I was in Tokyo in 2020 and I'd say around 50-75% of people on the street masked, though a much higher percentage among people working in shops/etc. At least around then you also saw plenty of chin masking and exposed noses.

But for comparison, without being told to do so, Tokyo Tech adopted internal policies like no more than 5 people in a room by March 2020, certainly not required by the government at that time. So not even just rule following but also safety conscious at the organization level. Though also the standard job there has zero paid sick leave (though I guess being fired for taking unpaid leave there is not common...), so again it just seems like a huge ambiguous question to me still

[farothel]

Back in the early teens I went to Korea to visit wife's extended family. It was definitely not unusual to see people masked up out and about.

I've traveled quite a lot to the far-east the last decade (before all this blew up) and indeed it was common in airports to see masked people around. I've been told this started in I think 2003 with the SARS epidemic.

We used to laugh at these people, back in the day. These days, not so much. I think we're going to wear masks on airplanes for quite some time.

[sihnfahl]

I've been told this started in I think 2003 with the SARS epidemic.

Probably. That was the indication of how fast a virus could spread in enclosed / constrained environments. And the effectiveness of masks in reducing the chance of viral spread.

That's probably why they had such low numbers until recent; they already had a plan to react to something like SARS and a willingness to see it through.

Three weeks ago, they were seeing a third as many cases / day as my entire state... and now? Almost halved even that low number.

And I don't even mean 'if it smells like BS, disregard the authority', but just to be able to assign blame appropriately when things go wrong.

Unless they're particularly adept at pointing blame elsewhere and convince a majority that the outcome was despite their actions, not as a logical result of.

[Tyndmyr]

Aside from what Liquor and Peelee said, both of which were very much on the money, and to recap:
You suggested that there is some unclear information, and then used VAERS as an example.
I then pointed out that VAERS, in of itself, is a database of raw, unverified data that is meant to be processed heavily and interpreted accordingly.
In this post, you argued that knowledge is never perfect and subject to correction, then saying credibility feels subjective because there have been modifications and corrections to policy, which frankly feels...circuitous, so to speak.
My apologies, but I do find it easily confusing.

Everyone's aware that it contains raw reports. That's the nature of it.

There isn't really another replacement for it, though. There is no database that is a completely verified version of VAERS. There isn't a single authorative source for all information.

You're in the minority here, then, or it was a small hospital to begin with.
In my experience, most of the nursing staff has already been vaccinated in my area. I know someone who was a straggler until June-ish because they were afraid of needles, but otherwise the vast majority are vaccinated.
I have been seeing a lot of nurses quitting because of stress, too many hours, and overall having to cope with being a nurse during a worldwide pandemic.

It was one hospital, not every hospital is in that position. Still, capacity is most definitely being impacted via staff shortages. Nursing is definitely a job with a fair bit of stress in the best of times. And one can't really dismiss a minority of nurses. Even if one only fires 10% of staff, that's going to impact capacity. A lot of hospitals only run about 20% extra bed capacity these days, so cutting your safety margin in half is a fairly big deal, and is going to stress remaining staff.

Also, in a general sense, about the arguments of the science community's credibility being subjective... Without going into politics, not everyone making decisions here is a doctor. Governors and mayors can be making decisions on political or economic grounds instead of health ones. Accordingly, not everyone's opinion has the same value, as some people have indeed spent years researching this filed in excruciating detail. A plumber's opinion on how to fix your pipes is typically more valuable than a marine biologist's.
To use an overly general example, someone who has become a top medical official will most likely have a better educated stance on this than a politician.

“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus — they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”

That was this year, discussing studies of Pfizer and Moderna vaccination. This is now known to be very false, and the CDC has reversed its position.

Arguments from authority are considered a fallacy for a reason, yknow.

Science, real science, is the data. It isn't the position. All scientific gains revolve around the overturning of previously accepted wisdom. Relying solely on authority to determine veracity is an inherently anti-scientific position.

It's not always wrong to trust others, but a policy of "trust whoever is in charge" isn't a scientific position at all. It is a position of trust in however people get power and authority. There are any number of ways someone could end up in charge other than being the best scientist.

I've traveled quite a lot to the far-east the last decade (before all this blew up) and indeed it was common in airports to see masked people around. I've been told this started in I think 2003 with the SARS epidemic.

We used to laugh at these people, back in the day. These days, not so much. I think we're going to wear masks on airplanes for quite some time.

It remains very odd to me that people trust so heavily in the improvised cloth masks to stop aerosols.

If you run an actual gas mask or something, you won't even smell anything from outside the mask. You can walk into a gas chamber, pop CS gas, and literally nothing will change for you if wearing the mask correctly.

Imagine if one tried such a test for cloth masks. Put your mask on, then give yourself a shot of pepper spray. It is, after all, also an areosol. In a proper biohazard setup, there will no impact. In a cloth mask, well. Report back if you try it, but I suspect everyone knows what the result of the test will be.

[Lord Torath]

Aerosols? Sure, cheap cloth masks don't help much. But droplet-spread is significantly reduced by wearing a cloth mask. And many diseases - even some corona-virus-caused ones (XKCD) - are still spread via droplets.

Speaking of SARS and 2003, a team in Texas has created a cheap, easily-produced vaccine for COVID-19 based on technology they put together to tackle SARS:
NPR: A Texas team comes up with a COVID vaccine that could be a global game changer

This one is about $1.50 per dose, can be easily manufactured around the world, and the Intellectual Property is being made freely available.

90% effective against COVID-19
80% effective against Delta
Unknown effectiveness against Omicrom

It will be more like traditional flu vaccines, in that it is not as easy to quickly tailor to new strains, though.

[sihnfahl]

“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus — they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”

That was this year, discussing studies of Pfizer and Moderna vaccination. This is now known to be very false, and the CDC has reversed its position.

Not really.

It was pretty much the next day that the CDC came out and said 'hold on, that might not be true'.

"The Centers for Disease Control are walking back claims made by its director that people who are vaccinated against COVID-19 do not spread the virus, clarifying that they do not yet definitively know if that's the case."

"“Dr. Walensky spoke broadly during this interview,” an agency spokesman told The Times. “It’s possible that some people who are fully vaccinated could get Covid-19. The evidence isn’t clear whether they can spread the virus to others. We are continuing to evaluate the evidence.”"

[NichG]

Unless they're particularly adept at pointing blame elsewhere and convince a majority that the outcome was despite their actions, not as a logical result of.

Between making everyone more cognitively skilled (and enabling some to use that to trick others) and making everyone less cognitively skilled, I'll take the former every time.