Our Covid Response

[Phoenixmgs]

I've already laid out how it could have been handled better (several times) and I'm getting damn sick of repeating myself.



This isn't even what we were discussing. You've just abandoned what you were saying before ("people thought masks alone were enough!") without acknowledging it was bullshit, and have now shifted onto the same general endless anti-mask tirade.

And you never answer to any obvious reasons why it wouldn't work.

What anti-mask tirade? Show me fucking proof they actually do anything.

Oh, that's real easy. Lockdowns

I hardly ever had to stay in my home or wear masks for 2 years and I think my state was still on zero deaths before we opened up.

Edit: bonus points. The economy was growing here under covid. Because everyone could still go to work

It's exactly what you asked for

Sweden never locked down and has the lowest all-cause mortality in Europe during the pandemic.

I've seen plenty of videos and first-hand accounts and Australia is not something the majority would be for. Also, you do realize Australia has a pretty unique physical attribute that most every other country doesn't that makes pathogen control much easier?

Phoenixmgs kept going on about a) the media 'not telling him ventilation was important' when they specifically did and b) not realise that changes in, lets say, seating arragements in restaurants was a direct response to information the media released about information and c) pretended that ventilation and masks were totally seperate and wouldn't effect each other

The fact that people were told to mask outside tells you ventilation was not communicated well at all. Also, if ventilation was communicated well, why were places like beaches and parks closed? Remember everyone yelling at Florida that they kept the beaches open? Show me a study (real data and randomized) that masks do literally anything.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Shocker, those with preexisting psychiatric disorders have a higher chance of getting long covid.

Association of preexisting psychiatric disorders with post-COVID-19 prevalence: a cross-sectional study - Scientific Reports

Evidence demonstrating the association of preexisting psychiatric disorders with post-COVID-19 is limited. We aim to investigate the association using larger sample sizes and more extended postinfection periods than previous studies. A total of 6015 (response rate = 77.5%) COVID-19 survivors...

www.nature.com

 

[Silvanus]

And you never answer to any obvious reasons why it wouldn't work.

You didn't even address it. You didn't offer a single one, you just moved right on. Now you seem to have just forgotten that, so you're pretending you've already dealt with it.

You never put the legwork in. Never make the effort. Just insist until you're blue in the face that everyone else provide solutions/evidence/studies, and then when you're given them, either dismiss them out of hand (usually without reading or understanding them), or-- even more commonly-- just ignore or forget them altogether, and then later pretend you rebutted them.

Fucking hell, its tiring.

What anti-mask tirade? Show me fucking proof they actually do anything.

Why? What relevance does this have to your claim that others here said masks alone would be enough?

That was what you said. That's what you're supposed to be defending.

Shocker, those with preexisting psychiatric disorders have a higher chance of getting long covid.

Tell me you don't understand comorbidity without telling me you don't understand comorbidity.

 

[Baffle]

Tell me you don't understand comorbidity without telling me you don't understand comorbidity.

That's when two people die at the same time, right? Like someone falls out a window and lands on someone else?

 

[Cheetodust]

You never put the legwork in. Never make the effort.

That's not fair. He frequently shares studies. They just usually say the opposite of what he's trying to argue.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

That's not fair. He frequently shares studies. They just usually say the opposite of what he's trying to argue.

Well, he wouldn't have to bother if we'd all just agree with him that he is the only person who matters.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You didn't even address it. You didn't offer a single one, you just moved right on. Now you seem to have just forgotten that, so you're pretending you've already dealt with it.

You never put the legwork in. Never make the effort. Just insist until you're blue in the face that everyone else provide solutions/evidence/studies, and then when you're given them, either dismiss them out of hand (usually without reading or understanding them), or-- even more commonly-- just ignore or forget them altogether, and then later pretend you rebutted them.

Fucking hell, its tiring.



Why? What relevance does this have to your claim that others here said masks alone would be enough?

That was what you said. That's what you're supposed to be defending.



Tell me you don't understand comorbidity without telling me you don't understand comorbidity.

You're so coy about saying what your covid policies it's hard to remember. But I remember you saying you have to contract trace and that doesn't work for something like covid. It's tiring asking you what you think we should do and you constantly saying "I already told you". When do I ever not reiterate my positions if asked?

I already gave up on that / don't really care if someone actually said that. I know you all think masks are important yet there's literally no data showing they actually work.

Since when does a mental issue have a biological impact on a virus?

Well, he wouldn't have to bother if we'd all just agree with him that he is the only person who matters.

The problem is you don't agree with the actual data and science. Who thinks vaccine mandates are a good thing in any way when we know they don't slow the spread of covid and we know certain groups are in fact worse off if they get vaccinated?

 

[Buyetyen]

When do I ever not reiterate my positions if asked?

The thing is, you don't do it for anyone's edification.

 

[Silvanus]

You're so coy about saying what your covid policies it's hard to remember.

I'm reluctant to repeat myself for the third (fourth?) time after clearly telling you what they are already.

But I remember you saying you have to contract trace and that doesn't work for something like covid.

Experts disagree. It can work; adequate systems were not created.

It's tiring asking you what you think we should do and you constantly saying "I already told you". When do I ever not reiterate my positions if asked?

Oh, you reiterate your positions ad nauseum; you just never respond properly to criticism, so it's effectively worthless and unpersuasive.

I already gave up on that / don't really care if someone actually said that.

Then just say that in the beginning. If you make a statement that turns out to be false, and you're caught out, just concede it rather than endlessly deflecting/changing the subject/demanding we talk about other shit for several pages before eventually conceding that you don't even care about what you originally said.

Since when does a mental issue have a biological impact on a virus?

....comorbidity doesn't necessarily mean one impacts the other. This response eloquently illustrates my point.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm reluctant to repeat myself for the third (fourth?) time after clearly telling you what they are already.



Experts disagree. It can work; adequate systems were not created.



Oh, you reiterate your positions ad nauseum; you just never respond properly to criticism, so it's effectively worthless and unpersuasive.




Then just say that in the beginning. If you make a statement that turns out to be false, and you're caught out, just concede it rather than endlessly deflecting/changing the subject/demanding we talk about other shit for several pages before eventually conceding that you don't even care about what you originally said.



....comorbidity doesn't necessarily mean one impacts the other. This response eloquently illustrates my point.

You're reluctant to say anything. I would keep saying you're for such and such policy and then you say you're not for it, then I ask what are you for and you never would answer.

Contract tracing doesn't work by basic logic and we don't have the resources to actually do it.

You won't even tell me what you'd do with covid so there is no criticism to be had, you just have the magical answer to kill covid that you won't tell anyone in the world. You guys literally think masks work WHEN THERE'S NO FUCKING DATA THAT THEY DO WORK. When are you gonna concede that?

Yes, I know, I was skipping ahead to your point in pointing out that mental issues is a comorbidity?

 

[Ag3ma]

You guys literally think masks work WHEN THERE'S NO FUCKING DATA THAT THEY DO WORK.

Apart, that is, from the vast amount of data showing that they work.

When you say there's no data that they work, what you actually mean is that the data showing they work doesn't satisfy you - and that's mostly a problem with where you're choosing to set the bar, rather than with the data itself.

 

[Silvanus]

You're reluctant to say anything. I would keep saying you're for such and such policy and then you say you're not for it, then I ask what are you for and you never would answer.

I've already answered. Multiple times. Read the answers already given.

I'm so sick of repeating myself because you can't be bothered to read.

Contract tracing doesn't work by basic logic and we don't have the resources to actually do it.

Indeed, we do have the resources. Which is why it has worked for previous epidemics when it has been tried.

You won't even tell me what you'd do with covid so there is no criticism to be had, you just have the magical answer to kill covid that you won't tell anyone in the world.

Already told you. More than once. Just not willing to endlessly repeat it after you've refused to read it for the third or fourth time.

Yes, I know, I was skipping ahead to your point in pointing out that mental issues is a comorbidity?

Mental health issues being a comorbidity wouldn't require one to impact the other. So this doesn't even make sense as a deflection.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Apart, that is, from the vast amount of data showing that they work.

When you say there's no data that they work, what you actually mean is that the data showing they work doesn't satisfy you - and that's mostly a problem with where you're choosing to set the bar, rather than with the data itself.

WHERE IS THIS DATA?!?!

New analysis of all RCTs of masking shows masks don't do anything. The science from pre-covid hasn't changed in the slightest to now.

Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?

www.cochrane.org

Medical or surgical masks

Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.

I've already answered. Multiple times. Read the answers already given.

I'm so sick of repeating myself because you can't be bothered to read.



Indeed, we do have the resources. Which is why it has worked for previous epidemics when it has been tried.



Already told you. More than once. Just not willing to endlessly repeat it after you've refused to read it for the third or fourth time.



Mental health issues being a comorbidity wouldn't require one to impact the other. So this doesn't even make sense as a deflection.

Link me to your answers. You have hardly repeated yourself and it's so hard to get you to commit to saying anything you actually believe it's ridiculous.

You can't contract trace something that spreads so fast, that spreads before symptoms, that you don't have tests that would stop someone from going out when infectious (the PCRs take too long to get results and the rapid tests are horrible for testing early in infections). Sure, you can spend some massive amount of resources to in theory get it too work somewhat (you can flatten the curve to some degree but not get rid of it), but you can spend those very same resources on something else that benefits public health even more.

The point is long covid is a good chunk psychosomatic and the study that people with mental health issues get long covid significantly more reinforces that that is the case.

 

[Ag3ma]

WHERE IS THIS DATA?!?!

The point is long covid is a good chunk psychosomatic and the study that people with mental health issues get long covid significantly more reinforces that that is the case.

Oh god, this feels like chronic fatigue syndrome all over again: "They're not ill, they're just lazy!"

Can we please at least try to learn from past experience that stigmatising people should not be the first response?

 

[Silvanus]

WHERE IS THIS DATA?!?!

"I'm never mad" -- Phoenixmgs.

Link me to your answers. You have hardly repeated yourself and it's so hard to get you to commit to saying anything you actually believe it's ridiculous.

Why bother? If i provide you with the explanations for the third time, You'll just be doing the same thing in a week: insisting I never gave the data, "why won't I provide it", blah blah blah.

The only way to break this cycle is to insist you actually pay attention.

You can't contract trace something that spreads so fast, that spreads before symptoms, that you don't have tests that would stop someone from going out when infectious (the PCRs take too long to get results and the rapid tests are horrible for testing early in infections). Sure, you can spend some massive amount of resources to in theory get it too work somewhat (you can flatten the curve to some degree but not get rid of it), but you can spend those very same resources on something else that benefits public health even more.

Contact tracing is one element of a multifaceted approach.

In a lockdown, with functional border controls and widely available testing, cases are not too high to make contact tracing useless. It has already been used to good effect. It's a proven, tested approach.

The point is long covid is a good chunk psychosomatic and the study that people with mental health issues get long covid significantly more reinforces that that is the case.

Even this is a significant shift in the goalposts from what you were originally saying: you were originally disputing that it existed at all, and spewing these endless numbers that didn't even support your own conclusion.

You then backtracked to saying it's just the same as other long-term respiratory symptoms, and then finally you've arrived at just "a good chunk is psychosomatic". How far have we travelled from your original insistence that the whole thing is bullshit?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

WHERE IS THIS DATA?!?!

New analysis of all RCTs of masking shows masks don't do anything. The science from pre-covid hasn't changed in the slightest to now.

Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?

www.cochrane.org

Medical or surgical masks

Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.

Lmao, this is proof that masks don't work in your world?

Spoiler

What are the limitations of the evidence?
Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators. The results might change when further evidence becomes available. Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies.

How up to date is this evidence?
We included evidence published up to October 2022.

Authors' conclusions:
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.
There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated

Considering how easy masks and hand washing are *and* how the law of large numbers works, I'd say it's still worth it even if the amount of disease resistance is small

 

[Ag3ma]

Lmao, this is proof that masks don't work in your world?

Yes. There's a very interesting little comment dropped into the analysis near the end that a lot of these studies were often conducted with low adherence. Which is another way of saying "We didn't find evidence masks were significantly effective across all the studies we looked at, but a load of people in the studies we looked at for mask use didn't actually use masks."

And it is definitely true to say that not using masks guarantees the uselessness of masks.

 

[gorfias]

Interesting article and analysis on Newseek

It's Time for the Scientific Community to Admit We Were Wrong About COVID

Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Ag3ma]

Interesting article and analysis on Newseek

"We excluded important parts of the population from policy development..."

Wait. What scientists were running policy development, exactly?

Scientists don't run policy, politicians do. Scientists are hired as civil servants or independent consultants to provide scientific advice, which feeds into a wider decision-making processes. The public don't get their science information from scientists either, they get them from political and media organisations. The downtrodden masses forced to accept policy by elites are not reading New Scientist, Nature, Science, and avidly reading the blogs of university science professors. They're watching media - mostly mainstream media, but otherwise Joe Rogan, Infowars, and whatever else.

He's right about a lot of things for why messaging was a problem: alienated classes and wealth gaps and privileged elites and tribalism and failing to consider the poor and stuff like that... but this has nearly nothing to do with science. Thus it just strikes me as an weirdly misdirected piece. It's like some howl of protest at the state of modern America, except because that would sink without a trace along with all the million others, he's slapped on a slightly different angle to sell it. Still, I'm sure he's now got the PR kickstart for his burgeoning web2.0 career, so I guess that's all fine.

 

[gorfias]

"We excluded important parts of the population from policy development..."

Wait. What scientists were running policy development, exactly?

Scientists don't run policy, politicians do. Scientists are hired as civil servants or independent consultants to provide scientific advice, which feeds into a wider decision-making processes. The public don't get their science information from scientists either, they get them from political and media organisations. The downtrodden masses forced to accept policy by elites are not reading New Scientist, Nature, Science, and avidly reading the blogs of university science professors. They're watching media - mostly mainstream media, but otherwise Joe Rogan, Infowars, and whatever else.

He's right about a lot of things for why messaging was a problem: alienated classes and wealth gaps and privileged elites and tribalism and failing to consider the poor and stuff like that... but this has nearly nothing to do with science. Thus it just strikes me as an weirdly misdirected piece. It's like some howl of protest at the state of modern America, except because that would sink without a trace along with all the million others, he's slapped on a slightly different angle to sell it. Still, I'm sure he's now got the PR kickstart for his burgeoning web2.0 career, so I guess that's all fine.

I think there are elected officials that can enforce a policy, but increasingly, often faceless, un elected bureaucrats are formulating policy. And that is the way a lot of our elected officials like it, which has many concerned with elected government angry. Example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ng-our-lives-glenn-reynolds-column/102750080/ There are other examples of people agreeing that the world is run by mid-level bureaucrats but they're kinda happy about it.