From what I've read, cloth masks don't do much with omicron. I've not been able to find studies with % effectiveness but everything I've read says its low or worthless. Stick with N95 or medical. I have read that cloth with triple-ply or with medical mask is better ... but regular cloth masks (that my wife has been sewing and sending to relatives) is likely ineffective.

I do think its fair to ask if cloth masks were ever really that effective even against the original strain. If there is a robust study on effectiveness of cloth masks with stats, please post it but I've not seen one that compares N95, medical mask, regular cloth mask against each other.

When I traveled, it surprised me the number of men that did not wash their hands afterwards in airport restrooms. I'm going to swag and say 10-20%.

The key is, and I'm sure this guy gets it, if the other side were in power, had the media, etc, they'd do the exact same thing. Those of us over 50 (in the US) surely remember the Moral Majority. Our grandparents remember the days of Father Coughlin. It never stops and it never will stop.

What's different is social media and the instant ability to google a vast trove of data about everyone.

We used to have heros and idols. For many Christians, Jesus fills that role. For an old liberal like me, I always answer Albert Einstein. I'm not sure today, with all that data out there, that anyone holds up to the new standards.

Kids must feel lost. It would be interesting to hear from our younger set (if there is one here) about the concept of hero and inspiration. I was asking my wife about this tonight, since she teaches a lot of college freshman and sophomores. She doesn't think things have changed as much as I do. She's been very happy this week since the first significant papers of the term were turned in and she says her new batch is surprisingly good.


It was just retweeting a CDC comment that most who die have comorbidities. And it was tweeted a while after he died. So, yeah, weird. But correct. It's just that the biggest comorbidity is being old. By far the biggest. We shouldn't forget that. Anyone who tells someone over 65 not to get the vaccine is seriously misguided. It has saved countless lives.

I'm not sure he was remarkable in the COVID discussion, other than being pictured with a lot of other unmasked people at a rally. But it was a Trump rally and I wonder if him being African-American and a Trump supporter had a lot to do with it. Because all sorts of common sense (on both sides) seems to go out the window where Trump is concerned.

I really, really, really hope Trump decides against running again. One, he'd probably win, if the polling is anywhere near accurate. And two, he's a shitty president - we already know this. I'm sorry to those here who disagree with that - I don't think you're bad people for supporting him. But no... I don't want him back. Retire in peace. Go fund your twitter-equivalent and send out all the mean tweets you like. But please, please don't run again.

Wife and I decided to eat some dim sum tomorrow in Atlanta's chinatown. Haven't been to one well over 2+ years. Another step towards return to normality.

Went grocery shopping tonight. Kroger staff had their masks, hardly any customers did. I think ribeye has gone down a buck per pound since last time I checked.

I checked Truecar.com. A car I was using as a benchmark showed it was going at regular MSRP. Whereas 2-3 months ago it was $500+. Hopefully a sign that supply chain is moving towards normal. GPU prices are coming down but unsure if its because bitcoin mining has become unprofitable or supply chain has improved ... prob bit of both.

(I like to think inflation will be tamed some with a recovered supply chain. Putin and war worries are a different matter)

You're reading way too much into this. It was because he was a Trump aide at a time when him and others were downplaying the severity of the virus and mocking precautionary steps people were taking.

Guy sacrificed his own life for a few thousand likes on Twitter. That's going to lead to people making fun of you. You're showing more reverence for his life than he did.

Not surprising but 4th shot, 2nd booster is being monitored/considered. Appreciate Israel being first.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/19/healt...-us/index.html
In addition to monitoring mutations, I assume they are also monitoring the "level of antibodies" from month to month? Is there % when they would make the call e.g. antibodies have fallen from 90% to 50% by month X so we need another booster.

Haven't been top of mind for me but interesting WSJ article on compensation for those that did have deadly reaction to vaccinations.

Covid-19 Vaccines Were Deadly in Rare Cases. Governments Are Now Weighing Compensation. - WSJ
I don't know what the right $ is but $163K sounds lite to me. If someone has been incapacitated due to vaccinations, provide free healthcare.

This. As he does fairly regularly, Pie hits the nail squarely on the head in that clip.

Much more could be said in this thread, but for me this whole mindset of how we are treating each other now makes me more ashamed to be an American than anything else that has happened in my lifetime. At the time, I thought Trump being elected would be the low point. I was very wrong.

There must be a lot of extra wood laying around in this thread with all the crosses people are putting themselves on.

SI

You seem to be criticizing woke people for shaming others for their free speech/behavior just before shaming others for their free speech/behavior.

It's "interesting" how you constantly talk about your respect for the hypothetical people & opinions you've invented that are contrary to whatever someone else is saying, but actively & directly shame any real people with opinions contrary to your own.

Only 'interesting' in the sense that it's not at all what I'm doing.

Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.

Nope. Woke people, like all people, should absolutely criticize whoever and whatever they think is worthy of criticism. I'm absolutely pro-free expression.

What I'm against is the assumption of motivations, lies and distortions, and I'm against it regardless of which direction it comes from. When it comes from the direction of right-wing misinformation, accusations that the woke people are making a big power grab and don't really care about the pandemic itself, it's just about enlarging government power etc. I call that out as well. That doesn't come up around here much so it's not heard as often, this being the largely left-wing echo chamber that it is, but acquaintances and relatives of mine would tell you that I make this point when it comes up on social media.

There's a difference between 'this is wrong and here's why' and 'this is wrong and you wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't for *insert nefarious motivation here*', and also between that and 'this is wrong, but I won't stop at what the facts actually are, I'll blatantly exaggerate them'. I enjoy debate with people in the first column. Multiple members of this forum refuse to stay in that column. Many who do things like the Herman Cain Awards do as well. Those are the ones I have a problem with. Reasonable, civil debate is healthy, essential, and a benefit to society. This is not that.

Do you think vaccines or acknowledgement of diseases are left-wing?

This was never political till one side decided that they needed to downplay the virus to show fealty to their King. Before that, we'd make fun of Jenny McCarthy for being anti-vax or Gwenyth Paltrow for thinking coffee enemas cured some ailment.

And what is the debate you're looking for? Do we have to go through every single drug in existence and debate their merits when there is no scientific evidence to support it? If some science comes through that shows a solution more successful than vaccines, we're all ears. Otherwise we're debating if Windex can cure scurvy when we can just eat an orange.

No. As usual this is completely besides the point, and is followed by proving my point in the previous post I made.


This is part of the problem. You're pre-supposing what a legitimate debate can be about and what it can't be about a priori. Therefore any view which you decide is ridiculous can be pre-emptively dismissed. Civil discussion and debate doesn't impose those conditions. It starts with the floor completely open to all ideas.

ETA: I've said it before but the way this is going, it seems I need to say it again: I am pro-vax. I've gotten my shots and recommended to others that they do so. This isn't about the vaccine. It's much bigger and more fundamental than that.

No, I'm asking what you think should be debated. You people keep talking about debate and never will get around to what you think should be debated. Just vague platitudes.

So please let us what the debate you think we should be having that people are per-emptively dismissing.

Because some ideas are just flat out wrong and should be dismissed. If someone tries to tell me the earth is flat I'm not going to have that debate with them and legitimize their easily disproved argument.

Everything. I don't have any limits on what it should be. It's not a 'vague platitude', it's a statement of principle.

Who gets to decide what ideas are this wrong, and on what basis? What recourse do you have if a vital principle that you hold dear is subject to such dismissal?

Debating something doesn't legitimize it.

Can you name one topic that should have been seriously debated in here that was shot down? Everything is pretty broad. Do we need a serious debate on whether Pop Tarts cure Covid?

I just wish the ignore feature worked better

How about science for one?

It absolutely does. Once you tell someone you will listing to their position that is so obviously wrong and easily disproved you are validating their point and making them think they could sell you on their side of the issue.

That sentence is loaded with quite a few assumptions and conclusions that are difficult to unwind. I don't agree with any of it, but how do you debate these sorts of loaded statements? It isn't civilized, fun, or productive in any way.

The whole COVID debate is a complicated one, where we learn more every day. But reducing it to that sentence just doesn't work. For instance:

Percent of Total Population that has Received a COVID-19 Vaccine by Race/Ethnicity | KFF

You could spend days discussing this chart, and I don't really have much to say about it other than "it's complicated". Well, that and what the hell is going on in Oregon? I'll just assume that's a misunderstanding of some sort.

I've noticed myself, living in a very diverse area, that a very small percentage of white people are wearing masks and a very large percentage of black people are wearing masks. I find that interesting, especially since Ohio is trending the other way when it comes to vaccinations. Whatever that means. I know it's hard to talk about race without being unintentionally biased in some way. I don't mean this as a racial thing, other than it's fairly well documented that African Americans vote about 90% with the side that apparently isn't led by a member of the royal family.

A year and a half ago, people worried that Trump would unveil a vaccine just before the election in order to get votes. Kamala Harris memorably indicated during a debate that she would get a vaccine, but only as long as she was convinced Trump wasn't pushing it for votes before anyone knew whether it worked. I hope I'm paraphrasing her fairly. I've viewed the statement and I think that's in context.

But this has been political since day one. Both sides. I don't consider that a false equivalency. Partisans on both sides have squeezed COVID as hard as humanly possible to try and divine something that would generate a political advantage.

Fortunately, the vaccine developers could ignore all that and performed many miracles and have saved millions of lives.

I for one, am sick and tired of the War on Pop Tarts.

Brown Sugar Cinnamon Pop Tarts contain every ingredient essential to life on Earth.

What do you think the left is trying to gain out of their stance to take the vaccine? I get there are politicians and activists who virtue signal, but can't figure out what political advantage you see in this. In fact, letting Republicans continue to die en masse seems much more politically advantageous.

Thank goodness since on mornings when I am brutally hung over I just give my kids cold pop tarts for breakfast

No, you aren't validating their point one bit. You're saying only that you're going to listen to them, which is a good idea because they are a human being, not because of anything they have to say. There's no implied commitment to change your opinion one iota. Meanwhile, what dismissing them does is simply harden them and cause them to seek out others that agree with them, which further reduces the opportunity for growth.


So what do we do when the science changes, as happens quite often (it wouldn't be science if it didn't)? What about those who were dismissed previously for saying things science didn't approve of then, but were actually in line with what the new scientific understanding is? What of opinions abou subjects that are just plain beyond the realm of science?


This continues to be besides the point. It's not about 'we should debate topic X or Y'. It's about how we treat people who have opinions we find ridiculous/unacceptable. As I said before, it's not that 'people who are anti-vax are wrong' is a problem. It's that 'people who are anti-vax only say so because of reason X and we can conclude Y and Z about their character because of this opinion they hold' is a problem. Then of course extrapolating to other issues, this is just one that happens to be hot-button at the moment.

Going back to my original post that set this sub-conversation off, I'm rereading it and I think I expressed what I was trying to say clearly. It's not about what topic we debate or don't debate. It's about how we treat people who hold certain contrary opinions when those issues come up.

And what is the end game? Listen to them then tell them they are wrong? That just brings you back to point A. Kind of like we are doing right now.

If you don't think giving someone a chance to explain an obviously wrong POV gives them validation I don't know what to tell you. I'm not talking about obvious opinions or even questionable science. I am talking about lizard people, Joe Biden was executed at GITMO, Obama drink the blood of children arguments. There is zero point in spending one second debating these things.

Science obviously chenages, and I actually think peoples inability to grasp that concept is a huge reason we are where we are. Too many "Fauci is always changing his mind" people out there. That being said some science is irrefutable based on data, and any argument to the contrary is flat out wrong.

It's not back at point A though. You've given them the basic human dignity of listening to them. Secondly, you don't have conclude at the end that they are not merely wrong, but wrong because they are immoral/other ulterior motives. These are major differences.

"Contrary opinions" seems to be underselling it a bit. What if a chef decides not to fully cook chicken you eat at a restaurant because they don't believe in salmonella? Is that just a "contrary opinion"?

One side is actively trying to spread a deadly virus and kill as many people as they can. It's not a debate about how good the last Star Wars movie was.

We have listened for years. The highest office in the land routinely spun out this misinformation. The largest social media platform in the world is entirely transfixed on anti-vax content. The biggest cable news outlet spends its days doing the same.

These people have been heard over and over. It's left us with hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. The deadliest and worst Covid response in the industrialized world.

What does the body count have to reach before someone can be considered immoral?

You don't have to engage in the debate. It's not like we need a serious discussion over whether Obama drinks the blood of children in response to that claim (I can't say I've ever heard that one - the blood of children thing is more the traditional Protocols of Zion type hate of Jewish people).

But if someone wants to debate something a little less, well, unpleasant, like whether elementary schools should have a vaccine mandate or masks, and the response is (and I'm not saying you did this) "well, those who think kids shouldn't wear masks are the same people who say Obama drinks their blood," that's not a civilized response.

Nor is it terribly convincing, though that person might "win" the debate since there probably isn't going to be a response to that rebuttal.

People shouldn't be afraid to ask what they think are legitimate questions because they realize if the people being asked think they're dumb questions, they might be accused of believing the Earth is flat (it is, by the way, except for my damned driveway which is all uphill both ways). They might not be the best-informed questions, but if we consistently try and believe that most human beings want to be good people (and the rest become journalists or politicians), we'll end up with more good questions in the long run and probably more people vaccinated in this particular case.

I am floored you can; grasp that by listening to them you are doing them a disservice. It also isn't about motives. Usually these people are just stupid or brainwashed.

I agree with this, but the talking points coming from a lot of the right are beyond this and just plain wrong or in bad faith.

In a free society there's not a useful distinction between the two, in terms of 'acceptable dissent' or 'unacceptable dissent'. It's all just 'dissent'. That's fundamental to the very concept of a free society.


Again, framing it in terms of motivations. This is exactly what's wrong. Then they will just come back and say 'one side is actively profiteering off a virus to expand government power and turn the country into a nanny state'. Which is equally wrong.

On the other hand, instead of framing it that way, we could frame it differently. We could say, as one example, that one side believes that vaccination is a matter of personal choice that should be up the individual, and the other believes that the interests of public health are more important than that concern, that everyone should get vaccinated, and that people who are reluctant to do so should be coerced/mandated into compliance.

Certainly there probably better ways to word both sides, but the point is this; that is a description of actions and beliefs. It is not a description of motivations and goals, which only the person themselves can possibly know, not others who can't get into their mind. When we address ourselves to the facts of actions, decisions, and the like we have a foundation for a civilized and productive debate. When we address ourselves to the presumed and unknowable motivations, we have the foundation for inflammatory demonization and not a whole lot else.


For their opinion? That's not immoral under any condition/number. That's not even a relevant factor. This simply lacks any semblance of perspective. As has been said before, if we are going to rank people's morality based on their actions to prevent preventable deaths, there is an extremely long list there and the pandemic as a whole is barely a blip on that radar, if even that.

There absolutely is. How do you think someone who dissents to having an age of consent is treated by society? No one is saying to lock people up for dissent, just that we don't have to treat all dissents the same.


Yes, I can view someone as immoral for the opinions they hold. And yes, I can rank people's morality based on heir actions to prevent preventable deaths. For instance, I think Hitler was highly immoral for his opinion that the eradication of the Jewish race was necessary. Despite it being his opinion, I view him as more immoral than the person who liked Season 8 of Game of Thrones.

Maybe a controversial stance but I'll stick to it.

As the risk of dividing us further: frosted or unfrosted? :D

SI

This seems to have a blind spot for people who are actively engaging in bad faith arguments to attempt to elevate their known false argument so it is treated on par with arguments based on the best information we have at the time.

There's a lot of examples out there. For instance, the "scientists" who were intentionally trying to muddy the water about, say, smoking causing cancer to make it seem like the science is "unsettled" to keep allowing cigarettes to be sold without risk of litigation. How about the Andrew Wakefield? Turns out his "vaccines cause autism" study was straight up fabricated (he fudged his numbers /and/ his study was funded by lawyers trying to sue MMR vaccine manufacturers).

Those people are not going to come out and say "oh, you caught me - I was just trying to profiteer off my increased visibility or ability to sell you placebo X". So, yes, you have to try and discern motivations in those cases.

On a smaller scale, yeah, I think there are people online who just want to try to look smart or be contrarian or score some sort of internet points by engaging in bad faith arguments. I mean it's common enough that we have internet-age terms like "concern troll" and "tone policing". Of course none of that ever happens here (crickets chirp).


Similar to the above, I think there is a real case to be made that giving all points of view a "fair" showing is harmful. That's not to throw someone in jail for making a bad point. However, there is some responsibility to be had, especially if you knowingly are making false arguments, especially with something like this that is really harmful.

The platforming /is/ a part of the problem. It's how we have literally tens of millions of people in this country thinking Joe Rogan and his merry band of charlatans, snake oil salesmen, and dime store sophists have better medical advice than Anthony Fauci or the CDC or their own physician. This is not to say the latter has been perfect - far from it - during the pandemic. However, even with that, they should have far more credibility that we could mostly dismiss the former. Instead, we have the unvaccinated dying in droves (at a more than 20:1 ratio) and poison control jammed up at various times during the pandemic with calls about hydroxychlorquine and ivermectin.

SI

I will march on Kellogg's if they ever decide to get rid of them

One of the negative side effects of the Covid lockdown for me was re-discovering my love for pop tarts. Brown sugar cinnamon and cherry, especially. If you are trying to be good, the Special K pastry crisps do a decent job of kinda replacing them, at a fraction of the calories. I lightly toast mine to get it even closer to the original.

There are times when not questioning motives is then turned around as a defense because at least the person is sincere. Person X may not be right, but they are sincere so we should sympathize with them even if we know they are wrong.

The people who claim unfrosted is a worthy substitute are often the same people who wore Milli Vanilli tee-shirts in high school and have memorized the entire text of Lee Iacoca's autobiography... in its original Mandarin.

What's a bad faith argument? We often use the lawyers and scientists hired by the tobacco industry in the '80s and '90s. But that didn't stop medical researchers from studying the issue and, well, an awful lot of people still die from smoking every year.

But where does one draw that line? Who decides what's harmful and what isn't when it comes to publication? So far, one the biggest uses of platform censorship has been to quiet those who questioned whether COVID was the result of gain-of-function research. Yet that might be what actually happened.

I'm really uncomfortable with anyone deciding these things - especially government agents. Speech needs to be protected except when it in itself is an action (like blocking a road where we confuse the vehicle for the speech - pun intended - with the speech itself or the tried-and-tested "fire" in a crowded theater).

We can go back to the "but Facebook and Twitter are private companies" argument, and that circles back to the 230 protection and I think we're at a standstill there. I think section 230 protection implies that the service is considered a public utility. Many do not agree.

What is a "fair" hearing of evidence? I think we'd all like to imagine a public debate where representative experts settle a debate decisively. That never happens. Which doesn't mean we stop trying. For me, we patiently answer questions the best we can as long as we can. But I'm human, too, and there are certain issues like anti-semitism and racism that I don't have much patience for. Mostly, it's just not agreeing that being civilized even when we think the other person is being an idiot is not usually the best course of action. Being nasty just makes things worse, makes those who might have legitimate questions stop listening or fear asking. It wasn't any more endearing when Trump did it with the press - in fact, they were happy to take his obvious sarcasm literally and that ended up making the situation even worse.

Another example I'd give is the abortion argument. For those who oppose abortion, they simply see it as murdering a human being and that's more important than the rights of the mother. For those who think abortion should be legal (and I'm in that camp), they don't see it as murdering a human being. Unfortunately, for almost every single person who feels strongly one way or another about the issue, there is no common ground or debate to be had. It's not a legal argument, it's an argument about whether human rights include fertilized embryos (and yet, we ask the Supreme Court to decide it, sigh). I don't know how that gets resolved without one group feeling very much like an incredible and obvious wrong was committed. How should we deal with speech advocating one position or the other?

See, you get it. In a pinch, the cherry is a decent substitute for the brown sugar cinnamon. I would have to try the Special K crisps, though, before I'd sign off on that.

I fear we can find no common ground and you are now my sworn enemy. A pox on you, your family, and your family's family.

(For the record, I don't think of one as a substitute for another but 2 entirely different things - the unfrosted cinnamon is more akin to the unfrosted strawberry as a lighter, less sweet one while the frosted cinnamon is more like the various chocolate or whatever ones - much sweeter)

SI

Haven't tried pop tarts in a while. Doubt I'll love them like you guys. But will have to try them now.

If there is a treat I would indulge myself, it would be hot off the conveyor belt Krispy Kreme regular glaze.

Not sure they are available everywhere, but I recently had an Eggo Pop Tart (meh), and a Boston Creme Donut (I think that's what it's called). It was good.


I'm sorry CoviD-19 for posting on your thread.

It's a trade-off. Two crisps are 100 calories as opposed to one pop tart being 200.

Interestingly, frosted pop tarts have, on average, fewer calories than unfrosted. Its because the unfrosted have a thicker crust which accounts for more calories than the frosting.

I endorse almost everything in Solecismic's second-most-recent post, but I cannot abide the proposition of sanctioning people to eat cherry Pop-Tarts. A line must drawn on behalf of good taste.

* In all seriousness, 'not wrong just different' and all that.


This is a valid point, good post here as well. I wouldn't call it a blind spot, but you are quite correct that elevating bad-faith arguments is a goal of some. Where we disagree is on the matter of what can and should be done about this, and it seems to me based on what I've read from you on this subject that perhaps there is a blind spot in your statements as well - they don't address the negative consequences that absolutely will accrue from the efforts to distinguish bad-faith from good-faith arguments (which as I've said is an impossibility to be sure about).

From a purely practical standpoint, this is similar to trying to close Pandora's Box, or very much analogous to trying to handle the changing economy in the information age by isolationism, punitive tariffs, combating outsourcing, opposing automation, etc. I.e. we're not going back to a world of cheap energy, dirty manufacturing, cashiers in every checkout line in a grocery store, teller service only instead of ATMs at banks, etc. despite the desire of some people to do so. Similarly, in the internet age the flow of information can't be controlled. Walter Cronkite-style gatekeepers are a thing of the past. You can de-platform whoever you want and all you will succeed in is mild amounts of suppression. People will still gather with those who agree with them in various virtual places, and they will still elect representatives whose pronouncements will be dispensed, etc. The only way we have a chance of being effective against misinformation is to inoculate society against being overly impacted or swayed by it.

On the other side you have the issue of whether you *should*, which from a basic perspective of the value of ideas I strongly dissent from. Whether it's in ages past via thinkers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, etc. or in the more modern world Christopher Hitchens, Rosa Luxemburg, George Carlin, on and on one could go, the value of the free flow of ideas is a fundamental part of a free society. And as I noted early and Solecismic did as well more recently, it is inevitable that any attempt to shut down 'harmful' ideas will also shut down valid perspectives. It cannot be otherwhise, and I didn't read anything in your post which indicates an answer to the question I posed earlier in the thread; who is to decide, and on what basis? What recourse do you have against ideas you consider to be true, valid, and important being suppressed against such a force? Meanwhile we also have the impact of simply repressing and hardening people who believe the harmful ideas, while not doing all that much to stop the spread of them.

Let's examine that a bit. In this case, you're proposing that ranking be done based on unnecessary deaths from Covid - and of course we would wish to include other deaths that are indirectly caused by that due to lack of medical access when hospitals are full, etc. So let's assume those indirect deaths and the covid deaths that aren't preventable have been a wash. That's definitely not the case, but I'll stipulate it for the purpose of being overly charitable to your position. We're now approach a million Covid US deaths, so we'll call that our baseline number. It's a nice round one for comparison.

What other examples do we have of people not preventing preventable deaths? We could easily discuss war or many other topics which would dwarf the covid number, but one fairly non-controversial example is global poverty. It has been a number of decades since there was any reasonable excuse for allowing wide-spread global poverty to continue. Certainly at least since the 1950s developed, rich countries have had the ability to eliminate that scourge if we chose for, relative to the scale and scope of the program, an extremely small hit to our comfortable prosperity. Did we? Of course not. We didn't care enough. Oh we did the odd telethon and drop-in-the-bucket levels of foreign aid, but nothing even remotely approximating a serious effort.

Over time the situation has improved drastically, but even so as of less than a decade ago 80% of the world's population lived on less than $10 a day, 15% or so on less than $2 a day, 22,000 children died daily according to UNICEF estimates because of poverty, over a third of the world did not have basic sanitation, and so on. We could continue citing stats here till the cows come home, but let's just focus on the estimated number of children dying, and completely ignore adults for the time being.

To equal the one million Covid-related deaths discussed above would take a month and a half. We could also note that if we want to get upset about something Covid-related, we should get upset about our failure to do as the WHO recommended and prioritize first doses to foreign countries above boosters for Americans. But just to stick with this comparison, you could even assume that every single worldwide death of Covid is blameable on those who don't take the vaccine and it is till not even in the same discussion as the volume of poverty-related deaths in the poor nations of the world that we have accepted and done almost nothing about for decade after decade after decade because we just couldn't be bothered.

This is our fault as people who live in gross indulgence by any relevant historical and/or global measure. And by comparison we haven't got a leg to stand on. The Covid pandemic is not even worth being mentioned in the same sentence as the level of suffering that we have glibly tolerated. As a result, any moral judgement we may wish to make starts with a mirror. This idea that the supposed indifference to others by people who don't take the vaccine is some new, stunning development is ludicrous on its face.

If we could have drastically reduced and eventually eliminated global poverty just by getting a shot, and people didn't, that'd be pretty fucked up.

I might even say something mean about someone who made that selfish choice. The horrors!

I'm not a great person or anything, but I do a lot more than just get a shot to try to help the less fortunate. A shot would be the least I could do if that was an option. A no-brainer. But that's too much to ask for the truly selfish people. The worst of the worst.

If we had spent the same amount of resources fighting global poverty as we have Covid, adjusted down for inflation, relative value to the economy at the time, all of that, it would have made a dramatic difference. So yes, all of that ends in the same place. We didn't - and still don't - care enough collectively to do it.

We don't care enough about global poverty. But the anti-vaxxers care the least. The least is asked of them. They still don't want to help. That's what makes them the worst people.

That just doesn't make sense. It's a conclusion driving the bus. If I take a vaccine but am in general a jerk to others and selfish with my money etc., compared to someone who doesn't take the vaccine but generally treats people well, donates more to charity than I do, etc, who has the more negative impact on the world?

It's one dimension we can use to measure in this direction, but it's only one. With others that overwhelm its impact. So no, 'anti-vaxxers are the worst people' is not a supportable blanket statement, even leaving aside the differences in motivation that are impossible to know.

As said, works great if your goal is to demonize others whose behavior makes you mad. Works horribly if your goal is to rationally assess the situation.

I don't have time or energy in my life to rationally access everything and seek deeper discourse with people I find abhorrent. That's great if you do. Didn't someone once challenge you and ask whether you would have friendships and rational productive discourse with KKK members about their views and you said of course you would? I may be thinking of someone else. I'm not interested in doing that. I'm not interested in debating and seeking rational discourse about the ethics of adults' sexual relationships with minors with a NAMBLA member. I don't feel I'm required to do that. I don't feel I'm required to do that with anti-vaxxers either. It's an easy litmus test to determine whether they have any value to me at all as person or someone I want to spend any time engaging with on that issue, or any issue of substance, or share any part of myself with.

My napkin math says that for the cost of the F-35 stealth fighter program, we could give a cherry poptart to every person in the world every day for almost two years.

It goes back to the point about civility and building civilizations. We all have ideas about which issues are important and why. But those often differ.

It's when we allow ourselves to get so caught up in our specific morality that we give ourselves permission to call someone immoral or an idiot that we lose our ability to reach each other.

With the COVID issue, like many issues involving science that few of us understand on a molecular level, I think the best way to have influence is honestly communicating the latest studies and aggregate analyses, calmly responding to questions that might seem dumb or might seem trolling.

Once we permit ourselves to "go nuclear" on the dissent, we're part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I think the media's done that. I mentioned the electrician who worked on my house a couple of months ago - I don't think he's immoral or a bad person or stupid. But he does not trust the media or the government one tiny bit, so he thinks the vaccine is harmful. He's closed off.

That's unfortunate, but I think while he might or might not be causing harm through his views (it's entirely possible he has natural immunity without even knowing it, and/or has never spread COVID), it's the lack of civility out there that prevented us from reaching him.

In my opinion, and it's just mine, those out there who lose that veneer of civility are responsible for as much harm as anyone.

It's unfortunate that social media, made even more essential by COVID, makes it so easy to be anonymous and uncivil. You can write things to people that you would never say to them in person. One, for fear of starting a fistfight. But two, because standing in front of someone physically is a reminder of their humanity. You read their facial expressions, their reactions to you, their tone of voice; you can communicate quickly and more effectively.

As an aside, this is part of why you might call me anti-mask (I think it's a more nuanced argument). Kids need to learn to read facial expressions - that takes a long, long time. They need face-to-face socialization and there's a huge cost to closing the schools or making them wear masks in schools. I am hearing impaired myself, and I did not realize how much I depend on facial expressions to "tune in" on voices. I don't read lips, but I really struggle to understand someone who is wearing a mask until I can reliably sort out the pieces of the noises they're making from the environment around them as part of a continual voice.

Would you engage in that level of thoughtful resigned discourse with a proud antisemite? To hear where he's coming from? To reach common ground? Maybe you're part of the problem if you're too mean to them and don't assume validity in their position. Maybe it's really your fault than anti-Semitism exists because you're too mean about it and you're not willing to give them a big enough platform so they feel validated about their views.

Edit: If you think that's distinguishable, you're admitting there's a line somewhere. And for some of us, more and more mainstream voices and major politicians are crossing that line all the time. Imagine how concerning that is. And the response is that we just have to accept it and be nicer about it and that it's kind of our fault it happens at all.

You see, we agree. That's exactly the point I'm making. How does someone allow himself to become an anti-semite? At what point does he or she lose the ability to see people of Jewish heritage as fellow human beings?

Of course I'd be willing to have a calm discussion with a bigot. I have no tolerance for the views themselves, but I do have an understanding of the underlying issues. If I can't calmly relate why I am against bigotry, then absolutely I am part of the problem.

Would you say the Jewish people cause or aggravate anti-Semitism because they don't seek out enough rationale discourse on the subject?

No. I wouldn't. I was reading a very interesting essay just a couple of hours ago from Coleman Hughes about Black History Month. His point was that Jewish people have done very well to illustrate the positives about their contributions to the world, and what he loved about the spirit of Black History Month was that it had the same approach.

It's not so much an aggravation, but an unwillingness to challenge that causes problems. If we don't speak out because we're afraid those who disagree with us will be uncivil, then do we bear a certain responsibility for problems?

Maybe. The "heckler's veto" is often out there. But we can't stop trying and we can't lose sight of what's good within ourselves.

I guess that's admirable, but I don't think I'm morally required to do the same. There's a lot of shit I want to do that I don't find time for, "having a calm discussion with a bigot" isn't a big priority. There's so many non-bigots in my life I don't have as much time to spend with as I'd like.

I don't think you're morally required to do so, either. And that doesn't necessarily mean you're part of the problem.

I feel happier challenging myself not to get stuck in a philosophical rut, because my own disability isolates me from so much in life. It helps me to remember that everyone has to decide for themselves what's moral.

So that leads us, naturally, to try and figure out what's more important in life. What positions do we feel are so out there that we don't trust the morality of those who hold them?

We might well, then disagree on what's bad enough to warrant inclusion on such a list. I think bigotry belongs there. I also think those who are truly bigoted probably can't participate in that calm discussion. I had that experience not that long ago with a minister who happens to be in my family. I don't agree with his sense of morality and when I tried to have that discussion, he became very angry. I'd hesitate to reduce him to a cartoon and call him a bigot, but part of me wonders. He certainly wouldn't think of himself that way.

And, of course, we have the COVID issue. Does that rise to the same level? In many ways, yes, many ways no. But probably one difference is that there's more room to communicate, hopefully less emotion. So I won't stop trying and hopefully everyone on both sides is still open to learning more.

Dare I say there's no shortage of bigots or antisemites in this country, so folks framing "I certainly would/could have a calm logical discussion about bigotry with a bigot" as some kind of hypothetical is suspect. What's been stopping you so far?

Nothing. I've tried and will continue to try. Just because something is important and I will make time for it doesn't mean it's a 24/7 activity. I'd have approximately 35 children and not enough time to eat, sleep or write "hello, world" if that were the case.

Yes I did. I've also talked about people who I've been 'friendly' with who are Q.

I understand what you're saying about not wanting certain people to be part of your life. I disagree with that - we've been down that road before and reached the agree-to-disagree point - but what I've been talking about here isn't that. You can say 'I don't want anything to do with anti-vaxxers' and that's not the same as saying 'anti-vaxxers are the worst people'. I mean, if what we're saying is we're going to claim that and at the same time say we don't have time to rationally assess it; if so, then we have no business making that claim and it makes no larger point than 'I hate you'.

/thread

It sure sounds like you've given yourself all the moral credit for something you do occasionally, at your own convenience. It's not exactly soapbox material.

Ah yes, I do remember your position that you think you should have some say who I connect with in my life. That was a good one.

Edit: We've all learned more about mental health over the last couple of years, and what our own struggles are. I know I don't have the mental health to have certain types of people in my life, or to even engage with them over a certain level of substance. It's one of those rules based on self-awareness that has helped me do just a little better, and in a better position to take on other mental health challenges.

And if a goal should be to have or express less hate (or "nuclear dissent") generally, for anti-vaxxers, or whoever, and maybe it should be - not engaging with them is the very best way for me personally to move towards that noble goal.

Who said it was? What have you done in the last 24 hours to justify your existence?

We all have to live with ourselves. No matter who you are, this likely requires considerable mental gymnastics.

This has dissolved into a pissing match. Not exactly political but can you guys take it to the Biden or Trump thread so we can keep this focused on Covid.

I for one would like to better understand the impact of Covid on pop tarts.

Agreed with Edward. There's clearly legs to the whole "where do you draw the line with civility" thing (though it feels like we've had it several times before, with the same outcomes).

Iran returns donated vaccines because they were made in U.S. - Los Angeles Times

Solecismic can you talk to these guys please?

ETA: Despite the snark of this post I do agree we need to be willing to talk to our fellow human beings more.

I did not know this about Measles...That's really pretty scary coupled with covid.

Measles and Immune Amnesia

Israel and preliminary results of 4th shot. Basically, 4th shot helps but not that much. Hopefully more to come from Fauci, CDC etc. to provide more context.

Will a 4th shot boost your protection against COVID-19? : Goats and Soda : NPR
I hope Pfizer & Moderna are analyzing why it doesn't seem to help as much and streamlining their processes so a "new vaccine" can be made in shorter time for the next mutant.

Flying for the first time since covid started. Lots of creative mask wearing in the airport.

I think the biggest issue is that the vaccines were made for OG COVID, not Omicron. The virus has changed a lot since then.

In NFL terms, that's like a defensive coach who is amazing at neutralizing 2020's offensive packages, but hasn't adapted to anything that's happened since then.

One of our local hospital's new cases of COVID count is down to 6, 5 unvaccinated, 0 with 2 shots, 1 with the booster. I hope this trend continues and there's not yet another variant on the ay

More at-home testing probably has an impact, but the official reported new case counts are down about 95% in the last month. Maybe Omicron was a blessing, and very quickly gave the population a lot of immunity without killing or hospitalizing many vaccinated people at all.

For anyone in health care, Texas was the last state to pass the first of two CMS deadlines on 2/22. March 21st is the final deadline. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/h...n-timeline.pdf

SI

Petition to make this a new Olympic sport?

I've heard it's the 4th shot that is going to kill the population so....

Each shot is just a new battery for the tracking device.

Biden is ahead of (my) schedule from a couple week ago. Missus and I are planning to shop at Costco this weekend. I think I'll go in without a mask.

Yay for normalcy.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...y-us-rcna17686

I plan to keep masking at the grocery store, because people have other germs and aren't shy about spreading them.

Costco was madness yesterday. Store employees wore mask and prob 50% customers wore masks. I didn't.

But we got the $1.50 hot dog special (and slice of pizza) and I wiped the table with the supplied clorox wipes.

Mask compliance has been pretty good here (Raleigh and Raleigh suburbs). But this weekend it was noticeably down. I don't think that people have been formally following the CDC, but I do think that the CDC coming out mask-optional sent a pretty strong signal that filtered down in a hurry.

dola:

The few mandates that isolated part of the country had are going away. And I am starting to see the anti-mask/vaccine crowd saying "Getting rid of the mandates are not enough! The government must pay for what it did!"

It reminds me of the post-vaccine/pre-Delta period when we all started taking off our masks, so the previous anti-mask crowd suddenly couldn't make a political statement by not masking. So some of them starting making yellow Stars of David that said anti-vax.

I don't think that it applies to most folks here, but there's a decent percentage of the anti-mask/anti-vax/anti-mandate crowd that has enjoyed this, as perverse as that sounds. And now that they have basically won, they can't even enjoy the victory because they are upset that their faux-outrage game is ending.

They haven't even won, really. I guess they probably like to think they did, of course. But the virus is receding, like it did last summer. Nothing they did convinced anyone it was time to get rid of mandates or masks. If we were in the middle of delta again, there'd be all sorts of restrictions. I think as far as being tired of masking, that's pretty much everyone.

I will admit that I've started losing the mask when I'm not in crowded indoor places the last week or so. Part of that is the virus receding and part is because my MIL had hip replacement surgery last Monday so we were extra cautious leading up to the surgery.

Kentucky is just under 10% positivity rate, which a year ago would have been awful, but considering we were just pushing 30% a few weeks ago, it feels like we're near zero. I'm vaxxed and boosted. We don't do much socializing or partying, so we're limited on how much face-to-face time we have with strangers. I feel pretty comfortable without a mask right now.

I want to see the placard "The government must pay for taking measures to try and keep me, my family & friends healthy & alive"

What is the convoy going to protest when they reach Washington?

We want an end to mask mandates!

We did that last week.

uhhhh. CRT!!!!

I drive Uber so I get to see all walks of mask life and listen to it constantly. It’s tedious. I don’t really care anymore about the passengers, I’d prefer they wear one but it is what it is. At this point I want to personally mask if it reduces the chances of catching some other super rhinovirus shit flu as well Covid. It’s amazing how people wanted to dunk on society so bad by not wearing masks but their attempted recourse is to take it out on service workers as if we make the rules. And no I don’t know when Uber is changing it’s masking rules, dunno why riders would expect me to know that.

Apparently kids 5-11 dosage levels is not yet optimized.

They were approved back in Oct/Nov before omicron really ramped up so guess that is understandable. I'm more focused on hospitalizations so 100% to 48% is still pretty decent.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/28/pfiz...udy-finds.html

Well, they are currently testing a 3-dose regime.

That checks out with my family. My 5-11 year old got it despite being vaxxed (mild symptoms). The three of us who live with him are all boosted, and none of us caught it from him.

At the time, I thought that a lower dose was kind of silly--seemed like it was just catering to the anti-vax crowd by trying to minimize harmless side effects. I wish they had just let people who wanted to protect their kids get the full dose and understood that would mean a couple more kids with slightly sorer arms for 12 hours.

Another covid side-effect.

Buy stock in the makers of sildenafil....

My daughter is experiencing lightheadedness, dizziness and shortness of breath again. This happened a couple of times playing basketball within a couple months of getting over Covid at the end of 2019, and seemed to have gone away. But it came back (or something similar) the last two games of her career, sadly.

Now, we're not ruling out some sort of anxiety/panic attack because I could totally see that happening given the coincidence of it being the last 2 games of her career. The doctor is sending her to the same cardiologist she saw the first time around. We'll see what comes of it. But it's certainly possibly that it's some sort of reoccurrence of the long Covid symptoms she experienced the prior year, possibly sparked by some anxiety? Not sure. We can't tell if it's caused by anxiety, or the panic attack is what comes on in the moment she realizes something is off and she's seeing stars.

But what sucks is that she's sitting on the sidelines for softball right now until this gets cleared up. And of course, it's not like doctor appointments for specialists are easy to get. So it's possible she won't play much this season and end on an anti-climactic downer.

It should come down to the parent's choice he said.

'This is ridiculous': @GovRonDeSantis scolds students for wearing face masks during his @USouthFlorida visit https://t.co/v9XLjueCYi pic.twitter.com/TFeC6t6wL9

— WFLA NEWS (@WFLA) March 2, 2022