How Politics Hijacked Science and Religion

probinson said:

It would be nice to just dismiss Rhode Island, since it doesn't fit into the mask advocates predefined conclusions, but you can't decide when population density is relevant and when it's not willy-nilly. Not if you want people to take you seriously.

Click to expand...

Again, let's return to the variables you are testing. Let's assume you are looking at masks and their effectiveness on reducing transmission (it's kind of hard to follow what variables you are using). What regression analysis are you using to show that you are comparing like for like when you compare Texas with RI?

Do you consider it is possible, in principle, that the transmission of C19 is complex and multifactoral?

Derek1234 said:

Do you consider it is possible, in principle, that the transmission of C19 is complex and multifactoral?

Click to expand...

Of course I do.

Do you? Or do you just see lower case rates here and there and conclude, "Must be masks!" Because that's what The Science™ does.

probinson said:

Except studies show that really doesn't happen all that often. You could hop in your car to go for a drive and someone could crash into you and kill you. Doesn't mean we should all stop driving.

Click to expand...

Whoops! Coronavirus outbreak and kids - Harvard Health

Whoops! COVID-19 Mythbusters – World Health Organization

Whoops! Coronavirus in children: Are children immune from COVID-19?

Derek1234 said:

Whoops! Coronavirus outbreak and kids - Harvard Health

Click to expand...

Do you even read this stuff? Or do you just Google things that comport with what you already believe and find headlines that sound remotely helpful to your position?

From your link. Whoops!;

Derek1234 said:

Whoops! COVID-19 Mythbusters – World Health Organization

Click to expand...

What the heck is this? It's just a collection of random things, including the risk of transmission from COVID through shoes and houseflies. Really? Whoops indeed.

Derek1234 said:

Whoops! Coronavirus in children: Are children immune from COVID-19?

Click to expand...

Try to pay attention; no one has suggested children are immune from COVID-19. Whoops!

probinson said:

Of course I do.

Do you? Or do you just see lower case rates here and there and conclude, "Must be masks!" Because that's what The Science™ does.

Click to expand...

OK. We're making progress.

Yes. I strongly believe that the transmission is complex and multifactoral. It's why I have repeatedly said that, if science shows that masking is ineffective, we should stop masking and pursue other, efficacious strategies.

The best way to do this is to compare medical interventions and human behaviours in comparable populations - taking account of demographics, environment, human interactions (distancing, masking, sanitising, among others), vaccination provision and uptake, etc.

I live in Nepal. We've had very limited vaccination, and masking is variable. Hygiene is not comparable to the US. We've had school closures for an extended period of time, probably because of the challenge of multigenerational households. But the death rate per 100,000 is far, far lower than the US at its peak. Would your conclusion be that masking isn't working? That the US could take a leaf out of Nepal's book in some other way? Maybe we should reduce the provision of public sanitary facilities? What would your best guess be?

Here is a study about household transmission of SARS-CoV-2;

Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

You might learn something if you read it.

probinson said:

Do you even read this stuff? Or do you just Google things that comport with what you already believe and find headlines that sound remotely helpful to your position?

From your link. Whoops!;

Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does not prove that children are infectious.​

What the heck is this? It's just a collection of random things, including the risk of transmission from COVID through shoes and houseflies. Really? Whoops indeed.


Try to pay attention; no one has suggested children are immune from COVID-19. Whoops!

Click to expand...

Do you read it?

The WHO artivle says: "FACT: People of all ages can be infected by the COVID-19 virus. Older people and younger people can be infected by the COVID-19 virus. Older people, and people with pre-existing medical conditions such as asthma, diabetes, and heart disease appear to be more vulnerable to becoming severely ill with the virus. WHO advises people of all ages to take steps to protect themselves from the virus, for example by following good hand hygiene and good respiratory hygiene."

The Harvard article says: "Most children who become infected with the COVID-19 virus have no symptoms, or they have milder symptoms such as low-grade fever, fatigue, and cough. Early studies suggested that children do not contribute much to the spread of coronavirus. But more recent studies raise concerns that children could be capable of spreading the infection. Though the recent studies varied in their methods, their findings were similar: infected children had as much, or more, coronavirus in their upper respiratory tracts as infected adults. The amount of virus found in children — their viral load — was not correlated with the severity of their symptoms. In other words, more virus did not mean more severe symptoms. Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does not prove that children are infectious. However, the presence of high viral loads in infected children does increase the concern that children, even those without symptoms, could readily spread the infection to others."

In response to my suggestion that children could contract it, and transmit it - potentially asymptomatically - no less an authority than probinson said:

"Except studies show that really doesn't happen all that often."

Whoops!

Derek1234 said:

OK. We're making progress.

Yes. I strongly believe that the transmission is complex and multifactoral.

Click to expand...

As do I. We seem to agree on something.

Derek1234 said:

It's why I have repeatedly said that, if science shows that masking is ineffective, we should stop masking and pursue other, efficacious strategies.

Click to expand...

I doubt that's possible. The Science™ has been so polluted with politics that at this point, I really don't think anyone is going to be convinced one way or the other regardless of any study. I truly believe that it will take a few years, far removed from the pandemic, before we'll get real science. And when that happens, because people have such short memory spans, few people will even care any more.

Derek1234 said:

The best way to do this is to compare medical interventions and human behaviours in comparable populations - taking account of demographics, environment, human interactions (distancing, masking, sanitising, among others), vaccination provision and uptake, etc.

I live in Nepal. We've had very limited vaccination, and masking is variable. Hygiene is not comparable to the US. We've had school closures for an extended period of time, probably because of the challenge of multigenerational households. But the death rate per 100,000 is far, far lower than the US at its peak. Would your conclusion be that masking isn't working? That the US could take a leaf out of Nepal's book in some other way? Maybe we should reduce the provision of public sanitary facilities? What would your best guess be?

Click to expand...

I don't know enough about Nepal to wager a guess. What I do know is that one of the main reasons that the death rate is so high in the US is because many of our government officials made the grave error of sending ill nursing home patients back to their nursing homes, which resulted in countless elderly people being infected and dying. The death rate in the US is so high because we failed to protect the vulnerable, and instead actually put them in harm's way.

probinson said:

Here is a study about household transmission of SARS-CoV-2;

Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

You might learn something if you read it.

Click to expand...

are you talking to me? Genuinely curious. I said that Nepal closed schools probably because of the challenge of multigenerational households.

If you think I am defending or promoting Nepal as some science-following genius country you read me wrong. They are dealing with perceptions that older people are more susceptible, and live in crowded households.

Derek1234 said:

Do you read it?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Derek1234 said:

The WHO artivle says: "FACT: People of all ages can be infected by the COVID-19 virus. Older people and younger people can be infected by the COVID-19 virus. Older people, and people with pre-existing medical conditions such as asthma, diabetes, and heart disease appear to be more vulnerable to becoming severely ill with the virus. WHO advises people of all ages to take steps to protect themselves from the virus, for example by following good hand hygiene and good respiratory hygiene."

Click to expand...

And? I have never suggested that children can't be infected by the virus. You're arguing against your own straw man.

Derek1234 said:

The Harvard article says: "Most children who become infected with the COVID-19 virus have no symptoms, or they have milder symptoms such as low-grade fever, fatigue, and cough. Early studies suggested that children do not contribute much to the spread of coronavirus. But more recent studies raise concerns that children could be capable of spreading the infection. Though the recent studies varied in their methods, their findings were similar: infected children had as much, or more, coronavirus in their upper respiratory tracts as infected adults. The amount of virus found in children — their viral load — was not correlated with the severity of their symptoms. In other words, more virus did not mean more severe symptoms. Finding high amounts of viral genetic material — these studies measured viral RNA, not live virus — in kids does not prove that children are infectious. However, the presence of high viral loads in infected children does increase the concern that children, even those without symptoms, could readily spread the infection to others."

Click to expand...

I know. I read that. And you'll note that even in your own copy and paste, it does not PROVE that kids are infectious.

Derek1234 said:

In response to my suggestion that children could contract it, and transmit it - potentially asymptomatically - no less an authority than probinson said:

"Except studies show that really doesn't happen all that often."

Whoops!

Click to expand...

Nothing you've posted shows that asymptomatic transmission from children happens often. Did I say it NEVER happens? No. I said studies show it doesn't happen all that often. Indeed, the study on household transmission I just posted says just that.

probinson said:

As do I. We seem to agree on something.



I doubt that's possible. The Science™ has been so polluted with politics that at this point, I really don't think anyone is going to be convinced one way or the other regardless of any study. I truly believe that it will take a few years, far removed from the pandemic, before we'll get real science. And when that happens, because people have such short memory spans, few people will even care any more.



I don't know enough about Nepal to wager a guess. What I do know is that one of the main reasons that the death rate is so high in the US is because many of our government officials made the grave error of sending ill nursing home patients back to their nursing homes, which resulted in countless elderly people being infected and dying. The death rate in the US is so high because we failed to protect the vulnerable, and instead actually put them in harm's way.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are many inexcusable and tragic deaths that have happened globally, including in the US, due to poor policies like this.

However, we risk getting away from the subject at hand - how do you extrapolate what interventions are meaningful from data unless you conduct a proper regression?

Derek1234 said:

are you talking to me?

Click to expand...

I'm posting on a public forum. I'm talking to anyone who chooses to read what I write. The study shows that children being an index case in household transmission is rare.

Derek1234 said:

Genuinely curious. I said that Nepal closed schools probably because of the challenge of multigenerational households.

Click to expand...

That may be. As I said, I do not know enough about Nepal to speak about it.

probinson said:

Yes.


And? I have never suggested that children can't be infected by the virus. You're arguing against your own straw man.



I know. I read that. And you'll note that even in your own copy and paste, it does not PROVE that kids are infectious.



Nothing you've posted shows that asymptomatic transmission from children happens often. Did I say it NEVER happens? No. I said studies show it doesn't happen all that often. Indeed, the study on household transmission I just posted says just that.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see. Well, that's not strictly true in the sense that some studies have shown that children who are sick (yes, that happens less, I know) are 60% more likely to transmit the virus than adults; and children who had it but were not badly sick were only half as infectious as adults. So our definitions of "not all that often" are somehow different.

Derek1234 said:

However, we risk getting away from the subject at hand - how do you extrapolate what interventions are meaningful from data unless you conduct a proper regression?

Click to expand...

How would you suggest we do that and ensure it is not polluted by politics and societal pressures?

Derek1234 said:

Oh, I see. Well, that's not strictly true in the sense that some studies have shown that children who are sick

Click to expand...

Hold on... now you're moving the goalposts. Children "who are sick" are not "asymptomatic", which is what we were discussing. There simply is no good evidence that asymptomatic children (healthy children?) are drivers of the pandemic.

probinson said:

I know you mask advocates of The Science™ like to end studies of mask mandates in October 2020, you know, right before cases spiked all over the country, but that is the very definition of "cherry-picking".

Click to expand...

The data I showed you earlier was from April 2021. That showed that the average infection rate for states with mask mandates to be about 73,000/million. The average for the same period, for states without mask mandates was bout 103,000/million.

You can still go to the latest data and look for yourself. But it won't change very much. Would you like me to show you that?

probinson said:

California locked down everything for months. They closed indoor and outdoor dining. They masked everyone. They distanced. They "did everything right" according to The Science™ and still had a worse outcome. Why?

Click to expand...

Because you like cherry-picking a few states instead of taking all the states. We get that. And it's understandable. Once the pandemic got to be nationwide, it didn't matter much as long as you included all the data.

probinson said:

Instead of doubling down on What We Know Works™, why aren't we examining the data and making adjustments? Why are we simply data dredging in search of support for our past recommendations instead of examining why the real-world outcomes don't correlate with The Science™?

Click to expand...

You just had a hissy because CDC did that. And you've done it before. As we learned more about the disease, we got smarter at preventing it.

Masks turned out to offer only a little protection for the wearer, but offered pretty good protection for other people. And the recommendations changed to reflect the data.

Surfaces turned out to be less important in spreading infection than they are for other viruses like influenza and the recommendations changed to reflect the data.

Each time deniers had a conniption as CDC and physicians used the data to update their recommendations.

probinson said:

There simply is no good evidence that asymptomatic children (healthy children?) are drivers of the pandemic.

Click to expand...

Let's take a look...

A new University of Florida epidemiological study, based on contact tracing data from thousands of households in Wuhan, China, finds that while children are less susceptible to COVID-19, when they do become infected they can be nearly 60% more likely than adults over 60 to infect exposed family members.

So there is that. Nearly 60% more likely than adults to infect exposed family members.

The Lancet - Infectious Diseases
January 18, 2021
Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and risk factors for susceptibility and infectivity in Wuhan: a retrospective observational study
Within households, children and adolescents were less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection but were more infectious than older individuals. Presymptomatic cases were more infectious and individuals with asymptomatic infection less infectious than symptomatic cases. These findings have implications for devising interventions for blocking household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, such as timely vaccination of eligible children once resources become available.

Picking up the virus in school, and then bringing it home to adults. That's what happens, scientists have found.

probinson said:

"The response here is not that nothing should have been done but that the wrong things were done.

Click to expand...

Right. Trump admitted this on tape. He admitted that he knew it was going to be bad, but "downplayed" it and delayed effective action to "avoid panic." And hundreds of thousands of Americans died unnecessarily.

Long-made, scientifically-based pandemic plans were abandoned

Click to expand...

Right. The Obama administration had a pandemic plan in place, that would have greatly reduced the death toll. Trump dismantled it.

Meanwhile, Peter Loge, who served as a senior adviser within Obama’s Food and Drug Administration, told KHN he remembered a very clear message from the HHS secretary regarding the presidential transition.


“Our job was to set up the Trump political staff for success, and we took that mandate very seriously,” said Loge. He and his colleagues wrote memos to inform the Trump staff about priority issues. “But nobody called me and asked what I was doing in my job,” said Loge.


However, the Trump administration has maintained that the coronavirus sneaked up on the U.S., and Trump himself has even said it was a “very unforeseen thing.”
...
Multiple Obama-era officials have said they left a 2016 “pandemic playbook” that detailed exact steps to take in the event of an infectious disease outbreak. The White House press secretary even held up the actual document on the White House lawn.


There has been discussion in recent days as to whether the Obama plan was dated because it dealt with lessons learned from earlier outbreaks that may not apply to the current pandemic. Still, McConnell’s statement focused only on whether any such “game plan” existed, and ample evidence suggests it did.


We rate it Pants on Fire.
Evidence Shows Obama Team Left A Pandemic ‘Game Plan’ For Trump Administration