Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

1261 - 1280 of 1333 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,589 Posts
I have some hope that the high figure was a bit of an anomaly due to delayed reports during the holiday season. I don't think we'll really know for sure how the Christmas season will affect things for another week or two. Right now the virus is doing a better job of "immunizing" people than the vaccine is, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this will change soon.
A couple months ago people would ask me questions about having had Covid, but now it seems everyone knows someone that had/has it. Perhaps 10-15% of the population has immunity now, so that should begin to reduce the velocity of spread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,960 Posts
My brother-in-law's dad died today of Covid. He contracted it in a nursing home, and was not admitted to an ER because he had a DNR. I never met the man.
Sorry for your loss red... this thing is clearing out nursing homes without pause or pity!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,967 Posts
My brother-in-law's dad died today of Covid. He contracted it in a nursing home, and was not admitted to an ER because he had a DNR. I never met the man.
Sorry for his loss. My wife and I have DNRs on file with our medical providers, but hope to not need them for a decade.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
Crap like this is what happens when too much free-dumb is allowed.


Oh boy... not only are we going to have surges from the insane amount of travel (TSA checkpoint travel numbers (current year versus prior year/same weekday) | Transportation Security Administration), other gatherings, stuff like the above is going to make things worse. Things are likely going to be looking quite dire in the next 2-3 weeks. :( They're already bad now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,589 Posts
Medicine is not practiced strictly as a science. As an example, prescriptions are not written to maximize outcomes based on the strict science of what is optimal, but by incorporating what we know about human behavior It's a compromise that combines the willingness\likelihood of patients to adhere to a prescription well enough to have an optimal outcome. It isn't that taking a medication 3 times per day for 10 days is the exact optimal dosing, it's that it's good enough, and accounts for behavior like forgetting to take a dose, or losing track of which day it is, or corresponds to typical meal times, etc.

The prescription has to take into account behavior and cannot assume perfect adherence.

Changing the estimate of effective herd immunity from 75% to 85% doesn't seem like a trust-breaking alteration to me. Besides that, medicine is entirely about making a best guess, trying a remedy, monitoring results, and adjusting that guess again accordingly. It isn't a determinant science like physics, where ballistic motion can be precisely calculated once, with no modification necessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
Medicine is not practiced strictly as a science. As an example, prescriptions are not written to maximize outcomes based on the strict science of what is optimal, but by incorporating what we know about human behavior It's a compromise that combines the willingness\likelihood of patients to adhere to a prescription well enough to have an optimal outcome. It isn't that taking a medication 3 times per day for 10 days is the exact optimal dosing, it's that it's good enough, and accounts for behavior like forgetting to take a dose, or losing track of which day it is, or corresponds to typical meal times, etc.

The prescription has to take into account behavior and cannot assume perfect adherence.

Changing the estimate of effective herd immunity from 75% to 85% doesn't seem like a trust-breaking alteration to me. Besides that, medicine is entirely about making a best guess, trying a remedy, monitoring results, and adjusting that guess again accordingly. It isn't a determinant science like physics, where ballistic motion can be precisely calculated once, with no modification necessary.
If your personal physician kept changing what is needed and admitting they didn't feel you were ready to hear the truth a few months ago would you continue listening to them or even seeing them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,589 Posts
If your personal physician kept changing what is needed and admitting they didn't feel you were ready to hear the truth a few months ago would you continue listening to them or even seeing them?
I have a low opinion of medicine in general for the very reason that we hardly know how anything in the body works, and the disclaimer "your results may vary" is very applicable. That said, an expert opinion is better than any wild guess I might come up with, so I'm going to listen.

I'm not up on the news, so I don't know what the comparison is. My understanding is the WHO first advised that masks provide no benefit, then said that it provides some benefit. Even a totally ignorant person would know a mask provides something above zero protection. Then there is the clip above showing Facui change his estimate from 75% to 85% to have effective herd immunity. I'm ignorant of any of the other instances where health officials were either grossly wrong, or otherwise mislead the public.

If my physician admitted that my issue is more complex than previously conveyed, and adjustments were made in response to suboptimal outcomes, I would take more responsibility to educate myself on my own situation, since my health is primarily my responsibility, not someone else's. Based on what I knew would determine my confidence level in my physician. My personal preference is a physician that gets into the nitty gritty details of the science and probabilities, and forgoes the chit-chat altogether; someone whose interest is the science and application of it rather than social relationships. Other patients prefer chit-chat and don't care to know anything about the science, and are happy to blindly follow the advise (or ignore it). They have little interest in "why" to do something, only the "what" to do.

So far I don't see evidence of anyone acting in bad faith, meaning their statements were intended for the benefit of others, possibly with the exception of the WHO advising that mask wearing provides no protection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
I have a low opinion of medicine in general for the very reason that we hardly know how anything in the body works, and the disclaimer "your results may vary" is very applicable. That said, an expert opinion is better than any wild guess I might come up with, so I'm going to listen.

I'm not up on the news, so I don't know what the comparison is. My understanding is the WHO first advised that masks provide no benefit, then said that it provides some benefit. Even a totally ignorant person would know a mask provides something above zero protection. Then there is the clip above showing Facui change his estimate from 75% to 85% to have effective herd immunity. I'm ignorant of any of the other instances where health officials were either grossly wrong, or otherwise mislead the public.

If my physician admitted that my issue is more complex than previously conveyed, and adjustments were made in response to suboptimal outcomes, I would take more responsibility to educate myself on my own situation, since my health is primarily my responsibility, not someone else's. Based on what I knew would determine my confidence level in my physician. My personal preference is a physician that gets into the nitty gritty details of the science and probabilities, and forgoes the chit-chat altogether; someone whose interest is the science and application of it rather than social relationships. Other patients prefer chit-chat and don't care to know anything about the science, and are happy to blindly follow the advise (or ignore it). They have little interest in "why" to do something, only the "what" to do.

So far I don't see evidence of anyone acting in bad faith, meaning their statements were intended for the benefit of others, possibly with the exception of the WHO advising that mask wearing provides no protection.
The WHO changed course on their mask recommendations after a study that came out way back in april or may. In June the WHO came out with standards to adhere to that which would achieve from their perspective the results the study showed. New information can come out that changes how medical professionals make their recommendations which is understandable and needed, my problem is when they say "I didn't feel people were ready to hear this until now" or without any data saying "masks are better than a vaccine". That to me is willfully misleading people, I trust the WHO and Osterholm but I don't trust the CDC or Fauci because the WHO and Osterholm have been transparent while the CDC and Fauci in my opinion have misled people "for the greater good".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts

Sigh...
The local newspaper spoke to James Trent, chair of the Queens Village Republican Club, from his hospital bed in Long Island on Wednesday, where he is suffering from COVID-19 complications.

“I wasn’t on the conga line. I ate by myself,” he told the Daily Eagle. “I don’t know how I got this."

Trent said he believed he "wasn't doing anything risky,
" despite public health guidelines discouraging people from meeting in groups indoors, particularly unmasked.

"It was a wonderful time and a great party, but I’m not happy I got sick," Trent told the Eagle.

Trent developed symptoms two days after attending the party (it's unclear if he caught the virus at the party or already had it and was contagious to other guests at the time).

Over 40 people can be seen at the Dec. 9 party in the video, over a dozen of whom are getting down on the dance floor. Vickie Paladino, who is running for a spot in New York's city council, leads the conga line behind a man carrying a Trump 2020 flag. Only one person is wearing a mask.

Paladino said he had not spoken to Trent, but that he was glad he was recovering and had no regrets about attending the party and did not believe it put anyone's health at risk.
:rolleyes:

Talk about complete idiocy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
One of the biggest problems that professionals like Fauci are facing is that when people act like children you have to treat them like children.
If you believe that then you must also except that the behavior you say is needed from professionals also erodes public trust and can cause the "child like" behavior you are calling out. Also who is the arbiter of what is needed civil disobedience and protesting vs what is "child like" behavior. I disagree with the idea that we are all responsible for each others health and if public officials can't be honest I have no reason to listen or believe anything they say.
I am here with everyone in charge at this point be it Fauci, Trump, Biden, or Redfield they all are about as trustworthy as the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,285 Posts
If you believe that then you must also except that the behavior you say is needed from professionals also erodes public trust and can cause the "child like" behavior you are calling out.
I agree that mistakes have been made by health care professionals in whom we place our trust. But I still believe that they are more worthy of that trust than those who are calling them liars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,589 Posts
As with most problems, they arise due to counterproductive cultural values. We think Trump is responsible for our own health, or some expert, or a physician. These entities can affect our health in small ways, but the person with primary interest in their health should be themselves. Who else has more responsibility for owning the health of your own body and mind? If someone else is responsible for your health, then you don't have control of your body, because there is no such thing as authority without responsibility.

People don't want responsibility though, so they are willing to give others authority to assume it, then complain when an uncompassionate bureaucracy fails to deliver optimal results.

More broadly, this concept applies to everything. Anytime some other entity has a stake in the outcome of something, they have a proportionate amount of authority, or say. This is why parents have authority over their children, because they have 100% stake in them. A baby pays for nothing and is responsible for nothing. The sign of a maturing child is the share of responsibility they take on for themselves. The most noble person then is the one that has assumed the greatest share of responsibility they can handle with competence, and the despicable one thrusts responsibility on others without having tried to assume it for themselves.
 
1261 - 1280 of 1333 Posts
Top