06-08-2021, 04:29 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2021, 03:50 AM by Vandiablo.
Edit Reason: More about powers
)
Okay, taking a break from studying Critical Race Theory...
"Immunity is immunity".
No.
"sometime after April 14 the Mayo Clinic removed that compelling historical aside".
Because it was very misleading.
"Why, from people who know better, is there so much interest in downplaying or erasing natural immunity?"
One, you shouldn't use "natural immunity" as part of future plans, because that means people have to suffer through it, people have to die. Two, you also should not count on those already infected as part of your plan because the level of immune response varies greatly from person to person; the previously infected cannot be counted on for very long to keep from spreading it. This was covered in Fauci vs. Paul. Three, the more you allow the virus to spread, the more it mutates; mutations are one of the potentially disastrous wildcards.
"Is herd immunity really only 60%, as Fauci once stated before artificially 'nudging' those statistics up?"
I don't think there is any such thing as a well-defined HI percentage, it would be something that is highly dependent on factors such as cultural behavior, season and climate, etc. Just like the death rate, it's not a hard-set number. And yet, I think it is not unreasonable to think that something with a R-whatever spread number between 1 and 2 could be defeated with 70% vaccination. If Fauci really said his initial number was definitely the magic number, then yeah, manipulative -- but whenever I've heard him, he will give caveats that provide context. However, the reporters will often strip away the caveats. I've not studied his latest quote about "elusive 'endgame'", but maybe he means what I just said -- there is no magic number, just keep vaccinating. When autumn arrives, cases and deaths will return in the low-vaccination areas, so we should try to get more vaccinated. [Edit note: I just looked at the MarketWatch article that was linked (Fauci changing numbers, and found that my paragraph here is paraphrasing points in their article. Anyone bothering to read this ought to read their entire article.]
"The article points out those people are slowly losing their rights due to this bureaucratic manipulation to retain a power our leaders should not have, something I have been espousing throughout this thread."
Anyway, as I've said, in a health crisis such as a pandemic or epidemic, leaders SHOULD and usually DO have these powers; I am even more convinced after this year seeing all the childish resistance based on various combinations of ignorance, politics, and misplaced machismo. I think the problem lies with: many local leaders are ill-prepared intellectually for this kind of situation; scientific guidance changes over time as more evidence happens, sometimes contradicting itself (masks, surfaces); a large proportion of the public can think critically, but can't do critical thinking (sorry, lame joke); some rules are arbitrary, somewhat arbitrary or seem arbitrary; oversight of leaders' emergency powers has been of the take-it-all-away variety instead of thoughtful review; many people are of the "looking out for number one" mindset when "we need to strive together" should rule the day; some people are blind or indifferent as to the fact that what they do affects (kills!) other people; too many people are 100% contrarian to the "other side"; assuming evil intent (as I do with think tanks and oil companies) of others; making lists that are too long; media outlets that idolize certain public figures; media outlets that demonize certain political figures; treating government employees as if they are political figures; plans of harm to public figures and their families; and, uh, et cetera. There are more. ... okay, breath 1, breath 2 ... so what power is it that is so coveted here? Why would any evil actor be happy with having people cover their faces during Spread Times? I'm not seeing how even a psychopath (sociopath?) would get any glee from all this stuff. Most of this stuff will disappear when the spread stops.
Some things will change on a permanent basis. We should realize the next one can come at any time. We should each have a good supply of bleach and hand sanitizer. We'll know to have a few billion little bottles; we'll know how to distribute hundreds of millions of bottles. We'll still have a stockpile of ventilators but we should not put the distribution into partisan hands. We now know that grocery stores are on the front lines. Restaurants will have plans ready to go for delivery and pick up. Ventilation of public places will likely change (I am guessing.) People know the difference between a N95 mask and a face covering.
There is one thing I agree with the article -- policy should not be based on how many vaccines were given, it should be getting to the point where the virus is no longer spreading. So, yeah, use a different metric than overall vax rate. BUT, if you're not there yet, then increasing the vax rate is the way to get there. Now, isn't that what Fauci is saying?
As of this writing, my state has 46.9% vaccinated, and my county has 61.6% (18 and over) fully vaccinated. My county is now way, way down in daily cases -- averaging 7 cases per day in the last week, out a population of 1.1 million. Thanks, vaccine! Okay, wait a minute, we've had 7.0% of the population who have caught the virus and have not died. Is 61.6% enough on its own, or do we need to count up to 7.0% in our calculation for herd immunity? The thing is, it is unknown how much of the 7.0% we can use in our figuring. The article and Rand Paul say use all the 7.0%, Fauci et al say not so fast. I have a feeling we'll know these things soon.
---------------------------------
This really ought to be two posts, but I'm lazy... on to Part II...
I think "free-market think tanks" such as AIER are inherently evil. Here is what I found about AIER after 10 seconds of research (I have no idea who Desmog is) https://www.desmog.com/2020/10/26/americ...-covid-19/ :
---
"A Right-Wing Think Tank Is Behind the Controversial Great Barrington Declaration Calling for COVID-19 Herd Immunity" [excerpt]
Known as the Great Barrington Declaration, this statement advocating for herd immunity was introduced in early October at an event hosted by the American Institute for Economic Research, a conservative free-market think tank located in the western Massachusetts town of Great Barrington. This think tank, funded in part through a corporate investment firm with holdings in major oil and petrochemical companies, operates a network for the international business community that partners with other institutions backed by Koch and fossil fuel cash.
The herd immunity strategy, which the open letter describes as a “focused protection” approach, basically calls for allowing this highly infectious virus to spread throughout the population, in theory infecting enough individuals while somehow protecting the most vulnerable such as the elderly from getting sick in order to allow a resumption of daily life. Such a strategy would inevitably result in more deaths — by some estimates the American death toll would likely rise to between 1 million and 2.5 million — and is far from guaranteed from even reaching the intended goal of broad immunity.
---
There are two different herd immunities going on here; one by vaccination (Fauci, WHO, etc.) and the other by "Grandma should be proud to die to save the economy" (Koch, GOP, etc.)
(So, really, who is it in America that has too much power? What are their "think tanks" trying to accomplish? Who will benefit?)
Okay, back to CRT...
-V
"Immunity is immunity".
No.
"sometime after April 14 the Mayo Clinic removed that compelling historical aside".
Because it was very misleading.
"Why, from people who know better, is there so much interest in downplaying or erasing natural immunity?"
One, you shouldn't use "natural immunity" as part of future plans, because that means people have to suffer through it, people have to die. Two, you also should not count on those already infected as part of your plan because the level of immune response varies greatly from person to person; the previously infected cannot be counted on for very long to keep from spreading it. This was covered in Fauci vs. Paul. Three, the more you allow the virus to spread, the more it mutates; mutations are one of the potentially disastrous wildcards.
"Is herd immunity really only 60%, as Fauci once stated before artificially 'nudging' those statistics up?"
I don't think there is any such thing as a well-defined HI percentage, it would be something that is highly dependent on factors such as cultural behavior, season and climate, etc. Just like the death rate, it's not a hard-set number. And yet, I think it is not unreasonable to think that something with a R-whatever spread number between 1 and 2 could be defeated with 70% vaccination. If Fauci really said his initial number was definitely the magic number, then yeah, manipulative -- but whenever I've heard him, he will give caveats that provide context. However, the reporters will often strip away the caveats. I've not studied his latest quote about "elusive 'endgame'", but maybe he means what I just said -- there is no magic number, just keep vaccinating. When autumn arrives, cases and deaths will return in the low-vaccination areas, so we should try to get more vaccinated. [Edit note: I just looked at the MarketWatch article that was linked (Fauci changing numbers, and found that my paragraph here is paraphrasing points in their article. Anyone bothering to read this ought to read their entire article.]
"The article points out those people are slowly losing their rights due to this bureaucratic manipulation to retain a power our leaders should not have, something I have been espousing throughout this thread."
Anyway, as I've said, in a health crisis such as a pandemic or epidemic, leaders SHOULD and usually DO have these powers; I am even more convinced after this year seeing all the childish resistance based on various combinations of ignorance, politics, and misplaced machismo. I think the problem lies with: many local leaders are ill-prepared intellectually for this kind of situation; scientific guidance changes over time as more evidence happens, sometimes contradicting itself (masks, surfaces); a large proportion of the public can think critically, but can't do critical thinking (sorry, lame joke); some rules are arbitrary, somewhat arbitrary or seem arbitrary; oversight of leaders' emergency powers has been of the take-it-all-away variety instead of thoughtful review; many people are of the "looking out for number one" mindset when "we need to strive together" should rule the day; some people are blind or indifferent as to the fact that what they do affects (kills!) other people; too many people are 100% contrarian to the "other side"; assuming evil intent (as I do with think tanks and oil companies) of others; making lists that are too long; media outlets that idolize certain public figures; media outlets that demonize certain political figures; treating government employees as if they are political figures; plans of harm to public figures and their families; and, uh, et cetera. There are more. ... okay, breath 1, breath 2 ... so what power is it that is so coveted here? Why would any evil actor be happy with having people cover their faces during Spread Times? I'm not seeing how even a psychopath (sociopath?) would get any glee from all this stuff. Most of this stuff will disappear when the spread stops.
Some things will change on a permanent basis. We should realize the next one can come at any time. We should each have a good supply of bleach and hand sanitizer. We'll know to have a few billion little bottles; we'll know how to distribute hundreds of millions of bottles. We'll still have a stockpile of ventilators but we should not put the distribution into partisan hands. We now know that grocery stores are on the front lines. Restaurants will have plans ready to go for delivery and pick up. Ventilation of public places will likely change (I am guessing.) People know the difference between a N95 mask and a face covering.
There is one thing I agree with the article -- policy should not be based on how many vaccines were given, it should be getting to the point where the virus is no longer spreading. So, yeah, use a different metric than overall vax rate. BUT, if you're not there yet, then increasing the vax rate is the way to get there. Now, isn't that what Fauci is saying?
As of this writing, my state has 46.9% vaccinated, and my county has 61.6% (18 and over) fully vaccinated. My county is now way, way down in daily cases -- averaging 7 cases per day in the last week, out a population of 1.1 million. Thanks, vaccine! Okay, wait a minute, we've had 7.0% of the population who have caught the virus and have not died. Is 61.6% enough on its own, or do we need to count up to 7.0% in our calculation for herd immunity? The thing is, it is unknown how much of the 7.0% we can use in our figuring. The article and Rand Paul say use all the 7.0%, Fauci et al say not so fast. I have a feeling we'll know these things soon.
---------------------------------
This really ought to be two posts, but I'm lazy... on to Part II...
I think "free-market think tanks" such as AIER are inherently evil. Here is what I found about AIER after 10 seconds of research (I have no idea who Desmog is) https://www.desmog.com/2020/10/26/americ...-covid-19/ :
---
"A Right-Wing Think Tank Is Behind the Controversial Great Barrington Declaration Calling for COVID-19 Herd Immunity" [excerpt]
Known as the Great Barrington Declaration, this statement advocating for herd immunity was introduced in early October at an event hosted by the American Institute for Economic Research, a conservative free-market think tank located in the western Massachusetts town of Great Barrington. This think tank, funded in part through a corporate investment firm with holdings in major oil and petrochemical companies, operates a network for the international business community that partners with other institutions backed by Koch and fossil fuel cash.
The herd immunity strategy, which the open letter describes as a “focused protection” approach, basically calls for allowing this highly infectious virus to spread throughout the population, in theory infecting enough individuals while somehow protecting the most vulnerable such as the elderly from getting sick in order to allow a resumption of daily life. Such a strategy would inevitably result in more deaths — by some estimates the American death toll would likely rise to between 1 million and 2.5 million — and is far from guaranteed from even reaching the intended goal of broad immunity.
---
There are two different herd immunities going on here; one by vaccination (Fauci, WHO, etc.) and the other by "Grandma should be proud to die to save the economy" (Koch, GOP, etc.)
(So, really, who is it in America that has too much power? What are their "think tanks" trying to accomplish? Who will benefit?)
Okay, back to CRT...
-V