Linky Friday: But Wait…There’s More! Edition

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home.

Related Post Roulette

68 Responses

  1. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Ah, poor Ron Popeil.

    I didn’t know about the unhappiness part. I only knew the guy who was in the Weird Al song and, later, on the commercials. He seemed kindly.

    Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Okay, looking at The Egg Scrambler and I see it as a solution to a problem that precious few people actually have.

      I’ve heard that when you see one of these items that strike you as silly (e.g., The Snuggie, pre-peeled oranges, etc) and you’re tempted to say “that’s just for lazy people!”, consider whether it’d be a good thing for someone who was differently abled. The Snuggie, for example, is *PERFECT* for someone in a wheelchair. Pre-peeled oranges are good for people with arthritis or dexterity problems.

      But I’m not seeing that here.

      Maybe it’d be a great device to make a bunch of cascarones.Report

  2. Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    Ah, Olympics, kinda like the NCAA, but with way more sexual abuse and cover-ups.

    Do these kids have anybody but their parents looking out for them?Report

  3. Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    LF4: Don’t have a detailed opinion on the CDC and that’s probably how it should be. I do think, though, that institutionally it is adrift without any idea of what it’s role is supposed to be. Could be a congressional issue, could be and Executive issue, could be plain bureaucratic mismanagement, could be all of the above or something else. No idea. But adrift it is.

    I thought they completely botched the Mask easing, and honestly can’t see any logic or ‘science’ behind their new ‘guidance’. For me, it isn’t that they were wrong at one point or another, its that they can’t really articulate why and how they were wrong and why and how they are less wrong now.

    I go to their own website to look at the information they are publishing regarding this 4th wave Delta variant… and see nothing but Vaccine public policy success.

    https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_dailytrendscases

    To be fair to everyone involved (self included) I’m keeping an eye on Excess deaths and will alter behavior if and when we see them spike in a manner that isn’t as obviously mitigated as it is now. But no, I won’t be masking in any form given the information we have now.

    As a coda, while I’m personally surprised at how quickly daily vaccination rates dropped… it is still hovering at around 500k/day… and, given we’re in the middle of summer, a natural dip in the flu cycle, and enjoying the collective benefits of 60% adult vaccination rates it doesn’t surprise me that uptake is sluggish; I anticipate that as flu season approaches, and/or virulence noticeably increases vaccinations will increase.

    If this were still the Trump presidency, I’d think the CDC was actively attempting to undermine his Presidency.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      For me, it isn’t that they were wrong at one point or another, its that they can’t really articulate why and how they were wrong and why and how they are less wrong now.

      Yes.

      Someone pointed out the CDC’s position on margarine and vaping and says that the current situation looks a lot different when you look at how it handled those things.

      One of the mask skeptics I saw back during wintertime did a cute little demonstration of what his breath does while wearing a mask when he was standing outside in sub-zero weather. He put on his mask and gave a short speech asking everybody to take note of the cloud of vapor that came out of the sides of his mask and pretty much surrounded his head as he was talking.

      Of course, the best counter-argument to this was “you’re wearing a crappy mask! You should be wearing an N95 mask! If you find it easy to breathe in your mask, you’re wearing it wrong!”

      So I go to the “When You’ve Been Fully Vaccinated” page set up by the CDC and look at the mask guidance…

      And it doesn’t mention N95 masks. Just masks.

      If this were still the Trump presidency, I’d think the CDC was actively attempting to undermine his Presidency.

      Ouch.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Yeah, but I’m not even interested in the Mask Efficacy wars… the point was to make the curve look, well, how it looks now.

        I get that maybe we’re seeing something that could get worse… but it isn’t worse… the science and the data show that the vaccines are doing what we want them to do… make the pandemic manageable and reduce deaths. The answer is still vaccinations, not masks.Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        And it doesn’t mention N95 masks. Just masks.

        At the beginning, guidance that said “Everyone should wear an N95 mask” was worthless, because there weren’t enough masks. It’s unclear whether there are enough N95 masks in stock today for everyone. Certainly the majority of the people I see that are still masked are wearing commercially-made cloth masks, not N95 masks.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain
          Ignored
          says:

          You can get a box of 10 from Amazon for $10.

          Which, dang, is ‘spensive. I guess they’re reusable, though. Put them in direct sunlight, six minutes per side.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Wear one or two per day and cycle through them. Covid degrades over time.Report

          • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            The CDC says the typical N95 mask can be used for eight hours, either continuously or a few minutes now and then over a longer time. They also say that air drying for 72 hours will inactivate the Covid-19 virus. Damaged or badly soiled masks should be discarded.

            Given my present usage pattern, I figure I can use one for at least several weeks if I don’t damage it. If I used it when I was out on the bike, not nearly so long.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        What did the peer reviews of this experiment say? Were the empirical data published somewhere and have the results been successfully replicated elsewhere?

        Because y’know, skepticism something.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          As far as I can tell:

          Surprisingly, wearing an unwashed single layer t-shirt (U-SL-T) mask while breathing yielded a significant increase in measured particle emission rates compared to no mask, increasing to a median of 0.61 particles/s. The rates for some participants (F1 and F4) exceeded 1 particle/s, representing a 384% increase from the median no-mask value. Wearing a double-layer cotton t-shirt (U-DL-T) mask had no statistically significant effect on the particle emission rate, with comparable median and range to that observed with no mask.

          That’s bad, right?

          (I’m pleased to see that you’ve overcome your reluctance to read scientific studies due to a lack of training on your part, though!)Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            No I mean the peer reviews of the Guy Standing In The Cold experiment.
            Since it was so persuasive I want to read the data for myself.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Man, I really made a mistake in linking to a peer-reviewed study published by Nature that compared N95 masks to U-SL-T masks, huh?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes because that’s not what was so persuasive to those guys standing out in the cold.
                They found his experiment convincing, while the CDC experts were not.

                So it’s logical to ask why.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, as pointed out earlier, he wasn’t wearing an N95 mask. Remember the responses?

                “You’re wearing a crappy mask! You should be wearing an N95 mask! If you find it easy to breathe in your mask, you’re wearing it wrong!”

                Yeah. That.

                Which is why, when I went to the CDC expert website, that I specifically looked for specific mention of N95 masks as opposed to just any old mask (including U-SL-T ones).Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So he wasn’t really skeptical, and wasnt really performing a scientific experiment is what I’m saying.

                In fact he was completely credulous and making decisions entirely on faith, not logic.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                He went outside and did a quick test and demonstrated that a cloud of his breath quickly surrounded him as he was speaking into the camera and did so in such a way that was repeatable by anyone with a similar mask and a similar cold day.

                When a scientific team got together to do a study on the, ahem, “Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities” they found that N95 masks were good and work well.

                And U-SL-T masks don’t work well.

                His credulity accidentally led him to a similar conclusion found by the published study you requested and I linked to.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I notice how when someone who is skeptical of experts is challenged, he abandons his own experience and retreats to quoting experts.

                Which is true for most of the vaccine and mask opponents. They are merely authority-shopping for some voice which will tell them what they already want to believe.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I disagree that my saying that N95 masks work and that there are studies demonstrating that they work is me demonstrating my opposition to masks.Report

              • Brandon Berg in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s worth noting that the “experts” are often not the real experts. Journalists definitely aren’t experts, and are in fact notoriously bad at communicating expert consensus to the public. Political appointees and bureaucrats sometimes have real expertise, but their public communications are a combination of that, political considerations, and a need to dumb it down for the lowest common denominator, which sometimes leads to advice being distilled to the best rule of thumb someone with an IQ of 90 can follow.

                The real expertise is in the literature. And most of that is garbage, too. You really need a meta-analysis that takes publication bias into account. That’s the closest you can get to unvarnished expert consensus. And sometimes there isn’t even an expert consensus to find.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So, here is the thing about that cloud. It’s surrounding only him. It’s not dissipating 6′-10′ in front of him, it’s just hanging around his head.

                Also, the fact that he has a cloud of water vapor around him doesn’t mean he has a cloud of Covid. His breath is not streaming out of his cheeks and past the mask, it’s hitting the mask, which means some percentage of the Covid particles are getting tangled in the mask fabric, while water molecules, which are much smaller than Covid particles, are not. They are just following the airflow.

                Then you get the other side, which is “what can make it through your mask?”.

                The fluid dynamics of a such an example is wrong, but it’s visually impactful, so people who don’t know better think it is meaningful.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                If the covid particles are aerosolized, it wouldn’t surprise me to find that N95 masks (properly worn, of course) would be found to limit escape of covid particles pretty well.

                While, at the same time, something like a single-layer t-shirt mask wouldn’t be much use at all when it comes to controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Depends on the goal. A couple of layers of fabric won’t filter out a ton of Covid particles, but they will force the flow into a highly turbulent state, which means it dissipates a whole lot faster and can’t travel as far.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, a U-DL-T mask is different from a U-SL-T mask, that’s for sure.Report

              • veronica d in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                So many people base this debate on the hidden premise: “If it’s not perfect, it’s useless.”

                Of course, it’s plausible that your average cloth mask won’t do shit and isn’t worth wearing. However, the “guy talking in the cold” test does nothing to demonstrate that. There are so many variables not accounted for. It’s utterly “not science.”

                Which is fine. Whatever. But some people (including Jaybird, evidently) treat is as the final word. Case closed.

                Stop doing that.

                This reminds me of all of those “not wearing a seatbelt saved my life” anecdotes. Remember those?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                The part of the study that I quoted said:

                Surprisingly, wearing an unwashed single layer t-shirt (U-SL-T) mask while breathing yielded a significant increase in measured particle emission rates compared to no mask, increasing to a median of 0.61 particles/s. The rates for some participants (F1 and F4) exceeded 1 particle/s, representing a 384% increase from the median no-mask value. Wearing a double-layer cotton t-shirt (U-DL-T) mask had no statistically significant effect on the particle emission rate, with comparable median and range to that observed with no mask.

                That is to say: Some participants did worse with a U-SL-T mask than with no mask at all.

                Unless I’m reading “The rates for some participants (F1 and F4) exceeded 1 particle/s, representing a 384% increase from the median no-mask value.” incorrectly, anyway.

                But who cares what the science says?

                Let’s go with our guts!

                In your heart, you know masks work! No matter what kind they are!Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I don’t care what those scientists say, I conducted my own experiment which proved that mask wearing will reduce emission of virus-laden aerosols and droplets associated with expiratory activities, unless appreciable shedding of viable viruses on mask fibers occurs.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                If you don’t care what the scientists say, you’ve got a lot of company.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I care a lot what they say, but we also have a lot of determined disinformation and efforts to put absurd spin on real data. It is very useful to way a week or three.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, as in this very thread.

                The study cited concluded that masks are effective at dramatically reducing the transmission of the virus.
                Certain caveats apply, as in all things but the bottom line is that masks work.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                N95 masks are effective at dramatically reducing the transmission of the virus.

                U-DL-T masks are not particularly effective.

                U-SL-T masks might even make things worse. The researchers said that they found this surprising.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, those are the caveats- that the masks need to be washed and not made of loose fabric which sheds particles.

                None of which changes the overall conclusion that given a couple caveats, masks are very effective at reducing the transmission of the virus.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Did the CDC webpage make those caveats?

                Or did it just say “wear a mask” without pointing out that there are some masks that actually make things worse?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So, you started by talking about the Guy In The Cold and his science experiment showing that masks don’t work;

                When that was challenged, you retreated to citing a study that supposedly confirmed his findings, but actually contradicted them;

                And now you’ve pivoted to talking about the CDC’s instructions.

                Do you have an actual point here, some argument to be made, or is this just oppositional defiant disorder?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, I linked to a scientific study that showed that some masks don’t work. That’s not *RETREATING* to a position that says that some masks don’t work.

                That’s citing a scientific study that shows that some masks don’t work.

                I am not pivoting to talking about the CDC’s instructions. We began the thread by talking about how the CDC’s instructions are not great.

                Why are the CDC’s instructions not great?

                Because they say “masks” and not “N95 masks”.

                Why does that distinction matter? Because of a study that showed that some masks can actually make things worse.

                Do you have an actual point here, some argument to be made, or is this just oppositional defiant disorder?

                I’m treating the situation as if it’s something that can be fixed by wearing the proper mask, rather than as a situation that can be massaged by communicating that one is on board with wearing a U-SL-T mask.

                Remember when you said “Act as if your health and the health of those you love depended on your decision”?

                I’m telling people that studies show that an N95 mask works.
                And that same study showed that U-SL-T masks don’t work. The researchers were surprised to find that they could make things worse.

                And I’m frustrated that the CDC doesn’t make distinctions between the masks that work and the masks that can make things worse.

                You’d think that this would be something that the CDC would be good at.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Put another way, have you ever seen someone wearing their mask with their nose sticking out? Like, they’re only blocking their mouth?

                Which of these two thoughts is closer to your immediate response?

                A: That person is not wearing their mask properly.
                B: At least that person is wearing a mask.

                If you see A as closer to your response to someone wearing a mask with their nose hanging out of it, then you may understand why I keep harping on how the study showed that N95 masks worked and other masks didn’t really work.

                If B was your response, I guess I can understand why you think that it’s just important to wear a mask. (With a few caveats, of course.)Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                We’re up to what, four different locations of goal posts here?

                Lets address them in order:
                1. The “skeptical” Guy In The Cold is actually a credulous rube, as is anyone who takes him seriously.

                2. The study had the conclusion that almost all masks are effective at stopping the spread of the illness.

                3. The CDC should be more adept at mask instructions.

                4. People should wear their mask correctly.

                Does this about cover it?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, see my comments as pertaining to a particular theme:

                N95 masks are good.
                U-SL-T masks might be worse than not masking at all.
                The guy in the video who was wearing a U-SL-T mask was saying “look at all of this vapor around me” and, as it turns out, his hypothesis was not crazy given that there was a study that showed that his casual observation may have been accurate.

                The scientists were surprised by this finding. They said as much in their paper.

                The conclusion of the study was that N95 masks and surgical masks worked. U-DL-T masks are not particularly effective. U-SL-T masks could be worse than not masking.

                Saying that “people should wear masks!” but not caring what kind of masks is not helpful.

                All of these points are true. None of these goalposts have shifted.

                If you care about your loved ones, you won’t tell them “wear a mask!”

                You’ll tell them “wear a N95 mask or a surgical mask!”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                NO.
                You can successfully stop the spread of the disease EVEN IF you aren’t wearing an N95 mask.

                For about the 4th time you have misunderstood the very study you cited.

                First, you are only citing the two types of masks, but ignoring all the other types they tested; Washed, double layer, non-friable etc.

                Second, the “transmission” that the study was talking about was of the smaller particles-NOT transmission of the disease itself.

                This is a critical point you keep missing. Most Covid spread is via the larger microdroplets, not the airborne virus itself.

                You can successfully stop the spread of the disease EVEN IF you aren’t wearing an N95 mask.

                The only time a mask is equal to or worse than being unmasked is when a few highly specific number of variables exist- being unwashed, very thin fabric which has loose fibers.

                In all other cases, being masked is much better than being unmasked.

                You can successfully stop the spread of the disease EVEN IF you aren’t wearing an N95 mask.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                You can successfully stop the spread of the disease EVEN IF you aren’t wearing an N95 mask.

                It’s not a 100% thing, Chip.

                Like, being *VACCINATED* isn’t a guarantee that you’ll successfully stop the spread of the disease.

                But it really does a good thing when it comes to changing the risk.

                Wearing a N95 mask? That does a good thing when it comes to changing the risk.

                Wearing a U-SL-T mask? That might be worse than no mask at all.

                You shouldn’t think that “wearing a mask” is a bulletproof vest. It’s not. But there are better masks and you should tell people to wear the better masks.

                It changes the risk in the best direction.

                I don’t know why you’re pushing back against this.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                To be fair: I’m moving to Florida which is currently rocketing past their former peak virus numbers.

                Ergo buying a brick of ten N95s seemed like a reasonable thing to do and I’ve done so.

                It might be really well spent money and it might be serious overkill since my place of work hands out lesser masks for free.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                If this is new news, then it’s clickbait.

                If it’s old news and correct, then the CDC presumably will be changing their advise.

                If it’s just old click-bait news, then notice the CDC isn’t suggesting N95s for general use.Report

              • Brandon Berg in reply to veronica d
                Ignored
                says:

                COVID-19 is actually pretty tough to catch. The original estimates of R0 were around 3. That’s more than the flu, so in some sense it’s high. But when you consider that the average person might pass thousands of people on the street, be in the same enclosed space as hundreds (stores, work, church, bars, etc.), live with one or more other people, and only transmit it to three, well, it’s really not so easy to pass it along, is it?

                If a mask just catches half of the virions emitted, that might help quite a bit, especially if dose matters.Report

              • veronica d in reply to Brandon Berg
                Ignored
                says:

                I look at it this way. First, vaccinated people can still get delta covid. If we do, however, we have a higher chance of being asymptomatic. That’s good, except asymptomatic people can still spread the disease. I probably won’t be exposed, but I can’t be sure. If I am exposed, I don’t want to spread it, for obvious reasons. Not everyone is vaccinated. Not every non-vaccinated person is a “holdout.” Some have legit medical reasons. Some are kids. And yes, some are idiots. I still don’t want to give them covid, because I’m not a sociopath. Moreover, I don’t want to be a link in exponential growth.

                I still wear my mask indoors, like when shopping. It’s easy.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      Could be a congressional issue, could be and Executive issue, could be plain bureaucratic mismanagement, could be all of the above or something else. No idea. But adrift it is.

      Technically, they are responsible for controlling the introduction and spread of infectious diseases. “Controlling” is a bit of a misnomer, since they lack regulatory authority. In practice, they study existing and potential pathogens, epidemiology, and provide limited funding for public health activities. They don’t do vaccines. They largely don’t do treatment.

      Then a new pathogen shows up (and unlike SARS or MERS), spreads fairly rapidly. Put yourself in their position. Should you develop a quick and effective test? Yes, you should, but you screw that up so early testing, tracing, and quarantine efforts fail. Should you recommend N95 masks for all? There aren’t nearly enough masks. Should you recommend cloth masks? No one’s ever studied their general efficacy, and you don’t know how the pathogen spreads anyway. Should you recommend closing down significant chunks of the economy? Maybe, but with the benefit of hindsight it’s starting to appear that had relatively minor benefit because (a) much of the shutdown was voluntary (in the sense of many people stopped going out) and (b) there was a bunch of non-economic contact going on anyway (eg, mass funeral and wedding events held “secretly” despite local restrictions). Vaccines were developed with remarkable speed. Should you recommend that everyone get vaccinated? Yes, you should, and do, and 30% of the adult population says FU. No wonder they seem adrift — they have no well-defined role.

      Compare the testing part to the CDC equivalent in South Korea. They had emergency powers they could invoke and (a) order the universities to stop everything and develop tests, (b) pick one of those tests and order every manufacturer with the capabilities to start production, and (c) tell the university and commercial labs to stop everything and process tests. You may remember some of the stories that were published that quoted grad students and professors in South Korea describing 20-hour work days processing tests. Test results go into a pre-planned national database so they can do contact tracing.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        Right. What if years and years of practical reinforcement simply makes the CDC a grant distributing machine? It studies studies and funds studies for more studies. Someone has to do it. But, that’s its core competency then. Not Pandemic Response Policy Making. Or let’s say it moves at the speed of your average infectious disease. Like the way the FDA moves at the speed of cancer or chronic illness.Report

  4. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    LF4:
    At the end of the day it becomes a simple binary: Do I mask up, or not?
    There is a tremendous amount of complex and detailed analysis, but still, it comes down to that yes/no binary decision.

    Which is why all the furor over the CDCs mistakes and bad messaging seems so false and illogical, like the pretext for something else.

    I have a binary choice of A or B and the downside of A is mild inconvenience and the downside of B is potential life-altering illness or death. A reasonable person would choose A but it appears that most people are using the confusion as a pretext to rationalize choosing B.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      “At the end of the day it becomes a simple binary: Do I mask up, or not?”

      Where do I mask up? Indoors, outdoors, in restaurants, or should I even be going to restaurants? Do I still need to mask after getting the vaccine? Do I still need to if I’m around people who’ve gotten the vaccine? Will I need to if the Delta variant keeps increasing? Do I still need to mask after I’ve gotten covid been cleared? What if I got old covid, should I start masking because of the delta variant? What kind of mask do I need? Is cloth good enough, or an N95, or would a shield be better? Which reminds me, do I need eye covering as well? I’ve seen people wearing multiple masks, should I do that? And what about my kids? Can they go places where there are unmasked kids? How about places with unmasked adults? Are masks unhealthy for kids? What about for adults, how often should I be changing my mask to keep it clean, and how much is it limiting my breathing? Should I wear one when I’m exercising? What about masking if exposed to covid – until I get my test results back, or for two full weeks? And what about around the elderly or people in high risk groups? Are ordinary masks enough or should I use N95s in that case, or avoid them altogether?Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        Act as if your health and the health of those you love depended on your decision.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          Your rule doesn’t answer any of the questions above. Anyway, by giving a rule as an answer, you’re conceding that this isn’t a binary, which would require only a yes or no.Report

        • Brandon Berg in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          My love for people who have opted out of vaccination has worn a bit thin lately.

          That aside, these are just platitudes devoid of any substance. That’s the problem with innumerate analysis. Probability matters. We all risk our lives for trivial gain all the time. Driving, crossing the street, etc. The magnitude of the risk is key.Report

          • CJColucci in reply to Brandon Berg
            Ignored
            says:

            It’s not just the magnitude of the risk; it’s also the level of inconvenience. I have been driving for 50 years and put in nearly a million miles. I have never been in a situation where it mattered whether I was wearing a seatbelt or not. But it’s no big deal to buckle up, so I do. I also wander about in areas where construction and building maintenance is constant. I would be marginally safer if I wore a football helmet everywhere I went to protect me from falling masonry. But I don’t. Go figure.
            After all this time, keeping a mask handy and putting it on just about everywhere indoors and when I approach knots of people outdoors is simply no big deal. It’s tyranny only to snowflakes.Report

            • Brandon Berg in reply to CJColucci
              Ignored
              says:

              I don’t mind wearing masks indoors, but I work from home, so it’s almost always less than an hour per day. I don’t know how I’d feel about it if I had to wear one for eight or more hours per day. Especially if it were for the sake of people who’ve chosen not to get vaccinated.Report

            • InMD in reply to CJColucci
              Ignored
              says:

              By masking up at this point who are we accommodating exactly? Anyone vaccinated is at virtually no risk of death or serious complications and the shot has been widely available for months. Among those who have been responsible the ethical considerations have morphed from ‘i might kill someone’ to ‘i might give them a cold.’

              I didn’t think masks and other measures were tyranny prior to widespread vaccination and I get why it may still make sense for schools and cancer wards. I don’t see the point in continuing to go out of the way to protect the most incorrigible people.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      As a vaccinated person, I will masked up if asked to by a location but I also think that a good chunk of unvaccinated adults cannot be persuaded or reasoned with and I will not let them dictate my behavior or free-ride over me.Report

      • veronica d in reply to Saul Degraw
        Ignored
        says:

        Keep in mind regarding the unvaccinated — some percentage of them really do have legitimate medical reasons to not get vaccinated; for example, the immunocompromised.

        Myself, I have zero fucks left for the loony vax deniers, but there are good faith people who simply cannot safely get vaccinated. We mustn’t forget about them.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to veronica d
          Ignored
          says:

          I did say a good chunk, not all of them and there are children under 12 who cannot get vaccinated. However, if those two groups were only two without vaccinations, this would be a non-conservation. Those two groups are not the problem.

          I guess I find it very strange that it is a lot of vaccinated people who are still being cautious and still wearing masks. I got my vaccination. I want to see a movie in a theatre. I want to go to a museum and yet I find my took COVID seriously friends are still doing serious negotiations and decisions about what feels safe and unsafe to them.Report

  5. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    I did not even know there was a new Gawker. I think Freddie is partially correct that the world is gone but not completely. Politico cult of savvy speak is still around. Hence the growing frustration on how places tried to hottake Pelosi nixxing Jordan from January 6.Report

  6. InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    Oh good news.

    ‘A rush to get shots’: Vaccine holdouts relent as delta variant takes hold.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/30/vaccination-increases-states-delta-surges/Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *