Big Blue Huddle

My own personal take is that its capabilities allow for a fast spread of information which can be incredibly useful and valuable. It also allows you to focus specifically on certain individuals and filter others out (in the way that you acquire information). And obviously it allows you to keep in touch with people well. I voted "good thing", because I would certainly rather have it than not have it. I'm not a big Instagram or TikTok person, but Twitter is incredibly useful, and so are others like LinkedIn etc.

Where I think it can become destructive is the overuse of it, which is definitely an issue in this country. That can lead to all sorts of problems, depression being one. It is also no substitute for human interaction in the flesh. And obviously any misuse of it with bad intentions is also a problem and can be very damaging.

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 01, 2022, 10:50:40 AM
One of the underappreciated dangers of social media is that it can lead to depression.   One of the truisms I learned in life is that the key to unhappiness is to always compare one's self and one's lot in life to others.  There are always going to be people who seem to have it better than you in at least one aspect of life.  Yet despite that being true, it's human nature to naturally compare.

This is where social media can become dangerous.    Many people on social media either knowingly or unknowingly try to create fictions where their lives appear better than they really are.   They are careful in what and how they share things to try and create this image that they are leading great lives.    That in itself is harmless and not even a bad thing.  If anything, it's simply not complaining about the bad in life.  Yet for many people, as they browse through all the posts of wonderful homes, great relationships, wonderful family gatherings, rewarding jobs, and awesome vacations start to feel like their own lives are poor by comparison.  This can often lead to depression

Excellent point. This is especially true on Instagram. It is commonplace now for people to post all kinds of fake pictures or old pictures that are misleading and trying to make their lives look much more exciting or well funded than they are. I hadn't really considered that this could make others depressed. I always felt this untruthfulness showed a lack of confidence or possibly depression on the part of the poster. Interesting point that it can also make others depressed.

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 01, 2022, 10:25:16 AM
I think this sort of question is akin to asking if a hammer is a good or bad thing.   I mean a hammer could be used as a weapon or it can build a wonderful home.   To a large degree it depends on the intentions of the users.

I get your point, but I think it's a bit more complicated than that in the case of social media. Social media has an addictive aspect to it that a hammer does not. It also has an unintended consequences aspect to it. People can get involved in it with perfectly good intentions only to find it is hurting their lives in multiple ways. They can also make an honest mistake on social media only to suffer substantial consequences.

What are your overall thoughts on social media? Do you see it as a positive or negative in society?

These are good examples for sure. I knew Fauci misspoke on a couple of occasions (wasn't sure if he was whom you meant as "leadership") but I forgot about that Biden one. I do get your point about the impact of misinformation from people who have that big of a platform.

To be fair, if we're talking about leadership, nobody high profile spread more misinformation about covid since the start of this whole event than Trump. And in his case it often seemed deliberate. Considering that much/most of the anti-vax movement is concentrated among his base, it is hard to blame their unwillingness to take the vax on someone else's supposed claim that the vax stopped the spread of covid. Their leader is the one who initially planted the idea in their minds that covid was no big deal and that it would disappear very soon, as he repeatedly did in early/mid 2020 when it first became a massive national and global crisis. I know Trump has publicly supported the vax since then, but if we're looking to blame leadership for anything, I would argue that Trump's initial downplaying of this virus and other unhelpful messaging (like mocking people for wearing masks) was a key factor in driving the resistance to the vaccine and other protective measures.

Quote from: Ed Vette on December 30, 2021, 08:08:50 PM
So let

Quote from: Bob In PA on December 30, 2021, 12:20:59 PM
Dave: How can you prove there are not 70/30, etc., in the debate when the "outliers" as you call them are being canceled by social media sites?  Bob

That is a fair question, and the truth is that I cannot "prove" what the exact numbers are. However, I read enough articles, including in non left-leaning publications like the WSJ, where I feel I have a reasonable broad sense of the breakdown. I have also spent a significant amount of time speaking to doctors I know, including both my own doctors (all of whom I trust greatly) as well as other doctors I respect that I just happen to know, and the views on the vaccine from them have been totally unanimous. If there were really a loud voice coming from the medical community that was against vaxing, I believe I would be aware of it. Big Tech can only snuff people out so much when they're large in numbers. I agree it's not hard for them to do that to a small number of individuals though.

Although this next part doesn't directly answer your question, I would add that I am also overwhelmingly convinced by all the data on the impact of the vaccine on those who get covid, and I monitor the data fairly closely on an ongoing basis. So that, coupled with my own direct gatherings from doctors I know are (1) excellent and (2) benevolent, is good enough for me.

I have two initial thoughts on this:

(1) This guy appears to be wanting to build his brand. On the very page where he talks about his beliefs, he then says he's available (for hire obviously) for speaking engagements and what not. So, whether he wholly believes what he is saying or not, he is clearly looking to convert it into cash. Most great doctors I know are not motivated by money. A great surgeon has the talent and brainpower to have pursued any number of more lucrative careers. So my guard always goes up a little bit when I see a doctor who is out there doing a lot of self-promotion, public appearances, and clear solicitations for paid appearances. That alone doesn't mean he's wrong or lying, but let's face it, there's a clear market in this country for anyone with a doctor label who sides with non-vaxers. At the very least we should be aware of that reality.

(2) Even if his intentions are completely legitimate, he is in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of bona fide doctors who feel the way he does. There are pretty much always going to be outliers in any large number of things are people. So even if his intentions are 100% altruistic, I am personally not inclined to be swayed all that much by just one or two doctors versus millions all around the developed world. If it were more of a 70/30, 80/20, or even 90/10 type debate, I would be much more inclined to take their point of view more seriously. It's not anything close to that though.

Just my two cents.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 23, 2021, 10:20:43 AM
DB,

I will say this.  While I am not at a point of saying anything with proper certainty.   The general trend in terms of information coming in is really positive.   I am feeling better in the longer term (say a month or two out) than I have been since Omicron reared its head.

I think I share the cautious optimism.

One follow-up point on South Africa that I think is worth noting:

While it is absolutely true that they are one of the younger populations in the world (median age 27) and that that is surely a factor driving their benign deaths data in the face of the omicron surge there, it is also worth noting how low their vaccination rate is. As of Dec 21st, the data shows that only 26.4% of their population has received two doses, while 31.6% has received one dose. That is extremely low.

Relative to expectations the US is also very low, however the US is currently sitting at 61.7% double-vaccinated. It's disappointing that that number isn't higher obviously, but that is still more than double South Africa's number in percentage terms.

Given that the messaging on this strain has been if you're vaxed you should be ok, I think it's interesting that South Africa has seen almost no total deaths spike despite being plenty of weeks into this surge. If the reason is really because they have a median age about a decade younger than the US, then that kind of suggests that age matters more than vaccination status.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 22, 2021, 03:03:52 PM
Still, I don't think we are far apart in things.  You are behaving in a cautious manner so I don't think there is a disagreement.   I just think your comment about "reasons for caution are dying" is getting ahead of yourself (the public health and medical officials are still warning against that).

I'm not looking to harp on semantics too much here, because I agree we're not far apart, but to be clear I didn't say (or mean) that the reasons for caution are dying. My point was more that the narrative that we "still don't know what this is" is dying. I said caution in general is always worthwhile, and I certainly feel I/we are being cautious. I just meant that there is probably little cause for dramatic life alterations for the fully vaxed like going into strict lockdown mode or never seeing family and close friends. I wasn't suggesting people throw caution to the wind and take absolutely no precautions.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 22, 2021, 03:03:52 PM
Plus, the biggest risk at this point is medical facilities becoming overwhelmed and people dying as a result.   Say that this new strain has a 50% less chance of putting people in the hospital.  If it infects twice as many people (or worse more) that 50% will be meaningless in terms of overwhelming our medical systems.

Completely get it and agree with this, but that is a separate discussion from the topic we are on. That is absolutely a good reason to remain concerned about this overall, but the overwhelmingly vast majority of that problem will be driven by non-vaxers. They are the ones who are going to overflow the ICU units with bad omicron cases. Sadly, while I wish a much greater segment of society would get vaxed than they have to this point, that doesn't really impact whether or not my fully vaxed and negatively testing family members and I should see each other this Christmas in moderately sized groups. It's a separate issue. That's a reason to be encouraging (begging, even) more people to get vaxed, but not really a reason to impose or even strongly recommend overly draconian restrictions on fully vaxed and boosted people who are behaving reasonably.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 22, 2021, 12:59:12 PM
DB,

I am cautiously optimistic, but I feel you are jumping the gun.   You are looking at non-peer-reviewed studies which should always be taken with a grain of salt.   You also need to be cautious drawing conclusions from South Africa as their population is significantly younger than our own.

I would also caution against your throw caution to the wind strategy.   Until we are sure of what this new variant is and isn't it wouldn't be wise to ignore what the public health and medical experts are advising.   When you are dealing with people's health and lives the thresholds for gambling are quite high.

I don't have a throw caution to the wind strategy at all though. My family and I are testing frequently and not partaking in foolish, pointless risks. With that said, we're not completely locking down and completely isolating ourselves from society either. For example, my teenage daughter goes to school in person and as of now there are no plans for that to change. We also plan to see relatives, all of whom, like us, are vaxed/boosted/tested, during the holidays. If that's "throw caution to the wind" we can agree to disagree.

None of my family have gotten covid to this point, and we certainly don't want to. I think we have been way more responsible than average since the start of this. I also think I'm very much following the current advice of the government, which is to be boosted but to still enjoy the holidays with loved ones, as long as you verify your negative reading through PCR tests, which we are doing. I don't think we're being cavalier at all. We have no large gatherings planned, for example. I just don't see the need to be quite as excessively cautious the way we were during waves before we were vaxed. This stance is very much in line with government guidance.

South Africa has a young population (27 median age) but Scotland is in fact quite old (42). So I don't think these studies can be easily dismissed with the age argument.

Look, I'm not suggesting that we won't see hospitals become stretched or that this is a non-event. If you're not vaxed, it's a whole different ballgame. I'm just simply pointing to the evidence, which seems to be that it is not excessively dangerous for fully vaxed people who aren't in a highly vulnerable category. Hence, I don't think there is any call for fully vaxed people to live in a current state of sheer terror and panic right now, as one might have reasonably done a year ago.

Scientific studies now are more or less affirming the already widely believed narrative that omicron is significantly less deadly than delta. Here is one of several articles. The study is showing the hospital risk is two-thirds below delta, and that is derived from a sample of millions of people.

The anecdotal data also clearly supports the view that this strain is significantly less severe than the others.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-booster-offers-substantial-protection-against-symptomatic-infection-with-omicron-study-finds-11640191103

I would say the narrative that "we still don't really know yet" is dying pretty quickly, if it's not dead already. While caution is obviously always prudent in general, if you're boosted and not in a high risk group, it seems like overkill at this point to dramatically alter your life based on this strain.

The main thing I'm focusing on now is taking extra care to minimized (if not all but eliminate) the chance of infecting my elderly parents or other elderly relatives during this period. Testing is key for that.

The markets seem to be cheering these studies, which is understandable.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 21, 2021, 07:22:49 AM
I found this article to be worth the read.

https://www.science.org/content/article/early-lab-studies-hint-omicron-may-be-milder-most-scientists-reserve-judgment

Thanks for this article.

I agree that we would "do well to be careful" with this variant, however the government, so far at least, is basically telling you that if you've been vaxed and boosted you can more or less proceed with life as normal. They're advising testing before family gatherings, but that was probably prudent to do before this thing came around, and I'm pretty sure that would have been the advice from people like Fauci anyway (even with no omicron). So far we have not seen any sort of very stern warnings or restrictions from policy makers outside of to those who are unvaxed. So when you read or hear that you should "be careful", that sounds like good advice, but the government isn't really telling people to do that yet as long as you've been vaxed/boosted. People are still being allowed to go to indoor restaurants and bars and to pack into crowded theaters to watch Spider Man this weekend. There does not seem to be any serious effort at this stage by the government to slow the spread of omicron other than to basically tell non-vaxers that they're all going to die.