Omicron - love the name - sounds like a warrior group out of Star Wars or a secret energy source the galaxies are fighting over.
Some people have huddled down in fear, while others go about business as usual. Me...it's business as usual. I got my J&J booster shot last week and haven't even had a cold in a few years now (knock on wood). The biggest problem I have with it is that it caused my portfolio to crash 4.9% last Friday as the market is made up of an awful lot of skittish folks - any negative news and BAM...sell, sell, sell. ~X(
Luckily, today's market has recovered most of my losses from Friday's selloff so I think the scare is over
Anyone worried about this latest COVID variation/mutation? :-??
I am concerned about Omicron but we simply don't know enough about it to be "worried". I have always appreciated as long as people were getting sick from Covid there was always a chance that another variant even worse than Delta could arise. In fact, with so many people still getting sick, I guess it was almost inevitable.
That said, we simply don't know enough about this new one. It will be a few weeks before we have a handle on exactly what the issues with the new variant are. I will say that it's troubling how quickly the new variant has spread around the globe and those that study viruses seemed concerned about where the mutations are and how many there are. Still, how bad it is is yet to be determined. Worse case, this causes a major setback for a few months and the drug manufacturers cook up a new vaccine that works against it (assuming the current ones are not all that effective).
The travel ban from southern Africa is prudent, but I don't think it will buy us more than a couple of weeks (at best)
In terms of how I feel, I have some cash that I am ready to use to buy on a dip. After researching what I could learn about, I didn't buy any new stocks or funds this morning, which I guess best sums up my level of concern at this point.
That said, I a going about my life and this variant is just something I am keeping an eye on.
There were a lot of dip opportunities if you don't mind risk. In 20:20 hindsight, I should have sold every stock I own on Wednesday evening and poured all that money into Moderna - then sell it at the end of today's market closing...LOL
Too bad I didn't have the foresight to see that coming. At least I'm back to square one after today.
I believe it's considered conventional wisdom that it's impossible to time the dip or the peak. I am waiting for a panic dip where I feel the move is an overreaction.
Do you mean the "Xi" virus? After all, this is the 14th recognized virus. Oh, I forgot... science never gets political. /sarcasm/
Quote from: Bob In PA on November 29, 2021, 03:07:01 PM
Do you mean the "Xi" virus? After all, this is the 14th recognized virus. Oh, I forgot... science never gets political. /sarcasm/
Actually, this is the 13th variant and the 13th letter is nu.
I agree with MG's take for the most part. This has my attention, and I am following it closely, but I would not describe myself as "worried" at this stage.
As for the markets, I remain solidly long stocks and have done nothing to change my portfolio based on the Omicron news. I did trim my holding slightly earlier this month, but not significantly. I remain bullish the market.
With that said, I think 2022 will be a much trickier year than 2021. Not so much because of covid (although that's possible), but the setup going into 2022 is completely different from what it was a year ago, when the vaccine was a novel market force, valuations were much cheaper, and there was basically zero risk of the Fed going more hawkish despite what was all but certain to be substantial growth. Those factors are not really there as we start 2022. The stock market may well end 2022 higher than where the year starts, but that is less of a given than it was this year, and either way I doubt a positive year will be nearly as robust as 2021. I also think the dips/corrections will at times be considerably deeper and longer lasting than what we have seen in 2021, where they frequently have not lasted for more than a day or two and very rarely for longer than a week.
When you consider a new variant, there are 3 factors to consider
1) Does it spread easier than other strains
2) Does it make people sicker than other strains
3) Does it resist the vaccine
Right now 1 and 2 are mysteries. On the other hand the comments from the Moderna CEO has not made markets happy this morning
QuoteSYDNEY, Nov 30 (Reuters) - The head of drugmaker Moderna (MRNA.O) said COVID-19 vaccines are unlikely to be as effective against the Omicron variant of the coronavirus as they have been previously, sparking fresh worry in financial markets about the trajectory of the pandemic.
"There is no world, I think, where (the effectiveness) is the same level?.?.?. we had with Delta," Moderna Chief Executive St
Not the greatest this AM in the way of news flow, with the Moderna CEO expressing a lack of confidence in the current vaccines working well against omicron.
It sounds like they can very likely come up with a vaccine that does cover it, but it will take a number of months to get that out to the public in significant quantities, plus the concern is that by the time they get that one out to the public there will likely be a new variant that that new vaccine does not work on. And they'll just be in the same position again.
Playing variant whack-a-mole isn't much of a strategy considering it seems to take at least half a year to get one of these new variant-effective vaccines out.
Not to mention I would guess that lots of Americans will be very loath to get these new jabs the more new ones come out.
I will likely reduce my equity holdings further today. Not because I necessarily think we are headed for some disaster, but I am a bit more concerned than I was the other day and I want a higher cash balance in my portfolio than I currently have.
Another consideration that market participants should have is that the Fed's flexibility to deal with another crisis is much less today than it was in 2020. Right now rates are at zero, inflation is above 6%, and they have just announced the start of tapering of the asset purchase program that involved buying $120 billion a month of bonds. There isn't any room to cut rates unless they want to go to Fed Funds rate in this country which I don't think they do, and they can't easily justify more QE. I wouldn't say their hands are completely tied, but they definitely don't have the same capacity to ease that they did 18 months ago.
Quote from: MightyGiants on November 30, 2021, 08:37:13 AM
When you consider a new variant, there are 3 factors to consider
1) Does it spread easier than other strains
2) Does it make people sicker than other strains
3) Does it resist the vaccine
Right now 1 and 2 are mysteries. On the other hand the comments from the Moderna CEO has not made markets happy this morning
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-ceo-says-vaccines-likely-less-effective-against-omicron-ft-2021-11-30/?utm_source=reddit.com
I literally just posted as you did.
I agree that we still don't have any sort of firm knowledge at this point. Signs seem to be pointing that it is not more virulent, but no confirmation obviously. I do think when the CEO of moderna expresses a view and is quoting multiple scientists, as he did, that is not a good sign though.
If people are not getting incredibly sick from this then that is a good thing obviously, but if it is more transmissible and the vaccine doesn't really work on it, then you'll have a multiplier effect of many still getting sick and being hospitalized and dying even though the odds for any one single individual aren't that bad.
Maybe the future of this thing is really more in the therapeutics than in the vaxes. If a new variant is constantly popping up and each time the previous vax doesn't work, then hustling to come up with a new vax just doesn't seem like much of a long term strategy.
https://twitter.com/macroguru9/status/1465680963875311620
Well I see the gas price problem seems to have resolved itself on this crappy news. If the vaccine news wasn't bad enough, there is also this
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc's (REGN.O) COVID-19 antibody treatment and other similar drugs could be less effective against the new Omicron coronavirus variant, the company said on Tuesday.
QuoteThe drugmaker said further analyses are ongoing to confirm and quantify this potential impact using the actual Omicron variant sequence.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/regeneron-says-covid-19-drug-could-be-less-effective-against-omicron-variant-2021-11-30/?utm_source=reddit.com
As for inflation, I think one of the biggest drivers beyond Covid related shortages is the change in consumer spending habits. Supply and demand- people are spending less on dining out and travel. That extra money (along with any Covid related stimulus) has given many consumers more money in their pockets and is driving demand on hard goods (that can't be ramped up easily).
As for Covid, I could see the world going back to pre-vaccine situations and it could take up to a half year to get back to where we are now. I don't think that is a complete certainty though, and we will learn more in the coming weeks.
Quote from: MightyGiants on November 30, 2021, 09:00:11 AM
Well I see the gas price problem seems to have resolved itself on this crappy news. If the vaccine news wasn't bad enough, there is also this
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc's (REGN.O) COVID-19 antibody treatment and other similar drugs could be less effective against the new Omicron coronavirus variant, the company said on Tuesday.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/regeneron-says-covid-19-drug-could-be-less-effective-against-omicron-variant-2021-11-30/?utm_source=reddit.com
As for inflation, I think one of the biggest drivers beyond Covid related shortages is the change in consumer spending habits. Supply and demand- people are spending less on dining out and travel. That extra money (along with any Covid related stimulus) has given many consumers more money in their pockets and is driving demand on hard goods (that can't be ramped up easily).
As for Covid, I could see the world going back to pre-vaccine situations and it could take up to a half year to get back to where we are now. I don't think that is a complete certainty though, and we will learn more in the coming weeks.
No question there are some idiosyncratic (and hopefully temporary) factors driving inflation like the ones you mention, but whatever the precise drivers, it is still the case that it is much more difficult for the central bank to ease monetary policy further in that type of environment. As things stand right now, they are actually moving in the opposite direction by beginning to taper QE.
I am not suggesting there is absolutely nothing they can do, but the economic setup is vastly different than it was when this started. It's just one more thing to put on the list of potential concerns for the market. If things start to get bad again, they won't be able to "kitchen sink" it the way they did in 2020.
Quote from: MightyGiants on November 29, 2021, 03:21:25 PM
Actually, this is the 13th variant and the 13th letter is nu.
Rich: I believe you, but that generates the same question, in a different light. Why didn't they settle on calling it the "Nu" variant? Why skip a letter (or letters)? Any ideas? Thanks. Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on November 30, 2021, 10:21:24 AM
Rich: I believe you, but that generates the same question, in a different light. Why didn't they settle on calling it the "Nu" variant? Why skip a letter (or letters)? Any ideas? Thanks. Bob
Bob,
In the context of our conversation, why is the name of the new variant so important to you???? Maybe you should go back to the same people who told you about "xi" and ask them why they "forgot" about "nu"
Quote from: MightyGiants on November 30, 2021, 10:43:42 AM
Bob,
In the context of our conversation, why is the name of the new variant so important to you???? Maybe you should go back to the same people who told you about "xi" and ask them why they "forgot" about "nu"
Rich: I get your point, but that's not what happened. I keep a variant list, and have one scratched out, then re-entered, then scratched out again, so there is/was confusion on my part about the right number. Bob
To anticipate the question, "Why keep a list, Bob?" I will just note that the CDC list is not up-to-date.... at least the list in the link below. Bob
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-info.html
The Merk pill seems like a bust, but there is still hope for the Pfizer anti-viral. It could help if we get into a whack-a-mole situation
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/11/30/1059926089/new-antiviral-drugs-are-coming-for-covid-heres-what-you-need-to-know
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on November 29, 2021, 01:10:26 PM
Omicron - love the name - sounds like a warrior group out of Star Wars or a secret energy source the galaxies are fighting over.
Some people have huddled down in fear, while others go about business as usual. Me...it's business as usual. I got my J&J booster shot last week and haven't even had a cold in a few years now (knock on wood). The biggest problem I have with it is that it caused my portfolio to crash 4.9% last Friday as the market is made up of an awful lot of skittish folks - any negative news and BAM...sell, sell, sell. ~X(
Luckily, today's market has recovered most of my losses from Friday's selloff so I think the scare is over
Anyone worried about this latest COVID variation/mutation? :-??
So much for that recovery.
Quote from: LennG on November 30, 2021, 04:20:05 PM
So much for that recovery.
Hahaha. Twist the knife, why don't you.
To be fair, today's bloodbath was more about the hawkish comments from the Fed chair than it was about the vaccine news. S+P futures had rallied pretty much back to flat prior to the Powell comments.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on November 30, 2021, 08:58:50 PM
Hahaha. Twist the knife, why don't you.
To be fair, today's bloodbath was more about the hawkish comments from the Fed chair than it was about the vaccine news. S+P futures had rallied pretty much back to flat prior to the Powell comments.
I thought Powell's comments were pretty much what everyone expected
Quote from: LennG on November 30, 2021, 04:20:05 PM
So much for that recovery.
Yeah - a big bloodbath yesterday. I read one guy's take on it and he said, "being a retail investor is like paying someone a lot of money to punch you right in the f***g mouth". Made me laugh. There will be days like that and they aren't fun.
Pre-market is on a bull run this morning so maybe it'll recover. I'm up half what I lost yesterday and it's not even 9:00 yet. Should be interesting when the bell rings to see how many retail investors jump right back in or if they're still skittish from the last few rounds. As for me, I'm just holdin pat. I actually had one of my 22 portfolio stocks in the green yesterday - not by much, but still in the green (ie, EOSE). Even FSR, LCID, and NVDA were down, three of my favorites though.
Tuesday's dumpster fire:
(https://i.postimg.cc/fLkHCsrh/Tuesday-Dumpster-Fire.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2021, 07:48:06 AM
I thought Powell's comments were pretty much what everyone expected
In the previous Fed meeting he was pretty clear that he wanted to wrap the tapering up by next June. Yesterday he unexpectedly said they might want to get it done even faster, possibly by a couple of months. A potentially faster than expected drain of excess liquidity from the system threw the market for a bit of a loop.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/business/stock-markets-omicron.html
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 01, 2021, 08:53:09 AM
In the previous Fed meeting he was pretty clear that he wanted to wrap the tapering up by next June. Yesterday he unexpectedly said they might want to get it done even faster, possibly by a couple of months. A potentially faster than expected drain of excess liquidity from the system threw the market for a bit of a loop.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/business/stock-markets-omicron.html
Thanks for the article. Odd that the markets bounced back so quickly
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2021, 01:13:05 PM
Thanks for the article. Odd that the markets bounced back so quickly
Bounced back early this morning but by noon were going the other way and are now retreating - not like yesterday, but down a bit
Quote from: Jolly Blue Giant on December 01, 2021, 01:40:23 PM
Bounced back early this morning but by noon were going the other way and are now retreating - not like yesterday, but down a bit
I suspect some investors used the bump to dump some of their holdings fearing that between tapering and Omicron we are in for a bumpy ride.
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2021, 01:43:44 PM
I suspect some investors used the bump to dump some of their holdings fearing that between tapering and Omicron we are in for a bumpy ride.
For sure. The big investment houses have computers analyzing every stock with algorithms signalling when to sell and buy (unless overridden by a lead investor). And of course, the big investment houses play lots of games using the press as a weapon. Retail investors vs. Institutional investors is a hidden war. Little guy against the machine.
Even when the retail investors go all in on a stock, the investment houses finds ways to push it back down. Of course their favorite trick is to release a press notice to their favorite financial newspaper that they are "downgrading a stock from buy to neutral, or buy to sell"...then many of the retail investors (especially day traders) sell, the price drops 5%, the investment houses buy it up once it's dipped low and release a notice that they are now rating the stock a "buy or strong buy" and everyone jumps back in...until the next notice is released.
Hence, pick stocks that you have researched long and hard as if you were buying a car or a home - then hold onto it for the long haul and don't get caught up in the ebb and flow caused by analysts releasing their take on a stock.
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2021, 01:13:05 PM
Thanks for the article. Odd that the markets bounced back so quickly
Fully agreed, although (more as a general point) market participants have been trained over a long period now to buy dips very quickly. The overarching stock market sentiment is still just so euphoric that the half-life of any bad news item is incredibly (and often nonsensically) short. People are trained to now think a "dip" is 1-2 days and maybe 2-3%.
One of these days, and I'm not saying this is necessarily right around the corner, this strategy won't work so well anymore.
Well, the first Omicron case has made it to the US (California). Initial reports seem to indicate it might be contained and isolated.
As for investing, I am a stock investor, not a stock trader. I have moved off of individual stocks (for the most part) in favor of ETFs. There is just too much information we don't know about companies to make me comfortable with investing in individual stocks without a compelling reason.
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 01, 2021, 02:44:34 PM
Well, the first Omicron case has made it to the US (California). Initial reports seem to indicate it might be contained and isolated.
As for investing, I am a stock investor, not a stock trader. I have moved off of individual stocks (for the most part) in favor of ETFs. There is just too much information we don't know about companies to make me comfortable with investing in individual stocks without a compelling reason.
I thought it was strange that stocks were hit so hard yesterday because of the US case. Did anyone actually think this strain wasn't going to turn up in this country?
It is not hugely surprising the market is recovering today, as that seemed like an overreaction.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 02, 2021, 12:46:41 PM
I thought it was strange that stocks were hit so hard yesterday because of the US case. Did anyone actually think this strain wasn't going to turn up in this country?
It is not hugely surprising the market is recovering today, as that seemed like an overreaction.
Big overreaction indeed. Buyers are the most skittish people on earth. Lots of bargains right now if you have money on the sidelines. Great time to buy low!
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 02, 2021, 12:46:41 PM
I thought it was strange that stocks were hit so hard yesterday because of the US case. Did anyone actually think this strain wasn't going to turn up in this country?
It is not hugely surprising the market is recovering today, as that seemed like an overreaction.
It got here a bit quicker than expected, but I have to think everyone expected it
I have to say, we don't know much about Omicron, but it's spread has been pretty impressive. In the span of a week it went from being not even a topic of conversation at Thanksgiving, to "it's all over the US"
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 03, 2021, 07:15:51 AM
I have to say, we don't know much about Omicron, but it's pretty has been pretty impressive. In the span of a week it went from being not even a topic of conversation at Thanksgiving, to "it's all over the US"
Very true. And I certainly don't know that much about it either. My only takeaway so far is that it does not appear to make most people any sicker than they're getting with regular covid, and possibly not even that sick. Granted that's largely anecdotal at this point and not based on a huge sample size. So in no way am I trying to make some declarative statement to that effect.
Even if it's a bit more transmissible, how big of a problem is it if it generally doesn't get people that sick?
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 03, 2021, 08:29:16 AM
Very true. And I certainly don't know that much about it either. My only takeaway so far is that it does not appear to make most people any sicker than they're getting with regular covid, and possibly not even that sick. Granted that's largely anecdotal at this point and not based on a huge sample size. So in no way am I trying to make some declarative statement to that effect.
Even if it's a bit more transmissible, how big of a problem is it if it generally doesn't get people that sick?
I have taken the "it doesn't make one that sick" claims with a grain of salt. First, many of those claims are coming from South Africa which is trying to save its savaged tourist season. Second, the reality is pretty much all of the Covid variants the majority of people don't get all that sick. It's always been a numbers game. In other words, when you are dealing with millions or billions of people even a small percentage getting severely ill or dying can be devastating (as we have already witnessed).
One thing I keep hearing is that the new variant has an easier time reinfecting people. That is troubling on two fronts. First, it takes natural immunity off the table (in terms of slowing the spread) and second, it likely means the vaccines are less effective.
On Omicron's infectiousness:
https://twitter.com/farrmacro/status/1466834183939137538
The market is not having a good day
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 03, 2021, 03:34:55 PM
The market is not having a good day
Nope.
I wonder how much if that is driven by the fact that it's Friday, and that everyone now faces weekend risk with an ongoing concerning story surrounded with a lot of uncertainty. If that is the case, and things are not terribly alarming this weekend with omicron (eg some new finding suggesting it is more virulent than regular covid or an utterly massive spike in cases), you would think things could bounce again on Monday. This has been the pattern at least. That happened last weekend and Monday, for those reasons.
I know this thread was originally about omicron specifically, but it seems to have morphed into kind of a dual-pronged thread that is both about omicron and also the market in general (as well as how it specifically pertains to omicron). I think it's a great, topical thread, I appreciate the contributions, and hopefully it keeps going for a bit.
On the subject of the markets, one interesting further development is that crypto, which had already been struggling in the past week or so, took a beating last night. Bitcoin is down to about 47,000 as I type, which is about a 17% decline just from yesterday (and it was down decently yesterday as well). Some of the other cryptocurrencies are in even worse shape today.
Why might this be relevant? It could suggest a deterioration in risk appetite and speculative sentiment in general, which would obviously be a negative for stocks. Needless to say this is hardly some perfect correlation, and it might not mean much outside of the crypto world, but generally speaking crypto has surged in the past year alongside a lot of other trendy assets, including meme stocks, NFTs, sports trading cards, etc. Flooding the world with liquidity has boosted these types of assets. And speaking of meme stocks, like GME and AMC, those have been hit hard recently too. That has been going on for a few days now.
If omicron turns out to not be a game changing threat, then I would expect stocks to bounce, but that remains unclear at this point, and it seems like investors/traders in general are increasingly on the defensive. Next week will certainly be an interesting one for markets.
For a long period of time, we have been dealing with non-existent interest rates. That has put high yield savings, money market, and bonds off the table in terms of practical investment vehicles or places to keep one's money. That has left stocks and various speculative type investments.
So investors are left with 3 options
1) with inflation, ensure your money is losing nearly 5%
2) keep it in the market and ride the risk
3) invest in alternatives like crypto
I didn't list bonds because they are simply not that attractive with feds making it clear they will be raising interest rates next year so not only are yields from bonds less than inflation, but you are sure to lose some money when the rate hikes occur
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 04, 2021, 07:29:43 AM
I know this thread was originally about omicron specifically, but it seems to have morphed into kind of a dual-pronged thread that is both about omicron and also the market in general (as well as how it specifically pertains to omicron). I think it's a great, topical thread, I appreciate the contributions, and hopefully it keeps going for a bit.
On the subject of the markets, one interesting further development is that crypto, which had already been struggling in the past week or so, took a beating last night. Bitcoin is down to about 47,000 as I type, which is about a 17% decline just from yesterday (and it was down decently yesterday as well). Some of the other cryptocurrencies are in even worse shape today.
Why might this be relevant? It could suggest a deterioration in risk appetite and speculative sentiment in general, which would obviously be a negative for stocks. Needless to say this is hardly some perfect correlation, and it might not mean much outside of the crypto world, but generally speaking crypto has surged in the past year alongside a lot of other trendy assets, including meme stocks, NFTs, sports trading cards, etc. Flooding the world with liquidity has boosted these types of assets. And speaking of meme stocks, like GME and AMC, those have been hit hard recently too. That has been going on for a few days now.
If omicron turns out to not be a game changing threat, then I would expect stocks to bounce, but that remains unclear at this point, and it seems like investors/traders in general are increasingly on the defensive. Next week will certainly be an interesting one for markets.
As for crypto - it's one of the commodities that I stay away from. Ever since China decided to reel it in and the constant chatter about Congress wanting to regulate it - it's just too risky for my blood. I also stay away from biotech companies and retail companies. I know a lot of money can be made in biotech, but a lot more can be lost. Like playing roulette.
Last week was a dumpster fire and I got my butt kicked pretty good. Thankfully, I'm not one who uses a lot of margin so I didn't get any margin calls, but I know a lot of people did - especially the young stocktwits who tend to use all their margin. That's how one loses the whole nest egg.
Personally, I think it will all climb back simply because (as Rich pointed out) there are no real options so you pick your poison and hope you lose the least amount of your savings. Perhaps buying real estate is a better option. Gold and silver tend to do a little better than bonds, but not by much.
As for me, I have to stick with the stock market while staying well diversified with "value" companies and not get sucked into the meme stocks driven by the twits to unreasonable expectations. I still marvel at GameStop being valued at about a thousands times more valuable than WalMart :-??
I expect a big comeback in the semiconductor business as well as the infrastructure companies riding the EV rage with all that new money being shoveled in from Biden's infrastructure bill. Fisker (FSR), Lucid (LCID), EVgo (EVGO), Beam Global (BEEM), Wallbox (WBX), and the hydrogen energy companies like Plug Power (PLUG), Ballard Power (BLDP), FCEL, etc., are priced at below Black Friday bargains right now and anyone sitting with a lot of free cash on the sidelines can clean up. Not advice, just thinking out loud (note: NEVER take advice from me or anyone else and always do your own research if you are a retail investor)
Regardless, the stock market really is the only game left in town with a chance for making money rather than losing it over the long haul.
Out of curiosity, what platform do you guys use? I use TD Ameritrade exclusively
I use Vanguard
One thing about gold VS crypto. In the end, crypto has zero value if people no longer accept it as a storage of value. Gold, on the other hand, will always have some use in jewelry and the like.
One thing I like is dividends. I know they are not the most tax-efficient but I like the idea of making money regardless of the market going up or down and without me having to sell any stocks.
Seems the market has bounced back, big time.
Can't keep a good man down for long.
I HOPE :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
Quote from: LennG on December 07, 2021, 11:51:03 AM
Seems the market has bounced back, big time.
Can't keep a good man down for long.
I HOPE :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
It's a very impressive day today for the markets
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 07, 2021, 02:19:26 PM
It's a very impressive day today for the markets
Sure is. Yesterday too. The markets seem to be moving on from omicron. Nobody thinks it's a big deal anymore.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 07, 2021, 03:21:45 PM
Sure is. Yesterday too. The markets seem to be moving on from omicron. Nobody thinks it's a big deal anymore.
I have to think the big funds and the big investors have long since hired Covid experts (or found ones to consult). I suspect it's a good sign (in terms of the threat Omicron poses) that the markets are behaving that way.
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 07, 2021, 03:24:33 PM
I have to think the big funds and the big investors have long since hired Covid experts (or found ones to consult). I suspect it's a good sign (in terms of the threat Omicron poses) that the markets are behaving that way.
I think that is a very good and very true observation. While it obviously does not confirm anything as fact, you're absolutely correct that sophisticated institutional investors go to great pains and spend considerable resources acquiring all kinds of knowledge and information from true experts in an effort to get an edge. I'm sure they have done exactly that.
So I would agree that the moves we are seeing this week are probably resulting from better informed views than those that drove some of the selling of last week. People have probably done more homework to this point.
NY state covid hospitalizations up 70% since Thanksgiving.
https://twitter.com/CBSNewYork/status/1470786986801782790
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on December 14, 2021, 11:39:46 AM
NY state covid hospitalizations up 70% since Thanksgiving.
https://twitter.com/CBSNewYork/status/1470786986801782790
NY State (or at least the areas with spiking cases) has low vaccination rates.
At the end of the day, things are looking pretty grim on the Covid front. There is little I am seeing that would be a cause for optimism (with the possible exception of the Pfizer covid drug). At this point, all we can do is get vaccinated, get boosted, and exercise more care in terms of masks and social distancing. I think we are in for a bumpy ride
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 15, 2021, 01:26:16 PM
NY State (or at least the areas with spiking cases) has low vaccination rates.
At the end of the day, things are looking pretty grim on the Covid front. There is little I am seeing that would be a cause for optimism (with the possible exception of the Pfizer covid drug). At this point, all we can do is get vaccinated, get boosted, and exercise more care in terms of masks and social distancing. I think we are in for a bumpy ride
I think those who thought covid was "over", at least for those who got vaxed, are surely in for a big disappointment if they haven't been already. It's clearly a lot more complicated than that. However it has not even been two years yet. I think therapeutics will continue to get better over the next couple of years, and eventually this will not be such a life-altering thing as it will be more under control. However I doubt very much that it will just "go away." In the shorter term, hopefully this omicron strain turns out to be as benign as the optimists seem to be saying.
The transmissibility of omicron is really startling. Obviously we've all seen the data, but just in anecdotal terms it is really noticeable. I keep in close touch with a lot of friends and acquaintances in the UK. They seem to be a few or several weeks ahead of us. I know so many people now who either currently have covid or just very recently got over it. Nobody I know has had a truly life threatening case, but a number of people have told me their experience was pretty rough. The numbers are really incredible though. So many of the people I know who have gotten it recently managed to avoid it up until now by taking precautions and behaving responsibly. Now all of a sudden they have it, and many have told me they weren't in any obvious risky places like theaters, restaurants, bars, etc. Many are also work from home people. It's pretty incredible how easy it is to catch this. The hope of course is that the running narrative that it generally does not cause severe illness holds true, but there is basically zero question that this country will get enveloped by it in the coming several weeks, and you can see into the future by looking at some of these other countries across the pond.
It would appear the markets are being shaken by the bad news from Covid. I can tell you things are not doing well or going well on the Covid front
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 20, 2021, 02:08:48 PM
It would appear the markets are being shaken by the bad news from Covid. I can tell you things are not doing well or going well on the Covid front
No doubt we're in for a challenging multi-month period here, but it feels like a bit of wait and see to me as far as just how bad it will be. If policy makers were severely worried, I think the messaging would be much sterner and there would be far more restrictions. So far, the messaging from Fauci and others in visible positions has basically been "if you're vaccinated, maybe take a test, but enjoy the holidays with your loved ones. If you're not, you better get vaccinated or you could be f---ed."
Looking overseas, some of these countries like South Africa that are much further along in the omicron surge phase have seen relatively benign movement on the total deaths front. The UK seems similar, and that's a much older population than SA. None of this of course proves beyond doubt that omicron is not dangerous, but it is certainly a relatively positive sign. While there may not be actual firm "proof" yet, as everyone knows there is plenty of evidence that omicron is not overly virulent. The question will be whether the case numbers are so high that even a low severity multiple will still result in hospitals overflowing and lots of people dying. I hope that won't be the case, but I don't think the answer to that is known yet.
My family and I have changed our behavior a little bit in light of this. We're avoiding indoor restaurants for now and other crowded venues that we might have found ourselves in at this time of year. Parties have been canceled, etc. We often travel at this time of year but didn't this year and I am glad we didn't. I wouldn't want to deal with planes and airports right now. I'm not particularly terrified of omicron, but my parents and certain other relatives are in their late 70s, and I really want no part of infecting them. As a result we have been a bit more conservative recently, and we'll do rapid tests at home before visiting anyone.
As for the markets, we'll see. A number of tech stocks and some of these other highly speculative stocks have been gutted for the past few weeks. The broader indices (S+P 500 in particular) has been more range-bound. I think the market is pricing in and expecting a big spike in cases but a less disastrous pickup in hospitalizations/deaths and hence no overly draconian restrictions being put into place. If we start seeing lockdowns in places like New York or LA then I think you'll see more pressure on stocks in the coming weeks. If it's just a big case spike but on the whole not a huge number of grave cases overall, then I'm not sure that stocks go too far to the downside myself. In general though I'm more cautious on stocks these days than I was for basically all of this year and trimmed holdings over the past month or so. I am still long the market, but I want to be better positioned than I was before to buy into a much deeper dip (10-15%) if we get one. I think 2022 will be much choppier than 2021.
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
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.
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: DaveBrown74 on December 22, 2021, 12:26:25 PM
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.
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.
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.
You know I looked into the Scotland study that the WSJ characterized as looking at the medical records of "millions of people"
The study in Scotland has been tracking coronavirus and the number of people ending up in hospital.
It said that if Omicron behaved the same as Delta, they would expect around 47 people to have been admitted to hospital already. At the moment there are only 15.
The researchers said they were seeing a roughly two-thirds reduction in the number needing hospital care, but there were very few cases and few at-risk elderly people in the study.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59758784
I am not sure I would say the WSJ was honest and accurate in their characterization of the study (I have seen other reports in my research that match what I just posted)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.rwmalonemd.com/
Quote from: Bob In PA on December 30, 2021, 09:00:39 AM
https://www.rwmalonemd.com/
Isn't that the guy who was banned from Twitter for spreading misinformation about Covid?
Also his claims of being "the original
There are usually two sides to every story. Remember, not everything deemed to be "science" today will prove to be correct tomorrow. Only time and further advancements will tell the entire story. Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on December 30, 2021, 10:00:08 AM
There are usually two sides to every story. Remember, not everything deemed to be "science" today will prove to be correct tomorrow. Only time and further advancements will tell the entire story. Bob
That is the sort of claim flat earthers would use. Science evolves based on FACT and EVIDENCE. That does not mean it's anything goes as "the two sides to every story" would suggest. Science changes when the evidence indicates it should change, it doesn't change because some dangerous crackpot makes unsupported claims.
Still, I have recently learned of an interesting concept called DARVO. It's a technique where a wrongdoer Denies > Attacks > Reverse Victim and Offender. This blog is a great example of that. This guy is spreading dangerous and harmful misinformation. That has not stopped him from trying to reverse roles and play the victim as this passage clearly demonstrates.
QuoteI have now done hundreds of podcasts and interviews. I am a regular guest on many shows and have written many editorials that have been published in mainstream newspapers. Along with many other physicians and scientists advocating early treatment, I have toured globally to help educate physicians and the public about early treatment options while also opposing the unethical mandates.
I used to believe that the FDA, NIH, and CDC were working for the people, not big pharma. I thought that if we could just re-purpose already known, safe drugs for emerging infectious diseases, we could quickly find ways to reduce the death rate. I thought that drug and vaccine development were regulated by the Federal government for the common good. What I have learned over the last two years is that regulatory capture of the federal government has warped and shaped the work of Congress and Federal agencies to such an extent that they no longer represent what is in the best interests of the nation, the world, and humanity. The more I have expressed data-based concerns about what is happening with the vaccines, the US Federal and WHO responses, the more I have been censored, defamed, and subjected to various forms of character assassination by big tech and legacy media. I am not alone in being targeted. Mainstream media has attacked and censored me and other prominent physicians/scientists who do not recite the governmental narrative. This has been developed into a standard process and deployed worldwide as a technique for suppressing physician dissent
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: DaveBrown74 on December 30, 2021, 12:10:05 PM
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.
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
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 30, 2021, 10:41:56 AM
That is the sort of claim flat earthers would use.
Rich: Once upon a time, learned people were utterly convinced the Earth was flat. If we would have been alive then, we too would have sworn it was true. Good thing Twitter wasn't around to "cancel" Copernicus! Bob
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.
Quote from: Bob In PA on December 30, 2021, 12:26:44 PM
Rich: Once upon a time, learned people were utterly convinced the Earth was flat. If we would have been alive then, we too would have sworn it was true. Good thing Twitter wasn't around to "cancel" Copernicus! Bob
When Health organizations and Leadership make statements as they did last year that the vaccines will protect us from getting covid or may protect us from getting covid, it leads to more and more distrust. Even using the word "may" without clearly detailing leads the audience. The caveat that we are learning as we go is a weak excuse for publishing false and misleading information. I agree that the collective canceling of what doesn't subscribe to the accepted hides some information but it also hides disinformation. It becomes a necessary evil.
DB's comments are quite on point and reminds me of this article I had posted
Quote
Here is perhaps a more frustrating story. This man did all the right things but died because others didn't
He died after waiting 15 days for a hospital bed. His family blames unvaccinated covid-19 patients.
(https://archive.fo/7jr0h/2c1c63eece2a554914dad0cf71e08cc9cdbb69a4.webp)
https://archive.fo/7jr0h#selection-485.0-485.99
Simply put, we can't let people die by allowing other people to lie
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 30, 2021, 02:51:41 PM
DB's comments are quite on point and reminds me of this article I had posted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/?sh=54d2c021535e
As to being censored by Twitter (I agree with Ed), censorship is less than ideal, but people falsely claiming to have invented the vaccines being used and then spreading dangerous false information is worse. Here is the thing all this misinformation about Covid and the vaccines isnt' some sort of intellectual or moral exercise. Real people are needlessly dying because of the lies being spread by the likes of Robert Malone. Here is a rather touching story I came across today
Arianah Stinnet, 26, Elmira, NY, Personal Care Assistant, anti-vaxx, dead from COVID
According to this gofundme Arianah died from COVID. She died on December 27, 2021. She leaves behind her young son and her 16 year old sister who she had custody of since her mother died. She wasn't the egregious SAV we've had but she documented her entire COVID journey which I think ever anti-vaxxer visiting SAV should be read and head.
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/870a07_57b997b090a64954a985c972b4041da2~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_480,h_485,al_c,lg_1,q_95/870a07_57b997b090a64954a985c972b4041da2~mv2.webp)
It was gut-wrenching to read her social media posts as her Covid went from bad to worse
https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/post/arianah-stinnet-26-elmira-ny-personal-care-assistant-anti-vaxx-dead-from-covid
She would still be alive today caring for her sister and daughter if not for hucksters like Malone. That is why we need to get a handle on misinformation.
The original comments on the vaccine were accurate in reference to the original strain. The message (and effectiveness) changed as the strains changed.
It's funny, my father was very much interested in the vaccine. So I actually used to talk to him. I told him the threshold for an effective vaccine would be one that had a 50% chance of keeping you from dying. Anything beyond that (in terms of being more effective or the ability to prevent infection rather than illness would all be a bonus). Things were looking good because the original vaccines were effective in both keeping people from getting infect and getting sick or dying. Then came Delta and then came Omicron...
Where is the evidence to show that the vaccines prevented infection against the original Covid 19?
Quote from: Ed Vette on December 30, 2021, 03:28:23 PM
Where is the evidence to show that the vaccines prevented infection against the original Covid 19?
QuoteMessenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials (1,2); however, the benefits of these vaccines for preventing asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection, particularly when administered in real-world conditions, is less well understood. Using prospective cohorts of health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers* in eight U.S. locations during December 14, 2020
Quote from: Bob In PA on December 30, 2021, 12:26:44 PM
Rich: Once upon a time, learned people were utterly convinced the Earth was flat. If we would have been alive then, we too would have sworn it was true. Good thing Twitter wasn't around to "cancel" Copernicus! Bob
Also, since the ancient Greeks (at least) that hasn't been the case
https://www.skeptic.com/insight/flat-earth-conspiracy-theory/?gclid=CjwKCAiAzrWOBhBjEiwAq85QZ7w7LMVJNl7L4H5wJXY8nwrNGKnx2qCclUxm-uRUif73Ql8VEwW1QBoCuRQQAvD_BwE
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 30, 2021, 03:34:00 PM
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm
That's the original trial testing. Where is the data that proves that there were no covid case breakthroughs of original covid in fully vaccinated people?
Quote from: Ed Vette on December 30, 2021, 03:42:16 PM
That's the original trial testing. Where is the data that proves that there were no covid case breakthroughs of original covid in fully vaccinated people?
That's not the "original trial testing". Look at the dates of the study, December 14, 2020
Quote from: MightyGiants on December 30, 2021, 03:50:34 PM
That's not the "original trial testing". Look at the dates of the study, December 14, 2020
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.
https://youtu.be/PNrbXN6F-mc
Talk about mixed messages. Fauci.."You do not need to wear a mask". I don't want to make this political but both Presidents made claim that the vaccines will protect against the virus. Once people had gotten both shots, the masks came off. The reality is however that the vaccines will not protect a person from getting the virus but it will most likely protect against the severity, having to go to a hospital or resulting in death. They needed to be more specific when they all knew the vaccines would not protect against getting. They didn't do it because with human nature, it would have held back many from getting the vaccine. As for variants, there are no specific reports that break down which virus a person tests positive for when they get their results back. Are there public reports based on cumulative numbers? Are there reports by month as to whether the infection is a breakthrough and what variant it is or if it was the original virus? I'd like to see a breakdown as to:
x amount were fully vaccinated and still tested positive by original virus, by Delta, by Omicron. By month.
You have to know they have this information.
Why wasn't it defined what 'highly effective" was? Did they not know? The masks came off and more people were infected who were fully vaccinated and they spread it to those who were not vaccinated and how many of those people died?
"Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, tells TODAY the results reported by drug maker Moderna are
"Without worry or fear"
https://youtu.be/2iOi29_3EEk
"Still need to wear a mask in large crowds..." Yet nobody is wearing masks in large crowds at games anymore because the narrative changed?
https://youtu.be/fXGmyE_XYGA
The changing messages and mixed messages and failure to be specific has confused many Americans. This is my point. Were they deliberately trying to be misleading? Who knows but it sure looks like it to me when they held back early on from being specific. The masses thought that if vaccinated, you won't get Covid. At some point, people just stop listening.
Which resulted in this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/30/provincetown-covid-outbreak-vaccinated/
Of all people who hold elective (or appointive) political office worldwide, about 99% are either unqualified, incompetent, or both. About one percent are neither. Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on December 31, 2021, 12:14:04 PM
Of all people who hold elective (or appointive) political office worldwide, about 99% are either unqualified, incompetent, or both. About one percent are neither. Bob
Well those are just a couple of examples. Remember the guy before him really went from one extreme to the other. Some dangerous stuff too.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/08/24/some-americans-are-tragically-still-drinking-bleach-as-a-coronavirus-cure/?sh=30aa629c6748
They fail to realize that a lot of people are very stupid and they need to have it spelled out to them.
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.
Quote from: Ed Vette on December 31, 2021, 10:52:32 AM
So, to this day there are fully vaccinated people do not wear masks in public. I see more than half the people in supermarkets not wearing masks and I know that they are vaccinated in most cases. There have been to many ambiguous messages from the beginning.
All these videos you posted are old, with the newest being July 8th. At the time of each video, the message sent was correct. When you are dealing with a virus that has mutated and changed over time and a new vaccine where we needed to learn how long it would last, the guidelines will change over time. Look, change doesn't mean the old positions were false inaccurate.
Beyond that, there are many other factors that went into policy that it seems you were not aware of. The government initially was quite aggressive with the lose the mask if you get vaccinated policy not just because it was safe (at least for a time) for people who got vaccinated to lose their masks, but the idea of going mask free was a huge carrot to convince people to get vaccinated (getting more people vaccinated is a huge life savers). So decisions were quite a bit more complicated than you are portraying. The goal was to save as many lives as possible so if there was a huge increase in vaccinations due to the promise of losing the masks, that would offset the small uptick that the mask-free policy created.
In addition, vaccines don't protect people by preventing them from getting infected. Sure, some do, but the overarching protection of a vaccine is to keep one from getting really sick or worse dying. To this day the vaccines have been highly effective in preventing death or severe illness from the variants. In fact, at one point there was the idea that if we could get the overwhelming portion of the population vaccinated, Covid may not be eradicated but the danger and disruption from it would be lowered to that of say the flu. So as we tried to get society back to normal (there are challenges with many Covid restrictions) this was one line of thinking.
So based on the times of the videos, none of what you posted would qualify as "misinformation" especially as it relates to actual misinformation like the blog Bob posted
Quote from: Bob In PA on December 31, 2021, 12:14:04 PM
Of all people who hold elective (or appointive) political office worldwide, about 99% are either unqualified, incompetent, or both. About one percent are neither. Bob
This is an extremely hyperbolic claim. Sure I would say a third to may half of elected officials are unqualified. Appointees vary depending on the position, with most in the sciences and public health being qualified. What I find disturbing by this hyperbolic claim is that it opens the gates for people to believe dangerous liars like Robert Malone, whose blog Bob posted a link to. The first step in getting people to believe crazy conspiracy theorists, conmen, charllotons and other bad actors is convince people not to believe the people they should be listening to.
While this outstanding thread has been somewhat derailed with Bob's instruction of false propaganda about this deadly disease, I am going to post this article in an effort to bring this discussion back on track
https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/2021-12-31/omicron-is-spreading-at-lightning-speed-scientists-are-trying-to-figure-out-why
Try to return to the high-quality discussion about Covid and the market
I am also going to offer up this. I said the article I posted was quality and the blog Bob posted was trash. I think perhaps it's only fair that I talk about what one should look for (when it comes to scientific articles) to determine quality from dangerous trash/misinformation
The nature of science is such that it rarely deals in absolutes. So if you see words like "suggest", "the evidence seems to support...", or provides contradictory evidence, that is a good sign that the article and author is trying to educate and enlighten rather than pursue a personal agenda.
There should be plenty of hyperlinks to studies and experts. When there is a discussion of a study or an expert cited, the quality publications will frequently have hyperlinks that allow one to trace back to the sources. Links to authors are less rare, but links to studies and events are very common in quality work
A brief resume of an expert is a base need (why is this person someone qualified to speak). However, beware of people inflating their resumes in an effort to get people to take them at their word. Here are some classic weasel word claims that should always set off alarm bells (taken from Bob's blog link)- " internationally recognized" (recognized is not the same as actually being) , "the original inventor" ("original" is the tip off there, plus if he was the inventor as he claims his name would be celebrated and he wouldn't need to be bragging), "invited speaker at over 50 conferences" (a vague claim since we don't know what sort of conferences they were or what was the standard for an invite or why they were invited), "building a twitter feed of almost a half million people" (I don't think I need to explain why this isn't a sign of legitimacy)
Science has excellent gate keepers and despite claims to the contrary ideas that are supported with evidence does get through. Any time you hear someone claiming that they are telling the truth and that the medical or scientific community is keeping them down or silencing them, steer well clear of them as the reason they are claiming that is that their claims are so much hot air or are badly flawed which is the real reason they are working outside the system.
Circling back to the article, another indicator of quality is when you see multiple qualified sources cited and multiple studies cited. When you see blogs or articles that are counting on one source to push a message or conclusion it's best to be wary. Why is there one source (there can be a good reason, but often there isn't)? Is the study peer-reviewed (this is a must)? As for one person, it's far better to stick with consensus in the field rather than the opinions of one person (especially when those opinions are contrary to consensus ). I mean occasionally you might have the right answer as that person will sway the opinion of their field, but it's best to wait and see that play out rather than gamble that the person is a pioneer rather than just a contrarian with a bad opinion.
Finally, with science, it's about knowledge and enlightenment. Good articles attempt to educate/explain. What science doesn't do is try and promote an agenda using pseudo-scientific claims. So if you have people pushing an agenda while citing supposed science, best to steer clear.
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 01, 2022, 07:18:50 AM
So based on the times of the videos, none of what you posted would qualify as "misinformation" especially as it relates to actual misinformation like the blog Bob posted
MG,
My own take on these videos was not that there was any sort of ill intent on the part of those speaking. "Misinformation" tends to imply that there was such ill intent (although it doesn't have to mean that), so perhaps it wasn't the absolute best word choice. Maybe "inaccurate information" or "falsehoods" would have been better. And as far as these statements being "true at the time", I have two thoughts on that:
(1) They could be stated differently. "Current research suggests that" or "From what we can tell right now" type qualifiers could have been used. Just saying "if you get the vaccine you are at a very, very low risk of getting covid" is a clumsily matter of fact way of putting it. In fact, I'm not even sure that was "true at the time." I don't recall scientists or the drug companies saying if you take the vaccine you are highly unlikely to get covid. Even back in the early days of the vaccine, we talked about percentage of effectiveness, but that was not the same as saying you almost definitely won't get it if you're vaccinated. I certainly never thought that getting the vaccine meant I would not get covid. So Biden's words in his video seem particularly false and misinformed, which is less than ideal when you're the POTUS managing a national and global crisis. Trump was heavily criticized for exactly this sort of thing, and very rightfully so, so Biden should not get a full pass just because he's not Trump.
(2) You said yourself that there was an element of fibbing on the part of the government with the "lose the mask" advice. So, in fact, to a certain extent they actually
were being manipulative and deliberately deceptive. Unfortunately, being lied to or even fibbed to by leaders seldom rubs people the right way, even if the ultimate intentions are good.
The bottom line in my opinion is that when people hear things from leadership stated in a matter of fact, "this is how it is" sort of way, and then these statements later turn out to be false or are gone back on, that tends to lead to mistrust or at least a loss of confidence in the validity of information people are hearing. The "well it was true at the time" bit isn't going to resonate with large swaths of this country as a legitimate excuse. Nor is that even wholly true when it comes to the Biden remarks in that video.
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 01, 2022, 07:18:50 AM
All these videos you posted are old, with the newest being July 8th. At the time of each video, the message sent was correct. When you are dealing with a virus that has mutated and changed over time and a new vaccine where we needed to learn how long it would last, the guidelines will change over time. Look, change doesn't mean the old positions were false inaccurate.
Beyond that, there are many other factors that went into policy that it seems you were not aware of. The government initially was quite aggressive with the lose the mask if you get vaccinated policy not just because it was safe (at least for a time) for people who got vaccinated to lose their masks, but the idea of going mask free was a huge carrot to convince people to get vaccinated (getting more people vaccinated is a huge life savers). So decisions were quite a bit more complicated than you are portraying. The goal was to save as many lives as possible so if there was a huge increase in vaccinations due to the promise of losing the masks, that would offset the small uptick that the mask-free policy created.
In addition, vaccines don't protect people by preventing them from getting infected. Sure, some do, but the overarching protection of a vaccine is to keep one from getting really sick or worse dying. To this day the vaccines have been highly effective in preventing death or severe illness from the variants. In fact, at one point there was the idea that if we could get the overwhelming portion of the population vaccinated, Covid may not be eradicated but the danger and disruption from it would be lowered to that of say the flu. So as we tried to get society back to normal (there are challenges with many Covid restrictions) this was one line of thinking.
The videos are intentionally old to show that from the beginning, the message was misleading. The goal of
a carrot at the end of a stick to mislead the public into thinking they would not get Covid if they were vaccinated knowing that, "
vaccines don't protect people by preventing them from getting infected" was a very poor decision.
The message should have been to give it to them straight. Initially there would have been some who would have had to be convinced that the vaccine would keep them from dying and to avoid the effects of Long Covid as the motivating factor but in the long run, the trust would have been there. The self serving would not have been able to continue to lead the sheep. So now the country is faced with a situation where a substantial portion of the population does not trust any message coming from Public Health or from Leadership and that a serious problem.
It's gotten so bad that they even booed Trump when he commented that he got the booster. That conspiracy XXXXXXX Alex Jones then jumped all over it to enhance his social media presence by condemning Trump. Just to perpetrate his false messages to those masses.
You don't have to 'educate' me on the vaccines and mask wearing. I'm fully aware of the facts. That doesn't prove your point to win an argument. The fact remains that there are people who will never get vaccinated now because they won't listen to any message. There will not be any vaccine mandates that take away Civil Liberty because it's political suicide, not because it's the basic foundations to the Constitution and the principals this Republic was founded on.
Meanwhile many fully vaccinated people will not wear masks and will contract the virus mutations and pass it on to both vaccinated who trust those people to be in close contact and to the unvaccinated people. Many will be hospitalized and many will die each day. In addition to the anti-vaxers. Times Square was packed with maskless people on top of each other. I had a close friend who was fully vaccinated and got Covid during a rain delay when the maskless stadium poured into the promenades.
So you may believe that it was the lesser evil but I don't. In the meantime, we had a full year to prepare for what we are experiencing today and I'm very disappointed that there is a shortage of text kits and very long lines for the few testing sites throughout NYC. Furthermore, people are paying for whatever test kits they can scrounge up and hoarding them when they should have been covered for free and universally available.
Of course, on the other hand, if the government of a country or those elite few who control social media go too far to suppress the flow of information, you can end up like this:
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1477373810189996033
Look Ed and DB, at the time those statements were made we were seeing very few breakthrough infections. I was not saying (as both of you suggested) that Dr Fauci, President Biden (or the CDC for that matter) misled or fibbed or told a white lie. It was factually correct to say that the vaccine protected people from Covid. Where I differ is the changing of mask policy that accompanied the vaccinations. That was a judgment call that how to balance many factors (all of which were important and significant). I will also say that at the time of those videos, I was of the belief that we were seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Between the normal summer lull, more and more people getting vaccinated (I hold the holdouts responsible for their decisions I do not blame the government) it appeared we had Covid on the ropes and we were nearing the end of the disease being a significant issue (barring a new variation that defeated our vaccines). Yet things did change (as they have done throughout the pandemic). A combination of vaccines weakening, people doing less social distancing, too many people refusing vaccinations, and the Delta variant thriving created conditions in late July that were not anticipated.
Look I get it, I appreciate that you guys have a different opinion of what and how things should be said. That is normal, not everyone is going to agree with how things are said. You can even make reasonable arguments that your way of saying things would have been better. However, there is a difference between having a different opinion of messaging and misinformation. In this case, nothing posted could be classified as misinformation (at the time it was said) or at the very least deliberate misinformation or deception. Nor were any of these statements made in a vacuum, the CDC and public health officials were pushing more detailed and nuanced messages to the public (if they were willing to listen). To me, if you want to talk about an elected official pushing misinformation that would or should cost credibility, this is a prime example:
Marco Rubio
@marcorubio
Record numbers testing positive for a sore throat isn
Here is another example of the message that confuses the masses. Fauci contradicting the CDC.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-cdc-might-recommend-asymptomatic-end-isolation-early-test-negative-2022-1
Do you think the message sent by Abbott said it wasn
My prediction about 18 months ago is turning out to be correct. I said:
(1) eventually everyone would get covid whether or not they were vaccinated;
(2) the situation would likely morph into being very similar to the flu (it would never go away, it would mutate every year, we would just have to "deal with it," and there is/was no way to "defeat" it or "wipe it out").
These statements were met with... well, let's say "skepticism" (generally speaking).
Bob
Quote from: Ed Vette on January 03, 2022, 08:48:48 AM
Here is another example of the message that confuses the masses. Fauci contradicting the CDC.
https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-cdc-might-recommend-asymptomatic-end-isolation-early-test-negative-2022-1
Ed,
Fauci is working with the CDC, it's not like he is contradicting him. Fauci and the CDC are aware of the pushback and criticism on the new isolation protocols and said that the CDC is reconsidering and is likely to add testing to the new policy. Where is the contradiction? You could try to fault that they are changing the standards so quickly, and to a degree that is a fair point (should have got it right the first time). On the other hand, I welcome and appreciate that they were willing to listen to criticism and adjust accordingly. I think that is a sign of quality leadership.
Quote from: Ed Vette on January 03, 2022, 09:03:16 AM
Do you think the message sent by Abbott said it wasn
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 03, 2022, 09:57:09 AM
Ed,
Fauci is working with the CDC, it's not like he is contradicting him. Fauci and the CDC are aware of the pushback and criticism on the new isolation protocols and said that the CDC is reconsidering and is likely to add testing to the new policy. Where is the contradiction? You could try to fault that they are changing the standards so quickly, and to a degree that is a fair point (should have got it right the first time). On the other hand, I welcome and appreciate that they were willing to listen to criticism and adjust accordingly. I think that is a sign of quality leadership.
One of the things when you are saving lives as a government is you often need to enact laws that are not popular. Speed limits are not all that popular, yet they are enacted because they save lives. Mandates on masks and vaccines are also unpopular but they, like speed limits, save lives. It's pretty depressing to see leaders pander rather than do the right thing. That said, I have noticed that all politicians are losing at least a degree of their political will and that policies these days are not as strong as I would like (from a public health standpoint). Although, I am also mindful that many anti-Covid measures do come with costs so it's a balancing act in terms of weighing the benefits and the cost of any given measure.
It's two different messages Rich. You think that's quality leadership? This is why people stop listening and the message becomes a political talking point. Get it right the first time. So here is what is going to happen. Once the symptoms go away, the vast majority is not going to get tested unless it's job required. I doubt they will even wear a mask in many parts of this country where they think Fauci is a clown and they don't trust the CDC or the WHO. You have to know that the Margie's (MTG) of the world will say something stupid and people will believe every word. Who btw was thrown off Twitter for stating false information. Another leader with a bad message only this XXXXXXX is all about disinformation but she actually believes whatever comes out of her filterless mouth.
I'm done with this, Rich. Believe what you want.
Quote from: Ed Vette on January 03, 2022, 10:32:13 AM
I doubt they will even wear a mask in many parts of this country where they think Fauci is a clown and they don't trust the CDC or the WHO. t.
Between people who have smeared these people and entities in pursuit of their political agendas, and people like yourself, who in my opinion are playing Monday morning QB, is it any wonder that people are doing the wrong things and listening to the wrong people?
I saw a study recently. Those people who listened to the likes of the CDC, WHO, and Doctor Fauci were far less likely to contract or become very sick from Covid than those who don't. Hardly surprising results, as clearly the best way to avoid getting very sick and dying would have been (and continues to be) listening to the experts like Dr Fauci, the CDC, and WHO.
You may disagree and your certainly welcome to be "done with this" but I am firm of the opinion that listening to those people rises above opinion to a point of fact. I appreciate that the messaging hasn't been perfect but when you consider that this is a novel situation (it's been a 100 years since the last pandemic) and it's been ongoing for nearly 2 years and through 2 presidents, I think that the federal leadership, for the most part, has been getting it right (with some notable exceptions from the prior President). Certainly, the blemishes do not in any way justify the claims that Fauci is a clown or that the CDC and WHO are not to be believed. The people who hold that view are wrong and it's on them not the target of their disdain (at least in my opinion)
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 03, 2022, 10:54:55 AM
I saw a study recently. Those people who listened to the likes of the CDC, WHO, and Doctor Fauci were far less likely to contract or become very sick from Covid than those who don't. Hardly surprising results, as clearly the best way to avoid getting very sick and dying would have been (and continues to be) listening to the experts like Dr Fauci, the CDC, and WHO.
Rich: The results of that study may be helpful, but the study itself begs the question of whether CDC, WHO and Fauci have been consistent in their advice. They haven't. But that is NOT a criticism.
Anyone who truly thinks about these things knows that those people were doing their level best and striving to be as accurate/helpful as possible, BUT ALSO that they were apt to get one or two things wrong at first.
That is INHERENT in dealing with a "novel" disease. The doctors do the best they can to predict (based on limited existing data and similar past experience) what will happen... but they're still only projections.
Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on January 03, 2022, 11:31:44 AM
Rich: The results of that study may be helpful, but the study itself begs the question of whether CDC, WHO and Fauci have been consistent in their advice. They haven't. But that is NOT a criticism.
Anyone who truly thinks about these things knows that those people were doing their level best and striving to be as accurate/helpful as possible, BUT ALSO that they were apt to get one or two things wrong at first.
That is INHERENT in dealing with a "novel" disease. The doctors do the best they can to predict (based on limited existing data and similar past experience) what will happen... but they're still only projections.
Bob
On one thread (which I think was eventually moved here) Slugs (Paul) asked repeatedly about the chances of dying if you contracted Covid. The interesting thing about that question is that there is no one size fits all answer as the answer is depended on when it was asked, where it was asked, and who asked it. The thing about Covid is that it's been an ever-changing landscape (beyond just as we learned more about the disease). There were major shifts in the Covid landscape. Some were simply the seasonal decreases and increases. Others involved treatments. Others involved vaccinations. Others involved the different variants.
So you never were going to have a "consistent" message. Rather (as you pointed out) the message would evolve and adapt as conditions changed and knowledge increased. What I find frustrating, Bob is that you seem in some ways to be in a minority (or at best a small majority) in that you appreciate that things would change over time. I see far too many people who look at the changes as proof that the leadership and the experts don't know what they are talking about. The reality is that good public health leadership requires that positions change and adapt when the data or situation warrants.
In some ways, I think war would be a good analogy. Due to the fog and nature of war, even the best battle plans by the best generals in history would be changed as the battle played out. In fact, those generals who failed to adjust to the realities of battle tended to lose far more than they would win.
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 03, 2022, 11:52:54 AM
there is no one size fits all answer as the answer is depended on when it was asked, where it was asked, and who asked it.
Rich: This part is crucial & deserves emphasis.
It's a Herculean (maybe impossible-to-meet) challenge to effectively communicate a complicated subject to a mass audience with widely varying degrees of knowledge.
One caveat on this subject... although there is a lot of overlap, there are actually two separate and distinct issues we're dealing with: (1) consistent messaging; and (2) changing circumstances.
When circumstances change, speakers must simultaneously: (1) state that there is a new message as a result of changed circumstances; (2) clearly identify what has changed; and (3) announce the new message.
If great care is not taken, it's easy for a new messaging resulting from changing circumstances to be confused with (or misidentified as) inconsistent messaging.
Bob
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 03, 2022, 10:54:55 AM
and people like yourself, who in my opinion are playing Monday morning QB, is it any wonder that people are doing the wrong things and listening to the wrong people?
I'm not the one responsible for the mixed messages and changing the narrative just a few short days after getting pushback. I have repeatedly told you that instead of properly stating their intent and all the details, that they are going to and have opened the door for others to misled millions. They haven't misled me because I don't listen to or believe those who have an agenda to put down vaccines and masks but they open themselves up to have their statements put down. If the statement was simply that "we are reducing the number of days from 10 to 5 to quarantine and are reviewing what steps need to be taken once someone is asymptomatic" that would have opened the door for an update. They didn't do that and it makes them appear as though they are backtracking due to the pushback from Unions. It became a talking point.
You may not want to recognize that fact but don't accuse me as being the problem because I'm trying to make a point on a message board that 10 people read. I didn't use that tactic on you or take a shot at your motivation or to having an agenda but if this were someone else you were having this discussion with, that surely would have been the result and it would have escalated to yet another nasty fight with political statements and overtones.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/18/politics/white-house-omicron-warning-joe-biden/index.html
Biden admin eyes a potentially stark shift in messaging around ending the pandemic
A shift toward focusing on severity instead of cases. Some of Biden's advisers are encouraging the administration to begin discussing publicly how to live alongside a virus that shows no signs of disappearing, a potentially stark shift in messaging for a White House that once touted "freedom from the virus."
Steering public attention away from the total number of infections and toward serious cases only -- as some Biden advisers have encouraged -- could prove a challenge after nearly two years of intense focus on the pandemic's every up and down. It is a part of a growing conundrum that Biden faces as the Covid-19 pandemic refuses to abate.
"We're getting to the point now where ... it's about severity," said Xavier Becerra, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, in a meeting with reporters this week. "It's not about cases. It's about severity."
Quote from: Ed Vette on January 03, 2022, 01:49:47 PM
I'm not the one responsible for the mixed messages and changing the narrative just a few short days after getting pushback. I have repeatedly told you that instead of properly stating their intent and all the details, that they are going to and have opened the door for others to misled millions. They haven't misled me because I don't listen to or believe those who have an agenda to put down vaccines and masks but they open themselves up to have their statements put down. If the statement was simply that "we are reducing the number of days from 10 to 5 to quarantine and are reviewing what steps need to be taken once someone is asymptomatic" that would have opened the door for an update. They didn't do that and it makes them appear as though they are backtracking due to the pushback from Unions. It became a talking point.
You may not want to recognize that fact but don't accuse me as being the problem because I'm trying to make a point on a message board that 10 people read. I didn't use that tactic on you or take a shot at your motivation or to having an agenda but if this were someone else you were having this discussion with, that surely would have been the result and it would have escalated to yet another nasty fight with political statements and overtones.
Ed,
There are people on this forum that value their ideology more than truth and reason. I don't consider you one of those people. This is why I hold you to a higher standard. The man I know you to be wouldn't so loosely toss around terms like misinformation and misleading as I have seen you do on this thread. As I have said earlier on in this thread, I don't agree with every decision or message but I am mindful that there is a significant and important difference between having a different opinion on what was said or decided and the idea of incompetence (this is an implication of your comments, not a direct quote) and the malfeasance of lying or misleading.
Look for many years I received yearly media spokesperson training as it relates to public health messaging during a crisis. I also engaged in day-long exercises that involved preparing for and giving simulated (filmed press conference) and doing simulated paper interviews on the phone, as well as writing press releases. The state even graded our work. We were trained in how to prepare for those conferences and what we should and shouldn't say and so on. Maybe because of that experience, I see things in a different way. I appreciate the challenges involved. From my experiences, I can tell you that giving pressers or speaking to the press is not as easy as it looks. I will tell you that crafting the messages is also a far more complicated process than most people realize. A lot of work and thought goes into what you tell and don't tell the public. What you want to emphasize and so on.
If Fauci is following standard practice he is not going out there winging it. Rather that is a team of people who work on crafting the points he wants to make and what he should be saying. On top of that when you talk to the press you have to be careful of every single sentence. We live in an era where there are some in the press that is less than honest or are pushing political agendas. As such you have to be careful that what you say can't be parsed and taken out of context to push a false message.
QuoteThey didn't do that and it makes them appear as though they are backtracking due to the pushback from Unions.
How did you decide that the unions held sway on this? Did Fauci or the CDC mention the unions? Were the unions the only entity or person that criticized the new standards? How did the unions become a talking point? Could that be because of the less than honest elements in the press?
Look there was a lot that was left unsaid about the shortening of quarantine. As a person that spent two decades in public health emergency preparedness, I know why they made this move and why it was made quickly. Right now, take NJ. The infection rates are over 30%. Those kinds of infection rates can have very serious and potentially deadly consequences. When you have that many people out sick and isolating you run the risk of shortages of critical workers. Anyone from healthcare workers, people working in nursing homes, firefighters, utility workers, snowplow drivers, police officers, EMS, and so on. I am pretty sure that is what drove the change and why it was done so quickly (I remember before the changing hearing reports out of NYC of closed firehouses and the like). In our planning there the need to ensure critical services needed to keep the country going weren't interupted.
After those standards were released though, I saw a lot of pushback. I didn't hear any unions complaining (although I assume some did) but I heard doctors and scientists and other experts stating their concerns and issues with the rules. I have little doubt that the CDC took notice when qualified experts started questioning the wisdom and safety of the new protocols.
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 03, 2022, 08:06:36 PM
Ed,
There are people on this forum that value their ideology more than truth and reason. I don't consider you one of those people. This is why I hold you to a higher standard. The man I know you to be wouldn't so loosely toss around terms like misinformation and misleading as I have seen you do on this thread. As I have said earlier on in this thread, I don't agree with every decision or message but I am mindful that there is a significant and important difference between having a different opinion on what was said or decided and the idea of incompetence (this is an implication of your comments, not a direct quote) and the malfeasance of lying or misleading.
Look for many years I received yearly media spokesperson training as it relates to public health messaging during a crisis. I also engaged in day-long exercises that involved preparing for and giving simulated (filmed press conference) and doing simulated paper interviews on the phone, as well as writing press releases. The state even graded our work. We were trained in how to prepare for those conferences and what we should and shouldn't say and so on. Maybe because of that experience, I see things in a different way. I appreciate the challenges involved. From my experiences, I can tell you that giving pressers or speaking to the press is not as easy as it looks. I will tell you that crafting the messages is also a far more complicated process than most people realize. A lot of work and thought goes into what you tell and don't tell the public. What you want to emphasize and so on.
If Fauci is following standard practice he is not going out there winging it. Rather that is a team of people who work on crafting the points he wants to make and what he should be saying. On top of that when you talk to the press you have to be careful of every single sentence. We live in an era where there are some in the press that is less than honest or are pushing political agendas. As such you have to be careful that what you say can't be parsed and taken out of context to push a false message.
How did you decide that the unions held sway on this? Did Fauci or the CDC mention the unions? Were the unions the only entity or person that criticized the new standards? How did the unions become a talking point? Could that be because of the less than honest elements in the press?
Look there was a lot that was left unsaid about the shortening of quarantine. As a person that spent two decades in public health emergency preparedness, I know why they made this move and why it was made quickly. Right now, take NJ. The infection rates are over 30%. Those kinds of infection rates can have very serious and potentially deadly consequences. When you have that many people out sick and isolating you run the risk of shortages of critical workers. Anyone from healthcare workers, people working in nursing homes, firefighters, utility workers, snowplow drivers, police officers, EMS, and so on. I am pretty sure that is what drove the change and why it was done so quickly (I remember before the changing hearing reports out of NYC of closed firehouses and the like). In our planning there the need to ensure critical services needed to keep the country going weren't interupted.
After those standards were released though, I saw a lot of pushback. I didn't hear any unions complaining (although I assume some did) but I heard doctors and scientists and other experts stating their concerns and issues with the rules. I have little doubt that the CDC took notice when qualified experts started questioning the wisdom and safety of the new protocols.
The article references the unions. Maybe you should talk to the health care workers and see how they feel about this latest action. It puts their lives in jeopardy as well as their family. I have several friends who work in hospitals who are livid over this.
I
Quote from: Ed Vette on January 03, 2022, 09:08:23 PM
The article references the unions. Maybe you should talk to the health care workers and see how they feel about this latest action. It puts their lives in jeopardy as well as their family. I have several friends who work in hospitals who are livid over this.
I
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 04, 2022, 09:31:06 AM
Yeah, the article mentioned unions, which is part of the media's efforts to discredit President Biden and Fauci. I say that because the first articles (after the change in protocols) ran with headlines that the changes were being criticized by experts and could lead to confusion. Then when Fauci and the CDC say they are listening to the critics and considering modifying the rules, the media runs with "they caved to the unions" because years of demonization have left unions relatively unpopular.
It's funny you should tell me to talk to healthcare professionals. Just last week I was literally talking about these changes with a health officer and a public health nurse who also works on the local hospital's Covid wing. She was talking about the need for NJ to adopt the CDC standards because if they don't, "I don't know who will be left to take care of nursing home residents". As a public health nurse, she has been working closely with the many nursing homes in her jurisdiction and understood the situation we are facing as well as anyone. So she wasn't livid as your friends were, she understand why there was a need for the changes.
So there was a damn good reason for the new rules. In the face of strong criticism for some, Fauci and the CDC, and the Biden administration could have just held firm. Ignored the criticism and just point out the issue the public health nurse I spoke to raised. Only they were more willing to listen. They said they were considering (as of yet they have not made any changes) modifying the rules to address some of the criticism. To me that is what good leaders do, they listen to people who should be listened to. They are mentally flexible enough that it's more important to get it right than appear to have gotten right be refusing to consider changes.
Of course they have to get it right. They have a fiduciary responsibility to get it right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/04/briefing/american-children-crisis-pandemic.html
Quote from: Bob In PA on January 04, 2022, 10:50:16 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/04/briefing/american-children-crisis-pandemic.html
I am glad the Times ran this. The toll this whole crisis has taken on children (on many levels) has been exorbitant. While I appreciate an support the need for caution, forcing young kids to wear masks every second of the day in schools where there are already vax mandates presents an enormous cost both to learning and social development. And of course, this is all on the heels of what was basically a lost year for many children who had to stay at home and "learn" and "develop" watching a screen on a laptop by themselves. I'm not saying that that should not have happened. I am simply pointing out that the costs are immense. A single missed (or very insufficient) year alone is a huge deal for a child. And this is continuing. I cannot imagine what the after-effects will be on many of these kids later in life.
I don't know what the perfect answer is for all of this, both presently and moving forward, but I am not sure that enough balanced thought or holistic consideration is put into this issue in this part of the country. I have no issue with masks in general and wear mine all the time. In fact I probably wear mine more than most of my peers. However I am a middle aged adult and am long since removed from my formative years. I just hope public policy makers remain extremely nimble around ongoing developments and that relaxing of various restrictions is as thoughtful as the imposition of them has been.
Quote from: Bob In PA on January 04, 2022, 10:50:16 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/04/briefing/american-children-crisis-pandemic.html
It's articles like this that are why I saw the NY Times no longer is the bastion of high-quality journalism it once was. The sad thing is that I actually agree with many of the points in the article. I also think it's an issue worthy of discussion and exploring. Where I had an issue was that the article didn't provide the sort of balanced discussion and examination of both sides of the issue. The author clearly had a viewpoint and used techniques often subtle but not impossible to spot to slant this article to only one side of the issue. I say that as someone who is acutely aware of the impact Covid is having on school children as it's part of my job. However, the author covered pretty much every conceivable point that favored his point of view but badly ignored the issues that didn't.
Nowhere in the article did the author discuss the impact on children who lose one or both of their caregivers to Covid (Covid that they may have even been introduced into the household via school)
There was no public health-based discussion on how schools historically have been a major vector for the spread of communicable disease
Nowhere in the article was there a mention that Omicron is hitting children harder
So beyond some of the loaded claims like people are choosing to harm children, there is a lot of important points (I only touched on a few of them).
There was no mention of the safety and welfare of the teachers and staff
From my perspective, the school remote vs in-person is not an easy answer and certainly isn't one size fits all. Also, I am strongly in favor of mask mandates and I don't have a problem with vaccine mandates as a way to allow children the best way to safely return to as close as normal as possible.
With the current surge of Omicron, I would not even think to fault school opting for temporary remote learning. I really like the idea in some schools of having the option of remote and in person at the discretion of the parents. If there is an area of the country that has been less impacted (at least currently) I see merit in having in-person learning. I also think schools with in-person learning should be a temporary halt to extracurricular activities until this Omicron spike cools down.
I will add one other major point the author failed to bring up and certainly should have. Not all the stress and issues facing children are due to the schools. We are living in extremely stressful times with people dying, getting deathly ill, etc. I don't think anyone has escaped or could escape the increased stresses of this deadly pandemic.
I think Covid and the impact on children is a very important issue, and certainly worthy of discussion. It's a shame the author thought his agenda was more important than his duty as a journalist to provide all the information and all the important points and perspectives and avoided hyperbolic and loaded commentary designed to push a point of view instead of educating, enlightening, and get people thinking about the issue.
There is a tug-of-war between two branches of medicine. I'd rather see this type of issue presented via "pro" and "con" opinion pieces (side by side) rather than as a "news" article. Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on January 05, 2022, 09:32:16 AM
There is a tug-of-war between two branches of medicine. I'd rather see this type of issue presented via "pro" and "con" opinion pieces (side by side) rather than as a "news" article. Bob
What are they tug-of-warring over? Also what are the two branches you are referring to?
I saw an excellent interview with the director of the CDC (an extremely well-qualified person). The CDC director doesn't seem to be out there nearly enough, in my opinion. It's a 3 parter and I think it's an excellent interview and well worth the time to see/listen to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrwGlIjugY0&t=5s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knYww0_T79c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1QYThCIAyM
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 05, 2022, 09:38:48 AM
What are they tug-of-warring over? Also what are the two branches you are referring to?
Rich: Sorry about that... I was referring to striking a balance between the physical and mental health aspects of pediatric health care. Bob
My niece is teaching 7th graders in her first year as an educator in the Bronx near Fordham. She is teaching children who have had learning or behavioral issues, come from broken homes and troubled family environments. Many of these children are not vaccinated as their parents aren't. If they don't wear masks, it exposes her to danger.
Going remote should be the last resort as she told me that half her class would likely not pay attention. She constantly has to get them focused in class. It's these type of children who suffer the most by remote. This is also a grade where they have to get into a good school at the next level and their grades will determine that. Many of them came to her with reading disabilities and poor attitudes about education. They all love her but it's been extremely stressful for her. Her choice as she wanted this challenge and to give back. Removing masks or remote learning in this environment should not be how she should be rewarded.
I will add I have heard some school districts are taking the "first 2 weeks remote" so that the holiday surge from the holidays doesn't blow up the schools in terms of outbreaks. I have to say there is merit in the idea, even with the negatives. One of the other issues not mentioned in the article is how a school or classroom can be completely disrupted by an outbreak. You get a bunch of kids infected and exposed they will have to stay home and if you don't have remote learning options they fall behind even worse. Remote learning may not be as good as in-person but no learning is certainly the worst.
One of the other issues is that both parents work and one would have to stay home. Unfortunately in Jenn's situation, school becomes child care. Ultimately each school will have to make its own decisions. Remote may actually expose some children more as they will be out on the streets with friends. They are judging it by a day by day case evaluation.
Quote from: Ed Vette on January 05, 2022, 10:23:50 AM
One of the other issues is that both parents work and one would have to stay home. Unfortunately in Jenn's situation, school becomes child care. Ultimately each school will have to make its own decisions. Remote may actually expose some children more as they will be out on the streets with friends. They are judging it by a day by day case evaluation.
That is another issue. It's sort of funny. Long before Covid, I remember principles complaining about making the call for a snow day. It seemed regardless of the decision made there would be angry parents criticizing the decision. If they stay open then parents would complain you but their children's safety at risk and if they closed parents would complain about having to care for their children.
In many ways, I see this with the calls being made to keep schools in person or going remote. Regardless of which decision is reached there were be an angry group of parents complaining that it was the wrong decision. Like snow days, it's truly a no win choice.
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 05, 2022, 10:07:24 AM
I will add I have heard some school districts are taking the "first 2 weeks remote" so that the holiday surge from the holidays doesn't blow up the schools in terms of outbreaks. I have to say there is merit in the idea, even with the negatives. One of the other issues not mentioned in the article is how a school or classroom can be completely disrupted by an outbreak. You get a bunch of kids infected and exposed they will have to stay home and if you don't have remote learning options they fall behind even worse. Remote learning may not be as good as in-person but no learning is certainly the worst.
For sure these are very valid points. While I think virtual learning is not a good substitute, it is clearly dramatically better than nothing at all. Protecting against the latter is a worthwhile objective indeed. Not to mention if a critical number of teachers in a school catch it, then it's hard for the school to do much of anything (plus older ones or less healthy ones could be in real danger).
It's not an easy problem to solve or an easy set of issues/priorities to juggle. I just know that requiring kids to wear masks every second of the day in school (even during sports in my daughter's school's case) brings with it a real price to pay for kids, and I hope they are not overly conservative around this policy in the future, especially if this strain continues to prove to be very mild.
I do get the point about the impact of a huge outbreak in a single school though. With that said though, if everyone in the school gets it at the same time and they have to shut down for say 10 days, while that won't feel ideal at the time, that might not be so horrible once that event has passed.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on January 05, 2022, 11:36:50 AM
For sure these are very valid points. While I think virtual learning is not a good substitute, it is clearly dramatically better than nothing at all. Protecting against the latter is a worthwhile objective indeed. Not to mention if a critical number of teachers in a school catch it, then it's hard for the school to do much of anything (plus older ones or less healthy ones could be in real danger).
It's not an easy problem to solve or an easy set of issues/priorities to juggle. I just know that requiring kids to wear masks every second of the day in school (even during sports in my daughter's school's case) brings with it a real price to pay for kids, and I hope they are not overly conservative around this policy in the future, especially if this strain continues to prove to be very mild.
I do get the point about the impact of a huge outbreak in a single school though. With that said though, if everyone in the school gets it at the same time and they have to shut down for say 10 days, while that won't feel ideal at the time, that might not be so horrible once that event has passed.
I liked your post because I like and agree with much of what you said. I am not in agreement on the detrimental impact on mask-wearing. I have not really seen a peer-reviewed study that proves such an assertion. Although admittedly there have been few studies on the matter and most focused on the physical impact
I would suggest reading this article on the topic as it's rather interesting although a little dated
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211025-how-face-masks-affect-young-children
Here is an interesting article and a way for many to control their risk from Covid
Can weight loss help protect against Covid-19?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/03/health/covid-weight-loss-wellness/index.html
Admittedly it might not be the most practical advice at this point in the pandemic, but it is interesting.
From The NY Times
On the day President Biden was inaugurated, the advisory board of health experts who counseled him during the presidential transition officially ceased to exist. But its members have quietly continued to meet regularly over Zoom, their conversations often turning to frustration with Mr. Biden
I found Ed's article interesting, but it seemed to be tainted. The articles seemed to be heavy on commentary about qualified people feeling like they should be part of the federal government's Covid leadership. Still, as is my habit, I found the comments interesting enough to remove the NYT filters and slant and go to the horse's mouth
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787944#related-articles-tab
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787945?resultClick=1
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787946?resultClick=1
That links to the actual published (in JAMA) articles that are the subject of the NYT's article Ed posted.
I thought there were a lot of good and compelling ideas put forth. I think some of the ideas may be more wishful thinking than sound policy. As the author's admitted the timing of their advice may be less than ideal (much of what is discussed is long-term type concepts that are best addressed when the nation isn't in the middle of a crisis).
I think it was a good read with good ideas. Although I will admit the words of my late mentor were running through my head. "you can only have one captain steering the ship or one driver driving the bus". While the group represented in this article are certainly qualified people, I am mindful the government currently have their own groups of qualified people meeting and setting the sorts of policies discussed in the series of 3 articles.
My personal opinion is that I think the authors would have been better served to wait a couple of months before publishing, as my sense is that in a couple of months from now we will have a much better idea of what the future holds than we do today.
Still, I appreciate Ed sharing the article as I do enjoy public health policy discussion
Here is the link to that article:
Advisers to Biden Transition Team Call for Entirely New Domestic Covid Strategy
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/01/06/world/omicron-covid-vaccine-tests#former-biden-advisers-call-on-the-administration-to-change-its-covid-strategy
Here is another excellent article that is worth reading
What we know about the symptoms
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 07, 2022, 10:09:22 AM
Here is another excellent article that is worth reading
What we know about the symptoms
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 07, 2022, 10:09:22 AM
Here is another excellent article that is worth reading
What we know about the symptoms
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 08, 2022, 08:39:37 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">ICNARC have updated their analysis of COVID patients in critical care in England, Wales and NI. They now show boosted patients as well.
They are shown in green.
Yes, I've put them on the chart.
You have to squint. pic.twitter.com/51nVHbxl6s (https://t.co/51nVHbxl6s)</p>
This has been so trying personally with losing almost 3 years of time being locked down due to lack of immunity. Its both physically and mentally trying in being safe during these extensive outbreaks and being a chemo patient has me suffering more than I can put into words.
Quote from: chiller99 on January 08, 2022, 09:54:51 AM
This has been so trying personally with losing almost 3 years of time being locked down due to lack of immunity. Its both physically and mentally trying in being safe during these extensive outbreaks and being a chemo patient has me suffering more than I can put into words.
I am very sorry to hear about this. While this has been challenging for almost everyone, very few can claim anywhere near the struggles you have clearly had to endure. I hope you recover both quickly and with as little discomfort as possible.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on January 08, 2022, 10:05:30 AM
I am very sorry to hear about this. While this has been challenging for almost everyone, very few can claim anywhere near the struggles you have clearly had to endure. I hope you recover both quickly and with as little discomfort as possible.
\\
Thanks for the kind words and well wishes, currently searching for a trial of anything experimental that may help prolong my survival, stage 4 closes in fast on anyone and I hope everyone stays healthy during this pandemic
Quote from: chiller99 on January 08, 2022, 09:54:51 AM
This has been so trying personally with losing almost 3 years of time being locked down due to lack of immunity. Its both physically and mentally trying in being safe during these extensive outbreaks and being a chemo patient has me suffering more than I can put into words.
I am truly sorry to hear that you have to undergo Chemo. I wish you the best of luck and a speedy recovery. It's always unfortunate to have to undergo Chemo, and I can't think of a worse time to have to do that, than during this Covid crisis.
Quote from: chiller99 on January 08, 2022, 09:54:51 AM
This has been so trying personally with losing almost 3 years of time being locked down due to lack of immunity. Its both physically and mentally trying in being safe during these extensive outbreaks and being a chemo patient has me suffering more than I can put into words.
Godspeed.
Quote from: Blue4Life on January 08, 2022, 09:02:31 AM
It's been two years that we've been living with the COVID virus. There had been number of articles/studies on the subjects, some of them turned out to be false later. Add to this that both administrations had stumbled during this Pandemic, then it becomes increasingly hard for one to follow the right pass for protection.
My state, CT, keeps track of all COVID variant infections. Based on these statistics, there had been huge jump in the number of breakthrough infection and the resulting death. Here are the highlights breakthrough cases from the 12.02.21 (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/CTDPHCOVID19summary12022021.pdf) and 01.06.22 (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Coronavirus/CTDPHCOVID19summary01062022.pdf) reports:
Breakthrough infections:
December 02, 21: 25.174
January 06, 22: 83,147
Increase: 57,973
Compared to being vaccinated, being unvaccinated posed 5 times higher risk of being infected with COVID, than vaccinated; this risk dropped to 3 times likely in January.
Breakthrough death:
December 02, 2021: 205
January 02, 2022: 311
Increase: 106
The Omicron variant certainly plays a role in the increased numbers, since the report from December shows 0.0%. In the January report Omicron is 3.6% of all COVID infection. The Delta variant increased from 55.9% to 62.8% during the same period. The overall percentage of fully vaccinated people hospitalized with COVID has also risen to 32 percent, from about 20 percent from early last week. That's roughly 1/3 of the hospitalized is fully vaccinated.
In my view, these numbers are due to the increased number of vaccinated and the dwindling number of unvaccinated population. Presumably, the breakthrough infection numbers will continue to increase in the future, as the number of unvaccinated infection continue to drop. Unless a new, more efficient vaccine shows up sometimes in the near future, we will just have to learn how to live with the COVID virus hanging around. If this virus didn't disappear after two years, it's unlikely to do so anytime soon...
Vaccinated/Boosted may take greater precautions overall with mask wearing and social distancing. Being more cautious personalities. Just a thought. Or, this may be evidence that they are just less likely to contract it due to immunity to viral load.
Quote from: Ed Vette on January 08, 2022, 11:08:37 AM
Vaccinated/Boosted may take greater precautions overall with mask wearing and social distancing. Being more cautious personalities. Just a thought. Or, this may be evidence that they are just less likely to contract it due to immunity to viral load.
Ed: The mask question is super-complicated. But there's no doubt masks help avoid transmitting the disease to others. That's their strong point in my opinion, and it's simple and easy-to-understand.
That's why (1) I don't mind wearing a mask if required (or requested politely) to do so; and (2) IMO this point should be emphasized by anyone who wishes to support and promote mask-wearing.
Does a mask protect you? Depends on the mask. Even with the "right" mask, you still must wear it correctly, replace it with a new one fairly often, don't touch anything but the line that goes around your ear, etc.
Bob
Quote from: Ed Vette on January 08, 2022, 11:08:37 AM
Vaccinated/Boosted may take greater precautions overall with mask wearing and social distancing. Being more cautious personalities. Just a thought. Or, this may be evidence that they are just less likely to contract it due to immunity to viral load.
Actually, the fully vaccinated/boosted tend to be less cautious overall, trusting that the vaccine will protect them. Even, if one of these people are cautious, it's not a guarantee that they cannot get infected. Anecdotally...
We had my daughter (Perimedic, ALS) and my grandkids over for dinner on Xmas-eve. Next day, she called us to tell that she has a positive COVID test; after five days she was back at work. Neither my grandkids, single vaccine shot, nor us with boosters had became infected. They were just over for dinner last night. The family, that lives across from my house one by one had became infected around Xmas, one of their young kids brought it home from school, all of them are vaccinated. One the other hand, friend of mine opted out from vaccination and he's just fine. Albeit due to the 33% infection rate in our town, he'll probably get vaccinated now. Again, this is just my personal experience with infections around me...
As stated earlier, there will be a point in the future, where the number of breakthrough infection will be grater than the number of unvaccinated infection, both percentage and actual number wise. This is due to that there will be less and less people will be unvaccinated, like my friend in couple of days.
Quote from: Bob In PA on January 08, 2022, 12:13:20 PM
Ed: The mask question is super-complicated. But there's no doubt masks help avoid transmitting the disease to others. That's their strong point in my opinion, and it's simple and easy-to-understand.
That's why (1) I don't mind wearing a mask if required (or requested politely) to do so; and (2) IMO this point should be emphasized by anyone who wishes to support and promote mask-wearing.
Does a mask protect you? Depends on the mask. Even with the "right" mask, you still must wear it correctly, replace it with a new one fairly often, don't touch anything but the line that goes around your ear, etc.
Bob
At the beginning of the pandemic, the advicse had been that "My mask protects you, Your mask protects me" is still holds true...
When it comes to Covid, we have an ever-changing picture due to the fact that we have been learning all along as well as 3 different variants
The original- The vaccine works extremely well against it both for infection and illness. It was contagious but not highly contagious
Delta- This variation impacted the vaccine to some degree when it came to getting infected. The vaccine still worked well against serious illness and death. This variation was more contagious than the original. It was about as deadly as the original perhaps more so (but offset with improved treatment from trial and error and new drugs)
Omicron- This variant is much more contagious among the vaccinated. Among the unvaccinated, it's about as contagious as Delta. The one plus is it seems to be milder than the original or Delta strains. The vaccine does still seem to import protection from serious illness and death especially among the boosted. The booster is a must for Omicron and it's not unfair to say if you're not boosted your not vaccinated when it comes to Omicron. Although again even boosted it seems to cut your risk of infection by about half (which is not all that great when you consider it's pretty much everywhere).
Now when it comes to protective measures, I think each needs to be considered in a risk/cost VS reward/benefit Using a 1-10 scale where 1 is no cost/risk and 10 massive cost/risk and for benefit 1 is no benefit and 10 means things couldn't be better here is how I would rate the various measures
Masks Costs/risk- 2 (maybe 3 for KN95 Reward 8 (for KN95 or better) 6 (surgical) 4 simple cloth NOTE- KN95 slightly harder to breath in
Vaccine Costs/risk- 3 (mostly short-term) Reward 6 or 8 if boosted
Soical distancing Cost/risk 4 Reward 7
Shutting down or avoiding risky activities Cost varies from 4 to 8 (depends on activity) Reward 4 to 8 (depends on activity)
Healthy Lifestyle and weight loss- Cost 3 Reward 9 (some of that reward is not Covid related)
In the end I suggest protection in layers with the more layers the better
In terms of any given activity choice I suggest considering the risk VS the reward
I would respectfully disagree that masks are only a 2 cost. I think that would be a fair rating if we were only accounting for physical comfort considerations, but the cost extends to social considerations as well. There is no question (and I don't need an official study to believe this) that masks inhibit human communication to some degree. Facial expressions, changes in facial expressions mid-sentence, etc absolutely matter. So when human beings do not communicate as well as they otherwise would, I believe costs come with that, and they are not negligible.
I think the "cost" of wearing a mask to say a supermarket or doctors' office is at most a 2, and probably more like a 1 or 0.5. That really doesn't bother me at all. If however I were a kid trying to make friends at a new school that had a strict "masks on at all times policy", I think the cost would be worse than a 2, and that is just one example.
Quote from: DaveBrown74 on January 09, 2022, 12:19:44 PM
I would respectfully disagree that masks are only a 2 cost. I think that would be a fair rating if we were only accounting for physical comfort considerations, but the cost extends to social considerations as well. There is no question (and I don't need an official study to believe this) that masks inhibit human communication to some degree. Facial expressions, changes in facial expressions mid-sentence, etc absolutely matter. So when human beings do not communicate as well as they otherwise would, I believe costs come with that, and they are not negligible.
I think the "cost" of wearing a mask to say a supermarket or doctors' office is at most a 2, and probably more like a 1 or 0.5. That really doesn't bother me at all. If however I were a kid trying to make friends at a new school that had a strict "masks on at all times policy", I think the cost would be worse than a 2, and that is just one example.
One thing I have noticed is that kids do more communication via text and social media than they do face to face. Still, beyond that, it seems to me, that much of what you cite is more speculative or intuitive rather than factual. I do keep an open mind though, so if you have a peer review studied (or a pre-review that sounds like it's quality) I would be willing to listen in terms of the detriment of masks for kids. I will qualify that any study will be scrutinized because we both know that people have made the masks in school a political issue and when it comes to politics misinformation is way too common.
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 09, 2022, 02:32:06 PM
One thing I have noticed is that kids do more communication via text and social media than they do face to face. Still, beyond that, it seems to me, that much of what you cite is more speculative or intuitive rather than factual. I do keep an open mind though, so if you have a peer review studied (or a pre-review that sounds like it's quality) I would be willing to listen in terms of the detriment of masks for kids. I will qualify that any study will be scrutinized because we both know that people have made the masks in school a political issue and when it comes to politics misinformation is way too common.
That's true that masks in school (and masks in general for that matter) have been highly politicized. To be perfectly frank, I'm not even saying they definitely should be eliminated in schools. I'm merely disputing the notion that there is zero cost (or a very negligible one) associated with students having to have them on all the time. It may well still be the right thing to do given all considerations. Having said that, at the very least, I feel policy makers should be very dynamic around this issue and consider cost/benefits analysis at every turn. Just having an indefinite, blanket policy that masks need to be on at all times moving forward, no questions asked, is not one that I am supportive of.
When all is said and done I truly wish people would follow one simple rule and wear their masks properly. We all are aware health care pros wear the properly fitted N95 masks but the public could at least go through the motions and cover the nose and mouth areas to protect themselves as well as others with challenged immunity
How much do we know about Omicron as far as it relates to the original virus as to how to protect oneself like towards shopping. We learned that we should wash our veggies, wipe down our packages, even change clothes if we went out to the store. We learned how long the virus lived on certain materials, like plastics and cardboard among other things and we adjusted our lives accordingly.
With Omicron, are these same procedures necessary? Do we know if this variant lives on a cardboard box, on the mail, on our daily paper? Are we still washing our food brought into the house, wiping down the milk cartons?
My darling wife still does it all and I chide her a bit for it, but is she being overly cautious or doing the right thing?
Lenn, the world was much more cautious when the virus first raged upon the scene.
Quote from: LennG on January 11, 2022, 12:05:24 PM
How much do we know about Omicron as far as it relates to the original virus as to how to protect oneself like towards shopping. We learned that we should wash our veggies, wipe down our packages, even change clothes if we went out to the store. We learned how long the virus lived on certain materials, like plastics and cardboard among other things and we adjusted our lives accordingly.
With Omicron, are these same procedures necessary? Do we know if this variant lives on a cardboard box, on the mail, on our daily paper? Are we still washing our food brought into the house, wiping down the milk cartons?
My darling wife still does it all and I chide her a bit for it, but is she being overly cautious or doing the right thing?
Fomite (or disease transfer from a common surface) was discounted some time ago as a significant source of the spread of the Coronavirus (I appreciate that early on everyone was taking precautions against fomite transfer because we didn't know). I have seen nothing that suggests that Omicron behaves differently. That said, it's still a good idea to practice general good hygiene in terms of frequent hand washing, avoiding touching eyes, nose, and ears, and keeping cleaning surfaces regularly. However, there is no reason to take the extreme measures we saw early on.
Quote from: MightyGiants on January 11, 2022, 12:32:41 PM
Fomite (or disease transfer from a common surface) was discounted some time ago as a significant source of the spread of the Coronavirus (I appreciate that early on everyone was taking precautions against fomite transfer because we didn't know). I have seen nothing that suggests that Omicron behaves differently. That said, it's still a good idea to practice general good hygiene in terms of frequent hand washing, avoiding touching eyes, nose, and ears, and keeping cleaning surfaces regularly. However, there is no reason to take the extreme measures we saw early on.
Rich: Yes, you can still get one of the flu viruses not covered by this year's installment of the flu shot, so that's yet another reason to keep in mind. Bob
Quote from: Bob In PA on January 11, 2022, 12:34:56 PM
Rich: Yes, you can still get one of the flu viruses not covered by this year's installment of the flu shot, so that's yet another reason to keep in mind. Bob
The measures I suggested are just a good way to live by (if you like to avoid getting sick). With hand washing, I am saying qualify hand washing that focuses on a proper washing of the entire hand, rather than wet, some soap, a few rubs, and then rinse.
(https://optimummedical.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Handwashing_web_2-1.png)
Quote from: LennG on January 11, 2022, 12:05:24 PM
How much do we know about Omicron as far as it relates to the original virus as to how to protect oneself like towards shopping. We learned that we should wash our veggies, wipe down our packages, even change clothes if we went out to the store. We learned how long the virus lived on certain materials, like plastics and cardboard among other things and we adjusted our lives accordingly.
With Omicron, are these same procedures necessary? Do we know if this variant lives on a cardboard box, on the mail, on our daily paper? Are we still washing our food brought into the house, wiping down the milk cartons?
My darling wife still does it all and I chide her a bit for it, but is she being overly cautious or doing the right thing?
Lenny, we did the same things and then some for over a year too. Didn't wipe down perishable items, instead used UVC light to disinfect the surfaces, including the counter afterward. While we don't really use this light much anymore, we still do wash fruit/vegetables and other perishable items. And of course, our hands...
The constant changes in the virus discouraging, especially the highly politicized changes in the protection against them. Initially, our only option had been masks and washing hands frequently. Then came the vaccines and everybody swore, that once we reach "heard immunity", this pandemic will be over. Well, that did not happen and we have a new variant that requires booster shot. When the third variant had showed up and spreads like wildfire, we are back to masks, wash hands and maybe yet another booster shot, or a new vaccine. It's almost like "rinse and repeat", or like yoyo, depending on your preference...
Since the Omicron showed up, the infection rates are through the roof in the tri-state area:
https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/?region=US&trendline=false&location=Connecticut&location=New+Jersey&location=New+York
For my state, CT, the infection rate is at the unheard rate of close to 24%:
https://portal.ct.gov/Coronavirus/COVID-19-Data-Tracker
In my town, Stamford, the latest infection rate is 45%:
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cityofstamford/viz/StamfordCOVID-19Dashboard/StamfordCOVID-19Dash
Please note the chart in the top, right corner, where the vaccination coverage percentage summarized by age groups. The most interesting stat is vaccination rate for all eligible residents showing, that 94% of the eligible residents had been vaccinated. 80% of them fully vaccinated, while 14% received the first shot. Whatever happened to the "herd immunity", do we need to have 100% vaccination? it does not seem like that we would have that even then.
That leaves 6% unvaccinated, eligible residents for vaccine. Are those 8,100 residents are responsible spreading the virus? The chances are the answer to that question is no. Especially since in my earlier post detailed how some of the fully vaccinated residents with booster shot getting infected and spreading the virus. And as stated earlier, COVID is going to stay with us, until a vaccine that can prevent getting infected on the first place is developed.
Until then, cut back on socializing, wear mask, wash your hands, get the next booster, if you can. Stay safe Lenny, stay safe...