Some New Science on Virus Transmission on Airplanes

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

OK, off on a different tangent....

With vaccines starting to roll out, are they taking into account those who are already documented to have had the virus and recovered. I've come across numbers suggesting anywhere from 20-50% of the US population has already had the virus (25-30% seems to the most likely from my review of various articles and studies).

Now given their exposure, I would expect front line workers would likely have an even higher percentage and would be likely to have been tested with their employers seriously tracking their status (ie: the hospital presumably has a list of who has had it already).

I would expect that these people already have natural immunity for the most part. It may or may not be as effective as the vaccine but particularly in the first round with limited doses available, would it make sense to remove these people likely to obtain little if any benefit from the vaccine. Maybe later when it opens to the general public, they could have the option to take the vaccine but it seems a waste to vaccinate already immune individuals.

I've seen numbers suggesting there are 20mil health care workers in the US. If 5mil are already documented to have been infected and recovered, that would be 5mil doses in the first month that could be directed to individuals who are slightly lower on the list but still a high priority.

It's an interesting thought, but I can say that everywhere, where we expected a certain degree of natural immunity, the second wave has shown that there is much less than we might have hoped for. For example:



Despite the horrendous outbreak in New York in the Spring, natural immunity left over from that seems to have done nothing to dampen the second wave.

The main problem is knowing the real prevalance of the virus in the population, since a certain number of cases are asymptomatic and testing is not widespread enough anywhere to catch all infections. Prevalance of virus DNA in sewage has been used as a proxy, but I think we just don't really know, but it seems that the higher end estimates of prevalance are not correct.

The other problem with trying to "remove" people from the vaccination list is that we don't have a reliable way to determine who is robustly immune. It seems the primary immune mechanism may be the t-cell and b-cell responses, rather than antibodies. Furthermore, mild cases produce weak natural immunity. Therefore, I don't think it's a good idea to remove ANY front line health care workers from the vaccination lists.

"Seroprevalence data (antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) estimate that there may be 10 times more SARS-CoV-2 infections than the number of reported cases. Thus, it is possible that 40 million to 50 million (12% to 15% of the US population) to date may have been infected with a detectable serological response to SARS-CoV-2. However, relying on population-based natural immunity, especially for populations at risk of greater disease severity, is not wise. Boosting specific neutralizing antibodies and TH1 immunity to high levels with an effective vaccine regardless of prior immune status may further protect these individuals."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2770758

I think it's absolutely correct, on several different levels, to vaccinate ALL front line health care workers first. First of all, working with infected people daily, they are most exposed. Second, we can least afford to have such people knocked out of action. Third, just morally -- those people who are in the front lines protecting the rest of us, surely deserve to be protected first.

Where I personally disagree with the policies in some states and countries is to prioritize nursing home residents over "essential workers". Essential workers may be at less risk of death, but much greater risk of infection. Like front line health care workers, these people are putting themselves in the line of infection to do services for the rest of us. These are mostly working poor people who can't afford to be out of a job, and can't work at home. Another reason to vaccinate these people is that they have more social contacts with people than most, so are at greater risk of spreading the virus to other people. Vaccinating them will do more to break the back of the pandemic, than vaccinating nursing home residents. I would vaccinate these people next, or at least in parallel with nursing home residents.

I fear that vaccinating nursing home residents might be aimed more at producing better statistics, beneficial to politicians, than at actually stopping the pandemic. The death rate might fall in the short run, but deaths in the long run might be higher, as a result of leaving more of those people with a lot of social contact, unvaccinated.


In Russia, they are vaccinating teachers first, together with health care workers. Then essential workers. This seems sensible to me. By the way, I was on the phone yesterday with an old friend in Moscow -- the situation there is dire, and much worse than what is reported in the press -- hospitals completely full so they simply won't take you to a hospital if you get sick. If you have a heart attack, it's game over. God help us.

[goboatingnow]

In Ireland in the first wave , first week in January , its nursing home residents AND front line health workers are being vaccinated
Next is the over 70s

The reason for nursing home residents is the universal concern around their virtual isolation and bringing that aspect to an end.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It's an interesting thought, but I can say that everywhere, where we expected a certain degree of natural immunity, the second wave has shown that there is much less than we might have hoped for. For example:

Attachment 228610

Despite the horrendous outbreak in New York in the Spring, natural immunity left over from that seems to have done nothing to dampen the second wave.

The main problem is knowing the real prevalance of the virus in the population, since a certain number of cases are asymptomatic and testing is not widespread enough anywhere to catch all infections. Prevalance of virus DNA in sewage has been used as a proxy, but I think we just don't really know, but it seems that the higher end estimates of prevalance are not correct.

The other problem with trying to "remove" people from the vaccination list is that we don't have a reliable way to determine who is immune. It seems the primary immune mechanism may be the t-cell and b-cell responses, rather than antibodies. Furthermore, mild cases produce weak natural immunity. Therefore, I don't think it's a good idea to remove ANY front line health care workers from the vaccination lists.

"Seroprevalence data (antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) estimate that there may be 10 times more SARS-CoV-2 infections than the number of reported cases. Thus, it is possible that 40 million to 50 million (12% to 15% of the US population) to date may have been infected with a detectable serological response to SARS-CoV-2. However, relying on population-based natural immunity, especially for populations at risk of greater disease severity, is not wise. Boosting specific neutralizing antibodies and TH1 immunity to high levels with an effective vaccine regardless of prior immune status may further protect these individuals."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2770758

At 25% infection rate, we likely wouldn't see a huge herd immunity effect. Seasonal, behavioral and other changes could easily mask those impacts. If we need 60-70% to hit herd immunity, it's not surprising there are waves still forming.

I wasn't suggesting we randomly remove 25% of the population from vaccinations but remove those who have already been tested and proved to have been infected...in particular for the first round where we have limited doses available, the goal is to maximize the overall immunity and those who have tested positive have a fairly high probability of having some level of immunity, so it would be less effective for the herd to focus limited resources on those people.

We may not be able to prove they are immune but we can't "prove" someone getting the vaccine is immune either but in both cases they should have a much higher probability of having some degree of immunity.

Of course, earlier in the summer, I was suggesting large scale anti-body testing would be highly useful. If we knew there were say 75million with antibodies and we knew who they were, we could target the vaccine where it is most likely to have an impact. Of course, we could always circle back around later and vaccinate that 75 million when everyone else is already vaccinated, so it's not that they would never get the vaccine but where they fit in the priority.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

. . .The reason for nursing home residents is the universal concern around their virtual isolation and bringing that aspect to an end.

So not just to prevent deaths, but to end isolation of nursing home residents for the sake of their quality of life and psychological health?


I hadn't thought of that. I think that's a VERY good reason to vaccinate them, but I would still not prioritize that, over vaccinating those people likely to be spreading the virus. Surely the first priority has got to be ending the pandemic. What saves some lives in the short term might indeed not be what saves them in the long term.

[GordMay]

Will those who have tested positive for COVID get the vaccine, or will they be deemed to have immunity?
I suspect that there's not enough information, yet, to definitively answer that question.
It's not yet known how long coronavirus antibodies remain in the body, or whether their presence, and at what level, protects someone against reinfection.
There have been reports [1] of people getting reinfected with COVID-19, as soon as four months after recovering from their previous infection, and those are probably the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that most people who have recovered from COVID-19, may be eventually eligible for vaccination.

[1] “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Re-infection by a Phylogenetically Distinct Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Strain Confirmed by Whole Genome Sequencing” ~ by Kelvin Kai-Wang To et al [August 2020]
➥ https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance...aa1275/5897019

My 'suspicions' are NOT fact.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So not just to prevent deaths, but to end isolation of nursing home residents for the sake of their quality of life and psychological health?


I hadn't thought of that. I think that's a VERY good reason to vaccinate them, but I would still not prioritize that, over vaccinating those people likely to be spreading the virus. Surely the first priority has got to be ending the pandemic. What saves some lives in the short term might indeed not be what saves them in the long term.

Yes but the trials have not confirmed that the vaccine prevents transmission but have most certainly confirmed that it’s prevents infection ,hence following the science suggests giving it to those likely to get sick with severe consequences is the correct first action

The fact is low viral load COVID infections circulating amongst a population section largely not getting that sick is manageable , and allows many severe lockdown restrictions to be lifted once you are comfortable that the vulnerable won’t catch the disease.

Hence the strategy is broadly correct in my view based on the trial data.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... Surely the first priority has got to be ending the pandemic. What saves some lives in the short term might indeed not be what saves them in the long term.

Since we cannot end the pandemic, until at least 70% of the entire population is immune (vaccinated), we must start by using our few initial vaccines, in saving a few lives, and minimizing transmissions.
Exactly whose (initial) lives, I'll leave to others to debate.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Will those who have tested positive for COVID get the vaccine, or will they be deemed to have immunity?
I suspect that there's not enough information, yet, to definitively answer that question.
It's not yet known how long coronavirus antibodies remain in the body, or whether their presence, and at what level, protects someone against reinfection.
There have been reports [1] of people getting reinfected with COVID-19, as soon as four months after recovering from their previous infection, and those are probably the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that most people who have recovered from COVID-19, may be eventually eligible for vaccination.

[1] “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Re-infection by a Phylogenetically Distinct Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Strain Confirmed by Whole Genome Sequencing” ~ by Kelvin Kai-Wang To et al [August 2020]
➥ https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance...aa1275/5897019

My 'suspicions' are NOT fact.

We don't have proof the vaccine provides long term immunity either and the reinfections have been exceedingly rare, usually with caviots, such as they can't say for sure if it was a new infection or they just didn't get over the first round.

So using a limited number of doses on people LIKEY to be immune doesn't seem the most effective approach....again, you can always loop back around to them after everyone else is vaccinated to give them a booster when supplies are no longer limited.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

We don't have proof the vaccine provides long term immunity either and the reinfections have been exceedingly rare, usually with caviots, such as they can't say for sure if it was a new infection or they just didn't get over the first round.
So using a limited number of doses on people LIKEY to be immune doesn't seem the most effective approach....again, you can always loop back around to them after everyone else is vaccinated to give them a booster when supplies are no longer limited.

Indeed.
Weak evidence is why I only have 'suspicions., and is why I underlined eventually.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Since we cannot end the pandemic, until at least 70% of the entire population is immune (vaccinated), we must start by using our few initial vaccines, in saving a few lives, and minimizing transmissions.
Exactly whose (initial) lives, I'll leave to others to debate.

70% is not an exact number. It can change significantly depending on the interactions of those infected. I've seen numbers as low as 40% and as high as 90% suggested to have herd immunity and limit the spread.
- Vaccinating Grizzly Adams who lives off grid in the mountains having contact with 2-3 people once every 6 months, will do almost nothing for creating herd immunity as he is incredibly unlikely to contract or pass on the virus.
- Vaccinating a cashier in a big city who comes into physical contact with 100's of people per day 6 days a week can have a huge impact. She will have a very high probability of contracting the virus and of passing it on. Vaccinating her could be more effective than vaccinating an entire nursing home at stopping the spread.

Elderly in homes often effectively live in isolated bubbles with the exception of staff. If you can vaccinate the staff and limit visitors to the vaccinated, you can effectively protect that bubble. So in terms of ending the pandemic, going after the elderly isn't very effective as an early priority.

Now I could see an argument for helping the elderly out psychologically by ending their isolation sooner but that would require those on this thread claiming no amount of death is worth any collateral damage to agree to a little more death. With a well thought out plan, I could probably support that.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Since we cannot end the pandemic, until at least 70% of the entire population is immune (vaccinated), we must start by using our few initial vaccines, in saving a few lives, and minimizing transmissions.
Exactly whose (initial) lives, I'll leave to others to debate.

I don't think that follows logically.


It is true, that COMPLETELY stopping the pandemic, requires something like 70% of people to be immune. But the pandemic isn't stopped in one day, at the cusp between 69% (say), and 70%. It stops progressively as you remove the community spread vectors.


It is well known that a few number of people who have much more social interactions, cause a wholly disproportionate amount of infections -- the so-called "80/20 rule." If you can immunize those 20% of people, causing 80% of community spread, you have just knocked out 80% of infections. That doesn't completely stop the pandemic, but it's a huge leap forward. Very likely to save many more lives in the long run, than vaccinating people who are at high risk of death, but low risk of infection.


HOWEVER, I don't claim that I know this for sure -- it's an empirical question. I'm only saying that this should be looked into seriously, and a decision should be made on the basis of overall long term benefit to society as a whole, NOT short term politically attractive effect.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Yes but the trials have not confirmed that the vaccine prevents transmission but have most certainly confirmed that it’s prevents infection ,hence following the science suggests giving it to those likely to get sick with severe consequences is the correct first action

The fact is low viral load COVID infections circulating amongst a population section largely not getting that sick is manageable , and allows many severe lockdown restrictions to be lifted once you are comfortable that the vulnerable won’t catch the disease.

Hence the strategy is broadly correct in my view based on the trial data.

Again, I have an objection to the logic employed here.

Just because it is not proven that vaccination prevents transmission, does not indeed prove that "following the science suggests giving it to those likely to get sick with severe consequences is the correct first action."

We don't need proof, we just need to know what is most likely. If it is most likely that vaccination does NOT prevent transmission, then I agree with you -- people should be vaccinated in order of their vulnerability. But that should also take into account likelihood of infection as well as likelihood of a bad outcome, so even still maybe not necessarily nursing home residents, but perhaps vulnerable people who circulate in society. This would be right because it would maximize the life saving effect of the vaccine.

BUT if we think that it is most likely that vaccination DOES prevent transmission -- and I think that is what most scientists believe -- then this does not hold. In that case, using the vaccine to suppress transmission may well provide greater life saving effect, than vaccinating nursing home patients. Or at least than exclusively vaccinating nursing home patients -- perhaps some kind of mix would give an optimum result. This could be worked out empirically.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

. .. Vaccinating a cashier in a big city who comes into physical contact with 100's of people per day 6 days a week can have a huge impact. She will have a very high probability of contracting the virus and of passing it on. Vaccinating her could be more effective than vaccinating an entire nursing home at stopping the spread.

Exactly this. One vaccine given to that one cashier might save 100's of lives in the long run, even 1000's. Versus saving my one 96 year old godmother in a nursing home, who is not even likely to get infected. I love my godmother, but I think I would prefer that the vaccine go to the cashier.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

. .. Now I could see an argument for helping the elderly out psychologically by ending their isolation sooner but that would require those on this thread claiming no amount of death is worth any collateral damage to agree to a little more death. With a well thought out plan, I could probably support that.

I agree also with this. Goboatingnow made this excellent point. I think a few extra deaths might be worth not destroying the last year in the lives of millions of people in nursing homes. Life is not an absolute value. The isolation in nursing homes takes a horrendous toll on the people who live there, many of whom are counting off their last days without any contact with their loved ones. This has been a really painful issue in the Nordic countries, and in fact nursing homes were reopened to visitors in the early summer everywhere here, despite the risk of killing people, based on similar logic.

This is a good, interesting discussion. The questions are not easy, hence interesting. Especially when the participants are civil and respectful to each other like now.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You clearly do not understand the first thing about what lawyers do (it has almost nothing to do with juries), and I am doubtful about your understanding of what scientists do,

Appeal to purity logic fallacy #1. And #2.

other than perhaps in some post-modernist social science faculties. Law and science (at least, hard science) share a rigorous approach to logic, and methodology for getting at truth. Yes, truth -- deductive and inductive truth (we can safely leave coherence and correspondence to philosophers) -- scientists (at least in the hard sciences) and lawyers deal with basic, objective things and do not consider truth to be "theological". "Double speak" will get you slaughtered in either field.

Appeal to purity fallacy use #3, #4.
We're getting away from methodology that re-enforces self-importance, where now outcomes data determines the utility of a thing. The people who pay the bills (at least in science) expect utility, not pretentious speech.

Suffice it to say that if I attended a meeting and used word games and logic fallacies as a substitute for specific references to contextual science and statistics in a meticulous manner...I'd (rightfully) be slaughtered.

Wait a minute, you just said "there is no wrong."
But obviously there is wrong, just like there is such a thing as scientific truth.

Historians make determinations of wrong. In the mean time we look to history to determine if things are sustainable or not.....to determine suitability. Indeed, this requires familiar with a broad range of history, in particular what never worked before.

The laws of physics, math constants, math phenomena are immutable scientific truths. A person doesn't have to agree with them, but they run the world and cannot be altered.

And you are constantly attacking this or that point of view for being "wrong". However, you refuse to engage the arguments and demonstrate exactly what is wrong.

For example, economic downturn with Covid. You ignore axioms of microeconomics, citing in response to a call for reasoning of microeconomics (which are the core of all economics) your education and work experience. In a dialog about vortex generators you effectively neglect an acceleration in a free-body diagram depiction, when it's pointed out to you that this is so, you cite people who themselves account for the accelerative force in their own depiction, but you neglected to understand them, either. So when explained how you're wrong about something, you cite sources who don't agree with you and you don't recognize it. Does me citing my old plane with VGs on the canard make an accelerative force all of a sudden appear in someone's mind's eye picture of the free body diagram?

The "this is so, explain it to me why it's not" stuff is tedious. Where I say "do your homework" I mean = reflect, systematically peruse every detail in the system being discussed, pick up a book if necessary. <------scientific approach.

You merely assume that you have perfect knowledge of what is right,

Not at all. As you're a Hegel scholar, would you please help me remember where Hegel described psychological projection and it's relationship to cognitive dissonance?

and simply slag off, in one way or another, the person who said the thing you consider to be "wrong".

Not correct. Like most science pedants there's a religiosity about helping people understand things while, and this is most important, seeing things from the perspective of another (say first assumed wrong) is critical to understanding how other people formulate understanding in the first place.
We all have deficits here...some people much worse than average. But assuming that the other person is googling things...while reasonable...should at some point be apparent not so when the person speaking is speaking in a detailed, nuanced manner about a subject.

Never any sign of any curiosity, any self-doubt, or even good will, in any of this. This is an extreme example of solipsism, and is profoundly anti-scientific.

Again, psychological projection, cognitive dissonance.

Good will is towards the community rectifying disinformation which, ordinarily is contrary to the efforts of the disinformation provider.

So here it is again, the heart of the matter -- "folks know better, and are smarter" on the one hand, and "erroneous web-spinner" and "misinformation", on the other hand. This is breathtaking solipsism -- on what basis do you assume that you "know better", and are "smarter"?

A call for the mob "look at this one who claims superiority over us, stone him." The heart of the matter is that someone poorly versed in science, low on agreeableness, openness to new experience (OCEAN stuff) not just speaks out of school, but cannot be convinced that they don't even understand that their own sources, their own expert disagrees with what they're saying. <----It's a ruse, some type of appeal to authority to gain credibility but neglecting the finer points enough that what's repeated is actually out of context. Such is life, but specifically on Covid/infectious disease stuff this is misinformation with real consequences.

Suppose that the term "smart" is to mean, in this context, someone who knows what they are talking about. Who ordinarily works with the subject matter. Who harms people when they are wrong, yet is relied upon by the community to hold a role to mitigate damage to the community.

On what basis do you think you know that this thing is "misinformation", rather than what you yourself believe?

2 Points:
1) I have to explain/square for people the BS science conjecture that they read on the internet...in a manner that doesn't make them believe what I think, but instead have the insight to make informed decisions for themselves. If you have to do this, A) you've got to understand the science, B) you've got to learn how to teach, C) it takes time, D) you learn some people like to argue more than understand...it's their nature...it's a type of learning style where they externalize ideas "prove me I'm wrong" taking ~eternity to redress every supposition/conjecture...instead of the person listening, reflecting.
2) The basis is the World Health Organization's guidance where many of your posts here are completely consistent with misinformation according to WHO. Now, undoubtedly, one can type 17 pages to justify one's position but at the end misinformation is still misinformation:

https://www.who.int/campaigns/connec...rmation-online

No real scientist, at least not one in any hard science, would ever bring such thoughts into any discussion.

Appeal to purity fallacy use #5. "No real ________ would ever..."

As I've said -- science is profoundly modest; this kind of arrogance is profoundly anti-scientific.

Appeal to purity #6, #7. Projection/cognitive dissonance.

If a proposition is wrong, a real scientist patiently demonstrates, with facts and logic, why that is so, leaving the person (and his profession, race, religion, parentage, whatever) out of it;

Appeal to purity #8 coupled with non-recognition that some folks ignore hints 1-9 that they don't understand what they are talking about, then, with hint 10 that's barb go crying 'this is unfair, you're not being reasonable.' RATHER, not being reasonable is not pondering hints 1-9.

science doesn't recognize just claiming to "know better" and be "smarter". If you lack confidence in bringing actual facts and actual logic to an actual argument, because logical discussion seems like "sophism" to you, then leave it to others better equipped.

Your understanding of some of this stuff is like...
...a bus is heading towards a cliff
...a window on the bus is squeaking
...you insist, and I mean insist without end that the window issue is a dependent variable in the equation
Done once or three times is normal. Done repetitively it's like watching someone throwing darts while blindfolded, expecting everyone else to stop what they are doing an explain everything to the dart thrower.
At some point the dart thrower needs to understand that both the darts can be harmful to other people, and all the effort dedicated to helping the dart thrower understand things comes at a high opportunity cost for the community.

Absolutely false. Relevance is a thing, a fundamentally important thing, in science, just like in the law, and for exactly the same reasons.

Again, the definition of wisdom is knowing what's important when/where/how. I don't suppose a murder case would include testimony about the price of a sandwich in Madagascar, but the more one types about nothing, the more I suppose it to be probable.

If you are trying to decide whether really only 44 people have been proven to have been infected in airliners, then arguments are more or less valuable depending on their relevance.

Indeed, if I'm the AITA I want you as my attorney. For the rest of us, it's bogus data.

And when you go off on tangents about people's cognitive dysfunctions, the purpose of that is obviously not to "have fun helping people to see things", but to discredit someone, as being cognitively dysfunctional, as a way of avoiding the actual argument.

First, "dysfunction" is a nonsense word. People function as they function. If someone's function, for example, has insufficient recall capacity, or aphantasia or such, then this as a fundamentally practical matter influences a person's capacity to see something. If its not identified as being present, then such creates more communication problems.

Otherwise your manner is repetitively/repetitively to discount the source of information when you don't like it ------>

This is fundamentally nasty. Stick to the matter at hand, and leave the people out of it -- basic rule of civilized discussion.

So what's with all the calls for purity? Repetitive claims of arrogance? It's quite problematic when folks don't exercise attention to detail, as shown below apparently what brought about all this in the first place (sort of a theme to see what one wants, require others to spend an our rectifying).

Well said, the underlined part. This is exactly what I object to in these last couple of posts of yours, especially this one. This post in fact is a museum of solipsism -- "all that education" "'A' folks who will never get it". Breathtaking arrogance.

Where "this post" references post #186 I agree completely.

Otherwise logic discrimination isn't personal discrimination. Lines have to be drawn somewhere.

The antidote to solipcism is awareness beyond the borders of one's own self, modesty, and respect. This is built into the scientific method, the genius of which is the escape from subjectivity.

Again, which is why I encourage you to reflect on how you approach non-conforming information. Consider googling OCEAN/agreeableness/openness to new experience.

Also, very telling that there is an impulse to "get someone to silence themselves." That is just weird. That is an ugly and unscientific impulse and has no place in civilized discussion. Certainly not allowed by the forum rules here.

Frankly you provide misinformation per WHO which I suggest is uncivilized and invariably increases awareness of wrong scientific concepts. As you studied philosophy for whatever reason, I studied science to help reduce disease in the community which you add to. Characterize such weird if one likes.

What a load of utter, condescending, arrogant nonsense. 75% of my posts on the pandemic have been criticism of oversimplification, jumping to conclusions, unwarranted certainty, unwarranted criticism of divergent points of view, and spreading of false information about things like, for example, the pandemic measures in Sweden. Where science is concerned, I have been exceedingly modest, have made almost no claims about anything scientific, but have rather challenged what seem to me to be premature, insufficiently worked out, or politicized propositions. The other 25% of my posts have been about policy-making, which is not a scientific discipline (and is in fact a discipline where I have direct professional knowledge and experience). The pandemic discussions are dominated by two gangs, who see the pandemic, policy around the pandemic, and the science behind the pandemic in polarized, politicized terms. I am jumped on by one gang or the other, for deviating from one party line, or the other. My whole fight here is against this way of thinking, in favor of critical thinking, in favor of thoughtful and nuanced policy which considers public health as a whole and not just pandemic deaths. I have done a lot of homework and I stand by my arguments, many of which have been modified or retracted when faced with better information or a better argument. We do not have a single real epidemiologist on here, so I don't think I am significantly less well qualified than anyone on here to have an opinion on these matters.

Epic cognitive dissonance. In a thread yesterday you lauded Japan and Scandinavia for listening to the scientists. At the same time, whenever a scientist brings information that you don't agree with, you provide suppositions/conjectures words, words, words to discount what the science people are saying. This ordinarily is specifically in the realm where it conflicts with your behavior. Such is ordinary cognitive dissonance. Textbook.

It's one thing to have an opinion, like "I think maybe X is an issue" and quite another to say "X is only twice as bad as Y" when you don't understand Y and certainly not X from talking with some expert. Again, a repetitive pattern of citing expertise when what one says doesn't mesh with what they said. or in the least is applied out of context.

So insulting people is an attempt to "help a person change their thinking"? Of a piece with all the rest of it.

Just as you've done here, it's ordinary to modulate words so as to get people to think differently.

Not at all odd! It's high time someone called you out on this. You did a lot more than "post information on the science of infections on an airplane", you made a scurrilous attack on a simple statement of fact by the ATA guy, without presenting any contradictory facts at all, and then an extensive and scurrilous personal attack on me and my cognitive ability and my profession, when I questioned you on it. Never once addressing the actual fact in question. It's absolutely right to be having this discussion.

It's one's right to ask anything. But one has a responsibility to read what other people post and take it into consideration.

But I'm the AITA guy!

So if I cite in post #120 a metric that invalidates a bogus industry number withstanding:
-the number being plainly bogus,
-changes in infectious disease practices,
-the fact that IATA can't get anywhere near the feedback from medical testing required to make a more accurate determination so as to legitimately promote the idea that ~1 in 27,000,000 airline passengers has gotten infected...
...I would expect one to consider the metric as ordinarily being related to my observation that the ~1 in 27,000,000 is bogus. Moreover, it ordinary that this type of industry metric is, most likely to the common man's understanding of the universe, intended to engender a feeling of safety. A reasonable goal, but use real-world data. So much as the link in post #1 here states, published last month:
"We conclude that the risk for on-board transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during long flights is real and has the potential to cause COVID-19 clusters of substantial size, even in business class–like settings with spacious seating arrangements well beyond the established distance used to define close contact on airplanes. As long as COVID-19 presents a global pandemic threat in the absence of a good point-of-care test, better on-board infection prevention measures and arrival screening procedures are needed to make flying safe."

A 1 in 27,000,000 transmission rate (suggested, by ordinary reading of the IATA statement) is very, very low. Far safer than the nosocomial transmission rate (i.e. in a medical setting). So your own document, per routine, says something different than you suggest.

Getting back to basics, what are we really talking about?

1. Someone posted a statement by a medical advisor to the ATA, which claimed that only 44 (or whatever) infections have ever been traced to air travel.

That would be me, post #168!!!!

2. You launched into a diatribe about how this is obviously wrong, and furthermore that the statement is propaganda, intended to perpetuate ignorance by playing on ignorance.

Correct, I both offered the data characterized and characterized it as bogus/propaganda.

3. I responded that no evidence has been presented that the asserted facts are wrong, and that there is no basis for assuming the dishonesty and evil intentions of the author of the statement.

4. Whereupon, rather than addressing the arguments (which are exceedingly modest arguments, by the way -- in case the point is too subtle, I am not claiming that the ATA guy's data is correct), you start an elaborate ad hominem attack on my cognitive ability and profession.

I accused myself as dishonest with evil intentions???

Pointing out to someone that they've mischaracterized something is not an ad hominem attack unless, frankly, the person has thin skin...and the kind of personality traits that go along with having thin skin.

The reason why this is an unproductive discussion is because the only thing these posts engage is the motives, professions, cognitive ability (!), and so forth, of the people making arguments. This is an intensely concentrated form of argumentum ad hominem, which is a classical logical fallacy and invalid mode of argumentation. This: "knowledge of ethology, neurobiology, etc, helps one understand why someone will drag a discussion away from a subject they don't have familiarity with to one they do . . " confirms it. This is a claim of special knowledge of people's motives, so a claim of a kind of a license to dismiss other people's points of view without engaging them. In fact it's a mode of argumentation we've seen on here before, where people think that, for example, just because they've heard of the Dunning-Krueger Effect, means that they are qualified to diagnose it in others, and cannot possibly be suffering from it themselves. This is simply a high-sounding way to call someone stupid. This is not only fallacious -- i.e., invalid as an argument -- it is fundamentally nasty.

Why we can't have nice things. Handy with words, for the 100th time, does not a scientist make. Calls to reason, authority, organizing principles is no substitute for being incorrect about something.

You claim to have addressed the ATA guy's data, but as I wrote before, you have not. You posted links (which appear to be the result of 5 minutes of googling, rather than any profound scientific knowledge, the evidence of which we have not seen anywhere in these posts) which are not relevant, and which do not contradict what the ATA guy said. I myself, in the the first post of this thread, posted a link to a study which analyzed one flight as a super-spreader event. But HOW the virus can spread in an airplane does not prove whether the virus actually HAS spread in a widespread way in real life, which is the stat the ATA guy gave us. These are different questions. A real scientist, actually a first year student in any hard science, would know this, and would never use such a superficial bit of googling as an argument.

Calls for purity logic fallacy #10 or so. My primary work in infection control is not in airplanes though for many years I was a member of the only international organization (ASMA) that primarily deals with human physiologic issues surrounding flight. Frankly infectious disease control on airplanes is somewhat of a fool's errand inside the tube; it's outside screening and "best behavior" of, say, 1,200,000,000 people for hours on end that are the determining variables.

But argument is not the point. These posts are classical culture war work, the essential character of any public discussion in the U.S. these days. Persuasion of anyone with actual facts and actual logic is out the window -- the main thing is to sense whether something someone says complies with one party line or another. If the argument, or even the fact (since everyone has his own facts these days) does not comply with the party line, then full attack mode, using whatever is at hand -- denigrate the other speaker, his parentage, education, cognitive ability, profession, whatever, deride him as deluded, call him an "A", heap scorn -- and on the other hand attempt to claim some authority based on something or another -- somehow in our warped culture this is considered "discussion" -- generally a combination of argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad verecundiam without any possibility for people hearing each other or learning from each other. So for example in other discussions, even asking a question about whether this or that pandemic measure actually makes sense, is considered evil per se, disinformation, full attack mode. This leads to nowhere good, and I resist it, and argue against it. I do not want the kind of culture, where some people presume to make others "be silent", where personal attacks pass for discussion, where opinions are accepted as substitutes for facts.

Projection. I've actually sat in lectures, read books, attended conferences, and get paid to make determinations based upon that experience.

But I do not mean to flaunt this: much of this subject matter is nebulous. Where it is NOT nebulous...is where attention must be focused. Not focused on what someone with no appreciable science background google and regurgitates and defends with fists up and a thesaurus at the ready.

As to Hegel -- I say again, you merely dropped the name, like many other names in the course of these discussions. There are no dots to connect. No connection whatsover made to the discussion, no evidence of the slightest knowledge of any of Hegel's actual thought. That's just a pose, and it's an "F" in my class. Yes, I taught that class.

Again, please help me recall where Hegel discussed cognitive dissonance and psychologic projection. The first phenomena is perhaps the most profound I'm aware of, the second is a routine hurdle in communication. Or are you saying that Hegel did not speak to these phenomena???? Perhaps, indeed, I've misunderstood him.

What COULD you have said about the ATA guy's remarks? There are lots of civilized and reasonable things you could have said, against these statistics, e.g.:

1. "Considering how widely flu infections spread in airplanes, and COVID too if you consider the study linked to in Post 1 in this thread, it seems hard to believe that there could really have only been 44 infections traced to air travel -- we should check and see if there are different stats for this."

2. "Keep in mind that this statement is made by the Air Transport Association, who have a vested interest in showing that air travel is safe. We should be careful with this, and try to find other sources."

That would be the start of a civilized, respectful discussion. I would have answered like this:

1. "Indeed. I agree, and let's see if we can find other data. But still it's interesting, and makes us think -- what if it is really true?"

2. "Yes, that is certainly reason for extra caution. We definitely need to find other sources for this data. But it's probably unlikely that these numbers were just made up, so we can't assume that they are false, either."

and

3. "One data point which MIGHT support the proposition that air traffic, under real life conditions today with screening of passengers, masking, empty middle seats, scrubbing and other measures, is actually pretty safe, such that spreading the virus inside airplanes actually is more rare than might seem intuitively correct, is the fact that air crews seem to have much lower rates of infection, than the general population. Therefore, this stat MIGHT not be wrong. Other sources will help us understand it better."

Now THAT would be a civilized discussion.

But I'd already posted the "other research" on the subject and I offered an informed, professional assessment that the numbers were misleading. That you didn't pay attention to who said what and then took felt the obligation to call for clarity of what everyone else could readily surmise.....to fault-find to drag me into this mud...I ask you to reflect upon.

Please read what others post and make an attempt to synthesize what they wrote into the narrative. Please understand that when someone doesn't critically read what is posted then this causes communication problems that take a lot of time to rectify.

Please consider visiting the WHO website regarding the spread of misinformation online, paying particular attention to the observation that "crazy uncle" type misinformation spreaders are far less a problem than eloquent folks.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Wait a minute, you just said "there is no wrong."

Picking this up on a lighter note I refer you to 1:10 to 1:35 here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_1zoX5Ax9U