Cruisers & Sailing Forums (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/)
-   COVID-19 | Containment Area (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f168/)
-   -   How to Judge Pandemic Policies (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f168/how-to-judge-pandemic-policies-247760.html)

boatman61 10-03-2021 17:59

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3361910)
Well, DH might be mistaken about that as well. But you can judge for yourself.

Here are some of the other mask myths, dissected.


Anyway it's all a hoax. But we made you all wear masks for almost a year and everyone looked really silly. LOL.

Outside your bubble so you may not be aware..

https://nypost.com/2020/04/06/china-...er-past-month/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52092395

https://nationalfile.com/china-gave-...ral-countries/

Here in Portugal it was September before 'Safe' masks were available at our pharmacy here in Portugal

Lake-Effect 10-03-2021 19:50

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by boatman61 (Post 3361977)
Outside your bubble so you may not be aware..

https://nypost.com/2020/04/06/china-...er-past-month/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52092395

https://nationalfile.com/china-gave-...ral-countries/

Here in Portugal it was September before 'Safe' masks were available at our pharmacy here in Portugal


If the primary goal of mask wear by the public was to prevent unknowingly infected people from spreading the virus when they were out in public (... and it was) ... then any old cloth or disposable mask works. Same as when your Gran asked you to use your hanky when you sneezed.

boatman61 10-03-2021 20:14

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3362027)
If the primary goal of mask wear by the public was to prevent unknowingly infected people from spreading the virus when they were out in public (... and it was) ... then any old cloth or disposable mask works. Same as when your Gran asked you to use your hanky when you sneezed.

I always carry tissues just for that purpose.. along with for the gf when there's no toilet paper in the ladies..

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23...es-like-covid/

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/co...k-do-they-work

GordMay 25-03-2021 04:05

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Africa experienced 30% rise in COVID cases during 2nd wave
Writing in The Lancet medical journal [1], researchers said the loosening of public health measures, such as distancing and intermittent lockdowns, probably contributed to higher death tolls, during the second wave, last year.

The study [1] looked at COVID-19 case, death, recovery and test data, carried out across all 55 African Union member states, between February 14 and December 31 2020.
Daily new cases during the first wave numbered 18,273. During the second wave this figure stood at 27,790 – a 30-percent rise.
Among the 38 nations, that experienced a pronounced second wave, and for which control measures were available, the study found that almost half had fewer measures in place, compared with the first.
The researchers said it was highly likely new variants had contributed to higher caseloads, across the continent’s second wave.
The highest incidences of cases per 100,000 population were recorded in Cape Verde (1,973), South Africa (1,819), Libya (1,526), Morocco (1,200), and Tunisia (1,191)
Of the 53 countries that reported more than 100 virus cases, one-third had case-fatality ratios higher than the global average of 2.2 percent.

[1] “The first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa: a cross-sectional study” ~ by Stephanie J Salyer, DACVPM et al
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...632-2/fulltext

Dockhead 25-03-2021 04:27

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DumnMad (Post 3361366)
Hard to compare one country with another.
Some where the virus was late arriving were able to lock the borders and keep the virus out. e.g. NZ and Australia.
Au & NZ were in the Summer when it arrived. Europe were coming out of winter and in the Flu season.

Others like USA, UK, France, Italy etc already had many thousands spread through the country before anybody knew of its severity. New York as headquarters of international organisations didn't have a show.

On a deaths per million basis the US rate is not extreme and less than UK, Italy, Hungary, Portugal.


I started to underline what I thought was particularly good in this post and realized I would have to underline it all.


This is all absolutely true and extremely important. It is really quite silly trying to rank different countries' outcomes like a football league. The outcomes in different countries are the result of a huge mass of different factors, besides the government's pandemic response. Outcome does not equate to "performance".



The truest thing you can get from comparing different countries is what is proven negatively -- country X didn't do Y and had a good outcome -- that does prove that not doing Y does not make disaster inevitable in all cases. That's about as much as you can say.


Scientists of Stanford University did the most complex analysis of the various pandemic policies which I think has been done so far. They did it by mathetmatically modelling the response of the infection curves to various implemented measures. See here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/eci.13484


They found about what I would have expected -- different measures are somewhat effective; none of them is a killer app. There is no magic bullet and no magic formula of policies which will "solve" the pandemic, which can only be solved really with vaccination.

Dockhead 25-03-2021 04:34

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3361910)
Well, DH might be mistaken about that as well. But you can judge for yourself.. . .


From your very link:


Fauci first spoke about the wearing of masks amid the COVID-19 pandemic during a March interview with 60 Minutes. "Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask."

That is precisely what I was referring to.

boatman61 25-03-2021 04:37

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Naah.. Just a nasal spray loaded with Rhinovirus..
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

boatman61 25-03-2021 05:01

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Several AstraZeneca insiders told BBC Medical Editor Fergus Walsh that they would not consider continuing their vaccine at cost model for another pandemic after they saw the profitability from rivals Pfizer and the "rollercoaster" of events from the EU's mistrust of the vaccine. Mr Walsh said it was "beggars belief" that AstraZeneca faced immediate criticism from authorities over its revised coronavirus efficacy rate which increased for over 65s and slightly decreased for everyone else earlier this week. The health editor added that it was unprecedented for such a report to face disapproval and sadly explained future pandemics would unlikely see such at cost models from AstraZeneca.

Speaking to BBC's Today programme, Mr Walsh said: "I can tell you that more than one senior person at AstraZeneca has said to me privately that 'would we do this again?'

"They see Pfizer is going to make billions out of the vaccine, [AstraZeneca's] vaccine which was always intended - with its partnership with Oxford that doesn't need to go to the freezer and has two billion doses worldwide.

"Most of those are, a huge proportion of those, go to the low and middle-income countries and they say they wouldn't do this again if there was another pandemic which comes along.

"There have been missteps it's been an absolute rollercoaster following this vaccine development along the way.

"But if I was AstraZeneca I'd be very cross about [the efficacy queries].

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 05:29

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3372758)
From your very link:

Fauci first spoke about the wearing of masks amid the COVID-19 pandemic during a March interview with 60 Minutes. "Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks," Fauci said during the interview. "There's no reason to be walking around with a mask."

That is precisely what I was referring to.

...and Dr Fauci goes on to say "but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is."

...which was right then, and still right now; even N95 masks don't provide 100% protection to the wearer against airborne viruses. And given the, um, unique and different styles people have adopted for mask wear, it would have been a collossal waste to have caused shortages and price inflation on N95 masks and other PPE, based on the belief that they would be sufficiently protective to the wearer, and a substitute for social distancing, avoiding public gatherings, and closures.

Most people I know offline seem to have gotten the point that the later (April 2020) guidance for the public use of simple masks was to prevent unknowingly infected people from spreading it, not to protect the wearer. I don't understand why so many people on CF are unable to figure that out.

Was it a confusing set of messages? Sure, to the unsophisticated or biased listener, and I'm sure that in future pandemics they will take more care with that. Lying or deliberate misinformation? No.

Dockhead 25-03-2021 06:51

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372791)
...and Dr Fauci goes on to say "but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is."

...which was right then, and still right now; even N95 masks don't provide 100% protection to the wearer against airborne viruses. And given the, um, unique and different styles people have adopted for mask wear, it would have been a collossal waste to have caused shortages and price inflation on N95 masks and other PPE, based on the belief that they would be sufficiently protective to the wearer, and a substitute for social distancing, avoiding public gatherings, and closures.

Most people I know offline seem to have gotten the point that the later (April 2020) guidance for the public use of simple masks was to prevent unknowingly infected people from spreading it, not to protect the wearer. I don't understand why so many people on CF are unable to figure that out.

Was it a confusing set of messages? Sure, to the unsophisticated or biased listener, and I'm sure that in future pandemics they will take more care with that. Lying or deliberate misinformation? No.

What does that change? He still advised AGAINST wearing masks, then flip-flopped a few weeks later. That the protection is not perfect is obvious and trivial and NOT the reason to not wear a mask -- and implying that is a lie. It wasn't a reason then, and it's not a reason now, not to wear a mask.

Was there deliberate misinformation about wearing masks? Yes -- it's been admitted publicly. And I stand by my statement that this was manipulative and disingenuous and undermined trust in the advice from public health authorities.

Fauci himself was perhaps more transparent. At the end of March he said: "“If we do not have the problem of taking away masks from the health care workers who need them, I would lean towards it,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN’s Sanjay Gupta. “What harm can it do if you have enough masks?” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...being-reconsi/

Meaning, the advice against the general public wearing masks was to conserve limited supplies for health care workers, NOT because wearing masks is not perfectly effective. Which is the truth of the matter.

But the CDC and Trump's surgeon general lied about it. Here's a good article laying out the facts: https://reason.com/2020/04/06/the-cd...le-months-ago/

A tweet from the Surgeon General on 28 February:

"Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS!" Adams tweeted on February 29. "They are NOT effective in preventing [the] general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!" Ibid. Which is bizarrely self-contradictory -- if masks are not effective for the general public, why are they effective for health care workers? Weird -- who would anyone believe someone saying such nonsense?

Here's another good story explaining how the CDC official advice changed:

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41...-masks-prevent

The real underlying problem was lack of preparedness and inability of the supply chain to provide enough PPE for everyone. A really severe problem during the first months of the pandemic in places with really bad outbreaks like Italy and New York was that even health care workers weren't getting PPE.

We have to do better next time. Finland shows the way for this, having prepared actual physical strategic reserves of PPE, such that every drug store in Finland had tables stacked with N95 masks from the beginning of the pandemic.

And in my opinion, it's not just masks in general but actual N95 respirators which need to be plentiful. It is true that ordinary hospital masks are better than nothing, but based on the science we have so far that's about all you can say about them. Properly fitted N95 masks are vastly more effective, and will certainly take a big bite out of future pandemics based on respiratory viruses. I wonder if we had started wearing N95 masks at the very beginning of the pandemic, whether it would have spread at all -- this might have been enough to nip it in the bud, with incalculable benefits to mankind. Well, I guess this will be studied intensively and we'll know and be better prepared next time.

I guess also households will stock up and have their own reserves -- I know I will.


I have been in the U.S. now for a couple of days, in Florida (I got vaccinated yesterday, hurrah!). I was pleased to see that in public places, mask wearing seems close to 100%, and it looks like a good half of all the masks worn are N95 respirators which appear to be worn correctly. I was pleased and surprised -- having heard so many bad things about how people are dealing with the pandemic in the U.S. Getting ready to go to a restaurant with my father with great pleasure.

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 07:48

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3372848)
What does that change? He still advised AGAINST wearing masks, then flip-flopped a few weeks later. That the protection is not perfect is obvious and trivial and NOT the reason to not wear a mask -- and implying that is a lie. It wasn't a reason then, and it's not a reason now, not to wear a mask.

You conveniently fail to differentiate between N95 and other specialized masks, which are the only ones that would offer protection to the wearer, and the simple basic cloth or surgical masks which were recommended in April to stop asymptomatic spread. Deliberately I assume, because you're no dummy, you know the difference.

Quote:

Fauci himself was perhaps more transparent. At the end of March he said: "“If we do not have the problem of taking away masks from the health care workers who need them, I would lean towards it,” Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN’s Sanjay Gupta. “What harm can it do if you have enough masks?” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...being-reconsi/

Who's flip-flopping now? You accuse Fauci of lying, then you prove that he actually wasn't.

Quote:

But the CDC and Trump's surgeon general lied about it. Here's a good article laying out the facts: https://reason.com/2020/04/06/the-cd...le-months-ago/
In terms of who knew what and when, "available" doesn't mean accepted or widely understood at the time. This is just revisionism based on hindsight.

Quote:

Here's another good story explaining how the CDC official advice changed:

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/41...-masks-prevent
Yes - a much more factual (less opinionated) account, actually.
The original CDC guidance partly was based on what was thought to be low disease prevalence earlier in the pandemic, said [infectious disease specialist Dr Peter] Chin-Hong.

“So, of course, you’re preaching that the juice isn’t really worth the squeeze to have the whole population wear masks in the beginning – but that was really a reflection of not having enough testing, anyway,” he said. “We were getting a false sense of security.”

Rutherford was more blunt. The legitimate concern that the limited supply of surgical masks and N95 respirators should be saved for health care workers should not have prevented more nuanced messaging about the benefits of masking. “We should have told people to wear cloth masks right off the bat,” he said.

Another factor “is that culturally, the U.S. wasn’t really prepared to wear masks,” unlike some countries in Asia where the practice is more common, said Chin-Hong. Even now, some Americans are choosing to ignore CDC guidance and local mandates on masks, a hesitation that Chin-Hong says is “foolhardy.”

Be honest - it's March, the pandemic crisis is unfolding rapidly, and you're faced with the following:
  • you know conventional masks won't significantly protect users
  • you know that a public run on N95 masks would be a serious threat to the PPE supply to professionals
  • there was still some doubt about asymptomatic spread
  • you didn't yet know the extent of aerosol (not droplet) spread
... what public advice would you give? And if there's later reasons to change your advice, are you now just a liar, or acting responsibly?

It was fog-of-war stuff, basically, which you do understand:
Quote:


The real underlying problem was lack of preparedness and inability of the supply chain to provide enough PPE for everyone. A really severe problem during the first months of the pandemic in places with really bad outbreaks like Italy and New York was that even health care workers weren't getting PPE.

We have to do better next time. Finland shows the way for this, having prepared actual physical strategic reserves of PPE, such that every drug store in Finland had tables stacked with N95 masks from the beginning of the pandemic.

Indeed, but simply calling authorities "liars" when the truth is far more complicated won't get us there.

Quote:

I wonder if we had started wearing N95 masks at the very beginning of the pandemic, whether it would have spread at all -- this might have been enough to nip it in the bud, with incalculable benefits to mankind.
That's a lovely bouquet of IFs. IF there were enough N95 masks...IF Americans would all have worn them... IF people also continued to social-distance and follow other restrictions...

Dockhead 25-03-2021 08:06

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372882)
You conveniently fail to differentiate between N95 and other specialized masks, which are the only ones that would offer protection to the wearer, and the simple basic cloth or surgical masks which were recommended in April to stop asymptomatic spread. Deliberately I assume, because you're no dummy, you know the difference.

No I don't fail to differentiate. N95 highly effective; ordinary hospital masks questionably effective, but still worth wearing. It was true then, and true now -- nothing has changed except that in the early days we wanted to conserve masks for health care professionals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372882)
Who's flip-flopping now? You accuse Fauci of lying, then you prove that he actually wasn't.

No, I'm not flip-flopping. Fauci did deceive -- he talked about the relative effectiveness of hospital masks as a reason not to wear them, when what he really had in mind was that we need to conserve them for health care professionals -- that he was relatively more transparent LATER is good, but doesn't cancel the earlier deception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372882)
. . . Yes - a much more factual (less opinionated) account, actually.
The original CDC guidance partly was based on what was thought to be low disease prevalence earlier in the pandemic, said [infectious disease specialist Dr Peter] Chin-Hong.

“So, of course, you’re preaching that the juice isn’t really worth the squeeze to have the whole population wear masks in the beginning – but that was really a reflection of not having enough testing, anyway,” he said. “We were getting a false sense of security.”

Rutherford was more blunt. The legitimate concern that the limited supply of surgical masks and N95 respirators should be saved for health care workers should not have prevented more nuanced messaging about the benefits of masking. “We should have told people to wear cloth masks right off the bat,” he said.

Another factor “is that culturally, the U.S. wasn’t really prepared to wear masks,” unlike some countries in Asia where the practice is more common, said Chin-Hong. Even now, some Americans are choosing to ignore CDC guidance and local mandates on masks, a hesitation that Chin-Hong says is “foolhardy.”

Yes, and one of the articles I linked to proved that CDC knew months before their guidance against wearing masks, that there was a lot of asymptomatic infection. They lied. It's a black and white fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372882)
Be honest - it's March, the pandemic crisis is unfolding rapidly, and you're faced with the following:

* you know conventional masks won't significantly protect users

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372882)
  • you know that a public run on N95 masks would be a serious threat to the PPE supply to professionals
  • there was still some doubt about asymptomatic spread
  • you didn't yet know the extent of aerosol (not droplet) spread
... what advice would you give? And if there's later reasons to change your advice, are you now just a liar, or acting responsibly?

I would scrupulously tell the truth. This is crucially important for the maintenance of public trust in health authorities. I would never do what the CDC did. I would say exactly what they knew at the time:

1. There are asymptomatic infections, THEREFORE it is useful to wear masks even if you don't have symptoms, and even if ordinary hospital masks are marginally effective.

2. However, we are having shortages now, so please guys hold off a little so we can prioritize health care workers. In a few weeks when we get the supply chains in order we'll start asking you to wear masks. Meanwhile, please maintain as much social distance as you can and avoid crowds.

THAT would have been the honest and correct way to approach the question, but that's not what they did. It's worth being clear about this so that we avoid future mistakes like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372882)
It was fog-of-war stuff, basically, which you do understand:
Indeed, but simply calling authorities "liars" when the truth is far more complicated won't get us there.

Well, but it is accurate to call them liars. And they should be called out on it. Public trust is CRUCIALLY important. We have far too little of it now -- and I know having spent the pandemic until a couple days ago in a part of the world which has an entirely different level of it, and have seen with my own eyes how extremely beneficial it is in a crisis. It has to start with the authorities.


You should have seen the furor in Denmark when it was revealed that the politicians closed schools against the advice of the health authorties, and did not reveal that advice. In healthy societies there is a high expectation of honesty -- it is the very foundation of public trust.

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 08:31

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3372898)
No, I'm not flip-flopping. Fauci did deceive -- he talked about the relative effectiveness of hospital masks as a reason not to wear them, when what he really had in mind was that we need to conserve them for health care professionals -- that he was relatively more transparent LATER is good, but doesn't cancel the earlier deception.[INDENT]Yes, and one of the articles I linked to proved that CDC knew months before their guidance against wearing masks, that there was a lot of asymptomatic infection. They lied. It's a black and white fact.

Even Reason :rolleyes: has flip-flopped, then. From an earlier article, same author:
What's Up With All the Contradictory Advice About COVID-19 and Face Masks?

The combination of limited evidence and conflicting priorities has resulted in whipsawing messages from experts.

Quote:


I would scrupulously tell the truth. This is crucially important for the maintenance of public trust in health authorities. I would never do what the CDC did.

Here is what the CDC did:
"If you are sick," the CDC says, "you should wear a facemask when you are around other people (e.g., sharing a room or vehicle) and before you enter a healthcare provider's office." But "if you are NOT sick," it adds, "you do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers."
... was that not the truth, as understood at the time?
Quote:

...it is accurate to call them liars. And they should be called out on it. Public trust is CRUCIALLY important. We have far too little of it now.

-- and I know having spent the pandemic until a couple days ago in a part of the world which has an entirely different level of it, and have seen with my own eyes how extremely beneficial it is in a crisis. It has to start with the authorities.

...In healthy societies there is a high expectation of honesty -- it is the very foundation of public trust.
Well, let's do honesty. There's a good case out there that the Surgeon General may have "lied" in a tweet, but Fauci? The CDC?

Also, it's not like lying is is a serious impediment to garnering public trust, governing, or electability these days. A handful of doctors revising their advice in the face of new findings seems like small potatoes...

GordMay 25-03-2021 09:14

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3372898)
... I would scrupulously tell the truth. This is crucially important for the maintenance of public trust in health authorities. I would never do what the CDC did. I would say exactly what they knew at the time ...

Indeed.
By analogy: As Richard Nixon found out, the hard way, that the cover-up is worse than the crime.

Dockhead 25-03-2021 10:24

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372914)
Even Reason :rolleyes: has flip-flopped, then. From an earlier article, same author:
What's Up With All the Contradictory Advice About COVID-19 and Face Masks?

The combination of limited evidence and conflicting priorities has resulted in whipsawing messages from experts.

Here is what the CDC did:
"If you are sick," the CDC says, "you should wear a facemask when you are around other people (e.g., sharing a room or vehicle) and before you enter a healthcare provider's office." But "if you are NOT sick," it adds, "you do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers."
... was that not the truth, as understood at the time?
Well, let's do honesty. There's a good case out there that the Surgeon General may have "lied" in a tweet, but Fauci? The CDC?

That particular statement is good, yes. But many of the other statements -- some of which I cited -- were much less honest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372914)
Also, it's not like lying is is a serious impediment to garnering public trust, governing, or electability these days. A handful of doctors revising their advice in the face of new findings seems like small potatoes...

That's like saying Trump isn't so bad -- just look at Hitler.

Lying IS a serious impediment to public trust. All the lying has DESTROYED public trust. If public health authorities don't aim a lot higher than our pathetic politicians, we are lost.

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 10:54

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3372976)
Lying IS a serious impediment to public trust. All the lying has DESTROYED public trust. If public health authorities don't aim a lot higher than our pathetic politicians, we are lost.

For a guy who seems to understand realpolitik, you're kind of absolutist in the standards you're applying to the CDC, Fauci, Adams. Even if one concedes that the authorities were lying with their initial messaging around masks (... and I don't; at worst, they simply didn't put enough emphasis for your liking on their fears around shortages of PPE, a fear that was hardly unfounded)... it's hardly the first or most serious error in the US pandemic response. They changed tack about masks almost a year ago, and have been consistent about it since then. But this negates all of their other work, for the pandemic and other health crises?

Perfect is the enemy of good, etc.

And the reason I cited uno who is because of his inconsistency, unreliability and frequent public undermining of COVID officials like Dr Fauci, which makes this alleged flipflop on masks seem insignificant, when it comes to establishing and maintaining trust.

Dockhead 25-03-2021 11:07

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3372999)
For a guy who seems to understand realpolitik, you're kind of absolutist in the standards you're applying to the CDC, Fauci, Adams. Even if one concedes that the authorities were lying with their initial messaging around masks (... and I don't; at worst, they simply didn't put enough emphasis for your liking on their fears around shortages of PPE, a fear that was hardly unfounded)... it's hardly the first or most serious error in the US pandemic response. They changed tack about masks almost a year ago, and have been consistent about it since then. But this negates all of their other work, for the pandemic and other health crises?

Perfect is the enemy of good, etc.

I generally agree; I didn't say it was the worst thing we did.

But honesty is crucial, and there really can't be any compromises with it. It's the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

When I was a young lawyer working for a great law firm which was still great (they are mere shadows of their former selves, now), we used to have to fill out self-evaluation forms. My mentor was giving me a bit of coaching on how to answer the questions, and when we got to the question of ethics and honesty, he said -- here, there is only one acceptable answer, and it's top marks. And if you can't give yourself top marks, you should just resign. If you see yourself that you have some weakness here or there in some other areas, it's very good to describe it here, we can work with that and help you work it out, but there's no room for weakness in this one area.

Because the slightest question about ethics or honesty of anyone in the firm (the Firm, we referred to it, in correspondence) would bring the whole edifice of reputation and trust crashing down. The same is true with public health, maybe even more so.

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 11:33

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3373005)
... and when we got to the question of ethics and honesty, [my mentor] said -- here, there is only one acceptable answer, and it's top marks. And if you can't give yourself top marks, you should just resign. If you see yourself that you have some weakness here or there in some other areas, it's very good to describe it here, we can work with that and help you work it out, but there's no room for weakness in this one area.

Because the slightest question about ethics or honesty of anyone in the firm (the Firm, we referred to it, in correspondence) would bring the whole edifice of reputation and trust crashing down. The same is true with public health, maybe even more so.

Seriously - if you know that you're in danger of an immediate shortage of PPE, AND asymptomatic transmission is not yet understood to have as big a role as we now recognize (and still denied by some...), is that the time you'd stand up and proclaim that N95 masks MIGHT protect the wearer (if you wear'em right and don't touch your face, etc etc). What exactly is the ethical course here, if there's an imminent risk of a public stampede on N95 masks and hoarding? Do you not attempt to compare the harm of running out of PPE in overloaded hospitals with the harm of not immediately promoting masks on everyone?

And not pushing masks as soon or as hard as you or I might wish isn't "lying". Selective truth-telling is part of ethical legal practice, is it not?

Dockhead 25-03-2021 12:23

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3373027)
Do you not attempt to compare the harm of running out of PPE in overloaded hospitals with the harm of not immediately promoting masks on everyone?

And not pushing masks as soon or as hard as you or I might wish isn't "lying". Selective truth-telling is part of ethical legal practice, is it not?

"Not pushing masks" is not what was done. What was done was to specifically advise people not to use them "because they are not effective", which is manipulatively untrue -- manifestly NOT the reason why the recommendation was being made. If you don't know the difference, then I really don't know how to discuss this.

"Selective truth-telling" is NOT part of ethical legal practice :banghead: Embarred lawyers are "officers of the court," and the purpose of the court is to ascertain truth. According to some there is a limited and narrow exception for criminal defense lawyers (United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967)), who are not allowed to lie but who might be expected to prioritize their clients' interests above the search for truth, but in general "the truth" means "the whole truth", as those sworn in at court promise to tell.

Not that this obligation is fully honored by all lawyers, unfortunately (just like the Hippocratic Oath is not fully honored by all doctors). But among the best lawyers, it is, and you cannot call yourself one of these best if you make any compromises here.

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 16:20

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3373053)
"Not pushing masks" is not what was done. What was done was to specifically advise people not to use them "because they are not effective", which is manipulatively untrue -- manifestly NOT the reason why the recommendation was being made. If you don't know the difference, then I really don't know how to discuss this.

"Effective" is relative.

Here's an article detailing how poorly most wearers of N95 masks are actually being protected. Sorry - most health professional wearers, I should say. It's kind of fussy to use them correctly.

So, make your best guess about how the average (non-medical-worker) person would fare with their N95 mask, and NOW answer the question of whether stating that they don't guarantee "effective" protection is manipulatively untrue.

If you're still on the fence, consider how many healthcare workers have gotten COVID. And they're the pros at mask-wearing.

I believe it was a much more gray-area thing at the time, they made a call in March about to say re mask wearing, and to me the only errors were not reflecting more about asymptomatic transmission and recommending basic masks, AS WELL AS making a more honest plea to not buy up all the N95 masks.

Branding them liars for this one call... and mischaracterizing it as simply a flipflop on "masks"... seems petty. But I do understand how hard it is for a libertarian to say anything nice about government bureaucracy :wink:

Dockhead 25-03-2021 17:39

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3373219)
"Effective" is relative.

Here's an article detailing how poorly most wearers of N95 masks are actually being protected. Sorry - most health professional wearers, I should say. It's kind of fussy to use them correctly.

So, make your best guess about how the average (non-medical-worker) person would fare with their N95 mask, and NOW answer the question of whether stating that they don't guarantee "effective" protection is manipulatively untrue.

If you're still on the fence, consider how many healthcare workers have gotten COVID. And they're the pros at mask-wearing.

I believe it was a much more gray-area thing at the time, they made a call in March about to say re mask wearing, and to me the only errors were not reflecting more about asymptomatic transmission and recommending basic masks, AS WELL AS making a more honest plea to not buy up all the N95 masks.

Branding them liars for this one call... and mischaracterizing it as simply a flipflop on "masks"... seems petty. But I do understand how hard it is for a libertarian to say anything nice about government bureaucracy :wink:


I've said a lot of nice things about government bureaucracy recently. And I am full of admiration for Operation Warp Speed, and the vaccine rollout in general in the U.S. A lot of good people did a lot of good work, for all that to happen.


But the other bit is simply illogical. Either masks are worth wearing, or they're not -- you cant' have it both ways. Saying they're not worth it, in order to discourage people buying them up, so that more will be left for health care workers, who apparently think they ARE worth wearing, is simply a lie. Sorry, but there is no way around that, and no way to spin it some other direction. A lie undermining public trust in health care authorities. That's really all there is to it.


Is it the biggest thing which happened in this pandemic? No, of course. But it's a sad and dirty chapter in the whole story.

fourlyons 25-03-2021 19:17

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3373027)
Seriously - if you know that you're in danger of an immediate shortage of PPE, AND asymptomatic transmission is not yet understood to have as big a role as we now recognize (and still denied by some...), is that the time you'd stand up and proclaim that N95 masks MIGHT protect the wearer (if you wear'em right and don't touch your face, etc etc). What exactly is the ethical course here, if there's an imminent risk of a public stampede on N95 masks and hoarding? Do you not attempt to compare the harm of running out of PPE in overloaded hospitals with the harm of not immediately promoting masks on everyone?

And not pushing masks as soon or as hard as you or I might wish isn't "lying". Selective truth-telling is part of ethical legal practice, is it not?

You asked, " What exactly is the ethical course here,"

You tell people the truth as you know it to be, then make your argument to save the limited ppe for essential workers and trust the people to do the right thing. Anything else will destroy your credibility when you need it the most.

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 19:40

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3373272)
Either masks are worth wearing, or they're not -- you cant' have it both ways.

:rolleyes: There are different types of masks applicable to COVID transmission, there are different reasons for use of each type, there are different classes of potential mask users with different needs, and there are different benefits and costs to society for each combination of the above.

Your either/or statement above is a gross oversimplification of the mask situation a year ago, and it's still an unhelpful misrepresentation of the current case for masks. But if it helps justify your "they lied!" claim, I guess it's just fine. Carry on.
:peace:

Lake-Effect 25-03-2021 19:57

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fourlyons (Post 3373321)
You asked, " What exactly is the ethical course here,"

You tell people the truth as you know it to be, then make your argument to save the limited ppe for essential workers and trust the people to do the right thing. Anything else will destroy your credibility when you need it the most.

... I think re masks, they did tell the truth as they knew it at that time. With one exception as far as I'm aware (the Surgeon General's tweet, whoopee; how the F did Twitter become the last word on ANYTHING official?).

It's no secret who most damaged the credibility of his entire pandemic team.

Dockhead 26-03-2021 04:35

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fourlyons (Post 3373321)
You asked, " What exactly is the ethical course here,"

You tell people the truth as you know it to be, then make your argument to save the limited ppe for essential workers and trust the people to do the right thing. Anything else will destroy your credibility when you need it the most.

Exactly :thumb: It's not complicated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3373329)
:rolleyes: There are different types of masks applicable to COVID transmission, there are different reasons for use of each type, there are different classes of potential mask users with different needs, and there are different benefits and costs to society for each combination of the above.

Your either/or statement above is a gross oversimplification of the mask situation a year ago, and it's still an unhelpful misrepresentation of the current case for masks. But if it helps justify your "they lied!" claim, I guess it's just fine. Carry on.
:peace:

What is ethical and truthful is unambiguous and uncomplex to those with a good relationship with the truth.

And trust is built over years; destroyed in a moment. That's why you can never compromise with it; never attempt to dissolve it into some obfuscatory "complexity". But I do admit that in our political culture nowadays, this is pretty much a lost cause. "“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is." :facepalm:

GordMay 26-03-2021 04:55

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3373491)
... And trust is built over years; destroyed in a moment. That's why you can never compromise with it; never attempt to dissolve it into some obfuscatory "complexity". But I do admit that in our political culture nowadays, this is pretty much a lost cause. "“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is."

More than 130 nonprofits, from across a broad spectrum of industries and political persuasions, issued a statement March 20, 2020, that urged a measured response, that serves the public interest.
“We strongly urge government branches and agencies to recommit to, and not retrench from, their duty to include the public in the policy-making process, including policies relating to COVID-19 as well as the routine ongoing functions of governance,” the organizations wrote.
The National Freedom of Information Coalition, a nonprofit that provides education and research for citizens in acquiring government information, organized the statement.

Some of the recommendations include:
- Postpone nonessential government business decisions until after the pandemic has subsided, when the public can once again fully engage.
- Move necessary decisions online in livestreamed meetings accessible to all, including opportunities for public input and questions. Record the streams and post the recordings so people can view it later.
- Do not conduct the public’s business via private channels, such as social media, texting, and phone calls. (This holds true all the time, but especially now.) All official communications should be preserved and made accessible to the public online.
- Post documents and data online as a matter of course, so people don’t have to request it and government workers don’t have to take the time to retrieve and disseminate them.
- Officials can provide journalists greater access to hospitals and other health installations, applying safety precautions and protecting the privacy of victims.

Efforts to make government more accessible now, can result in permanent improvements in the future, to better serve citizens.

Sometimes it takes a crisis to pull together, and move forward, as citizens and government working together, fully engaged and well informed.

"132 Organizations Sign Statement on Government Coronavirus Emergency Transparency and Public Access"
[March20,2020]
https://www.nfoic.org/sites/default/...%2C%202020.pdf

GordMay 26-03-2021 05:02

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Science isn’t enough to save us

Policymakers need insight from humanities and social sciences to tackle the pandemic, argues Hetan Shah, the chief executive of the British Academy in London.
“Science gave us vaccines, but SHAPE (social sciences, humanities and the arts for people and the economy) disciplines help us get to social realities, such as vaccine hesitancy,” notes Shah.
Shah gives an overview of a British Academy report on the pandemic’s social impacts, which traces the contours of COVID-19’s long shadow, and outlines how to reverse our losses.

“COVID-19 recovery: science isn’t enough to save us” ~ by Hetan Shah
Policymakers need insight from humanities and social sciences to tackle the pandemic.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00731-7

valhalla360 26-03-2021 05:05

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3360544)
I believe there are good examples of the US pulling together as a nation in the face of crisis, so I don't think it's that. It has more to do with one party's leader deciding that his best move (for CYA and strategic reasons) was to downplay the severity of COVID and to openly mock the precautions.

But what's half a million olds, feebs and sickos, anyway? Survival of the fittest.

Is this the same leader who sent infected patients to nursing homes and then fabricated false data while writing a book about how to handle a pandemic between being interviewed by his brother who works for a major media outlet even getting an Emmy (or some such award)?

The EU is in the middle of a huge political play over brexit because they didn't get in early on vaccine orders.

No country has been immune to playing politics.

valhalla360 26-03-2021 05:19

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dockhead (Post 3361544)
That's not how they analyzed the effectiveness of measures. You should read the studies.

The problem is when you have dozens of variables changing and you can't isolate individual actions it becomes a bit of a guessing game unless an action is completely and totally overwhelming.

Even worse, many policies are the same in word but not in deed.

I've done research (non-pandemic related) where you have many variables changing simultaneously...anyone who commits with surety is likely feeding you an agenda or at least feels the need to come to a conclusion.

valhalla360 26-03-2021 05:27

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thinwater (Post 3361608)
It has been said, and the science and practice in hospitals supports this, that if we have choked down with 100% (not 90%) mask wear and proper hygiene for 2 weeks at any point, an epidemic can be choked out. But we couldn't do it because that's "too restrictive." Yet if I tell people they will wear hardhats and respirators in a work setting all day, they will (or they will leave... and some will be fired).

If you are talking about the very beginning when it was a few hundred cases limited to wuhan...maybe.

Once it gets much beyond that, no, science and practice do not support this idea.

Of course, it's easy to Monday Morning Quarterback but what level of potential for pandemic do we shut down the world? There are dozens of "potential" events every year (think of the new flu strains that could turn deadly if nothing else). Do we shut down the world for each?

Group9 26-03-2021 05:41

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fourlyons (Post 3373321)
You asked, " What exactly is the ethical course here,"

You tell people the truth as you know it to be, then make your argument to save the limited ppe for essential workers and trust the people to do the right thing. Anything else will destroy your credibility when you need it the most.

For some unknown reason, that is the one of the hardest thing for government to get right. And, no matter how badly they get it wrong, the will wake up every morning, thinking that they get to start with fresh credibility.

Politicians and government spokespersons almost seem baffled when people take the veracity of their past statements into account when judging the veracity of their current statements.

And, if there is one thing you really need as a government, to successfully deal with a pandemic, in a free country, it’s trust from the people you are trying to control, that you are telling them the truth.

valhalla360 26-03-2021 05:41

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3373027)
Seriously - if you know that you're in danger of an immediate shortage of PPE,

Then you issue an emergency order prohibiting sales to non-medical personnel and say this is why you are doing it.

You don't lie about it. Most people already saw that it was a lie when they first said it but now the authorities proved they were lying about things, so you still see the echos in terms of those who refuse masks and anti-vaccers, etc... because very reasonably, they assume the authorities are lying...even if they aren't.

PS: I feel like I'm in 1984 arguing with someone practicing "doublethink".

boatman61 26-03-2021 06:22

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
The Pandemic Policy has been pretty simple really..
Induce irrational fear into people over a relatively mild desease..
There are various theories as to why.. a cover for introducing draconian laws to make population control easier, a reset of a mismanaged world economy by the dominant Western powers, a grand plan by the Illuminatti and even manipulation control by alien life forms.
However, regardless of the 'Reason' it is a massive campaign of Project Fear when one looks at it with dispassionate eyes..
To date after more than one year the Global Death rate stands at 2.7 million..
World population stands at 7.7 billion making the claimed viciousness of Covid-19 a joke..
With the Global birth rate standing at 19 per 1000 its barely a scratch on the future population.
Meanwhile frightened people clamor for conformity for 'the greater good' causing division, hatred and even violence on non-conformists..
So it seems, whatever the real reason behind this Campaign the prognosis to date is.. with the resistance being shown.. just 50/50.
Lets see what another year's brings.

GordMay 26-03-2021 06:45

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by boatman61 (Post 3373546)
The Pandemic Policy has been pretty simple really...

As has the contrarian movement's disinformation campaign:

“Inside a COVID-19 conspiracy boot camp” ~ by Katie Pedersen, Eric Szeto, Asha Tomlinson

"While Canadian health authorities fight back against what Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam has called "an infodemic" — the spread of false information about the COVID-19 pandemic — others are working just as hard to target the public with conspiracy theories.
CBC 'Marketplace' journalists took part in a U.S. COVID-19 conspiracy "boot camp," where aspiring activists — including the leader of one of Canada's prominent misinformation campaigns — learn tactics of persuasion to sow seeds of doubt about information coming from public health authorities ..."

More https://www.cbc.ca/news/marketplace/...camp-1.5963503

Lake-Effect 26-03-2021 07:22

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by valhalla360 (Post 3373526)
Then you issue an emergency order prohibiting sales to non-medical personnel and say this is why you are doing it.

You don't lie about it. Most people already saw that it was a lie when they first said it but now the authorities proved they were lying about things, so you still see the echos in terms of those who refuse masks and anti-vaccers, etc... because very reasonably, they assume the authorities are lying...even if they aren't.

PS: I feel like I'm in 1984 arguing with someone practicing "doublethink".

Amazing powers of hindsight. Then again, a wise poster recently stated:
I've done research (non-pandemic related) where you have many variables changing simultaneously...anyone who commits with surety is likely feeding you an agenda or at least feels the need to come to a conclusion.
Yes, it was hard to get everything just right, especially as the pandemic was unfolding.

It's this obsession to brand the first mask messaging as "lying" that bugs me. With hindsight, yes, of course it would have been better to have had a better understanding of asymptomatic transmission so that in that initial message, cloth or surgical masks were recommended over N95 masks, and why... and putting more emphasis on the potential shortage of PPE as a factor. Even to prohibiting sales of N95 masks to the general public... but how do you think that would have gone over? Generated a panic maybe, and an instant black market in N95 masks?

And no-one is taking into account the effect on healthcare if there had been a run on N95 masks.

I've already shown that the protection to the wearer of even N95 masks in the hands of the general public is not a given (so no lie there), and many of you conveniently forget that there are 2 major classes of masks, and 2 main goals of mask policy.

Anyway, we're past all that. This after-the-fact claim of "lying" seems to be coming mainly from the right wing, I guess in an effort to shift blame from the liar-in-chief (who still holds sway over the GOP), who did more than anyone to throw US pandemic response into disarray.

Still seems too early to play the blame game, but whatever.

boatman61 26-03-2021 07:38

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay (Post 3373565)
As has the contrarian movement's disinformation campaign:

“Inside a COVID-19 conspiracy boot camp” ~ by Katie Pedersen, Eric Szeto, Asha Tomlinson

"While Canadian health authorities fight back against what Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam has called "an infodemic" — the spread of false information about the COVID-19 pandemic — others are working just as hard to target the public with conspiracy theories.
CBC 'Marketplace' journalists took part in a U.S. COVID-19 conspiracy "boot camp," where aspiring activists — including the leader of one of Canada's prominent misinformation campaigns — learn tactics of persuasion to sow seeds of doubt about information coming from public health authorities ..."

More https://www.cbc.ca/news/marketplace/...camp-1.5963503

Hey.. Your working for the BBC.. more repeats..
Covid Boot Camp..
Two sides of the same coin but does it change the price of beer.. :biggrin:

valhalla360 26-03-2021 07:42

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect (Post 3373620)
Amazing powers of hindsight. Then again, a wise poster recently stated:
I've done research (non-pandemic related) where you have many variables changing simultaneously...anyone who commits with surety is likely feeding you an agenda or at least feels the need to come to a conclusion.
Yes, it was hard to get everything just right, especially as the pandemic was unfolding.

It's this obsession to brand the first mask messaging as "lying" that bugs me. With hindsight, yes, of course it would have been better to have had a better understanding of asymptomatic transmission so that in that initial message, cloth or surgical masks were recommended over N95 masks, and why... and putting more emphasis on the potential shortage of PPE as a factor. Even to prohibiting sales of N95 masks to the general public... but how do you think that would have gone over? Generated a panic maybe, and an instant black market in N95 masks?

And no-one is taking into account the effect on healthcare if there had been a run on N95 masks.

I've already shown that the protection to the wearer of even N95 masks in the hands of the general public is not a given (so no lie there), and many of you conveniently forget that there are 2 major classes of masks, and 2 main goals of mask policy.

Anyway, we're past all that. This after-the-fact claim of "lying" seems to be coming mainly from the right wing, I guess in an effort to shift blame from the liar-in-chief (who still holds sway over the GOP), who did more than anyone to throw US pandemic response into disarray.

Still seems too early to play the blame game, but whatever.

Not hindsight...I saw the lie back in March (as did many others I spoke with) but no one was interviewing me for the evening news. This wasn't some new scientific discovery that was made after months with the pandemic. Masks have been mandatory in hospital situations for decades. They have been commonly used in asia when you are feeling sick for years. Trying to re-message as if it's a new discovery months into the pandemic is just disinformation trying to obscure the issue.

Turns out the lies had little impact initially as there was still a run on N95 masks. Honesty and a sales prohibition to the general public likely would have been at least as effective (far easier to control distributors as opposed to the general public) and would not have created the distrust that we are fighting now.

The part that bugs me is they admitted to lying and then did it some more and keep doing it. They never admitted it was a mistake that never should have happened and that they were going to stop it (in fact they have talked public members into defending it). So rather than working to fix the damage, they are reinforcing it...all while complaining about anti-vaccers and the like, that they had a big hand in creating.

You can't fix a problem until you admit you have a problem.

Lake-Effect 26-03-2021 07:42

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by boatman61 (Post 3373546)
The Pandemic Policy has been pretty simple really..
Induce irrational fear into people over a relatively mild desease..
There are various theories as to why.. a cover for introducing draconian laws to make population control easier, a reset of a mismanaged world economy by the dominant Western powers, a grand plan by the Illuminatti and even manipulation control by alien life forms.

:rolleyes: Oh well, the things people obsess about when they have too much time on their hands...

I view this whole COVID episode as the equivalent of a moonshot. This is the most proactive response to a global pandemic that we've yet mounted. Granted the disease isn't as deadly as SARS or Ebola, but they aren't as contagious or as hard to control, either.

Did we got it right? Did we do the right things? Hard to say yet... but it certainly gave some untested pandemic planning a workout, and the advances in vaccine science and speed of development are major. There's even renewed talk of a single vaccine that would be effective against all coronaviruses.

Think a minute about what would have happened if we'd done less, or nothing. Well for most CFers, not much would have happened. Modern Darwinism - survival of the richest. Maybe that's the source of all the callousness here.

Anyway, the pandemic happened, we tried. Regardless of how history judges this, we should do much better when the next one pops out. Like how the lessons of 2008 informed the response to the pandemic financial crisis, which most experts agree was faster and much better targeted.

Group9 26-03-2021 07:43

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
I was looking at some numbers last night, and maybe my math is wrong, but here is what I found as some interesting statistics.

The CDC says they have administered 126,000,000 doses of Covid vaccine, with 2216 related deaths, for a percentage of about .0018, for getting the vaccine and dying from it. Not bad odds, I will admit.

On the other hand, in my county of 52,000 people, we have had 84 Covid related deaths (as reported to the CDC), for a percentage of about .0016, as a chance of anybody in our county getting Covid and dying from it. Also, not bad odds.

But,.....

Now, are my calculations wrong, or do I have a better chance of taking the vaccine and dying from it than I have so far had of dying from Covid, in my county, just based on the numbers?

Feel free to check my math. Maybe, I missed a decimal point.

Dockhead 26-03-2021 07:46

Re: How to Judge Pandemic Policies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay (Post 3373501)
More than 130 nonprofits, from across a broad spectrum of industries and political persuasions, issued a statement March 20, 2020, that urged a measured response, that serves the public interest.
“We strongly urge government branches and agencies to recommit to, and not retrench from, their duty to include the public in the policy-making process, including policies relating to COVID-19 as well as the routine ongoing functions of governance,” the organizations wrote.
The National Freedom of Information Coalition, a nonprofit that provides education and research for citizens in acquiring government information, organized the statement.

Some of the recommendations include:
- Postpone nonessential government business decisions until after the pandemic has subsided, when the public can once again fully engage.
- Move necessary decisions online in livestreamed meetings accessible to all, including opportunities for public input and questions. Record the streams and post the recordings so people can view it later.
- Do not conduct the public’s business via private channels, such as social media, texting, and phone calls. (This holds true all the time, but especially now.) All official communications should be preserved and made accessible to the public online.
- Post documents and data online as a matter of course, so people don’t have to request it and government workers don’t have to take the time to retrieve and disseminate them.
- Officials can provide journalists greater access to hospitals and other health installations, applying safety precautions and protecting the privacy of victims.

Efforts to make government more accessible now, can result in permanent improvements in the future, to better serve citizens.

Sometimes it takes a crisis to pull together, and move forward, as citizens and government working together, fully engaged and well informed.

"132 Organizations Sign Statement on Government Coronavirus Emergency Transparency and Public Access"
[March20,2020]
https://www.nfoic.org/sites/default/...%2C%202020.pdf


I like it :thumb:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:34.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.