On Wed, 30 Dec 2020 00:03:08 -0800, Paul B wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 December 2020 at 8:32:11 am UTC+10, John Sinclair
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 2:16:10 PM UTC-8, 2G wrote:
On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 7:30:07 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 1:19:31 AM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
On Monday, December 28, 2020 at 9:41:14 AM UTC-8, Bob Leve wrote:
I'm amazed at the number of seeming experts who are littering
this site with passionately uninformed opinions yet don't seem
to have the credentials or expertise of an infectious disease
MD or actual governmental experience.
Lets get back to what this site is about: Sharing information
about the wonderful sport of soaring!
You're right (that they are not MDs). However, we have leaders
who also aren't MDs but believe and act like they are. So, let's
hear from some real experts:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0 This study
ranks the effectiveness of virtually all COVID interventions by
various governments. It is shocking that certain popular measures
(closing restaurants and crisis management plans) might actually
be doing more harm than good. And the wearing of masks is
fundamentally ineffective as determined by 3 of 4 analysis
methods. And our national expert, Tony Fauci, admits that he is
"nudging" his herd immunity level based on public polls! Sorry,
but this is a *******ization of science. And he is far from being
the only one.
Tom
As I read it, that is NOT what that article says. Some extracts:
"The most effective NPIs include curfews, lockdowns and closing and
restricting places where people gather in smaller or large numbers
for an extended period of time. This includes small gathering
cancellations (closures of shops, restaurants, gatherings of 50
persons or fewer, mandatory home working and so on) and closure of
educational institutions. "
In other words, closing restaurants ("restricting places where
people gather in smaller or large numbers") is among the more
effective measures to take, NOT "fundamentally ineffective" as you
state.
"Taken together, the social distancing and movement-restriction
measures discussed above can therefore be seen as the ‘nuclear
option’ of NPIs: highly effective but causing substantial
collateral damages to society, the economy, trade and human
rights4,39."
"We also find a number of highly effective NPIs that can be
considered less costly. For instance, we find that
risk-communication strategies feature prominently amongst consensus
NPIs. This includes government actions intended to educate and
actively communicate with the public. The effective messages
include encouraging people to stay at home, promoting social
distancing and workplace safety measures, encouraging the
self-initiated isolation of people with symptoms, travel warnings
and information campaigns (mostly via social media)."
There are also conclusions on ineffective measures:
"Some measures are ineffective in (almost) all methods and
datasets—for example, environmental measures to disinfect and clean
surfaces and objects in public and semi-public places. This finding
is at odds with current recommendations of the WHO (World Health
Organization) for environmental cleaning in non-healthcare
settings46, and calls for a closer examination of the effectiveness
of such measures."
"We also find no evidence for the effectiveness of social
distancing measures in regard to public transport. While infections
on buses and trains have been reported47, our results may suggest a
limited contribution of such cases to the overall virus spread, as
previously reported48. A heightened public risk awareness
associated with commuting (for example, people being more likely to
wear face masks) might contribute to this finding49."
They also found that timing was important. The earlier NPI measures
were implemented the more impact on the virus:
"The effectiveness of individual NPIs is heavily influenced by
governance (Supplementary Information) and local context, as
evidenced by the results of the entropic approach. This local
context includes the stage of the epidemic, socio-economic,
cultural and political characteristics and other NPIs previously
implemented. The fact that gross domestic product is overall
positively correlated with NPI effectiveness whereas the governance
indicator ‘voice and accountability’ is negatively correlated might
be related to the successful mitigation of the initial phase of the
epidemic of certain south-east Asian and Middle East countries
showing authoritarian tendencies."
In otherwords, the administrations denial and delay in implementing
effective measures has made the impact worse for the US.
And rather than focusing on a single measure, the authors conclude
that a more comprehensive response is what is really effective:
"The emerging picture reveals that no one-size-fits-all solution
exists, and no single NPI can decrease Rt below one. Instead, in
the absence of a vaccine or efficient antiviral medication, a
resurgence of COVID-19 cases can be stopped only by a suitable
combination of NPIs, each tailored to the specific country and its
epidemic age. These measures must be enacted in the optimal
combination and sequence to be maximally effective against the
spread of SARS-CoV-2 and thereby enable more rapid reopening."
You really ought to read and understand the article before citing
it.
Rich L.
You looked in the wrong place - it is "Special measures for certain
establishments," not "small gathering cancellations" which includes
ALL small groups, not just restaurants. Contact tracing found that
restaurants accounted for 1.4% of infections vs 70% in the home.
This study is important because it quantifies how effective the
measures are that uninformed government bureaucrats and elected
officials are cramming down our throats without representation. That
said, it is likely that people will reach different conclusions and
you are welcome to state yours minus the invectives.
Tom
When I was a kid (80 years ago) the county health department would
quarantine your house if somebody in there got the
measles............yellow notice on the door and nobody went in or out!
Now days you can’t get half the nation to even put on a mask! Come on
people, get with the program and help put this virus behind us!
JJ
Yes John, those were the days, they quarantined the sick.
70 or more years ago *almost everybody* got mumps, measles and (often)
scarlet fever. Obviously, since there were no vaccines. If you were male,
you wanted to get mumps before puberty because getting it later was very
nasty and could make you sterile - anmd its not good for women either.
Now we have vaccines against all of these and the MMR shot deals with the
first two (both varieties of measles), so people are forgetting how nasty
these were. Given that mumps can have such bad after effects, and measles
isn't pleasant either, it makes you wonder whether antivaxers have any
idea of the risks they're exposing their kids to.
Disclaimer: I have no medical training, but was a kid when measles, mumps
and scarlet fever were common, so of course everybody knew about them,
their symptoms and after-effects.
--
--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org