COVID-19

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
BTW, it appears that @TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives and I can have a long, drawn out "argument" and still be civil and polite to each other - no name calling, insults, snark, belittling, etc. Just in case some other posters want to see how it's done. ;) Point/counterpoint knowing that we most likely will not change each other's mind - and both believing we are right.
Just make sure one party in a back and forth is a moderator and everything will be copacetic! Or make us all mods and it will be like US-Russia relations.
 
Last edited:

TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Advertisement
BTW, it appears that @TheDisneyDaysOfOurLives and I can have a long, drawn out "argument" and still be civil and polite to each other - no name calling, insults, snark, belittling, etc. Just in case some other posters want to see how it's done. ;) Point/counterpoint knowing that we most likely will not change each other's mind - and both believing we are right.

I mean, you didn't type it out, but I'm sure you thought it or muttered it under your breath ;-)
 

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
In Nashville, apparently cases attributed to bars and restaurants were too low, so the mayor made sure to conceal them from the public. Meanwhile, bars and restaurants were rotting on the vine.

 

Wendy Pleakley

Well-Known Member


Olivia Troye, who was a homeland security adviser to Pence and his lead staffer on the White House's coronavirus task force, charged in the two-minute video that Trump failed to protect the American public because he only cared about himself and getting reelected. Troye's criticism is particularly striking because of her role working on the coronavirus task force, which Pence leads.

"Towards the middle of February, we knew it wasn't a matter of if Covid would become a big pandemic here, it was a matter of when," said Troye, who left the White House in late July. "But the President didn't want to hear that, because his biggest concern was that we were in an election year, and how was this going to affect what he considered to be his record of success?"
 

Laketravis

Well-Known Member
In Nashville, apparently cases attributed to bars and restaurants were too low, so the mayor made sure to conceal them from the public. Meanwhile, bars and restaurants were rotting on the vine.


 

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
So, this keeps happening to the anti-maskers and COVID deniers and downplayers.


Unfortunately, it also keeps happening to those who follow all the rules, too. The people who still have to go out in public so others can stay in isolation. Those deaths just don't make the news - except maybe locally. :(
 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, it also keeps happening to those who follow all the rules, too. The people who still have to go out in public so others can stay in isolation. Those deaths just don't make the news - except maybe locally. :(
Yes, but this just calls attention to the stupidity of the people who screech that masks are not necessary and that this is all overblown or a hoax.....and then they get it. Maybe calling attention to this will make other doubters understand.
 
Last edited:

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
Yes, but this just calls attention to the stupidity of the people who screech that masks are not necessary and that this is all overblown or a hoax.....and then they get it. Maybe calling attention to this will make other doubters get it.
Masks are not 100% protection. Science had been all over the board on this one. Mask no good,.mask good, etc.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Masks are not 100% protection. Science had been all over the board on this one. Mask no good,.mask good, etc.
The discussion on the effectiveness of masks has been done to death. You wear one, it reduces risk. You AND your friends wear one, and everyone's risk is even further reduced. The percentages don't matter all that much when you get right down to it.
 

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
The discussion on the effectiveness of masks has been done to death. You wear one, it reduces risk. You AND your friends wear one, and everyone's risk is even further reduced. The percentages don't matter all that much when you get right down to it.

It's similar to birth control. No method is 100% effective (as many people have discovered the hard way) but if both participants use it, the rate of effectiveness increases. A mask may not be 100% effective, but it is not 0% effective, either.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
It's similar to birth control. No method is 100% effective (as many people have discovered the hard way) but if both participants use it, the rate of effectiveness increases. A mask may not be 100% effective, but it is not 0% effective, either.
Very true. However, at the onset of this event it was proclaimed by scientists that anything but N95 were ineffective. Having 20/20 hindsight, was science wrong at the outset? Since onset, science has learned and we have and must adapt based on what science learns.

I work in an environment that is confined, close personal contact, high humidity environment where mask use is not always practical, but with extras ventilation. Since onset of this event, not 1 person has contracted Covid. Is there a lesson to be learned from this anecdotal example?
 

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
Very true. However, at the onset of this event it was proclaimed by scientists that anything but N95 were ineffective. Having 20/20 hindsight, was science wrong at the outset? Since onset, science has learned and we have and must adapt based on what science learns.

I work in an environment that is confined, close personal contact, high humidity environment where mask use is not always practical, but with extras ventilation. Since onset of this event, not 1 person has contracted Covid. Is there a lesson to be learned from this anecdotal example?
I doubt the science was wrong. But the choice by policy makers to prioritize behavior manipulation over conveying accurate information was very much wrong.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
I doubt the science was wrong. But the choice by policy makers to prioritize behavior manipulation over conveying accurate information was very much wrong.
If they had been clear in their messaging - "because of their exposure to the virus and limited availability, health-care workers should wear N95 masks. Re-usable cloth masks provide some protection and will serve the general public well" - we wouldn't have half the problems we have now.
 

Ponderer

Well-Known Member
If they had been clear in their messaging - "because of their exposure to the virus and limited availability, health-care workers should wear N95 masks. Re-usable cloth masks provide some protection and will serve the general public well" - we wouldn't have half the problems we have now.

I think it was also a general shortsightedness of how we think of masks, too. I know when I saw people wearing masks in Asia post bird-flu, I thought in terms of, you know, that person is protecting themselves, they don't want to get sick. I really never put much thought into how masks weren't protecting the wearer so much as it protects other people (and certainly not how they can have a cumulative effect). Because it's still truth that a cloth mask isn't a ton of protection for yourself. But it sure is effective in keeping it from spreading to others.

Feels like there's a metaphor for society in there somewhere. (And I suspect why so many anti-society types have turned furious and hostile towards masks. If the purpose of masks is to protect other people more than themselves - that's something they actually CANNOT process.)

(Yeah, yeah, I know they also were trying to protect the mask supply for health care workers and I don't like the lie. But also, scientists are myopic human beings like the rest of us and can be just as susceptible to assumptions. But I like to think science works because it provides a mechanism for people to say, hey, stop, WHY do we believe this thing and is it really true?)
 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member

Wendy Pleakley

Well-Known Member
Very true. However, at the onset of this event it was proclaimed by scientists that anything but N95 were ineffective. Having 20/20 hindsight, was science wrong at the outset? Since onset, science has learned and we have and must adapt based on what science learns.

I work in an environment that is confined, close personal contact, high humidity environment where mask use is not always practical, but with extras ventilation. Since onset of this event, not 1 person has contracted Covid. Is there a lesson to be learned from this anecdotal example?

The purpose of science is to continuously study issues and revise findings as more is learned, as more evidence is discovered and reviewed.

People that focus on science being "wrong" in an initial finding or being "inconsistent" on masks are missing the point, and generally just looking for a reason to dispute scientific findings.

Many people are used to following scientific information that has been firmly established over time. With COVID, we're seeing the scientific process in action, where findings have changes quite a bit over time, but that's natural when studying a new phenomenon. It doesn't mean that science is unreliable or that masks are ineffective, it just means we are continuing to assess and improve our understanding of the situation and how to deal with it.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom