The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Why are you accusing Scarlet of confirmation bias? I found one of the same articles when searching India mask usage 2021. 

 

 

@Jason Sitoke  Did you laugh at this post or was it someone else? I don’t get why you accused Scarlet of googling “India doesn’t mask, right?” What reason did you have for thinking that?

[Jason Sitoke]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

@Jason Sitoke  Did you laugh at this post or was it someone else? I don’t get why you accused Scarlet of googling “India doesn’t mask, right?” What reason did you have for thinking that?

I did.  I genuinely thought you were making a joke.  The search string I suggested was hyperbolic. 

 

General point is you can find anything if you're looking for it.  I just Googled 'India Masks' and 2 of the top 4 hits I get are on articles from a few months ago that suggest India's case count went down because citizens were wearing masks. 

 

If I Google 'India No Masks'....

 

Finding articles that agree with you is not hard, especially when information is so readily interpreted to suit predispositions.

 

 

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, Jason Sitoke said:

I did.  I genuinely thought you were making a joke.  The search string I suggested was hyperbolic. 

 

General point is you can find anything if you're looking for it.  I just Googled 'India Masks' and 2 of the top 4 hits I get are on articles from a few months ago that suggest India's case count went down because citizens were wearing masks. 

 

If I Google 'India No Masks'....

 

Finding articles that agree with you is not hard, especially when information is so readily interpreted to suit predispositions.

 

 

 

 

It looked like you were accusing Scarlet of purposely using confirmation bias. You can find those results using a non biased search. I found the one in December too using the same search. I'm not sure why we're assuming they are still using masks 5 months later when we know people have gotten lax here too. Leaving an article from December out doesn't require bias.

The spike is pretty obviously not just about not wearing masks though. But I'm pretty sure everyone is agreeing with that. 

[Jason Sitoke]

10 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It looked like you were accusing Scarlet of purposely using confirmation bias. You can find those results using a non biased search. I found the one in December too using the same search. I'm not sure why we're assuming they are still using masks 5 months later when we know people have gotten lax here too. Leaving an article from December out doesn't require bias.

The spike is pretty obviously not just about not wearing masks though. But I'm pretty sure everyone is agreeing with that. 

Confirmation bias is a tendency...and I do think a lot of what I read these days falls under its definition.

 

Look, my goal isn't to be a gadfly or use relativistic arguments to reduce anyone's opinion.  I just think that we all have the ability to ask some basic questions when examining the things we read.  When a headline says 'Experts agree that xxx is happening', aren't you curious who the experts are?  Is it the Minister of Public Health, a family physician, grad student in statistics at Ga Tech?  These are all experts, but does the expertise apply in this case?  And what experts agree?  2 of them?  3?  What is driving the conclusions that they agree on?  How limited is the data they're using?  Is what is being claimed even knowable?

 

These questions aren't at odds with science.  They ARE science.  This garbage about 'believing science' or 'follow the science' is nonsensical.  The scientific community is not a succinct room of people all nodding their heads, or collectively rolling their eyes in unison.  There are all manners of disciplines that fall out of alignment with each other.  Within disciplines, there are major disagreements fueled by everything from legit criticism of methods to pure ego. 

 

Science is about observation, hypothesis, measurement... and repeat.  Drawing conclusions that are not within scope of the experiment is poor science.  Failing to note limitations in your data is poor science.  Failing to take an inventory of your assumptions is poor science.  A good portion of the media has presented information in a way that is very unscientific...all while telling us to 'follow the science'.  Reading with a critical eye allows us to identify bias (even our own), and calibrate our internal BS detector.

[teachercd]

10 minutes ago, Jason Sitoke said:

Confirmation bias is a tendency...and I do think a lot of what I read these days falls under its definition.

 

Look, my goal isn't to be a gadfly or use relativistic arguments to reduce anyone's opinion.  I just think that we all have the ability to ask some basic questions when examining the things we read.  When a headline says 'Experts agree that xxx is happening', aren't you curious who the experts are?  Is it the Minister of Public Health, a family physician, grad student in statistics at Ga Tech?  These are all experts, but does the expertise apply in this case?  And what experts agree?  2 of them?  3?  What is driving the conclusions that they agree on?  How limited is the data they're using?  Is what is being claimed even knowable?

 

These questions aren't at odds with science.  They ARE science.  This garbage about 'believing science' or 'follow the science' is nonsensical.  The scientific community is not a succinct room of people all nodding their heads, or collectively rolling their eyes in unison.  There are all manners of disciplines that fall out of alignment with each other.  Within disciplines, there are major disagreements fueled by everything from legit criticism of methods to pure ego. 

 

Science is about observation, hypothesis, measurement... and repeat.  Drawing conclusions that are not within scope of the experiment is poor science.  Failing to note limitations in your data is poor science.  Failing to take an inventory of your assumptions is poor science.  A good portion of the media has presented information in a way that is very unscientific...all while telling us to 'follow the science'.  Reading with a critical eye allows us to identify bias (even our own), and calibrate our internal BS detector.

Hmmm, someone brought this up the other day.  Imagine reading an article, not knowing the author, and having to use your own critical eye.  

 

 

Interesting

[Archy1221]

22 minutes ago, Jason Sitoke said:

Confirmation bias is a tendency...and I do think a lot of what I read these days falls under its definition.

 

Look, my goal isn't to be a gadfly or use relativistic arguments to reduce anyone's opinion.  I just think that we all have the ability to ask some basic questions when examining the things we read.  When a headline says 'Experts agree that xxx is happening', aren't you curious who the experts are?  Is it the Minister of Public Health, a family physician, grad student in statistics at Ga Tech?  These are all experts, but does the expertise apply in this case?  And what experts agree?  2 of them?  3?  What is driving the conclusions that they agree on?  How limited is the data they're using?  Is what is being claimed even knowable?

 

These questions aren't at odds with science.  They ARE science.  This garbage about 'believing science' or 'follow the science' is nonsensical.  The scientific community is not a succinct room of people all nodding their heads, or collectively rolling their eyes in unison.  There are all manners of disciplines that fall out of alignment with each other.  Within disciplines, there are major disagreements fueled by everything from legit criticism of methods to pure ego. 

 

Science is about observation, hypothesis, measurement... and repeat.  Drawing conclusions that are not within scope of the experiment is poor science.  Failing to note limitations in your data is poor science.  Failing to take an inventory of your assumptions is poor science.  A good portion of the media has presented information in a way that is very unscientific...all while telling us to 'follow the science'.  Reading with a critical eye allows us to identify bias (even our own), and calibrate our internal BS detector.

Great post

[Scarlet]

1 hour ago, Jason Sitoke said:

Confirmation bias is a tendency...and I do think a lot of what I read these days falls under its definition.

 

Look, my goal isn't to be a gadfly or use relativistic arguments to reduce anyone's opinion.  I just think that we all have the ability to ask some basic questions when examining the things we read.  When a headline says 'Experts agree that xxx is happening', aren't you curious who the experts are?  Is it the Minister of Public Health, a family physician, grad student in statistics at Ga Tech?  These are all experts, but does the expertise apply in this case?  And what experts agree?  2 of them?  3?  What is driving the conclusions that they agree on?  How limited is the data they're using?  Is what is being claimed even knowable?

 

These questions aren't at odds with science.  They ARE science.  This garbage about 'believing science' or 'follow the science' is nonsensical.  The scientific community is not a succinct room of people all nodding their heads, or collectively rolling their eyes in unison.  There are all manners of disciplines that fall out of alignment with each other.  Within disciplines, there are major disagreements fueled by everything from legit criticism of methods to pure ego. 

 

Science is about observation, hypothesis, measurement... and repeat.  Drawing conclusions that are not within scope of the experiment is poor science.  Failing to note limitations in your data is poor science.  Failing to take an inventory of your assumptions is poor science.  A good portion of the media has presented information in a way that is very unscientific...all while telling us to 'follow the science'.  Reading with a critical eye allows us to identify bias (even our own), and calibrate our internal BS detector.

So with your critical eye and internal b.s. meter you came to the conclusion that India is a bastion of mask wearing, right?  Is that what your saying?  Because in the process you built a strawman that I was stating not wearing masks, and not wearing masks only, is what has caused the current surge in India.  You entirely missed the point and are trying to cover your tracks with your dissertation on identity bias, blah, blah, blah, when the whole conversation was based on you misunderstanding my point and my answer to someone who also misunderstood the point and was preparing to make this a case that masks don't work.   

 

Here's some more googling for you.  Short of being on the ground in India your bias isn't anymore valid than anyone else's here. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiatoday.in/amp/coronavirus-outbreak/video/people-refuse-wear-masks-covid-surge-india-1794649-2021-04-24

 

Covidiots exist the world over.  But India is an outlier for mask wearing compliance...lol

 

[Jason Sitoke]

10 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

So with your critical eye and internal b.s. meter you came to the conclusion that India is a bastion of mask wearing, right?  Is that what your saying?  Because in the process you built a strawman that I was stating not wearing masks, and not wearing masks only, is what has caused the current surge in India.  You entirely missed the point and are trying to cover your tracks with your dissertation on identity bias, blah, blah, blah, when the whole conversation was based on you misunderstanding my point and my answer to someone who also misunderstood the point and was preparing to make this a case that masks don't work.   

 

Here's some more googling for you.  Short of being on the ground in India your bias isn't anymore valid than anyone else's here. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiatoday.in/amp/coronavirus-outbreak/video/people-refuse-wear-masks-covid-surge-india-1794649-2021-04-24

 

Covidiots exist the world over.  But India is an outlier for mask wearing compliance...lol

 

Yeah, sorry you didn't like my response.  I guess I just don't find the stuff you link very compelling, nor do I think it adds much in the way of discussion.

Linking tweets about a dozen people storming Trader Joe's without masks, or recalling what dumb thing Trump said a year ago, etc. just isn't that interesting to me.  

[Archy1221]

https://www.mediaite.com/biden/cnn-medical-analyst-calls-out-biden-for-mask-heavy-socially-distanced-speech-sent-the-wrong-message/
 

I agree with the point the physician is trying to get across.  The CDC and those making governmental decisions need to give the skeptical people a reason to get vaccinated.  If life is gonna be the same for them with mask and social distancing amongst the vaccinated, then I can also see why people who aren’t vaccinated tell themselves what’s the point then.  
 

let’s get life back to normal for those vaccinated and more skeptics will join the crowd of vaccinated people 

[Enhance]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

https://www.mediaite.com/biden/cnn-medical-analyst-calls-out-biden-for-mask-heavy-socially-distanced-speech-sent-the-wrong-message/
 

I agree with the point the physician is trying to get across.  The CDC and those making governmental decisions need to give the skeptical people a reason to get vaccinated.  If life is gonna be the same for them with mask and social distancing amongst the vaccinated, then I can also see why people who aren’t vaccinated tell themselves what’s the point then.  
 

let’s get life back to normal for those vaccinated and more skeptics will join the crowd of vaccinated people 

This is where my mind is leaning, as well. Some of these displays are beginning to feel more like posturing than necessary safety precautions.

 

On a personal level, I just went to see my 94-year-old grandma for the first time since Jan., 2020. She's been vaccinated since January, 2021. The care facility is only allowing up to four fully vaccinated people to visit a resident at one time. Visitors had to set up an appointment, sign a medical waiver, be escorted to and from the apartment, and were required to maintain mask usage during the visit.

 

Was it worth it to see her? Absolutely. I would've walked on hot coals if I needed to. But, she and the entire facility have been vaccinated for months. Myself and the other visitors had been fully vaccinated for weeks now. It just felt more cumbersome than necessary.

[FrantzHardySwag]

52 minutes ago, Enhance said:

But, she and the entire facility have been vaccinated for months. Myself and the other visitors had been fully vaccinated for weeks now. It just felt more cumbersome than necessary.

I help with hospital transitions to these facilities. COVID coordination/precautions are a massive pain in the a$$. But trust me, one positive case at one of these facilities is one million x the work. We're talking lockdowns, testing every resident and employee multiple times a week, communication to everyones POAs, ect. I really don't blame them for having to be over the top, it likely saves them loads of headache in the long run. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

This is where my mind is leaning, as well. Some of these displays are beginning to feel more like posturing than necessary safety precautions.

 

On a personal level, I just went to see my 94-year-old grandma for the first time since Jan., 2020. She's been vaccinated since January, 2021. The care facility is only allowing up to four fully vaccinated people to visit a resident at one time. Visitors had to sign a medical waiver, be escorted to and from the apartment, and were required to maintain mask usage during the visit.

 

Was it worth it to see her? Absolutely. I would've walked on hot coals if I needed to. But, she and the entire facility have been vaccinated for months. Myself and the other visitors had been fully vaccinated for weeks now. It just felt more cumbersome than necessary.

What state is this in?  My Father in law is in an assisted living facility and it's so frustrating how restricted they still are.  The only way my wife can go see him is if he has a DRs appointment the family needs to take him to.  So, this last time, we went up, picked him up for the appointment then spent the rest of the afternoon with him outside the facility.  When we brought him back, they questioned my wife about who he was around, what he was doing...etc.  They threatened to quarantine him for two weeks and my wife was not happy.  They ended up not doing it, but the whole thing was just un-needed.  Everyone is vaccinated in the entire facility and so are we.

 

My parents just moved into a facility and I know the administrator fairly well.  They were somewhat open, but still a lot of restrictions.  We toured another one that was wide open and everyone is living fairly normal.  I told her that and she was frustrated because she was needing to figure out what they should do.  She ended up opening up like the other facility.  She told me it's extremely frustrating because they are getting very little advice from the health department.  They are basically on their own to make decisions.  

 

All of these facilities are in Nebraska and there isn't any consistent rules.  I firmly believe my FIL's facility is only doing that because of liability fears.  They aren't even thinking about what it does to the residents not being able to see family.

[Enhance]

39 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I help with hospital transitions to these facilities. COVID coordination/precautions are a massive pain in the a$$. But trust me, one positive case at one of these facilities is one million x the work. We're talking lockdowns, testing every resident and employee multiple times a week, communication to everyones POAs, ect. I really don't blame them for having to be over the top, it likely saves them loads of headache in the long run. 

I don't necessarily blame them either, but given your perspective and work history/background, at what point do you think it's enough? To put it differently, her whole care facility + the staff are vaccinated. We're vaccinated. Realistically speaking, we are as protected as humanly possible from transmitting COVID. What's the tipping point to when we can acknowledge that we've done everything we can?

 

I'm not a doctor or disease specialist, of course, but I do feel like some of this has become unnecessary coddling. I don't mind proving I've been vaccinated, but a max # of guests, escorts to and from, we had to schedule our appointment, and mandatory mask usage? It just feels like a lot for something that shouldn't be.

 

27 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

All of these facilities are in Nebraska and there isn't any consistent rules.  I firmly believe my FIL's facility is only doing that because of liability fears.  They aren't even thinking about what it does to the residents not being able to see family.

We're in Nebraska too; her care facility is in the Bennington area but I live in Omaha. My folks are basically in your shoes. I only have the one remaining grandparent at this point, and she's been in the same facility for about 6-7 years now, but my parents have had to try to navigate all of these changing rules and protocols. Her facility has been fairly consistent, though. They just started allowing in-room visits about 3-4 weeks ago. Up to the point, guests could have visitors but it had to be by appointment, and they would set up phones so you could speak to the resident through a window from the outside.

[BigRedBuster]

58 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I really don't blame them for having to be over the top, it likely saves them loads of headache in the long run. 

I fully appreciate the headache all this causes.  However, they are there for the well being of the residents.  Yes, they are going over the top to keep them healthy physically.  But, they also need to be thinking about their mental health too.

[FrantzHardySwag]

6 minutes ago, Enhance said:

don't necessarily blame them either, but given your perspective and work history/background, at what point do you think it's enough? To put it differently, her whole care facility + the staff are vaccinated. We're vaccinated. Realistically speaking, we are as protected as humanly possible from transmitting COVID. What's the tipping point to when we can acknowledge that we've done everything we can?

 

I  really have no clue. I think they are trying to tightrope allowing visitation and not being in the news for being the reckless facility that allowed COVID to spread - hence strict protocols. Some of the docs I work with pull double duty as medical directors for these facilities. Seems like they are keeping a close eye on community spread, % of positive tests, hospitalizations, vaccination rates - as numbers improve I think facilities will continue to loosen restrictions. Following these transitions, it seems like facilities are about two months into allowing visitation (depending on the facility). I'd venture to guess if in two months, numbers are still looking good - facilities will be even more accessible.