|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
It appears you also do not know what the new guidance says. You may want to reread it. The guidance says people can leave isolation after five days if they are asymptomatic. Do you understand how that is different from what you are asserting?
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
nomad2020 posted:Depends, does the science currently believe that asymptomatic spread is a thing? My source is the NFL, they say no. Quoting the guidance in case anyone forgot in the past couple.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
The population's tolerance of guidance directly determines how effective that guidance is. If you can get 90% of people to quarantine for 5 days instead of having 60% of people quarantine for 10 then it could be a net benefit to transmission. "Tell people to do thing" doesn't mean "thing happens" and I don't know if any events in human history have made that more obvious than the last year and a half. Is it a good policy, I have no loving idea, I'm just some guy on the internet, I just think all the "THEY'RE SACRIFICING US TO THE ALTAR OF NUMBER" is overblown, especially considering that a huge majority of people are not clamoring to close the economy (or are strongly opposed to closing it!) There are plausible explanations for the change, and they are being provided, and it's tiresome to see every one be greeted with some variation of "that's bullshit!" or "they admitted it!" Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
Carrier posted:When did listening to experts become unfashionable again? probably ioannidis (2005) was the beginning, but it really took off in the early 2010s after diederik stapel's discovery in psychology resulted in a large body of multidisciplinary research on how most scientific disciplines are actually quite bad at statistics and scientific research at large.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
As long as we all agree that current guidance has a high probability of accelerating the spread of disease, then we don't really disagree on the science. We appear to disagree on exactly what level of good that fact is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
nomad2020 posted:https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/dr-fauci-explains-new-cdc-isolation-guidelines-129732165818 This Fauci? https://twitter.com/CNNSitRoom/status/1475614249766559748 Mellow Seas posted:The population's tolerance of guidance directly determines how effective that guidance is. If you can get 90% of people to quarantine for 5 days instead of having 60% of people quarantine for 10 then it could be a net benefit to transmission. "Tell people to do thing" doesn't mean "thing happens" and I don't know if any events in human history have made that more obvious than the last year and a half. What the CDC says has a ripple effect on policy, including OSHA. We already saw the second the CDC made the change that multiple business immediately updated their policies demanding folks get back to work: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1475953513360408582?s=20 This is reckless
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Exactly. This sounds exactly like the whole “that isnt what Trump meant! He really means…” Both times, a tweet has been posted that misrepresents its subject. The feigl-ding quote was misrepresented as being about "serving the needs of capital" when it was about compliance rates during increased spread and reduced severity. You changed your first quote when you were caught, but you forgot to do it to the version you deployed in USNews: virtualboyCOLOR posted:Remember the nauseating argument a few pages back about whether the CDC admitted they changed the rules for capital? When you were caught in that lie, you ignored it, denied it, and then shifted to different attacks. The Biden quote was even more straightforward, a quote taken out of context, as Fritz has already discussed. Fritz the Horse posted:also re: the Biden “There is no federal solution. This gets solved at a state level.” tweet, it's literally a right-wing account plucking a short bit out of context. What that quote actually is, is Biden complimenting governors on a phone call after they compliment actions taken by the White House.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It appears you also do not know what the new guidance says. You may want to reread it. Here is the CDC's statement. You do not know what is says. You may want to reread it. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s1227-isolation-quarantine-guidance.html quote:If you have no symptoms or your symptoms are resolving after 5 days, you can leave your house. bolding mine. Do you understand how that is different from what you just asserted? I'm also still pretty interested in what sort of omicron and delta-specific research they're relying on that asymptomatic or people with "resolving" symptoms are likely not infectious after Day 5, and why no test is needed. Looking through the references on the CDC's guidance page, most seem to be from 2020, a decent chunk are from the first half of 2021. Is there anything more specific they've relied on for Delta and Omicron? I'm not sure that wildtype/Alpha studies are indicative of contagious duration for the variant people are actually getting infected with in Winter 2021-2022. This is the conclusion of the most recent paper they referenced that I could find from October 2021: https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/224/8/1362/6154064 quote:Although most patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 for ≥10 days after symptom onset, our findings suggest that individuals with mild to moderate COVID-19 are unlikely to be infectious ≥10 days after symptom onset. e: I'm also interested in any indication that the CDC shortening isolation from 10 days to 5 will result in a net decrease of spread. How did reducing quarantine from 14 days to 10 days ultimately play out with respect to compliance? brugroffil fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
If half the people in this thread were in charge of public policy during the pandemic we'd already be in a hot civil war Maybe that's the point, I dunno
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:If half the people in this thread were in charge of public policy during the pandemic we'd already be in a hot civil war Instead the other half got their way and we're blowing right past 1M dead anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Instead the other half got their way and we're blowing right past 1M dead anyway Nobody has "gotten their way". It's a global pandemic. It loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
A little bit of a rebuttal to the whole “no one follows CDC guidance anyways”— I teach in a public school in Metro Detroit. I know that Washtenaw (Ann Arbor metro, technically), Wayne, and Oakland county health departments enforce CDC guidance in public schools. Obviously, there’s a lot of wiggle room to avoid, say, quarantining an entire classroom or in determining a close contact, but if a student tests positive—they’re out for ten days, period. They do not need a negative test to return, but the rule is they need to be symptom free for 24 hrs. We’ve sent kids home that come back from quarantine that are still symptomatic. (Most have symptoms that have resolved, but some have come back hacking a lung in class and then sent home. They in all likelihood are no longer contagious, but I digress…) A lot of people arguing that “well no one was following CDC guidance anyways” are ignoring those that did. I can guarantee you these counties will now adjust their guidance and allow schools to loosen quarantine requirements—which they almost certainly will. In other words, they will be able to justify quarantining students for five days and allowing them to return positive, symptomatic, and contagious. Aside from institutions and businesses that legit follow CDC guidance, I imagine the result will have the same effect as the CDC’s guidance to abandon masks. In other words, it will give COVID positive and symptomatic people permission to go out in public without a mask. Whereas before guidance was “don’t spread COVID, period,” now it’s, “Spread a little COVID—as a treat.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Both times, a tweet has been posted that misrepresents its subject. The feigl-ding quote was misrepresented as being about "serving the needs of capital" when it was about compliance rates during increased spread and reduced severity. You changed your first quote when you were caught, but you forgot to do it to the version you deployed in USNews: huh...what lie? I posted direct videos of what was said. You are basically asking me and folks in this thread to not listen to their lying eyes and ears. Also the context for that Biden quote IS STILL BAD, holy poo poo. Saying for Governors to "say something if you need something" doesn't actually help people considering that both Dems and Republican Governors have shown they are willing to go to bat for businesses and let as many folks die as needed. Recall when Dems gave cover for nursing homes killing the elderly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Is it a good policy, I have no loving idea, I'm just some guy on the internet, I just think all the "THEY'RE SACRIFICING US TO THE ALTAR OF NUMBER" is overblown, especially considering that a huge majority of people are not clamoring to close the economy (or are strongly opposed to closing it!) Also the virus affects the economy, the US never did hard lockdowns and 2020 was still the worst year for GDP growth in a long time. Unless you think the CDC (and all the business leaders controlling them) are unaware that 2020 was bad for the economy, it seems like "the CDC is sacrificing us to the economy" also requires that they don't think changing the guideline will cause a very bad covid outbreak.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
quote:If you have no symptoms or your symptoms are resolving after 5 days, you can leave your house. Ignoring the fact that "resolving symptoms" likely means that you're still actively spreading the disease, the bolded part seems pretty bad on its own because COVID does not always progress in a linear fashion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:Ignoring the fact that "resolving symptoms" likely means that you're still actively spreading the disease, the bolded part seems pretty bad on its own because COVID does not always progress in a linear fashion. Not even Covid specifically, going back to work while you're still sick has a habit of keeping you sicker longer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The CDC doesn't have ways to improve compliance in this context other than by communicating guidelines and changing the content of those guidelines. The drop to 5 days was based on relative periods of infection- there's no indication that a further reduction would be supported in the same calculus. How does omicron change the calculus to shorter quarantine periods? Is there a page or reference or anything explaining what kind of modelling the CDC is relying on for this guidance? Because most of the public statements revolve around compliance and availability of Frontline workers, not anything about omicron itself. I'm not an expert but naively I would expect that the most important variable is how long omicron-infected people are infectious for. Is there evidence that it's shorter than 5 days?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Recall when Dems gave cover for nursing homes killing the elderly? It's funny how the new york nursing home thing gets repeated as "dems are bad" when really it was someone actually taking doomer predictions as real and acting on them and then having it blow up in their face when stuff was dramatically better than predicted by worst case predictions. Like the "send everyone back to their nursing home NOW" was a plan based on the early prediction of a million americans on ventilators by the end of the month. Things like it and the much mocked empty hospital ship were all based on the early predictions of 4 million dead over three months. Like in real life where the disease wasn't so bad it was clearly a bad call. People that should have stayed in the hospital got cruelty sent away for no real benefit, even potentially carrying the disease with them. But the idea was listening and acting like the worst case was real, then getting burned when it wasn't. (then no one ever actually acted from the worst case ever again because it made them look so stupid)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Here is the CDC's statement. You do not know what is says. You may want to reread it. The only comprehensive data for viral load I have found was from mid 2021.   Source I'm sure the sports fans and others who prefer policy based on appeasement of the lowest common denominator will continue to claim this is different for omicron, or delta, or whatever and completely fail to support their own claims with any studies at all. Backing the idea that these quarantine rules are effective at reducing transmission with no evidence is loving idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It appears you also do not know what the new guidance says. You may want to reread it. It says two different things in two different places on the same page, it's kind of amazing
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Gio posted:A little bit of a rebuttal to the whole “no one follows CDC guidance anyways”— Anecdotally once the CDC said it was cool to stop wearing masks, I stopped seeing masks around here. It's a conservative area but prior to that I was seeing over 80% of people masked in the grocery store. Now I go there and I'm almost always the only person wearing a mask despite covid getting extremely out of control out here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Not even Covid specifically, going back to work while you're still sick has a habit of keeping you sicker longer. Also most Americans don't know what symptoms are or will downplay their symptoms to return to work, and also it seems like a bad idea during a pandemic for the CDC to shift responsibility for determining the infectious period onto ordinary citizens who have all the wrong incentives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:Not only is it less severe, omicron seems to provide immunity to delta (and possibly other covid variants as well). Biden and Fauci should be honest with people that the goal at this point is to get as much omicron herd immunity spread while not overwhelming the hospital system, since that is clearly what shortening the quarantine, playing stingy with tests, and their current messaging is intended to do. This is a blatantly obvious troll account if you didn't notice from the username ANOTHER SCORCHER. Go ahead and put them on your ignore list. virtualboyCOLOR posted:This is a gross statement that borders on the line of gas lighting. Remember when I probed you for claiming that people who were disagreeing with you were "blue MAGA?" Like 2 days ago? By all means, keep accusing people who are disagreeing with you of gross behavior and see how that goes for you. Wang Commander posted:So does anyone know if under-5 in the richer classes are getting off-label Pfizer? I've heard rumors of that, rumors of them getting prophylactic mabs routinely, and pretty much confirmed rumors of pediatric vaxx tourism in Cuba. Next time you post something like this without a source you're getting a week. This isn't something you heard around the water cooler and you know it. This is your only warning. A big flaming stink posted:forgive me if this was already discussed in the thread Some of you are running at like, an 11, so here's a good example of a post that asks questions while actually fostering good discussion. Notice that A big flaming stink isn't calling anyone an idiot, isn't painting themselves or a twitter moron as a subject of authority, and appears to genuinely seeking a conversation about the CDC guidance in a non-confrontational way. Be more like A big flaming stink, because nothing anyone says here matters wrt to public policy and we're all in the same boat, whether we agree or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
Srice posted:Anecdotally once the CDC said it was cool to stop wearing masks, I stopped seeing masks around here. It's a conservative area but prior to that I was seeing over 80% of people masked in the grocery store. Now I go there and I'm almost always the only person wearing a mask despite covid getting extremely out of control out here. Yup, same here, though I live in a purple-ish/blue area. Compliance was drat near 100% in a lot of major retailers and has never recovered. It’s 50/50 at best. The biggest change in the guidance is the part that says you can still be positive and symptomatic and exit quarantine. Not only is that going to have a clear, demonstrative effect on places like public schools, more broadly it is telling people it’s ok to go out in public when positive and symptomatic. So just as lifting the mask mandate removed the taboo of going maskless in public places, the quarantine guidance will loosen the stigma toward being positive and in public. “Oh I quarantined for five days (and am wearing a mask)” will be the new, “Oh it’s okay I’m vaccinated.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
Srice posted:Anecdotally once the CDC said it was cool to stop wearing masks, I stopped seeing masks around here. It's a conservative area but prior to that I was seeing over 80% of people masked in the grocery store. Now I go there and I'm almost always the only person wearing a mask despite covid getting extremely out of control out here. Pinning masks to vaccination rates was such an insane mistake. It always should've been tied to the number of cases. People would understand that. Covid cases have reached x, so now you don't have to wear a mask. They've gone up above y, you have to wear a mask again. But instead they used it as a reward for getting a vaccination. So telling people to wear a mask again is taking away a treat. Why should people wear a mask if they've already done the Right Thing and gotten the shot? Absolute unforgivable idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GovNedLamont/status/1476205011373854721?s=20 Maybe Biden was right, there is no federal solution. This is getting solved at a state level. Depressing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Pinning masks to vaccination rates was such an insane mistake. It always should've been tied to the number of cases. People would understand that. Covid cases have reached x, so now you don't have to wear a mask. They've gone up above y, you have to wear a mask again. But instead they used it as a reward for getting a vaccination. So telling people to wear a mask again is taking away a treat. Why should people wear a mask if they've already done the Right Thing and gotten the shot? Absolute unforgivable idiocy. It feels like they banked totally on vaccines and only dealing with the initial version and when Delta came along they had no clue what to do or any inclination to change course and just said "gently caress it, stay the course" Things probably would have been more or less OK if variants didn't exist but they should have never banked it all on vaccines and no variants the way they did and now they have been too scared to try to change messaging
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:huh...what lie? I posted direct videos of what was said. You are basically asking me and folks in this thread to not listen to their lying eyes and ears. Dude nursing homes literally kill patients regardless of political affiliation, they are loving hell pits that you toss elderly into and watch as perfectly healthy people degenerate over a year as short staffing indifference actual loving malpractice and greed cause a patient to become crippled and harmed because facilities goal is to suck as much money from the government and it's residents. Nursing homes are not meant to do more then generate profit for the owners, which means that staff are last on concerns. Goddamn I hate loving nursing homes the poo poo I've seen. loving hell pits that actively select for staff that actively harm patients and ignore problems, medications stolen, patients falling and wallowing in body fluids for hours or even days. Bedsores my god the loving bed sores. Going into facilities where staff never checked in a patient and they are doing CPR on a body in full rigor, or worse staff not doing CPR because"the patient is dnr" but no valid dnr. It's not loving political, it's a systemic issue that's been like this for loving decades.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
My very first job when I was in high school was working part-time at the reception desk of a nursing home and it was the most depressing poo poo I've ever seen. Just people in awful health and awful mental states just sitting around and waiting to die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
Folks, this is what I meant by Dems providing cover for nursing homes: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/26/andrew-cuomo-nursing-home-execs-immunity quote:
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Folks, this is what I meant by Dems providing cover for nursing homes: So specifically New York dems under Cuomo, do you have evidence that this is something "Dems" are pursuing across the board or?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
It's literal hell and they charge the patients thousands per month to be there in it. Took a patient from one night from a local one. Get there get the patient, in a "covid ward" connected to the cafeteria that was fully open to everyone and the door.wide open, staff in there with no masks right next to a unit that was supposed to be locked down. On the way out do a goddamn double take because we hadnt taken a good look at the elevator. Every resident for the floor is by the nurses desk in a chair or wheelchair that they could have, placed so that the nurse currently sitting there could see them at 1 am in the morning so she could play on her phone. No actual reason, residents obviously exhausted or mentally not there, but lined up in a hallway so that the nurse could sit and do nothing. loving rear end in a top hat made us wait to to let us down in the elevator cause it was so hard to getup to let us down. I hate those loving places and it's better to let elderly patients die with dignity then wallowing in there piss and poo poo at one till they die from sepsis and open wounds
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
You also don't realize how exactly bad NYC was in regards to the pandemic, they were doing anything possible to get beds available which is why they were sending patients to nursing homes when they believed they were stable, with an underlying issue of not fully understanding the disease at that point. It's not defensible that Cuomo was hiding it, however at the time hospitals fully believed it was necessary and the crisis left them little alternatives Cuomo just hid it because he didn't want to ruin the narrative that he help guide the pandemic and saved lives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:So specifically New York dems under Cuomo, do you have evidence that this is something "Dems" are pursuing across the board or? How many dems have to have done it before use of the word dems in that context becomes acceptable to you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:So specifically New York dems under Cuomo, do you have evidence that this is something "Dems" are pursuing across the board or? I mean, I really hate virtualboyCOLOR's posting, but come on. Your "it's just NY dems, not Dems with a capital D" gotcha is a bit silly here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
It's hard to overstate how awful nursing homes are. My wife has told me some horrid stories of abuse her coworkers committed that are utterly shocking and depraved beyond simple neglect. I don't care how poorly you're paid, treating people like that is inhuman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
I get that public health officials always have to compromise between what's best and what people are actually willing to do, or why they sometimes forgo nuance for simplicity in messaging. The disappointing part is that yet again seems like big money interests have more of a say in policy than than the general public, or experts the public has funded and entrusted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:So specifically New York dems under Cuomo, do you have evidence that this is something "Dems" are pursuing across the board or? I mean more than that, the whole new york nursing home thing was a bad decision based on the belief covid would be WORSE than it is. When you are talking about bad dems not caring about covid cuomo is the dumbest example. He made tons of wrong decisions but all based on a belief that new york would need 40,000 ventilators and that the US was going to face 2 million deaths within three months. The US never even hit 40,000 people hospitalized in the entire country, let alone on ventilators in new york. All the nursing home stuff, hospital ships, etc were based on a plan for dealing with a much more extreme set of events that never happened. Do you want to punish people for taking decisive action based on the idea things might be bad? Like it was all dumb in retrospect because covid is much milder than that. But are the "dems are bad" people pushing for taking covid less serious because a plan to take it more serious could hurt people? (like that one did)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:How many dems have to have done it before use of the word dems in that context becomes acceptable to you? Well I would like to see evidence that a specific thing was done in more than 1 state before the narrative is "dems shoved people into nursing homes to die." Pretty sure it didn't happen with Jay Inslee in WA State, so am I okay with saying Dems didn't do that? Just be accurate in what you're saying for gently caress's sake. I've been critical of the federal response to covid and Biden and I don't have any problem with people laying into them for the things they've done or not done. This isn't about defending the dems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:So specifically New York dems under Cuomo, do you have evidence that this is something "Dems" are pursuing across the board or? https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/08/nj-gave-nursing-homes-broad-immunity-against-lawsuits-critics-charge-it-gave-them-a-free-pass.html quote:An executive order by Gov. Phil Murphy provided what the administration called broad civil immunity to health care professionals and facilities providing services in support of New Jersey’s COVID-19 response efforts “who are acting in good faith.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 19:39
|
|