COVID-19: People on the internet are judging me for going outside. It used to be the reverse.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > COVID-19: People on the internet are judging me for going outside. It used to be the reverse.

«‹›414 »

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

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

genuinely big thanks for the bearded masking advice

# ? Jan 7, 2022 00:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 13:44

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

cr0y posted:

Since this is what I'm pissed about today you guys get to deal with me as well.

This is just a friendly reminder that Ocugen submitted their trial data for kids 2 and up to the FDA for EUA 29 days ago.

A couple days ago Fauci was asked about it and he said that the data/application was never submitted. It was.

29 days. In the middle of a pandemic.

Fauci is, still, not an FDA representative.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 00:46

virtualboyCOLOR: Dec 22, 2004

UCS Hellmaker posted:

I'll read those when I'm not on the way to work, but yes calling it that is massively a different thing and much better in description. The secondary effects of many diseases affect many organ systems and covid by it's main pathology affects the respiratory system, which has some serious repercussions on the cardiac system.

Thanks for the clarification. Mea culpa on misclassifying covid.

Discendo Vox posted:

Fauci is, still, not an FDA representative.

This is correct. However Fauci, I think, does a lot more harm than good. He�s been terrible as messaging since the beginning (he told people they shouldn�t wear masks at the start of an airborne virus) and he doesn�t handle interviews well. I know the media was propping him up in the face of Trump being an overall quack but Fauci pretty terrible. He�s just a GOTV effort for the GOP at this point.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 00:53

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

He�s been terrible as messaging since the beginning (he told people they shouldn�t wear masks at the start of an airborne virus)

Tbf this was government advice across pretty much the entire world for the first half of 2020, including success stories like Singapore

# ? Jan 7, 2022 00:55

brugroffil: Nov 30, 2015

Discendo Vox posted:

Fauci is, still, not an FDA representative.

Isn't he Biden's chief covid guy? Should probably be aware of important things like that, or at least say he's not sure rather than simply being completely wrong.

Better yet he ought to be retired.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 01:00

UCS Hellmaker: Mar 29, 2008; Toilet Rascal

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

Thanks for the clarification. Mea culpa on misclassifying covid.

This is correct. However Fauci, I think, does a lot more harm than good. He’s been terrible as messaging since the beginning (he told people they shouldn’t wear masks at the start of an airborne virus) and he doesn’t handle interviews well. I know the media was propping him up in the face of Trump being an overall quack but Fauci pretty terrible. He’s just a GOTV effort for the GOP at this point.

That's the thing is all, misclassification is an issue with many diseases, like I said if you went that route you could say it's a renal illness because of the kidney damage and the like.

With vascular one of the issues is that the increased pulmonary pressure from the illness can cause right side heart failure, which is an actual issue with COPD and pneumonia illnesses causing the right ventricle to fail, however it's not caused by covid, but a secondary effect from covid causing the pulmonary vessels to become hypertensive. Sidenote high positive pressure causes this to, so bipap and high vent pressures put extra strain on the heart, directly a result of positive pressure being counter to the negative pressure that we use for breathing.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 01:17

Gripweed: Nov 8, 2018

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

This is correct. However Fauci, I think, does a lot more harm than good. He�s been terrible as messaging since the beginning (he told people they shouldn�t wear masks at the start of an airborne virus) and he doesn�t handle interviews well. I know the media was propping him up in the face of Trump being an overall quack but Fauci pretty terrible. He�s just a GOTV effort for the GOP at this point.

I remember during the vaccine rollout seeing Fauci on the news talking about how terrible it was that the vaccine was politicized and how they needed to depoliticize it. And, like, wouldn't step one of that process be not having the guy all Republicans think is a liar as the face of the vaccine?

# ? Jan 7, 2022 01:20

Judakel: Jul 29, 2004; Can't post for 9 years!

brugroffil posted:

Isn't he Biden's chief covid guy? Should probably be aware of important things like that, or at least say he's not sure rather than simply being completely wrong.

Better yet he ought to be retired.

He's a mouthpiece at this point. Jeff Zients is Biden's chief covid guy, and he has no medical background.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 01:28

James Garfield: May 5, 2012; Am I a manipulative abuser in real life, or do I just roleplay one on the Internet for fun? You decide!

Gripweed posted:

And, like, wouldn't step one of that process be not having the guy all Republicans think is a liar as the face of the vaccine?

The people who are refusing the vaccine would think the replacement was a liar instead, they boo Trump himself when he tells them to get booster shots.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 01:31

Tiny Timbs: Sep 6, 2008

Gripweed posted:

I remember during the vaccine rollout seeing Fauci on the news talking about how terrible it was that the vaccine was politicized and how they needed to depoliticize it. And, like, wouldn't step one of that process be not having the guy all Republicans think is a liar as the face of the vaccine?

That makes zero sense. The act of Biden putting anyone in a position is sufficient for Republicans to consider them lying traitors.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 01:33

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Here's my writeup on Fauci from the previous thread iteration.

Discendo Vox posted:

Briefly, on Fauci and NIH:

The National Institutes of Health are meant to be independent, world-leading entities that principally direct research funding and advise the federal government, and their leadership are always people from the research community. From the beginning, individual Institutes often functioned as fiefdoms, and because they are created by congress, they tend to be arranged to chase after public issues, rather than organized to push research forward (for instance, the National Cancer Institute is some ungodly large proportion of all their funding compared to everything else). The Institutes have an internal political dynamic that's very similar to academic research settings; there's even an intramural researcher pipeline with tenure. This includes the "petty sniping" part of academic culture, and as research funding has disappeared over the past few decades, the Institutes have not been immune to internal research quality problems, either. Despite all this it's still the organization with the best researchers and much of the best resources in the world.

At least back in the 90s, Anthony Fauci had a reputation for being extremely cautious about his statements, and for having particularly strong control over NIAID (which, after his involvement in the response to HIV, became heavily focused in that area for a time, and which has continued to be one of the main sources of innovation in things like vaccine development). It's worth emphasizing that NIAID is not a clinical public health entity or directly controlling drug approvals; the irregular approvals processes that I've read about have come from HHS and are entirely separate. Usually Institute directors run an institute for a few years while maintaining a separate position at a university, which they then return to; it's highly irregular for someone to hold a director spot for very long, because it means they basically give up on their research career. Fauci is one of only a handful of directors that seem to have made Institute direction their entire career (though I think it's become more popular as science funding has dwindled and it's seen as safe). Fauci can be (indirectly) fired by Trump, and his position is directly selected by him (although in practice NIH selects someone internally and the president rubberstamps it, it's always possible Trump ignores this).

At the same time, Fauci should not be directly involved with the press. NIH has a powerful, influential press office (with its own problems) that ought to be mediating or at least controlling the scope of his public statements: NIH directors usually give press releases and extremely controlled interviews on relatively unimportant subjects, and in moments of crisis might present to a congressional committee. Most of the time their name just appears on reports prepared by their staff. At this point Fauci has said a whole list of things that would have resulted in him being asked to resign under any other administration. I have no clue why he's doing it, or saying the things he says, because he's shown a remarkable lack of message discipline and repeatedly made statements that were completely irresponsible, because they are so easy to misrepresent (and sometimes were just wrong). These appearances have no clear relationship to trying to assuage or placate or manage or control Trump, or even keep his job. I have no clue what he's trying to accomplish; it's like he's just pursuing coverage. This, is a problem with some other NIH directors, who sometimes see it as a way to draw public attention to their area and increase their budget, but it's not something he's historically done, and this is a helluva time to do it.

Fauci's role in the response to HIV was controversial, but idk the details and context there, aside from the fact that he wasn't directly involved with obscuring the epidemic. My understanding is he was much less public at that time.

Discendo Vox posted:

Let me reiterate:

1. Fauci should not be speaking to the press directly. People in his role almost never should, because at a minimum they will make statements that are easily misrepresented. Fauci has repeatedly appeared in venues that make no sense and made statements that, to put it charitably, are extremely easy to misinterpret. People in his position can't and shouldn't really be the "face" or "voice" of anything, because the media training you get in these roles is pretty drat limited and the people involved aren't selected for their ability to do that sort of thing; they're selected for their ability to administer research and navigate the specific viper's nest of high level academic research politics, which is very different from other areas.

2. NIAID is a research funding organization more than anything else. It's not the CDC or FDA. It does not approve drugs, it has a limited budget for drug development research, it does not have a public health surveillance apparatus, and it cannot directly influence policies in those other entities. It cannot function in their roles. We frankly don't want it to be able to function in those roles.

In brief:
1. It would be, to put it mildly, extremely controversial for the administration to remove Fauci from his position. NIH is deliberately about as politically independent as possible. Any NIH org head getting removed by an admin would be a big scandal, and Fauci getting removed would have been the biggest scandal even before COVID hit. Even Trump didn't remove him.
2. It should be transparently terrible to remove people from their positions because Republicans have attacked them as either liars or for politicizing science; NIH directors in specific are not supposed to be politically entangled like this, and Fauci genuinely isn't. The administration has little to no actual control over his statements; if he does things in alignment with them, it'll be because he's choosing to.
3. At the same time, it is also true that Fauci has repeatedly said really stupid things, and that he's put himself out as a public communicator in a way that NIH ICO heads really never should (and that he never has in the past). Under other circumstances, other ICO heads would probably quietly get told to retire by NIH leadership for this sort of thing, but a) NIH isn't in a good place to do that sort of thing at this time, and b) Fauci's unusually bulletproof among ICO heads.
4. Fauci heads an institute that funds vaccine research and has a nonbinding advisory role (with complex details that I do not fully understand) with FDA on vaccine approvals. He's not with FDA or CDC and has no formal access to their internal processes; it's likely his institute hasn't gotten the package for this product yet (if FDA sends it to them at all).

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Jan 7, 2022

# ? Jan 7, 2022 01:34

cr0y: Mar 24, 2005

I mean someone who is in the public eye "the lead covid guy" regardless of whether or not that is true on paper or in practice is kind of irrelevant. If you ask any random on the street who is running the covid response in this country their answer is going to be him.

Knowing where the various crucially important vaccine approvals stand would take 30 seconds to get an update on once a week. I had just remembered about Ocugen and it took me a grand total of 5 minutes to get the facts.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 01:51

MadJackal: Apr 30, 2004

Gripweed posted:

I remember during the vaccine rollout seeing Fauci on the news talking about how terrible it was that the vaccine was politicized and how they needed to depoliticize it. And, like, wouldn't step one of that process be not having the guy all Republicans think is a liar as the face of the vaccine?

They booed Trump when he told them to get vaccinated.

Republicans have gone full blown conspiracy theory deathcultist, there is absolutely no one a huge percentage of the US would trust.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 02:07

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Judakel posted:

He's a mouthpiece at this point. Jeff Zients is Biden's chief covid guy, and he has no medical background.

what in the everloving gently caress? Why was a hedge-fund guy given this job?

also, lol:

In summer 2020, Saguaro Strategies, a media and consulting firm, heavily edited Zients's Wikipedia page as he became more prominent in the Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 02:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

cr0y posted:

I mean someone who is in the public eye "the lead covid guy" regardless of whether or not that is true on paper or in practice is kind of irrelevant. If you ask any random on the street who is running the covid response in this country their answer is going to be him.

You, and we, should not disregard whether something "is true on paper or in practice" just because it gives an outlet for venting. Your ignorance should not bind us to your anger.

cr0y posted:

Knowing where the various crucially important vaccine approvals stand would take 30 seconds to get an update on once a week. I had just remembered about Ocugen and it took me a grand total of 5 minutes to get the facts.

As previously mentioned, yes, Fauci is a lovely communicator. No, it does not make sense to expect him to know the status of every company promoting its attempts at getting an EUA. By the way, in the same 5 minutes, I found out the application was "put on hold" (this often means FDA is giving the company the opportunity to withdraw and try a different approach) because of deficiencies in their master file. It appears their clinical evidence was based on a single arm trial entirely conducted in India. I also found out they had previously applied for an adult EUA for the same product and were rejected earlier in 2021.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 02:26

crepeface: Nov 5, 2004; r*p*f*c*

tasmania (australia's tiny island with a population of ~500k) went from ~700 cases to 1400 today.

crepeface posted:

great news, it doubled!

https://twitter.com/MundayJessica/status/1479238460951068675?s=20

it's also in nursing homes

https://twitter.com/OliviaGHicks/status/1479255308870422528?s=20

testing's going great!

https://twitter.com/Kate_Taz/status/1478892221231292416?s=20

# ? Jan 7, 2022 02:34

Gripweed: Nov 8, 2018

Tiny Timbs posted:

That makes zero sense. The act of Biden putting anyone in a position is sufficient for Republicans to consider them lying traitors.

This is a bit beyond Covid specifically, but there's this idea that all Republicans hate all Demorcats an equal amount. Which simply isn't true. There are still some Republicans who don't believe in Q. And there are some Democrats who aren't complete hate totems like Hillary Clinton or Fauci. Remember that Fauci started out by going against Trump. A new figure wouldn't have that baggae. They would be hated, but not necessarily with the same vitriol or intensity.

Hell, even not replacing Fauci, just getting him off the TV could help dial down the intensity a bit

But let's say you're right, not a single Republican who hasn't been vaccinated could ever be convinced to get vaccinated. What about the non-Republicans? Plenty of black people haven't gotten vaccinated, and it's not because they are dyed in the wool Dem-haters. And for a lot of them it's not that they can't take the time to go get it. It's because they, with very good reason, distrust the medical establishment. Maybe someone other than an 80 year old white man could be more effective at reaching those groups

And we should take into account Fauci himself as a communicator. He has proven himself untrustworthy multiple times. A new person wouldn't have a video montage of themself saying seventeen different contradictory things about masks ready to go. I know Fauci is the comfort character of the MSNBC set, but they've already decided everything's mild.

There are multiple potential upsides to getting Fauci off the TV. Maybe none of them would actually happen, but its worth a shot. Especially since there are zero potential downsides. We have no need for Fauci. Get him off the TV.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 02:57

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

Anyone else seeing an uptick in the word Flurona describing having the flu and corona simultaneously

# ? Jan 7, 2022 02:59

Geight: Aug 7, 2010; Oh, All-Knowing One, behold me!

Discendo Vox posted:

Fauci's role in the response to HIV was controversial, but idk the details and context there, aside from the fact that he wasn't directly involved with obscuring the epidemic. My understanding is he was much less public at that time.

Had to grab a book off the shelf and double check this, but in "And the Band Played On" Fauci is only mentioned a couple times as he definitely wasn't the same figurehead he is this go around, but he made (what seems to me) a very similar mistake then as he did with covid. There was a shoddy paper published that posited AIDS could be transmitted through "routine household contact" as a way to explain why babies in low-income neighborhoods were contracting the disease, and it was given a lot of weight in the media because Fauci (among others) issued a statement corroborating it. Even at the time the paper was criticized for not even considering that babies were contracting it in the womb, which was absolutely the case, but Fauci still made his statement and still played a part in setting back the understanding of how AIDS spreads by several years, fueling even more persecution of those carrying it. He would go on to say that the public simply "doesn't understand scientific talk", and never really apologized for his endorsement of the discredited study.

There are, however, more than a couple activists who will swear by him as being the only person in the government who listened to them at the time, so I think the conclusion of "Fauci should never speak to the press" is overall pretty sound.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 04:26

Tiny Timbs: Sep 6, 2008

Gripweed posted:

But let's say you're right, not a single Republican who hasn't been vaccinated could ever be convinced to get vaccinated.

Excuse me? How'd you draw that conclusion from what I said?

Ultimately I agree. Ditch Fauci. I just don't think his replacement has a hope of getting much traction with Republicans, but that's not the only issue with him.

Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Jan 7, 2022

# ? Jan 7, 2022 04:27

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Anyone else seeing an uptick in the word Flurona describing having the flu and corona simultaneously

I can't wait for the promised Flurona vaccine twice a year for the rest of my life

Bel Shazar fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Jan 7, 2022

# ? Jan 7, 2022 04:37

Riptor: Apr 13, 2003; here's to feelin' good all the time

Bel Shazar posted:

I can't wait for the promised Flurona vaccine twice a year for the rest of my life

i mean yeah

# ? Jan 7, 2022 04:40

Oracle: Oct 9, 2004

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Anyone else seeing an uptick in the word Flurona describing having the flu and corona simultaneously

New word of the hour yeah.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 04:49

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!; Pillbug

WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:

Anyone else seeing an uptick in the word Flurona describing having the flu and corona simultaneously

Yes, and some day I'll stop seeing "fursona" when I skim past it.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 04:55

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

Killer robot posted:

Yes, and some day I'll stop seeing "fursona" when I skim past it.

Well, the good news is they're wearing a mask

# ? Jan 7, 2022 04:58

MadJackal: Apr 30, 2004

Reddit post from an NYC high school student:

quote:

I'd like to preface this by stating that remote learning was absolutely detrimental to the mental health of myself, my friends, and my peers at school. Despite this, the present conditions within schools necessitates a temporary return to remote learning; if not because of public health, then because of learning loss.

A story of my day:

- I arrived at school and promptly went to Study Hall. I knew that some of my teachers would be absent because they had announced it on Google Classroom earlier in the day. At our school there is a board in front of the auditorium with the list of teachers and seating sections for students within study hall: today there were 14 absent teachers 1st period. There are 11 seatable sections within the auditorium ... THREE CLASSES sat on the stage. Study hall has become a super spreader event -- I'll get to this in a moment.

- Second period I had another absent teacher. More of the same from 1st period. It was around this time that 25% of kids, including myself, realized that there were no rules being enforced outside of attendance at the start of the period, and that cutting lass was ridiculously easy. We left -- there was functionally no learning occurring within study hall, and health conditions were safer outside of the auditorium. It was well beyond max capacity.

- Third period I had a normal class period. Hooray! First thing the teacher did was pass out COVID tests because we had all been close contacts to a COVID-positive student in our class. 4 more teachers would pass out COVID tests throughout the day, which were to be taken at home. The school started running low on tests, and rules had to be refined to ration.

- "To be taken at home." Ya ... students don't listen. 90% of the bathrooms were full of students swabbing their noses and taking their tests. I had one kid ask me -- with his mask down, by the way -- whether a "faint line was positive," proceeding to show me his positive COVID test. I told him to go the nurse. One student tested positive IN THE AUDITORIUM, and a few students started screaming and ran away from him. There was now a lack of available seats given there was a COVID-positive student within the middle of the auditorium. They're now planning on having teachers give up their free periods to act as substitute teachers because the auditorium is simply not safe enough.

- Classes that I did attend were quiet and empty. Students are staying home because of risk of COVID without testing positive (as they should) and some of my classes had 10+ students absent. Nearly every class has listed myself and others are close contacts.

- I should note that in study hall and with subs we literally learn nothing. I spent about 3 hours sitting around today doing nothing.

- I tested positive for COVID on December the 14th. At the time there were a total of 6 cases. By the end of break this number was up to 36. By January the 3rd (when we returned from break) the numbers were up to 100 (as listed on the school Google Sheet). Today there are 226. This is around 10% of my school. As of Monday, only 30 of whom were reported to the DOE ... which just seems like negligence to me.

- 90% of the conversations spoken by students concern COVID. It has completely taken over any function of daily school life.

- One teacher flat out left his class 5 mins into the lesson and didn't return because he was developing symptoms and didn't believe it safe to spread to his class.

I've been adamantly opposed to remote learning for a while, and thought that it was overall an unmitigated disaster for the learning and mental health of students. At the present time, however, schools cannot teach and function well enough in person. We must go remote.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 05:00

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

flakeloaf posted:

Well, the good news is they're wearing a mask

I really expected to see more cybergoths during this thing...

# ? Jan 7, 2022 05:00

The Artificial Kid: Feb 22, 2002; Plibble

Geight posted:

Had to grab a book off the shelf and double check this, but in "And the Band Played On" Fauci is only mentioned a couple times as he definitely wasn't the same figurehead he is this go around, but he made (what seems to me) a very similar mistake then as he did with covid. There was a shoddy paper published that posited AIDS could be transmitted through "routine household contact" as a way to explain why babies in low-income neighborhoods were contracting the disease, and it was given a lot of weight in the media because Fauci (among others) issued a statement corroborating it. Even at the time the paper was criticized for not even considering that babies were contracting it in the womb, which was absolutely the case, but Fauci still made his statement and still played a part in setting back the understanding of how AIDS spreads by several years, fueling even more persecution of those carrying it. He would go on to say that the public simply "doesn't understand scientific talk", and never really apologized for his endorsement of the discredited study.

There are, however, more than a couple activists who will swear by him as being the only person in the government who listened to them at the time, so I think the conclusion of "Fauci should never speak to the press" is overall pretty sound.

I don't have any quick way to assess independently what the state of thinking and knowledge about HIV transmission was at the point in time you're referring to, but I would put it to you that if someone had a serious, genuine, scientific suspicion (whether ultimately unfounded or not) that HIV was being transmitted through household contact, then that would be something vitally important to communicate to people. And I'm not sure how you could rule it out just on the face of it. Herpes simplex is spread through skin contact and then takes root in the central nervous system. Were people meant to dismiss out of hand the idea that HIV might rarely transmit through normal daily contact and then establish itself in the immune system? I mean if the study you're talking about came after a bunch of studies proving that HIV couldn't spread without blood contact, sure, but you haven't firmly established that context.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 05:13

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

Judakel posted:

Denmark is doing very badly at the moment. I think that should be cause for concern and not dismissal.

Denmark is managing decently right now, but thank you? Cases are up like everywhere but we're still far below previous waves in ICU cases. Testing is free and testing levels are far higher than almost anywhere. Highly boosted population. Free healthcare.

Bonus: no Walmart's in Denmark

# ? Jan 7, 2022 06:11

crepeface: Nov 5, 2004; r*p*f*c*

Rust Martialis posted:

Denmark is managing decently right now, but thank you? Cases are up like everywhere but we're still far below previous waves in ICU cases. Testing is free and testing levels are far higher than almost anywhere. Highly boosted population. Free healthcare.

Bonus: no Walmart's in Denmark

i assume you'd know better than me, but over in here in australia, we've been looking at our hospital numbers and screaming silently inside

except for people in WA, who are breathing a sigh of relief at seemingly containing its omicron quarantine leak to two person and had zero new cases of community cases today. we're going ahead with dropping the indoor mask mandate that was scheduled at 6pm. hope we're not jumping the gun!

https://twitter.com/MarkMcGowanMP/status/1479306989561806849?s=20

# ? Jan 7, 2022 06:49

Wang Commander: Dec 27, 2003; by sebmojo

MadJackal posted:

Reddit post from an NYC high school student:

I know people hate when I post rumors in this thread but this certainly lines up with every local rumor I hear about schools here, too. The kids being really obsessed with covid is what is really striking, I think they know, more than adults do, that they are being gaslit and it bothers them badly.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 06:53

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

crepeface posted:

except for people in WA, who are breathing a sigh of relief at seemingly containing its omicron quarantine leak to two person and had zero new cases of community cases today. we're going ahead with dropping the indoor mask mandate that was scheduled at 6pm. hope we're not jumping the gun!

https://twitter.com/MarkMcGowanMP/status/1479306989561806849?s=20

I saw the presser scheduled for this and assumed it was an announcement of delaying the border reopening but this mask decision surely has to be prefacing that in the coming days - otherwise why on earth would you repeal the mandate when you'll only have to reintroduce it again in four weeks?

# ? Jan 7, 2022 06:55

crepeface: Nov 5, 2004; r*p*f*c*

four weeks of mask free suck and gently caress isn't nothing, since that's the norm WA is used to.

also, our post Feb 5 mask rules are really lax (rideshare, public transport, hospitals, airports only), basically what they will be by 6pm tonight. i suspect that was put in before omicron, and they'll change it if we really do end up OPENING UP on Feb 5.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 07:06

Illuminti: Dec 3, 2005; Praise be to China's Covid-Zero Policy

crepeface posted:

i assume you'd know better than me, but over in here in australia, we've been looking at our hospital numbers and screaming silently inside

Hardly. It's not great but 800,000 cases and 274 people in the ICU isn't really civilisation ending.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/nsw-pos...91-74b6b39147cc

quote:

Taking into account the general health of NSW's population, the state's vaccination rates and new data on the severity of Omicron infection, three scenarios were mapped.

The worst of them predicts 6000 people could be hospitalised with COVID-19 at the peak of the outbreak, expected in the third or last week of January.

Some 600 of them would be in intensive care.

The more conservative "most realistic" model predicts 4700 beds will be needed for COVID-19 patients at the peak, 273 of them in ICU.

In the best-case scenario, only 3158 people will be hospitalised and the number in ICU will peak at 270.

Now 600 people in the ICU is not good. But lets keep some perspective.

I would imagine that Australia not having the Nov 2020 to Feb 2021 wave is not helping either.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 07:06

Illuminti: Dec 3, 2005; Praise be to China's Covid-Zero Policy

freebooter posted:

I saw the presser scheduled for this and assumed it was an announcement of delaying the border reopening but this mask decision surely has to be prefacing that in the coming days - otherwise why on earth would you repeal the mandate when you'll only have to reintroduce it again in four weeks?

So people don't have to pointlessly wear masks for 4 weeks?

# ? Jan 7, 2022 07:08

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

crepeface posted:

i assume you'd know better than me, but over in here in australia, we've been looking at our hospital numbers and screaming silently inside

except for people in WA, who are breathing a sigh of relief at seemingly containing its omicron quarantine leak to two person and had zero new cases of community cases today. we're going ahead with dropping the indoor mask mandate that was scheduled at 6pm. hope we're not jumping the gun!

Right now the focus is on getting children vaccinated and adults boosted. There's no particular discussion or open concern about hospital capacity - though I am personally concerned about ICU beds in the next few days from what I expect to be a post-New Years Eve spike.

Denmark was never going to be Zero COVID. We're next to Sweden with their early "herd immunity" and lots of Danes and Swedes live in Sweden and work in Denmark.

Instead Denmark went "test like crazy and manage the impact with restrictions while vaccinating".

The general impression (anecdotal) is that the government here has followed the advice of the experts and Danes are mostly obeying the rules.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 07:16

Sharks Eat Bear: Dec 25, 2004

Herstory Begins Now posted:

speaking of mask chat, can anyone recommend a good kind of mask if you've got a beard like this?

afaik you would need to shave to make n95s do their thing and idk if shaving is really an option

Had a similar question myself, wondering if there are any tips if you have facial hair like this?

# ? Jan 7, 2022 07:53

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Illuminti posted:

So people don't have to pointlessly wear masks for 4 weeks?

But then you just have to slap them back on again in February? I dunno, I really don't find it that burdensome to wear on one the tram or at the supermarket, I reckon it would be more sensible to just say "look they're here to stay" since they'll probably be with us for the rest of the decade. Nobody will remember their golden age of four weeks of mask-free shopping at Floreat Forum a year from now.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 07:56

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

Sharks Eat Bear posted:

Had a similar question myself, wondering if there are any tips if you have facial hair like this?

Just stay where you are in your bunker.

# ? Jan 7, 2022 07:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 13:44

Fritz the Horse: Dec 26, 2019; ... of course!

Sharks Eat Bear posted:

Had a similar question myself, wondering if there are any tips if you have facial hair like this?

don't worry you're fine just wearing masks as normal, please see this CDC graphic which includes your exact facial hair style for some reason

# ? Jan 7, 2022 08:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > COVID-19: People on the internet are judging me for going outside. It used to be the reverse.

«‹›414 »