Covid-19 Outbreak of new SARS-like coronavirus (Covid-19)

[Jabberwocky]

So, I don't get how not wearing a mask is "freedom". Freedom to do what? The freedom to get sick, die, and/or spread a disease to people around you? That isn't freedom, it's just stupid, pointless, and irresponsible. Though, there is a serious constitutional rights, which is the fact that there apparently is a fucking secret police of sorts in the US. People have been arrested by agents of the federal government who carry no badges or identification, are arresting people, and taking them to undisclosed locations in unmarked vehicles.

That is a serious problem. This is what's done in dictatorships. People are arrested by unmarked, unidentified government agents, held without trial, and sometimes even killed. That absolutely is a violation of constitutional rights, and I would be just as outraged if the protesters being arrested had a cause that's opposite to my beliefs. Even if it was an anti-mask protest. Hell, even if it was something truly and utterly repugnant and evil like a white supremacist rally or something, I still would be outraged at this. Because it blatantly defies the constitution.

And once we head down that slippery slope, there's no telling what's going to happen. As years and decades pass, we could end up living in a country that's just as corrupt and oppressive as China. Where is the outrage about this though? People get all up in arms about regulations that infringe on their "freedom" to expose themselves to a virus and get sick, and the mask requirements are completely constitutionally valid. And they have a precedent. Such requirements were enacted during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, and they've been implemented during other outbreaks of disease. However, there is no precedent for secret police in the USA that I am aware of.

From admittedly a very long distance away, it seems that in American public discourse the only freedom that ever gets discussed or considered relevant to what the government does is so-called Negative Freedom. This is the freedom from things like state coercion. But there is a whole another way of thinking about freedom as Positive Freedom which is the freedom to do things leading to a fulfilling life without structural or environmental constraints. The idea of two distinct kinds of liberty was developed by Isiah Berlin (yeah I know, just another Jewish libtard - but no, actually one of the strongest intellectual opponents of communism). Basically, you are not really free if you are free from coercion but constrained by the limits of your health, education, or prevailing attitudes to your race, gender, sexuality or other distinguishing characteristic. Personally I’d take a bit of non-violent state coercion (about public health strategies for example) in return for the state using its resources to mitigate all those other characteristics of modern society that create a deeper unfreedom for so many people and limits them realising their full human potential. Freedom from hunger, freedom from disease, freedom to pursue your dreams - all pretty important to be truly liberated and free. The thing I like about Australia is that the state seems to deliberately try and strike a balance between the two types of freedom. We have too much government for sure, but we also have some of the best and most sustainable social mobility in the world.

 

[Xorkoth]

If an infected person interacts with a non-infected person but both parties are wearing masks, the risk of transmission is a mere 1.5% of what it would be otherwise. Yes, one and a half percent. Effectively, universal masks would nearly stop transmission of the virus entirely. Furthermore, even in cases where someone did contract the virus, they'd be exposed to fewer viral particles.

Yeah, this is precisely why I support mandatory masks in public. It's such an easy thing to do, people act like one day it's being forced to wear cloth over your face during a pandemic, and the next day we're communist China and have no Constitution. It's such a small imposition on personal freedom as to be negligible and the upside benefit to public health is huge. Honestly I can't really see it as other than being selfish to prioritize your own hang-up about not feeling like a sheep or some shit for wearing a mask, over the tremendous benefit to public safety. If we would just do this simple thing, we could get the virus under control so much faster and we wouldn't have to have these cycles of re-opening and re-lockdown because of huge surges of new cases. If you're upset about the virus causing lockdowns, you should be jumping at the chance to wear a mask because it will allow us to stay open without all these lockdown measures continuing to need to be enforced. The stubborn refusal makes no sense to me.

It's really simple. The mask is to protect other people. It prevents a large portion your breath particles, especially those released in coughs/sneezes/etc, from drifting through the air. If everyone had one, there would be a tiny fraction of the amount of virus floating around in breath clouds. It's not being asked to be done because it prevents much in the way of you catching it from someone else's cough, it prevents you from creating such a cloud if virus should you have it and not realize yet either because you're asymptomatic or because you aren't feeling sick yet. If we didn't have some substantial percentage of people not doing this, there wouldn't be much danger in happening to breathe it in. And thus, much o the problem is solved, and we can go on with our lives without all this disruption. It's common sense.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Yeah, this is precisely why I support mandatory masks in public. It's such an easy thing to do, people act like one day it's being forced to wear cloth over your face during a pandemic, and the next day we're communist China and have no Constitution. It's such a small imposition on personal freedom as to be negligible and the upside benefit to public health is huge. Honestly I can't really see it as other than being selfish to prioritize your own hang-up about not feeling like a sheep or some shit for wearing a mask, over the tremendous benefit to public safety. If we would just do this simple thing, we could get the virus under control so much faster and we wouldn't have to have these cycles of re-opening and re-lockdown because of huge surges of new cases. If you're upset about the virus causing lockdowns, you should be jumping at the chance to wear a mask because it will allow us to stay open without all these lockdown measures continuing to need to be enforced. The stubborn refusal makes no sense to me.

It's really simple. The mask is to protect other people. It prevents a large portion your breath particles, especially those released in coughs/sneezes/etc, from drifting through the air. If everyone had one, there would be a tiny fraction of the amount of virus floating around in breath clouds. It's not being asked to be done because it prevents much in the way of you catching it from someone else's cough, it prevents you from creating such a cloud if virus should you have it and not realize yet either because you're asymptomatic or because you aren't feeling sick yet. If we didn't have some substantial percentage of people not doing this, there wouldn't be much danger in happening to breathe it in. And thus, much o the problem is solved, and we can go on with our lives without all this disruption. It's common sense.

Masks are not going to allow California to stay open. Either not enough people wearing them, or they aren't a bullet proof viral shield. Probably the latter.

Your Mask Cuts Own Risk by 65 Percent

Scientific evidence is clear: Social distancing and wearing masks help prevent people from spreading COVID-19, and masks also protect those who wear them, two UC Davis Health experts said on UC Davis LIVE: COVID-19. A range of new research on face coverings shows that the risk of infection to...

www.ucdavis.edu

We're going to need stay at home orders, a cure, or a vaccine. This virus is too prolific. It's being transmitted through the air not just person to person as first expected (WHO was wrong).

 

[Xorkoth]

Either not enough people wearing them, or they aren't a bullet proof viral shield

I didn't say they were bullet-proof, I said they're effective enough with universal compliance that it greatly reduces the rate of spreading. Lockdowns happen when the rate is in danger of being out of control. People will still get it, but it will be at a rate that makes it a lot less risky to be out and about, the spread will move slowly enough that locales will not need to issue total lockdowns.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I didn't say they were bullet-proof, I said they're effective enough with universal compliance that it greatly reduces the rate of spreading. Lockdowns happen when the rate is in danger of being out of control. People will still get it, but it will be at a rate that makes it a lot less risky to be out and about, the spread will move slowly enough that locales will not need to issue total lockdowns.

Oh I know man, but people think the mask is like fool proof and are getting too cocky I think. Like it's not perfect, you still will probably get sick. 35% risk is quite bad.

Basic google search says condoms are 80% effective against HIV (I thought the # was higher....?) hence why I say face masks aren't like condoms.

Relative risk is still something to consider.

I'm betting lockdowns happen again, especially because this virus WILL still be here by winter (they STILL haven't delivered on testing as promised which was months ago - they say 1 year for a vaccine so I imagine it taking several is more realistic).

 

[Xorkoth]

Yeah they definitely will, because people are acting like they can go exactly back to normal life with no precautions when they start opening back up. Masks aren't foolproof at all, but if everyone was careful and conscientious we'd be in a much better position and we could all go on, not like normal, but with a new but temporary slightly different, more careful and considerate way

 

[Xorkoth]

They've used a experimental preliminary vaccine developed by Oxford on about 10,000 people, I heard today, and it looks promising as they developed antibodies against the virus. The common cold is actually caused by a wide variety of different viruses, some Rhinoviruses and some Coronaviruses. It's not really a single disease and it mutates rapidly, and is quite mild and not really dangerous, so there is no great benefit to trying to vaccinate. The flu is more dangerous so they develop vaccines every year, in fact every year the vaccine is different as there are many flu strains, so they try to determine which strains will be prevalent each year and tailor the vaccine to each year.

 

[yubacity]

this administration is dysfunctional.

Trump takes swipes at Fauci, CDC as coronavirus cases rise



dr, fauci has a degree in medicine from cornell and has been the director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases for 35 years.

donald trump thinks injecting bleach might be the answer.

if he has a problem with dr. fauci why doesn't he just fire him?

what happened to "the buck stops here"?



alasdair

Dr fauci work in aids has been massive . He is respected in thst field also by his peers . He has served his country I have lots of respect for him

 

[JoEhJoEh]

I don't know where i read this but there was a big survey in the US and i was so shocked because 70 percent of people would vote the Donald again!
Can any American citizen explain that to me?

JJ

 

[Deleted member 521610]

The big issue is that so far that immunity lasts a short time to covid-19 in infected patients and thus we will have to wait a while to see if immunity from a vaccine acutally lasts long enough to be useful. This is what makes covid-19 extremely dangerous even SARS had a long lasting immunity from infection. If covid-19 somehow proves to be totally different and immunity runs out within a month or few months then the world has to try figure out a way and some new science to beat this thing.

 

[Xorkoth]

I don't know where i read this but there was a big survey in the US and i was so shocked because 70 percent of people would vote the Donald again!
Can any American citizen explain that to me?

JJ

I don't know what survey you read but that's not what I'm hearing. Of course you can't really trust the polls, look at 2016. But many people who previously supported him are being soured by how he's been handling the virus.

 

[JoEhJoEh]

i just know it was a trustful newspaper. whether the statistics are right or not - who knows? Just himself.

 

[Deru]

@Captain.Heroin It's been known for quite some time now that SARS-CoV-2 is aerosolized in the air and has a 1 to 3 hour half-life. That was when the topic of masks became increasingly discussed months ago, I wouldn't necessarily say the WHO was wrong, they reported what the information they had at the time.

@The Wizard of the Creek A couple things with the vaccines. The 4 human coronaviruses cause only up to 1/3 of the common human colds never required a vaccine, so money would have never been spent on it. The rhinovirus (different family) causes the majority of the common colds for humans. The vaccine was underway for SARS-CoV and was discontinued because the virus itself disappeared.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I remember that we have never come up with a common cold vaccine (a coronavirus). What other coronavirus vaccines do we have? I’m curious, because if we can’t even vaccinate the cold, I have very little faith that we can vaccinate a novel coronavirus, that we still know relatively nothing about? I dunno, this has the world’s attention, but hasn’t the common cold had the attention of the medical community and the world, for like forever?

Maybe someone smarter than me can answer my concerns, maybe ease my mind? Because I think that all this talk about a vaccine anytime soon is just placating the masses. I absolutely know that the people that be, are not telling us what they are finding out. Am I crazy to think this way? Someone please set me straight!

—Wizard

If you've been paying attention to the vaccine development, yes, yes we can. Russia and China would not be trying to hack for the information if it wasn't so extremely valuable and promising.

Specifically for covid-19 yes we can, it is in the works and already works (but we have to make sure it is safe for old people... eyeroll)

Because if it's not safe for them, then no one gets it and the old people will probably get sick anyway

Someone needs the vaccine and they need to choke it down the FDA's fucking throats if need be.

 

[Deru]

@LandsUnknown Seriously, amazing summary in your post. Spot on analysis and I agree with you 100%.

 

[Deru]

I don't know where i read this but there was a big survey in the US and i was so shocked because 70 percent of people would vote the Donald again!
Can any American citizen explain that to me?

JJ

70 percent of people, define "people" and the date of the survey would be helpful. Things are changing rapidly in politics recently, Trump is losing in all national polls by double digits. I honestly wonder if Trump even wants re-election anymore, his behavior is so bizarre.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Think about HPV. Dozens to nearly 100 different strains.

The "flu" can be tons of them. They go with the most likely/most virulent and they predict this because flu seasons are year round, or in the winter or summer ("our summer is their winter") based on latitude.

I have had the vaccine before, and watched people around me get the flu who were vaccine idiots (scared of needles) while I didn't. I am sure vaccinations work. We'd all face many endemic viruses if it wasn't for vaccines (measles, rubella, smallpox...)

it has already mutated fairly rapidly

yes but that is irrelevant. It is quite similar and the vaccines in development will still be effective according to analysis.

HIV mutates wildly/significantly, hence why there is no vaccine yet.

I’m suppose to believe that we will have a vaccine by the end of the year/ early next year? I don’t know?

We have them now. They are already being produced en masse, in the event they are successful.

Vaccines are NOT normally produced this way; this one is this important. In the event the vaccines are not passed by the FDA they will likely be stockpiled or given to people anyway (i.e. military).

Pray for it to get approved.

It may just take that long to get to you. That doesn't mean they aren't currently making a huge stockpile of it at the rate they are able to.

I get so frustrated with the drip drip release of information

The media does a piss poor job of relating science information, hence why the coronavirus briefings with Trump and pals was so important. Not for the political rants, or business advertisements by CEO's, but because of how the doctors related the information.

Without this, traditional media outlets do a poor job at relating this information. Journalists struggle with a lot of things, science being one.

 

[Deru]

The media does a piss poor job of relating science information, hence why the coronavirus briefings with Trump and pals was so important. Not for the political rants, or business advertisements by CEO's, but because of how the doctors related the information.

Agreed. That's why it's so important to analyze the raw data to form one's own evidence based views, and then at a minimum that will help select what source is providing data accurately, or at least attempting to. The biggest problem I see, is that things change so rapidly as tons of money is speeding the research along, so it's a dangerous line to say an unbiased, accurate source (like Trump is doing with Facui - seriously insane, it only makes Trump look bad lol) is wrong when really the data available changed and they were right at the time. Context is so important here, there's a huge difference between providing accurate information based on the data at the time which changes and providing biased information on purpose to push an agenda. I can't imagine the nightmare these health officials faced (especially early on as data was rapidly changing) with providing data to the public who may not all understand the granular nuances and context involved with complex processes like these. Constantly weighing how to provide accurate information with a fastly moving target, and then constantly being scrutinized for things outside of their control, sounds like a thankless nightmare.

 

[JessFR]

I don't know what survey you read but that's not what I'm hearing. Of course you can't really trust the polls, look at 2016. But many people who previously supported him are being soured by how he's been handling the virus.

You can trust polls (kinda). But they have to be kept in their proper context.

A poll can't tell you what will happen. They can tell you within a certain margin of error what was likely to have happened at the time the poll was taken.

So for a presidential election poll, at best all its telling you is within a certain margin how the majority would vote. As I recall in 2016 it had Hillary winning the popular vote by a slim lead. And technically she did.

Today it has Biden winning by an even larger lead. Which means were the election to be held right now, he'd likely have a significantly larger result in the overall popular vote than trump.

But you gotta take that and work it out on a state by state basis to work out what the electoral college makeup would be, and even then that's still only saying what'd be likely to happen today, for a poll taken today.

My point is, polls get a bad rap. I don't think they're useless though provided they're conducted properly, they just have their limitations and need to be interpreted within those limitations.

But yeah, no poll I've seen is showing that 70% of the country would vote for trump again. I simply don't believe that.

 

[Deru]

But yeah, no poll I've seen is showing that 70% of the country would vote for trump again. I simply don't believe that.

There's no way. It would have to be 70% of x, and x /= United States population, assuming it was a recent poll. It's crazy though, there is a prediction model by some professor right now who doubled down on his prediction Trump will win, and the prediction model I guess has predicted every election accurately (or something crazy like that, with excellent probability.)