COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[Ygggdrasil]

Maybe it's stable, but 44% is not a lot to begin with. Anyway, not for someone like me who is a true believer in the scientific method. But thanks for the data.

It's important to put that figure into context, however. Scientists are the most trusted group that were included in the poll, far exceeding the levels of trust of other groups such as religious leaders, journalists, business leaders and elected officials:

A 2020 Pew Research Center survey asked respondents about their confidence in certain groups and institutions to act in the best interests of the public. Out of the 10 groups and institutions included in the survey, Americans are most likely to express confidence in medical scientists, scientists and the military.

About nine-in-ten U.S. adults (89%) have either a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in medical scientists to act in the public interest. Large majorities also have at least a fair amount of confidence in scientists (87%) and the military (83%).

By contrast, about half of Americans have not too much or no confidence in journalists or business leaders (52% each) to act in the public interest. Public trust in elected officials also is comparatively low; a majority (62%) say they have little or no confidence in them.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...n-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/

Of course, a major caveat of this poll was that it was conducted in April 2020 (which could very well represent a high point in public trust of science), so attitudes could certainly have changed since then. We may have to wait for survey data from 2021 to see if the pandemic has affected the public's attitudes toward and trust in science and scientists.

 

[Jarvis323]

You'de be quite foolish to have a great deal of trust in any group of people in my opinion.

And regarding science, you should place your trust in science itself, not people who proclaim to be using it.

 

[jack action]

It sells better.

It is not an answer because it leads to the question «Why does it sell better?»

In other words, why people are not satisfied with the message for the dominant scientific opinion? If they trusted this group, would they be spending time and money to hear about less popular opinions, sometimes from more obscure groups? If I take my mechanic example once more, if I find a good one, I don't waste my time shopping around when I get a new car problem: I already have an expert I trust. I certainly don't waste my time asking the shady ones.

 

[russ_watters]

You'de be quite foolish to have a great deal of trust in any group of people in my opinion.

And regarding science, you should place your trust in science itself, not people who proclaim to be using it.

IMO, these views as stated are bleak, unreasonable and for practical purposes unworkable.

For the first; we can't all be experts in everything, nor do we have time or capability to learn or check everything. Trust - a great deal of it - is a requirement to function as a human in society unless one chooses to live in a cave. Our days are filled with activities that require a great deal of trust in a large number of people we've never met and that trust is given without even a first, much less second thought. Even in the dozen(s?) of life or death situations we face daily.

And for the second part: All of the above applies, plus it should be easier to trust people we are aware of than to trust people we aren't.

What's so bad about COVID anti-vax is that we have the necessary information to make rational decisions. It's not fear/lack of trust of the unknown, it's disbelief in the known.

 

[Jarvis323]

IMO, these views as stated are bleak, unreasonable and for practical purposes unworkable.

For the first; we can't all be experts in everything, nor do we have time or capability to learn or check everything. Trust - a great deal of it - is a requirement to function as a human in society unless one chooses to live in a cave. Our days are filled with activities that require a great deal of trust in a large number of people we've never met and that trust is given without even a first, much less second thought. Even in the dozen(s?) of life or death situations we face daily.

And for the second part: All of the above applies, plus it should be easier to trust people we are aware of than to trust people we aren't.

What's so bad about COVID anti-vax is that we have the necessary information to make rational decisions. It's not fear/lack of trust of the unknown, it's disbelief in the known.

So if a prominant scientist told you to jump off of a bridge because you'll be able to fly, would you? Why not?

 

[russ_watters]

So if a prominant scientist told you to jump off of a bridge because you'll be able to fly, would you? Why not?

Seriously? My mom used to say that to me. "If your friends..." Answer: maybe, but it depends on the context.

That's just plain not what this is/is so absurd it's hard to even respond to. How in the heck would I even get into such a conversation? "Hey doc, my knee hurts, what should I do...?"

 

[Jarvis323]

Seriously? My mom used to say that to me. "If your friends..." Answer: maybe, but it depends on the context.

That's just plain not what this is/is so absurd it's hard to even respond to. How in the heck would I even get into such a conversation? "Hey doc, my knee hurts, what should I do...?"

It's not absurd. It's an extreme example of a spectrum of subtly different types of situations. I think you should start there, and move right trying to figure out where you draw the line.

In any case, you've got to do some thinking for yourself and use some judgement. I have a feeling you will trust a scientist, because you think they're using science and scientific results. But you still have to trust the person first. If they tell you to do something ridiculous you will probably not trust them. If they tell you something that sounds plausible you might trust more. You'll want to know whether they have conflicts of interest. You'll want some convincing of some sort. You might get second opinions. If you're able to you might do some literature review of your own.

Maybe it is more likely that a scientist will be able to convince a person to take their advice. But you would be a fool to take it without deciding to trust them on that advice first.

 

[Jarvis323]

And we should not obfuscate the context. Trust in scientific institutions is suffering, but that is not all because trust in science is suffering.

In these crazy times, science has become heavily politicized, and the media is lumping good scientists in with right wing conspiracy theorists, even when they are right, if they go against an official media driven narrative, even when it's blatently wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

It's not absurd. It's an extreme example of a spectrum of subtly different types of situations. I think you should start there, and move right trying to figure out where you draw the line.

But it's not even a response to a medical question I might ask. It's so far off the wall, I don't know how you would handle a basic medical issue. [answered later]

In any case, you've got to do some thinking for yourself and use some judgement. I have a feeling you will trust a scientist, because you think they're using science. But you still have to trust the person first. If they tell you to do something ridiculous you will probably not trust them.

Here's the thing: the anti-vax misinformation is based largely on social media chatter with zero provenance. You and Jack are trying to portray it as strong and healthy skepticism, but it's just not. People ARE being told ridiculous things by people they DON'T know the qualifications of, and in many cases don't actually even exist. This, "how do I know I can trust a scientist?" bit is just not the other side of the coin to that.

I'd kinda like to know how you learn to trust Dr. Faucci or your GP, but really what the issue is, is why are you trusting Russian Facebook crackpot spam?

If they tell you something that sounds plausible you might trust more.

Does "contageous vaccine dna shedding" sound plausible?

You'll want to know whether they have conflicts of interest. You'll want some convincing of some sort. You might get second opinions.

Maybe it is more likely that a scientist will be able to convince a person to take their advice. But you would be a fool to take it without deciding to trust them on that advice first.

That all sounds nice, but:
1. In reality most people don't do that.
2. Second opinion, right. The issue isn't how to trust one doctor over another, it's why are people trusting crackpots over their doctor.

 

[Jarvis323]

But it's not even a response to a medical question I might ask. It's so far off the wall, I don't know how you would handle a basic medical issue. [answered later]

Here's the thing: the anti-vax misinformation is based largely on social media chatter with zero provenance. You and Jack are trying to portray it as strong and healthy skepticism, but it's just not. People ARE being told ridiculous things by people they DON'T know the qualifications of, and in many cases don't actually even exist. This, "how do I know I can trust a scientist?" bit is just not the other side of the coin to that.

I'd kinda like to know how you learn to trust Dr. Faucci or your GP, but really what the issue is, is why are you trusting Russian Facebook crackpot spam?

Does "contageous vaccine dna shedding" sound plausible?

That all sounds nice, but:
1. In reality most people don't do that.
2. Second opinion, right. The issue isn't how to trust one doctor over another, it's why are people trusting crackpots over their doctor.

Ok, I think there is some confusion about what I was saying. I didn't mean to give credence to russian spambots, or anti-vaxers, or anyone. I am just in favor of skepticism in general. Obviously you should be way more skeptical of spammers than scientists.

The primary messenegers on vaccine science are mostly untrustworthy in my opinion. But that in and of itself doesn't mean the science on vaccines is untrustworthy.

Don't forget the FDA has been recently under fire for ignoring science and approving profitable and dangerous drugs that don't seem to work.

So it is kind if hard to blame vaccine skeptics. When the science we are relying on is at least sort of corrupted, the faith you expect everyday people to have in it will suffer.

 

[PeroK]

You'de be quite foolish to have a great deal of trust in any group of people in my opinion.

I generally take people to be honest unless I have a particular reason to be suspicious. In your opinion, I'm a fool. Maybe so. But, nothing bad has ever really happened to me because of my trusting nature.

It doesn't mean I believe everything everyone says, but generally what people tell me turns out to be the truth. That's my experience, in any case.

 

[Jarvis323]

I generally take people to be honest unless I have a particular reason to be suspicious. In your opinion, I'm a fool. Maybe so. But, nothing bad has ever really happened to me because of my trusting nature.

It doesn't mean I believe everything everyone says, but generally what people tell me turns out to be the truth. That's my experience, in any case.

You're fine, but what about collectively (societies that believe what they're told by authoratitative figures without much question)?

It's like voting. Whether you vote or not probably won't make any difference.

 

[PeroK]

You're fine, but what about collectively (societies that believe what they're told by authoratitative figures without much question)?

It's like voting. Whether you vote or not probably won't make any difference.

I find your thought processes seriously hard to follow. I suspect that you are one person I definitely wouldn't trust!

 

[Jarvis323]

I generally take people to be honest unless I have a particular reason to be suspicious. In your opinion, I'm a fool.

If you have a suspicious meter, than you don't have blind trust in people. Maybe your suspicious meter doesn't move a lot and that has worked out for you in your environment. That doesn't make you a fool.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, I think there is some confusion about what I was saying. I didn't mean to give credence to russian spambots, or anti-vaxers, or anyone. I am just in favor of skepticism in general. Obviously you should be way more skeptical of spammers than scientists.

The primary messenegers on vaccine science are mostly untrustworthy in my opinion. But that in and of itself doesn't mean the science on vaccines is untrustworthy.

Don't forget the FDA has been recently under fire for ignoring science and approving profitable and dangerous drugs that don't seem to work.

So it is kind if hard to blame vaccine skeptics. When the science we are relying on is at least sort of corrupted, the faith you expect everyday people to have in it will suffer.

I have a more detailed response but I'm running out of time. My basic question is where is that healthy skepticism with the Covid vaccine? Describe how that healthy skepticism would look. Because all I am seeing is crackpots. This scenario with the Alzheimer's treatment is valid but it doesn't look anything at all like how the skepticism for the Covid vaccine is working.

 

[Vanadium 50]

First, how much distrust in science do you need to stamp out? There are people who believe the Queen of England is a shape-shifting reptilian alien who has to drink human blood to maintain her appearance. Is this a problem?

Next, I think one needs to distinguish trust in science with trust in scientists. Scientists have been saying some nutty things, many of which have been discussed here. Do I really think a mask is needed outdoors on my patio, but not just indoors, separated by a screen? Do I really believe that the health risks of public demonstrations depend on the demonstration's topic?

Finally, there have been scientists behaving badly - at the same time Neil Ferguson was locking down the British economy, he was ignoring it to kanoodle with his mistress. Lockdown for thee, but not for me. That cannot help credibility.

 

[jack action]

You and Jack are trying to portray it as strong and healthy skepticism

I can't speak for @Jarvis323 , but that is not my case. You totally misunderstood my point.

by people they DON'T know the qualifications of

In most cases, they know the qualifications they DON'T have, i.e. they are not associated with the people they don't trust and that is enough for them.

but really what the issue is, is why are you trusting Russian Facebook crackpot spam?

The issue isn't how to trust one doctor over another, it's why are people trusting crackpots over their doctor.

Exactly. What is your answer to these questions? (other than they are idiots or morons)

 

[Jarvis323]

I have a more detailed response but I'm running out of time. My basic question is where is that healthy skepticism with the Covid vaccine? Describe how that healthy skepticism would look. Because all I am seeing is crackpots. This scenario with the Alzheimer's treatment is valid but it doesn't look anything at all like how the skepticism for the Covid vaccine is working.

For me, by default, I am a little skeptical about the veracity of the trials, and findings coming from vaccine manufactures, and also of the messaging coming from health officials and others on the media. There are two conflicts of interest: 1) money (associated with vaccine profits and also with economic impacts of pandemics), and 2) other people will bennefit from you taking the vaccine whether or not it causes you harm.

But having looked at a large number of scientific studies, I've noted that getting Covid is a lot riskier for most people than getting the vaccine.

For some people, who are in the groups that are at higher risk of certain side effects, it's more difficult. Even if getting Covid is still significantly more dangerous for those groups, they could try to avoid getting covid. But Covid is highly infectious and the new variants are even more dangerous.

So I think the science heavily favors vaccination for the majority of people. But I honestly thnk that it takes a bit of reaearch for a person to make an informed decision. I think that, by default, an alternative scenareo where the science had been corrupted and a dangerous vaccine was being pushed, is plausible, and this needs to be ruled out carefully. Sadly I don't know how an individual can reliably rule these kinds of scenareos out without putting in some effort.

 

[WWGD]

As an overview, there seems to have been a global slowdown if we ignore Brasil and Australia. Down to less than 300,000 cases and around 3,000 deaths. Not great, but in the right direction

 

[russ_watters]

It is not an answer because it leads to the question «Why does it sell better?»

It's the Howard Stern Effect. Not only does it appeal to those who are primed toward crackpottery, it also appeals to those who are primed to dislike crackpottery. People react strongly to it either way. That's why I read/watch UFO/perpetual motion stories. Also, in many cases the "false balance" description even under-plays the problem. In many cases what should be science stories are treated as "human interest" stories, where the crackpot is the 90% focus and the 'crotchety, old, closed-minded scientist' only gets a one-liner in the report about how "the inventor" probably didn't, but it isn't impossible he might have discovered a new source of energy/treatment for COVID.

 

[russ_watters]

I generally take people to be honest unless I have a particular reason to be suspicious. In your opinion, I'm a fool. Maybe so. But, nothing bad has ever really happened to me because of my trusting nature.

Yes*, but it's even more specific than that. When you go to a doctor (or mechanic, for that matter), you know at the very least that they are educated and certified to have the expertise you are paying them for. That should at least prime you to start off giving them the benefit of the doubt and trusting them. A facebook post from an unknown source doesn't have that starting credibility.

*Late edit: not yes to being a fool, yes to default trust, if that wasn't clear. And to expand; because of the fact that we have to trust people with our lives (and more mundane things) on a regular basis, the opposite default position (assumed dishonest/lack of trust) would be very problematic to implement in real life. It may even be what causes things like anti-vax crackpottery. If someone is primed to distrust the first position they hear and/or the authoritative one, then they may also be primed to immediately trust the dissenting opinion of crackpots, even though that is a logical contradiction.

 

[russ_watters]

I can't speak for @Jarvis323 , but that is not my case. You totally misunderstood my point.

Then can you clarify/re-state or at least tell me if this alternative is correct?:

You started into this by arguing an extreme version of liberty (personal choice). I am indeed extending that to a next step of assuming you believe that people can be trusted to make "The Right Choice?" if we let them. Are you instead arguing that we should be be giving the choice even if they make "The Wrong Choice"? Or that there's no such thing as Right/Wrong in personal choice? If so, given that we are discussing this issue over 600,000 American deaths alone, I have to self-censor how I feel about that view. The stakes here are really, really, really high.

In most cases, they know the qualifications they DON'T have, i.e. they are not associated with the people they don't trust and that is enough for them.

Again, you seem to be arguing the mirror/opposite of the position you are defending(though there is some vagary in that sentence). Not having 100% trust in Dr. Fauci is fine. But we're talking about why people choose to trust a nameless facebook post instead -- which is not fine, it's dumb. And these people sure don't act like they know they aren't doctors.

Exactly. What is your answer to these questions? (other than they are idiots or morons)

Does there need to be another answer besides the one I already gave? Yes, I said exactly what I believe, and I'll put it in different wording: there's a frighteningly high fraction of people who are behaving like idiots these days. Maybe that fraction isn't unusual, but what is unusual is that a whole lot more people than usual have died because of it.

 

[russ_watters]

First, how much distrust in science do you need to stamp out? There are people who believe the Queen of England is a shape-shifting reptilian alien who has to drink human blood to maintain her appearance. Is this a problem?

I'm not sure, I am not familiar with that belief. How many people have died because of it?

Next, I think one needs to distinguish trust in science with trust in scientists. Scientists have been saying some nutty things, many of which have been discussed here. Do I really think a mask is needed outdoors on my patio, but not just indoors, separated by a screen? Do I really believe that the health risks of public demonstrations depend on the demonstration's topic?

The one part of @jack action 's views I agree with is the part where a lot of the loss of trust in scientists is a result of their views being funneled through politicians. And in some cases, scientific bodies (the WHO) acting like political bodies. And yes, that was a problem that contributed to the distrust and the deaths. But again, skepticism in the WHO's impartiality (for example) should not lead one to accept at face value just anything they see on facebook. As I told Jack, these are complete opposites. Moderate skepticism of The Scientific Authority has somehow caused total acceptance/lack of skepticism of/in obvious crackpottery.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Another data point - I was at the grocery store yesterday and for the first time in weeks, there wasn't a huge scrum of non-socially-distanced people waiting for shots. I asked the pharmacist and she said they were out of vaccine.

Interestingly, they are a Pfizer site, and their corporate overlords can get Moderna, but the State won't let them switch. Each site has one and only one vaccine, and patients must return to the site of their first shot for their second. That's how they ensure nobody gets mixed vaccines.

Maybe more interestingly, they knew this would happen weeks ago. The State's plan was to go full out until they ran out. One day the joint was jamming (or is that jabbing?) and the next day, nothing.

I should have asked - but didn't - is if "out" means "out" or if they have a few doses still on hand for people who missed their second dose window.

 

[russ_watters]

More detailed response I mentioned:

Ok, I think there is some confusion about what I was saying. I didn't mean to give credence to russian spambots, or anti-vaxers, or anyone. I am just in favor of skepticism in general. Obviously you should be way more skeptical of spammers than scientists.

The primary messenegers on vaccine science are mostly untrustworthy in my opinion. But that in and of itself doesn't mean the science on vaccines is untrustworthy.

I'm having trouble unpacking that. It's an incredible statement/claim. Who do you consider the "primary messengers" and on what basis are they untrustworthy? [probable answer below] To me, the key messenger here (for the US) is the FDA. The FDA exists exactly and only to ensure the safety and efficacy of pharma products, and was created in response to literal "snake oil" sales. It's one of the more important and successful government institutions we have.

The FDA is the gatekeeper of the vaccine development/deployment, which is going to go down in history as one of the most important/successful scientific/engineering projects in human history. It's on par with The Great Pyramid or the Apollo Program. Is it perfect? Obviously, no. But "untrustworthy"? That's...[censored] hard to fathom.

Don't forget the FDA has been recently under fire for ignoring science and approving profitable and dangerous drugs that don't seem to work.

So it is kind if hard to blame vaccine skeptics. When the science we are relying on is at least sort of corrupted, the faith you expect everyday people to have in it will suffer.

Yep, the FDA is not perfect, and yep, that's a concerning case. And it hits home for me: my dad is in early stage/entering mid-stage Alzheimer's. So I am in a position where I need to provide guidance on whether he should take that drug or not. I haven't looked into it much yet, but I will. And while I think I am better equipped than average to sort it out, I'm not a doctor. I'll be consulting doctors for advice.

I will not be consulting Russian facebook spambots for their opinion on the issue.

 

[russ_watters]

Another data point - I was at the grocery store yesterday and for the first time in weeks, there wasn't a huge scrum of non-socially-distanced people waiting for shots. I asked the pharmacist and she said they were out of vaccine.

I think your point is that you still believe that lack of supply(properly distributed) may be contributing to the cratering of the vaccination rate. Did you ask the pharmacist if they had a line the last day they had a supply? As I've said before, I find the logic in your view on that thin at best, but the bigger issue is the near total lack of evidence that such an issue exists. But since we're talking in anecdotes, the Walmart in my new favorite town of Russellville, AL(pop 9,800) has appointments available tomorrow morning. I didn't check the other six locations in town that Google says do vaccinations.

Maybe more to the point, statistics on vaccination uptake show that the uptake is lagging in cities, which opposes your hypothesis.
[edit]
More specifically, PA has county-by-county stats:
https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/disease/coronavirus/Vaccine/Pages/Dashboard.aspx

The overall state is 46% fully vaccinated. The worst county is Fulton, with 24% fully vaccinated. (I think these are of total population). Fulton County has a population of 14,500 and an area of 438 square miles. It's close to a rectangle, around 30x15 miles. There are 3 vaccination sites, but they are clustered in one town, near the middle. At worst, a person would need a 20 mile drive to get vaccinated. I couldn't verify availability in the county, but the Rite Aid just outside the county (and still about 25 miles from everywhere in it) has appointments available for tomorrow.

If Fulton were an average PA town, it would swing the state rate by 0.002%.

Unfortunately, Philadelphia's vaccinations were federally run, and the stats don't line up. It has 48% of adults vaccinated vs 56% for the state as a whole as of a week ago. If it had an average rate, it would account for a 1% increase in the state average.

So not only does it not look to me like this sample rural area has an access problem, even if it did it would pale in comparison with the uptake problem in Philly because it is so much smaller.

 

[atyy]

. . . viruses are known to compete in order to be the one that causes an infection.

The team at the Centre for Virus Research in Glasgow used a replica of the lining of our airways, made out of the same types of cells, and infected it with Sars-CoV-2 and rhinovirus, which is one of the most widespread infections in people, and a cause of the common cold.

If rhinovirus and Sars-CoV-2 were released at the same time, only rhinovirus is successful. If rhinovirus had a 24-hour head start then Sars-CoV-2 does not get a look in. And even when Sars-CoV-2 had 24-hours to get started, rhinovirus boots it out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56483445

_______________________________________________________

- so, the unprecedented social distancing might have disabled the natural "vaccine" (the rhinovirus) - thus creating this unprecedented pandemic??

Probably not. We saw what in Wuhan, Italy and New York City what sorts of things might happen without the safe distancing. The rhinovirus is not a vaccine. While being infected by rhinovirus might temporarily prevent infection by SARS-CoV-2, one could still be infected by SARS-CoV-2 after the rhinovirus infection has passed, which would likely still have all the age-dependent risk.

 

[Rive]

- so, the unprecedented social distancing might have disabled the natural "vaccine" (the rhinovirus) - thus creating this unprecedented pandemic??

Immunity against rhinovirus also exist, so only part (few percent, at most) of the population is 'protected' by this cold at any given time. The rest still susceptible to covid.
Also, once you are done with the rhino, you are vulnerable to Covid again.

So this won't work. Maybe it can be discussed as a temporary 'fight fire with fire' type first aid, but I think in general sense it's more interesting than useful.

Also, once you are done with the rhino, you are vulnerable to Covid again.

On second thought, I'm not sure. The immune system kind of expected to react to both viruses.
Maybe.

 

[atyy]

Another article about what @AlexCaledin mentioned : https://theconversation.com/the-common-cold-might-protect-you-from-coronavirus-heres-how-158461

Here's the paper.
https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiab147/6179975
Human Rhinovirus Infection Blocks Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Replication Within the Respiratory Epithelium: Implications for COVID-19 Epidemiology
Kieran Dee, Daniel M Goldfarb, Joanne Haney, Julien A R Amat, Vanessa Herder, Meredith Stewart, Agnieszka M Szemiel, Marc Baguelin, Pablo R Murcia
The Journal of Infectious Diseases, jiab147, https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiab147

 

[Astronuc]

Houston Methodist has performed eight double lung transplants on COVID-19 patients, and has several more patients who are on life support awaiting transplant, Huang said.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/texas...9-vaccine-speaks-undergoing/story?id=78321152

Houston Methodist continues to see patients with severe illness from COVID-19, many of whom have not been vaccinated, Huang said. It's difficult to say for sure, but Huang believes that had Garza gotten the vaccine when he was able to, "it's likely that we would have never gotten to this point."

For Garza, he's sharing his story in hopes of helping prevent others from experiencing what we went through.

"If I knew what I know now," he said, "I would have definitely went through with the vaccination."

That's somewhat like saying one shouldn't have driven so fast after losing control and wrecking one's car. One in theory knows not to drive so fast as to lose control and wreck one's car, but one does anyway.