Yes.
Yes, including consistency. People are adaptable, not dependable.
Yes. The question is can you function while wearing it 16 hours a day.
Everyone else does to.
You’re probably there with 6’ and hand washing.
Good post, thanks.
1 Like
Careful.
Having antibodies does not equal immune. You have to have enough and they have to win.
The masks are key. Touching stuff less so. There has been no documented cases of folks getting COVID from their groceries or take out food. Just wash your hands when you get home and you should be all set. If you are worried, just leave your groceries alone for 24 hours and the virus is basically dead.
1 Like
We definitely need to do better.
Yeah, nit picking is irritating. I understood his perfect words just fine.
I thought so as well, but newer studies are showing that antibodies are a good thing to have and a consensus seems to be going that false positive tests aside in recovered patients, a positive antibody test seems to infer immunity to future infection.
The assumption being the European strains are 50% more virulent?
Do you believe there were decision-makers who at the time were making pretty accurate estimates of what the economic impact was going to be? Do you see the tension between competing goals?
We don’t understand complexity, I believe because we have had reductionism injected into our DNA. We don’t see the relationships between the segments, we think in segments and believe we can isolate them as individual problems.
Remember also, mitigations can create new hazards and often do.
1 Like
I understand the need to always believe in one’s perfection as well.
I don’t need a study to tell me with few exceptions, antibodies are a good thing to have. I don’t think we’ll know about immunity until the next round, assuming there is one and the virus doesn’t mutate enough to make them ineffective.
That’s the theory.
True that, but bear in mind we look at costs of mitigations but not unintended benefits.
If you count the suicides due to mitigation then you have to count the reduction in traffic deaths, for instance, or murders, or drownings on public beaches.
Detroit got hit hard too by COVID but we were a hub for both Europe and Asia, being more central.
1 Like
Well, it has been measured as to particulate escape through 3 ply masks for Flu, Rhinovirus and COVID. It was highly ineffective for Flu and the Cold but 99 percent effective for COVID. The masks really work well for it, much better than other viruses.
This is another example of what I was talking about. Earlier we were told to wipe down all surfaces, spray packages, etc.
Doctors told us to clean our houses like an operating room.
Not bad advice, even without COVID. Is it sustainable?
I don’t think so. But then again, flattening the curve means the curve will still happen, it just won’t come all at once.
I don’t disagree, although I don’t think “we” look at the costs of mitigations unless it confirms our bias (we were/are opposed to them). Even if we do, we rationalize it away. The epidemiologists are not going to accept accountability for economic suicides resulting from the shut down. And I’m not sure they should. It’s too late now anyway.
Just remember the criticism of those who were warning of it then.
It ends up being a counterfactual:
“If we hadn’t shut it down 2 million would have died!”
We don’t know that because we did shut it down. It’s definitely possible. What is also possible is that because of complexity dependencies, it might not have. It is also possible that shutting it down cost 2.5 million lives. That we will not know.
We all have opinions, none of us can predict the future.
Decision making, especially in the heat of the moment with incomplete information and unruly technology, is extremely difficult.
The decisions were made and now we address the consequences of them. Fixing one problem generally generates another. Complexity interdependence.
Good observation on collateral benefits of mitigations.
2 Likes
That’s the theory. 
You are confusing mitigation with isolation.
Medically compromised people need to evaluate their isolation option.
Everyone else will be back to work…with…MITIGATION.
You are most welcome.
The define mitigation please.
Agreed. Human performance: I haven’t been in a hospital since 1986. How compliant am I going to be in saving the hospital system when I don’t use it, I’m not sick, and my well being is threatened by your demands? A system 1,600 miles away? My hospital system was not under threat.
Now, intellectually I get it. It could happen. Intuitively, you’re killing me to save the hospital system in NYC.
Anything done to reduce the risk, in this case the risk of returning to work.
Hand washing, coughing on the sleeve, distance, mask if you can’t distance.
Test and isolate the symptomatic.
Among others.
2 Likes
