Jump to content

Why Did It Take So Long to Accept the Facts About Covid?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 98 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

From an article in the New York Times, it appears virus transmission is much easier than first accepted:

A few sentences have shaken a century of science.

A week ago, more than a year after the World Health Organization declared that we face a pandemic, a page on its website titled “Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19): How Is It Transmitted?” got a seemingly small update.

The agency’s response to that question had been that “current evidence suggests that the main way the virus spreads is by respiratory droplets” — which are expelled from the mouth and quickly fall to the ground — “among people who are in close contact with each other.”

The revised response still emphasizes transmission in close contact but now says it may be via aerosols — smaller respiratory particles that can float — as well as droplets. It also adds a reason the virus can also be transmitted “in poorly ventilated and/or crowded indoor settings,” saying this is because “aerosols remain suspended in the air or travel farther than 1 meter.”

The change didn’t get a lot of attention. There was no news conference, no big announcement.

Then, on Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also updated its guidance on Covid-19, clearly saying that inhalation of these smaller particles is a key way the virus is transmitted, even at close range, and put it on top of its list of how the disease spreads.

 

To see this misunderstanding in action, look at what’s still happening throughout the world. In India, where hospitals have run out of supplemental oxygen and people are dying in the streets, money is being spent on fleets of drones to spray anti-coronavirus disinfectant in outdoor spaces. Parks, beaches and outdoor areas keep getting closed around the world. This year and last, organizers canceled outdoor events for the National Cherry Blossom Festival in Washington, D.C. Cambodian customs officials advised spraying disinfectant outside vehicles imported from India. The examples are many.

Meanwhile, many countries allowed their indoor workplaces to open but with inadequate aerosol protections. There was no attention to ventilation, installing air filters as necessary or even opening windows when possible, more to having people just distancing three or six feet, sometimes not requiring masks beyond that distance, or spending money on hard plastic barriers, which may be useless at best. (Just this week, President Biden visited a school where students were sitting behind plastic shields.)

This occurred throughout the world in the past year. The United States has been a bit better, but the C.D.C. did not really accept aerosol transmission until October, though still relegating it to a secondary role until its change on Friday, which put the risk infection from inhaling these tiny particles first on its list of means of transmission.

The scientific wrangling, resistance and controversy that prevented a change in guidance stem from a century of mistaken assumptions whose roots go back to the origins of germ theory of disease in the 19th century.

====================================================================================================================================================

I am so glad to be living in an era where Official health agencies update their recommendations within a century of what unofficial, common sense sources have been pointing out since the days of Ignaz Semmelweis.

ps-if the NYT article is hidden behind a subscription wall, simply copy/paste the url in an incognito tab.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

*sigh*

 

You ask, "Why Did It Take So Long to [Accept the Facts About Covid]?"

 

New day; insert any issue needing a fix anywhere on Planet X.

 

A. Because many people have a tendency to not treat other people well.  And get away with it ad nauseam.  Then go home to their private islands.

B. Because many people don't listen, they only insist its their way or the highway. Then go home to their private islands and think not what they just did to the rest of the world, or the deadly impact their last action may have had on anyone.

C. Because many people once they get even a little tiny bit of virtual-control over a space, their 15 minutes or 140 pages of fame then follows. Then go home to their private islands and think not what they just did to the rest of the world, or the deadly impact their last action may have had on anyone. Their tact is primarily to drown out any opposing opinion, regardless of data proving otherwise or new information coming to light. They storm capitols and steal others' property and then entertain us in tweets complaining they were arrested.

D. The world is a collective group of industries competing for favors and resources.  

E. All of the above.

 

Otherwise, the question, "Why is it that so little gets fixed (and the public keeps falling for it and the rhetoric)?"  

 

 

Edited by Kyrie Deka
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They weren't initially facts, and it's interesting to note that the respiratory droplets idea was one that was proven to be patently false back in the great London Cholera epidemics of the 1840-60s, when the idea of a miasma spreading the disease was finally put to rest by some dedicated research. I suspect the memory of that coloured some thinking when it was once again proposed that droplets were responsible for the spread.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea.  WHO suggested not wear masks but keep social distancing..Keep mask for healthcare workers, later they said mask must be mandatory..

But same organization also said China doing great job to keep it under control. So.. its up to you what to believe :P

My theory? It is a alien invasion preparation! Next wave big space ship attack!

a56.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WHO updated its scientific brief in July to say that airborne transmission of the new coronavirus appears to be possible. Citing three studies of infections in a gym, a choir practice, and a restaurant, WHO stated, "short-range aerosol transmission, particularly in specific indoor locations, such as crowded and inadequately ventilated spaces over a prolonged period of time with infected persons, cannot be ruled out."

Though there may be a chance of the novel coronavirus wafting in ambient air, it's not unsafe to open a window or go outside. Airborne viruses are more likely to spread in rooms with poor ventilation than they are outdoors, so allowing air to circulate in your home can actually help prevent the spread of disease. Plus, getting fresh air and exercise is important for staying mentally and physically well in stressful situations.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I am so glad to be living in an era where Official health agencies update their recommendations within a century of what unofficial, common sense sources have been pointing out since the days of Ignaz Semmelweis.

It's not common sense to say a disease always transmits primarily through airborne particles because some diseases transmit primarily through liquid droplets while others transmit primarily through airborne particles.

The only argument you have is whether WHO discovered the truth fast enough or used appropriate methods to determine which route Covid infection took.

I would not necessarily trust the opinion of the doctor you cited in the NYT even though I agree with some of her points. I more trust these top-notch researchers with an article published in a credible, scientific journal who have been pressuring WHO to come out with a statement affirming that airborne transmission is a primary avenue for transmission.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00869-2/fulltext#

Science moves slowly at times, but the process is working as intended. In the discovery of truth researchers challenge the prevailing beliefs and discussions ensue so that recommendations can change if need be.

I caution you not to use this process as a way to diss Science or official sources as you have (by claiming they were lacking in "common sense").
The crux of discovering what is true and what might need to change rests in determining what constitutes a credible source when challenging mainstream beliefs.
A rogue physician or so-called 'maverick' (or even a group of them) is not a credible source -- research, peer-reviewed, and published in a credible Scientific journal is needed in order to challenge prevailing beliefs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Australia and new Zealand were on top of it pretty much from the start. Some other countries were a little slow to get going, but the U.S. had managed to put a very immature person in the White House, and, for quite a long time, he promoted the false idea that covid is no big deal and it will go away soon, so, for way too long, people in the U.S. didn't take it as seriously as they should. That was my view from the other side of the pond.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's not common sense to say a disease always transmits primarily through airborne particles because some diseases transmit primarily through liquid droplets while others transmit primarily through airborne particles.

The only argument you have is whether WHO discovered the truth fast enough or used appropriate methods to determine which route Covid infection took.

I would not necessarily trust the opinion of the doctor you cited in the NYT even though I agree with some of her points. I more trust these top-notch researchers with an article published in a credible, scientific journal who have been pressuring WHO to come out with a statement affirming that airborne transmission is a primary avenue for transmission.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00869-2/fulltext#

Science moves slowly at times, but the process is working as intended. In the discovery of truth researchers challenge the prevailing beliefs and discussions ensue so that recommendations can change if need be.

I caution you not to use this process as a way to diss Science or official sources as you have (by claiming they were lacking in "common sense").
The crux of discovering what is true and what might need to change rests in determining what constitutes a credible source when challenging mainstream beliefs.
A rogue physician or so-called 'maverick' (or even a group of them) is not a credible source -- research, peer-reviewed, and published in a credible Scientific journal is needed in order to challenge prevailing beliefs.

Personally, I think most people didn't differentiate between either type.  The same protocol would be in place for both.  Masks, hand washing, social distancing and we wiped down things that came from outside.  The main difference being to increase ventilation.  With so many people already screaming that lock downs were unfair and dangerous, imagine how much more would have had to have been shuttered until they installed expensive air handling devices that were either out of reach financially for some or impractical.    Instead, they did the next best thing.  Limiting numbers, masks, sanitizing so they could reopen as so many wanted.

Edited by Rowan Amore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:
7 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's not common sense to say a disease always transmits primarily through airborne particles because some diseases transmit primarily through liquid droplets while others transmit primarily through airborne particles.

The only argument you have is whether WHO discovered the truth fast enough or used appropriate methods to determine which route Covid infection took.

I would not necessarily trust the opinion of the doctor you cited in the NYT even though I agree with some of her points. I more trust these top-notch researchers with an article published in a credible, scientific journal who have been pressuring WHO to come out with a statement affirming that airborne transmission is a primary avenue for transmission.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00869-2/fulltext#

Science moves slowly at times, but the process is working as intended. In the discovery of truth researchers challenge the prevailing beliefs and discussions ensue so that recommendations can change if need be.

I caution you not to use this process as a way to diss Science or official sources as you have (by claiming they were lacking in "common sense").
The crux of discovering what is true and what might need to change rests in determining what constitutes a credible source when challenging mainstream beliefs.
A rogue physician or so-called 'maverick' (or even a group of them) is not a credible source -- research, peer-reviewed, and published in a credible Scientific journal is needed in order to challenge prevailing beliefs.

Expand  

Personally, I think most people didn't differentiate between either type.  The same protocol would be in place for both.  Masks, hand washing, social distancing and we wiped down things that came from outside.  The main difference being to increase ventilation.  With so many people already screaming that lock downs were unfair and dangerous, imagine how much more would have had to have been shuttered until they installed expensive air handling devices that were either out of reach financially for some or impractical.    Instead, they did the next best thing.  Limiting numbers, masks, sanitizing so they could reopen as so many wanted.

You may be right...not much difference in how we can respond.

I think I may be more cautious in closed spaces now though (like the post office I had to go into recently to send registered mail).  I'll be avoiding those places like, well, the plague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

The WHO updated its scientific brief in July to say that airborne transmission of the new coronavirus appears to be possible. Citing three studies of infections in a gym, a choir practice, and a restaurant, WHO stated, "short-range aerosol transmission, particularly in specific indoor locations, such as crowded and inadequately ventilated spaces over a prolonged period of time with infected persons, cannot be ruled out."

Compare that with the new guidelines 10 months later after they reviewed the science

“Current evidence suggests that the virus spreads mainly between people who are in close contact with each other, typically within 1 metre (short-range). A person can be infected when aerosols or droplets containing the virus are inhaled or come directly into contact with the eyes, nose, or mouth. The virus can also spread in poorly ventilated and/or crowded indoor settings, where people tend to spend longer periods of time. This is because aerosols remain suspended in the air or travel farther than 1 metre (long-range).”

It still posits it as secondary vector in spite of studies showing it to be the dominant way the virus spreads. The CDC was even slower in updating and puts it more weakly saying it is an uncommon spreading route in spite of plenty of studies showing it is the primary way and the only vector that can account for how fast and infectious the virus has been.

Quote

Personally, I think most people didn't differentiate between either type.  The same protocol would be in place for both.  Masks, hand washing, social distancing and we wiped down things that came from outside.  The main difference being to increase ventilation.  With so many people already screaming that lock downs were unfair and dangerous, imagine how much more would have had to have been shuttered until they installed expensive air handling devices that were either out of reach financially for some or impractical.    Instead, they did the next best thing.  Limiting numbers, masks, sanitizing so they could reopen as so many wanted.

There are a number of differences that result from the different paths of transmission. One, lockdowns would not have or should not have resulted in the banning access to outside spaces as it is interiors where one is most likely to catch it. That explains why there was so few cases resulting from the protests last year and the election rallies. There would have been a much greater onus on commercial buildings and apartments to improve their HVAC filters and air handling systems. Personal and room filtration would have had greater priority instead of "expert" guidance being that they were not that beneficial. Better fitting masks and filtration mediums would have been prioritized to account for an airborne virus rather than just for the bigger droplets. 

Instead the focus was to lock people down in their homes or LTC's resulting in isolation, domestic violence, greater drug and alcohol abuse, separation from friends and extended families etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, the whole reason the space Nazis on the moon who resurrected Literally Hitler and took over the planet manufactured the virus was to microchip you! You know how they always wanted to see our papers, now our papers are bluetooth and 5G!

They manipulated this whole thing to control us! Don't talk to me about facts!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's not common sense to say a disease always transmits primarily through airborne particles because some diseases transmit primarily through liquid droplets while others transmit primarily through airborne particles.

The only argument you have is whether WHO discovered the truth fast enough or used appropriate methods to determine which route Covid infection took.

I would not necessarily trust the opinion of the doctor you cited in the NYT even though I agree with some of her points. I more trust these top-notch researchers with an article published in a credible, scientific journal who have been pressuring WHO to come out with a statement affirming that airborne transmission is a primary avenue for transmission.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00869-2/fulltext#

Science moves slowly at times, but the process is working as intended. In the discovery of truth researchers challenge the prevailing beliefs and discussions ensue so that recommendations can change if need be.

I caution you not to use this process as a way to diss Science or official sources as you have (by claiming they were lacking in "common sense").
The crux of discovering what is true and what might need to change rests in determining what constitutes a credible source when challenging mainstream beliefs.
A rogue physician or so-called 'maverick' (or even a group of them) is not a credible source -- research, peer-reviewed, and published in a credible Scientific journal is needed in order to challenge prevailing beliefs.

Well maybe you can link me to the ones that only spread by droplets. @Profaitchikenz Haiku already pointed out the droplet theory was debunked a 150+ years ago. Wasn't even that the science was that slow but that the WHO and CDC were slow to update their guidance to reflect the science. 

I'm not dissing science per se, just your version of the science. Semmelweis did the science and discovered how to not kill so many mothers and their babies, but it was the mainstream doctors with their ego's and political agendas that refused to accept it. Not much has changed has it? The difference is that now we know even the patients accepted the mainstreams guidance through their own ignorance and those who put their trust in that wrong guidance and refused to question whether it was correct. 

If mainstream science is that close minded then perhaps we need to challenge it with Planck's Principle that posits Science only progresses at the funerals of the old guard. We pay for that close mindedness with our lives.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really not seeing the point of this thread.  The study you cited was done in June of last year so it's not really news nor does it change much of anything we've all been doing already.  Masks weren't readily available to non-medical people for quite some time at the beginning.  Once they were, most people wore them.  Aside from installing a whole house air filtration system, which I can't afford, lessening my risk by following already in place guidelines was what I did.  

How does the NYT article change what people did or are doing?  Aside from avoiding poorly ventilated indoor areas, which I did anyway, the guideline are the same.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine "There was a murder in New York today so we are going to incarcerate everyone in New York until the facts are established and never mind that the consequences of that will be far greater than the cause"

Even once everyone accepted covid was deadly millions refused to temporarily give up some freedom for the greater good .

World leaders should have admitted they don't know and begged citizens for their help instead of pushing rules to rebel against . "if you won't do it for your country or yourself do it for your mother , your friends' grandmother , a neighbours unborn child , you have the power to save a life you can be a hero by doing nothing at all"

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@cunomar

The problem with that is that the degree of self-centredness in the world's human population ranges from zero to total. There are people who are not self-centered at all, and there are people who are totally self-centered. Most people are varying degrees in between those two extremes. Regardless of what the world leaders did, some people will suit themselves, according to their level of self-centredness. We have seen it all the way through the pandemic, and we are still seeing it.

World leaders can't make people do things. People will do what they (we) want to do. Many, perhaps most, accept and abide by the rules, knowing that it's for the good of all. Others do what they want to do, whatever the rules are.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well maybe you can link me to the ones that only spread by droplets. @Profaitchikenz Haiku already pointed out the droplet theory was debunked a 150+ years ago. Wasn't even that the science was that slow but that the WHO and CDC were slow to update their guidance to reflect the science. 

 

I never said, nor did WHO say, that Covid ONLY spreads through droplets. The issue has been what percentage spreads via droplets vs what percentage spreads through airborne transmission, and they revised their position to increase the percentage of airborne transmission.
However there are many viruses that are not viewed as airborne (like the many Hepatitis viruses as well as some respiratory ones), or at the very least they haven't discovered airborne transmission.

From reading the opinion of some other scientists it does appear WHO was slow in updating their guidance. But it's also true it's a much more difficult problem to solve than some realize, and I do wonder how conclusive the 'new' science is (have yet to read what they believe proves it's more airborne).

Why airborne transmission hasn't been conclusive in case of COVID-19? An atmospheric science perspective: 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33940729/

12 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I'm not dissing science per se, just your version of the science. Semmelweis did the science and discovered how to not kill so many mothers and their babies, but it was the mainstream doctors with their ego's and political agendas that refused to accept it. Not much has changed has it? The difference is that now we know even the patients accepted the mainstreams guidance through their own ignorance and those who put their trust in that wrong guidance and refused to question whether it was correct. 

If mainstream science is that close minded then perhaps we need to challenge it with Planck's Principle that posits Science only progresses at the funerals of the old guard. We pay for that close mindedness with our lives.

I'm not happy with how all people, scientists included, develop attachments to their theories for various egotistical reasons and have difficulty letting go and accepting new knowledge. This is why I'm such a proponent of meditation (it teaches one to let go of being attached to whatever one identifies with, including pet theories and the need to feel 'right').
However, I accept the ego as part of the human condition, and that it influences the way in which Science progresses, and so I seldom rant about it.
I look at the progress Science has made and accept that the path is not perfect and that we get 'stuck' along the way -- the important thing is that there is a way forward and we come closer to truth over time. This is what is special about Science -- the accumulated knowledge over time as many minds can work on a problem together and revise when necessary.

Hindsight is 20/20, armchair analysis abounds from people who have little knowledge yet think they know it all, and mistakes are made. I just can't trash the whole endeavor as you frequently do though, even though 100,000 deaths from medical mistakes occur in the U.S. each year. I keep the perspective that if I worked in the medical field there's nothing preventing me from being one of those 100,000 who killed someone accidentally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

I'm really not seeing the point of this thread.  The study you cited was done in June of last year so it's not really news nor does it change much of anything we've all been doing already.  Masks weren't readily available to non-medical people for quite some time at the beginning.  Once they were, most people wore them.  Aside from installing a whole house air filtration system, which I can't afford, lessening my risk by following already in place guidelines was what I did.  

How does the NYT article change what people did or are doing?  Aside from avoiding poorly ventilated indoor areas, which I did anyway, the guideline are the same.

You mentioned in past that your state doesn't do much in the way of lockdowns so entirely possible it may not have much bearing on you personally, especially if you live in a single family dwelling that you don't leave often. Outside of installing an Hepa filter in one's furnace or air conditioner, and being aware of the ramifications if another family member was to come down with the virus, not much else would change,  but for many people the focus on airborne transmission would help with the realization that the infected person is not only a potential danger when they are within a 6 foot range, but also after they leave the room they were breathing in for up to a couple hours later. In fact according to this study from back in 2006, the infected air can travel a long way from the original room and have the capacity to infect people who were not even in the room or on the same floor even.

Abstract

Recent investigations into the March 2003 outbreak of SARS in Hong Kong have concluded that environmental factors played an important role in the transmission of the disease. These studies have focused on a particular outbreak event, the rapid spread of SARS throughout Amoy Gardens, a large, private apartment complex. They have demonstrated that, unlike a typical viral outbreak that is spread through person-to-person contact, the SARS virus in this case was spread primarily through the air. High concentrations of viral aerosols in building plumbing were drawn into apartment bathrooms through floor drains. The initial exposures occurred in these bathrooms. The virus-laden air was then transported by prevailing winds to adjacent buildings at Amoy Gardens, where additional exposures occurred. This article reviews the results of the investigations and provides recommendations for maintenance and other measures that building owners can take to help prevent environmental transmission of SARS and other flulike viruses in their buildings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this more recent study, there is a long list of places where the covid virus in infectious quantities was found in spite of no infected person being nearby. Up to now, most people think the danger is when within a social distance of someone else who has it, but these studies point out that it goes beyond that. In any case those states, provinces or countries that have lockdowns in place, need to relook at the policies they have in place to better protect people from inadequate ventilation designs both for now and future threats.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

the realization that the infected person is not only a potential danger when they are within a 6 foot range, but also after they leave the room they were breathing in for up to a couple hours later

We knew that as well and why we always wiped down anything we brought in from outside our home. *shrugs*   I guess we just assumed if we were out, we should be extremely cautious of what we touched, didn't touch our faces, sanitized before and after removing our masks, wiped down items brought into the home, restricted access to our home.  

Viruses being transmitted through aerosol droplets is not a new thing.

 

The team recruited volunteers with flulike illness on the University of Maryland's College Park campus and surrounding areas from December 2012 through March 2013. Of the 355 college-age people they tested, 142 were positive for flu. Among those with flu, the researchers obtained nasopharyngeal samples on days 1 through 3 after symptom onset.

To measure transmission, each participant sat in a chamber for 30 minutes with his or her face in a large metal cone, part of a "Gesundheit machine" that captures and measures influenza virus in exhaled breath. Patients were also asked to cough, sneeze, and say the alphabet three times.

Altogether, researchers collected 218 nasopharyngeal samples and 218 breathing sample sessions.

When the team analyzed the samples, they found that a significant number of patients routinely shed infectious virus—not just RNA particles—into particles small enough for airborne transmission. They were surprised to find that 11 (48%) of the 23 fine aerosol samples acquired when patients weren't coughing had detectable viral RNA, and of those 8 contained infectious virus, suggesting that coughing isn't a prerequisite for generating fine aerosol droplets.

In the few sneezes captured by the Gesundheit machine, investigators didn't see greater viral RNA copy numbers in coarse or fine aerosols, hinting that sneezing doesn't make as important a contribution as virus shed through aerosols.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

fun fact, noone knows yet either if the vaccines stop the virus from spreading. with other words, a vaccinated person could have it, gets only a soft cold, infects a non-vaccinated person which then maybe dies ^_^.

anyways the answer to arielle is that humans are selfdestructive. sooner or later throw we atombombs around anyways ... so ... noone gives a ***** about a virus right? xD

its simply impossible to explain a human "hey its like this, you may need to be carefull" its the same with the height in SL. we humans think in SL is 6.5+ft is realistic even tho the average REALISTIC height is is between 5.2ft to 6.2ft. (depending on gender) but try to explain that a human in SL. and thats how it is with this virus, peoples dont think its real until they get affected by it.

i had a friend which went to those demonstrations like every week... until he got infected with the virus and was for 3 weeks in hospital ... his opinion turned by 180° about the virus from like its not true and the gov. just wants to control us to following the rules and trying to not cause this to other peoples. it is really often the case that human kind learns only through experience and that needs time. most humans wont accept the word "theres a virus, you have to follow x rules or you may die" without that they got on their own affected by it

Edited by Denny Farlight
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It would be almost impossible to generalize globally..

My personal theory about the place I live leans heavily on the several generations we’ve spent teaching people to be Individualists as opposed to members of a culture that they owe loyalty to as a group.

When you enshrine “you can’t tell me what to do” as a lifestyle and take it to the hinterlands of Sense; you get a society that can’t agree on much.

”News as Entertainment” also did damage by sensationalizing itselt to the point where it damaged confidence in our journalistic institutions.

*That* impaired their ability to be a positive influence.

*both* those things predate COVID……

*I* don’t want news to be served up to sell advertising space; I want it to inform me *what* happened and not how some commentator feels about it. 

The cynic in me says that Darwin tossed us a relative softball and we still flubbed it because of structural gaps in our society and culture.

It could have been much worse, with all due sympathy to everyone COVID touched. Losing someone to a “less lethal” pandemic does nothing to ease the pain their absence causes.

 

image.gif

Edited by Amanda Crisp
Spells
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Compare that with the new guidelines 10 months later after they reviewed the science

“Current evidence suggests that the virus spreads mainly between people who are in close contact with each other, typically within 1 metre (short-range). A person can be infected when aerosols or droplets containing the virus are inhaled or come directly into contact with the eyes, nose, or mouth. The virus can also spread in poorly ventilated and/or crowded indoor settings, where people tend to spend longer periods of time. This is because aerosols remain suspended in the air or travel farther than 1 metre (long-range).”

It still posits it as secondary vector in spite of studies showing it to be the dominant way the virus spreads. The CDC was even slower in updating and puts it more weakly saying it is an uncommon spreading route in spite of plenty of studies showing it is the primary way and the only vector that can account for how fast and infectious the virus has been.

There are a number of differences that result from the different paths of transmission. One, lockdowns would not have or should not have resulted in the banning access to outside spaces as it is interiors where one is most likely to catch it. That explains why there was so few cases resulting from the protests last year and the election rallies. There would have been a much greater onus on commercial buildings and apartments to improve their HVAC filters and air handling systems. Personal and room filtration would have had greater priority instead of "expert" guidance being that they were not that beneficial. Better fitting masks and filtration mediums would have been prioritized to account for an airborne virus rather than just for the bigger droplets. 

Instead the focus was to lock people down in their homes or LTC's resulting in isolation, domestic violence, greater drug and alcohol abuse, separation from friends and extended families etc. 

 Your point about Aerosols has the exact opposite implication, to what you suggest.

If transmission was purely by droplets and surfaces, the outside congregations would be safer than if you think primary transmission is by aerosol.

You know events like the Rose Garden Party for the nomination to the Supreme Court of Amy Coney Barrett that resulted in at least 48 Whitehouse members of staff and associates being infected, it Illustrates the consequences fairly dramatically !

The answer to your Question "Why Did It Take So Long to Accept the Facts About Covid?" is more directly answered in reference to a culture of misinformation that came directly from your ex-President and from Right Wing News outlets. And not only historically but continue to be peddled.

Consider this report from Media Matters that finds "Fox has undermined coronavirus science in at least 325 segments since January 25. During those segments, Fox pushed at least 547 arguments undermining public health measures, confidence in health officials, vaccine efforts, or coronavirus facts and data"

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-has-undermined-coronavirus-science-least-325-segments-january-25

Edited by Aethelwine
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

 Your point about Aerosols has the exact opposite implication, to what you suggest.

If transmission was purely by droplets and surfaces, the outside congregations would be safer than if you think primary transmission is by aerosol.

You know events like the Rose Garden Party for the nomination to the Supreme Court of Amy Coney Barrett that resulted in at least 48 Whitehouse members of staff and associates being infected, it Illustrates the consequences fairly dramatically !

According to the wiki there were 2 inside parties that were crowded as well an after party in the WhiteHouse.  According to that page, there were 18 that were infected from that event with it spinning off from there. Supposedly lots of hugs and kisses going around so from that perspective they were not sticking to general guidelines. If outside congregations were a big factor, then the blm protests should certainly have produced quite a few more infected from those events.

Quote

 

The answer to your Question "Why Did It Take So Long to Accept the Facts About Covid?" is more directly answered in reference to a culture of misinformation that came directly from your ex-President and from Right Wing News outlets. And not only historically but continue to be peddled.

Consider this report from Media Matters that finds "Fox has undermined coronavirus science in at least 325 segments since January 25. During those segments, Fox pushed at least 547 arguments undermining public health measures, confidence in health officials, vaccine efforts, or coronavirus facts and data"

 

Just sticking to the guidelines set out by the Health agencies and relevant scientific papers as political stuff just gets threads closed, so not going there.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 98 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...