Jump to content

Covid II: Medical Info and Implications


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Thinking said:

I am recovering from Covid-19. I had a lot of muscle aches, lost my sense of smell (which is now returning), had chills, minimal fever, and generally felt weak and miserable for about 7 days. My wife, brother (he visits regularly), daughter (& family), and son all tested positive within a few days of each other. One of us brought it home and it spread to everybody. This thing is aggressive.

It's nasty stuff.  I don't want to get it, for sure, nor would I wish it even on my worst enemy.  I'm glad you are recovering.  Best wishes. :) 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

My former neighbor as a child and family friend posted this and said how ridiculous it is. And this will be how it is when Biden is in charge. I think the people in the article got off easy! It's more than just a large family gathering. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-shut-off-water-power-houses-hosting-large-parties-gatherings/?fbclid=IwAR3h3_tQK3FXrLiIoGT-EmXjTacyB8fbF8EDJM9aE0_ZmRsj5P6ZxY0mVIY

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My former neighbor as a child and family friend posted this and said how ridiculous it is. And this will be how it is when Biden is in charge. I think the people in the article got off easy! It's more than just a large family gathering. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-shut-off-water-power-houses-hosting-large-parties-gatherings/?fbclid=IwAR3h3_tQK3FXrLiIoGT-EmXjTacyB8fbF8EDJM9aE0_ZmRsj5P6ZxY0mVIY

Unlikely. Presidential power is limited in this respect unless there is all-out martial law. Governors and mayors....different story.

Link to post

April 1:   https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2020-03/cdc-an-about-face-on-face-masks/

I love the last sentence,

Quote

"As to the efficacy of masks, Weese anticipates what may well come to be the new official CDC view: “They’re not really designed to protect you. They’re more for the protection of people around you.”"

And sure enough....

From the CDC website at the time:  

Quote

“If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask).”

We did need to wear one. But the real reason for saying we didn't was....

Quote

 “Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers.” 

One has NOTHING to do with the other. We did need to wear a facemask. Unless you are seriously going to claim that the CDC did not know that facemasks were needed "(ie., "worked), you aren't going to prevail on this. 

Quote

 

The CDC said last month it doesn’t recommend people use face masks, making the announcement on the same day that first case of person-to-person transmission of coronavirus was reported in the U.S. The CDC recommendation on masks stands, a spokesman told MarketWatch Wednesday, even with the first reported case of a COVID-19 infection in an individual in California who had not been to China or been exposed to a person diagnosed with the virus.  

“The virus is not spreading in the general community,” Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the Center for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said in a Jan. 30 briefing. “We don’t routinely recommend the use of face masks by the public to prevent respiratory illness. And we certainly are not recommending that at this time for this new virus.”  https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30

 

Again, you are parsing words. Why?  I don't know what in the world you think "we don't recommend"  means to the average person. They later followed that with masks do not protect (yup, that means "works") the wearer. Before they said they do. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

By mid January all the N-95 masks were gone from all the Home Depot and Lowe's stores between San Diego and Redlands, Ca. We use them frequently in our construction and demolition work. 

Edited by rodheadlee
  • Like 1
Link to post
32 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The lie was in the implications. They told people not to wear them unless they were sick. The science of masks and viruses has not changed since January. 

You lost me.  It is an irrational accusation.  Asking people to wear masks when they are sick is to imply that they work to reduce transmission for crying out loud!  From day 1 they also asked us to wear them if we are around or caring for anyone that is sick.  Again, implying that they work!  Are you considering the reasons they asked the general public not to wear them?  No!  Did they ever say it is because they don't reduce risk of transmission?  No!  Their reasons are very clear, reasonable, and specific.  No misleading implications that I can see anywhere.    

Its time to stop with the reckless and harmful and baseless accusations.  We need to be much more careful with how we throw around such consequential accusations.   They have power to influence the public and we are just shooting ourselves in the foot by doing so.   Provide a CFR that they lied or retract.  Your mind reading skills as to their intent to imply something they never once said doesn't count as a CFR. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

That was the recommendation at the time (for very good reason), correct.  

Where is the lie?  Where did they say they "don't work" to reduce transmission?

Oh for heaven's sake. They had to say those exact two words?? You are going to hang your hat on that?  

From Bsjkki's link:

Quote

Time’s subsequent report, “Can Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus? Experts Say That Depends,” repeated this information. The article was subsequently removed on April 3, replaced with an editor’s note saying that a “previous version of this article was based on expert guidance at the time of publication, but as the COVID-19 pandemic has grown in the U.S. in recent weeks, public health thinking around wearing face masks has changed” and citing updated CDC guidance. A number of other news outlets similarly removed their reporting of the CDC’s original guidance with the release of the new recommendations.

We were told for two months masks weren't needed so I disagree with the first sentence.  The follow up about them being needed for health care always followed that, it was not the reason.  

Quote

The end result has been a public told for two months not to wear masks, not because they don’t work but because those masks were needed for health care workers. For a public saturated with this “don’t wear” messaging from news outlets and fact checkers, it is not surprising that there has been resistance to current mandatory mask orders. The episode reinforces the critical need for officials to consider the impact of contradictory public health messaging, and reminds us of the limitations of fact-checking sites during a crisis when so much is unknown and guidance changes often.

Pogi, CFR that they ever said (before April) that masks will protect you from this deadly virus but don't wear them. You can't. Because their original advice was they weren't needed. And they wouldn't provide protection (work)  because masks would (1) give people a false sense of security, (2) it would cause more spread because it causes more touching of the face, etc. (sources have been given in above links.) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
22 minutes ago, juliann said:

"As to the efficacy of masks, Weese anticipates what may well come to be the new official CDC view: “They’re not really designed to protect you. They’re more for the protection of people around you.”"

Wait a second here!  You are taking a quote from a guy that doesn't work for the CDC in "anticipation" of what he things might become the CDC position as proof that the CDC lied???  This is getting ridiculous and desperate.

25 minutes ago, juliann said:

“If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask).”

In other words, THEY WORK!  Where did they say they "don't work"???  That is your claim.  Provide the CFR for a quote that they lied by saying they "don't work" or retract.  They said this in Feb when there were 13 reported cases in the who frigging US of A.  Give me a break!  Of course the general public didn't need to wear a mask at the time.  It wasn't indicated.  That would be a completely unprecedented recommendation in the history of infectious disease.  It is unreasonable.  You are twisting the crap out of this.

29 minutes ago, juliann said:

One has NOTHING to do with the other. We did need to wear a facemask. Unless you are seriously going to claim that the CDC did not know that facemasks were needed "(ie., "worked), you aren't going to prevail on this. 

I am seriously claiming that at the time, there was no indication that it was needed in the general public.  When has the CDC ever recommended face masks for the entire population for transmission of any disease with limited community spread?  They had no idea what was coming.

32 minutes ago, juliann said:

Again, you are parsing words. Why?  I don't know what in the world you think "we don't recommend"  means to the average person. They later followed that with masks do not protect (yup, that means "works") the wearer. Before they said they do. 

It means exactly what it says.  "We don't CURRENTLY recommend".  Those are their exact words from day 1.  Why would they recommend them when there are 13 cases and people are hording them and putting front-line workers at risk.  Think about it.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, juliann said:

Pogi, CFR that they ever said (before April) that masks will protect you from this deadly virus but don't wear them. 

Maybe you aren't reading anything I have posted.  I have already answered this multiple times.  From day 1 they said that they are only indicated for those who are sick or those who are in the same room as a sick person or caring for a sick person.  In other words, it they were explicit that they believed it reduced transmission both ways.  It is called PPE.  Personal protective equipment for crying out loud.   The efficacy of the general public wearing cloth masks for self protection was unclear, however.   Masks have always been primarily recommended for reduction of transmission by the infected person.  That is their primary purpose.  That position has never changed for probably hundreds of years. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
27 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sake. They had to say those exact two words?? You are going to hang your hat on that?  

Well, you put those 2 words in quote marks...so yes.  I will accept any lie to the effect that they are ineffective at reducing transmission in general however.  I am still waiting. 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Wait a second here!  You are taking a quote from a guy that doesn't work for the CDC in "anticipation" of what he things might become the CDC position as proof that the CDC lied???   

 

Nope. It was an example of what everyone was hearing in nonstop media. Why didn't the CDC correct it? Are you now denying we weren't told that masks don't protect the wearer, we must do it for others? 

Did you skip the part about the CDC's statements being removed from their website and online publications before you demand nonstop documentation?

CFR that they ever said (before April) that masks will protect you from this deadly virus but don't wear them. You can't. Because their original advice was they weren't needed. And they wouldn't provide protection (work)  because masks would (1) give people a false sense of security, (2) it would cause more spread because it causes more touching of the face, etc. (sources have been given in above links.) 

Link to post
44 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

By mid January all the N-95 masks were gone from all the Home Depot and Lowe's stores between San Diego and Redlands, Ca. We use them frequently in our construction and demolition work. 

Exactly!

Why in the world would the CDC suggest to the public in February that they are not "currently" recommended for the general public but that they are recommended only for those who are sick or who is caring for someone who is?  They must be implying that they don't work, right?  There could be no other possible explanation, right?  Liars! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 11/24/2020 at 11:48 AM, bsjkki said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258?fbclid=IwAR2ThVW8heoWpjCJNALqNZOklRcDarS9csetteKE_jpT8U0l3-SH6IeJDHg

Early use on an outpatient basis helped keep people out of hospitals. Isn't that the goal? (Yes it "was a retrospective case series study in the general practice setting. A total of 141 COVID-19 patients with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the year 2020 were included.")

"One patient (0.7%) in the treatment group died versus 13 patients (3.4%) in the untreated group (OR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.03–1.5; P = 0.12). No cardiac side effects were observed. Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset using triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low-dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly fewer hospitalisations.

Just like the flu, early treatments to keep people out of hospitals should be pursued vigorously. Especially, in high risk patients.

I think there may be a special place in Hell for those involved in the all out blitz to discredit this treatment and to destroy the careers of doctors promoting it, all because they hate the President.  Stopping potentially live saving treatment over fear of a president being right is, frankly, evil.  My sister's mother-in-law's life was saved by this treatment.  At the time she was given the treatment, she was relentlessly mocked by the haters for even trying it.

Edited by T-Shirt
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
20 minutes ago, juliann said:

Nope. It was an example of what everyone was hearing in nonstop media. Why didn't the CDC correct it? 

It is not a direct quote from the CDC.  Where did they lie?  

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

Did you skip the part about the CDC's statements being removed from their website and online publications before you demand nonstop documentation?

What, you mean this:

“Can Face Masks Prevent Coronavirus? Experts Say That Depends,”

"It depends" is very different from saying they don't work.  That is in fact true.  It does depend on lots of factors.  

Surely if it was being spread nonstop by the media, you could find one single example or quote of them saying they don't work to reduce transmission. 

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

CFR that they ever said (before April) that masks will protect you from this deadly virus but don't wear them. You can't. Because their original advice was they weren't needed. And they wouldn't provide protection (work)  because masks would (1) give people a false sense of security, (2) it would cause more spread because it causes more touching of the face, etc. (sources have been given in above links.) 

Why do you keep posting this.  I answered the CFR.

Edited by pogi
Link to post

Early on we were repeatedly told by the media that masks do not protect the wearer.  There was no effort on the part of the WHO or the CDC to correct those reports.  I distinctly remember, in one of his press briefings, at the time this information was beginning to change, the president told people to consider wearing a mask or using a scarf, bandana or pulling your shirt up over your face.  The president was trashed in the media over this announcement because, of course, he couldn't be trusted.

Edited by T-Shirt
  • Like 1
Link to post
15 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Early on we were repeatedly told by the media that masks do not protect the wearer.  There was no effort on the part of the WHO or the CDC to correct those reports.  I distinctly remember, in one of his press briefings, at the time this information was beginning to change, the president told people to consider wearing a mask or using a scarf, bandana or pulling your shirt up over your face.  The president was trashed in the media over this announcement because, of course, he couldn't be trusted.

The CDC has always maintained, and still do, that mask wearing is primarily to reduce transmission by those who are sick.  When the CDC first started recommending masks to the public, they were recommending cloth masks to save other more effective masks for medical workers.  There was not enough data to suggest that they were effective at protecting the wearer from small particles.  They did know that they would block large particles however.  This was most effective if the sick person was wearing it because they can transmit droplets all over the place and on surfaces etc.  Those droplets would then get on peoples hands etc. which could be touched by someone who rubs there eyes or touches, then eats their food, etc.  They knew cloth masks would reduce some transmission if worn properly by the contagious person, they didn't know how effective they would be at protecting the wearer though.  As you can see from this thread, there are still some who contest that evidence - which seems ironic actually.  On one hand they claim that fabric masks don't work, AND they claim that the CDC was lying because they knew that they did.  Face palm!   

In regard to the scarf comment by the President.  He was following the CDC, in part, but also going off the cuff.  The CDC recommended scarfs etc. as a last resort, but that they are unproven.  What got Trump into deep water was his suggestion that "In many cases the scarf is better; it's thicker. I mean you can -- depending on the material, it's thicker," the President said."

Beyond that he was also taken apart by the media for making the recommendation for the public and suggesting that he won't wear one.

Facts First: Though he was addressing what citizens should do, Trump's claim that scarves can work better than masks is not supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guidance to health care workers. While scarves may offer some protection, the CDC's advice describes scarves as a possible last resort if masks are not available.

Quote

 

There is no evidence to support the claim that scarves are better than face masks in protecting against coronavirus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists homemade face protection, such as bandannas and scarves, as a last resort for health care workers who might be exposed to the disease when proper protection is in short supply.

But the agency specifies that those cloth substitutes cannot be classified as personal protective equipment because “their capability to protect [health care providers] is unknown.” The CDC recommends using additional face guards if health care workers must resort to using bandannas, scarves and other substitutes.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

My former neighbor as a child and family friend posted this and said how ridiculous it is. And this will be how it is when Biden is in charge. I think the people in the article got off easy! It's more than just a large family gathering. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-shut-off-water-power-houses-hosting-large-parties-gatherings/?fbclid=IwAR3h3_tQK3FXrLiIoGT-EmXjTacyB8fbF8EDJM9aE0_ZmRsj5P6ZxY0mVIY

Hmmm.  I only skimmed the article momentarily, but what does President-Elect Biden have to do with it?

Link to post
1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

I think there may be a special place in Hell for those involved in the all out blitz to discredit this treatment and to destroy the careers of doctors promoting it, all because they hate the President.  Stopping potentially live saving treatment over fear of a president being right is, frankly, evil.  My sister's mother-in-law's life was saved by this treatment.  At the time she was given the treatment, she was relentlessly mocked by the haters for even trying it.

I agree that it would be evil for the reasons you mention.  I don't think most doctors and health organizations discredited the drug because they hate the president.  They discredited it based on the evidence at the time.  He was recommending it as a prophylaxis.   He was crediting it as a miracle drug based on one preliminary study. They discredited it based on lack of evidence and potential long known risks associated with the drug.   They discredited based on study after study after study after study after study which showed it wasn't effective.  The study that bsjkki just posted is literally brand new (it is not recommending it for prophylaxis by the way).  We will have to wait and see what the medical community thinks of it as they weigh it against the dozens and dozens of other studies.  

Just curious, how can you be certain that you MIL was saved by this treatment? 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Just curious, how can you be certain that you MIL was saved by this treatment? 

How do we ever know for sure if a therapy brings about a cure?  In her case, I can't know with 100% certainty.  However, she is 80, extremely overweight, diabetic and several other problems.  She was admitted to the ICU with breathing problems.  They were about an hour away from a ventilator.  They gave her the treatment and not only did she not need the ventilator, but was sent home the next day without symptoms.  If it wasn't the treatment, then it was a miracle brought on by many prayers, which I don't discount, but other than this, they did not give her anything else.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
33 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that it would be evil for the reasons you mention.  I don't think most doctors and health organizations discredited the drug because they hate the president.  They discredited it based on the evidence at the time.  He was recommending it as a prophylaxis.   He was crediting it as a miracle drug based on one preliminary study. They discredited it based on lack of evidence and potential long known risks associated with the drug.   They discredited based on study after study after study after study after study which showed it wasn't effective.  The study that bsjkki just posted is literally brand new (it is not recommending it for prophylaxis by the way).  We will have to wait and see what the medical community thinks of it as they weigh it against the dozens and dozens of other studies.  

Just curious, how can you be certain that you MIL was saved by this treatment? 

There are multiple studies that I have posted that have showed it helps people especially when given early. Most studies showing it does not help were done with critically ill patients or with only one of the three drugs.

The combination of all three seems most helpful when given early.

Also, the side effects have been proven to be very rare. Most drugs have side effects. This drug has been around a very long time and is given out frequently and even to pregnant women. Of course a health history should be evaluated. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
16 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

How do we ever know for sure if a therapy brings about a cure?  In her case, I can't know with 100% certainty.  However, she is 80, extremely overweight, diabetic and several other problems.  She was admitted to the ICU with breathing problems.  They were about an hour away from a ventilator.  They gave her the treatment and not only did she not need the ventilator, but was sent home the next day without symptoms.  If it wasn't the treatment, then it was a miracle brought on by many prayers, which I don't discount, but other than this, they did not give her anything else.

I am glad to hear about her miraculous turnaround.  
 

The way we assess if a medicine is effective or not is through large scale studies and statistical analysis vs placebo.    Quite frequently people seem to miraculously recover with a placebo.  One anecdotal case is not enough to know if it was the drug, placebo, or something else.  The one thing we are highly confident about though is that the drug is not effective that late in treatment.  That has been demonstrated over and over again.  There is some evidence that it may be more effective in very early treatment, as this new study suggests.  I would suggest it was either placebo something else that got her through.  I agree that it would be hard to not believe it was the drug that cured her though with those results. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

There are multiple studies that I have posted that have showed it helps people especially when given early. Most studies showing it does not help were done with critically ill patients or with only one of the three drugs.

The combination of all three seems most helpful when given early.

Also, the side effects have been proven to be very rare. Most drugs have side effects. This drug has been around a very long time and is given out frequently and even to pregnant women. Of course a health history should be evaluated. 

I actually just said the same thing.  
Yes, it is an old drug.  I have been prescribing it for years for malaria prevention before it hit the spot light.  It is a great drug for malaria in nonresistant areas.  The side effects are well known and very serious.  We ALWAYS educated about them before prescribing and assessed for risk factors.  Quite often I could not prescribe it due to increased risks and would have to prescribe malarone or doxy instead.  I am concerned that it has received a bad rap and people aren’t going to trust it when I try to prescribe it for malaria anymore.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 11/23/2020 at 9:23 PM, pogi said:

A Utah study shows that mask mandates are effective at reducing cases AND boosting the economy.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50054593/saving-lives-and-saving-livelihoods-statewide-mask-mandates-help-boost-the-economy-new-utah-study-finds

The study claims decrease but september through todays data shows increases.

Data from September to present shows increases in cases in nearly every State, including States with State wide mask mandates. 

 

On one of the researchers website, is map of the US with each showing a graph of cases, the graph line in most of the States (to include mask madate States) go up almost vertical or seemingly upward trend.

B71B3601-7AFC-4E93-AD5D-C1B1C236C4D5.jpeg

 

graph is from http://nathanseegert.com/corona.

Edited by provoman
Link to post

Can we just agree the leadership and media approach to masks were poorly done and leave it as that as it comes across to me as disagreement is more making assumptions about leaders’ intent in most cases?  It seems to me that depending on what sources one was listening to and what ones ignored, very different impressions could be created of what was being said by the experts and leaders. 
 

When I (I wasn’t reading much media and was never watching or listening to it save for the EDH report and the occasional link posted here, but did read the scientific and medical reports the EDH provided as well as links here and others shared on FB) went back and read my earliest old posts on the subject, they are in line with what Pogi is saying except I was also emphasizing what I saw being emphasized by the medical people and the scientists, which was the concern for surface contact transmission.
 

They were publishing more on how long the virus lives on different types of surfaces, etc.  That concern was much higher originally which meant covid was feared to be often spread through touching a contaminated surface and then touching your mask before washing hands properly and getting it on your face and masks, where the virus could much more easily enter the body either being breathed in off a contaminated mask or touching one’s mouth, nose or eyes.  And there was some concern that with what was then thought as the common route of transmission of surface contact, wearing a mask might have a possibility of driving up infection if one touched it more as well as if it gave an inappropriate sense of safety (I posted a crowded Asian airport where everyone was wearing masks, but little social distancing as a possible problem).
 

And since at the time they were thinking it spread easily through surface contact, this emphasis made sense. I remember several videos that dealt with this, including a couple using fluorescent powder to test how often we might touch our faces even when trying not to.  Also several medical professional published videos on how to properly wear a mask.  
 

And it was and is a valid concern that masks might be seen as enough and social distancing ignored, but it appears to me more of both are either used or ignored, rather than one being used as justification not to do more in general. 
 

——-

If they were from the very beginning telling people to diligently wash their hands, there is an obvious concern about transmission and this was happening very early on.  One would expect the same level of pushing to wear masks and social distance.   I can’t remember exactly when social distancing became as popular as surface cleaning...it may have occurred at the same time.  Social distancing is a no resource cost effort for most people in a casual format (just don’t stand or walk closer than 3-6 feet from someone), so that falls into the easy to do for the average American in their daily routines....though it got much more complicated when it moved into limiting how many in a store at a time or size of meetings.  Still there is an aspect of easy with that just as there is with hand washing. Two pretty brainless activities, easy fixes that people could do.  Though it may have been difficult to find soap for awhile. 
 

Hand sanitizer comes closer to masks because it requires something most of us don’t carry around with us and it wasn’t stocked in every bathroom, public or private like soap is.  There was a crucial lack of it at times even in medical settings (my doctors’ clinic got cases stolen and had to scramble to get enough to cover).  There were even counterfeits online (some Amazon reviews described some disgusting stuff).  There were many complaints about employers not providing it for workers.  So there was the big issue of availability it shared with masks.  
 

But hand sanitizers have been used for years, maybe decades in many places like medical facilities, schools, and stores, so there was no need for instruction on how it worked. The only significant controversy was its availability, imo.  It was a bit of a hassle, but for most to use not a discomfort or inconvenience.

Wearing masks otoh is something new to our culture and has connotations some find distasteful.  Plus they are not that comfortable in most cases, especially if tight enough to work well.   

The newness is going to create confusion and controversy as happens when science impacts culture with the intent to change.  And the discomfort causes reluctance to do it just as all the other good no brainer medical advice over the years to do at least some exercise and not eat huge portions gets ignored by so many. 
 

So it’s a basic uphill battle from the beginning...and since there is a significant cost both promoting cultural change and ensuring those who need PPE in their work and for care of the ill, I would have been shocked if there weren’t some major panics along the way and messed up communications.  The sheer amount of miscommunication was astonishing, but that had a huge political element in our country. I would love to see studies of what happened in countries that used their medical experts more effectively and at least in regards to masks, there wasn’t opposition at higher levels or media and instead there was a pretty solid front.  Given internet access, I would be interested to see if conspiracies popular in the states have found footholds elsewhere and if there are antivaxxers and other groups that are resisting masks because they believe they interfere with the body’s natural processes, etc. 
 

A systematic educational process by spokespeople and media would have been helpful imo, but not remove all problems. I haven’t studied other countries’ mask educational process that closely, but in lots of countries where wearing masks outside medical environments was unknown, there has been a lot of blowback and ignoring of government policies even when it appears not to be tied to a political issue. So I don’t think our problems with lack of mask compliance are primarily due to screwups with education and instruction on when and how to wear them. Instead it is as much, if not more imo a preexistent cultural distaste for them and discomfort due to inexperience (seatbelts when you think about them are often uncomfortable but we don’t usually think about that or resist wearing them once we are used to the feelings and they just blend into the background with other annoyances).   
 

I think the screwups are being used to a great extent to rationalize the choice not to wear them.  We want to feel okay about our decision not to wear them because we don’t like the feel and need a strong excuse to counter the promotion of wearing them saves the lives of your family and friends. 
 

It is however very understandable to me that people are frustrated and even angry at the number of mistakes, unintentional and intentional, that have been done. Mistakes were going to be made due to ignorance and inexperience, but what could have been present to help people deal with that reality—-reassurance that while a fact of life, people were working together to keep mistakes as low as possible—was unfortunately absent to a great extent in our public dialogue from what I have seen.
 

And imo this had inflated the sense of things going wrong and led to greater distrust and anger...which leads to more miscommunications and misunderstandings which leads to more mistakes and feeds the cycle.  Hopefully something will break it soon, perhaps if the vaccines are effective and distribution relatively smooth, a more positive, hopeful aura will replace the one of distrust, etc. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...