Covid cases, hospitalizations, death trends and other touchy subjects…

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

A follow up to the above on the conservative case for reaching the hesitant:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/how-to-reach-the-vaccine-skeptics-a-booster-shot-of-ideas/

1) "Misinformation isn’t the main problem. It may be a problem, but it’s not the most important one. A great deal of vax skepticism is simply rooted in a lack of fear of COVID. Or a fear of what we can’t yet know about the vaccines. Long before Big Pharma even asked for emergency-approval authorizations, a substantial portion of the adult population of the United States had decided that the risks COVID posed to people under 50 were being vastly overstated to justify the intrusive public-health restrictions on our lives. And they determined then to resist it at every turn. For many of them, this includes resistance to the vaccine.”

In addition to moral reasoning / foundations, personality, risk tolerance and Meyers-Briggs can play into these biases and attitudes.

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For you and others, how does this advise compare to the admonition to have no more than one pair of earrings or not to get tattoos?

I would suggest that there is almost no comparison, except in that they are both counsel from our leaders and that it is not enforced (like 99% of all counsel). 

In just under 2 years, the counsel on masks has been repeated many times by many leaders on every level, consistently and emphatically in fulfilment of the second great commandment.  The church has published videos on it, news releases which are updated almost weekly with mask guidelines, and the church has joined in inter-faith pleas for all to wear masks.  We have actively donated masks to other countries and areas of risk, which emphasizes our stance and how we feel about it.  I don't see that same level of activity, energy, comment, or concern over 1 pair of earrings...ever.  

The other difference is in why we are asked to obey each admonition - 

With piercings, it is in relation to the doctrine that our bodies are a temple and that we should respect and not defile our bodies through harming or disfiguring them in any way.  It is mostly of personal consequence and is a personal decision between you and the Lord. 

With masks, on the other hand, it is not just a personal matter between you and the Lord, but our decision to obey or not has potentially significant and even life threatening consequence which reach far beyond ourselves as a single vector in a potentially enormous chain of infection beyond us.  That is why Elder Renlund placed wearing a mask with the second great commandment.   The counsel to not have more than one earing does not come quite to the same level of consequence or hierarchy of law. 

This is what the church has said about piercings:

Quote

 

Those who choose to disregard this counsel show a lack of respect for themselves and for God. 

 

I think the same can be said for masks, except we can add that it also shows a lack of respect for our neighbor (which is why Elder Renlund placed it in the second great commandment).

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I think the messaging is precisely what is intended: to allow all Church members the ability to decide what they want to and are going to do in this matter. The statements are targeted to people like you so you can point to it as coming from the Church, but the willful and intentional refusal/failure to enforce them at all speaks volumes, to me and many, many others. 

I think the messaging is intended to encourage all members to wear masks, reflecting the general assessment of our prophets. It is typical to frame our messages as "invitations to act" with "testimony" and "promised blessings". Such messaging doesn't employ enforcement because that is reserved for the treatment of ordinances. I believe the messaging shows that the Church leaders relate to all kinds and levels of intelligence among the members: those who gladly receive it and those who choose not to are treated with love.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For you and others, how does this advice compare to the admonition to have no more than one pair of earrings or not to get tattoos?

I see it generally on the same plane, having nothing to do with the ordinances. The difference I see is that earrings and tattoos have more to do with our attitude about  our bodies, while masks also address, to a much greater extent, our attitude toward others.

Edited August 11, 2021 by CV75

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

But, I don't want vaccines I really don't think I need. Doctors get really scornful that our kids refuse Gardasil, too. For us, it's really an "ala carte" risk/benefit analysis. 

With every single one of my patients I always do a risk/benefit analysis with them.  It is part of the medical ethic and Hippocratic oath to "first, do no harm".  In other words, if a person is more likely to have harm from a vaccine than from a disease, we should not recommend the vaccine.   And in case you are wondering, yes, there are many times I have not recommended a vaccine despite some risk from disease in the area after completing a risk/benefit analysis. 

After doing a risk/benefit assessment, I skipped a couple vaccines for my children that are required for school, such as Hep A for example.  I simply don't understand that requirement to be quite honest for reasons I wont get into here.  So, I agree with your approach to vaccination.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

3) “Most vaccine skepticism, if by that we mean reluctance, is not based on conspiracy theorizing — it’s based on risk-benefit calculations . . . The older you are and the denser your community, the more likely you are to be vaccinated. The younger you are, and the more rural your community, the less likely you are to have gotten it. This reflects the real facts about the risk of death from COVID. People may be wildly overestimating their risk from the vaccine and underestimating their risks from COVID — but they have the directional thinking correct. Those who are in less danger, act like it.” [rongo: this nails it, to me. It's much more risk/benefit calculus than conspiracy theorizing, for the "silent majority" of the hesitant. The loud, vocal ones stand out, but the bulk of this demographic just quietly doesn't think the situation demands what is being demanded, in their experience].

If I had a chance to sit down with each vaccine skeptic and map through their detailed risk-benefit calculations and the reasoning behind it, I would guess that in 99% of cases, they haven't really given much honest critical attention to their calculations.  I think most just go on a "gut feeling" without much if any evidence to support it. 

It is fairly simple to do a risk/benefit analysis.  I guarantee that most vaccine skeptics don't go through the trouble to answer these questions honestly:

The ultimate question is, which is more likely to cause harm, the vaccine or the disease?  To assess that question further we have to break it down -

How infectious is this disease?

How severe is the disease in each age group?

What are the rates of Long-Covid in my age group?

What are the transmission rates in my community (how likely am I to get infected)? 

What is the hospital situation like in my area?  Are ICU's full and staff burnt out - in other words if I get really sick with COVID, what are my chances of getting adequate/good care?

On the other hand:

What are the known risks from vaccination?

What are the rates of severe adverse reactions from vaccine in my age group?

What are the more mild and moderate adverse reactions?  How long do they last?

What are the estimated risks of protentional unknown and/or unseen long-term side effects of vaccination?  Has any vaccine ever caused adverse reactions (mild or severe) which show up years after vaccination?  Is there any evidence for that at all?

Do I have any allergies to any of the contents of the vaccine?

Am I pregnant?

Do I have any immunocompromising conditions?

What is the scientific and medical consensus on safety concerns with the vaccine?

What does my religion say about the vaccine? 

What are the economic risk/benefits?  What is the cost of vaccine?  What is the health care cost and burden on society from COVID care?  Which is more likely to increase health care costs all around - the vaccine or the disease?

What are the indirect costs of vaccine vs disease?

Will the vaccine cause others to need to isolation/quarantine - missed work or school, vs the disease etc. etc. 

I think the answers to most of these questions have substantial data behind them to find reliable information and sources for answers.  

The quote above says this:

Quote

The younger you are, and the more rural your community, the less likely you are to have gotten it. This reflects the real facts about the risk of death from COVID

Does anyone else see how this is not a fair and balanced assessment of risk of vaccine vs risk of disease?

Lets look at Texas right now.  bsjkki just posted a study on the other thread which shows that nearly 70% of Texans have immunity from COVID, either from vaccine or through natural infection.  That means that only 30% of the population is likely to be susceptible to severe infection/death.   Vaccine rates in the most susceptible age groups in Texas will be much, much higher than 70% even.  So, with such a low risk for severe disease, we wouldn't expect to see much going on in the hospitals, right?  And if the vaccine was more dangerous than the disease, we would expect to see more people in the hospital for vaccine reactions, right?  Not quite.  In Texas, the hospitals are maxing out and overflowing with young people who are statistically lower risk for severe disease than older people.  They feel that because they are at lower risk, they are safe.  The problem is that they are comparing themselves to older people, when they should be comparing risk in their age group to risk of adverse reaction from vaccine. 

I think the biggest issues facing most vaccine skeptics is 1) trust in the medical community.  2) unreliable data sources, or 3) They haven't really given it an honest and thorough risk vs benefit analysis. I agree that conspiracy theories are a smaller percentage. 

Edited August 11, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

I would also like to add that most of these risk/benefit analysis are entirely selfish in nature - how will my decisions affect me?

When we add in the variable of how our decisions might affect other people to the equation, it my skew our decision one way or the other.  I think Elder Renlund has made it clear that we need to factor in the variable of other people in the risk/benefit analysis.

Edited August 11, 2021 by pogi

[CV75]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think the biggest issues facing most vaccine skeptics is 1) trust in the medical community.  2) unreliable data sources, or 3) They haven't really given it an honest and thorough risk vs benefit analysis. I agree that conspiracy theories are a smaller percentage. 

We can apply this to the issues over messaging from the Brethren as follows: 1) trust in the Brethren for matters outside the priesthood keys; 2) the lack of mention of revelation; 3) lack of resonance with the social rationale (citizenship, crisis, health and general welfare, common purpose, etc. combined with their level of doctrinal understanding and spiritual development, especially with regards to end-time calamities).

Have you found an "everyman" / "dummies" risk-benefit analysis? I think that might be effective for some who are hesitant.

[Tacenda]

History has totally repeated itself, very interesting article comparing the two. People were against mask wearing and even protested back then. And the number of deaths are nearly the same. https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/mask-resistance-during-a-pandemic-isnt-new-1918-many-americans-were-slackers

[Tacenda]

History has totally repeated itself, very interesting article comparing the two. People were against mask wearing and even protested back then. And the number of deaths are nearly the same. https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/mask-resistance-during-a-pandemic-isnt-new-1918-many-americans-were-slackers

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

History has totally repeated itself...

So has your post 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

History has totally repeated itself, very interesting article comparing the two. People were against mask wearing and even protested back then. And the number of deaths are nearly the same. https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/mask-resistance-during-a-pandemic-isnt-new-1918-many-americans-were-slackers

Unfortunately we are still in the middle of the Covid pandemic, it would seem, so final number of deaths may well exceed the pandemic of 1918

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Unfortunately we are still in the middle of the Covid pandemic, it would seem, so final number of deaths may well exceed the pandemic of 1918

If we are only talking about the US, I think that is a foregone conclusion, unfortunately.

It is estimated that around 675,000 people died in the US during the 1918 flu pandemic.

We are currently at 618,000 COVID deaths in the US, at the beginning of a sharp upward trend...

Edited August 11, 2021 by pogi

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

If we are only talking about the US, I think that is a foregone conclusion, unfortunately.

It is estimated that around 675,000 people died in the US during the 1918 flu pandemic.

We are currently at 618,000 COVID deaths in the US, at the beginning of a sharp upward trend...

Any comparison of 1918 flu deaths with covid deaths needs to take population growth into account in order to be meaningful.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Any comparison of 1918 flu deaths with covid deaths needs to take population growth into account in order to be meaningful.

Very good point. 
 

IF I did the math right, it is1 death in every 153 people in the US, 103 million 

vs

1 death in 535 people, 331 million. 
 

No guarantee I did it right, I think my mind is off to never never for a nap, now to get my body to agree

Edited August 12, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

So has your post 

I see that, what a waste of a post, haha!

[smac97]

Another letter from the First Presidency published today:

Quote

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

We find ourselves fighting a war against the ravages of COVID-19 and its variants, an unrelenting pandemic. We want to do all we can to limit the spread of these viruses. We know that protection from the diseases they cause can only be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population.

To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible. To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective.

We can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders. Please know of our sincere love and great concern for all of God’s children.

The First Presidency

Russell M. Nelson
Dallin H. Oaks
Henry B. Eyring

"To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective."

This endorsement carries a lot of weight with me.

Thanks

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Another letter from the First Presidency published today:

"To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective."

This endorsement carries a lot of weight with me.

Thanks

-Smac

Thanks for posting this.  I just received the email myself and was terribly excited to see this sent out to all members (as far as I can tell), from the First Presidency.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I just received the email myself and was terribly excited to see this sent out to all members (as far as I can tell), from the First Presidency.

It’s in my inbox too. 

[provoman]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thanks for posting this.  I just received the email myself and was terribly excited to see this sent out to all members (as far as I can tell), from the First Presidency.

I am curious how and if the Utah State Legislature will respond, if it will respond. As the Utah State Legislature have prohibited School Districts from requiring masks. So where a "public meeting" (school classroom) does not have social distancing, is the First Presidency urging the wearing of masks?

 

[gurn]

I received the email as well. I'm fine with following the "wise and thoughtful recommendations" of government leaders like Rand Paul. I'm glad the 1st Presidency endorsed him. 😀

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Another letter from the First Presidency published today:

"To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective."

This endorsement carries a lot of weight with me.

Thanks

-Smac

I think we were all super clear where they stood on vaccines with all that they have said.  What has apparently been less clear (if this thread is any indicator) is their recommendation to wear masks in church.  So, I was especially happy to see the First Presidency take the initiative to make it crystal clear where they stand on masks and address this issue for all members, and leave no room for question, or doubt, or ward/stake roulette. 

The First Presidency has raised the modern day brazen serpent of masks and vaccines.  

I hope that this makes a difference and that members will heed and obey their counsel.  I believe it will reduce suffering if we obey.  I know that there are some members that will hold out, but I believe my ward, at least, will mostly return to masking again (as it once was). 

Quote

To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible. 

I was also very happy to hear them try and garner trust and support for the medical community.  In terms of masks and vaccines, we should trust medical and scientific consensus.  That is what I hear.  That is what they support in this letter.  

Quote

We can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders.

 

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, gurn said:

I received the email as well. I'm fine with following the "wise and thoughtful recommendations" of government leaders like Rand Paul. I'm glad the 1st Presidency endorsed him. 😀

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, provoman said:

I am curious how and if the Utah State Legislature will respond, if it will respond. As the Utah State Legislature have prohibited School Districts from requiring masks. So where a "public meeting" (school classroom) does not have social distancing, is the First Presidency urging the wearing of masks?

 

The letter is not a mandate.  There is nothing the legislature can do. 

But on that note, in case people are not aware.  My boss, Angela Dunn has initiated a mandate for masks in Salt Lake County Schools.  As I have noted earlier, it will be futile with this legislature, as it requires their approval.   Who knows, maybe this letter will influence some of their decisions to allow the mandate.  That would be epic!

Edited August 12, 2021 by pogi

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

So, I was especially happy to see the First Presidency take the initiative to make it crystal clear where they stand on masks and address this issue for all members, and leave no room for question, or doubt, or ward/stake roulette. 

But it is not clear. It is left to local leadership to follow the guidance of the local government.  Local Government are showing how much of a "roulette" it is.  I do not see the letter as being clear on mask use. 

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by provoman

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, provoman said:

But it is not clear. It is left to local leadership to follow the guidance of the local government.  Local Government are showing how much of a "roulette" it is.  I do not see the letter as a mask mandate. 

Maybe we are reading different letters.  It leaves nothing up to local leaders or governments.  It is a general recommendation for all members to wear masks in public meetings when social distancing is not possible.  Period.  That is not dependent upon government mandate or lack thereof.  That is not dependent on the personal opinion of local leaders regarding masks.  It urges all members to wear them.   

It is now up to you to decide if you will heed and obey their counsel (that has nothing to do with your local leaders or government).  It is a personal decision. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by pogi