MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:53 am
wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:41 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 10:14 am
wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 10:11 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:47 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 6:28 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 6:25 pm
Yes, there are "hypotheticals and strawmen" arguments that are certainly less than ironclad, lockdown certain. But there are degrees of plausibility that can and should be ascertained about such arguments to differentiate between them, as they are often the best that can be done when making decisions, choices of paths of action.
We can, for instance, differentiate between the claims that were made (and still being made) that there was massive fraud in the 4 states, obscuring that Trump actually won, and the position that there wasn't. The claim was implausible on its face, and became more so as various tests of the claims were brought to the courts, to Republican judges, Governors, Sec of State, etc, with recounts...continued to refute such claims. The more we knew, the more implausible the claims became. Yet persist.
So, too, the arguments about the impact of Trump's choices with virus management. He made a series of choices whereas other leaders/countries made different choices and as time went on evidence has grown. If I've understood you correctly, you think there could be confounding variables unaccounted for that explain the differences in outcomes that aren't attributable to any of those decisions made by the leaders? That
could be true, but IMO are becoming as likely as that Hugo Chavez meddled in the US 2020 election...
To be clear, I think that when there's a degree of uncertainty (as is almost always the case when predicting), it's important to stay agile in responding to new information, to test and learn fast, and adapt. That requires being open to the possibility of confounding variables and unintended consequences.
But it doesn't mean an inability to take action informed by the most plausible scenarios.
your points on their face are what anyone would agree upon, generally speaking.
what's been tossed around here to generate the discussion, however, is pure cherry picking, hindsight and speculation. with huge confounding errors not small ones, contradictory outcomes omitted, and a massive absence of data crunching. so, "here's what i think." not much more than that. i will defend your right to say it all day long.
And I yours.
I dunno, most of the discussion on here is just that, spitballing by non-experts, putting together lines of argument in as logical and well defended way as we can each muster. Some bother to cite experts and put some weight on such expertise, whereas others have a tough time conceiving that anyone could actually know more than they do.
Personally, I find I learn some things I wouldn't necessarily have considered through those discussions and I don't have any problem with moderating my view as a result.
On this one, after all the back and forth, I don't have any trouble with a position that Trump's choices have cost (many) tens of thousands of lives that any modern predecessor POTUS would have very likely avoided.
i don't either. when that moves to false certainty and a refutation of other's opinions and possible other outcomes, that's when i either tune out or might have something to point out. scientific and political leaders are flailing to keep up with ever changing info. and that is not surprising.
Precision is more debatable, but directionally I find refutation of that position darn implausible.
to each his own. for sure, if the focus was covid deaths, lockdowns (stay at home) and fear have been maybe the strongest correlator to rT directionally moving south for a time. imo. you can't hardly get it if you don't mingle with anyone. would have to be enforced, of course, and then the length of doing that runs into debate in some circles. we'll see what 2021 brings, i'm long individual vaxx effectiveness and short adoption of them right now.
hmmm, well let's just say that I, like the public health officials, find distancing and masking in some combination with rigor to be a more compelling path to better outcomes than a 'let'er rip' process. Lots and lots of evidence that doing so, even better if coupled with lots of testing and tracing rigor, reduces spread.
Balancing that out with the need to do various activities is not an exact science, certainly, but my own view is that we can do most activities while also doing the above, if we're careful to do so...but it needs to be widely done, not half assed.
and that's where the leadership comes in...persuading people to be conscious of the risks not simply to themselves but to others and resourcing the capabilities to do so, whether PPE or testing and tracing or financial support for those impacted by a reduction in economic activities...all requires leadership.
Trying to get precise about differential impact is far more problematic, but directionally, I just don't see the confounding variables, ignored data, etc that would refute that view.
I tend to agree re your long and short, though I'm currently a bit more optimistic about what the right sort of leadership can do to increase public adoption. We've already seen a big jump in public polling on this, fingers crossed that there won't be a lot of negative reactions that discourage that trend.
lot to unpack here. some i agree with, some not.
let me start with one piece:
why did your niece(?) and her fiancee take a ride to the airport with your nephew?
They considered each other in their 'bubble', but in retrospect were horrified that they'd put parents and grandparents at risk. The niece and fiance could have driven and parked or taken an uber. Would likely have been masked in an uber or plexiglass separation.
If your point is that there's risk in almost anything, I quite agree...it's all about reducing aggregated risk of transmission. You obviously know that, so I feel like I could sound pedantic...
or were you driving at something else?
ok, thanks. shaved a few posts in the quotes and moved over to the coronavirus thread. sorry, have been tied up couldn't get back until now.
there has actually been quite a lot of confounding variables and contradictory evidence that marks results all over the globe and intra-nationally on various mitigation strategies in my view. i've been trying to make heads or tails of it for a long time, and i'm sure others whose job it is to do that are doing it full-time.
behavior and how we're packaging messaging might explain that. that partly or largely comes from what can be seen as bad messaging and leadership, as you note. some bad messaging includes "don't worry about it, do what you want". i wouldn't argue that could be in fact very bad.
what could be just as or more damaging, while altruistic, is messaging that also is contributing here partly or largely and may be being completely fumbled.
tld threw it out there, the going line -- "when you can't social distance, wear a mask". while well intentioned, i firmly believe that as much as anything may have led us to --- not social distancing. whether that means:
-some folks that think a mask isn't going to work in a one-on-one situation that well anyway so no sd is necessary
-or a mask will protect them if they get within 6 feet of people, so go ahead and get into those situations
what's the result? a whole lot more people not social distancing and going into situations that they otherwise wouldn't. by the 10s of millions daily. maybe by the 100s of millions or billions in contacts daily. that's a lot.
here is how i make a decision about going somewhere:
would i go there if no one was wearing masks, and would i go there if i was not wearing a mask (in the hypothetical). i make that decision first, and then i wear a mask as appropriate (indoors, and when i'll be within a short distance of anyone outdoors).
what are we doing as a country? we decide to go somewhere or do things based on the opposite -- whether most or all people are wearing masks, and/or whether i can go ahead and not social distance, or take other precautions as long as i have my mask.
the messaging "when you can't social distance, wear a mask" is translated in the u.s.a as -- "i'll just wear a mask in this situation". and "socially distancing is not of primary importance."
and that reverberates every day with headlines - "masks", somewhere down the list - social distance and wash your hands. my hypothesis right now in trying to make heads or tails of our performance around social distancing and masks is as we have shouted from the rooftops on "masks", we have gotten the message backwards. and that may very well be not only neutering our results, but quite possibly damaging them.
in 
