How The Koch Network Hijacked The War On COVID

As Omicron surges, a shadowy institute filled with fringe doctors appears to be part of big business’ two-year strategy to legitimize attacks on pandemic interventions.

https://www.dailyposter.com/how-the-koch-network-hijacked-the-war-on-covid/

2 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Think I’ll just avoid it. 

 

4 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

 

Flame away...

 

Are we really back to "masks don't work?"

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Are we really back to "masks don't work?"

Welcome back. Some of us never left.

13 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

Welcome back. Some of us never left.

 

Yes, we know you've taken up Crazy Town as your permanent residence.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Yes, we know you've taken up Crazy Town as your permanent residence.

Define crazy

Just curious about the whole masking debate. Is the argument centered around whether we should currently be masking or if masks even work at all?

I can understand a debate that revolves around kids, different variants, and types of masks. What I don't understand are these authoritative statements I see people starting to make saying that masks, in general, aren't effective and should have never been used as a measure of virus control. To me, that just doesn't pass the smell test. 

For me, Omicron changed a lot of variables. Forcing people to mask during Delta probably made more sense. But the CDC has to accept the fact that, with this virus, they're going to have to work harder at updating guidelines. I can understand trying to minimize the amount of changes to guidelines to keep things simple and not be accused of sending mixed messages. But they've got to accept that no matter what they do, they're going to be criticized. So they might as well just do honest work and not cave to the outside pressure I'm sure they feel to keep a consistent message. 

4 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Are we really back to "masks don't work?"

The article is about a specific type of use and the cost/benefit analysis and existing science for that specific use. I’ve never left that nuanced type of discussion. It has always been where my thinking has gone and I’ve worn masks and supported mask usage in many scenarios. Masks work for the right situations at the right time for the right purpose. Otherwise no, not so much. 

1 hour ago, mayanh8 said:

Just curious about the whole masking debate. Is the argument centered around whether we should currently be masking or if masks even work at all?

I can understand a debate that revolves around kids, different variants, and types of masks. What I don't understand are these authoritative statements I see people starting to make saying that masks, in general, aren't effective and should have never been used as a measure of virus control. To me, that just doesn't pass the smell test. 

For me, Omicron changed a lot of variables. Forcing people to mask during Delta probably made more sense. But the CDC has to accept the fact that, with this virus, they're going to have to work harder at updating guidelines. I can understand trying to minimize the amount of changes to guidelines to keep things simple and not be accused of sending mixed messages. But they've got to accept that no matter what they do, they're going to be criticized. So they might as well just do honest work and not cave to the outside pressure I'm sure they feel to keep a consistent message. 

This article is about masking in schools and the value of doing that vs. the costs.  It doesn't address masking in general.

Personally, I believe cloth masks are more or less useless when it comes to Omicron.  An N95 certainly still helps though.

7 hours ago, mayanh8 said:

Just curious about the whole masking debate. Is the argument centered around whether we should currently be masking or if masks even work at all?

I can understand a debate that revolves around kids, different variants, and types of masks. What I don't understand are these authoritative statements I see people starting to make saying that masks, in general, aren't effective and should have never been used as a measure of virus control. To me, that just doesn't pass the smell test. 

For me, Omicron changed a lot of variables. Forcing people to mask during Delta probably made more sense. But the CDC has to accept the fact that, with this virus, they're going to have to work harder at updating guidelines. I can understand trying to minimize the amount of changes to guidelines to keep things simple and not be accused of sending mixed messages. But they've got to accept that no matter what they do, they're going to be criticized. So they might as well just do honest work and not cave to the outside pressure I'm sure they feel to keep a consistent message. 

We can't discuss masks until after the mid-terms

20 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

https://reason.com/2022/01/28/why-cant-the-cdc-admit-there-is-no-solid-evidence-to-support-universal-masking-in-schools/

 

There's so much to unpack and I really don't have the time for all of it, but I'll give some quick takes. I'm reading this quickly, so maybe I misread or missed some things, but here's what stuck out to me.

1) The data from MI referenced in the article seems to show that masks do help reduce transmission, as as case levels were highest among non school-aged groups (people who are largely not required to mask up). Within the subset of school-aged children, case levels increased most dramatically among those who weren't masking. The article says that the link to lower infection rates had "faded" by December. All that really means is that masks were working but (and I would imagine cloth masks, in particular) have become less effective with newer variants, but it doesn't mean that they aren't still providing significant mitigation.

2) The point that data hasn't been parsed to isolate the effects of mitigation efforts that are used in combination with masking is relevant. More targeted studies are needed and should come as we continue to navigate the pandemic, however, it seems like grasping at straws to say "Well, just because the numbers show lower transmission in schools with masks, you can't say masks work because other things may be helping as well." Even if it were true that reduced transmission were significantly impacted by other mitigations, the point still remains that masks were a important part of mitigation, that it was an important component to producing this combined effect.

3) And at the end of the day, I can show you the studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of masks in reducing how much aerosolized virus someone breathes in, but it really shouldn't be needed. It's just common sense if you have any rudimentary understanding of physics.

4) The claim that "'differences due to masking' were 'potentially being washed out by transmission in other settings"" is a real eyeroller. The implied anti-mask argument here is "Well, people aren't taking precautions outside of school, so f**** it, we might as well give up trying to do our part."|

5) "One exception was a study of Georgia elementary schools that found masking of teachers was associated with a statistically significant reduction in COVID-19 transmission, but masking of students was not." This doesn't even make sense.

6) The idea of masking outdoors may have seemed unnecessary with what we learned about older variants earlier in the pandemic, but with newer variants like Omicron, outdoor transmission may very well be back on the table, especially in crowded settings. If you have 10 kids all huddled around each other, breathing in each other's airspace, you're still most likely in a scenario of elevated risk, regardless of being outdoors or not. You should probably mask up whenever you're in a crowd, no matter the setting, especially with the nature of the virus constantly changing.

7) Obviously vaccination is the primary tool, but while this virus is still rapidly evolving, vaccination+masks are needed to limit the spread for two reasons: A) Keep our hospitals and healthcare networks from being completely overburdened and B) Reduce transmission rates further so as to limit replication to, in turn, limit mutation and the production of more virulent variants that could ultimately put us back at square one.

8)"...masks may not be clean, may not fit properly, and may not be worn correctly." Irrelevant, even if they are not worn correctly to maximize effectiveness, this ignores that fact, even a dirty, loose mask is still better than no mask at all.

9) Yes, N95s/KN95s are the way to go. I really can't fathom why anyone who is actually trying would still be wearing a cloth mask like it's April 2020.

10) The "masks are so uncomfortable. I can't breathe!" is laughable to me. People need to sack up.

11) Finally, I'm so tired of seeing these lamebrained arguments throughout this whole ordeal: "to try to find evidence that would justify the CDC's no-end-in-sight mask guidance for the very-low-risk pediatric population, particularly post-vaccination. We came up empty-handed." Aside from the fact that a significant percentage of the "pediatric population" still cannot be legally vaccinated, these arguments continually ignore the fact that its not all about the children. It's also about older populations who work in schools among faculty, staff, and administration, many of whom may be at high-risk for severe COVID due to comorbidities and immunodeficiencies. Aside from the basic human interest in protecting these people from severe illness and death, it also ignores the very practical consideration that schools are short-staffed and can't afford to have more people missing work due to COVID.

That's all I really had time for. Suffice it to say, this article did nothing to change my mind. It merely came off as another evasive, weakly constructed argument for a bunch of whiny people desperately clinging to incomplete data and poor logic because fabric over their face is the greatest injustice ever known to mankind.

Well said ER97, but I'm sure that's way too much nuance for our resident swedish anti-masker to process, at least until after the next election.

39 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

There's so much to unpack and I really don't have the time for all of it, but I'll give some quick takes. I'm reading this quickly, so maybe I misread or missed some things, but here's what stuck out to me.

1) The data from MI referenced in the article seems to show that masks do help reduce transmission, as as case levels were highest among non school-aged groups (people who are largely not required to mask up). Within the subset of school-aged children, case levels increased most dramatically among those who weren't masking. The article says that the link to lower infection rates had "faded" by December. All that really means is that masks were working (and I would imagine cloth masks, in particular) have become less effective with newer variants, but it doesn't mean that they aren't still providing significant mitigation.

2) The point that data hasn't been parsed to isolate the effects of mitigation efforts that are used in combination with masking is relevant. More targeted studies are needed and should come as we continue to navigate the pandemic, however, it seems like grasping at straws to say "Well, just because the numbers show lower transmission in schools with masks, you can't say masks work because other things may be helping as well." Even if it were true that reduced transmission were significantly impacted by other mitigations, the point still remains that masks were a important part of mitigation, that it was an important component to producing this combined effect.

3) And at the end of the day, I can show you the studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of masks in reducing how much aerosolized virus someone breathes in, but it really shouldn't be needed. It's just common sense if you have any rudimentary understanding of physics.

4) The claim that "'differences due to masking' were 'potentially being washed out by transmission in other settings"" is a real eyeroller. The implied anti-mask argument here is "Well, people aren't taking precautions outside of school, so f**** it, we might as well give up trying to do our part."|

5) "One exception was a study of Georgia elementary schools that found masking of teachers was associated with a statistically significant reduction in COVID-19 transmission, but masking of students was not." This doesn't even make sense.

6) The idea of masking outdoors may have seemed unnecessary with what we learned about older variants earlier in the pandemic, but with newer variants like Omicron, outdoor transmission may very well be back on the table, especially in crowded settings. If you have 10 kids all huddled around each other, breathing in each other's airspace, you're still most likely in a scenario of elevated risk, regardless of being outdoors or not. You should probably mask up whenever you're in a crowd, no matter the setting, especially with the nature of the virus constantly changing.

7) Obviously vaccination is the primary tool, but while this virus is still rapidly evolving, vaccination+masks are needed to limit the spread for two reasons: A) Keep our hospitals and healthcare networks from being completely overburdened and B) Reduce transmission rates further so as to limit replication to, in turn, limit mutation and the production of more virulent variants that could ultimately put us back at square one.

8)"...masks may not be clean, may not fit properly, and may not be worn correctly." Irrelevant, even if they are not worn correctly to maximize effectiveness, this ignores that fact, even a dirty, loose mask is still better than no mask at all.

9) Yes, N95s/KN95s are the way to go. I really can't fathom why anyone who is actually trying would still be wearing a cloth mask like it's April 2020.

10) The "masks are so uncomfortable. I can't breathe!" is laughable to me. People need to sack up.

11) Finally, I'm so tired of seeing these lamebrained arguments throughout this whole ordeal: "to try to find evidence that would justify the CDC's no-end-in-sight mask guidance for the very-low-risk pediatric population, particularly post-vaccination. We came up empty-handed." Aside from the fact that a significant percentage of the "pediatric population" still cannot be legally vaccinated, these arguments continually ignore the fact that its not all about the children. It's also about older populations who work in schools among faculty, staff, and administration, many of whom may be at high-risk for sever COVID due to comorbidities and immunodeficienies. Aside from the basic human interest in protecting these people from severe illness and death, it also ignores the very practical consideration that schools are short-staffed and can't afford to have more people missing work due to COVID.

That's all I really had time for. Suffice it to say, this article did nothing to change my mind. It merely came off as another evasive, weakly constructed argument for a bunch of whiny people desperately clinging to incomplete data and poor logic because fabric over their face is the greatest injustice ever known to mankind.

Thanks. I’m working now but I’ll reply later when I have some time. 

Live look at DrPhilly at work after his article got methodically picked apart by ER:

Single dose vax being developed at Wistar Institute in Philly

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/coronavirus/article-695265

New vaccines developed capable of single-dose protection

Scientists have developed new SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that provide stronger protection through a single dose and protect against emerging variants.

By JERUSALEM POST STAFF

Published: FEBRUARY 2, 2022

Just now, Procus said:

Single dose vax being developed at Wistar Institute in Philly

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/coronavirus/article-695265

New vaccines developed capable of single-dose protection

Scientists have developed new SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that provide stronger protection through a single dose and protect against emerging variants.

By JERUSALEM POST STAFF

Published: FEBRUARY 2, 2022

If it pans out great news.

4 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

There's so much to unpack and I really don't have the time for all of it, but I'll give some quick takes. I'm reading this quickly, so maybe I misread or missed some things, but here's what stuck out to me.

1) The data from MI referenced in the article seems to show that masks do help reduce transmission, as as case levels were highest among non school-aged groups (people who are largely not required to mask up). Within the subset of school-aged children, case levels increased most dramatically among those who weren't masking. The article says that the link to lower infection rates had "faded" by December. All that really means is that masks were working but (and I would imagine cloth masks, in particular) have become less effective with newer variants, but it doesn't mean that they aren't still providing significant mitigation.

Doc - The point here was that the measures (with mask mandates being one) weren't changed even when there was no longer any measured differences whatsoever regardless of why those difference were there in the 1st place.  In any case, this observation says absolutely nothing as to exactly why the observed rates were different previously (i.e. what the underlying causes were) and certainly says nothing at all about the specific effectiveness of the mask mandates themselves.

2) The point that data hasn't been parsed to isolate the effects of mitigation efforts that are used in combination with masking is relevant. More targeted studies are needed and should come as we continue to navigate the pandemic, however, it seems like grasping at straws to say "Well, just because the numbers show lower transmission in schools with masks, you can't say masks work because other things may be helping as well." Even if it were true that reduced transmission were significantly impacted by other mitigations, the point still remains that masks were a important part of mitigation, that it was an important component to producing this combined effect.

Doc - I agree 100% with the bold and is fact key to the entire article.  The rest is speculation.  A classic mistake that would never be made by someone conducting actual solid science.  Rather, it would be put forth as a theory that needed to be tested rather than a fact as you are suggesting.  Yes, masks were a part but there is no evidence to date to be able to say exactly what part the masks played.  Again, the basic point of the article.

 

3) And at the end of the day, I can show you the studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of masks in reducing how much aerosolized virus someone breathes in, but it really shouldn't be needed. It's just common sense if you have any rudimentary understanding of physics.

Doc - Sure, no one is disputing this point.  The question is, and has always been, to what extent this fact can be applied and drive desired results in practice in real world school situations for young kids AND at what cost.  Note: you completely leave out the entire cost side of the equation for kids here and in fact in your entire response.

4) The claim that "'differences due to masking' were 'potentially being washed out by transmission in other settings"" is a real eyeroller. The implied anti-mask argument here is "Well, people aren't taking precautions outside of school, so f**** it, we might as well give up trying to do our part."|

Doc - This is really a silly argument.  If masks aren't adding anything then they should simply be removed as a requirement.  That is basic 101 level logic.  This is an "if" scenario.  In fact, the govts of both Denmark and Norway have already made the conclusion in their countries that further measures including mask mandates server no further value and have dropped restrictions (think Norway's actual date is in the future but it is firm decision already).  Sweden is set to make the same announcement tomorrow with all restrictions and mandates being lifted on Feb 9th and the logic is exactly the same.  Namely, if measures don't have any real effect then there is no need for them.  The exact reason given is that the measures no longer serve a purpose.

5) "One exception was a study of Georgia elementary schools that found masking of teachers was associated with a statistically significant reduction in COVID-19 transmission, but masking of students was not." This doesn't even make sense.

Doc - It does make sense for earlier variants that didn't seem to affect kids.  I agree it wouldn't make sense with the later variants.

6) The idea of masking outdoors may have seemed unnecessary with what we learned about older variants earlier in the pandemic, but with newer variants like Omicron, outdoor transmission may very well be back on the table, especially in crowded settings. If you have 10 kids all huddled around each other, breathing in each other's airspace, you're still most likely in a scenario of elevated risk, regardless of being outdoors or not. You should probably mask up whenever you're in a crowd, no matter the setting, especially with the nature of the virus constantly changing.

Doc - Or simply don't set things up so that larger groups are huddled closely around each other.  Generally speaking there has never been any significant issue in outdoor settings for anyone other than in really crowded scenarios.  Of course there are some exceptions and certainly a situation like a packed outdoor concert would be an example.  Also, once we get to Omicron the game changes.

7) Obviously vaccination is the primary tool, but while this virus is still rapidly evolving, vaccination+masks are needed to limit the spread for two reasons: A) Keep our hospitals and healthcare networks from being completely overburdened and B) Reduce transmission rates further so as to limit replication to, in turn, limit mutation and the production of more virulent variants that could ultimately put us back at square one.

Doc - I agree that vaccinations are #1.  I also agree that mask usage in certain situations is useful.  I still carry one and use it if I'm on a somewhat crowded subway for example.  The question here is what part masks can play when used in schools and whether that usage outweighs the cost or not.

 

8)"...masks may not be clean, may not fit properly, and may not be worn correctly." Irrelevant, even if they are not worn correctly to maximize effectiveness, this ignores that fact, even a dirty, loose mask is still better than no mask at all.

Doc - Yes, actually it is 100% relevant and in particular when applied to very young children.  You say a "dirty, loose mask is still better".  Yep, so is using one's hand to cover up a sneeze.  The question isn't whether it is better or not from an absolute perspective.  The question is how much better and, again, at what cost.

 

9) Yes, N95s/KN95s are the way to go. I really can't fathom why anyone who is actually trying would still be wearing a cloth mask like it's April 2020.

Doc - Yes, as you and I have discussed a few times.  Probably a non-starter for the young kids but if one is going to have mask mandates/recommendations of any sort it most certainly needs to be at the N95 level now with Omicron.

 

10) The "masks are so uncomfortable. I can't breathe!" is laughable to me. People need to sack up.

Doc - Right, but let's remember this discussion is about 2-12 year olds not 25yr olds.  Let's stop trying to apply the same reasoning to kids.  For a 2yr old the discomfort matters.

 

11) Finally, I'm so tired of seeing these lamebrained arguments throughout this whole ordeal: "to try to find evidence that would justify the CDC's no-end-in-sight mask guidance for the very-low-risk pediatric population, particularly post-vaccination. We came up empty-handed." Aside from the fact that a significant percentage of the "pediatric population" still cannot be legally vaccinated, these arguments continually ignore the fact that its not all about the children. It's also about older populations who work in schools among faculty, staff, and administration, many of whom may be at high-risk for severe COVID due to comorbidities and immunodeficiencies. Aside from the basic human interest in protecting these people from severe illness and death, it also ignores the very practical consideration that schools are short-staffed and can't afford to have more people missing work due to COVID.

Doc - I agree the entire cost/benefit analysis needs to be made.  That includes the kids well being which you haven't bothered to mention one single time.  Regarding the evidence, why is it ok for the CDC to claim they have evidence and then not bother to correct themselves when it is shown that they do not?  I'd rather have them say "we don't know for sure but we want to be overly cautious".

That's all I really had time for. Suffice it to say, this article did nothing to change my mind. It merely came off as another evasive, weakly constructed argument for a bunch of whiny people desperately clinging to incomplete data and poor logic because fabric over their face is the greatest injustice ever known to mankind.

Doc - There was never any doubt in my mind that this wouldn't change your mind.  Your mind appears quite clearly to be made up on this topic no matter what new information becomes available.  I think the bolded here is really very unfortunate of you to take as a position regarding this article.  The article is from a serious publication and one whose entire existence is to be as objective and logical as possible.  If it was by one of those alt-right sites and angled toward some sort of Trumpy foaming at the mouth **** angle that would be one thing but that's not what this article is about.  My advice is to stick to the analysis and debate on the information provided and accept that well informed, level headed people around the world have concerns with some of the measures still remaining in place and in particular measures that impact kids.  No doubt they don't get everything right at Reason, who does, but they most certainly aren't looking to appease a bunch of whiny people.

 

I'll add a response inline to make by comments easier to follow.

3 hours ago, Procus said:

Single dose vax being developed at Wistar Institute in Philly

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/coronavirus/article-695265

New vaccines developed capable of single-dose protection

Scientists have developed new SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that provide stronger protection through a single dose and protect against emerging variants.

By JERUSALEM POST STAFF

Published: FEBRUARY 2, 2022

I'm sure all the anti-vaxxers will change their minds now.

6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

There was never any doubt in my mind that this wouldn't change your mind.  Your mind appears quite clearly to be made up on this topic no matter what new information becomes available.

2 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

I'm sure all the anti-vaxxers will change their minds now.

Maybe if they name it TrumpVax or something like that we can get them to take it.  Give them a free signed autograph of Trump when they get their shot.

15 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Maybe if they name it TrumpVax or something like that we can get them to take it.  Give them a free signed autograph of Trump when they get their shot.

FreedomJab?

17 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Maybe if they name it TrumpVax or something like that we can get them to take it.  Give them a free signed autograph of Trump when they get their shot.

I'm pretty sure the chance of someone getting it who hasn't already went out the window when vaccinated people started becoming overrepresented in the number of infections due to omicron. Just a feeling.  

4 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

FreedomJab?

Yeah, that might work

I've got to apologize to napoleon. It takes bravery to rock cargo pants without a belt while tucking in a dress shirt and wearing a tie. Little dude is brave.