https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/politics/biden-covid-vaccination-trump/index.html

So much for Operation Warp Speed.

2 minutes ago, SPIDER-MAN said:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/politics/biden-covid-vaccination-trump/index.html

So much for Operation Warp Speed.

Already laying the excuses out on the table in the event he fails to vaccinate 100 million in the first 100 days I see  

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Previously I promised to address the subject of Sweden's approach to mask mandates once Trump either left office or fully conceded.  We've finally reached that point so here goes. Let me start by stating my opinion so we don't confuse that with the explanation of the approach itself.

Generally, I support the flexible strategy that Sweden adopted when it comes to the use of all tools to combat spreading and that includes masks.  That strategy was based on long term thinking and the need to have a sustainable approach given the very real possibility that it would take a couple of years to get a vaccine.  What I do NOT fully support is the Swedish execution of that strategy which has been flawed.  The biggest mistake made was the lack of strong measures taken to protect those in nursing/retirement homes.  Another crucial mistake was the lack of consideration given to how things would develop in our immigrant communities in the larger metropolitan areas.  We have nearly 20% immigrants in the Swedish population and the cocktail of significantly higher concentration of people living together, a much higher degree of people working in prioritized jobs where they couldn't stay at home, plus differences in cultural norms such as personal spacing etc. led to a far different level of success in the immigrant neighborhoods of measures actually taken centrally vs those living in traditional Swedish neighborhoods/towns.  So while I support the general strategy I've been less than happy with the execution and decisions made within that strategy.

 

 

Now on to masks and Swedish approach.  The fundamental approach to combating the spread of COVID in Sweden has been to adopt a flexible strategy of dynamic measures that could be sustained over a period of a couple of years.  Most of the measures have been voluntary and that is due to the deep seated cultural norms in Sweden of the govt staying out of the way and allowing the flock mentality (peer pressure on steroids) to do the job.  Some measures, e.g. high school / university via virtual interaction, limits in restaurants for distancing, limits on timing of alcohol sales, etc. have been mandatory and enforced via fines and closures.  However, generally the measures have been strong recommendations and voluntary in nature.  Things like "work from home", "social distancing", "not having groups together privately", "avoid travel beyond a one hour radius", "do not take public transportation unless absolutely necessary", "wash your hands repeatedly", etc. etc. have been left to individual responsibility (that seems to be where most States ended up once we got to the summer).  Those worked really well in the March-June time frame, dropped off in Sep-Nov, and have picked back up again as the 2nd wave developed.

In addition to the general measures there have also been local and specific measures.  For example, some elementary/middle schools and daycare facilities have been closed on the local level as outbreaks have occurred.  Mask mandates have fallen into this category.  Naturally, all medical facilities have required mask wearing along with other similar situations.  Mask wearing has also been a strong recommendation starting some weeks back during rush hour on public transportation.  This has been followed in part if I rely on what I've seen or heard.

Regarding masks specifically, they have been regarded as one tool among others to be used in a cocktail of measures.  The effectiveness and sustainability of mask wearing has been judged on its overall practical effect on spreading within the context of all other measures and not solely on its theoretical effect in perfect conditions.  In other words, masks have one effect on spreading in a nicely controlled lab experiment with stable air qualities, stable ventilation, non faulty masks (material, construction, etc.), proper mask usage, etc. AND quite another effect in the real world where people don't wear the masks properly, take them off, don't observe other measures such as distancing, use faulty masks or used masks, etc.  Rightly or wrongly the judgement made by Swedish authorities was that in Sweden mask mandates would not have the overall desired effect over a long period of time across a wide segment of society/life to make mandates a selected mandatory measure.

In summary, mask mandates have been viewed within an overall context in Sweden.  The fact that masks can be a very useful tool to combat spreading isn't debated from a scientific view and in fact mask mandates are in play for some situations.  Rather, the actual practical effect on general spreading over time within the overall context of general Swedish society and in the presence of lots of other measure has been the decision criteria.

 

Note: I'm happy to discuss the details in anything I've written above including opinions, etc.  What I won't do though is engage in a dialog with anyone that simply wants to go the route of "they/you are ignorant, insane, stupid" etc.  If you feel you have to respond in that manner then of course by all means go ahead but I won't engage with you if that is going to be your approach.

@mr_hunt you are excused and may respond in any manner of course.

@Dave Moss I'll save you the trouble and put this    here proactively.

 

 

 

I wear a mask in semi-crowded stores or if I'm on the subway.  Otherwise, I normally do not wear one just because I've left the house.

 

 

too swedeny...didn't read. 

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Previously I promised to address the subject of Sweden's approach to mask mandates once Trump either left office or fully conceded.  We've finally reached that point so here goes. Let me start by stating my opinion so we don't confuse that with the explanation of the approach itself.

Generally, I support the flexible strategy that Sweden adopted when it comes to the use of all tools to combat spreading and that includes masks.  That strategy was based on long term thinking and the need to have a sustainable approach given the very real possibility that it would take a couple of years to get a vaccine.  What I do NOT fully support is the Swedish execution of that strategy which has been flawed.  The biggest mistake made was the lack of strong measures taken to protect those in nursing/retirement homes.  Another crucial mistake was the lack of consideration given to how things would develop in our immigrant communities in the larger metropolitan areas.  We have nearly 20% immigrants in the Swedish population and the cocktail of significantly higher concentration of people living together, a much higher degree of people working in prioritized jobs where they couldn't stay at home, plus differences in cultural norms such as personal spacing etc. led to a far different level of success in the immigrant neighborhoods of measures actually taken centrally vs those living in traditional Swedish neighborhoods/towns.  So while I support the general strategy I've been less than happy with the execution and decisions made within that strategy.

 

 

Now on to masks and Swedish approach.  The fundamental approach to combating the spread of COVID in Sweden has been to adopt a flexible strategy of dynamic measures that could be sustained over a period of a couple of years.  Most of the measures have been voluntary and that is due to the deep seated cultural norms in Sweden of the govt staying out of the way and allowing the flock mentality (peer pressure on steroids) to do the job.  Some measures, e.g. high school / university via virtual interaction, limits in restaurants for distancing, limits on timing of alcohol sales, etc. have been mandatory and enforced via fines and closures.  However, generally the measures have been strong recommendations and voluntary in nature.  Things like "work from home", "social distancing", "not having groups together privately", "avoid travel beyond a one hour radius", "do not take public transportation unless absolutely necessary", "wash your hands repeatedly", etc. etc. have been left to individual responsibility (that seems to be where most States ended up once we got to the summer).  Those worked really well in the March-June time frame, dropped off in Sep-Nov, and have picked back up again as the 2nd wave developed.

In addition to the general measures there have also been local and specific measures.  For example, some elementary/middle schools and daycare facilities have been closed on the local level as outbreaks have occurred.  Mask mandates have fallen into this category.  Naturally, all medical facilities have required mask wearing along with other similar situations.  Mask wearing has also been a strong recommendation starting some weeks back during rush hour on public transportation.  This has been followed in part if I rely on what I've seen or heard.

Regarding masks specifically, they have been regarded as one tool among others to be used in a cocktail of measures.  The effectiveness and sustainability of mask wearing has been judged on its overall practical effect on spreading within the context of all other measures and not solely on its theoretical effect in perfect conditions.  In other words, masks have one effect on spreading in a nicely controlled lab experiment with stable air qualities, stable ventilation, non faulty masks (material, construction, etc.), proper mask usage, etc. AND quite another effect in the real world where people don't wear the masks properly, take them off, don't observe other measures such as distancing, use faulty masks or used masks, etc.  Rightly or wrongly the judgement made by Swedish authorities was that in Sweden mask mandates would not have the overall desired effect over a long period of time across a wide segment of society/life to make mandates a selected mandatory measure.

In summary, mask mandates have been viewed within an overall context in Sweden.  The fact that masks can be a very useful tool to combat spreading isn't debated from a scientific view and in fact mask mandates are in play for some situations.  Rather, the actual practical effect on general spreading over time within the overall context of general Swedish society and in the presence of lots of other measure has been the decision criteria.

 

Note: I'm happy to discuss the details in anything I've written above including opinions, etc.  What I won't do though is engage in a dialog with anyone that simply wants to go the route of "they/you are ignorant, insane, stupid" etc.  If you feel you have to respond in that manner then of course by all means go ahead but I won't engage with you if that is going to be your approach.

@mr_hunt you are excused and may respond in any manner of course.

@Dave Moss I'll save you the trouble and put this    here proactively.

 

 

 

I wear a mask in semi-crowded stores or if I'm on the subway.  Otherwise, I normally do not wear one just because I've left the house.

 

 

I don't understand your continued defense of a colossal failure.

 

Quote

While countries such as the United States, Brazil, and India have made headlines for recording the highest number of coronavirus-related fatalities, Sweden’s death rate of over 80 per 100,000 people is among Europe’s highest and is around 10 times as great as those of Norway and Finland, and over four times Denmark’s. COVID-19 hospitalizations are now rising faster there than in most European countries, and Sweden is caring for more patients in hospital now than it did at the height of its first wave. By Dec. 21, Sweden had surpassed the United States and all major European countries in its daily confirmed cases per million. Things have gotten so out of control in Sweden that neighboring Norway, for the first time since World War II, put troops on the border to prevent Swedes from crossing over.

 

9 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

Here's a good study on the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines if they're people that respond to data. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ideas.ted.com/the-top-7-covid-19-vaccine-questions-answered/amp/

Emily Oster is also a good resource for synthesizing somewhat complex medical data into relatively streamlined answers.

In general shaming doesn't help (despite my ongoing efforts with KZ).  Be firm but also be understanding and responsive. It's a tough decision even though it really shouldn't be.  I agree save the grandchildren card for as long as you can. We've unfortunately had to pull that card on one relative already and it sucked. 

Thank you!   Sent this info to my daughter.  She's an educator and will be up next even before me, so I can't say I did it so can you!

She's just afraid of it I think, so thank you for especially for the Emily Oster article that explains how the mRna works.

Well that's just effing great.

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

 

 

Now you’re just being redundant. 
 

29 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

Already laying the excuses out on the table in the event he fails to vaccinate 100 million in the first 100 days I see  

So you think the Trump administration did have a solid, efficient plan in place for vaccine  distribution and the Biden administration is making that all up?

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

Now you’re just being redundant. 
 

Why not just admit that Sweden’s approach has been a failure?  I don’t get it...

34 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

So you think the Trump administration did have a solid, efficient plan in place for vaccine  distribution and the Biden administration is making that all up?

No - I think exactly what I said - that they are making their excuse for failing public.  I hope he doesn't fail - hell I hope he vaccinates 200 million in the first 100 days.  

This is legitimately insane. Let's prioritize those that have made poor life choices and taken no responsibility for their health. This ties into the discussion on entitlements -- when you remove people from the consequences of their bad decisions, you get more bad decisions. This is even worse -- let's REWARD people for being irresponsible. 

 

They are still on one.

 

13 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

This is legitimately insane. Let's prioritize those that have made poor life choices and taken no responsibility for their health. This ties into the discussion on entitlements -- when you remove people from the consequences of their bad decisions, you get more bad decisions. This is even worse -- let's REWARD people for being irresponsible. 

 

It's an interesting discussion. Do you vaccinate these people for the overall good of society because they are really the people who will most likely burden the healthcare system when getting Covid? 

Other argument is vaccinating superspreader a holes who don't practice social distancing and don't have any regard for others. Vaccinating these people would be most effective in reducing the spread even though they may not deserve it before someone else. 

It's a strange dilemma between vaccinating those who maybe ethically deserve the vaccine more than others and vaccinating those who's vaccination will do the most overall good.

I'm honestly not sure which is better, both sides have legitimate points.

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

They are still on one.

 

They should stop paying their taxes to test the "no more fake income taxes or IRS" theory.  See how that works out for them.

20 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

No - I think exactly what I said - that they are making their excuse for failing public.  I hope he doesn't fail - hell I hope he vaccinates 200 million in the first 100 days.  

But my question was do you think Trump had a plan in place? I mean if he didn't then they are just telling the public what the situation is right now at day 1.

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

I don't understand your continued defense of a colossal failure.

You don't seem to understand that explaining the why/how about something isn't the same thing as defending it.

2 minutes ago, BirdsFanBill said:

It's an interesting discussion. Do you vaccinate these people for the overall good of society because they are really the people who will most likely burden the healthcare system when getting Covid? 

Other argument is vaccinating superspreader a holes who don't practice social distancing and don't have any regard for others. Vaccinating these people would be most effective in reducing the spread even though they may not deserve it before someone else. 

It's a strange dilemma between vaccinating those who maybe ethically deserve the vaccine more than others and vaccinating those who's vaccination will do the most overall good.

I try not to get into these discussions.  While I totally get what vikas is saying, why reward folks that made bad choices with getting vaccinated before someone else?  But the thing is, it is their choice to make.  Or  do we just eliminate fast food, soda, alcohol, and tobacco  and all things that are so bad for us?   Good luck with that.

7 minutes ago, BirdsFanBill said:

Other argument is vaccinating superspreader a holes who don't practice social distancing and don't have any regard for others. Vaccinating these people would be most effective in reducing the spread even though they may not deserve it before someone else. 

Yeah that would be a good thing to do.  However, how does one identify the superspreaders?

4 minutes ago, BirdsFanBill said:

It's an interesting discussion. Do you vaccinate these people for the overall good of society because they are really the people who will most likely burden the healthcare system when getting Covid? 

Other argument is vaccinating superspreader a holes who don't practice social distancing and don't have any regard for others. Vaccinating these people would be most effective in reducing the spread even though they may not deserve it before someone else. 

It's a strange dilemma between vaccinating those who maybe ethically deserve the vaccine more than others and vaccinating those who's vaccination will do the most overall good.

I'm honestly not sure which is better, both sides have legitimate points.

It's part of a longer term discussion regarding incentive structures. You are actively punishing people who have made responsible choices and rewarding people who have been lazy and irresponsible. This only guarantees that you will get more and more irresponsible, lazy and stupid people overall. It's akin to giving people on welfare more money for having another kid -- so we are going to incentivize people who already can't afford to raise their kids to have..checks notes...more kids. 

Insurance companies should be allowed to charge overweight people and smokers more in premiums. Create consequences for bad behavior, not rewards. 

1 minute ago, DiPros said:

I try not to get into these discussions.  While I totally get what vikas is saying, why reward folks that made bad choices with getting vaccinated before someone else?  But the thing is, it is their choice to make.  Or  do we just eliminate fast food, soda, alcohol, and tobacco  and all things that are so bad for us?   Good luck with that.

Those aren't the choices. People are free to make whatever choices they want. But then let United Healthcare charge fat people and smokers more, since they will have greater health needs. Let auto insurers charge more to cover an alcoholic. Let the free market function. 

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

It's part of a longer term discussion regarding incentive structures. You are actively punishing people who have made responsible choices and rewarding people who have been lazy and irresponsible. This only guarantees that you will get more and more irresponsible, lazy and stupid people overall. It's akin to giving people on welfare more money for having another kid -- so we are going to incentivize people who already can't afford to raise their kids to have..checks notes...more kids. 

Insurance companies should be allowed to charge overweight people and smokers more in premiums. Create consequences for bad behavior, not rewards. 

It's kind of hard to game this out like you would with welfare or insurance premiums, since the pandemic is a one-time thing.  I get your perspective on it, but I'm not sure if it applies since (hopefully) this will be the only pandemic these people live through.

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

Why not just admit that Sweden’s approach has been a failure?  I don’t get it...

I promised another poster to explain the rationale behind the strategy.  I wasn't intending to defend it.  As I said in my opinion, I think they got the strategy mostly right but failed on the execution and in at least the key nursing home area they failed miserably.  So for sure there was a large failure there.

 

 

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

It's part of a longer term discussion regarding incentive structures. You are actively punishing people who have made responsible choices and rewarding people who have been lazy and irresponsible. This only guarantees that you will get more and more irresponsible, lazy and stupid people overall. It's akin to giving people on welfare more money for having another kid -- so we are going to incentivize people who already can't afford to raise their kids to have..checks notes...more kids. 

Insurance companies should be allowed to charge overweight people and smokers more in premiums. Create consequences for bad behavior, not rewards. 

This I believe could work.  I do pay higher premium for life insurance since I cannot stay smoke free for an entire year, which is when you are considered QUIT

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

It's part of a longer term discussion regarding incentive structures. You are actively punishing people who have made responsible choices and rewarding people who have been lazy and irresponsible. This only guarantees that you will get more and more irresponsible, lazy and stupid people overall. It's akin to giving people on welfare more money for having another kid -- so we are going to incentivize people who already can't afford to raise their kids to have..checks notes...more kids. 

Insurance companies should be allowed to charge overweight people and smokers more in premiums. Create consequences for bad behavior, not rewards. 

Yeah but I think it's a different comparison. On one hand you're talking about mitigating the spread of a 100 year pandemic. On the other you're talking about general health and well being. You could make the case to behave differently in one than the other. I generally agree with not rewarding bad behavior, but in this circumstance it's a little different I'd say.

Just now, VanHammersly said:

It's kind of hard to game this out like you would with welfare or insurance premiums, since the pandemic is a one-time thing.  I get your perspective on it, but I'm not sure if it applies since (hopefully) this will be the only pandemic these people live through.

So then we just act like their will be consequences for bad life decisions until there are actual consequences? So we are the parent that keeps threatening to take away the iPad, but then never follows through. That works out well.