Yes, it should be strongly encouraged in crowded places, not discouraged.
As to "You First", I still do avoid random crowds and I wear an N95 when I do go out in random crowds, including the last time I went to the grocery store. I'm not the only one I see doing that ('tho it is far less common than a year ago).
But sure, you do you, because evidently your approach to life prioritizes your immediate gratification, and doing nothing that might help the general welfare, or help everyone (even you) in the longer term.
I am disgusted by the totalitarian urge which has been normalized by the pandemic. Your trauma is not my problem, and I will not permanently alter my behavior to satisfy your ever-escalating urge to dominate me.
In an unlikely turn of events, you appear to be an actual human and not a bot (from a cursory look at your comment history). So I say, gently:
> because evidently your approach to life prioritizes your immediate gratification
Do you genuinely believe that this is a fair characterization of the sentiment of the person (or position) to which you are responding, giving the benefit of the doubt?
> Yes, it should be strongly encouraged in crowded places, not discouraged.
It boils down to this: encouraging an intervention in public places needs to be based on unambiguous evidence, supported by genuine, authentic science and presented in a way that is convincing to a scientifically-literate society such as ours.
Consider, for example, the evidence in favor of the use of seatbelts, condoms, traffic-calming infrastructure, or hard hats (the latter of which I acknowledge don't require RCTs to be validated).
These products have produced a reliable, measurable, significant change in outcomes to the extent that no reasonable person questions their efficacy impact (though even with these, there is some reasonable dispute regarding trade-offs in each case).
The intervention in question has fallen way, way short of this standard - so much so that it's difficult to make a viable comparison. Despite mandates across a literal majority of geographic landmass of the country, there is still no evidence of any benefit with regard to community transmission rates. And on the research side, only nine RCTs - and none at all regarding source control - have been conducted.
We've watched as a huge chorus of the world's experts have called for RCTs, and have been told by charlatan bureaucrats and profiteers that such a venture is comparable to a parachute RCT. Do you think that's likely to be convincing?
Meanwhile, the (typical, expected, obvious) extrapolation in the Cochrane review has been singled-out, and the waters muddied, for pointing out in sober terms what the RCTs actually said.
It has been reduced to "well, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence", creating an obvious catch-22 as the same data is puzzlingly used as an excuse not to perform further science on the matter.
Believe me when I say: we care about you. I wish you good health and am happy to take evidence-based steps to ensuring that the world is a healthy, vibrant place for you and people like you. But you go too far when you ask that others to ignore their own good-faith assessment of the facts at hand. And the facts are unambiguous: respiratory pathogens emerge every so often and infect nearly all members of many animal species. There does not appear to be a viable intervention to stop this, and it's not even obvious is stopping it is desirable, as these pathogens confer immunity to those infected. It's an equilibrium and part of a broader ecology in which we live.
You are loved, even by this stranger. Please don't see commitment to data-driven approaches to public health interventions as a hunger for immediate gratification; this is nearly the opposite of the reality of the situation.
toss1|1 year ago
As to "You First", I still do avoid random crowds and I wear an N95 when I do go out in random crowds, including the last time I went to the grocery store. I'm not the only one I see doing that ('tho it is far less common than a year ago).
But sure, you do you, because evidently your approach to life prioritizes your immediate gratification, and doing nothing that might help the general welfare, or help everyone (even you) in the longer term.
s1gnp0st|1 year ago
jMyles|1 year ago
> because evidently your approach to life prioritizes your immediate gratification
Do you genuinely believe that this is a fair characterization of the sentiment of the person (or position) to which you are responding, giving the benefit of the doubt?
> Yes, it should be strongly encouraged in crowded places, not discouraged.
It boils down to this: encouraging an intervention in public places needs to be based on unambiguous evidence, supported by genuine, authentic science and presented in a way that is convincing to a scientifically-literate society such as ours.
Consider, for example, the evidence in favor of the use of seatbelts, condoms, traffic-calming infrastructure, or hard hats (the latter of which I acknowledge don't require RCTs to be validated).
These products have produced a reliable, measurable, significant change in outcomes to the extent that no reasonable person questions their efficacy impact (though even with these, there is some reasonable dispute regarding trade-offs in each case).
The intervention in question has fallen way, way short of this standard - so much so that it's difficult to make a viable comparison. Despite mandates across a literal majority of geographic landmass of the country, there is still no evidence of any benefit with regard to community transmission rates. And on the research side, only nine RCTs - and none at all regarding source control - have been conducted.
We've watched as a huge chorus of the world's experts have called for RCTs, and have been told by charlatan bureaucrats and profiteers that such a venture is comparable to a parachute RCT. Do you think that's likely to be convincing?
Meanwhile, the (typical, expected, obvious) extrapolation in the Cochrane review has been singled-out, and the waters muddied, for pointing out in sober terms what the RCTs actually said.
It has been reduced to "well, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence", creating an obvious catch-22 as the same data is puzzlingly used as an excuse not to perform further science on the matter.
Believe me when I say: we care about you. I wish you good health and am happy to take evidence-based steps to ensuring that the world is a healthy, vibrant place for you and people like you. But you go too far when you ask that others to ignore their own good-faith assessment of the facts at hand. And the facts are unambiguous: respiratory pathogens emerge every so often and infect nearly all members of many animal species. There does not appear to be a viable intervention to stop this, and it's not even obvious is stopping it is desirable, as these pathogens confer immunity to those infected. It's an equilibrium and part of a broader ecology in which we live.
You are loved, even by this stranger. Please don't see commitment to data-driven approaches to public health interventions as a hunger for immediate gratification; this is nearly the opposite of the reality of the situation.