My Wife Is Trapped at the Nexus of Science and Policy

 

My wife is currently struggling with implementing the complex re-opening guidelines for the parochial school where she has worked for many years: class scheduling where half the students will be present every other day, geometric plans for use of outdoor play areas, logistical planning so that siblings and carpool parties are scheduled for the same alternating days, spreadsheets of schedules, novel tasks, duties, and spatial arrangements. She is also the sole computer tech support resource that got everybody up and running remotely when the Great Lockdown began months ago. And she teaches.

The worst part of her current situation is the near-certainty that some kids will test COVID-positive probably before the end of September and there will then be another shutdown and all of this extensive prep work will be for nothing. The first case will almost certainly generate panic at the grassroots and kneejerk action at the top layers of the system and in government.

My beleaguered bride also says that in one grade a small group of parents has formed a bloc that refuses to let their children attend school in person —until after what happens, I wonder? So she created a schedule and plan for a single teacher to run remote classes for these fear-imprisoned kids. (I think I would have just sent a photocopy of applicable truancy laws.) Her patience and tolerance are the stuff of legend: she is the mother of eight and has lived with me for 40+ years which are exhibits A and B and maybe not in that order. I like to think I am indirectly responsible for hordes of souls released from Purgatory. (Only a law school graduate would think that to be an argument in support of a favorable verdict at the Final Judgment.)

Kids are at less overall risk from COVID than from the influenzas in other recent years. This is one of the few statistical certainties that have emerged from the pandemic. To instead keep kids semi-isolated in fear, to damage their education or use them as political pawns is both criminal and deeply stupid. As a matter of policy and resource allocation, we have done little or nothing to build a protective wall around truly vulnerable Granny and Great Uncle Bill but instead decided that lots of half-baked gestures done by those of us at astronomically less personal medical risk were somehow protecting the vulnerable.

Leaving aside the overt bad faith of politicians, bureaucrats, and control freaks, there has been a serious misunderstanding of the relationship between science and policymaking as applied to COVID.

In discussions on Ricochet, a number of medical professionals have defended lockdowns, masks, and social distancing on the eminently reasonable grounds that there are scientific reasons why these kinds of things should work. I am not entirely ignorant about the science of these things–I worked my way through college working nights as a tech in hospital laboratories using what the Army taught me. But I am also a former lawyer-lobbyist and I tend to look mostly at how things will work as policy and I know that outcomes are almost always very different from what technically focused people expect.

Consider this: Masks, gloves, gowns, and scrubbing up before entering the surgical suite are part of a highly effective protocol to prevent infection. The science is rock solid.

But what if the nurses and surgeons periodically go out and score some coffee and a snack or take a trip to the can and then come directly back to the operation? Would it matter if they kept wearing the same masks and gloves in the canteen or the toilet? Would the protections for the patient still hold? Stupid exceptions, treating prescribed measures more like amulets or symbols of compliance is exactly where and how science turns into bad/useless policy. It is in the predictable exceptions, transitions, accommodations, seeming loopholes, practical implementation problems, and sheer refusals that policies really live just like they so often do under regulatory regimes.

A well-educated medical professional recently offered the analogy that mask skepticism is like arguing that because patients often survive non-sterile battlefield surgery that we should not bother to sterilize surgical instruments. My reply was that the deployment of lockdowns, masks, and social distancing is more like sterilizing 50% or 60% of the surgical instruments on the tray which in practical effect is not much different from not sterilizing at all. The 100% sterile tray is not on the menu of COVID policy choices and that is exactly what makes the cost and non-efficacy of current efforts so problematic.

There are experiments about whether masks prevent coughed/sneezed-out infected lumps and at what distance. But I am not aware of any experiments about the effectiveness of wearing a loose snot-encrusted, saliva- and germ-drenched cloth thing much of but not all of the time. And where is the data on social distancing as a policy? The United States prescribes social distance at six feet. The Europeans use 1.5 meters (5 feet) and the rest of the world at 3 feet. Any studies on the differences in outcomes?

Michigan Gov. Whitmer’s bizarre list of impermissible purchases by people already in the same store in the same limited numbers observing the same distancing rules was not science. It was the fetishization of a highly subjective application of an assumption based on science. The recent ban on sidewalk plastic igloos for a San Francisco restaurant (set up mostly to protect against harassment by disease-ridden homeless) was allegedly enforced on the theory that enclosed spaces are COVID-dangerous even though these spaces were for two to four people who already know and have contact with each other and who would be allowed/expected to be maskless in almost every other social context. How does it reduce risk if all the diners have now been made to share the same open area?

Who seriously believed that young single Americans were going to hunker down and isolate from each in their own rooms for months and never gather. Yeah, that could happen. The fact that it is forbidden makes it even more likely and enjoyable.

But I digress. Back to my sainted wife’s logistical burdens: Even recess is a problem. The CDC says that when outdoors, kids should be kept in their same classroom groups 30 feet apart from other groups. (Like you, I am absolutely sure there is some detailed empirical work to arrive at the precise number 30. It is the CDC, after all.) Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that that distance would likely reduce transmission between groups in any given moment assuming the kids remain in their assigned place in snapshot fashion. But what about when the kids pass by one another (probably pushing and shoving) on the way there or retrieve balls that get thrown overhead to another group, or share a candy bar or gossip with a friend in the other group when the assigned teacher is on the phone or not looking, or when they breathe the same circulated air once back in the building or take masks off in rebellious bathroom gatherings after recess or if the whole protocol starts to break down because the proctor gets tired of trying to enforce it. And because the play area is limited in size it also reduces the number of kid groups who can be outside at any one time so the others must remain longer in enclosed spaces.

As a matter of policy, none of this crap makes a difference unless the school day could actually consist of policy-prescribed snapshots with no exceptions, transitions, or otherwise non-prescribed moments. They are kids. Good luck with that.

It will be enormously difficult for the country to escape the lockdown mindset. There is an enormous vested interest in both validating and extending the lockdowns and accompanying mandates until it serves political purposes and until the pandemic is so completely over that (a) it becomes too hard to justify a further lockdown and (b) credit can be taken for having defeated the bug after it has found and killed virtually all the most vulnerable targets (as in New York) and lethality incidence drops as a result.

This all supposedly started with science but now we have policies that predictably degenerated into enforcement of fetishized gestures that have little outcome value nor conform to the realities of actual behavior. Welcome to policy-outcome world, science people.

And now a great lady is wasting her considerable talents to serve stupid policies consisting of mandated empty gestures and, worse, she is not complaining loudly about it! So I am hereby doing the complaining for her because I am that guy, selfless in my own way.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 28 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Let my people go!

    • #1
  2. Al French of Damascus Moderator
    Al French of Damascus
    @AlFrench

    Old Bathos: panic at the grassroots and kneejerk action at the top layers of the system and in government

    That says it all.

    • #2
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Your wife is a saint! I’ve given up trying to understand anyone’s rationale, because I only end up angry and confused. Gov. DeSantis in FL is taking the teachers’ union to court because they refuse to go back to class. Of course, no one has established when it’s okay to go back, (as you indicate, OB). I believe there’s a district where schools were opened but teachers refused to go back. Then they shouldn’t be paid. End of story.

    • #3
  4. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    There are measures that are useful in reducing the spread of disease.  For example, wearing a mask reduces the risk of droplet exposure, washing hands reduces transmission of disease, etc.  These are not new, they are things I’ve been recommending for years to various laboratories who work with nasty viruses, based off of policies developed based on data.

    The problem is that so many other rules have been added in that it is ridiculous.  They are discrediting the whole field with their petty tyranny.  There are different units that have contradictory rules, and no sense of scale in terms of how important each rule is.  There’s also no cost / benefit analysis.

    • #4
  5. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Old Bathos: A well-educated medical professional recently offered the analogy that mask skepticism is like arguing that because patients often survive non-sterile battlefield surgery that we should not bother to sterilize surgical instruments. My reply was that the deployment of lockdowns, masks, and social distancing is more like sterilizing 50 or 60% of the surgical instruments on the tray which in practical effect is not much different from not sterilizing at all. The 100% sterile tray is not on the menu of COVID policy choices and that is exactly what makes the cost and non-efficacy of current efforts so problematic.

    :-) :-)

    Just to clarify in case my daughter ever sees this for some crazy reason: the analogy was mine, not my daughter’s. It was my attempt to translate a long discussion we had about the new protocols. She is a veterinarian who was sidelined for several months in an apartment in Manhattan, and she had little else to do but read the technical journal articles on covid-19. She really is an expert on this subject, and as I said, she supports the mask wearing and hand-washing and social-distancing advice wholeheartedly.

    The sterilization thing came up for me when my first child came along, and she started having a bottle of apple juice now and then, I asked my pediatrician about sterilizing them. He laughed. “We used to do that, but where do you put the thing to keep it sterile? We don’t bother anymore. Better to see the kids build up their immune system.”

    You’ve written a great catalog of the current insanity.

    What’s so sad is that the acceptance of the protocols is borne of the best intentions on the part of the American people–not their leaders but the people themselves. We are good and loving people.

    • #5
  6. Douglas Pratt Coolidge
    Douglas Pratt
    @DouglasPratt

    Your wife is over-qualified for beatification at any religion I’ve ever heard of. Egad.

    I think you are precisely correct about the vested interests working to validate and extend the lockdown. Once they have us in that mindset, anything that comes along is an excuse for Lockdown 2.0.

    • #6
  7. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge
    DonG (skeptic)
    @DonG

    Old Bathos:

    You are on a roll with your posts!  Are you getting paid for the all content you produce?  You have single-handedly produced as much quality content as the entire staff of the NYT.  Thanks!

     

    Remind your wife that religious based schools are mission and that she’s doing God’s work.  It is a shame that “the system” is making it so hard right now, but this too shall pass.

    • #7
  8. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Old Bathos: Stupid exceptions, treating prescribed measures more like amulets or symbols of compliance is exactly where and how science turns into bad/useless policy. It

    This is the answer to what I’ve been wondering.  What has worked in one circumstance for a century is inappropriately, and irrationally, given broader application to a slew of other new circumstances.

    • #8
  9. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Old Bathos: There are experiments about whether masks prevent coughed/sneezed-out infected lumps and at what distance. But I am not aware of any experiments about the effectiveness of wearing a loose snot-encrusted, saliva- and germ-drenched cloth thing much of but not all of the time. And where is the data on social distancing as a policy? The United States prescribes social distance at six feet. The Europeans use 1.5 meters (5 feet) and the rest of the world at 3 feet. Any studies on the differences in outcomes? 

    Very true.

    • #9
  10. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Wet masks are no masks.

    And one more thing that is functional reality rather than OR or Isolation Unit experience: The pro-mask argument is made that the masks filters breath.  The counter argument is that the holes in the filter are much larger than the virus.

    The pro-mask argument then responds that the holes don’t catch the virus but rather the minuscule droplets which contain the virus.  And counter-argument is that once the mask is saturated, the virus easily floats or migrates, pushed by the force of exhalations, through saturating liquid condensate, and emerges out the other side of the filter, and is expelled into the air, once again riding on droplets.

    • #10
  11. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Wet masks are no masks.

    And one more thing that is functional reality rather than OR or Isolation Unit experience: The pro-mask argument is made that the masks filters breath. The counter argument is that the holes in the filter are much larger than the virus.

    The pro-mask argument then responds that the holes don’t catch the virus but rather the minuscule droplets which contain the virus. And counter-argument is that once the mask is saturated, the virus easily floats or migrates, pushed by the force of exhalations, through saturating liquid condensate, and emerges out the other side of the filter, and is expelled into the air, once again riding on droplets.

    And little of this technical stuff matters because almost nobody wears it right and for the entire time anyway.  And everybody cheats because it is hard to breathe if you are wearing an actual quality protective mask correctly.  

    • #11
  12. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Wet masks are no masks.

    And one more thing that is functional reality rather than OR or Isolation Unit experience: The pro-mask argument is made that the masks filters breath. The counter argument is that the holes in the filter are much larger than the virus.

    The pro-mask argument then responds that the holes don’t catch the virus but rather the minuscule droplets which contain the virus. And counter-argument is that once the mask is saturated, the virus easily floats or migrates, pushed by the force of exhalations, through saturating liquid condensate, and emerges out the other side of the filter, and is expelled into the air, once again riding on droplets.

    And little of this technical stuff matters because almost nobody wears it right and for the entire time anyway. And everybody cheats because it is hard to breathe if you are wearing an actual quality protective mask correctly.

    I’ve noticed so many men tear the thing off as soon as they are free of the door they just came out of whereas women seem more relaxed about it. Although my initial reaction was that men may have a lower tolerance for annoying things, I can’t help wondering if there is perhaps an anatomical difference in the way the air passages are structured. :-) It is funny. :-) 

    • #12
  13. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Wet masks are no masks.

    And one more thing that is functional reality rather than OR or Isolation Unit experience: The pro-mask argument is made that the masks filters breath. The counter argument is that the holes in the filter are much larger than the virus.

    The pro-mask argument then responds that the holes don’t catch the virus but rather the minuscule droplets which contain the virus. And counter-argument is that once the mask is saturated, the virus easily floats or migrates, pushed by the force of exhalations, through saturating liquid condensate, and emerges out the other side of the filter, and is expelled into the air, once again riding on droplets.

    And little of this technical stuff matters because almost nobody wears it right and for the entire time anyway. And everybody cheats because it is hard to breathe if you are wearing an actual quality protective mask correctly.

    I’ve noticed so many men tear the thing off as soon as they are free of the door they just came out of whereas women seem more relaxed about it. Although my initial reaction was that men may have a lower tolerance for annoying things, I can’t help wondering if there is perhaps an anatomical difference in the way the air passages are structured. :-) It is funny. :-)

    Maybe it’s a dominance thing.

    • #13
  14. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Wet masks are no masks.

    And one more thing that is functional reality rather than OR or Isolation Unit experience: The pro-mask argument is made that the masks filters breath. The counter argument is that the holes in the filter are much larger than the virus.

    The pro-mask argument then responds that the holes don’t catch the virus but rather the minuscule droplets which contain the virus. And counter-argument is that once the mask is saturated, the virus easily floats or migrates, pushed by the force of exhalations, through saturating liquid condensate, and emerges out the other side of the filter, and is expelled into the air, once again riding on droplets.

    And little of this technical stuff matters because almost nobody wears it right and for the entire time anyway. And everybody cheats because it is hard to breathe if you are wearing an actual quality protective mask correctly.

    Your arguments remind me of anti-gun people: 

    “You’re more likely to shoot yourself than anyone else.  No one but police know how to handle a gun.” (people are too dumb to follow the rules) “Besides, do you really carry gun your everywhere?  On the beach?  In the gym?  (<100% protection is the same as no protection)  “You gun nuts just want to compensate for something or want to kill black people” (Attack the motives for wearing masks)

    I hate hearing Lefty arguments from a conservative with your level of intellect and talent. 

    • #14
  15. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    OldB,

    This is the result of zero leadership from Fauci. He has been stumbling along with mixed messages throughout. He knows very well that all of the new cases are due to the much greater amount of testing of very low-risk people. There is no increase in hospitalizations nor deaths and in fact both numbers are going down.

    If some of the children test positive so what!!! They won’t be harmed by it. When you have somebody who is presumed to be in authority (Fauci) letting people panic, running from their own shadows, then you can’t get anything done. Your rational wife can’t make this work because she is fighting a bunch of irrational nonsense hiding behind Fauci’s non-leadership.

    Trump should fire Fauci and take control. Your wife would have a chance then. Antifa/BLM should all be in prison. George Floyd wasn’t murdered, he died of a self-administered fentanyl overdose that induced a heart attack. Chauvin’s knee had nothing to do with it. Antifa/BLM’s Marxist insanity had everything to do with it.

    Sorry, OldB, I’m sure Mrs.B is one game girl but this is a horseshit hurricane. Turn the bow into the wind, tie everything down, and ride it out.

    Regards,

    Jim

     

    • #15
  16. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Wet masks are no masks.

    And one more thing that is functional reality rather than OR or Isolation Unit experience: The pro-mask argument is made that the masks filters breath. The counter argument is that the holes in the filter are much larger than the virus.

    The pro-mask argument then responds that the holes don’t catch the virus but rather the minuscule droplets which contain the virus. And counter-argument is that once the mask is saturated, the virus easily floats or migrates, pushed by the force of exhalations, through saturating liquid condensate, and emerges out the other side of the filter, and is expelled into the air, once again riding on droplets.

    And little of this technical stuff matters because almost nobody wears it right and for the entire time anyway. And everybody cheats because it is hard to breathe if you are wearing an actual quality protective mask correctly.

    Your arguments remind me of anti-gun people:

    “You’re more likely to shoot yourself than anyone else. No one but police know how to handle a gun.” (people are too dumb to follow the rules) “Besides, do you really carry gun your everywhere? On the beach? In the gym? (<100% protection is the same as no protection) “You gun nuts just want to compensate for something or want to kill black people” (Attack the motives for wearing masks)

    I hate hearing Lefty arguments from a conservative with your level of intellect and talent.

    Thanks.  But no, not at all.  I’m saying that over all masks don’t work; and that there’s no science or abiding rationale whatsoever for their use as mandated.

    • #16
  17. ToryWarWriter Coolidge
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    I am fortunate to live in a province not run by mad men.  

    I have read the executive summary of the study that seems to be the basis of the social distancing space.  It basically said that 3 feet is good, 6 feet is guaranteed and 9 feet is to much.

    The CBC article was using the study as justification for masks, even though when I read it, it said something to the effect that the confidence that cloth masks would make a difference was not high.  Whatever that means.  But N95 masks were pretty guaranteed to work.

    If I thought it would make a difference I would have written to the CBC and pointed out the problem.  But then I realized that I had better things to do with my life, like watching paint dry.

    In Ontario here, we get social distance bubbles, where you can have up to 9 other people you can break social distance rules and have a normal life with.  Also mask enforcement is a municipal responsibility.  Because what is needed in Toronto might not be needed in WaWa.  (look at a map of Ontario and you will understand the difference).

     

    • #17
  18. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

    Flicker (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Wet masks are no masks.

    And one more thing that is functional reality rather than OR or Isolation Unit experience: The pro-mask argument is made that the masks filters breath. The counter argument is that the holes in the filter are much larger than the virus.

    The pro-mask argument then responds that the holes don’t catch the virus but rather the minuscule droplets which contain the virus. And counter-argument is that once the mask is saturated, the virus easily floats or migrates, pushed by the force of exhalations, through saturating liquid condensate, and emerges out the other side of the filter, and is expelled into the air, once again riding on droplets.

    And little of this technical stuff matters because almost nobody wears it right and for the entire time anyway. And everybody cheats because it is hard to breathe if you are wearing an actual quality protective mask correctly.

    Your arguments remind me of anti-gun people:

    “You’re more likely to shoot yourself than anyone else. No one but police know how to handle a gun.” (people are too dumb to follow the rules) “Besides, do you really carry gun your everywhere? On the beach? In the gym? (<100% protection is the same as no protection) “You gun nuts just want to compensate for something or want to kill black people” (Attack the motives for wearing masks)

    I hate hearing Lefty arguments from a conservative with your level of intellect and talent.

    Thanks. But no, not at all. I’m saying that over all masks don’t work; and that there’s no science or abiding rationale whatsoever for their use as mandated.

    And it used to be that robust discussion and exploration of circumstances and differences were welcomed by the scientific community: such discussions led to better experiments using the scientific method and resulted in greater information about the topic under consideration. Such discussions led to conclusions closer to the truth than staying as an asserted hypothesis. 

    • #18
  19. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Wet masks are no masks.

    And one more thing that is functional reality rather than OR or Isolation Unit experience: The pro-mask argument is made that the masks filters breath. The counter argument is that the holes in the filter are much larger than the virus.

    The pro-mask argument then responds that the holes don’t catch the virus but rather the minuscule droplets which contain the virus. And counter-argument is that once the mask is saturated, the virus easily floats or migrates, pushed by the force of exhalations, through saturating liquid condensate, and emerges out the other side of the filter, and is expelled into the air, once again riding on droplets.

    And little of this technical stuff matters because almost nobody wears it right and for the entire time anyway. And everybody cheats because it is hard to breathe if you are wearing an actual quality protective mask correctly.

    Your arguments remind me of anti-gun people:

    “You’re more likely to shoot yourself than anyone else. No one but police know how to handle a gun.” (people are too dumb to follow the rules) “Besides, do you really carry gun your everywhere? On the beach? In the gym? (<100% protection is the same as no protection) “You gun nuts just want to compensate for something or want to kill black people” (Attack the motives for wearing masks)

    I hate hearing Lefty arguments from a conservative with your level of intellect and talent.

    If the policy were serious it would not involve generic requirements satisfied by face-covering of almost any kind. There would be PSAs about proper use. We would be constantly reminded that the mask is not to protect you but to protect others in case you have the bug so act in all ways like you may be infected. Etc.

    You keep acting as if this were a serious, science-based policy as you would have implemented it with your demonstrable high-level grasp of these issues.  It is not. It never was.  It is compliance theater, an AIDS ribbon worn over the face. It is pitched that way, enforced that way and implemented by people that way. 

    Part of policy design is a realistic assessment of behavior, incentives and the limits of available technology. Personal-cost estimates of risk avoidance measures (seatbelts, bike helmets, regular checkups, Etc) is a real thing.

    The manner in which a generic mask requirement went into effect weeks after masks were said to be useless without the requisite efforts to educate, to improve mask comfort and hygiene, And no serious effort to alter perceptions of cost-benefit all conveyed the impression it was eyewash. People were not stupid for seeing it that way. Superficial compliance is a highly rational response.

    • #19
  20. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):
    The CBC article was using the study as justification for masks, even though when I read it, it said something to the effect that the confidence that cloth masks would make a difference was not high. Whatever that means. But N95 masks were pretty guaranteed to work.

    I know this is not really to your point, but N95 masks have to be initially fitted and then remain seated properly and the wearer has to maintain proper seating while working and talking.  And even then touching the mask contaminates the outside, so every exhalation can blow away some of whatever you had on your hands.  And if you have a beard, they’re a joke.

    • #20
  21. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    EODmom (View Comment):
    Such discussions led to conclusions closer to the truth than staying as an asserted hypothesis.

    I like this.  Even science is not exact.  It only approaches, sometimes very slowly, what can be called the truth.

    [Since Old Bathos is going there, I’ll put this removed part back in:

    Masks?  In the general population?  Worn for an 8-hour shift?  Always having to adjust it?  And depending on the material, being conduits for, rather than filters against, virus migration and transmission?  Bah!]

    • #21
  22. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

    Flicker (View Comment):

    EODmom (View Comment):
    Such discussions led to conclusions closer to the truth than staying as an asserted hypothesis.

    I like this. Even science is not exact. It only approaches, sometimes very slowly, what can be called the truth.

    We only know what we’ve found out to date – not what we will learn in the future. Otherwise, we would have quit with Mmmmmm, this apple tastes good and never gotten to Fire! Hot! Let’s  have some BBQ!

    • #22
  23. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    If it weren’t for an incoherent policy, we would have no policy.

    • #23
  24. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Rodin (View Comment):

    If it weren’t for an incoherent policy, we would have no policy.

    You say that as if no policy were a bad thing.  
    Interesting gedanken experiment: What if Fauci had said “Here’s what we know… here’s what we don’t know … you’re on your own, people.” A more vibrant market for information or would misinformation prevail? More creative PPE solutions or everybody just winging it?  

    • #24
  25. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Wet masks are no masks.

    And one more thing that is functional reality rather than OR or Isolation Unit experience: The pro-mask argument is made that the masks filters breath. The counter argument is that the holes in the filter are much larger than the virus.

    The pro-mask argument then responds that the holes don’t catch the virus but rather the minuscule droplets which contain the virus. And counter-argument is that once the mask is saturated, the virus easily floats or migrates, pushed by the force of exhalations, through saturating liquid condensate, and emerges out the other side of the filter, and is expelled into the air, once again riding on droplets.

    And little of this technical stuff matters because almost nobody wears it right and for the entire time anyway. And everybody cheats because it is hard to breathe if you are wearing an actual quality protective mask correctly.

    Your arguments remind me of anti-gun people:

    “You’re more likely to shoot yourself than anyone else. No one but police know how to handle a gun.” (people are too dumb to follow the rules) “Besides, do you really carry gun your everywhere? On the beach? In the gym? (<100% protection is the same as no protection) “You gun nuts just want to compensate for something or want to kill black people” (Attack the motives for wearing masks)

    I hate hearing Lefty arguments from a conservative with your level of intellect and talent.

    If the policy were serious it would not involve generic requirements satisfied by face-covering of almost any kind. There would be PSAs about proper use. We would be constantly reminded that the mask is not to protect you but to protect others in case you have the bug so act in all ways like you may be infected. Etc.

    You keep acting as if this were a serious, science-based policy as you would have implemented it with your demonstrable high-level grasp of these issues. It is not. It never was. It is compliance theater, an AIDS ribbon worn over the face. It is pitched that way, enforced that way and implemented by people that way.

    Part of policy design is a realistic assessment of behavior, incentives and the limits of available technology. Personal-cost estimates of risk avoidance measures (seatbelts, bike helmets, regular checkups, Etc) is a real thing.

    The manner in which a generic mask requirement went into effect weeks after masks were said to be useless without the requisite efforts to educate, to improve mask comfort and hygiene, And no serious effort to alter perceptions of cost-benefit all conveyed the impression it was eyewash. People were not stupid for seeing it that way. Superficial compliance is a highly rational response.

    Part of the issue is that where I work, the policy actually is mostly “a serious, science-based policy”.  We have sharp people who work in biosafety, along with hospital infection control, who were ahead of the game.  There are annoying inconsistencies (like how many people can be on an elevator – it’s arbitrary without regard to size, and I worked with my boss to get it changed)  but it has overall had good compliance without having to Karen everyone.

    Part of how I actually do my job is relying on people to be adults about safety.  We can’t assume a lab is going behind our back – we have to trust them to an extent, or we will kill the rapport that is crucial to getting safe lab practices.   We used the same approach with COVID-19 public health measures – the soft touch worked well.   I believe that Americans can handle masking and reasonable infection control measures if you ask them and explain the reason behind it.  And that’s what we did early on – curve flattened, job well done.

    I think where we differ is that I see the ideas as good, but the execution as an abomination. 

    The public health communication during this epidemic has been absolutely insane, and a lot of areas went into tyranny.  It should be a lesson to public health officials in what not to do.  Some of the governmental officials, like Darth Gretchen, So much credibility tossed into the dumpster and set on fire.  I feel like a good cop watching hours and hours of horrendous stupidity and police brutality, or a doctor watching a highlight reel of medical mistakes. 

    (Roughly my view of the Public Health field right now)

    Fauci let the position go to his head, and I am glad Scott Atlas is on board.  I hope we can get some more sanity in the CDC guidelines.

    • #25
  26. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    I believe that Americans can handle masking and reasonable infection control measures if you ask them and explain the reason behind it. And that’s what we did early on – curve flattened, job well done.

    I agree with much of what you said.  But this statement is false, in its own way, too.  Remember, the figure (I don’t really remember because it was so long ago, but I’m in the right number of zeros, I think): the modelled figure of deaths if The Big Three (mask wearing, hand washing, and physical distancing) were performed perfectly was 75k to 200-some thousand dead.  Two or three weeks later there were, what, 10 -25k dead.  And Birx said, rapturously, that that was because we as a people complied SO WELL!  No, if we had complied perfectly, we would have lost 10 to 20 times more people according to the models.  We flattened the curve alright, but it was because the curve was off by an order of magnitude.  And the medical professionals changed their story, flooding it with praise and false hope, to get people not to question their original numbers.

    This has been farcical from the start.

    • #26
  27. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Rodin (View Comment):

    If it weren’t for an incoherent policy, we would have no policy.

    You say that as if no policy were a bad thing.
    Interesting gedanken experiment: What if Fauci had said “Here’s what we know… here’s what we don’t know … you’re on your own, people.” A more vibrant market for information or would misinformation prevail? More creative PPE solutions or everybody just winging it?

    I think this is more or less what we got, if not quite so up-front about it all.

    • #27
  28. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Wow, OB, your wife is quite a gal!  She deserves all the praise you lavish on her.

    I am so looking forward to retiring at the end of the month.  I am sick and tired of having to don the stupid mask every time I leave my desk, even just to retrieve a document off the printer.  And I make my company provide me with the mask-I refuse to pay one cent of my money for one.

    Now, thanks to @omegapaladin, I have a new nickname for our dictator governor in Washington State.  Darth Jay-der!  Thanks!

    • #28
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.