COVID-19 Megathread 6: Return of the Omicron

[Hammy]

This is the future the anti-vaccine, forever-pandemic left wants… really disturbing
https://twitter.com/saitomri/status/1489151047507800064?s=21

Hate to burst your centrist bubble, but it's the establishment centrist Dems who want this, not "the left". You're starting to sound like Trump.

Nah, look at the replies to the tweet supporting this kind of security theater, they’re all various sub genres of communist.

If you have to go out of your way to find them by resorting to twitter (a notoriously unreliable source as you never know if anyone is what they say they are), then they're a vocal minority at best.

The public figures who are pushing this nonsense are very much the establishment voices, not "the left"

[DINGO Joe]

A pretty good story on why the US is dying at a higher rate than comparable countries

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/why-are-so-many-americans-still-dying-of-covid.html

Big shock, it has to do with vaccines.

Still really haven't seen anyone in the media notice that the pandemic has gotten much whiter and younger post vax.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

https://deadline.com/2022/02/l-a-mayor-garcetti-says-he-held-his-breath-for-maskless-photo-with-magic-johnson-1234925457/

Garcetti says he "held his breath" while taking a maskless photo. How f**king dumb do these elitist Democrats think we are?

Republicans belong to a party led by Donald Trump, so it's seems quite reasonable to assume that they're dumb enough to believe this.

That said, this is inexcusable, and he ought to resign for both the blatant hypocrisy and following it up with insulting idiocy.

[Oakvale]

This is the future the anti-vaccine, forever-pandemic left wants… really disturbing
https://twitter.com/saitomri/status/1489151047507800064?s=21

Hate to burst your centrist bubble, but it's the establishment centrist Dems who want this, not "the left". You're starting to sound like Trump.

Nah, look at the replies to the tweet supporting this kind of security theater, they’re all various sub genres of communist.

If you have to go out of your way to find them by resorting to twitter (a notoriously unreliable source as you never know if anyone is what they say they are), then they're a vocal minority at best.

The public figures who are pushing this nonsense are very much the establishment voices, not "the left"

There's an extremely cursed alliance between a certain type of blue tick Warren donating upper income liberal and the far left in this respect. The former group have memed themselves into a state of permanent hysteria because they pay too much attention to the enemy of the people media and, frankly, are capable of remote working forever in their comfortable three-bedroom house and ordering service workers in full hazmat suits to bring them food. These are the kind of people who are obsessed with vaccinating the under-5s and yet will not change their behaviour one iota when this actually happens. A good example of this is Nancy Pelosi declaring that only 25 members of Congress will be allowed at the State of the Union because of social distancing.

The latter group exists because the far left - and this goes doubly for the American left - is a fundamentally unserious, masturbatory endeavour. If you're a middle class self-described 'socialist' in America the path of least resistance is to arbitrarily blame shadowy neoliberalism for the US death toll and jerk yourself silly about how the evil government is forcing people to die for the economy (these people, of course, think that 'the economy' and people's lives are distinct and separable things). To admit that the mass production and free availability of effective vaccines is one of the most impressive examples of state mobilisation in living memory would be to undermine their entire coping mechanism. This is because most of them have debts from Harvard Law School that they can't pay off after choosing to pursue careers in stand-up comedy.

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

[Leohendo9]

stealth omicron?

think these names are going to get more scary as we go.

is it the new 'terrorism'?

[Can't Bear]

The rolling average for USA peaked at about 800K in mid-January.  Today it fell under 400K.  And the sharp decline continues.

In New York they're basically back down to zero.  I wouldn't be surprised if New York fully reopens in the next week or two.

Knock on wood but it really does feel like the light at the end of the tunnel is in sight.  The cases are collapsing, we've got a full arsenal to combat severe infections, we've got vaccines to prevent those severe infections and a few on the way to add even more firepower.  Original COVID is completely destroyed.  Delta seems to be mostly gone as well.

I'd be pretty surprised if the Biden administration doesn't start loosening restrictions by the end of the month.

LOL, GMAC Bob, you "attacked" me in deranged manner just 2 days ago for saying this.

Today/yesterday Finland, Sweden and Switzerland (England, more?) followed Denmark. They said they will/aim to remove all the remaining restrictions this month.

If Biden is smart, he'll do something similar in ASAP and "own" going-back-to-normal momentum. It's clear, it's mostly over in a month. I'm afraid, he'll be scared of/sides with idiots forever-restrictioners as he did with Progressives vs Manchin, wait to long and lose BBB momentum.

God knows

He already did this last summer and everyone (including you) pounced as soon as Delta hit, so let's not pretend this is good-faith advice.

[Can't Bear]

Today/yesterday Finland, Sweden and Switzerland (England, more?) followed Denmark. They said they will/aim to remove all the remaining restrictions this month.

If Biden is smart, he'll do something similar in ASAP and "own" going-back-to-normal momentum. It's clear, it's mostly over in a month. I'm afraid, he'll be scared of/sides with idiots forever-restrictioners as he did with Progressives vs Manchin, wait to long and lose BBB momentum.

God knows

Great minds think alike 

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1489281154549264389


Biden was late on inflation, late on "testing" and now he'll be late on "go-back-to-normal". Gi, perhaps, partially because of people like GMac around him, hehehe.

He'll probably get a back-to-normal bump anyway, but the more he waits, the smaller the bump will be, imo.

[compucomp]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

[Oakvale]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

They're anti-vaxxers because they don't believe the vaccine works. Seems fairly simple. The vaccines have been effective enough that, coupled with our friend omicron, cases have effectively decoupled from hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines do not prevent transmission but they make all but a tiny minority of people (who would normally be a bad flu season away from death's door) practically invulnerable to what is now, for virtually all the vaccinated, an irritating cold.

The success of the vaccines has ended the pandemic and we can now return to normal life.

When you include the blinding obvious reality that any and all public health restrictions make absolutely no impact whatsoever on transmission of the virus it's clear that the upper normies who want perma-lockdown don't "trust the science" at all: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

[Can't Bear]

It's not about them not believing vaccines, but this.

: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

Never it has been so easy to show off how "good" person you are. If you're "cautious" means that you CAAAAAAAAAAAAARE. Convincingly, you can Karen-moralize the poors, who happens to pay the price for this virtue-singling.

These bastards has even managed to convince a big share of D-lean poors that NOT sending their kids to schools is a very responsible thing to do. Smart, cause now their own kids will have much less competition...

[compucomp]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

They're anti-vaxxers because they don't believe the vaccine works. Seems fairly simple. The vaccines have been effective enough that, coupled with our friend omicron, cases have effectively decoupled from hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines do not prevent transmission but they make all but a tiny minority of people (who would normally be a bad flu season away from death's door) practically invulnerable to what is now, for virtually all the vaccinated, an irritating cold.

The success of the vaccines has ended the pandemic and we can now return to normal life.

When you include the blinding obvious reality that any and all public health restrictions make absolutely no impact whatsoever on transmission of the virus it's clear that the upper normies who want perma-lockdown don't "trust the science" at all: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

The first is your minority opinion, in the recent Monmouth poll 62% of people are still very or somewhat concerned about getting severely ill due to COVID. The second is just completely false. Let's take the example of mask mandates. Multiple studies have shown that schools that instituted mask mandates have less COVID transmission then those that don't. Even if you go to general population where the exceptions in mask mandates (restaurants, bars, private gatherings) lower its efficacy at the population level, it still has substantial value. Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

[Oakvale]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

They're anti-vaxxers because they don't believe the vaccine works. Seems fairly simple. The vaccines have been effective enough that, coupled with our friend omicron, cases have effectively decoupled from hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines do not prevent transmission but they make all but a tiny minority of people (who would normally be a bad flu season away from death's door) practically invulnerable to what is now, for virtually all the vaccinated, an irritating cold.

The success of the vaccines has ended the pandemic and we can now return to normal life.

When you include the blinding obvious reality that any and all public health restrictions make absolutely no impact whatsoever on transmission of the virus it's clear that the upper normies who want perma-lockdown don't "trust the science" at all: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

The first is your minority opinion, in the recent Monmouth poll 62% of people are still very or somewhat concerned about getting severely ill due to COVID. The second is just completely false. Let's take the example of mask mandates. Multiple studies have shown that schools that instituted mask mandates have less COVID transmission then those that don't. Even if you go to general population where the exceptions in mask mandates (restaurants, bars, private gatherings) lower its efficacy at the population level, it still has substantial value. Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Your premise here is that indoor smoking bans are comparable to mask mandates in that not only do they increase both public safety (smoking bans do not, in fact do this to any meaningful extent, but that's another day's discussion) and comfort, which is obviously nonsense. Even if you want to make the dubious claim that masks have public health benefits it is indisputable that they're a deeply unpleasant imposition. This is evident in the collapse of voluntary mask-wearing any time a mandate is eased.

Mask mandates are bad public policy at this post-pandemic juncture: they achieve nothing but an obnoxious and anti-social signal of non-normality. Even if there was some marginal public health benefit to forced mask wearing I would not consider it a worthwhile trade-off for prolonging the pandemic by implementing such.

Also:



wow what a stunning public health success

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Mask mandates make indoor spaces more pleasant??

It’s these sort of statements that really hit home how some people must just fundamentally experience the world differently than I do.

And I literally am a “Warren donating upper income liberal”.

[Zohranism is OUR future]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

They're anti-vaxxers because they don't believe the vaccine works. Seems fairly simple. The vaccines have been effective enough that, coupled with our friend omicron, cases have effectively decoupled from hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines do not prevent transmission but they make all but a tiny minority of people (who would normally be a bad flu season away from death's door) practically invulnerable to what is now, for virtually all the vaccinated, an irritating cold.

The success of the vaccines has ended the pandemic and we can now return to normal life.

When you include the blinding obvious reality that any and all public health restrictions make absolutely no impact whatsoever on transmission of the virus it's clear that the upper normies who want perma-lockdown don't "trust the science" at all: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

The first is your minority opinion, in the recent Monmouth poll 62% of people are still very or somewhat concerned about getting severely ill due to COVID. The second is just completely false. Let's take the example of mask mandates. Multiple studies have shown that schools that instituted mask mandates have less COVID transmission then those that don't. Even if you go to general population where the exceptions in mask mandates (restaurants, bars, private gatherings) lower its efficacy at the population level, it still has substantial value. Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

No.

[Zohranism is OUR future]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

They're anti-vaxxers because they don't believe the vaccine works. Seems fairly simple. The vaccines have been effective enough that, coupled with our friend omicron, cases have effectively decoupled from hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines do not prevent transmission but they make all but a tiny minority of people (who would normally be a bad flu season away from death's door) practically invulnerable to what is now, for virtually all the vaccinated, an irritating cold.

The success of the vaccines has ended the pandemic and we can now return to normal life.

When you include the blinding obvious reality that any and all public health restrictions make absolutely no impact whatsoever on transmission of the virus it's clear that the upper normies who want perma-lockdown don't "trust the science" at all: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

The first is your minority opinion, in the recent Monmouth poll 62% of people are still very or somewhat concerned about getting severely ill due to COVID. The second is just completely false. Let's take the example of mask mandates. Multiple studies have shown that schools that instituted mask mandates have less COVID transmission then those that don't. Even if you go to general population where the exceptions in mask mandates (restaurants, bars, private gatherings) lower its efficacy at the population level, it still has substantial value. Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Your premise here is that indoor smoking bans are comparable to mask mandates in that not only do they increase both public safety (smoking bans do not, in fact do this to any meaningful extent, but that's another day's discussion) and comfort, which is obviously nonsense. Even if you want to make the dubious claim that masks have public health benefits it is indisputable that they're a deeply unpleasant imposition. This is evident in the collapse of voluntary mask-wearing any time a mandate is eased.

Mask mandates are bad public policy at this post-pandemic juncture: they achieve nothing but an obnoxious and anti-social signal of non-normality. Even if there was some marginal public health benefit to forced mask wearing I would not consider it a worthwhile trade-off for prolonging the pandemic by implementing such.

Also:



wow what a stunning public health success

What an intellectually dishonest graph. I should not have to explain to you why just comparing very different states with different population densities, different wave patterns, and different climates to other very different states based on one variable is ludicrous and the most dumb**s s**t imaginable.
While there is no perfect way to control for things, closest you can do is compare rate changes within a state as mask guidelines change (yes I’m very aware that’s also flawed)

[Zohranism is OUR future]

Anyways if deaths don’t dramatically rise in the next few weeks, I fully support announcing a back to normal for anyone vaccinated so long as hospitals are able to handle it. Also Biden should scapegoat antivaxxers, they are unpopular and mocking them routinely/targeting them from here on out is just good politics.

[Can't Bear]

Anyways if deaths don’t dramatically rise in the next few weeks, I fully support announcing a back to normal for anyone vaccinated so long as hospitals are able to handle it. Also Biden should scapegoat antivaxxers, they are unpopular and mocking them routinely/targeting them from here on out is just good politics.

LOL I hope he does, but I don't believe Biden/Dems are this "bright". They know that a lot of these people are minorities/young.

Will Biden win any vaxxed presumably suburban/urban Reps by alienating vaxx-hesitante people? Unlikely imo.
Will Biden lose* vaxx hesitant Blacks/Latinos/young by mocking them? IMO, Absof***inglutely.

lose* - doesn't need to be, that these people necessarily vote GOP, they just wont turn out for D. On the contrary, the (R) people you humiliate will absolutely turn out and wipe you out  

Idk, probably, this damage is already done.

[Calthrina950]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

They're anti-vaxxers because they don't believe the vaccine works. Seems fairly simple. The vaccines have been effective enough that, coupled with our friend omicron, cases have effectively decoupled from hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines do not prevent transmission but they make all but a tiny minority of people (who would normally be a bad flu season away from death's door) practically invulnerable to what is now, for virtually all the vaccinated, an irritating cold.

The success of the vaccines has ended the pandemic and we can now return to normal life.

When you include the blinding obvious reality that any and all public health restrictions make absolutely no impact whatsoever on transmission of the virus it's clear that the upper normies who want perma-lockdown don't "trust the science" at all: they just want to immiserate our lives forever more to feel morally smug for their virtuous behaviour. It is utterly repulsive.

The first is your minority opinion, in the recent Monmouth poll 62% of people are still very or somewhat concerned about getting severely ill due to COVID. The second is just completely false. Let's take the example of mask mandates. Multiple studies have shown that schools that instituted mask mandates have less COVID transmission then those that don't. Even if you go to general population where the exceptions in mask mandates (restaurants, bars, private gatherings) lower its efficacy at the population level, it still has substantial value. Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Your premise here is that indoor smoking bans are comparable to mask mandates in that not only do they increase both public safety (smoking bans do not, in fact do this to any meaningful extent, but that's another day's discussion) and comfort, which is obviously nonsense. Even if you want to make the dubious claim that masks have public health benefits it is indisputable that they're a deeply unpleasant imposition. This is evident in the collapse of voluntary mask-wearing any time a mandate is eased.

Mask mandates are bad public policy at this post-pandemic juncture: they achieve nothing but an obnoxious and anti-social signal of non-normality. Even if there was some marginal public health benefit to forced mask wearing I would not consider it a worthwhile trade-off for prolonging the pandemic by implementing such.

Also:



wow what a stunning public health success

What an intellectually dishonest graph. I should not have to explain to you why just comparing very different states with different population densities, different wave patterns, and different climates to other very different states based on one variable is ludicrous and the most dumb**s s**t imaginable.
While there is no perfect way to control for things, closest you can do is compare rate changes within a state as mask guidelines change (yes I’m very aware that’s also flawed)

Are you arguing that mask mandates are effective? Do you think they should be maintained in perpetuity?

[compucomp]

Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Mask mandates make indoor spaces more pleasant??

It’s these sort of statements that really hit home how some people must just fundamentally experience the world differently than I do.

And I literally am a “Warren donating upper income liberal”.

Absolutely. COVID fumes are arguably more noxious than cigarette smoke, if you breathe it in, you could catch COVID. Obviously, one can't smell it, but given we're familiar with how cigarette smoke propagates indoors there is the knowledge that the COVID particles are probably in the air if there are unmasked people. One could argue that the uncertainty makes the environment even more unpleasant than the certainty of smelling cigarette smoke. I've learned to tolerate unmasked people in public indoor spaces but that doesn't mean I like it. I'm very glad that where I live 80% of people wear masks indoors even though there is no mandate.

[emailking]

I have no problem with the administration not telling specific areas of the country to ignore Covid while Covid is still raging across the rest of the country. We're all in this together.

[Can't Bear]

I have no problem with the administration not telling specific areas of the country to ignore Covid while Covid is still raging across the rest of the country. We're all in this together.

The cases/hospitalizations failing in virtually every state, in many by a lot https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

Moreover, Red states are relaxed anyway.

Moreover, at worst, you can say: we recommend to remove all the restrictions in X weeks, when hospitalization or Y is under Z.

[Chief Justice PiT]

Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Mask mandates make indoor spaces more pleasant??

It’s these sort of statements that really hit home how some people must just fundamentally experience the world differently than I do.

And I literally am a “Warren donating upper income liberal”.

Absolutely. COVID fumes are arguably more noxious than cigarette smoke, if you breathe it in, you could catch COVID. Obviously, one can't smell it, but given we're familiar with how cigarette smoke propagates indoors there is the knowledge that the COVID particles are probably in the air if there are unmasked people. One could argue that the uncertainty makes the environment even more unpleasant than the certainty of smelling cigarette smoke. I've learned to tolerate unmasked people in public indoor spaces but that doesn't mean I like it. I'm very glad that where I live 80% of people wear masks indoors even though there is no mandate.

     I find it fascinating how you didn't even touch on the issue of not being able to see human faces as you look around, something that is psychologically comforting at a basic level for most people. As NickG said, it seems some people experience the world quite differently.

[Mr. Illini]

Another point of comparison - both groups are de facto anti-vaxxers. The former group will express this sentiment by purporting to be extremely pro-vaccine but, as discussed, insisting that they will continue to wear masks indefinitely etc. The latter express this through nonsensical pontificating about how actually anti-vaxxers are all marginalised working class people who simply can't afford to get a free vaccine at any pharmacy in the country. Both will shamelessly moralise about how those of us who want our lives back want to murder the disabled, citing statistics based on the premise that people with repetitive strain injury are at risk of death from Covid.

They will express it in different language, and approach it via a different angle - the liberals might bleat on about the merits of New Zealand whereas the left will do so about China -  but both groups are expressing the same ugly, narcissistic impulse. Neither ever wants this to end.

This is a talking point this forum likes to make and it is completely wrong and highly insulting. Poll after poll shows that vaccinated people are more likely to think COVID-19 is a threat, support mask mandates and social distancing, etc. So people who favor restrictions are anti-vaccine by... disproportionately getting the vaccine? We understand the truth, that the vaccine is an important tool and the best we have, but it doesn't offer anything close to sterilizing immunity, and thus it cannot protect us from COVID-19 and we favor additional mitigation measures, particularly low cost, low effort ones like mask mandates. It's the people who continue to insist that the vaccine is an impenetrable COVID repelling shield that's really undermining the vaccine by telling an obvious lie. Anti-vaccine people are by now almost all Alex Jones style conspiratard numbskulls; I can't even call them Trumpist anymore after Trump tried to set them straight and they turned on him. I refuse to be smeared by being associated with these lowlifes.

Interesting that the two groups that make heavy use of the term "sterilizing immunity" are the vaccine-hesitant as well as the forever-Coviders. They employ it for the same purpose as well - to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Two sides of the same coin, really.

[compucomp]

Maybe indoor no-smoking mandates did not cause smoking rates to decline, but they do ensure indoor public spaces are not smoke-filled and thus are more pleasant and safe, which is unambiguously a good thing, and the same principle applies with indoor mask mandates.

Mask mandates make indoor spaces more pleasant??

It’s these sort of statements that really hit home how some people must just fundamentally experience the world differently than I do.

And I literally am a “Warren donating upper income liberal”.

Absolutely. COVID fumes are arguably more noxious than cigarette smoke, if you breathe it in, you could catch COVID. Obviously, one can't smell it, but given we're familiar with how cigarette smoke propagates indoors there is the knowledge that the COVID particles are probably in the air if there are unmasked people. One could argue that the uncertainty makes the environment even more unpleasant than the certainty of smelling cigarette smoke. I've learned to tolerate unmasked people in public indoor spaces but that doesn't mean I like it. I'm very glad that where I live 80% of people wear masks indoors even though there is no mandate.

     I find it fascinating how you didn't even touch on the issue of not being able to see human faces as you look around, something that is psychologically comforting at a basic level for most people. As NickG said, it seems some people experience the world quite differently.

It's entirely natural and reasonable to prioritize physical health before mental health, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs puts physiological and safety needs at the bottom of the pyramid.

Interesting that the two groups that make heavy use of the term "sterilizing immunity" are the vaccine-hesitant as well as the forever-Coviders. They employ it for the same purpose as well - to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Two sides of the same coin, really.

Are you still insisting that the vaccine makes us safe from COVID and is an impenetrable virus repelling shield? How can you stick to that position, especially after this Omicron wave, where it seemed like everyone you know, their parents, their cats, and their dogs all caught Omicron, when all of them were vaccinated? I wish the vaccine conferred sterilizing immunity but it's just not true. So the public must know that if they want to protect themselves from COVID, they need to take additional measures beyond getting the vaccine. This information cannot be suppressed because it is the plain and obvious truth. If some idiots use this to justify not getting the vaccine, then that's their fault for making a grave error in judgement.

[Roll Roons]

Interesting that the two groups that make heavy use of the term "sterilizing immunity" are the vaccine-hesitant as well as the forever-Coviders. They employ it for the same purpose as well - to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Two sides of the same coin, really.

Are you still insisting that the vaccine makes us safe from COVID and is an impenetrable virus repelling shield? How can you stick to that position, especially after this Omicron wave, where it seemed like everyone you know, their parents, their cats, and their dogs all caught Omicron, when all of them were vaccinated? I wish the vaccine conferred sterilizing immunity but it's just not true. So the public must know that if they want to protect themselves from COVID, they need to take additional measures beyond getting the vaccine. This information cannot be suppressed because it is the plain and obvious truth. If some idiots use this to justify not getting the vaccine, then that's their fault for making a grave error in judgement.

Lots of vaccinated people may have caught it, but their symptoms were either very mild (cough, sore throat, sniffles) or nonexistent. Yes, vaccines overwhelmingly do still keep us safe. Stop spreading lies.