Why so many covid 19 cases and deaths in LA County (Los Angeles: payments, clinics)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by skyway31

While I typed the wrong publication name, it seems as if you didn’t even read the piece. It seems you didn’t even read the headline.

It's behind a paywall.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

It's behind a paywall.

The title of the article is The Case for Wearing Masks Forever. It explores a group of Twitter loudmouths who’ve had an outsized influence on public policy for the first year of the pandemic. People like Lucky Tran and Gregg Gonsalves. They call themselves “The People’s CDC”, and they are radical far leftist activists who believe any sort of aversion to masking is actually White Supremacy. The piece allows them to make their case. And then, in perhaps the most shocking turn of events imaginable, the counterarguments were allowed to be presented. This represents a major tide shift, as previously arguments against masking were not permitted.

[goodheathen]

I read the article. It's a hit piece, with a misleading title not advocated by any large group of people. The beliefs of some of them re fringe issues and CDC motives do not mean they're wrong in their recommendations. Most of the medical community recommends the same things, including several doctors I've spoken to offline. The People's CDC name did not come from The PRC. The actual CDC isn't doing its job, point blank, even the author might agree. Without more restrictions, I see no way out of this any time soon (though of course deluded people will act like a spring drop-off means it's over). By the way, it was just discovered that many new cases in New York are from a new, nastier variant, which I think we can expect to see here by late next month.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

I read the article. It's a hit piece, with a misleading title not advocated by any large group of people. The beliefs of some of them re fringe issues and CDC motives do not mean they're wrong in their recommendations. Most of the medical community recommends the same things, including several doctors I've spoken to offline. The People's CDC name did not come from The PRC. The actual CDC isn't doing its job, point blank, even the author might agree. Without more restrictions, I see no way out of this any time soon (though of course deluded people will act like a spring drop-off means it's over). By the way, it was just discovered that many new cases in New York are from a new, nastier variant, which I think we can expect to see here by late next month.

Advocacy for policies for which there are no metrics by which the policy ends are, ipso facto, permanent policies. The only off-ramp (implicitly) offered is the total absence of any Covid infections. This is not remotely realistic. It is impossible. So, there will always be ebbs and flows in case numbers. And, if these fluctuations are the justification for mask mandates, they will, necessarily, be with us forever. (This is all not to mention the very real pivot away from mentioning Covid exclusively as grounds for mask mandates. Flu and RSV are also now mentioned as a justification. They, too, figure to be with us forever.)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

I read the article. It's a hit piece, with a misleading title not advocated by any large group of people. The beliefs of some of them re fringe issues and CDC motives...

And no one is advocating "masks in perpetuity," anyway; why post an article about this? If that's what the person is upset about, h/she can start their own thread about it elsewhere.

[goodheathen]

There's an RSV vaccine on the way.

Government can shut down all airplane traffic. Just because a policy itself probably is permanent doesn't mean it's toggled on.

Even this virus-plagued city can have winters where metrics don't trigger mask mandates. If there is a mandate for a few months, I say any informed person should prefer that over the social and health consequences of widespread infection. Furthermore, it probably would be limited to some higher-risk indoor situations. The People's CDC and anyone and anything else want the virus to not be a threat anymore, not masks every day of the year or whatever absurdity is imagined. But some of us won't pretend it's not a threat when it still is, which is the big divide right now.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

There's an RSV vaccine on the way.

Government can shut down all airplane traffic. Just because a policy itself probably is permanent doesn't mean it's toggled on.

Even this virus-plagued city can have winters where metrics don't trigger mask mandates. If there is a mandate for a few months, I say any informed person should prefer that over the social and health consequences of widespread infection. Furthermore, it probably would be limited to some higher-risk indoor situations. The People's CDC and anyone and anything else want the virus to not be a threat anymore, not masks every day of the year or whatever absurdity is imagined. But some of us won't pretend it's not a threat when it still is, which is the big divide right now.

I rest my case. And, so, despite what some say, there are people seriously arguing for permanent masking (with the occasional break for unspecified fluctuations.)

The big divide is not really over whether Covid is a threat. The divide is over what to do (or not) about it. Some vehemently, defiantly, refuse to consider a cost/risk-benefit analysis, of any kind, whatsoever. Some, like yourself, believe we should do whatever we can do, that might possibly (or not) reduce cases, without *any* regard for the costs brought on by those interventions, AND, there can be no end date, or end metric offered for this approach. Your view won out for a very long time, including long stretches where different views were flat-out prohibited. It's now a loser. Those still advocating for such an approach- which include a very small number of even Democratic politicians- have been forced to out themselves as the radical political activists they are.

Why so many Covid cases in LA? Because the draconian policies believed to be the panacea are not, in fact, that.

[goodheathen]

The pandemic is not permanent! Something eventually will neutralize the virus as a threat, rendering a mask policy moot. Meanwhile, there is no end date to be given for safety for a threat that could be around for many years. Mandatory, effectively enforced masking for the general public most of the time in most places is unfathomable (though hardly with real-world downsides).

This nonsense would end faster if stricter measures were imposed, specifically to choke the virus out at places like airports. In 3 years, we've not come close to sealing out new virus variants from the city (old ones seem to naturally die down).

[goodheathen]

I just realized the absurdity of the argument that the People's CDC wants permanent masking, because the government established the right to mandate masking more than 100 years ago and has never relinquished it. Some of it just want it used more during this long pandemic, like the actual CDC falsely claimed it would do. It's not supposed to be endless. Anyone in that grass-roots movement who fixates on masks or detractors who foam at the mouth about mask mandates needs to get a grip.

Speaking of going too far, I was shopping and saw someone in a face mask with a face shield. I think shields barely help, and if that person is truly high-risk, probably much safer to order pickup or delivery online. It's a bad situation to be in if not wealthy and needing fresh or frozen items. I didn't look at the person's cart for that, but there's probably no fresh meat sold in that store. Local government should have programs to assist more than the elderly and severely disabled with local shopping, and many in those categories probably don't know where to find the government help.

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by skyway31

I rest my case. And, so, despite what some say, there are people seriously arguing for permanent masking (with the occasional break for unspecified fluctuations.)

The big divide is not really over whether Covid is a threat. The divide is over what to do (or not) about it. Some vehemently, defiantly, refuse to consider a cost/risk-benefit analysis, of any kind, whatsoever. Some, like yourself, believe we should do whatever we can do, that might possibly (or not) reduce cases, without *any* regard for the costs brought on by those interventions, AND, there can be no end date, or end metric offered for this approach. Your view won out for a very long time, including long stretches where different views were flat-out prohibited. It's now a loser. Those still advocating for such an approach- which include a very small number of even Democratic politicians- have been forced to out themselves as the radical political activists they are.

Why so many Covid cases in LA? Because the draconian policies believed to be the panacea are not, in fact, that.

Actually, the only thing that seems to be permanent is arguing about it (which does little good in this situation). A better solution is to deal with what you have control of.