Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. You err on the side of caution until new evidence comes available. You change the guidelines when you have gathered sufficient evidence to confirm a hypothesis - that's how science works.
It's common sense and not controversial whatsoever.
I agree.
then why put out guidance in the first place knowing that they have not received sufficient data to make a coherent estimate?
Did Chicken Little err on the side of caution when it claimed the sky was falling? ...or when 2.2 million people were supposed to die?
Lol.... I’d like to think you’re being facetious, yea?
That being said I am amazed that some of these posters believe erring on the side of caution somehow discredits 99% of the experts.
It doesn't necessarily "discredit" the experts, however it does logically lead many folks to then question just how solid the rationale behind any future guidance. In many ways it doesn't take an expert to "assume the worse and hope for the best". Did the CDC err on the side of caution when they originally stated that masks were not effective and that the #1 preventative measure was to wash one's hands? Consider, what would make one trust this particular piece of guidance given previous history?
I'm not saying that they can not be trusted, rather, the notion that some folks would be skeptical is not at all undeserved nor unwarranted.
It doesn't necessarily "discredit" the experts, however it does logically lead many folks to then question just how solid the rationale behind any future guidance. In many ways it doesn't take an expert to "assume the worse and hope for the best". Did the CDC err on the side of caution when they originally stated that masks were not effective and that the #1 preventative measure was to wash one's hands? Consider, what would make one trust this particular piece of guidance given previous history?
I'm not saying that they can not be trusted, rather, the notion that some folks would be skeptical is not at all undeserved nor unwarranted.
The CDC wanted to ensure that the *extremely limited* supply of masks went to medical professionals first, which was a prudent measure considering how unprepared we were.
Furthermore, the OP is calling out all “experts”, saying things like “what have they gotten right during this whole thing?”, and “If it wasn't so serious, our "experts" would be a damn joke”, which goes FAR beyond what you’re calling “skeptic[ism]”.
Why did you post a link to a mass media outlet instead of the report itself?
Context is meaningful.
I went to the CDC website and the first page has about a dozen links to various updates just for May 20th, and then days before that and, to be honest, it is hard to tell even what report this mass media "report" is referring to.
The link within the link that you provided goes to a page that was last updated on April 13th.
Quote:
Page last reviewed: April 13, 2020
Content source: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases
This is not news. We all seem to know that, in order of probability, the infection is spread mainly through mucous droplets (sneezing, coughing, singing, yelling, loud talking, talking, breathing), especially if exposed for a period of time in a closed space, secondarily from touching infected surfaces and then touching one's face with infected hands, and so on.
We've already known that.
At this point, people can decide on their own how to measure risks that they can control, such as whether to shower and disinfect packages, products and surfaces in the home when returning from the grocery store or going out anywhere, when to go to stores or parks and which to go to, how long to stay, etc.
As for common mass gatherings, such as sporting events, it seems the baseball season is on the verge of being completely cancelled (I believe members of the players union have to decide soon whether to accept protocols detailed in an owners' proposal and begin a half season by July 4th or so). Basically all youth summer camps that I know of are completely cancelled. Meanwhile football and schools are still at least two months away, so there's still time to see how things develop. The California State University system has already cancelled on-campus instruction for the first semester next academic year.
I do sympathize with potentially vulnerable people who cannot work from home and may be called to go back to work with little or no choice in the matter.
At the same time, we all have a personal responsibility to strengthen our immune system - even way before this happened - through a healthy lifestyle and not expect others to subsidize the results of bad choices.
As for political economy, yes, disengage or at least meaningfully degear from China, stop using their near-slave labor as a crutch and pretend we don't see it because we're high on credit and fentanyl, shorten production and supply lines as much as possible, make borders tighter than a clam's ass, and get major swathes of otherwise idle people legally on US soil back to work on the basics, but, again, that should have been the policy long before this happened: as one poster astutely mentioned in another thread about a week ago, one result of the lock-downs is they have revealed just how unproductive the average US suburbanite really is.
So...if that’s the case, can we drop the whole let’s ban gyms, gloves, etc BS?
Otherwise, why are all these basic things banned?
Not that I agree with the ban but there is a lot of heavy breathing at the gym and the virus is transmitted that way. At least for now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cough 
