Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Florida: teeth, house, school districts)

[bohemka]

A series of spot-on posts by id77. I can't rep them all.

I lived overseas for quite a while, and it's just a different mindset. Rules and guidance and best practices are known and understood, and not adhering to them is considered an embarrassment, not some exercise in freedom(!). There was a clear moment for federal leadership in February and March, but our federal administration chose politics and divisiveness over public safety.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

What "proper information" are you referring to? The CDC issued mask guidelines on APRIL 3. The death toll at that point was 7,600 in the US. It's now 140,000. Imagine how much this would have been cut down had people followed the CDC, whose very purpose to exist is because of situations like this.

You're telling me that people didn't know what to do because they don't have information that's been around for months?

Most people see it as "If I catch it I have a 99% chance of surviving", had they been told back then "you have a 1% of dying but a 10% chance of ending up with long term heart, lung, or ____ damage..." I can only assume the "risk tolerance" would have shifted for many.

[bohemka]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Most people see it as "If I catch it I have a 99% chance of surviving", had they been told back then "you have a 1% of dying but a 10% chance of ending up with long term heart, lung, or ____ damage..." I can only assume the "risk tolerance" would have shifted for many.

We have a president who two days ago said most people just "have the sniffles."

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by id77

Who's going to tell them? Fauci? They're working on creating an aura of distrust toward him. Fox, CNN? Fake news. Scientists and doctors? Liberal elitists. CDC? Deep state. OAN? Good luck there.

I think you underestimate just how much damage has been done undermining faith and confidence in traditional institutions of knowledge and education.

This.

By the time Fox News switched from "[equity markets] Plunge Protection Team" to "this is real", it was too little too late ... a large swath of the Trump's populous base already dismissed the virus as "fake news". They had already attached themselves to that identity, which is why not wearing masks has become an apparent civil rights issue (add some toxic masculinity in there to further fuel flames).

You cannot rationalize a person out of a position which they did not rationalize themselves into. Years of training these individuals to ignore all facts and data ... to review the "alternative facts" ... has created an intellectual cancer in this country. Those who feel they are most "woke" are actually the most ignorant and no amount of data will alter their position because they have become devoid of critical thinking.

This is very different the pro-capitalist nihilists who claim the "show must go on". I'm more sympathetic to these types as they are at least honest in regards to the consequences ... at least the ones in my sphere.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Is this really the case? We're one of the many households that has unplugged from cable TV, so it's been months since I've seen a mainstream network broadcast on TV, and probably years since I've sat down and actually watched a segment. But the news sources I check regularly post current guidance and have had current tallies of case counts and death tolls updated daily since March. And every day there are new stories published about the impacts of COVID-19 - from big picture stories to some pretty heartbreaking spotlights on individual cases. It's inescapable. Are the major cable networks really all that different? Have they really not broadcast any of the pertinent measures or guidelines? And if they actually haven't, what percentage of viewers don't have access to the internet or social media where this information has been broadcast far and wide since the beginning?

A quick scan of the major cable news networks websites this morning yielded mixed results - COVID is the major feature on CNN ("Pandemic far from over in U.S." being the marquee text on the homepage). MSNBC leads with Joe Biden VP stories, but has some COVID stories (effectiveness of masks, vaccines, etc.) just below. Fox news had the least COVID coverage - leading with a "Defund the Police" headline and burying the COVID stuff a little bit further down the page (impact on pro sports, and CDC guidelines).

Like I said, I don't have access to these network channels and haven't tuned in for a long time. So I don't know for sure. But based on my experience I'd make the case that the reason for the indifference is more complex than just network news. Among a number of reasons, I'd blame the following:

1. Lack of exposure. I think for a huge chunk of the population, this is just a story they've seen on the news and something that's made it more difficult to go to a restaurant/bar. There are many counties where there haven't been a single case, and many more where life hasn't changed all that month. Here in MA, that's not the case. I've seen the makeshift morgue trucks. I've lost two coworkers and seen a few more end up in the hospital. I've heard first hand accounts of how awful this can be, even for survivors (even survivors who weren't hospitalized). So it's hard not to take it seriously. But for my nearly-retired father working remotely in the mountains of Western Maine, it's little more than a nuisance in that it makes going to the store a bit more of a hassle, and it's harder to get a seat at a restaurant. Lots of Americans have had a similar experience to my father. Even now, with much of the South and West surging, communities in those states are relatively unscathed and it's not as real to many of the people who live there. No amount of media coverage will make it real for them either - it's something that's happening to minority communities or people in the big cities, but not their problem.
2. Politicization of the pandemic. From a political standpoint, it's beneficial to some in power to downplay the severity of the pandemic. There is a lot of influence there, and a lot of people still believe it's either a complete hoax or that it's being blown out of proportion for political reasons. And the finger pointing from the opposition adds to the politicization of the pandemic while also distracting from many of the impactful stories that are out there.

Most people in the area where your father works get their news from Fox, CNN, ABC, msn, yahoo, local news sources, word of mouth from people who use those same sources, and of course the wonderful echo chambers of social media. None of those give them the information needed to make proper decisions and risk assessment, whether they want to or not. Saying "do this because the CDC says so", does not win over many these days. Education can, and so can political rhetoric. Unfortunately, all most are getting is the latter.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Most people see it as "If I catch it I have a 99% chance of surviving", had they been told back then "you have a 1% of dying but a 10% chance of ending up with long term heart, lung, or ____ damage..." I can only assume the "risk tolerance" would have shifted for many.

You make a good point about the personal risk tolerance. 10% chance of organ damage would have felt different for sure. Looks like most people (even some of my "educated" friends) calibrated themselves early on, and are now refusing to budge.

[porterhouse]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

What "proper information" are you referring to? The CDC issued mask guidelines on APRIL 3.

Perhaps, if health officials, the Surgeon General, mass media, "experts" on the interwebs, etc. hadn't given the exact opposite advice a month earlier people may have taken the mask mandate more seriously, and yes many lives would have been saved. This one debacle did much to singlehandedly shred credibility and give daylight to conspiracy theories.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by porterhouse

Perhaps, if health officials, the Surgeon General, mass media, "experts" on the interwebs, etc. hadn't given the exact opposite advice a month earlier people may have taken the mask mandate more seriously, and yes many lives would have been saved. This one debacle did much to singlehandedly shred credibility and give daylight to conspiracy theories.

I think it's been well documented as to why the early and unfortunate guidance: (1) shortage of masks (especially N95s) early on (2) incomplete knowledge about the modes of transmission. If people want to hang on to outdated knowledge, that's their problem.

[bohemka]

That's also an outrageously anti-science perspective, Porterhouse. Cigarettes were perfectly fine back in the day, so they must still be.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by porterhouse

Perhaps, if health officials, the Surgeon General, mass media, "experts" on the interwebs, etc. hadn't given the exact opposite advice a month earlier people may have taken the mask mandate more seriously, and yes many lives would have been saved. This one debacle did much to singlehandedly shred credibility and give daylight to conspiracy theories.

I don't disagree with this. The messaging was, at best, a confusing mix of A) lack of data, B) trying to prevent inventory runs at a time when healthcare supplies were already low, and C) assuming "American Individualism" would yield poor adherence.

By mid-March the FDA took a pretty clear stance that masks were effective in stopping spread, based of new data confirming very high rates of asymptomatic spread. Why it took the CDC took longer is beyond me, but one could argue it was "political".