And now for something new...did the Pandemic change your political ideology?

[Clyde]

Trump used twitter so that he didn't have to field questions from reporters. His soap box like the street corner preacher.

[bcm119]

No. I continue to believe in robust systems of government and science based policy. The conservative bias was always against the science and in favor of what people wanted to hear.  I believe in following the science, even as it changes in real time.  And as the science changed over the course of the pandemic, even politicians who followed the latest science to a tee were sometimes, in hindsight, wrong.  I'm not sure why this would change one's political views; it is simply the result of governing based on emerging science.

[beeatnik]

No. I continue to believe in robust systems of government and science based policy. The conservative bias was always against the science and in favor of what people wanted to hear.  I believe in following the science, even as it changes in real time.  And as the science changed over the course of the pandemic, even politicians who followed the latest science to a tee were sometimes, in hindsight, wrong.  I'm not sure why this would change one's political views; it is simply the result of governing based on emerging science.

In my lifetime, other than union members in the midwest, I've never encountered one issue Democrats. In LA an SF, murmurs of displeasure are beginning to rise over the school closure issue. CA has been the strictest in the nation in that area and there are thousands of angry parents; many threatening to cross the proverbial aisle.

[COVRTDESIGN]

Nope, still hate the human race. Now more than ever. The older I get, the more I want that cabin in the woods with no cell service or internet.

[beeatnik]

Nope, still hate the human race. Now more than ever. The older I get, the more I want that cabin in the woods with no cell service or internet.

The acceptance of airborne transmission as the primary mode has helped me conceptualize Covid-19 as pollution or contamination. The direct risk isn't from an individual in close proximity (droplets, fomites) but in "virus rich" air. In other words, human-generated (infectious individuals) but only containable at the macro or regulatory level. In simple terms, there's very little an individual can do to mitigate but our actions in totality make a difference (some more than others). Another way to think about it, it's staggeringly easier to escape pollution for those with high(er) socioeconomic status. So much in life is asymmetrical.

As ludicrous as it may sound, public masking and social distancing impact the pandemic in the way buying an EV does; it's mostly a symbolic statement/pose.

[nahtnoj]

It only served to further lower my faith that ~40% of the country will ever be able to be relied upon for anything whatsoever.

[Matthew Strongin]

The acceptance of airborne transmission as the primary mode has helped me conceptualize Covid-19 as pollution or contamination. The direct risk isn't from an individual in close proximity (droplets, fomites) but in "virus rich" air. In other words, human-generated (infectious individuals) but only containable at the macro or regulatory level. In simple terms, there's very little an individual can do to mitigate but our actions in totality make a difference (some more than others). Another way to think about it, it's staggeringly easier to escape pollution for those with high(er) socioeconomic status. So much in life is asymmetrical.

As ludicrous as it may sound, public masking and social distancing impact the pandemic in the way buying an EV does; it's mostly a symbolic statement/pose.

Is your assertion that an individual can't protect themselves by masking or that they can't protect all of society by masking themselves?

[beeatnik]

An individual who doesn't work or reside in a high risk environment receives negligible protection from masking. They also don't contribute to source control as they are not spending significant amounts of time in those high risk environments. If you commute by bike and drive an EV on Sundays, the EV isn't impacting your carbon footprint. Something like that.

[Matthew Strongin]

An individual who doesn't work or reside in a high risk environment receives negligible protection from masking. They also don't contribute to source control as they are not spending significant amounts of time in those high risk environments. If you commute by bike and drive an EV on Sundays, the EV isn't impacting your carbon footprint. Something like that.

Well, unless that person spends time in an enclosed space unmasked with others. You don't catch covid through long term accumulated exposure while working in a high risk environment. You catch covid if exposed to a high enough amount of the virus over a relatively short period of time. There's a lot of middle ground between people being scared to believe that walking down the street past a stranger will give them covid and people only getting covid if they work in hospitals or factories.

[Corso]

No.

What sickens me is the way Trump & co were blamed for everything, while the new admin pretty much skates.

One example concerning COVID: Our MA Gov openly blamed Trump and his administrations for not getting enough vaccinations, no distribution plan, etc, etc.

Once President Biden took over, Governor Baker continues to throw blame (never his own fault) to the pharmaceutical companies, national infrastructure, web developer "glitches", etc etc, but NEVER Biden or his administration by name.

So nothing ever seems to change in the game of politics, so my political leanings remain the same.

[bcm119]

In my lifetime, other than union members in the midwest, I've never encountered one issue Democrats. In LA an SF, murmurs of displeasure are beginning to rise over the school closure issue. CA has been the strictest in the nation in that area and there are thousands of angry parents; many threatening to cross the proverbial aisle.

People getting emotional over issues that affect them personally and threatening to pull their support is nothing really new. And neither is failing to appreciate what a tough situation public policymakers are in. But, at least up here in the SF area, the SF school board's antics with the school name changes did not gain them any sympathy.

[echappist]

The acceptance of airborne transmission as the primary mode has helped me conceptualize Covid-19 as pollution or contamination. The direct risk isn't from an individual in close proximity (droplets, fomites) but in "virus rich" air. In other words, human-generated (infectious individuals) but only containable at the macro or regulatory level. In simple terms, there's very little an individual can do to mitigate but our actions in totality make a difference (some more than others). Another way to think about it, it's staggeringly easier to escape pollution for those with high(er) socioeconomic status. So much in life is asymmetrical.

As ludicrous as it may sound, public masking and social distancing impact the pandemic in the way buying an EV does; it's mostly a symbolic statement/pose.[/u]

You should probably clarify what you mean by "public masking". Specifically, what is implied by "public" is quite large, and it could encompass the following:
-a walk in a medium density neighborhood;
-saying hi to your delivery person;
-off-hour shopping at Whole Foods in a town of ~30K people;
-weekend shopping in a NYC Trader Joe's (for those who don't know, shoppers waiting to pay would snake up-and-down the aisles; line for shopper to enter the store would snake around the block);
-eating outdoors;
-eating indoors; and
-attending a choral practice.

All of these are public. Are you saying masking for all of these would be symbolic at best, or would your assertion apply only to a subset thereof?

[beeatnik]

Well, unless that person spends time in an enclosed space unmasked with others. You don't catch covid through long term accumulated exposure while working in a high risk environment. You catch covid if exposed to a high enough amount of the virus over a relatively short period of time. There's a lot of middle ground between people being scared to believe that walking down the street past a stranger will give them covid and people only getting covid if they work in hospitals or factories.

Hi-risk = high "virus abundance." We know which indoor environments are "virus abundant."

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...cience.abg6296

Here, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. Based on direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the virus abundance in most environments is sufficiently low for masks to be effective in reducing airborne transmission.

"Sufficiently low" for masks to be effective suggests that environmental mitigations (air filtration, open windows) or low community transmission can mitigate as well or better than mask usage. Oster's recent paper which found that mask use in children does not correlate with lower infection rates would also support that argument.

Covid is Airborne:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-teen...ed-covid-kill/

[davids]

The acceptance of airborne transmission as the primary mode has helped me conceptualize Covid-19 as pollution or contamination. The direct risk isn't from an individual in close proximity (droplets, fomites) but in "virus rich" air. In other words, human-generated (infectious individuals) but only containable at the macro or regulatory level. In simple terms, there's very little an individual can do to mitigate but our actions in totality make a difference (some more than others). Another way to think about it, it's staggeringly easier to escape pollution for those with high(er) socioeconomic status. So much in life is asymmetrical.

As ludicrous as it may sound, public masking and social distancing impact the pandemic in the way buying an EV does; it's mostly a symbolic statement/pose.

So you just started this thread so you could promulgate your sciency conspiracy theory?

[beeatnik]

So you just started this thread so you could promulgate your sciency conspiracy theory?

Bro, a conspiracy theory involves conspiring. Who am I suggesting is conspiring? It's not like there's Big Covid like Big Pollution or Big Tobacco. Maybe I should start looking for the Exxon of Covid....

It's responses like yours that illustrate the difficult position disillusioned individuals find themselves in.

[beeatnik]

So you just started this thread so you could promulgate your sciency conspiracy theory?

And to elaborate, it sounded to me as if some cats were saying the Pandemic has made them hate others (human nature); it's made me hate the machine (the superstructure).

[takashi]

Bro, a conspiracy theory involves conspiring. Who am I suggesting is conspiring? It's not like there's Big Covid like Big Pollution or Big Tobacco. Maybe I should start looking for the Exxon of Covid....

It's responses like yours that illustrate the difficult position disillusioned individuals find themselves in.

how are you disillusioned exactly

[rydesteel]

I didn't change mine but it enlightened me as to how far to the right some of the people I thought I knew were. I'm a moderate Democrat, left leaning Walter Mondale Republican, and all of a sudden DT is the greatest thing since sliced bread? WTF as the Father of Daughters I oppose this message. What amazed me was how few I could have a rational discussion with as soon as I said I disagree i was labeled a leftist snow flake? I invited a few to Adult Beverages at the venue of their choice but no one wanted to engage in public. Hmm Did my political views change...No did my views on Social Media change? Absolutely. It's easy to be a cyber bully, harder to look someone in the eye and talk smack.

[j44ke]

The acceptance of airborne transmission as the primary mode has helped me conceptualize Covid-19 as pollution or contamination. The direct risk isn't from an individual in close proximity (droplets, fomites) but in "virus rich" air. In other words, human-generated (infectious individuals) but only containable at the macro or regulatory level. In simple terms, there's very little an individual can do to mitigate but our actions in totality make a difference (some more than others). Another way to think about it, it's staggeringly easier to escape pollution for those with high(er) socioeconomic status. So much in life is asymmetrical.

As ludicrous as it may sound, public masking and social distancing impact the pandemic in the way buying an EV does; it's mostly a symbolic statement/pose.

I can understand this as a phenotypical description, i.e. the outward appearance of Covid with its science stripped away and just talking about how it appeared among society and how society reacted without discussing its functional epidemiology. Like some of the things Paul Virilio, the French theorist, wrote about speed and power. So in your thesis The Aerosol is central, and concepts like Dispersal and Respiration and Mask(ing) are elements that show the asymmetry of society, the epidemiological caste system as it were. That sort of thing.

Could be interesting. I don't know whether anyone has the patience to read that now though. I think patience has been a casualty of the virus. As in, I am just not going to wait any longer for you to "get-it" or I am not going going to engage any longer with your facts that differ from my quotidian Gestalt.

Or I am no longer going to wait for you to restart in-person school because our household economic model depends on having some place for children to be sent/held during the day. Schooling is secondary. Holding is key. And then you start to see what sorts of and how many different places are involved in "holding" children now.

But aren't in some way these sorts of thought experiments and cultural analyses just as elitist as the structures analyzed/deconstructed?

Sort of like reading a textbook in a nice library and highlighting all the pertinent information and ideas, only to look down and see that nearly every other line is highlighted and you haven't solved anything.

[thollandpe]

"Sufficiently low" for masks to be effective suggests that environmental mitigations (air filtration, open windows) or low community transmission can mitigate as well or better than mask usage.

I have spent the last 14 months studying airborne transmission of this infectious aerosol and helping people reduce that risk. I agree with a lot of what you say but also strongly disagree with some of what you say, it’s tough for me to follow. I disagree with what is quoted above!

It has been and continues to be the position of ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air conditioning Engineers) that mechanical concerns such as ventilation rates and air filtration are secondary to concerns like masking and distancing. The primary mode of transmission is person-to-person.