Neverending Covid-19 Coronavirus
- Thread starter RenegadeMonster
- Start date
CrazyDiamond84
Well-Known Member
Our senate is at it again 
www.wsaw.com
Wisconsin Senate votes to repeal Wisconsin mask mandate
The Republican-controlled Wisconsin Senate voted Tuesday to repeal Gov. Tony Evers’ statewide mask mandate, despite warnings from virtually every sector of the health care community that doing so would impair efforts to combat the coronavirus pandemic.
www.wsaw.com
Hey, @ranbalam I know you were asking about this earlier and we're getting more data in on the side effects of the vaccine. It all looks really positive:
During December 14 to 23, 2020, after administration of a reported 1 893 360 first doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (1 177 527 in women, 648 327 in men, and 67 506 with sex of recipient not reported),3 CDC identified 21 case reports submitted to VAERS that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (Table), corresponding to an estimated rate of 11.1 cases per million doses administered. Four patients (19%) were hospitalized (including 3 in intensive care), and 17 (81%) were treated in an emergency department; 20 (95%) are known to have been discharged home or had recovered at the time of the report to VAERS. No deaths from anaphylaxis were reported.
Anaphylaxis After First Dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccination
This JAMA Insights review provides clinical details of anaphylactic reactions reported to and verified by the CDC in the first week of use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in the US, December 14-23, 2020.
jamanetwork.com
Why are men more likely to die from Covid? Researchers are figuring this out. The whole article is a good read and you get to learn more about sex differences in the immune system.
One of the first explanations, researchers say, comes from basic biology. Women have two X chromosomes, men have one. X chromosomes are important because they are rich in genes that regulate immune response. While one of those X chromosomes in women is silenced, in some cases key genes from both X chromosomes can activate the innate immune system, the early alarm system that detects pathogens. Essentially, women have immune system reinforcements they can call upon early in infections that men, with their single X chromosomes, don’t possess.
The presence of estrogen can help suppress ACE 2, a receptor on the surface of many cells that is used by SARS-CoV-2 to enter cells. Conversely, the male hormone androgen appears to enhance the ability of the virus to infect cells. A study found that men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer appear to be less susceptible to infection by the COVID-19 virus.
In addition, age amplifies and sometimes sabotages a man’s immune response to COVID-19 infection. As men in their early 60s begin to lose their ability to mount an initial immune response to the novel coronavirus, often there is also a compensatory overreaction by other immune system molecules that can lead to damaging inflammation, scientists found. These inflammatory factors can trigger the so called “cytokine storm” which can lead to severe damage to lungs and other tissue that is a hallmark of severe COVID-19 cases.
news.yale.edu
One of the first explanations, researchers say, comes from basic biology. Women have two X chromosomes, men have one. X chromosomes are important because they are rich in genes that regulate immune response. While one of those X chromosomes in women is silenced, in some cases key genes from both X chromosomes can activate the innate immune system, the early alarm system that detects pathogens. Essentially, women have immune system reinforcements they can call upon early in infections that men, with their single X chromosomes, don’t possess.
The presence of estrogen can help suppress ACE 2, a receptor on the surface of many cells that is used by SARS-CoV-2 to enter cells. Conversely, the male hormone androgen appears to enhance the ability of the virus to infect cells. A study found that men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer appear to be less susceptible to infection by the COVID-19 virus.
In addition, age amplifies and sometimes sabotages a man’s immune response to COVID-19 infection. As men in their early 60s begin to lose their ability to mount an initial immune response to the novel coronavirus, often there is also a compensatory overreaction by other immune system molecules that can lead to damaging inflammation, scientists found. These inflammatory factors can trigger the so called “cytokine storm” which can lead to severe damage to lungs and other tissue that is a hallmark of severe COVID-19 cases.
Scientists unravel mystery of sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes
Men are 1.7 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than women. Yale researchers like Akiko Iwasaki are working to figure out why.
news.yale.edu
Okay I promise this will be my last one for a while, but I know we have several teachers and teacher's SOs on this board. This is a JAMA paper on the collected science for opening schools safely. Basically, they haven't seen the infection rate go up significantly from most school openings. The problem is with student athletics, as it translates to more infections.
However, the preponderance of available evidence from the fall school semester has been reassuring insofar as the type of rapid spread that was frequently observed in congregate living facilities or high-density worksites has not been reported in education settings in schools. Preventing transmission in school settings will require addressing and reducing levels of transmission in the surrounding communities through policies to interrupt transmission (eg, restrictions on indoor dining at restaurants). In addition, all recommended mitigation measures in schools must continue: requiring universal face mask use, increasing physical distance by dedensifying classrooms and common areas, using hybrid attendance models when needed to limit the total number of contacts and prevent crowding, increasing room air ventilation, and expanding screening testing to rapidly identify and isolate asymptomatic infected individuals. Staff and students should continue to have options for online education, particularly those at increased risk of severe illness or death if infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Nonetheless, some school-related activities have increased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among students and staff. Numerous media reports of COVID-19 outbreaks among US high school athletic teams suggest that contact during both practices and competition, and at social gatherings associated with team sports, increase risk. On January 26, 2021, CDC released a brief report describing the initial investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak associated with a high school wrestling tournament that occurred in December 2020 and included 10 schools and 130 student-athletes, coaches, and referees.9 Among the 130 tournament participants, 38 (30%) had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosed, but less than half the participants were tested. At least 446 contacts of these cases have been identified: 62 household contacts and 384 school athletic, classroom, and other contacts. Secondary transmission occurred among household contacts (18 SARS-CoV-2 infections among 30 tested) and other contacts (23 SARS-CoV-2 infections among 65 tested) and 1 death was reported in a contact, but the full investigation of secondary transmission is ongoing. In recognition of the risk for increased transmission, some states have halted or postponed school athletics.10
jamanetwork.com
However, the preponderance of available evidence from the fall school semester has been reassuring insofar as the type of rapid spread that was frequently observed in congregate living facilities or high-density worksites has not been reported in education settings in schools. Preventing transmission in school settings will require addressing and reducing levels of transmission in the surrounding communities through policies to interrupt transmission (eg, restrictions on indoor dining at restaurants). In addition, all recommended mitigation measures in schools must continue: requiring universal face mask use, increasing physical distance by dedensifying classrooms and common areas, using hybrid attendance models when needed to limit the total number of contacts and prevent crowding, increasing room air ventilation, and expanding screening testing to rapidly identify and isolate asymptomatic infected individuals. Staff and students should continue to have options for online education, particularly those at increased risk of severe illness or death if infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Nonetheless, some school-related activities have increased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among students and staff. Numerous media reports of COVID-19 outbreaks among US high school athletic teams suggest that contact during both practices and competition, and at social gatherings associated with team sports, increase risk. On January 26, 2021, CDC released a brief report describing the initial investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak associated with a high school wrestling tournament that occurred in December 2020 and included 10 schools and 130 student-athletes, coaches, and referees.9 Among the 130 tournament participants, 38 (30%) had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosed, but less than half the participants were tested. At least 446 contacts of these cases have been identified: 62 household contacts and 384 school athletic, classroom, and other contacts. Secondary transmission occurred among household contacts (18 SARS-CoV-2 infections among 30 tested) and other contacts (23 SARS-CoV-2 infections among 65 tested) and 1 death was reported in a contact, but the full investigation of secondary transmission is ongoing. In recognition of the risk for increased transmission, some states have halted or postponed school athletics.10
In-Person Education and the Spread of SARS-CoV-2 Infection
This Viewpoint from the CDC summarizes global data about SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks at K-12 schools and emphasizes implementation of community- and school-based policies shown to diminish spread of infection that would allow safer resumption of in-person education in the 2021/22 school year.
jamanetwork.com
Hey, @ranbalam I know you were asking about this earlier and we're getting more data in on the side effects of the vaccine. It all looks really positive:
During December 14 to 23, 2020, after administration of a reported 1 893 360 first doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (1 177 527 in women, 648 327 in men, and 67 506 with sex of recipient not reported),3 CDC identified 21 case reports submitted to VAERS that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (Table), corresponding to an estimated rate of 11.1 cases per million doses administered. Four patients (19%) were hospitalized (including 3 in intensive care), and 17 (81%) were treated in an emergency department; 20 (95%) are known to have been discharged home or had recovered at the time of the report to VAERS. No deaths from anaphylaxis were reported.
Anaphylaxis After First Dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccination
This JAMA Insights review provides clinical details of anaphylactic reactions reported to and verified by the CDC in the first week of use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in the US, December 14-23, 2020.
Thank you. This helps me, but I sure wish I could pass this on to some coworkers. Buuuut, they'd just call me a sheep. Funny how decades of research can be discounted because of one loud person on social media.
What makes so many people reject science nowadays? Why is there such distrust in doctors and scientists? I've probably posed these questions before here...but I'm continually baffled.
dhodo
Well-Known Member
I think at least for people who's identity is tied to their political affiliation as a Republican it is simply the decades of anti science rhetoric the party has pushed for a variety of different purposes.
Outside of that, like with anti-vaxxers, I'm not sure. I think us being removed from ubiquitous, serious, life threatening things like polio and smallpox and measles for so long has contributed to it, but I would have bet that a pandemic would wake people up. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to have had quite the effect that I anticipated, but perhaps is yet to be seen long term.
Last edited:
Okay I promise this will be my last one for a while, but I know we have several teachers and teacher's SOs on this board. This is a JAMA paper on the collected science for opening schools safely. Basically, they haven't seen the infection rate go up significantly from most school openings. The problem is with student athletics, as it translates to more infections.
However, the preponderance of available evidence from the fall school semester has been reassuring insofar as the type of rapid spread that was frequently observed in congregate living facilities or high-density worksites has not been reported in education settings in schools. Preventing transmission in school settings will require addressing and reducing levels of transmission in the surrounding communities through policies to interrupt transmission (eg, restrictions on indoor dining at restaurants). In addition, all recommended mitigation measures in schools must continue: requiring universal face mask use, increasing physical distance by dedensifying classrooms and common areas, using hybrid attendance models when needed to limit the total number of contacts and prevent crowding, increasing room air ventilation, and expanding screening testing to rapidly identify and isolate asymptomatic infected individuals. Staff and students should continue to have options for online education, particularly those at increased risk of severe illness or death if infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Nonetheless, some school-related activities have increased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among students and staff. Numerous media reports of COVID-19 outbreaks among US high school athletic teams suggest that contact during both practices and competition, and at social gatherings associated with team sports, increase risk. On January 26, 2021, CDC released a brief report describing the initial investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak associated with a high school wrestling tournament that occurred in December 2020 and included 10 schools and 130 student-athletes, coaches, and referees.9 Among the 130 tournament participants, 38 (30%) had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosed, but less than half the participants were tested. At least 446 contacts of these cases have been identified: 62 household contacts and 384 school athletic, classroom, and other contacts. Secondary transmission occurred among household contacts (18 SARS-CoV-2 infections among 30 tested) and other contacts (23 SARS-CoV-2 infections among 65 tested) and 1 death was reported in a contact, but the full investigation of secondary transmission is ongoing. In recognition of the risk for increased transmission, some states have halted or postponed school athletics.10
In-Person Education and the Spread of SARS-CoV-2 Infection
This Viewpoint from the CDC summarizes global data about SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks at K-12 schools and emphasizes implementation of community- and school-based policies shown to diminish spread of infection that would allow safer resumption of in-person education in the 2021/22 school year.
Nothing to add here but thank you for posting all this stuff-- I honestly love it, please keep it up if you come across anything interesting.
I think this is a multivariate issue. First, the scientific process is one in which we constantly test theories. We often find that what we though one decade gets disproven in the next decade--think about how in the 80's and 90's eggs were awful for you, but by the turn of the century, eggs and butter have been redeemed in scientific literature. Second, science is political. Maybe not the science itself, but what science gets funded is political. And scientist who get funded are under pressure (because they could lose their funding) to produce results, but sometimes the best science just backs up a null hypothesis. So we have this highly political system where scientist are under pressure to produce results which does lead to data manipulation--usually outlier elimination--that could show results where there are none.
I could go on all day about the problems with funding, data manipulation, and scientific back tracking on hypotheses, but I think the more pertinent issue is that education--specifically college education, has used to systematically keep blue collar workers at the bottom of the economic hierarchy. Many of these people have bosses that have never done the work they do, but instead got a college degree and is now in charge. As a data analyst, the worst bosses I have had were people that didn't ever do data analysis and left it for others. They didn't understand our challenges because they never dealt with them. And if this is the only job you can get, it sucks to work under a manager who is completely incompetent because he/she doesn't understand your job. And this is just the microcosm of the issue. Think about the macro view here. If you are a blue collar worker, you have seen your union disappear, factories being closed en masse. You are unable to pay for or use your healthcare if you get any, and you are largely forced into a low paying service job because all the factory jobs have moved to China or Mexico or Indonesia. All of this was done within a 40 year span or so, and this was all while our "top economist" were touting trickle down economics and that globalization is good. However, when any blue collar American looks at where they are, they can't afford to buy a house and can barely afford rent, have no healthcare, and have no real mechanism to send their kids to colleges given the deteriorating state of public education and the skyrocketing cost of college along with fewer academic and sports scholarships being offered. BUT wait. All of the economist and scientists and who ever else are telling them that they live in the best place ever, with the best economy ever. This disconnect between the America of the elite and the America of the poor has gotten much starker since the pandemic started. It is very easy for these people to reject science....and economics....and education in general, since the only thing any of these has done for blue collar workers is rob them blind from higher and higher medical bills, pay day loans, and skyrocketing rents, while keeping them in their place--firmly at the bottom--with no hope that even their children will have it better because it's increasingly harder for people to jump up the ladder (and the people at the top like it this way). Wouldn't you be skeptical of ANYTHING these people said? Every time they've enacted a new economic policy, it always goes bad for them. I have a tough time blaming them for rejecting science. It's only ever been used to screw them.
I appreciate you very much.
so my world intersecting with pandemic response in the US... and going along with the joke from last spring that, if they just handed the cart keys, radios, and some gaff tape over to us production folks, we'd have this crisis wrapped up in 3 weeks time.
the idea that concert promoters could be good at stewarding the vaccination process makes some sense. it's been talked about for months, but a few days ago, NIVA (National Independent Venue Association), Live Nation, and other promoters/venue owners sent a letter to HHS, the White House Vaccinations Coordinator, CDC, and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, Services Division offering their services.
maybe I'll see the inside of a theatre this year after all! *laughcry*
This is such a great response, and it helps me get my head around it.
The echo @bfly - I truly appreciate your input on these threads.
If you want to read a bit more, this is a great article.
The New National American Elite
America is now ruled by a single elite class rather than by local patrician smart sets competing with each other for money and power
www.tabletmag.com
dhodo
Well-Known Member
I think your explanation of the class divide issue makes sense, but, I frequently see the opposite as well, where plenty of blue collar workers who are victims of the issues you list trust science and plenty of rich educated people bluster on about "rights" and say all the scientists and doctors are lying whenever they hear anything they don't like, even though they also hold the belief that our healthcare is "the best in the world" to justify our broken, overpriced, insurance system. So I think it goes deeper than those valid reasons for mistrust. Although it's hard for me to tell how much of the distrust by the wealthy or educated is self serving or disingenuous but I suppose it doesn't matter much.
I think that mistrust makes them more vulnerable to the propaganda and political manipulation, but so do other things, like hatred of minorities and "elites" even by people who are relatively wealthy and not victims of the issues you highlight. I see trusting the science and doctors with respect to the pandemic following a political divide much more clearly than a class divide even though, as you say, that divide has become even more clear in the pandemic. This seems even more pronounced with the people I know who are upper middle class (or higher) in spite of not being educated who lean conservative.
Just because you have money, doesn't mean you're allowed in the club of the "elites". Besides money, you also need academic credentials, not because education is prized, but because college was where most of the upper class met friends and socialized--because for a very long time in America, it was divided into regions and each big fish in that region would send their kids to that region's Ivy league (or prestigious state) college to meet other kids from similar households that could eventually help them later in life. All the scientists and doctors also go to these colleges and then on to med school or post secondary school. I know a lot of scientists (especially in my public health days) that don't make a lot of money, but are still considered elite or white collar and definitely in "the club". They have the credentials, and furthermore, they believe completely in the idea of globalization and social progress as a barometer for all progress--economic progress, etc.
Those upper middle class people that you tout about are either left out of the elite because they don't have the right academic credentials or don't share the same ideas around social progress. Our health system is the best in the world for them because it allows for free market competition, not because we have better health outcomes, but instead that the idea that an individual can choose their own doctor. They believe in a different mythos--first, that a system based on free market competition will always be best and second, that our current medical climate is actually based on free market competition (which it's not). The reason they don't trust an individual doctor is because that doctor is actually in the elite, complete with alphabet soup behind his or her name. These doctors are all pushing "agendas" and are being put up by our government. Their argument, that these doctors are put up to keep the rich, rich and take away the livelihoods of the middle class, does seem to hold water when you look at how badly small businesses are suffering under Covid protocols. The upper middle class has enough money to get attention, but they aren't the only people who are sick of giant corporations usurping livelihoods and giving back absolutely nothing but misery.
Propaganda and manipulation work well in disenfranchised people. You are hearing grumbling from older people because they remember a time when companies paid living wages, healthcare was affordable, home ownership was possible, and college was affordable. I can see where they would want to harken back to these days. The elite point to the racism in this time and then points to the amount of social progress we have made in the last 40 years, and chides these people for thinking that ANY part of the old America was good. They like to say, "See how much progress we have made?" while cutting our health insurance and 401K plans. I'm not for going backwards socially, but I am for going back to where we were economically, but if I want that, then somehow I'm all wrong--because the truth is that if we paid people fairly, there would be a lot less billionaires. Listen to what this propaganda is promising to these people. It isn't money or fame or healthcare or education. They are promising hope. When you are working 2 to 3 jobs just to make barely enough to cover your bills--forget any emergencies, hope is the only thing you have to hold on to. So anyone selling hope is going to resonate. You have to ask not why these people are looking for a different way, but instead, what conditions had to arise in America for this many people to need hope. Their lives and situations are largely hopeless and though this is the land of the free, they often have no choices, or no good choices.
dhodo
Well-Known Member
I guess where we differ is you seem to give the people I'm referring to the benefit of the doubt that there is a rational or even reasonable or respectable reason that they feel the way they do. You are completely right that class and wage gaps and debt offer explanation for that and I don't at all doubt that is true for some people. I think you are spot on for why some blue collar people buy into it, but what I have experienced from people in my life doesn't seem to be directly related to those concerns.
Two of my family members say things like I mentioned and there is nothing related to those struggles behind it. My father's highest education was a 2 year trade school and came from a fairly poor family but grew up in the time when you could still make living wages and more, as you said, but he doesn't lament that you can't anymore, he ignores that reality and thinks all the people whining about wage equality are whiny snowflakes who want handouts. My sister dropped out of college with no debt and eventually lucked into a six figure job anyway and feels the same way. On the contrary, both live in relative luxury to the modern blue collar worker. Neither of them have been victimized by those things in a significant way and yet since Obama was elected are always angry and parroting talking points they heard on FOX or talk radio, but are never remotely interested in research or supporting their arguments and certainly not considering differing viewpoints or that anyone who is a Democrat could ever be right. Not even to my other sister, who I guess some would consider an "elite" because she has a lot of degrees, who has studied epidemiology. The reason they don't believe her and change their minds about COVID isn't because they think she is elite (I guess that would be confusing since my Dad holds some of the blame for her getting that education and supported her) but because they have already made up their mind and are constantly validated by the media they consume and not open to considering anything else from brainwashed liberals like my sister or less qualified me (or my other sister, who also chose to drop out of college with no debt, is the lowest paid, least insured, least economically mobile of us but also is a Democrat).
I work with a lot of blue collar workers, although, for our area, it is a relatively great blue collar job, but in that group, the politics (and attitude about mask wearing, for instance) seem delineated along political lines and not along class lines. For that reason it is hard for me to accept the universal issues that you rightfully highlight that are plaguing our society as being the primary driver to these beliefs. I agree that being a victim of those conditions may make someone more susceptible, but when I see people who aren't a victim make the same choice in belief, and people who are a victim choose not to go down that path, it makes me think it is something deeper.
Obviously, my experience isn't definitive or representative and perhaps it is unique, but I thought I'd offer it up as an example. I think addressing the issues you highlight would help, but when those people who hold those beliefs are fully behind the people who seem to be trying to make them worse, I struggle to hope for it to improve.
Your discussion of hatred for elites reminds me of how frustrating it is to me from a logically dissonant standpoint that my Dad roots for Trump. Like many southerners, has always harbored a disdain for rich snobby yankees moving down here and Trump is the epitome of that distorted caricature. Go figure. He did marry my Mom, who is a yankee and even from a once elite family as an example of his hypocrisy. They had been divorced for over 10 years though before he became the angry politically focused person he is now.
I won't say that I hate the elites. What I've learned from behavioral science is that anyone can act like a big jerk given enough power over others (e.g. the Stanford experiment). The deal is that we are in a society that has a hierarchy. This is nothing new; it's always been a thing in human groups. But when the people in power are so removed from the people they are ruling, this is when problems arise. This happens largely when inequality is out of whack. I don't hold any ill will towards the billionaires. I just don't really think they should be allowed to exist especially given that their money was largely amassed by exploiting people.
As for your family, I deal with this as well. Not my immediate family, but everyone else thinks and talks a lot like your dad. They see most people as whiners and snowflakes, but all of them were fine with taking a stimulus check. And while my parents--though sympathetic to my plight--are often shocked to hear what I had to pay on my high deductible medical plan, they aren't as in a rush to fix it, because it doesn't affect them directly. But where in this narrative have I gotten anything wrong? Your dad and sister reject much of mainstream science and religiously parrot back talk radio and FOX points. They are not part of the elite and don't hold the same values. I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. The question was, "why do people reject science?" I know that most of the people on the board just want me to say, "they reject science because they are idiots." End Discussion. But I don't like that answer, because by dismissing these people, you are saying to them that they don't matter. Though not every Trump voter can explicitly talk on politics, there are some people that can. There's this idea that Trump "brainwashed" everyone. That's not true. Trump came in just like Huey Long did in 1930's Louisiana and acted like an ignorant simpleton to get elected. Louisiana voters voted for him, because he was not part of the establishment. Poor farmers and the disenfranchised voted him in because of his promise to help the little guy--the SAME promise Trump gave to millions of people. These talking heads are just validating the feelings these people have. Then they throw in some fiscal conservatism because that's always played well with the middle class, and some Christianity for the religious folks and you have the modern Republican party.
The problem we are having in the US is that we forgot how to listen to each other because we're too busy yelling over each other. I'm not saying that the way your dad thinks is right. I'm saying that the way your dad thinks isn't completely devoid of logic or reason and that he does deserve a voice in government, because we all deserve a voice in how we are governed. It's not okay to brand a whole sector of the population as idiots and then stop listening to them. They feel the need to yell louder when we don't listen, and this is how you get the capitol riots. How would you like to be told that you're an idiot and to sit down and shut up? You'd probably push back, right?
dhodo
Well-Known Member
I can't speak for anyone else on here, but I don't think my family members are idiots. I blame the forces that manipulated them into a furor about a lot of things that do not actually affect them primarily. I do think my family members who were susceptible to that harbor biases that were able to be exploited to achieve that manipulation that the other members of my family don't. Before he started listening to Rush Limbaugh and got upset about Obama turning us all into socialists, my Dad's only outspoken political issue was "taxes bad, it's my money and the government shouldn't take it." Sure that is selfish and it is impossible to really remove taxes, but that is his opinion. He didn't used to care outside of that until the talk radio parasites got him angry with a lot of stoking his biases and fearmongering.
He never distrusted doctors. He just got his shingles vaccine because they told him to. As of now, I don't think he will get the COVID vaccine because of the politics as he still thinks the flu is worse. He has only ever distrusted the scientists that the talking heads told him to, like the global warming scientists and now the epidemiologists and the CDC. If there was a united political response to this I'm sure he would have gotten the vaccine.
I guess I don't know how you combat that by giving them a seat at the table when a lot of the stuff they are worked up and passionate about aren't even really true or in their best interest, but things like the boogeyman of socialism, for instance. The only thing that has gotten more socialist since then is that my Dad is now getting social security and Medicare. I don't know how you solve it when they are in lock step with the conservative media industry which has discovered that the fear mongering and hatred of the opposite side is a lucrative business model.
Sorry for the derailing. These specific relationships are something that I have spent too much time agonizing over and trying to understand and approach from different rational perspectives and talk to them about with nothing but condescension from them in return. But, as soon as the talking heads flip flop on anything, they follow suit. I have long since adopted the strategy of doing my best to avoid it and see them less as a result (and feel guilty about it).
I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that viewership and clicks is what brings in the money for these places. They're fueled by misinformation and misleading arguments because that's what brings in the most bucks. Your dad got duped. Your dad got duped because it was profitable for FOX and Rush Limbaugh and all the rest of those guys. I think the only way to wake them up is to look into the science regarding cults and cult behaviors to "wake them up". I think it starts with a conversation about what precise changes they would like to make to the system to change it for the better. Instead of asking them broad questions about beliefs, ask more pointed questions about what they want and what they think we should do to meet that goal.
For some background on me, I have worked with community groups before and the most annoying thing is when someone comes in and tells the community what goals they should want for their community instead of asking the people what they want. I see this happen all the time when rich people want to fund projects in poor communities. They have no idea what the people actually need, nor do they care to ask them, because they have decided that they are going to fund this one thing. I like the idea that some of these rich philanthropists are hiring consultants to help them give money away. I see this as the opposite side of the same coin. I realize that it's tough to listen to people, but I do believe they should have a say in their government.
ETA: I am very passionate about giving everyone a say. I didn't realize how important it was until I became a mom of special needs kids. It took me a while to realize that I was guilty of talking for my children instead of talking with them. Inclusivity is a big thing for me.
Last edited:
The idea was to provide medicines preventing or treating COVID-19 at a low cost or free of charge, the British university said. That made sense to people seeking change. The coronavirus was raging. Many agreed that traditional vaccine development, characterized by long lead times, manufacturing monopolies and weak investment, was broken.
“We actually thought they were going to do that,” James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to expand access to medical technology, said of Oxford’s pledge. “Why wouldn’t people agree to let everyone have access to the best vaccines possible?”
A few weeks later, Oxford—urged on by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—reversed course. It signed an exclusive vaccine deal with AstraZeneca that gave the pharmaceutical giant sole rights and no guarantee of low prices—with the less-publicized potential for Oxford to eventually make millions from the deal and win plenty of prestige.
khn.org
I think y'all know how I feel about this.
“We actually thought they were going to do that,” James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to expand access to medical technology, said of Oxford’s pledge. “Why wouldn’t people agree to let everyone have access to the best vaccines possible?”
A few weeks later, Oxford—urged on by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—reversed course. It signed an exclusive vaccine deal with AstraZeneca that gave the pharmaceutical giant sole rights and no guarantee of low prices—with the less-publicized potential for Oxford to eventually make millions from the deal and win plenty of prestige.
They Pledged to Donate Rights to Their COVID Vaccine, Then Sold Them to Pharma - KFF Health News
Advocates of cheap and widely available vaccines thought the pandemic might change business as usual. They were wrong.
khn.org
I think y'all know how I feel about this.