What on Earth is going on in the world today? It's gone mad

[Horsa]

I completely disagree with this. Wearing masks has kept the pandemic at bay in places like Southeast Asia. We have to wear them. But I'm not sure why it's "hilarious." I'd call it stupid.

I suffer from bronchitis so don't wear my facial covering because I'm advised not to.

 

[Moxie]

I think that depends upon what you think is keeping the pandemic at bay. Virtually nobody wears masks in Australia and New Zealand and we've got the lowest numbers of the lot. I think you can make a common-sense argument that in hotspots it might be worthwhile wearing a mask in a crowded indoor area... outdoors, wearing a mask seems more like virtue signaling based on the case study data... the biggest of which, showed only 1 of 318 outbreaks occurred outdoors.

I thought we all agreed that there is no one-sized solution, and different areas call for different things. Surely Oz and NZ don't generally have the population density of NYC. To say that wearing a mask is "virtue signally" is really judgmental and unkind, and you're politicizing it, which isn't helpful. I have said on here before that part of wearing a mask where I live is that we live close in close proximity, but also that it's partly eye-wash for others. New Yorkers are harsh, and it's frowned upon not to wear one here. OK, if it makes people more comfortable, I'll do it. What does it hurt? And here, it's part of the (new) social contract. You don't say that Asians who wear them are "virtue signalling."

 

[mrzz]

I think that depends upon what you think is keeping the pandemic at bay. Virtually nobody wears masks in Australia and New Zealand and we've got the lowest numbers of the lot. I think you can make a common-sense argument that in hotspots it might be worthwhile wearing a mask in a crowded indoor area... outdoors, wearing a mask seems more like virtue signaling based on the case study data... the biggest of which, showed only 1 of 318 outbreaks occurred outdoors.

Very good point. The mask issue is a difficult one, in the sense that both extreme cases (enforcing universal use or completely ignore it) simply does not work in most cases. I see the point when people say that is mostly symbolic, and that its most dangerous problem is that induces a completely false sense of security (which is something 100% real).

However, in places like crowded public transportation (of cities which has a meaningful infection rate) I could bet my year salary that universal use of face masks would make a hell of a difference.

Just saw @Moxie's post, I agree with parts of it, but I cannot help but feel that, yes, some people are either virtue signalling, or using it as a political flag. (by the way I do wear them out in the street here in SP).

In Asia remember that people already had the habit of wearing them, for a lot of different reasons (from H1N1 to air pollution, including prevention of face recognition). You could find a lot of masks strolling down the streets of a big Asian city anytime in 2019...

 

[britbox]

I thought we all agreed that there is no one-sized solution, and different areas call for different things. Surely Oz and NZ don't generally have the population density of NYC. To say that wearing a mask is "virtue signally" is really judgmental and unkind, and you're politicizing it, which isn't helpful. I have said on here before that part of wearing a mask where I live is that we live close in close proximity, but also that it's partly eye-wash for others. New Yorkers are harsh, and it's frowned upon not to wear one here. OK, if it makes people more comfortable, I'll do it. What does it hurt? And here, it's part of the (new) social contract. You don't say that Asians who wear them are "virtue signalling."

I said wearing a mask outdoors was little more than virtue signaling. I understand you complying with the herd for eye-wash reasons.

 

[Moxie]

Very good point. The mask issue is a difficult one, in the sense that both extreme cases (enforcing universal use or completely ignore it) simply does not work in most cases. I see the point when people say that is mostly symbolic, and that its most dangerous problem is that induces a completely false sense of security (which is something 100% real).

However, in places like crowded public transportation (of cities which has a meaningful infection rate) I could bet my year salary that universal use of face masks would make a hell of a difference.

Just saw @Moxie's post, I agree with parts of it, but I cannot help but feel that, yes, some people are either virtue signalling, or using it as a political flag. (by the way I do wear them out in the street here in SP).

In Asia remember that people already had the habit of wearing them, for a lot of different reasons (from H1N1 to air pollution, including prevention of face recognition). You could find a lot of masks strolling down the streets of a big Asian city anytime in 2019...

I think "virtue signalling" is a terrible expression, tbh. You don't know why a person wears a mask...could be from actual fear, as it is for some people, or out of respect for others, or just being all proud of themselves, sure. Same way with acts of charity. For sure some people make gestures to reflect well on themselves, but is this the majority?

I kind of disagree with the notion of a political flag, though I could be wrong. It's not the case in NYC, of course, because we don't have that many non-fellow travelers. However, in places where there is a political division over masks, people that wear them have been harassed for it, as it's being seen that way. But I don't know for sure, so maybe for some people it's a snub to Trump or whatever.

I also kind of disagree that it gives a false sense of security. You'd really have to not be paying attention to believe that. We are told it's about 30% protection from transmitting, and something less from catching it. (I'm not clear as to why it's not the same in both directions.) Of course public transportation is a real danger area, but I definitely think that's where you must wear a mask, if you have to use it. Also gloves. But that's why so many people who have it here are those who have to work and have to commute on public transportation to get there. It's high-risk, but that's no reason to not take the precaution.

Of course I know that it has long been a social norm in Asia, which was my point of saying that it's a "new" one here. (I didn't know about preventing face recognition, though...that's interesting.) Anyway, I do think that, when this is all over, there will be more use of face mask in NYC, for when people have colds and have to go out.

 

[britbox]

Very good point. The mask issue is a difficult one, in the sense that both extreme cases (enforcing universal use or completely ignore it) simply does not work in most cases. I see the point when people say that is mostly symbolic, and that its most dangerous problem is that induces a completely false sense of security (which is something 100% real).

However, in places like crowded public transportation (of cities which has a meaningful infection rate) I could bet my year salary that universal use of face masks would make a hell of a difference.

Just saw @Moxie's post, I agree with parts of it, but I cannot help but feel that, yes, some people are either virtue signalling, or using it as a political flag. (by the way I do wear them out in the street here in SP).

In Asia remember that people already had the habit of wearing them, for a lot of different reasons (from H1N1 to air pollution, including prevention of face recognition). You could find a lot of masks strolling down the streets of a big Asian city anytime in 2019...

Yeah, I did say I could see the point of wearing masks in enclosed crowded spaces, but there is no doubt some virtual signalling going on.

This was quite telling:



A CNN reporter sneering at people walking around outdoors without masks. Yet, the guy on the street he asked about it, helpfully pointed out CNN's own cameraman and half the crew weren't wearing masks either.

 

[Moxie]

I said wearing a mask outdoors was little more than virtue signaling. I understand you complying with the herd for eye-wash reasons.

I understood that, but as I also said, we live densely here, so I still think it's a good idea. They've also told us that to contract the virus you'd most likely have to stand less than 2 meters away from someone, with no mask, and be having a conversation for 10 minutes or longer. I find that comforting. I'm glad you appreciate the point about eye-wash out of respect. I also wear gloves when I go out, and the main reason for that is, for me, it just reminds me of where I put my hands. I fully believe that, on the days when I only go out for a short run and come straight home, I could go out safely with no mask or gloves, but that's not comfortable for other people. So I do it. When I do go into a shop, that is another matter. And the main reason is to protect the people that are in contact with the public all day long. My risk is minimal, but there's is much greater. If nothing else, it's a gesture of respect in their direction.

 

[britbox]

I understood that, but as I also said, we live densely here, so I still think it's a good idea. They've also told us that to contract the virus you'd most likely have to stand less than 2 meters away from someone, with no mask, and be having a conversation for 10 minutes or longer. I find that comforting. I'm glad you appreciate the point about eye-wash out of respect. I also wear gloves when I go out, and the main reason for that is, for me, it just reminds me of where I put my hands. I fully believe that, on the days when I only go out for a short run and come straight home, I could go out safely with no mask or gloves, but that's not comfortable for other people. So I do it. When I do go into a shop, that is another matter. And the main reason is to protect the people that are in contact with the public all day long. My risk is minimal, but there's is much greater.

More people probably wear masks than I initially suggested in Oz, particularly among the Asian community, but it's still a vast minority of the wider populace - at least where I live. Maybe the numbers are higher in Sydney and Melbourne because they are more densely populated. I'm not politicizing it at all.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I did say I could see the point of wearing masks in enclosed crowded spaces, but there is no doubt some virtual signalling going on.

This was quite telling:

A CNN reporter sneering at people walking around outdoors without masks. Yet, the guy on the street he asked about it, helpfully pointed out CNN's own cameraman and half the crew weren't wearing masks either.

It is astonishing that the crew wasn't wearing face masks, and also that the woman in the "home office" just let that comment pass at the end of the piece. The on-camera guy is projecting towards a microphone, so he should wear a mask, but I have been reading endless guidelines and proposals for the film industry for a month now, and I'm astonished that a CNN crew goes out without observing at least the minimum.

 

[britbox]

It is astonishing that the crew wasn't wearing face masks, and also that the woman in the "home office" just let that comment pass at the end of the piece. The on-camera guy is projecting towards a microphone, so he should wear a mask, but I have been reading endless guidelines and proposals for the film industry for a month now, and I'm astonished that a CNN crew goes out without observing at least the minimum.

I think they were probably a little embarrassed in the studio. The video title said it was MSNBC but I've seen it before and it said they were CNN. I guess it doesn't matter really - still a major network.

Is this going to be the new normal for the USA? or just pockets of it? Temporary or permanent?

 

[Moxie]

I think they were probably a little embarrassed in the studio. The video title said it was MSNBC but I've seen it before and it said they were CNN. I guess it doesn't matter really - still a major network.

Is this going to be the new normal for the USA? or just pockets of it? Temporary or permanent?

I got ya...I did think that woman was CNN, but not sure. No matter. I'm sure they were embarrassed. The on-camera guy clearly was. Great pick-up on the hypocrisy, in any case.

Do you mean mask-wearing as the "new normal?" Social distancing? I really hope that we go back to hugging and kissing and standing elbow-to-elbow in bars and at tennis tournaments. I think both will last so that we can go back to work until there's a vaccine. Or if we discover that enough people have the antibodies and that that prevents re-infection. Once this is all past, I hope we do go back to much the way we were. As I said, I think that NYC, having more of a habit for a mask, might be inclined to wear one if you're out and about with a cold, which used only to be Asian/Asian-Americans here.

I don't know if you saw or had a chance to read The Economist piece that I posted about "cure worse than the disease," but it's a very interesting read. A lot to chew on.

 

[britbox]

I got ya...I did think that woman was CNN, but not sure. No matter. I'm sure they were embarrassed. The on-camera guy clearly was. Great pick-up on the hypocrisy, in any case.

Do you mean mask-wearing as the "new normal?" Social distancing? I really hope that we go back to hugging and kissing and standing elbow-to-elbow in bars and at tennis tournaments. I think both will last so that we can go back to work until there's a vaccine. Or if we discover that enough people have the antibodies and that that prevents re-infection. Once this is all past, I hope we do go back to much the way we were. As I said, I think that NYC, having more of a habit for a mask, might be inclined to wear one if you're out and about with a cold, which used only to be Asian/Asian-Americans here.

I don't know if you saw or had a chance to read The Economist piece that I posted about "cure worse than the disease," but it's a very interesting read. A lot to chew on.

I've just read it. Interesting piece. It's one of the rare articles looking ahead and beyond the current position.

I agree that we're really not going to get the full picture of this current crisis for some time. Even the numbers of infection, deaths etc. The media and the populace are all over the "here and now" and politicians are reacting accordingly. The fallout is going to be very bleak in a lot of places.

 

[britbox]

I got ya...I did think that woman was CNN, but not sure. No matter. I'm sure they were embarrassed. The on-camera guy clearly was. Great pick-up on the hypocrisy, in any case.

Do you mean mask-wearing as the "new normal?" Social distancing? I really hope that we go back to hugging and kissing and standing elbow-to-elbow in bars and at tennis tournaments. I think both will last so that we can go back to work until there's a vaccine. Or if we discover that enough people have the antibodies and that that prevents re-infection. Once this is all past, I hope we do go back to much the way we were. As I said, I think that NYC, having more of a habit for a mask, might be inclined to wear one if you're out and about with a cold, which used only to be Asian/Asian-Americans here.

I don't know if you saw or had a chance to read The Economist piece that I posted about "cure worse than the disease," but it's a very interesting read. A lot to chew on.

Are you concerned that people are hanging too much on a vaccine? It's not like there is much of a track record with any other sort of coronaviruses.

I certainly wouldn't be taking a vaccine for at least five years after it's been released. I'm sure there will be vaccines out there within due course (money talks), but personally would be hanging back for years to see if they are either effective or dangerous.

 

[Moxie]

I've just read it. Interesting piece. It's one of the rare articles looking ahead and beyond the current position.

I agree that we're really not going to get the full picture of this current crisis for some time. Even the numbers of infection, deaths etc. The media and the populace are all over the "here and now" and politicians are reacting accordingly. The fallout is going to be very bleak in a lot of places.

And is the way with The Economist, it takes in the global perspective dispassionately. I do think we're entering the "second phase," where we've paused/locked down to take the time to let the scientists and I suppose the politicians to assess what we're up against. Now, locally, case-by-case, in terms of nations/states/regions/cities, we're going to have to start weighing cost-benefit, and making smarter choices to figure out how to protect the most vulnerable from the disease, while it still lurks, and yet allow people to work, avoid famine and greater family economic crisis, death by other disease for lack of care/vaccination, etc. They had a few practical suggestions in there, which are smart and just the leading edge of the way forward.

My friend in Spain who sent me the article asked me the question: "Are we willing to let people die to save the economy?" I told him that was a bit cold, as a way to pose the question. But we do have to consider the general health and well-being of everyone in the bigger picture. I know that Cali has been hollering about this, but before time, imo. We (the world) didn't get ahead of this soon enough, and we did really have to take extraordinary measures to avoid calamity. By which I don't mean lots of first-world old people dying, but real devastation in the third.

 

[britbox]

And is the way with The Economist, it takes in the global perspective dispassionately. I do think we're entering the "second phase," where we've paused/locked down to take the time to let the scientists and I suppose the politicians to assess what we're up against. Now, locally, case-by-case, in terms of nations/states/regions/cities, we're going to have to start weighing cost-benefit, and making smarter choices to figure out how to protect the most vulnerable from the disease, while it still lurks, and yet allow people to work, avoid famine and greater family economic crisis, death by other disease for lack of care/vaccination, etc. They had a few practical suggestions in there, which are smart and just the leading edge of the way forward.

My friend in Spain who sent me the article asked me the question: "Are we willing to let people die to save the economy?" I told him that was a bit cold, as a way to pose the question. But we do have to consider the general health and well-being of everyone in the bigger picture. I know that Cali has been hollering about this, but before time, imo. We (the world) didn't get ahead of this soon enough, and we did really have to take extraordinary measures to avoid calamity. By which I don't mean lots of first-world old people dying, but real devastation in the third.

Lots of lessons to be learned!

 

[Moxie]

Are you concerned that people are hanging too much on a vaccine? It's not like there is much of a track record with any other sort of coronaviruses.

I certainly wouldn't be taking a vaccine for at least five years after it's been released. I'm sure there will be vaccines out there within due course (money talks), but personally would be hanging back for years to see if they are either effective or dangerous.

I rather do think we're hanging too much on a vaccine, because it's far off, by every well-considered medical opinion. Another year or more would be optimistic. We can't wait that long. That's why I said I'm hoping that natural immunity will start kicking in from those who've had it, survived, even mild cases, and (ideally) can't get it again. That's what "herd-immunity" is all about. As in the NFL, those people block it from others, and the protection is exponential.

As to a vaccine, if you've been following my "preachings" of late, I am a great believer in vaccines. I would take an early version. I would actually take a trial version. Someone has to. There is a SARS vaccine, and they think that MERS is a likely candidate, but that does tell us how long it can take. With the focus on COVID-19, and as you rightly mention, the potential monetary value in it, I think that the COVID-19 vaccine will come sooner rather than later. When it comes, and it's working and safe, just get it. I don't think you have to wait 5 years.

 

[britbox]

Very good point. The mask issue is a difficult one, in the sense that both extreme cases (enforcing universal use or completely ignore it) simply does not work in most cases. I see the point when people say that is mostly symbolic, and that its most dangerous problem is that induces a completely false sense of security (which is something 100% real).

However, in places like crowded public transportation (of cities which has a meaningful infection rate) I could bet my year salary that universal use of face masks would make a hell of a difference.

Just saw @Moxie's post, I agree with parts of it, but I cannot help but feel that, yes, some people are either virtue signalling, or using it as a political flag. (by the way I do wear them out in the street here in SP).

In Asia remember that people already had the habit of wearing them, for a lot of different reasons (from H1N1 to air pollution, including prevention of face recognition). You could find a lot of masks strolling down the streets of a big Asian city anytime in 2019...

Hey @mrzz, how are things playing out in Brazil? I look at the Worldometer every morning and see your country climbing the curve. What's your current situation on the medical and political fronts?

 

[britbox]

I rather do think we're hanging too much on a vaccine, because it's far off, by every well-considered medical opinion. Another year or more would be optimistic. We can't wait that long. That's why I said I'm hoping that natural immunity will start kicking in from those who've had it, survived, even mild cases, and (ideally) can't get it again. That's what "herd-immunity" is all about. As in the NFL, those people block it from others, and the protection is exponential.

As to a vaccine, if you've been following my "preachings" of late, I am a great believer in vaccines. I would take an early version. I would actually take a trial version. Someone has to. There is a SARS vaccine, and they think that MERS is a likely candidate, but that does tell us how long it can take. With the focus on COVID-19, and as you rightly mention, the potential monetary value in it, I think that the COVID-19 vaccine will come sooner rather than later. When it comes, and it's working and safe, just get it. I don't think you have to wait 5 years.

Are you sure there is an approved SARS vaccine? I read from a couple of sources that there isn't an approved one yet, although the Chinese had apparently vaccinated some people with apparent success.

From what I've read (bearing in mind I am not in the medical profession), it's particularly difficult to develop vaccines for respiratory diseases, and there are historic cases of bad reactions from the immune system. I wouldn't be in any hurry to be an early adopter, but credit to you for sticking your hand up.

 

[Moxie]

Are you sure there is an approved SARS vaccine? I read from a couple of sources that there isn't an approved one yet, although the Chinese had apparently vaccinated some people with apparent success.

From what I've read (bearing in mind I am not in the medical profession), it's particularly difficult to develop vaccines for respiratory diseases, and there are historic cases of bad reactions from the immune system. I wouldn't be in any hurry to be an early adopter, but credit to you for sticking your hand up.

"Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a newly emerged infectious disease caused by SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV). Originated in the Guangdong province of China in late 2002, SARS seriously threatened public health and socioeconomic stability worldwide. An ideal SARS vaccine should have three features as follows: 1) elicit highly potent neutralizing antibody responses against a broad spectrum of viral strains; 2) induce protection against infection and transmission; and 3) be safe by not inducing any infection-enhancing antibodies or harmful immune or inflammatory responses.

Several SARS vaccines are available, including inactivated SARS-CoV-based vaccines, S protein-based vaccines, and vaccines based on fragments containing neutralizing epitopes. Recombinant vector-based vaccines can induce potent neutralizing and protective responses in immunized animals but may induce antibodies that enhance infection by early human SARS-CoV and animal SARS-CoV-like viruses. Recombinant RBD (receptor-binding domain) consists of multiple conformational neutralizing epitopes that induce highly potent neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV. RBD does not contain immunodominant sites that induce nonneutralizing antibodies. RBD sequences are relatively conserved."

Vaccine Development - Creative Biolabs

Creative Biolabs Vaccine is a leading custom service provider in the field of vaccine development, vaccine preclinical assessment and GMP manufacturing of vaccine products.

www.creative-biolabs.com

 

[britbox]

^ There is some contradictory information out there.

If we find a vaccine for COVID-19, it will be the first time ever for coronaviruses

For those pinning their hopes on a COVID-19 vaccine to return life to normal, an Australian expert in vaccine development warns the quest poses unique challenges.

www.abc.net.au

There was no vaccine for Sars or Mers. Will there be one for the new coronavirus?

Seventeen years after the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) outbreak and seven years since the first Middle East respiratory syndrome (Mers) case, there is still no coronavirus vaccine despite dozens of attempts to develop them.As research institutes and companies around the world race to...

sg.news.yahoo.com

Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that they have developed a vaccine for the particular strain of SARS but it's no longer relevant.

I'm wondering if Coronavirus will peter out also, and by the time they have a vaccine for the strains we've seen, will that be relevant?

With flu shots, my understanding is that the vaccine is geared toward particular strains that are geographically relevant.

Would that mean that a "generic" vaccine for Coronavirus could be quickly modified to protect against a different strain? i.e. a Mutated future outbreak?

I'm thinking aloud, as I don't really have any idea what I'm talking about.