Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by TrustyPatches, Mar 15, 2020.
An MIT math guy and an MIT chem engineering guy put out a really shitty study saying "3, 6, or 60 ft doesn't protect you indoors" and its modeled after a paper that assumes in its modeling that all transmissible respiratory droplets start off uniformly distributed in your indoor environment. That is, you start off bathed in covid lmao
And its getting dunked on, even by dweebs lol
We've definitely over-emphasized "6 feet" throughout this thing, though.
Interesting thread about the CDC messaging around outdoor transmission.
FYI for anyone still arguing for ivermectin (and there are still many), in India doctors are prescribing it, and it’s OTC there, and they are getting absolutely smashed.
It's a fucking mess.
I really don’t understand how they make that mistake, or at least don’t create a third category.
It sucks because in our field of disabilities services we try to inform our staff and stakeholders that we must adhere to CDC guidelines and recommendations, and legitimize its influence amid chud skepticism. When they bungle their messaging in this way it calls into question all their other communication to which we're trying to adhere.
Better not question anything the CDC does or say their messaging might not be great or everyone in the other covid thread is going to jump on you
I just hate how they inadvertently lend some weight to skeptics when they trip over their dicks like this.
"Err on the side of caution."
Between this and the J&J "pause" hasn't been a great run for team science communication.
Again with this? People really need to read up on the J&J vaccine and why there was a pause and what we should be doing going forward.
Yeah, maybe just read my post instead of projecting. The science communication on that wasn't ideal and hence there is a bit more confusion out there than optimally their needed to be.
Communication was fine. It is just hard to reach people, especially those looking for faults in the vaccines.
I’d you wanted to know exactly why it was paused, it was all available to you
lol. fuck out here. The goal of science communication is to bring the information to people where they live , in a way they will understand. Based on the dip we saw in vaccination numbers aligned with the pause seems like they could have done better. This has been covered ad nauseum and hopefully the community as a whole will do better going forward.
No you don’t. Just got the test for the hell of it from CVS and you get the results on the little card testing kit.
how low do we let the science literacy bar go before we realize you can only idiot proof a message so much?
Literally everything in this world can be done better. Find a more worthwhile axe to grind than one that puts you in lock step with COVID deniers.
Also, pretty sure we've discussed the failings of scientific communication ad nauseam in this and the other thread.
I'd say it depends on what your goals are and how important it is to you to persuade those "idiots."
Either way that's not this. The message in re the pause wasn't even in a range approaching idiot proof. It was poorly handled. Much like the messaging behind the 10% outdoor value. If you know the majority of the population doesn't make it much past the headline then we have to do better.
The CDC doesn't control the headlines that this denominator is reading/listening to. So even if they were perfect in their messaging (impossible on both the messaging side and the reality of the science side), that message would still be distilled and distorted. Yes, they can improve the starting point, but there's only so much impact that actually has.
People hear what they want to hear in normal times, let alone in stressed out, end of their rope (real or imagined) times. Scientists can't win, so they're best off being as transparent as possible, adjusting as required by additional information gathered, and trying their best to explain why the target is always moving when no one wants to hear about this inherent reality of the situation.
The CDC definitely bear all of the blame, media should have some responsibility in reporting sufficiently as well.
This was always going to be the case. The amount of neutralizing antibodies against the variants of concern are lower (I just saw a report about older people having 5x fewer Abs against the Delta strain even after two doses of Pfizer) which could still mean long last protection but it will be much better to be safe than sorry to just keep that level as high as possible with whatever boosters get rolled out.
It's hard to even consider this a problem anymore, when you rewind just 6 months.
We haven’t adequately tested correlates of protection or what recall responses may look like. Boosters may well be better safe than sorry but I’m not convinced yet they are absolutely necessary.
I don't think there's been any real hard data showing variants crushing through even super old people who are fully vaccinated, just a handful of cases and many are very mild. My hope is the two dose mRNA vaccines drive such an insane immune response that we'll be fine for a while. I'm guessing many fewer people are going to get boosters in the fall.
Most of these papers look at dwindling circulating antibodies but don’t assess memory b-cell recall responses
Can’t wait to casually drop this response on my wife when she mentions this later.
Is this the thread where the hardcore medical stuff/studies are posted?
Most of that stuff gets posted in the other thread now
My two year old stopped breastfeeding like a year ago.. I have a newborn. I'm considering giving my two year old some breast milk for antibody purposes. Am I a crazy person?
I mean, it won’t hurt them, but probably won’t help too much either.
No, that's not an insane thought. But doubtful a small oral dose of anti-spike IgA would do anything for them. Just feed the newborn
yo lemme get some of that milk
So my parents and older brother all are refusing to get vaccinated and their reasoning is that they have already had COVID and therefore have natural immunity, which, according to my RWNJ brother, is better than the jab.
Does anyone have any data refuting or confirming? They are at least getting periodic antibody tests but it’s driving me nuts.
I'm pretty sure I've posted at least a couple but they're in tweet form and are months old, hard to search. NIH director has a blog post on it that probably has some references to a couple papers
If you just google "why do vaccines elicit a better immune response than natural infection" you'll get a ton of results, most of which are regular blog posts and news articles vs primary papers. This has been understood for a long time for many vaccines though.
I’m a big fan of the rapid tests. I know people say they are 100% but what is? I also don’t get the arguments on people making bad choices with them. I think for people to have a few of these at home and bothering to get tested reflects a person who is not going to make a bad choice. ♂️