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

[beeatnik]

Infinite lockdown..I'm almost a Libertarian now. I keed...kind of.

Lockdowns, flip flops, lab-leak hypothesis, groupthink, all that. Has the (sur)reality of the last year and a half shifted your worldview (or have you doubled down)?

Interesting times.

[Scott G.]

I remain an Orthodox Pogoite.

[beeatnik]

Wish I lived in Tejas. I'd be more reflexively loyal to my progressive ideals and in lockstep against those anti-science, heartless R's.

[monadnocky]

Not so much. I remain a fervent anarcho-syndacalist.

[ElvisMerckx]

Hard to say, but I feel more politically homeless than ever before.

[Too Tall]

Cautiously optimistic. It's kinda like batting against a rookie pitcher. You are determined to hit the damn ball and the damn ball is determined to hit you but nobody is going to blink first.

Feel me dawg?

[beeatnik]

I’m suggesting you are! Hey, even the most virulent theory has to start with someone.

So yeah: COVID transmission is airborne. An individual’s risk of infection increases dramatically as these 3 factors increase: Proximity, time and lack of airflow.

And yeah: People with lower socioeconomic status have a harder time – whether because of work or living conditions – keeping proximity, time and lack of airflow within safe parameters.

This been known, and widely reported, for over a year.

And there has been debate about the value of masking in public spaces for almost as long. Masking in those situation can been seen (uncharitably) as virtue-signaling or (sympathetically) as offering protection to our fellow humans.

(Plus replacing your gas-fueled vehicle with an electric-powered vehicle can have a positive effect on the world’s CO2 load. Although like so many other things, like wearing a mask in public to mitigate COVID spread, it’s complicated.)

So maybe I don’t get your point. Or maybe I recognized that COVID has hit poorer, darker communities harder long before you did.

Respectfully disagree on that last point. I own a home in the inner city and I knew last Feb that my tenant’s experience of the pandemic would be more horrific than mine. I also knew that her actions would impact community spread more than mine. At the moment, that community has the highest case rate in the City of Los Angeles which is to say one of the highest in the entire world.

[bigbill]

I'm the chief engineer at a 400K square foot manufacturing plant. I had a hard time with the information that was being put out early last year. I considered the science and took proactive steps to: greatly increase air exchange, increase circulation in the work space, re-engineer processes to move employees apart, install Lexan barriers where it wasn't possible to separate employees, hired additional employees to sanitize common areas frequently through the day, sent folks all over to buy cleaning products, and made PPE easily available to all. All of these actions were conservative because I felt politics was interfering with the whole truth. First, the virus couldn't be transmitted airborne, bullshit, I can't believe they ever said that. Then we weren't supposed to wear masks, and while this might have been to prevent a shortage for the medical field, it was not true. Another hit to the trust factor.

Then the workup to the election last year. Trump vaccine bad, we should be wary of anything that came from the Trump administration, Democrats planted seeds of doubt about vaccinations, perhaps to win an election. Then the democrats won, so the vaccine was okay. Then the winning party took credit for the vaccine and distribution. It made me hate politics even more. I didn't like Trump, but I more strongly dislike the use of the vaccine as a political tool.

All of my immediate and extended family are vaccinated now. I'm almost two months post second Moderna. The measures I took at work are, for the most part, permanent. Hopefully, we as a nation never again get caught out by a political misinformation delaying response to an epidemic.

[nahtnoj]

I'm the chief engineer at a 400K square foot manufacturing plant. I had a hard time with the information that was being put out early last year. I considered the science and took proactive steps to: greatly increase air exchange, increase circulation in the work space, re-engineer processes to move employees apart, install Lexan barriers where it wasn't possible to separate employees, hired additional employees to sanitize common areas frequently through the day, sent folks all over to buy cleaning products, and made PPE easily available to all. All of these actions were conservative because I felt politics was interfering with the whole truth. First, the virus couldn't be transmitted airborne, bullshit, I can't believe they ever said that. Then we weren't supposed to wear masks, and while this might have been to prevent a shortage for the medical field, it was not true. Another hit to the trust factor.

Then the workup to the election last year. Trump vaccine bad, we should be wary of anything that came from the Trump administration, Democrats planted seeds of doubt about vaccinations, perhaps to win an election. Then the democrats won, so the vaccine was okay. Then the winning party took credit for the vaccine and distribution. It made me hate politics even more. I didn't like Trump, but I more strongly dislike the use of the vaccine as a political tool.

All of my immediate and extended family are vaccinated now. I'm almost two months post second Moderna. The measures I took at work are, for the most part, permanent. Hopefully, we as a nation never again get caught out by a political misinformation delaying response to an epidemic.

............

[davids]

Respectfully disagree on that last point. I own a home in the inner city and I knew last Feb that my tenant’s experience of the pandemic would be more horrific than mine. I also knew that her actions would impact community spread more than mine. At the moment, that community has the highest case rate in the City of Los Angeles which is to say one of the highest in the entire world.

Well, then I don't get your point.

[beeatnik]

Well, then I don't get your point.

You have yet to elucidate the nature of the conspiracy I'm fomenting, btw.

[davids]

You have yet to elucidate the nature of the conspiracy I'm fomenting, btw.

Public masking and social distancing are not effective in protecting us from COVID. COVID is like air pollution and that makes socioeconomically disadvantaged areas more vulnerable.

[beeatnik]

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.

Based on Lindsey Marr’s and Jimenez’s aerosol studies along with the Science paper linked doesn’t it follow that masks are more effective where there’s less virus. In other words a person in a community or environment with lower rates of transmission would gain more efficacy from masking. These papers as I’ve read them argue for N95s in virus abundant environments. The point I’ve noted is that masking was inadequate for the most threatened communities. The high transmission rates in LA would support that view. The only mitigation available to these communities was masking. And they were religious about it. Yet, in the most impacted areas 20% of individuals have tested positive. The conservative estimate is that half were infected. 50%. Not in NYC, not in Manaus, not in Mumbai but in LA neighborhoods where the median home price is $600,000. You mention your organization. Would you care to speculate how much transmission could have been reduced in places with high mask use if the messaging had been focused on ventilation and outdoor activity. If credits had been provided for HEPA air purifiers.

[takashi]

@bigbill

"Democrats planted seeds of doubt about vaccinations, perhaps to win an election."

Could you say more about this or better yet provide links?

[beeatnik]

@bigbill

"Democrats planted seeds of doubt about vaccinations, perhaps to win an election."

Could you say more about this or better yet provide links?

He could start with a clip of Kamala Harris saying she wouldn't take Trump's vaccine. There's more context to that but I'm sure it was lost on many.

[takashi]

He could start with a clip of Kamala Harris saying she wouldn't take Trump's vaccine. There's more context to that but I'm sure it was lost on many.

You mean this?

"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about"

"She said she "would trust the word of public health experts and scientists, but not Donald Trump."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/polit...ntv/index.html

[beeatnik]

You mean this?

"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about"

"She said she "would trust the word of public health experts and scientists, but not Donald Trump."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/polit...ntv/index.html

Are you suggesting that Harris was not being intellectually dishonest? That a vaccine could have been made available without an Emergency Use Authorization simply on Trump's whim or political pressure?

Here's the relevant quote from that CNN article:

Asked by CNN's Dana Bash in a clip released Saturday whether she would get a vaccine that was approved and distributed before the election, Harris replied, "Well, I think that's going to be an issue for all of us."

"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about," she continued in the clip from an exclusive interview airing Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" at 9 a.m. ET. "I will not take his word for it."

and this:

When asked by Bash whether she thought that public health experts and scientists would get the last word on the efficacy of a vaccine, Harris predicted that they will not.

"If past is prologue that they will not, they'll be muzzled, they'll be suppressed, they will be sidelined," Harris said. "Because he's looking at an election coming up in less than 60 days and he's grasping to get whatever he can to pretend he has been a leader on this issue when he is not."

[bigbill]

@bigbill

"Democrats planted seeds of doubt about vaccinations, perhaps to win an election."

Could you say more about this or better yet provide links?

It's been mentioned, Kamala Harris cast doubt. I can't believe at this point past the election, that this has to be pointed out.

[takashi]

It's been mentioned, Kamala Harris cast doubt. I can't believe at this point past the election, that this has to be pointed out.

"I will not take his word for it."

I have no problem with this response

[davids]

"I will not take his word for it."

I have no problem with this response

That was my reaction, too. It's a shame this got spun to discredit (1) the vaccines and (2) the Democrats' attitude towards them.

VP Harris certainly never said "Trump's vaccine"...