Octopus Overlords

SNL gets it

https://twitter.com/nbcsnl/status/1472302468344254470

Due to the recent spike in the Omicron variant and out of an abundance of caution, there will be no live audience for tonight’s taping of “Saturday Night Live” and the show will have limited cast and crew.

I'm sure so much of my current perception is based on my location, but when you read multiple accounts of people standing in 2+ hour lines this morning in NYC to try and get tested I don't know how you ignore that.

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 2:00 pm

Kurth wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:46 pm So, in the end, I’m left with the conclusion that the inevitable result of all of this is endemic COVID. We’re not ever going to “win” this battle against COVID.

This is the current defeatist mantra that's permeating the national discussion - and it mirrors what's going on with climate change. "This is all inevitable so why bother doing anything?"

Quite frankly, it's enraging.

Isn't endemic covid the ultimate goal? This virus is far too successful to ever eradicate, so the best case is to knock it down to the same level as the flu or colds -- a malady that we can live with.

Either Moderna or Pfizer said a couple of days ago that they foresee the pandemic lasting through 2023, but IDK their rationale for saying that.

Kraken wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 5:28 pm Isn't endemic covid the ultimate goal? This virus is far too successful to ever eradicate, so the best case is to knock it down to the same level as the flu or colds -- a malady that we can live with.

At this point, yes. But endemic where you see 3 or 4 cases per 100K people at any given time is a world of difference from where we are now (38 is U.S. average right now). Rabies is an endemic disease. Does anyone (other than me) spend more than 30 seconds a year thinking about rabies? This is why when people refer to SARS-CoV-2 as already being "endemic" I can feel my blood pressure rising.

Either Moderna or Pfizer said a couple of days ago that they foresee the pandemic lasting through 2023, but IDK their rationale for saying that.

It has to do with global distribution of the vaccine. If you remember back to the earliest days there were suggestions that we'd be dealing with this (globally) through 2024. It doesn't seem so crazy now, does it?

It appears that the Biden administration is struggling to change the narrative. They are going to push Biden out Tuesday to push hard forward with the current vaccine-centric strategy and focus on reporting out severity of infection instead of focus on total case numbers.

https://mobile.twitter.com/3DiMMUNE/sta ... 2826173446

Yup. It's slowly being spun into "if you get sick it's your fault" framework, completely making this about individuals instead of local, state and federal leaders in government that are not actively promoting public health protections.

Also, I'm pretty confident things here on the east coast are going to look rather different on Tuesday than on Saturday.

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 5:17 pm SNL gets it

Some of the very serious people are complaining about this as a massive overreaction and worried it will tell people that vaccinations aren't worth it (because they aren't perfect). Also the 'addicted to the pandemic' meme is re-arising. I agree with something I hear you say often - we've learned nothing.

This idea that there could be a plan that takes self-interest into account. That’s the problem - THERE IS NO WORKABLE PLAN THAT TAKES SELF-INTEREST INTO ACCOUNT.

People are crabbing at people like Smoove for being unrealistic. The problem isn’t that these plans are unrealistic. The problem is that unrealistic plans are the only plans that have any hope of doing anything other than just standing around watching more people die.

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 6:28 pm Yup. It's slowly being spun into "if you get sick it's your fault" framework, completely making this about individuals instead of local, state and federal leaders in government that are not actively promoting public health protections.

Also, I'm pretty confident things here on the east coast are going to look rather different on Tuesday than on Saturday.

Well, when people won't get a free vaccine, it is pretty much their fault if they get sick.

Its gone from "Hey buddy, you gonna eat that?"
To "Hey buddy, ya gonna inject that?"

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 5:34 pm If you remember back to the earliest days there were suggestions that we'd be dealing with this (globally) through 2024. It doesn't seem so crazy now, does it?

Back in February 2020, when the coronavirus was expanding its beachhead and imminent shutdowns were still just rumors and our esteemed president assured us that everything was fine, a merchant friend of mine said "You follow this stuff...what's your sense of how long is this going to last?" I replied, darkly: "Don't plan anything for March. Or even April. Maaaybe May."

If we'd known then what we know now, that early shutdown might have ended it. But we were all just about to learn how to wipe down our groceries and sterilize our mail.

Kraken wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:16 pmIf we'd known then what we know now, that early shutdown might have ended it.

There is a 0% chance that any shutdown would have ended anything, because COVID is a global phenomenon. Even if we had nuked New York and sealed the borders when we first detected it, it would have found its way in eventually. New Zealand has the benefit of being a freakin' island, and has managed to stay (mostly) COVID free for the last 2 years, but even they're tossing in the towel on "ending it."

The only way out is through.

Little Raven wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:29 pm

Kraken wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:16 pmIf we'd known then what we know now, that early shutdown might have ended it.

There is a 0% chance that any shutdown would have ended anything, because COVID is a global phenomenon. Even if we had nuked New York and sealed the borders when we first detected it, it would have found its way in eventually. New Zealand has the benefit of being a freakin' island, and has managed to stay (mostly) COVID free for the last 2 years, but even they're tossing in the towel on "ending it."

The only way out is through.

If we'd known about airborne transmission and masking and contact tracing and had effective testing back in March '20, we could have stomped on outbreaks and kept it from rampaging out of control. By the time we generated the data to figure all of that out, the cat was out of the bag.

Little Raven wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:29 pm The only way out is through.

Or - hear me out - we could *try* to enact policies like Japan.

https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/sta ... 3522199552

Japan: 193 new covid cases yesterday.

UK: 93,045 new covid cases yesterday.

Japan has nearly twice the UK's population, and a higher population density.

Massive covid outbreaks aren't a given - they're a policy choice.

Can we enact programs like an island nation? Of course not. But the issue for the US is the same as they have in the UK - it's a failure of policy. And that failure rests squarely on the shoulders of our elected officials - local, state and federal. Add that to the toxic individualism culture we have and we're in big trouble...again.

"Going through" and just letting things happen ("We've offered free vaccinations and boosters - what more do you want?") isn't working. It's a soft-sell of the Great Barrington Declaration clowns.

Grifman wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 9:30 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 6:28 pm Yup. It's slowly being spun into "if you get sick it's your fault" framework, completely making this about individuals instead of local, state and federal leaders in government that are not actively promoting public health protections.

Also, I'm pretty confident things here on the east coast are going to look rather different on Tuesday than on Saturday.

Well, when people won't get a free vaccine, it is pretty much their fault if they get sick.

I can get that, sure (though I primarily blame the people creating and spreading disinformation), even though it's still their job to address that even for the people who kind of deserve it.

But it's not going to be just them affected.

Some portion of the vaccinated (but not yet boosted) will get severely sick (early number suggests it only reduces your chances of getting severely sick by ~70%) and I'd guess that even a small percentage of boosted people will get severely sick as well. But when the disease spreads like wildfire, even a small percentage of a huge number is going to be a big number of people who are getting sick from covid but didn't turn down the free vaccine.

And if our healthcare services get overrun, it's going to affect anyone who is severely sick from anything (or injured).

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:49 pmOr - hear me out - we could *try* to enact policies like Japan.

No, we can't. We can't get enough unity in our government to pass an infrastructure plan - we're sure as hell not going to pass a Smoove-approved lockdown. And even if we did....something like half the population would actively refuse to follow it. You would have to literally shoot them in order to get them to comply...and they would shoot back.

I know it's frustrating, but you have to meet people where they are. The mountain will not come to Muhammad.

I am in no way saying we need to "lock down". Of course that would be helpful, but it's not a binary choice between what is currently happening now vs locking down. There's a spectrum of options we could enact (policy) but instead we're half-assing our way through this.

I will bottom line this - as long as we give the virus opportunities to spread, it will.

Knowing that vaccination reduces but does not stop spread, continuing to push vaccination as the only answer to this is going to end up causing more variants, suffering and deaths.

I think there's a giant misconception that public health advocates want lock downs 24/7 and it's just not true. Right now we're pushing elected officials to *do something* other than promote vaccination as the only solution here. Figure out ways to stop spread and help the people that are feeling the brunt of poor policy decisions.

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:16 pmI think there's a giant misconception that public health advocates want lock downs 24/7 and it's just not true.

That is definitely the perception. I'm glad to know it's inaccurate.

Right now we're pushing elected officials to *do something* other than promote vaccination as the only solution here.

I mean, Hochul TRIED. But she's facing a collapse of authority on the issue.

The Democratic leaders of both Long Island counties have joined with dozens of Republican officials around the state to defy Gov. Kathy Hochul’s private-sector mask mandate — and boost the ranks of renegade county governments to nearly two-thirds the total.

“While we will not be actively enforcing the mandate, we will respond to complaints and assist businesses with education and compliance however we can,” Democratic Nassau County Executive Laura Curran told The Post on Friday.

And this is in true-blue New York.

Something something horse, something something water.

RunningMn9 wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 9:22 pm This idea that there could be a plan that takes self-interest into account. That’s the problem - THERE IS NO WORKABLE PLAN THAT TAKES SELF-INTEREST INTO ACCOUNT.

People are crabbing at people like Smoove for being unrealistic. The problem isn’t that these plans are unrealistic. The problem is that unrealistic plans are the only plans that have any hope of doing anything other than just standing around watching more people die.

If they're unrealistic plans, then how, exactly, do they have any hope of working? They cannot happen in our society, and pretending otherwise is just putting our fingers in our ears and humming. If they can't happen, they're not plans. They're just wishful thinking.

And yes, there are absolutely plans that could take self interest into account. Why don't more people commit murder than they do? Self interest. They fear the consequences to themselves. Why do some* wealthy people and corporations act altruistically? Because it is good publicity and benefits them on taxes. It benefits them. Plans for dealing with selfish people are easy. You just incentivize desired behavior and penalize undesired behavior.

Of course, the problem is that there's nobody capable of enacting those plans, either.

If we are, as a society, incapable of enacting any effective plan (I see no reason to believe otherwise), well, at what point does fatalism become realism?

*There are some wealthy groups and individuals who help others for the sake of helping others, just like there are some people who are doing the right thing in regards to COVID. They're both a minority.

Little Raven wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:31 pm Something something horse, something something water.

...and yet there are some that are speaking out for their communities. These are the voices that need to be amplified and supported.

https://twitter.com/votejgr/status/1472272943002660878

After NY recorded the highest # of #Covid_19 cases yesterday than any other day in the pandemic NYC should have an indoor mask mandate regardless of vaccination status. In restaurants, masks should be worn when not seated.

We must reduce the transmission of COVID-19.

Over and over again a majority of Americans (when polled) are in support of masking mandates. And yet the politicians continue to sit on their hands or vocally oppose them. Why? We knew this back in September for both Red and Blue states. So what is the problem?

The problem is failed leadership. Our elected officials have failed us and I think when history looks to the COVID-19 pandemic, that is going to be the focus.

Blackhawk, I love you man, but you’re killing me.

The “unrealistic” plans are the only plans that have any hope of working because they are the only plans that include steps that would actively manage and reduce the current problem.

All plans that take “self-interest” into account fail to include any of the things that would actively manage and reduce the current problem.

If the only possibility available to us are “realistic” plans that take self-interest into account, then we are fucked, because all of those plans won’t work (because they don’t include any of the things that would actively manage and reduce the problem).

This clamor for “realistic” plans that will work is wasting everyone’s time - they don’t exist.

You are asking for what must be done. SmooveB is telling you. You are telling SmooveB that we can’t do those things because they aren’t realistic.

And I AGREE with you. We won’t do those things. We CAN do those things. But we will choose to not do those things and then sit around wondering why it never gets any better.

As SmooveB notes, everything after May 2020 has been a self-inflicted wound tied directly to policy failure after policy failure as no one would do what was necessary to avoid it. We chose this path. We choose to stay on this path.

It’s a choice. If we want to get off this ride, we have to make a different choice. We almost certainly won’t. All I’m asking is to stop pretending that there is some “realistic” alternative that will work.

Kraken wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:16 pm

Back in February 2019, when the coronavirus was expanding its beachhead and imminent shutdowns were still just rumors and our esteemed president assured us that everything was fine...

I know it's been a long, winding road but it hasn't been that long.




Has it?

LawBeefaroni wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 8:00 am

Kraken wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:16 pm

Back in February 2019, when the coronavirus was expanding its beachhead and imminent shutdowns were still just rumors and our esteemed president assured us that everything was fine...

I know it's been a long, winding road but it hasn't been that long.




Has it?

No, it was definitely 2020.

RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 1:08 am Blackhawk, I love you man, but you’re killing me.

The “unrealistic” plans are the only plans that have any hope of working because they are the only plans that include steps that would actively manage and reduce the current problem.

All plans that take “self-interest” into account fail to include any of the things that would actively manage and reduce the current problem.

I'm not talking about what steps the plan is implementing, I'm talking about the motivation tied to those steps. Any steps you can implement with an appeal to peoples' good nature you can implement with an appeal to their self interest.

We're dealing with a population divided into thirds. 1/3 wants to help and will go out of their way. 1/3 doesn't really want to be bothered, but may help if convinced (although the other side can sway them, too.) But 1/3 of the population are responding like children with oppositional defiant disorder - they say no as an automatic response to being asked, regardless of the nature of the request. You can tell them that the floor they're standing on is on fire and that they should move, and they'll get a hammer and nail their feet to the floor. We keep saying please. Saying please doesn't work. We keep appealing to their compassion, when their compassion is lacking. We've got to stop saying please and get out the carrot and the stick.

All of the experts are right, and I'm not disagreeing that what they're saying is the best course. Because while the details are evolving, it isn't really a point of contention. Masks are necessary. Vaccination is necessary. Distancing is necessary. Postponement of travel and gatherings is necessary. But it's a pointless dialog if it can't be implemented, and simply repeating it doesn't bring it any closer to reality.

We've agreed on the steps. The focus and the dialog needs to be on the implementation now. And it isn't the doctors and infectious disease experts who need to be doing it. It isn't their field. Bring in a top-tier advertising agency and a group of behavioral psychologists. Have them work together, have them analyze the response of the 2/3 so far, have them look at the response to previous information campaigns. Have them figure out how to manipulate 2/3 of the country into doing what needs to be done. If they can manipulate half of the country into believing that fast food is healthy, that the cable company is their friend, and that they really need another credit card, they can convince people that vaccines are good and masks are necessary.

pr0ner wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 9:02 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 8:00 am

Kraken wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:16 pm

Back in February 2019, when the coronavirus was expanding its beachhead and imminent shutdowns were still just rumors and our esteemed president assured us that everything was fine...

I know it's been a long, winding road but it hasn't been that long.




Has it?

No, it was definitely 2020.

Edited.

That extra year was just the time dilation effect from March/April 2020. Those two months were the longest year of my life.

Some of us aren’t choosing to fail. But there is a massive number of Americans that WILL NOT comply with any medically-driven answer. Because they don’t (or won’t) believe there is a problem, they will sabotage the plan.

You can’t lead these people — they believe in ridiculous things and are openly defiant.

They are irrational, badly behaved children but you can’t send them to their rooms or ground them or take away their toys. You can’t spank them without bloodshed.

What are the odds of this pandemic being more or less under control by the end of next year?

What did Kraken know and when did he know it?

dbt1949 wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 1:39 pm What are the odds of this pandemic being more or less under control by the end of next year?

Incalculable odds. We're essentially at the mercy of evolution right now.

dbt1949 wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 1:39 pm What are the odds of this pandemic being more or less under control by the end of next year?

The longer the virus is allowed to circulate uncontrolled, we run the risk of a variant emerging that is able to completely bypass immunity - vaccinations and prior infections. At that point, you'd also hope it didn't pick up mutations that increase severity...also a risk when it's circulating uncontrolled.

I was just watching Meet the Press and CO Governor Polis was on. He was asked directly about a new mask mandate. He completely evaded the question to speak to a vaccine only approach. The Democrats are all on the same message there. I don't think we're going to see new controls.

malchior wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:28 pm I was just watching Meet the Press and CO Governor Polis was on. He was asked directly about a new mask mandate. He completely evaded the question to speak to a vaccine only approach. The Democrats are all on the same message there. I don't think we're going to see new controls.

Don't get me started [again] on Polis. We're well past his own prior stated metrics for more restrictions, but he's never going to go there again.

Zaxxon wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:38 pm

malchior wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:28 pm I was just watching Meet the Press and CO Governor Polis was on. He was asked directly about a new mask mandate. He completely evaded the question to speak to a vaccine only approach. The Democrats are all on the same message there. I don't think we're going to see new controls.

Don't get me started [again] on Polis. We're well past his own prior stated metrics for more restrictions, but he's never going to go there again.

He essentially was like COVID is bad but let me talk over and over about how inflation is killing us. We've suspended car registrations, and blah blah blah. Also to paraphrase, if Congress could prioritize climate change since our ski industry is hurting and bolster the economy it'd be super helpful. I wasn't impressed but then again it seems like politicians who appear on tv have one play book: say a bunch of things they think people want to hear and then point a finger at someone else for not delivering it.

Sitting in a crowded gym for a school event that I had zero option to skip. Masks... maybe 10%,and I'm being generous.

Grifman wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 9:30 pm Well, when people won't get a free vaccine, it is pretty much their fault if they get sick.

I wanted to come back to this comment, but I was waiting for the right moment to be inspired. It's not that I don't agree with you on some level (my human, individual, non-public health brain), but in terms of a practical resolution, it's not helpful. I think this summarizes the issue the best:

https://twitter.com/NoahTzedek/status/1 ... 4638756876

Seeing so many people saying “I did everything right” as they say they have a breakthrough case of covid. It is dangerous to moralize contracting a deadly disease. You cannot personal responsibility your way out of a public health disaster.

I understand the instinct to say “I did everything right” when there’s been a complete lack of national guidance, & we’re being told to manage a global pandemic on a hyper local level. We focus on what is in our control. This is also how children react when they are being abused because it feels safer to focus on what they can control than leave relationship with those harming them, who have power over them.

HIV/AIDS activists taught us about the danger of moralizing illness. They showed us the collective power we can have when we recognize it is governmental neglect that is placing us at risk, & our fates are intertwined.

Biden called it “pandemic of the unvaccinated” to break collective solidarity, to try to redirect our rage at individuals instead of the government. The government has a responsibility to prevent spread of the virus, & to show that public health is collective responsibility.

I am a human rights masters student. In my class on the universal declaration of human rights, I read that the committee drafting the declaration was thinking about precisely these situations, in which each governments are responsible for collective public health.

Their thinking emphasized the idea that everyone’s rights are inherently limited by the rights of others, meaning during global pandemics, it is the government’s responsibility to place public health above individualism. The government is still responsible for unvaccinated folks.

We are interdependent. We live among unvaccinated people. We live among immunocompromised people who will not produce antibodies even with 3 shots. I’m thinking about the minyan of my friends with EDS who have not produced robust immune responses.

Children under 5 are not vaccinated. It is cruel to call it a pandemic of the unvaccinated before everyone is even eligible for vaccination.

We ignore the lessons of HIV/AIDS activists, of folks with ME/CFS, EDS, & other chronic illnesses at our own peril.

I was just a kid during the AIDS/HIV years here in the U.S. so I don't have the perspective or experience of those that are currently making strong (and valid) comparisons to that era of governmental policy, but it's rather chilling to read. The pandemic is putting a gigantic mirror up to our collective society and we're in trouble.

This is just demagoguery:

The government has a responsibility to prevent spread of the virus, & to show that public health is collective responsibility.

Yeah, the government told y'all to get a damn vaccine because that's part of the collective responsibility - but obviously, only if you *can* get the vaccine (and are not prevented from doing so by either age or medical conditions. No, religious exemptions don't count). No one is blaming unvaccinated toddlers for this pandemic. How else, exactly, is the government supposed to "prevent" spread of the virus? Even if they mail a COVID test to every household tomorrow, they a) can't force people to do the test, and b) can't force people to quarantine if they test positive. Because...muh free-dumb!

gilraen wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 4:15 pm This is just demagoguery:

How else, exactly, is the government supposed to "prevent" spread of the virus? Even if they mail a COVID test to every household tomorrow, they a) can't force people to do the test, and b) can't force people to quarantine if they test positive. Because...muh free-dumb!

I'm glad you asked! You're correct - there is going to be a significant number of people that are going to crap all over everything we're trying. But I think we've been focusing too much on those people, because they're quite loud. And when I say "we" I mean media and politicians.

First and foremost, the national message has to change from "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" and instead focus on the community-based nature of what is at stake. Maybe it's too late for that - maybe that message is already lost, but it needs to happen.

Then states need to mirror the same and figure out ways to identify communities where vaccination is lagging and find out why. This story from August is probably the only thing I've seen in 2+ years that I've found to be personally and professionally inspiring. When I reach my lowest (happening repeatedly and frequently), I re-read and am reminded of the difference a single person can make. Scaled up a bit more, I've been following the activities of Dr. Chapele in Illinois. She is absolutely inspiring as a local public health official. She's done so much no only in terms of education, but actual boots-on-the-ground public health, going out into the community and vaccinating people. She vaccinated thousands of kids over a 5 day period in November and when local families learned she was in danger of having her health authority powers stripped, they rallied and vocalized support for her to local officials, pushing back against the narrative that public health policies aren't effective or needed.

So branching off just vaccination efforts, there needs to be a concerted effort to get tests and masks to people. Here local government will be critical. I saw a post earlier today about how a library outside of Charlottesville had free rapid tests available. The same could be done everywhere - tests and masks.

State and local officials have to "normalize" and model the use of tests and masks. Not as "punishment" but as a way to protect others. And yes, I know you're (collectively) going to push back and say I'm being unrealistic but again, the polls tell us that the majority of Americans want these things - they want government to enact protective policies. The problem is the majority is being drowned out by the vocal minority and likely business interests.

I'm done focusing on the people that want to drag us back into the Dark Ages. I'm focusing my energy and attention now on lifting up and supporting those that are trying to do something - anything - to help reach communities. To help promote community health or public health in general. I genuinely (still) believe that if we can amplify those voices and efforts, the scales will tip. Are things going to change everywhere? Absolutely not, I'm certainly not that crazy. But we (public health) shouldn't be sitting idly by and allowing the Overton window to shift even further from where it's already been moved.

This seems like a very positive approach. No naysaying here - I hope it succeeds.

Little Raven wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 4:42 pm This seems like a very positive approach. No naysaying here - I hope it succeeds.

But I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.