zlacker

>>themgt+(OP)
I'm not saying there _aren't_ problems with decision-making or guidance from our public health agencies, but this article uses really different standards for judging positions taken by those agencies than it does for any dissenting position, in a way that ends up being nonsensical.

Sure, let's critically evaluate the guidance put forward by our public health institutions, but quoting a statement from Norway's equivalent institution without the backing evidence doesn't make the US "wrong". If the evidence available on the efficacy of vaccines for kids is so ridiculously wide that it goes from -99% to +370% risk of infection, then surely Norway is _also_ drastically overstating its case when it says (about kids) "previous infection offers as good of protection as the vaccine against reinfection" esp since it _also_ seems like the protective effect of prior infection is both uncertain and changing.

How about flatly declaring that guidance was "wrong" about school closures because minority and poor kids did markedly worse at math? Obviously these decisions are complex trade-offs, and one can't conclude that the choice was "wrong" simply by pointing out one of the costs.

How about quoting a CDC scientist, who cannot possibly have strong evidence when making the prediction "CDC guidance worsened racial equity for generations to come. It failed this generation of children." Generations to come? Show us the data that lets this scientist predict the far future with such confidence.

I get that it's deeply unnerving when these institutions make sweeping recommendations based on less firm data than we would normally demand. But not recommending anything, or not taking decisive action because of the limited data would _also_ have been irresponsible. When schools first closed, we didn't know a lot of things, but it would have been pretty reckless if agencies said "well this is putting a lot of people in the hospital and spreading fast, but we don't have the data to give definitive guidance yet, so you're on your own. Depending on the range of things your communities choose, maybe in a few months we'll have the evidence to say something."

>>abeppu+1V
No one ever admits they were wrong anymore. They just say "decisions are complex".

It's complicated.

>>rufus_+911
But it’s not the same thing. I think lockdowns were clearly on the balance correct and in my province we on two occasions emerged from lockdown too soon causing a number of health complications. We also ended masking too soon and have made society basically unliveable for anyone who is immunocompromised given their heightened risk since most of the mask protection comes from other people’s masks not their own. It’s downright shameful that we are throwing away people’s lives for minor inconveniences. Almost every immunocompromised kid in the province is back in online schooling while many of them attended schools during mandatory masking. They are getting all the negatives that we were concerned about for everyone with school closures but suddenly that’s less important than freedom from masks. Good societies protect their most vulnerable and we instead choose to intentionally throw them under the bus for very minor conveniences.

>>TimPC+Gd1
>Since most of the mask protection comes from other people’s masks not their own.

Thats a bit outdated information. Yes, some cloth mask doesnt protect you. A correctly worn N95 however does offer a ~99%+ protection against contracting COVID. Once they are available in enough numbers to go to non medicinal personal as well, which they have been for years at this point, personal protection does absolutely work.