The NBA’s Anti-Vaxxers Are Trying to Push Around the League—And It’s Working

[bleachkit]

5 hours ago, Diesel said:

Firstly, I don't believe Dr. Fauci.. but that's another story. 

However, I do agree with social distancing and wearing a mask.  There's no contradiction in those things and what I have said.   

 

Something that should be mentioned about social distancing. Why was 6ft chosen? The CDC actually recommended 10 ft, but White house said it was unworkable, so they went with 6ft. Very scientific, let me tell you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner/?sh=6c2270f1e8e6

[bleachkit]

2 hours ago, marco102 said:

Bro what? 

 

A common fallacy held by many, not just Kyrie. That if something comes from the earth, it must be safer than something that was designed in a laboratory. Strange logic. Snake venom and hemlock come from earth. What matters is how a molecule interacts with the body and brain, not if it is indigenous to the natural world. 

[niremetal]

10 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Something that should be mentioned about social distancing. Why was 6ft chosen? The CDC actually recommended 10 ft, but White house said it was unworkable, so they went with 6ft. Very scientific, let me tell you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner/?sh=6c2270f1e8e6

I don't think the 6ft number is completely arbitrary, despite what one person (who probably pushed for 10ft and is irked that he lost that argument) might have said. Six feet is the recommended distance that people with cystic fibrosis are supposed to stay apart from each other to prevent cross-infections, for example.

At least, it's no more arbitrary than any other line that you could draw...I mean, any time where useful guidance requires picking a number, the number you pick is bound to be somewhat arbitrary (because 6ft is not meaningfully different than 6ft and one inch, 10ft than 10ft and one inch, etc). 

[bleachkit]

1 minute ago, niremetal said:

I don't think the 6ft number is completely arbitrary, despite what one person (who probably pushed for 10ft and is irked that he lost that argument) might have said. Six feet is the recommended distance that people with cystic fibrosis are supposed to stay apart from each other to prevent cross-infections, for example.

At least, it's no more arbitrary than any other line that you could draw...I mean, any time where useful guidance requires picking a number, the number you pick is bound to be somewhat arbitrary (because 6ft is not meaningfully different than 6ft and one inch, 10ft than 10ft and one inch, etc). 

He didnt lose the argument to another scientist. He lost the argument to a White House operative whose background was not in science. It was a completely arbitrary number. Just like how they changed it to three feet to allow the opening of schools. 

[JeffS17]

9 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

He didnt lose the argument to another scientist. He lost the argument to a White House operative whose background was not in science. It was a completely arbitrary number. Just like how they changed it to three feet to allow the opening of schools. 

I don't think it's a point worth dissecting to be honest.  I'm sure we all agree that 6 feet apart is better than 1 foot or whatever the norm would be.  10 feet would surely be better.  Staying at home altogether with no social interaction would be even better.  There has to be some balance achieved so if it's 6 feet because that's a more workable solution than 10 feet I'm fine with that.  Pragmatically, every foot you increase it there becomes more and more people who throw their hands up and don't follow the rules at all so it's a delicate balance that isn't worth nitpicking imo

[JayBirdHawk]

28 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Something that should be mentioned about social distancing. Why was 6ft chosen? The CDC actually recommended 10 ft, but White house said it was unworkable, so they went with 6ft. Very scientific, let me tell you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner/?sh=6c2270f1e8e6

 

11 minutes ago, niremetal said:

I don't think the 6ft number is completely arbitrary, despite what one person (who probably pushed for 10ft and is irked that he lost that argument) might have said. Six feet is the recommended distance that people with cystic fibrosis are supposed to stay apart from each other to prevent cross-infections, for example.

At least, it's no more arbitrary than any other line that you could draw...I mean, any time where useful guidance requires picking a number, the number you pick is bound to be somewhat arbitrary (because 6ft is not meaningfully different than 6ft and one inch, 10ft than 10ft and one inch, etc). 

3ft, 6ft, 10ft?   It's based on past viruses and studies....it's not as arbitrary as you might think.

Quote

The WHO’s three-foot recommendation originates with work done in the 1930s done by William Wells, a Harvard researcher who studied tuberculosis. He found that droplets—bits of spit, mucus, and sputum (aka phlegm) emitted when we breathe, cough, or sneeze—tend to land within three feet of where they’re expelled.

Those droplets—a term researchers use to refer to biggish particles, ones that are more than five microns in diameter—can last on surfaces for a few hours to days, depending on the temperature. That’s why other precautions like hand washing and disinfecting are so important to prevent the spread of disease.

The three-foot cutoff for droplets has stuck around for nearly a century, and to be fair, scientists haven’t had reason to doubt its validity. Other viral outbreaks, like the flu, SARS, and MERS, which are also transmitted through droplets, seemed to behave similarly—at least enough so that authorities didn’t feel the need to update their guidance.

Rules vs. guidelines

We take comfort in the certainty of rules that scientists and public health officials give us—particularly with those that are meant to keep us safe. But as with most things in biology, the more scientists learn more about the ways that viruses spread, the clearer it is that these rules are more like guidelines.

When the SARS pandemic hit in 2003, for example, scientists found some evidence that the three-foot cutoff may not be enough. Researchers looked at the prevalence of SARS infections within a single flight, and concluded that droplets of the virus could actually travel between passengers six feet apart—not three.

The study, which looked at just over 100 people and was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, was allegedly the basis for the CDC updating their message to say that people should stay six feet apart to prevent transmission, according to a recent episode of Radiolab. Quartz tried to find the origins of the six-foot guideline with the CDC, but after multiple attempts over two weeks, the agency failed to comment.

Now, there’s anecdotal evidence that the six-foot cutoff may not be enough, either. “It is possible that special circumstances might lead to increased or decreased risks,” Giorgia Sulis, an infectious disease physician and epidemiologist at McGill University, told Quartz in an email. But with limited time to have studied SARS-CoV-2, none of those special situations have been investigated in detail.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1831100/where-does-the-six-feet-social-distancing-guideline-come-from/amp/

[JeffS17]

2 hours ago, thecampster said:

This same "for public safety" or "The common good" argument is what led the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans during WW2. Its what led to the annexation of Native American lands, the forced conversions during the inquisition and was the same argument used for why thousands of black people were kept in slavery. Watch any period drama and the prevailing thought was "they'd starve without us".

I don't like giving up my freedoms because someone else takes them. I'm happy to surrender them when I see the cause is just but force it upon me and I'll resist on principal.  

I don't know what you're getting at with these egregious false equivalencies.  Those are humanitarian crises... this is actually the opposite -- a crisis that some would rather not be addressed at all to protect "freedoms".  There is no downside to getting vaccinated, it only serves to help you and your peers.  I'm not sure how this somehow puts us on a slippery slope of revoking liberties and I also don't agree with that frame.  Pick a battle that actually matters...  Fight for your freedoms when the government installs the NSA and actively spies on the populace -- not when the government is trying to help protect you and the population from a pandemic... I just don't get it, but I don't think I ever will because to me it just feels like the CDC/government is doing it's job and the vaccine is a good thing with no downside.

[JeffS17]

3 hours ago, marco102 said:

Bro what? 

 

This is crazy to me lol Kyrie said your 12 years of medical school is not quite as good as his 0 years of medical school.  This logic is so ...simple? and weird?  No one is out here advocating we ride horses cus that's what people did for thousands of years.  He said this on a freaking zoom call so he's clearly embracing science/technology in other areas of his life, not like he's an Amish dude.  I hope for his and his family's sake he does not come down with any serious illness and end up like Steve Jobs 

[bleachkit]

19 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

I don't think it's a point worth dissecting to be honest.  I'm sure we all agree that 6 feet apart is better than 1 foot or whatever the norm would be.  10 feet would surely be better.  Staying at home altogether with no social interaction would be even better.  There has to be some balance achieved so if it's 6 feet because that's a more workable solution than 10 feet I'm fine with that.  Pragmatically, every foot you increase it there becomes more and more people who throw their hands up and don't follow the rules at all so it's a delicate balance that isn't worth nitpicking imo

Yes 6ft was chosen because anything greater would be too difficult to implement and people would give up, I understand that. I'm just saying, let's not act like the 6ft decree was the word of God. It was an arbitrary number chosen for practical purposes, and that's fine, but that's all it was. 

[JayBirdHawk]

 

 

[Jdawgflow]

9 hours ago, thecampster said:

Now this is really good in seeing the middle ground between "COVID deaths" and "COVID related". This is gets away from the icky COVID language and engages "excess deaths" or "impact" if you will. Many of these can be attributed to suicide, lack of supplies, medicine hospital resources, etc.  Showing true impact instead of just regurgitating a number is way more effective.

And this is not even mentioning the severe increase in mental health problems that don’t lead to suicide (or at least haven’t yet) in parents and children, homelessness, lost education time, etc.  The number of neglect, abuse, and anxiety/depression cases I have seen has skyrocketed since March 2020.

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, bleachkit said:

He didnt lose the argument to another scientist. He lost the argument to a White House operative whose background was not in science. It was a completely arbitrary number. Just like how they changed it to three feet to allow the opening of schools. 

A better question is where did 10 feet come from?  Wasn't that also a best option.   I've read where if you're indoors COVID could spread to as much as 60 feet.   I think most of the numbers are just arbitrary and the best out is the farther away the better.   But that's not realistic right...  So you have one scientist guy say.. well I think it should be 10 feet.... he gets the side eye from people who think more logistically and they say.. Better would be 6 feet.     You can't really give credence to either.   It's just what would work best.

 

 

[hazer]

 

[Diesel]

14 minutes ago, hazer said:

 

Gotta give respect to Dame Lillard.   Not only was he thinking about himself, but he was thinking beyond himself... which is really what this disagreement comes down to. 

[RandomFan]

For those not familiar with the Herman Cain Awards subreddit, say what you will about the schadenfreude of posting about other people's misery (self inflicted or not) the fact of the matter is more anti-vaxxers need to actually see things like this to shock them into reality. These are some heartbreaking stories. Not everyone responds to the same type of messaging: some need a gentle hand of guidance, while others need the smack up side the head that something like this provides. But if you read through some of these posts you'll be damned sure not to ever conflate Covid with the flu again. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

From a different article: https://slate.com/technology/2021/09/hermancainaward-subreddit-antivaxxer-deaths-cataloged.html

If these individual stories seem to change nothing, what about a cumulative record? Does anything besides schadenfreude happen when Americans see one after another after another after another of these stories? I’m not sure, but a new category has recently been gathering steam in the subreddit: the IPA (Immunized to Prevent Award). People post photos of their new vaccination cards, saying that reading the r/HermanCainAward finally convinced them they didn’t want to “win.” They get enthusiastically cheered on by commenters. “I’m not anti-Vax,” one such comment reads, “I was just afraid and confused by all the misinformation out there. Genuinely frightened and confused. Taking a quick 5 minute look at this Sub-reddit brought me back down to earth. I’ll be getting my first round of the Pfizer Vaccine early next week. Thank you for existing.” There are more of these than you might expect; who knows if these stories are true, but if even some of them are, maybe these stories can, in the aggregate, persuade people who wouldn’t be especially moved by specific cases.

Nothing about the r/HermanCainAward, a dark record of a dark, dark time, is decent or kind or particularly fair. Even using Cain as the model is uncharitable; he was actually among the conservatives who didn’t deny that COVID was real. He advocated following CDC guidelines including social distancing and even masks on his radio show, despite not always adhering to those recommendations himself. I’m not sure that matters; no one could argue that a place where people gather to mock the dead is “moral,” or accuse it of hypocrisy, or of virtue signaling, or of coastal elitism. It is an anti-persuasive venue, a place that dispenses with rational appeals for people to behave better in favor of something much more primal and horrifying. And who knows? Maybe it’s persuading people specifically because it’s not trying to.

Edited September 28, 2021 by RandomFan

[sillent]

11 hours ago, Diesel said:

Look around look around.   Right now, Covid is a death sentence for the unvaccinated.   And some may be fine with that.. but if it goes farther... you may see people saying... my taxes shouldn't pay for unvaccinated people taking up Hospital beds.  It's a cold world out here. 

The country is definitely free.  But you have to live with the consequences of those freedoms too.  So It's not really free.   I mean you can say what you want... Freedom of speech.. but that doesn't mean you get to keep your job!

Right now you can be unvax...  BUT eventually, the question will be asked.. why should you get to ride on my airline and possibly effect others?  Why should you work in my business and possibly effect others?  Why should you be able to come into my venue and possibly effect others?  Why should I let you in my country so that you can effect others?

So you do have your freedoms for now... but this world is cold. 

 

 

I agree they shouldn't have to pay. 

Just like for people that take care of ourselves we shouldn't have to pay because others don't care what they put in there bodies.

I don't take aspirin, tylenol or none of that. Modern medicine more than likely wouldn't even react well in my body.

That's the key thing though my body. Just like I can't tell nobody how to eat they can't tell me what to put in my body.

If you wanna argue do it with the vaccine makers with all this technology and scientific discovery to make something that works better. If it did you wouldn't worry about what others do with their body. Maybe even more would feel more comfortable taking it if they knew they atleast were really protected.

People fighting the wrong people and the wrong fight. 

[JeffS17]

15 minutes ago, RandomFan said:

For those not familiar with the Herman Cain Awards subreddit, say what you will about the schadenfreude of posting about other people's misery (self inflicted or not) the fact of the matter is more anti-vaxxers need to actually see things like this to shock them into reality. These are some heartbreaking stories. Not everyone responds to the same type of messaging: some need a gentle hand of guidance, while others need the smack up side the head that something like this provides. But if you read through some of these posts you'll be damned sure not to ever conflate Covid with the flu again. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

From a different article: https://slate.com/technology/2021/09/hermancainaward-subreddit-antivaxxer-deaths-cataloged.html

If these individual stories seem to change nothing, what about a cumulative record? Does anything besides schadenfreude happen when Americans see one after another after another after another of these stories? I’m not sure, but a new category has recently been gathering steam in the subreddit: the IPA (Immunized to Prevent Award). People post photos of their new vaccination cards, saying that reading the r/HermanCainAward finally convinced them they didn’t want to “win.” They get enthusiastically cheered on by commenters. “I’m not anti-Vax,” one such comment reads, “I was just afraid and confused by all the misinformation out there. Genuinely frightened and confused. Taking a quick 5 minute look at this Sub-reddit brought me back down to earth. I’ll be getting my first round of the Pfizer Vaccine early next week. Thank you for existing.” There are more of these than you might expect; who knows if these stories are true, but if even some of them are, maybe these stories can, in the aggregate, persuade people who wouldn’t be especially moved by specific cases.

Nothing about the r/HermanCainAward, a dark record of a dark, dark time, is decent or kind or particularly fair. Even using Cain as the model is uncharitable; he was actually among the conservatives who didn’t deny that COVID was real. He advocated following CDC guidelines including social distancing and even masks on his radio show, despite not always adhering to those recommendations himself. I’m not sure that matters; no one could argue that a place where people gather to mock the dead is “moral,” or accuse it of hypocrisy, or of virtue signaling, or of coastal elitism. It is an anti-persuasive venue, a place that dispenses with rational appeals for people to behave better in favor of something much more primal and horrifying. And who knows? Maybe it’s persuading people specifically because it’s not trying to.

Thought about referencing that earlier but it's just so sad imo... like really sad.  A lot of the readers/commenters there are pretty heartless and I understand their perspective as it's a pretty simple one -- you refuse the vaccine and you pay the toll -- but I have a lot of family in rural Georgia and when you go out in some areas, the cultural pressure, peer pressure, and political pressure was IMMENSE at the beginning of the pandemic to not take it seriously, not wear a mask, and then not get vaccinated.  It's not surprising to me that so few people in rural areas are getting the vaccine given the atmosphere.  I feel very fortunate to have a lot of influences in my life that are very science-educated and pro-vaccine.

Anyways, if nothing else, that subreddit is a fascinating window into anti-vaccine culture and some of the ties it has to different conspiracies, uneducated viewpoints, and often times just complete misinformation. 

[thecampster]

10 hours ago, niremetal said:

(1) I think both of those statements would be true--that is, an employer could inquire into whether the employee has COVID or another infectious disease (or if they have taken precautions, such as vaccination, against the disease) in those two situations.

For (2), the answer is also yes, other such situations exist. In fact, pretty much any health-related question to any employee is okay under the ADA as long as it doesn't seek info about disability status--and most COVID inquiries would not be viewed as seeking info about disability status. Even if a question does seek info about disability status, that's still okay as long as the inquiry is "job-related and consistent with business necessity," which has been interpreted pretty broadly to cover most situations where there is potential health/safety risks to other employees involved.

FWIW, I personally think employers have too much leeway to collect data on workers, pry into their lives, and control them. But historically, the default rules governing employer/employee relations in the United States are drawn from the old, pre-1776 British rules governing the relationship between (I kid you not) masters and domestic servants. As a result, while employees are on the clock, employers have very few limits on what info they can gather on employees, and employees' right to privacy is extremely limited. There has to be a specific law passed by Congress or a state legislature to limit employers' rights in that space. And unlike in Europe, the US has no general law granting workers a broad right to privacy. So the only real limits on what questions employers can ask come from laws with fairly limited scope, like the ADA.

Thanks

[thecampster]

9 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

I don't know what you're getting at with these egregious false equivalencies.  Those are humanitarian crises... this is actually the opposite -- a crisis that some would rather not be addressed at all to protect "freedoms".  There is no downside to getting vaccinated, it only serves to help you and your peers.  I'm not sure how this somehow puts us on a slippery slope of revoking liberties and I also don't agree with that frame.  Pick a battle that actually matters...  Fight for your freedoms when the government installs the NSA and actively spies on the populace -- not when the government is trying to help protect you and the population from a pandemic... I just don't get it, but I don't think I ever will because to me it just feels like the CDC/government is doing it's job and the vaccine is a good thing with no downside.

It's okay you don't get it. Great part about this country is I can be weary of a nanny state who uses a pandemic to take power for itself and you can choose to allow it. We can disagree. What we can't allow is you to decide my point of view is invalid because you don't see it. I not arguing against vaccination. I'm arguing against forced vaccination.

[swanlee]

28 minutes ago, thecampster said:

It's okay you don't get it. Great part about this country is I can be weary of a nanny state who uses a pandemic to take power for itself and you can choose to allow it. We can disagree. What we can't allow is you to decide my point of view is invalid because you don't see it. I not arguing against vaccination. I'm arguing against forced vaccination.

Well at some point just like Seat Belts, Speed Limits, Vaccines for Polio, Measels and other School required Vaccines for the greater good of society it may need to be mandated if people still refuse and we keep having lockdowns due to new variants.

We are almost to that point right now.