We open, people die; we close, people die.

[littleman]

>Opposite here

I just got back from an extended weekend trip to Tahoe with the family (highlight was getting a visit from a momma black bear and her cubs at the beach) and it was like a different world.  Here I'm the Peninsula 80% of the people are still wearing masks outside.  In the Tahoe region 95% are maskless in doors and the vaccination rate is sitting at something like half.

>Liberal credibility

Looking at the stats for infection rates of what is happening in the redder zones the article is clearly deflecting from policies that aren't working.

As much as the "don't tread on me" types would hate it I think the only way to make America thrive while we have an ongoing pandemic is to have a vaccine passport system.  Want to go into a store?  Either mask up or show proof of being fully vaccinated.

[rcjordan]

> only way

Mandatory vaccine requirement for all (.edu & pro) sports attendance/participation. (Along with some sort of realtime verification system.)

>article

I thought the article was crap, but I sadly agree with the gist of the headline.

[littleman]

>I sadly agree with the gist of the headline.

Okay, why?  And who is credible at this point?

[ergophobe]

>>agree with the gist of the headline

The problem with over the top fear mongering is that when the absolute worst, most dire predictions fail to be proven true, it undermines the value of the strong, evidential but nevertheless dire predictions that do prove true.

It's a problem in the climate movement as well. People who don't seem to know very much take the outlier predictions of what is going to happen in 50 years and say that is what will happen in ten years (thank you AOC) and then the denialists get to throw out all predictions. When I first heard about that, I thought AOC must have been misquoted, but no. Her statement did so much damage.

>>different world

And yet Tahoe/Truckee is practically the Bay Area, at least to hear Truckee residents talk about it... Not quite though. Closer to us than to you in terms of voting, but about halfway between in terms of vaccination. 

Nevada County (i.e. town of Truckee)
Trump vote: 41%
Vaccination rate (June 13): 43.5%

El Dorado County (i.e. town of South Lake Tahoe)
Trump vote: 53%
  full vaccination rate (June 13): 41.2%

Mariposa County (i.e. chez moi)
Trump vote: 57.9%
full vaccination rate (June 13): 27.1% and most vaccination clinics canceled due to lack of interest

San Francisco County (i.e. chez toi)
Trump vote: 12.7%
full vaccination rate (June 13): 62.1% and, based on what you say, limited by supply


vaccines: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/13/coronavirus-here-are-california-county-vaccination-percentages-as-of-june-11/
voting: https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/california/

[littleman]

Sorry for the sidetrack...

>highlight was getting a visit from a momma black bear and her cubs at the beach

https://news.yahoo.com/video-shows-black-bears-joining-195700703.html

Here's a photo from my daughter's cell phone taken from about 150 ft. away.  The weather was unusually hot and I take it they were just wanting to cool down a bit.

[ergophobe]

>>sidetrack

Ha, yeah... we get them swimming in our sewer pond when it gets hot. Much less photogenic.

>I sadly agree with the gist of the headline.

Okay, why?  And who is credible at this point?

Unlike RC, I don't think it's a terrible article, so much as a missed opportunity. But I agree with the gist, mostly for the reason stated above. More on that in a second.

First question: credible about what? Again, I think of the climate situation. People are constantly using the cudgel phrase "the science" when they are really talking about policy, which is a question of values hopefully informed by science, not science per se. I think that's true with Covid.

Example: "The science says we need to stop driving gas-powered cars."
Example: "The science says we all need to wear masks."

Actually, science doesn't say those things. First of all, "science" doesn't say anything. Scientific studies and scientists do, and there will be some rage of estimates. So "science" can say, "Estimates by experts say that wearing masks will save between X and Y lives." Science can only go that far. When you start to say what people *must * do, you're getting into value judgements, which takes you beyond science.

So when someone says that Covid is the same as the flu, that is a statement that can be evaluated by science. Who is credible? Infectious disease experts.

When someone says "this is what we know about risk to vaccinated teens at summer camp," that can be based on science and the credible authority would, again, be an infectious disease expert or a public health expert.

When someone says that you should not send your kid to camp, that is a statement that cannot be evaluated by science, because it's a choice that depends on your values and your risk tolerance. Who is credible on that topic? Nobody, really. You, the parent, are.

Unlike RC, I don't think the article is terrible, but I think it could be better.

What people are bad it is comparing risk. So what are my chances of getting killed or very ill from Covid if I am a fully vaccinated teen? Low. Very low.

What are my chances of getting killed or seriously hurt if I'm a teen driver who drives a lot? Low, very low. Higher than we would like. Higher than someone between 30 and 50. But most teen drivers do not die.

In fact, let's put a rough number on it. We've had 600K deaths. We know that the vaccine prevents serious illness in 99% of the cases. So if all those people had been vaccinated, we would have had roughly 6,000 deaths since March 2020. Of course, the actual number is far, far lower, because it would have spread less quickly, far fewer people would have been exposed, etc, etc. But we're curious about the risk to a person exposed to Covid. A tiny portion of them were teens, so for a fully vaccinated teen the risk is even lower.

Meanwhile, there were 36,000 deaths from auto accidents in 2019. If you take a similar period (say 15 months), you'd be looking at  about 45,000 auto deaths. Now in this case, the risk to a teen is vastly, vastly higher than the general risk, especially if that teen is a male.

So to me, the risk of a fully vaccinated teenager (low risk to start with, plus vaccine protection) person being exposed to Covid is much less than the risk of, say, letting your teenage son (much higher risk than usual) drive the car across the country (high mileage at high speed increasing the risk again) to go rock climbing (as my mother did when I was 18).

But in our current debate, a parent who lets a teenager drive a car is not considered an insane risk taker and irresponsible parent. But, in certain circles, one who lets her fully vaccinated kid go to summer camp, *is* considered  an insane risk taker and irresponsible parent.

So to me, the article would have been useful if it had put some numbers on it. If it had actually tried to address what are the relative risks of things we consider safe, and things we don't.

Are the kids swimming at summer camp? What else are they doing? Is Covid even the highest risk activity of a kid at summer camp?

1981 article: in the previous five years, just in NY state, 16 kids died and 63 got seriously injured at summer camp. I couldn't find more recent stats
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/23/style/summer-camp-safety-taking-no-chances.html

I've seen a lot of moralizing about people's behavior and I feel like a lot of the moralizing is not supported by evidence. My general observation is that when you play Cassandra, but you're wrong over and over, it undercuts credibility.

[ergophobe]

And this just in - compare Fauci's messaging with the messaging by some columnist on Slate:

In answer to a kid asking about school and masking and all that....

Fauci: "But the one thing that's interesting is that you, as a vaccinated person, should feel absolutely safe, that you're going to be okay. That's the thing. Whether or not what's surrounding you is going to dictate you wearing a mask, you should feel that you are going to be safe from getting infected."
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36888029/delta-covid-variant-vaccine-effectiveness-mask-guidelines/

Fauci might be overshooting the mark (nobody was "absolutely safe" before Covid, let alone after), but it is a big difference from some of the alarmism. The NYT daily newsletter has been... sounding the alarm bell on alarmism for several months now.

PS...
>>there will be some rage of estimates

Freudian slip no doubt!