Ok, you continue doing your thing in front of the computer screen then. It appears that's where you'll be viewing life from going forward. |
Why aren’t you out and about? Appears you are in front of your computer screen. |
Not quite the zinger you hoped for. |
Not sure I would use the cdc as a sound defense. |
Well, I'm not an expert, but in case you missed it, scores of actual experts disagree with the CDC's new metrics. Any one of us can take measures to try to "prevent" cases right now, and collectively we could all live our lives with some caution in a way that would minimize illness and disruption that comes if too many people get sick at the same time. We aren't in a major surge, and hopefully, we won't be, but with cases creeping back up, school, work, businesses, and health care will be disrupted again even if hospitals aren't overwhelmed. |
What did I hope for? |
On my phone. Passing time waiting for the food to arrive at my table. |
No hope for you. |
NP Ironically, in the thread above you made fun of others for getting food delivered rather than going out. |
And? |
Maybe you’ll get that cookie. |
This is just flat out wrong. Of COURSE we can prevent cases. Not all of them, no, but some of them, perhaps even most of them, absolutely. And even if cases stay below hospital capacity, it still is important to prevent as many as possible. Every infection with COVID, even the mild ones, increases your risk of major systemic damage from long COVID - brain damage, heart damage, lung damage, etc. I would like to avoid it if at all possible, and certainly want to limit the number of times my family and I are exposed to that risk. Incremental reductions (or increases) in risk absolutely matter and can have a large ripple effect (exponential spread, anyone?). It's not black and white; our choices are not only the one extreme of total lockdown vs. the other extreme of no precautions/let 'er rip. "Learning to live with COVID" doesn't mean "back to 2019". We actually have to do the LEARNING part. |
Sure, there are scores of actual Covidian experts who touted the CDC and "following the science" until the CDC and "the science" stopped agreeing with them. Scores of other actual experts agree with the CDC's revised approach, which is taking the present reality into account. And yes, you can try to "prevent" getting sick in the moment, at whatever cost you think is worth it. But you will likely catch it sooner or later anyway, and then the cost-benefit calculation for your precautions will look differently in hindsight. As long as hospitals aren't getting overwhelmed (and they rarely were during this pandemic), people can reasonably disagree whether it matters that large numbers of people test positive at the same time, and whether drawing it out would be a better idea. The CDC is clearly thinking along those lines. |
Not everyone follows your Covidian logic. Not even the CDC. |
The CDC is not following any science - it is making a policy decision, based in part on science about the circumstances in which mandatory public health measures should be imposed or at least considered. That's completely different from what is in the best interest of individuals or communities. The science isn't commanding as many people as possible to get infected with COVID right now. That's ridiculous. Every expert, every single one, is saying that it is better to avoid becoming infected in the first place. That's indisputable. The nuance, as you mention, is what you are willing to do avoid infection, and that depends on risk factors and risk assessment. There's no science that says don't wear a high-quality mask in crowded indoor spaces, or to try to be maskless in as many crowded indoor spaces as possible, preferably with people who are infected and contagious. Public health experts also tout a healthy diet and regular exercise but don't require that everyone act accordingly. That doesn't mean that science shows that eating only processed food while on a couch 24/7 is the key to health. |