• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Lack of Nuance in COVID messages

Almighty God

Almighty God

Member
The Hammer said:
Speeding is on a spectrum, catching a disease is not on a spectrum, you either have it or don't.

You can speed a little bit, but you don't only get partially sick, you are either infected/ious or not. And should (like a gun, if you know weapons safety) always act like you're contagious.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you're understanding the analogy, because speeding IS analogous in this case.

True, speeding is on a spectrum, in that higher speeds raise the probability of crashing but crashing (like catching COVID) is not on a spectrum. In the same way, different activities performed by differing groups of people (healthcare workers for instance) raise the probability of catching COVID more than others, and hence activities can be placed on a spectrum of risk, just like speeding, depending on who performs them and what they are. I think the analogy still holds.
 
Almighty God

Almighty God

Member
Left Coast said:
Incorrect. Illness is still undesirable, and a drain on the system, whether the sick person has to be hospitalized or not.

.
Click to expand...

Please explain how a person who contracts COVID, has mild symptoms or is asymptomatic, does not spread it to anyone, and has no long term complications is a "drain on the system." Certainly you understand that it is more problematic when a person contracts COVID and has a higher probability of spreading it to more vulnerable people, correct?
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Almighty God said:
One of the things that bothers me about the government and media messaging about COVID-19 is the lack of nuance and critical thought applied to the messages about how people should calibrate their behaviors in order to prevent deaths and prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed.

To be more specific, the goals of masks, lockdowns, and social distancing as I understand them are to (1) Prevent as many deaths as possible, and (2) Prevent hospitals from becoming full. So, in theory, the number of cases does not matter as long as deaths and hospitalizations are minimized. In order to minimize the number of deaths and hospitalizations, each person should adjust their behavior accordingly in order to reduce the expected number of new hospitalizations that would occur as a result of them getting the virus. This expected number is a function of several variables, the most important being who this individual interacts with. For instance, a person who works in a nursing home has a much higher expected number of hospitalizations that would occur IF she contracted the virus, since the expected number of hospitalizations would be R_0 (expected number of people the virus is spread to) multiplied by the percentage of the people that would be hospitalized if they contracted the virus. As such, it makes sense for a person who works in a nursing home to take more precautions than a healthy person who lives alone and works from home, since the expected number of hospitalizations that would occur as a result of the nursing home worker contracting the virus would be significantly higher than a person who lives alone and works from home. Why? Because a healthcare worker interacts with dozens of vulnerable people on a daily basis, but a person who works from home does not.

So, what's the point of this? The only message I hear from health experts, the media, and governments, is a universal and equal plea to everyone to "stay home" and not interact with others. But, this implies that the expected consequences on society of contracting COVID are the same for everyone, which is demonstrably false as I just explained above.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what happens - at least in Britain. Those who work in care are told to be specially careful and they are regularly tested in most cases.

It's true that you and I may think we are a lot less likely to cause a spreading event leading to hospitalisations and death. But it is normal people, just like you and I, that are responsible for most of the hospitalisations and deaths. We have no control over who it is that those we infect go on themselves to infect. That's the big problem.
 
Left Coast

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Almighty God said:
Please explain how a person who contracts COVID, has mild symptoms or is asymptomatic, does not spread it to anyone, and has no long term complications is a "drain on the system." Certainly you understand that it is more problematic when a person contracts COVID and has a higher probability of spreading it to more vulnerable people, correct?
Click to expand...

The problem is, if you're asymptomatic you have no way of knowing if you've spread it to anyone. What I said is, people who are sick, in general, are a drain on the system regardless of if they're hospitalized: missed work days, time and money spent to treat them by outpatient doctors, etc. So your analysis that this is just about hospitalizations is incorrect.

Yes, clearly people in higher risk situations should take greater precautions. And as I said to you, in a healthcare context - they do. And yes, obviously if you actually have a confirmed case of COVID, the guidance should be even more strict in terms of isolation and so forth - and it is.

None of that changes the general guidance to everyone to avoid going out when it isn't necessary.
 
Almighty God

Almighty God

Member
exchemist said:
But it is normal people, just like you and I, that are responsible for most of the hospitalisations and deaths. We have no control over who it is that those we infect go on themselves to infect. That's the big problem.
Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "responsible." I think that healthcare workers and people who work with higher numbers of people in their jobs are more responsible for hospitalizations and deaths, because in the event that they catch it without knowing it, on average, they will directly cause more hospitalizations and deaths. It's simple math. R_0 times the probability that each person you expose yourself to becomes hospitalized, and clearly, nursing home workers and healthcare workers have a higher probability of spreading their cases directly to people who will end up putting a strain on the medical system.
 
Almighty God

Almighty God

Member
Left Coast said:
The problem is, if you're asymptomatic you have no way of knowing if you've spread it to anyone. What I said is, people who are sick, in general, are a drain on the system regardless of if they're hospitalized: missed work days, time and money spent to treat them by outpatient doctors, etc. So your analysis that this is just about hospitalizations is incorrect.

Yes, clearly people in higher risk situations should take greater precautions. And as I said to you, in a healthcare context - they do. And yes, obviously if you actually have a confirmed case of COVID, the guidance should be even more strict in terms of isolation and so forth - and it is.

None of that changes the general guidance to everyone to avoid going out when it isn't necessary.
Click to expand...

But it should change the general guidance. If a person who lives alone and works from home contracts COVID without knowing it, they are far less likely to accelerate the spread--they probably won't spread it to anyone at all. If a healthcare worker gets COVID without knowing it, they could directly cause the death of hundreds of people. So, in my opinion, the general guidance should NOT be the same.
 
Left Coast

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Almighty God said:
But it should change the general guidance. If a person who lives alone and works from home contracts COVID without knowing it, they are far less likely to accelerate the spread--they probably won't spread it to anyone at all.
Click to expand...

They are more likely to if they leave the house unnecessarily, hang out with a bunch of people, and don't wear a mask. Thus the general guidance.

If a healthcare worker gets COVID without knowing it, they could directly cause the death of hundreds of people. So, in my opinion, the general guidance should NOT be the same.
Click to expand...

The general guidance isn't the same as the guidance for healthcare workers. I just explained this.
 
Koldo

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Almighty God said:
One of the things that bothers me about the government and media messaging about COVID-19 is the lack of nuance and critical thought applied to the messages about how people should calibrate their behaviors in order to prevent deaths and prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed.

To be more specific, the goals of masks, lockdowns, and social distancing as I understand them are to (1) Prevent as many deaths as possible, and (2) Prevent hospitals from becoming full. So, in theory, the number of cases does not matter as long as deaths and hospitalizations are minimized. In order to minimize the number of deaths and hospitalizations, each person should adjust their behavior accordingly in order to reduce the expected number of new hospitalizations that would occur as a result of them getting the virus. This expected number is a function of several variables, the most important being who this individual interacts with. For instance, a person who works in a nursing home has a much higher expected number of hospitalizations that would occur IF she contracted the virus, since the expected number of hospitalizations would be R_0 (expected number of people the virus is spread to) multiplied by the percentage of the people that would be hospitalized if they contracted the virus. As such, it makes sense for a person who works in a nursing home to take more precautions than a healthy person who lives alone and works from home, since the expected number of hospitalizations that would occur as a result of the nursing home worker contracting the virus would be significantly higher than a person who lives alone and works from home. Why? Because a healthcare worker interacts with dozens of vulnerable people on a daily basis, but a person who works from home does not.

So, what's the point of this? The only message I hear from health experts, the media, and governments, is a universal and equal plea to everyone to "stay home" and not interact with others. But, this implies that the expected consequences on society of contracting COVID are the same for everyone, which is demonstrably false as I just explained above.
Click to expand...

I think getting a simple message across is much easier than getting a nuanced one across, and just as effective if not more.
 
Almighty God

Almighty God

Member
A Vestigial Mote said:
Not apples to apples in your analogy. A better analogy to your OP (and concerns therein) would be that "Person A" has been assigned a speed limit of 45, and "Person B" has been assigned a speed limit of 85. Now... take that as the perspective, and it automatically becomes clear that such a system just isn't going to work, nor is it at all feasible to manage or even begin to enforce by anyone at all. Not to mention that "Person A" is very likely sitting there complaining about how "Person B" gets to go 85 mph, and may very likely skirt the 45 mph guidelines they have been give as they can get away with. If everyone is assigned 45 mph as their speed limit, then you always know who is in violation and when, and no one can make excuses or point to some other guy who gets more and how unfair it all is.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would support a system with different speed limits for different people, if in fact it could be effectively enforced. A professional racecar driver could probably drive safely at much higher speeds on the roads than the average person, and people with measured reaction times that are slower than average should have lower speed limits. If driver's licenses could come with performance evaluation tests (perhaps by measuring each person's performance on a video game simulating driving at extreme speeds), then maybe different speed limits could be given to people based on their abilities. Such a system could probably save many lives.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Almighty God said:
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "responsible." I think that healthcare workers and people who work with higher numbers of people in their jobs are more responsible for hospitalizations and deaths, because in the event that they catch it without knowing it, on average, they will directly cause more hospitalizations and deaths. It's simple math. R_0 times the probability that each person you expose yourself to becomes hospitalized, and clearly, nursing home workers and healthcare workers have a higher probability of spreading their cases directly to people who will end up putting a strain on the medical system.
Click to expand...
Do you have any data to support that? Plenty of older people, at risk of serious illness, are not in care homes. And health workers themselves are fairly unlikely to spread the infection because they are all dressed to the nines in professional PPE while they are at work with vulnerable groups, whereas people like you and I have trouble persuading our neighbours to even wear so much as a mask.
 
Almighty God

Almighty God

Member
exchemist said:
Do you have any data to support that? Plenty of older people, at risk of serious illness, are not in care homes. And health workers themselves are fairly unlikely to spread the infection because they are all dressed to the nines in professional PPE while they are at work with vulnerable groups, whereas people like you and I have trouble persuading our neighbours to even wear so much as a mask.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I guess I'm not familiar with the equipment that nursing home workers wear. I assume that most of them wear masks and gloves, but given the close contact with residents, including administering medication, feeding, and in some cases changing catheters and diapers, I would imagine the risk of transmission is still quite high.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Almighty God said:
Hmm. I guess I'm not familiar with the equipment that nursing home workers wear. I assume that most of them wear masks and gloves, but given the close contact with residents, including administering medication, feeding, and in some cases changing catheters and diapers, I would imagine the risk of transmission is still quite high.
Click to expand...
Try informing yourself, then. It's not just masks and gloves, based on what I've seen in my father's nursing home. One key difference, as I've mentioned, is regular testing of all staff and residents. There are also temperature checks and hand sanitising for all people entering the building. Another is the use of disposable aprons as well as visors masks and gloves, which are regularly changed. Another is the strict procedures they are asked to follow. The likes of you and I are not expected to do any of that. Finally, if a resident gets infected (which has happened on two occasions), they are immediately moved to an isolation room in one area of the building. They have had four deaths, but were able to contain the virus from spreading further. So the system works.

You and I do none of that. All we do is (if we care at all for others) wear a mask and observe the social distancing measures as far as we can.

Seeing that vaccines are on the way, all we need is just to do our bit for about three months more and then we can get back to normal.
 
Almighty God

Almighty God

Member
exchemist said:
Try informing yourself, then. It's not just masks and gloves, based on what I've seen in my father's nursing home. One key difference, as I've mentioned, is regular testing of all staff and residents. There are also temperature checks and hand sanitising for all people entering the building. Another is the use of disposable aprons as well as visors masks and gloves, which are regularly changed. Another is the strict procedures they are asked to follow. The likes of you and I are not expected to do any of that. Finally, if a resident gets infected (which has happened on two occasions), they are immediately moved to an isolation room in one area of the building. They have had four deaths, but were able to contain the virus from spreading further. So the system works.

You and I do none of that. All we do is (if we care at all for others) wear a mask and observe the social distancing measures as far as we can.

Seeing that vaccines are on the way, all we need is just to do our bit for about three months more and then we can get back to normal.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But my argument still holds. Maybe nursing home workers do NOT have the highest expected number of hospitalizations that will directly follow from them contracting the virus. But, obviously, I think you would agree, every person theoretically has a different expected number of hospitalizations (let's call it E) that would result from them getting the virus (i.e. the expected number of people who catch the virus FROM them and get severe symptoms). For instance, people who work from home and live alone likely have a lower E value than people who live with vulnerable individuals and work in a job where they interact with lots of people. This is still indisputable. So, the people who are directly driving the hospitalizations and deaths up the most are the people whose "E" value is highest. Even if that is you and I (I doubt it is), the argument still holds. We should figure out who it is and then calibrate the recommendations accordingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top