Yes, there are More Dakka options available for individuals but at the population level these are non-starters—and if I had to choose between wearing one of those all the time indefinitely and getting Covid, I’d take my chances with Covid.
The same reasoning was deployed against wearing masks and doing most of the restrictions and I suspect also against switching from masks to respirators before and even during the winter wave. Millions died as a direct result of this poor reasoning. The same mistake is being repeated in countries that have little access to vaccines. Millions more will die there, if they haven’t already. And what if it will become clear that vaccines won’t be able to prevent (due to some variant worse than Delta) another massive wave of infections that leads to lots of long covid and death? Should the arbitrary personal preferences about face coverings of a handful of policy makers determine the fate of millions or even billions of people? No, the lesson should be that how you feel about personally using an option shouldn’t shape general recommendations or public policy; all reasonable options should be presented and the public should be allowed to choose which option to use, if any.
If the argument here is that we should tell the public the option exists for individuals, I agree—is that link the best one or does anyone have a better one, so I can do so next week?
If the argument here is that policy makers should be trying to get this to become a new norm until things get better, I strongly think that would (1) make life worse and (2) be a complete nonstarter for 90%+ of the population.
The argument depends on the population. If people have access to effective vaccines, then effective PPE like elastomeric respirators are probably not needed except perhaps by the most risk-averse individuals. I say “probably” because there still seems to be a bit of uncertainty about long covid even for the vaccinated. At any rate, elastomerics should still be recommended as a replacement of masks in case a variant comes along and makes vaccines significantly less effective or as an option for people that still don’t trust vaccines. This would also encourage the public to get used to the idea of using respirators for future pandemics and give a larger part of the public motivation and more time to prepare. For the rest of the world where vaccines are scarce or of poor effectiveness (and given the fact that masks don’t seem to work all that well against variants), respirators could be used as a bridge to vaccination or other effective medical interventions.
Calls for more effective PPE for the public is nothing new but has mostly fallen on deaf ears. Elastomerics were mentioned on this site and in a few other places near the start of the pandemic but were mostly were ignored. There was a push during the winter wave for better PPE, but instead of switching to respirators, multi-layered masks were recommended in the US for poor personal preference reasons. Germany started to recommend everything from surgical masks all the way up to disposable (and often leaky) respirators but elastomerics were not mentioned as far as I know. I haven’t bothered looking for more recent face covering recommendations of other countries, but I highly doubt that any are recommending elastomerics, and the WHO (like the CDC) certainly doesn’t mention respirators at all. The situation is a lot worse for PAPRs. Very few people know that these things exist and even fewer know that cheap (and seemingly effective) PAPRs are possible; even I wasn’t aware of the things until a few months ago. This persistent and widespread avoidance of recommending effective PPE for no good reason seems bizarre and quite insane.
are probably not needed except perhaps by the most risk-averse individuals.
a) That seems interesting for economic reasons.
b) Or those who are in more risk.
c) There is something to using the Intermediate Value Theorem here. Just because going way more Dakka seems like a bad idea, doesn’t mean something less extreme wouldn’t be an improvement. (Although comfort might be a big factor here—something which doesn’t change effects much, but is more comfortable (or looks cooler) might be much more easily accepted.)
Another point that should be emphasized is that the longer people don’t have access to effective vaccines and also don’t have adequate protection (respirators and PAPRs), the more likely it will be for more dangerous variants to evolve. This situation is a repeat of what happened during the start of the pandemic when mask wearing was discouraged: it allowed the virus to spread like wildfire and accelerated the emergence of dangerous variants.
If it’s true that the Russian flu was actually a coronavirus that evolved into OC43 (now endemic), then I’m not too worried about covid becoming “just another endemic coronavirus”. The vaccines are simply a way of speeding up the process in a way that minimizes deaths.
There was a time when it would have seemed reasonable for say, grocery stores (as opposed to beaches). (Although I might be overestimating traffic around the time of the panic buys of toilet paper, I don’t know whether it was higher or if people just bought way more.)
I wonder why it seems more unthinkable for schools to be outside than to shutdown or be online. (I’ve never thought about this before, but why are roofs rarely designed to be used? Is it cost* or custom?)
*Obviously that tradeoff looks slightly different now.
Another potential problem with giving up is that you may get reinfected multiple times if enough dangerous variants emerge and your risk of death and long covid may dramatically increase.
Yes, there are More Dakka options available for individuals but at the population level these are non-starters—and if I had to choose between wearing one of those all the time indefinitely and getting Covid, I’d take my chances with Covid.
The same reasoning was deployed against wearing masks and doing most of the restrictions and I suspect also against switching from masks to respirators before and even during the winter wave. Millions died as a direct result of this poor reasoning. The same mistake is being repeated in countries that have little access to vaccines. Millions more will die there, if they haven’t already. And what if it will become clear that vaccines won’t be able to prevent (due to some variant worse than Delta) another massive wave of infections that leads to lots of long covid and death? Should the arbitrary personal preferences about face coverings of a handful of policy makers determine the fate of millions or even billions of people? No, the lesson should be that how you feel about personally using an option shouldn’t shape general recommendations or public policy; all reasonable options should be presented and the public should be allowed to choose which option to use, if any.
If the argument here is that we should tell the public the option exists for individuals, I agree—is that link the best one or does anyone have a better one, so I can do so next week?
If the argument here is that policy makers should be trying to get this to become a new norm until things get better, I strongly think that would (1) make life worse and (2) be a complete nonstarter for 90%+ of the population.
The argument depends on the population. If people have access to effective vaccines, then effective PPE like elastomeric respirators are probably not needed except perhaps by the most risk-averse individuals. I say “probably” because there still seems to be a bit of uncertainty about long covid even for the vaccinated. At any rate, elastomerics should still be recommended as a replacement of masks in case a variant comes along and makes vaccines significantly less effective or as an option for people that still don’t trust vaccines. This would also encourage the public to get used to the idea of using respirators for future pandemics and give a larger part of the public motivation and more time to prepare. For the rest of the world where vaccines are scarce or of poor effectiveness (and given the fact that masks don’t seem to work all that well against variants), respirators could be used as a bridge to vaccination or other effective medical interventions.
Calls for more effective PPE for the public is nothing new but has mostly fallen on deaf ears. Elastomerics were mentioned on this site and in a few other places near the start of the pandemic but were mostly were ignored. There was a push during the winter wave for better PPE, but instead of switching to respirators, multi-layered masks were recommended in the US for poor personal preference reasons. Germany started to recommend everything from surgical masks all the way up to disposable (and often leaky) respirators but elastomerics were not mentioned as far as I know. I haven’t bothered looking for more recent face covering recommendations of other countries, but I highly doubt that any are recommending elastomerics, and the WHO (like the CDC) certainly doesn’t mention respirators at all. The situation is a lot worse for PAPRs. Very few people know that these things exist and even fewer know that cheap (and seemingly effective) PAPRs are possible; even I wasn’t aware of the things until a few months ago. This persistent and widespread avoidance of recommending effective PPE for no good reason seems bizarre and quite insane.
a) That seems interesting for economic reasons.
b) Or those who are in more risk.
c) There is something to using the Intermediate Value Theorem here. Just because going way more Dakka seems like a bad idea, doesn’t mean something less extreme wouldn’t be an improvement. (Although comfort might be a big factor here—something which doesn’t change effects much, but is more comfortable (or looks cooler) might be much more easily accepted.)
Another point that should be emphasized is that the longer people don’t have access to effective vaccines and also don’t have adequate protection (respirators and PAPRs), the more likely it will be for more dangerous variants to evolve. This situation is a repeat of what happened during the start of the pandemic when mask wearing was discouraged: it allowed the virus to spread like wildfire and accelerated the emergence of dangerous variants.
Not to dismiss your concerns, but I’m not sweating variants. I do make a point to mask up when I’m in an enclosed public space.
Convergent evolution. The variants aren’t very variable from one another (and they’ve had a lot of time to diversify):
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-coronavirus-variants-dont-seem-to-be-highly-variable-so-far/
New variants seem to arise in people who are severely immunocompromised. (“supermutators” if you will)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-variants-may-arise-in-people-with-compromised-immune-systems/
It is unlikely that we will ever eradicate covid, unless we:
a) start putting salt licks in our backyards and declare open season on does and fawns:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/science/white-tailed-deer-coronavirus.html
and
b) start treating our wastewater with rat poison:
https://www.thecity.nyc/2021/7/29/22600656/covid-mutations-in-new-york-city-sewage-possible-dog-rat
If it’s true that the Russian flu was actually a coronavirus that evolved into OC43 (now endemic), then I’m not too worried about covid becoming “just another endemic coronavirus”. The vaccines are simply a way of speeding up the process in a way that minimizes deaths.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252012/
There was a time when it would have seemed reasonable for say, grocery stores (as opposed to beaches). (Although I might be overestimating traffic around the time of the panic buys of toilet paper, I don’t know whether it was higher or if people just bought way more.)
I wonder why it seems more unthinkable for schools to be outside than to shutdown or be online. (I’ve never thought about this before, but why are roofs rarely designed to be used? Is it cost* or custom?)
*Obviously that tradeoff looks slightly different now.
Classes were, in fact, held outside during the 1918 pandemic.
And yet today (and throughout 2020) they are either ‘at home’, ‘open’ or ‘closed’, instead of being held outside.
The failure to pick off low hanging fruit is inexcusable .
Another potential problem with giving up is that you may get reinfected multiple times if enough dangerous variants emerge and your risk of death and long covid may dramatically increase.