That's really cool. Glad to know we stopped the spread... of something.
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
155 points (93.8% liked)
News
36966 readers
1690 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Imagine if we didn't have some meaningful percentage of the population being jackasses having Covid parties and more deciding that covering their face in public during a pandemic was some kind of politics bullshit...
now imagine there was a hard lockdown the instant we knew it was necessary and the whole thing was over in a month.
It wouldn't have worked. You'd never have gotten every single last case and then the exponential growth would have started again. Or, if that had somehow magically worked, the virus would have come back from outside.
There were no simple solutions.
There was as much of a lockdown as there could be. People need food, and some jobs were actually needed to make that happen. Most stuff actually did close.
The wiki for the COVID timeline is fascinating to read as history and not living it. We (US and the world) really didn't know how to react, and it showed. How long there was any type of lockdown is debatable. It was different for each state in when and how much, and how long. Once the "essential worker" word came out, everything became essential. Then there's the whole politicizing of wearing masks.
And from my anecdotal experience, lockdowns varied greatly locally as well. We had what I would call "rolling lockdowns" here, where a town might close restaurants and stuff for a few weeks before opening back up while neighboring towns would have mask mandates only. Some would go as far as total lockdowns, and many almost never had an actual lockdown. And it was all based on the waves of COVID infections. Towns would only act once they hit a certain threshold of daily infections.
I had a job during lockdown where I had a form stating I could drive on the state highways for work and up near the major city I might see 4 or 5 cars on the road when there should've been rush hour traffic, but in my town the only businesses that really closed were bars and restaurants, and that was only until they started adding outdoor seating and plexiglass walls between tables.
And then you had stuff like a girl I know posting pictures of herself drinking in a packed bar in South Carolina at the height of COVID, not a single mask in sight.
Not thanks to Covid, but rather to the brief period in which masking and social distancing were widely enforced.
I remember getting into arguments with people about what germ theory is and how it works because they couldn't understand stats and graphs. They were saying "see masks and social distance doesn't do anything. Literally nothing. Look this charts shows that the regular flu went down during covid-19. Doesn't that mean something?"
Like "yeah, it means social distancing and putting on masks slow the spread of germs. That was why we were wearing them remember? That whole flatten the curve thing."
"No I thought it was to not get sick at all."
"Nope, just to slow the spread. I'm not sure where you get your news, but it seemed clear to me."
" Well so and so did whatever and got sick so nothing preventative worked."
"If nothing preventative worked then we wouldn't have seen this spread staring to slow down when compared to other countries that didn't implement x, y, or z. Also it slowed the spread of the flu because that's how germs work."
These are also people who also think 'vaccinated' = '100% immune from a disease and its effects.'
"So it's not a vaccine!"
The same actually. 😂 I'm pretty sure the guy I'm thinking of used that exact argument.
Imagine if the world could get its shit together for a planned 4 week lockdown, everyone has ample time to prepare, get supplies and set up for the lockdown, then we simultaneously all hunker down except for the most vital people running essential services (hospitals, water plants, power plants, etc).
We could wipe out so many transmissible viruses, even wiping out the common cold alone would pay back the entire cost in lost business hours.
Im not saying we wipe out things to be able to work more, but wouldn't you rather be at work than feeling terrible in bed? (It's about the quality of life improvement.)
I love the thought, but the reality is there are enough actually essential services (though much fewer than the owner class defines as essential) that we wouldn't wipe out viruses that easily. Not to mention the impossibility of getting other countries to do anything similar.
STDs, on the other hand...
If everyone just stopped fucking younger people, STDs would be gone in a generation
If everyone just stopped fucking, STDs would be gone in a generation.
Fixed it for you
As would all other human diseases
That's just a bonus
A huge number of viruses have both human and non-human vectors and jump back and forth between us. Many dog owners can tell you about how both they and their dog once got sick at the same time. I doubt it would actually stop as much transmission as you think.
That's actually super cool. I will gladly celebrate the Win.
Let's do it more often?
Just had my flu shot a week ago, but also had to get a whooping cough vax as well (last time I had that vax was when I was 10) ... thanks to all the anti-vaxxer parents.
That's the trade-off I guess.
For those saying we should do it again or more often, that isn't always a good idea. Doing it when you're sick or when there is a new and novel outbreak makes sense. But the idea that prolonged masking and distancing could eliminate illness overlooks how human immunity and viral evolution actually work. While it’s true that measures like these reduced flu cases and even eliminated a particular strain during the pandemic, immunity is a dynamic system. The immune system is constantly exposed to various viruses and bacteria, which helps it "train" to recognize and fight off future threats. If we stop exposing ourselves to these relatively mild infections, our immune defenses could become unprepared for more serious illnesses when they inevitably re-emerge or mutate.
Viruses, especially, evolve rapidly. While masking might reduce transmission in the short term, viruses like influenza and coronaviruses mutate through processes like antigenic drift, which can make them unrecognizable to our immune systems even after we've built up some resistance. We saw this recently with the rise in RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) infections, particularly in children. After pandemic restrictions reduced exposure, many children lacked the usual low-level exposure that would have primed their immune systems. As a result, when RSV returned, it hit harder. So while distancing and masking can temporarily protect us, they don't provide a long-term solution for maintaining strong, adaptable immune systems.
Just being out there in the soup of viruses and bacteria, keeping your immune system resilient, and taking advantage of immunizations when possible is really the best, only, and most time-tested practice.