Omicron - the latest Covid “variant of concern”

[Syne]

Biden bans travel from some African countries, even though during his campaign he called Trump racist and xenophobic for banning travel from China early in the pandemic.
There was definitely more of a threat from travel from China then than there is travel from Africa now.

No wonder Biden's approval rating is lower that the lowest Governor.

[Leigha]

I’m surprised that the MSM isn’t calling him out on that.

[Syne]

I’m surprised that the MSM isn’t calling him out on that.

Really? You're surprise the MSM carries water for a Democrat?
They're also not covering Biden being caught maskless in a store that required masks.

[Leigha]

I’m surprised that the MSM isn’t calling him out on that.

Really? You're surprise the MSM carries water for a Democrat?
They're also not covering Biden being caught maskless in a store that required masks.

I’m not surprised that the media leans left and supports Biden, but how can not *one* MSM news outlet call him out like they did Trump?

I know the answer but their tactics are pretty obvious.

[Syne]

I know the answer but their tactics are pretty obvious.

Well, that's the thing. Their voters either don't pay attention to anything outside of their bubble, or don't pay attention at all. Just low information useful idiots.

[Leigha]

Thought this was an interesting comment following an article I read this morning:

''The marriage of science with government during the pandemic is a bigger threat than Covid.''

Yea, they should divorce amicably, because it's not working.

[Syne]

The left uses science like kings use to use god, as if god/science anoints kings/leftists to rule.

[Yazata]

Thought this was an interesting comment following an article I read this morning:

''The marriage of science with government during the pandemic is a bigger threat than Covid.''

Yea, they should divorce amicably, because it's not working.

I don't think that the problem is mixing science with government, exactly. NASA has done that for decades with considerable success. Science has never determined whether or not space exploration is a desirable goal. It's not a scientific question. But given wide consensus by both political parties and by the public that it is, science has provided the engineering that has turned many of those goals into reality.

In the case of covid, choices of public policy aren't strictly scientific decisions. They introduce important non-scientific considerations such as how much we value defending the civil liberties that are supposedly the basis of our civilization, and how much we value preventing huge economic disruptions that hurt everyone.

People like Anthony Fauci seem to look at it as simply a matter of reducing cases to zero. He favors any measure that he imagines (models! science!) will lead to that blessed result. But while he's focused entirely on fighting disease, he seems to have no awareness or concern for the costs of the quasi-police-state measures that he and those like him propose. Then he wonders why he's become so controversial and attributes it to his critics secretly hating science, which he imagines that he personifies.

That's where public policy differs most obviously from science. Public policy requires cost-benefit analysis in which some of the costs and benefits aren't empirical measurables that can be plugged into a scientific model or equation. They depend too crucially on what people want, on what kind of world they want to live in.

And what kind of future people want their kids to live in isn't something that can be dictated downwards by ruling elites in Washington, Hollywood or New York. It isn't something that can be decided for us by the media, the scientists, the university professors, by government bureaucrats or by celebrities. In a democracy, it's the people themselves that set the goals and the agenda. As much as people like Anthony Fauci don't like it, it's the dirty little non-scientists out in the public who have the final say in how much of what they value they are willing to sacrifice in his crusade to stop covid.

That's not being "anti-science", it's being anti-authoritarian.

[Leigha]

Thought this was an interesting comment following an article I read this morning:

''The marriage of science with government during the pandemic is a bigger threat than Covid.''

Yea, they should divorce amicably, because it's not working.

I don't think that the problem is mixing science with government, exactly. NASA has done that for decades with considerable success. Science has never determined whether or not space exploration is a desirable goal. It's not a scientific question. But given wide consensus by both political parties and by the public that it is, science has provided the engineering that has turned many of those goals into reality.

In the case of covid, choices of public policy aren't strictly scientific decisions. They introduce important non-scientific considerations such as how much we value defending the civil liberties that are supposedly the basis of our civilization, and how much we value preventing huge economic disruptions that hurt everyone.

People like Anthony Fauci seem to look at it as simply a matter of reducing cases to zero. He favors any measure that he imagines (models! science!) will lead to that blessed result. But while he's focused entirely on fighting disease, he seems to have no awareness or concern for the costs of the quasi-police-state measures that he and those like him propose. Then he wonders why he's become so controversial and attributes it to his critics secretly hating science, which he imagines that he personifies.

That's where public policy differs most obviously from science. Public policy requires cost-benefit analysis in which some of the costs and benefits aren't empirical measurables that can be plugged into a scientific model or equation. They depend too crucially on what people want, on what kind of world they want to live in.

And what kind of future people want their kids to live in isn't something that can be dictated downwards by ruling elites in Washington, Hollywood or New York. It isn't something that can be decided for us by the media, the scientists, the university professors, by government bureaucrats or by celebrities. In a democracy, it's the people themselves that set the goals and the agenda. As much as people like Anthony Fauci don't like it, it's the dirty little non-scientists out in the public who have the final say in how much of what they value they are willing to sacrifice in his crusade to stop covid.

That's not being "anti-science", it's being anti-authoritarian.

In a perfect world, what you're saying makes sense. It should work that way, but from what we've seen, when science mixes with politics, all we get is politics. When governments say ''follow the science,'' are they really interested in following hard evidence or are they more interested in treating science as a pawn in their political game?

Edit to add - I should clarify that I'm moved by the statement depending on who is making the statement. If the current administration states ''follow the science,'' I'm thinking they're merely using science for political gain.

[scheherazade]

The Yukon fared very well during the first year of COVID due to border restrictions and emergency measures including masking, distancing and limited group size. Once people started getting relaxed with these safety measures we have experienced community spread and our already limited medical resources were forced to the brink. We are fortunate to have one of the highest rates of vaccination in Canada but two cases of Omicron were just announced today and we are heading into the biggest social season of the year. Case numbers are very likely to rise soon into the new year and our front line workers in all venues, not just the medical profession, are beyond exhausted. These are challenging times and supply chain issues and a shortage of workers are revealing just how tenuous the situation is. (The territory just recently is now without an MRI tech. This machinery is useless without a qualified operator.)

The science has demonstrated that the physical precautions are very effective but the protocols have been applied sporadically and unequally due to "other interests". Economics and politics have always been a higher priority than human health when one reviews historical records. Just the opinion of this Yukon hermit.