Octopus Overlords

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:55 pm I'm not sure I'm bothered by the idea of briefly identifying yourself before entering a business, especially those that have to buzz people in.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 12:16 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:55 pm I'm not sure I'm bothered by the idea of briefly identifying yourself before entering a business, especially those that have to buzz people in.

What about religious face coverings?

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 12:24 pm
There are already multiple situations in which a person wearing a religious face covering is required to remove it for identification (such as passing through an airport.) I'm not talking about the idea of "can then allow people to put masks back on " (which was more of an interpretation) and just about the idea of confirming your ID/looking at the doorbell to be buzzed in. The only issue is the respect that is shown in requesting it.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 2:43 pm I'll note here that it's the *police* saying people should take off masks, not individual business or organizations representing businesses in NYC.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 2:43 pm I'll note here that it's the *police* saying people should take off masks, not individual business or organizations representing businesses in NYC.

Removing a mask and allowing identification can be a “condition of entry,” NYPD Chief of Department Jeffrey Maddrey said. Businesses can then allow people to put masks back on after they’ve shown their face.

“People when they come in should show their face, they should identify themselves,” Maddrey said at a press conference. “If they feel like they want to put their mask back on after they identify themselves, for their safety, they should do so.”

“We need our businesses to be proactive and do their due diligence,” Maddrey said. “We need to make sure people are identifying themselves.”

“We need our businesses to be proactive and do their due diligence,” Maddrey said. “We need to make sure people are identifying themselves.”

On March 28, 2020, as COVID-19 cases began to shut down public life in much of the United States, then-Surgeon General Jerome Adams issued an advisory on Twitter: The general public should not wear masks. “There is scant or conflicting evidence they benefit individual wearers in a meaningful way,” he wrote.

Adams’ advice was in line with messages from other US officials and the World Health Organization. Days later, though, US public health leaders shifted course. Mask-wearing was soon a pandemic-control strategy worldwide, but whether this strategy succeeded is now a matter of heated debate—particularly after a major new analysis, released in January, seemed to conclude that masks remain an unproven strategy for curbing transmission of COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses.

“There’s still no evidence that masks are effective during a pandemic,” the study’s lead author, physician, and epidemiologist Tom Jefferson, recently told an interviewer.

Many public health experts vigorously disagree with that claim, but the study has caught attention, in part, because of its pedigree: It was published by Cochrane, a not-for-profit that aims to bring rigorous scientific evidence more squarely into the practice of medicine. The group’s highly regarded systematic reviews affect clinical practice worldwide. “It’s really our gold standard for evidence-based medicine,” said Jeanne Noble, a physician and associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. One epidemiologist described Cochrane as “the Bible.”

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 3:44 pm Just need confirmation Mayor Adams met with police leadership and told them to push the message and I can call it a day.

Mayor Adams called on shoppers Monday to enter New York City businesses maskless from now on — a message aimed at reducing shoplifting, but one that runs counter to COVID-era prescriptions to mask up when in enclosed, public spaces.

Adams, who was speaking on “PIX11 Morning News,” didn’t entirely rule out masks in stores, noting that shoppers could don face coverings moments after entering — as long as their face could be fully viewed before putting it on when first entering a store.

“Let’s be clear. Some of these characters going into stores that are wearing a mask, they’re not doing it because they are afraid of the pandemic,” he said. “They’re doing it because they’re afraid of the police, and we need to stop allowing them to exploit the safety of the pandemic by wearing masks, committing crimes.”

Adams said Monday that the city is now calling on shop owners to forbid patrons into their stores if they have a mask on, but he did not say exactly how they should go about doing that, or what they should do in the event of inevitable confrontations.

Adams did note, though, that forcing shoppers to remove masks in stores is aimed at captured their likeness on film in the event of a crime taking place.

“We are putting out a clear call to all of our shops, do not allow people to enter the store without taking off their face mask,” Adams said minutes earlier on 1010 WINS. “Once they’re inside, they can continue to wear it if they so desire to do so, but we need to use the technology we have available to identify those shoplifters and those who are committing serious crimes.”

“Let’s be clear. Some of these characters going into stores that are wearing a mask, they’re not doing it because they are afraid of the pandemic."

NYC Mayor Eric Adams is part of a new national advisory board being built by President Biden’s team who “will travel and speak on Biden’s behalf during his expected reelection campaign,” the WaPo reports

Hey there, @nytimes and @nytopinion, these two pieces published under your masthead are fundamentally at odds. Which of them is true, and will you correct the record for the one that is not true? Hint: The one on the left.

It's important to recognize that this is not a matter of competing opinions. Stephens rests his entire case on the study that Tufekci reports was fundamentally mischaracterized by the study's own authors. Stephens' column rests on literal misinformation.

Wisconsin Republicans blocked Gov. Tony Evers’ plan Thursday to require student vaccinations against meningitis and tighten student chickenpox vaccination requirements.

The Legislature’s GOP-controlled rules committee voted 6-4 to block the proposal. All six of the panel’s Republican members voted to stop the policy. The vote comes two days after a lengthy public hearing on the policy changes that saw parents complain that the new requirements trample their liberties. The committee blocked the proposal last legislative session as well.

“(The committee), once again, met its oversight duty relating to the improper actions taken by DHS to enact binding administrative code provisions that were arbitrary and capricious, as well as, placing undue hardships on the families of this state,” Sen. Steve Nass, a committee co-chairperson, said in a statement. He said the committee action “restores the reasonable right of parents to make immunization decisions for their children.”

Republicans would have none of it. Nass said he doesn’t trust anything Westergaard [the state epidemiologist] says after he recommended the state shutdown during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Swinton expressed her delight that the audience was largely not wearing masks, apparently, and volunteered the information, "I'm just about to start shooting a picture in Ireland, and I was told . . . to wear a mask at all times, and I'm not."

...

But her most damning statements came next. "I'm not wearing a mask," Swinton said, "because I'm super healthy and I've had COVID so many times. And I'm so full of antibodies and I have faith."

Only one year ago, Swinton spoke candidly with W Magazine about her struggles with long COVID, the lingering and often worsening symptoms triggered by a COVID infection which continue to impact an estimated 1 out of every 5 COVID cases. Yes, COVID is still out there and yes, it's still terrible. When W Magazine interviewed Swinton in 2022, she was "still in recovery" six months after her symptoms started, "when she was unable to get out of bed for three weeks." She described coughing, intense vertigo and brain fog. "The actor is still having issues with her memory," W Magazine wrote.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:02 am Not really politics, but I'm beginning to think the virus changes the way people think:

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:02 am Not really politics, but I'm beginning to think the virus changes the way people think:

Swinton expressed her delight that the audience was largely not wearing masks, apparently, and volunteered the information, "I'm just about to start shooting a picture in Ireland, and I was told . . . to wear a mask at all times, and I'm not."

...

But her most damning statements came next. "I'm not wearing a mask," Swinton said, "because I'm super healthy and I've had COVID so many times. And I'm so full of antibodies and I have faith."

What struck me is how this contrasts with her interview from last year:

Only one year ago, Swinton spoke candidly with W Magazine about her struggles with long COVID, the lingering and often worsening symptoms triggered by a COVID infection which continue to impact an estimated 1 out of every 5 COVID cases. Yes, COVID is still out there and yes, it's still terrible. When W Magazine interviewed Swinton in 2022, she was "still in recovery" six months after her symptoms started, "when she was unable to get out of bed for three weeks." She described coughing, intense vertigo and brain fog. "The actor is still having issues with her memory," W Magazine wrote.

If only there was some Marvel character animated gif I could use here to make a point about masking. I'm sure it'll come to me.

Paul then offered another amendment to broadly block any National Institutes of Health funding from going to China to fund “gain of function” research on coronaviruses at labs in Wuhan and other facilities.

The Kentucky senator has previously pointed to an Oct. 20, 2021, letter to members of Congress in which he says the National Institutes of Health admitted that research it supported was used to create more potent viruses in Wuhan.

Peters quickly offered a second-degree amendment that changed the language to prohibit any money in the Fire Grants and Safety Act “from being provided to a Chinese fire department.”

“That doesn’t make any sense,” Paul complained.

Kurth wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:00 pm Does this make any sense?

CDC further clarified the goal of the vaccine program: Prevention of severe disease.

Because of this, ACIP decided there was “insufficient evidence” to suggest older adults need another bivalent dose at this time. They did say this could change in the future based on three things:

Hospitalization rates among those who got the bivalent start to increase

Other signals of waning vaccine effectiveness of bivalent vaccines

SARS-CoV-2 significantly mutates

They did a similar evaluation for immunocompromised. And came to the same conclusion.

So, as of now, everyone will be eligible for one shot a year. We will need to be flexible, as this may change. Is this the right call? Time will tell.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:19 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:00 pm Does this make any sense?

No. I was talking about it somewhere around here. Probably the other side of the fence in the Covid-19 vaccination updates. Basically the idea is that the vaccines are working as intended - keeping people out of hospitals and from dying - mostly. Elders are still high risk, but vaccinated elders fare better.

The talk is there might be another round of shots offered in the Fall of 2023, but nothing official. If you want to read the meeting highlights, go here.

Basically - you're on your own. Hope you're not part of the population that suffers from chronic illness during your next exposure.

If the link is too much, here's the summary:

CDC further clarified the goal of the vaccine program: Prevention of severe disease.

Because of this, ACIP decided there was “insufficient evidence” to suggest older adults need another bivalent dose at this time. They did say this could change in the future based on three things:

Hospitalization rates among those who got the bivalent start to increase

Other signals of waning vaccine effectiveness of bivalent vaccines

SARS-CoV-2 significantly mutates

They did a similar evaluation for immunocompromised. And came to the same conclusion.

So, as of now, everyone will be eligible for one shot a year. We will need to be flexible, as this may change. Is this the right call? Time will tell.

Kurth wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:25 pm What I don't really understand is, what's the downside? It's not like giving people the option to get another booster now is going to do any harm, is it? Why the reluctance?

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:33 pm If there is no harm and no benefit, why not just allow it to those who are willing to pay? I get not promoting it, but forbidding people from getting it seems odd.