Once again, your question was: why is the health care community not addressing the factors that correlate to severe illness with COVID. My answer was: they are treating the crisis first, and will return to addressing syndromes that lead to worse outcomes when an individual contracts COVID. That seems to have satisfied you, as you've moved past it twice without responding. So, we're good here? It's not a conspiracy from physicians to keep the US fat, sedentary, and prone to Ricketts?

Okay!

On an unrelated topic, then...

Why wouldn't I do both? And, just to be clear, what I observe is anecdotal, what's reported to me by physicians I know is hearsay. It's them reading journals, talking to virologists and epidemiologists they work with or know from schooling or professional associations. I've formed my outlook by talking to these individuals and what the "consensus" seems to be. So, not news media. Practicing (and retired! see below) physicians and nurses. Surgeons and specialists. They're mostly family and friends, so I don't think they're out to deceive me, and if they are, they're amazingly coordinated about it, considering some don't know each other.

...and decided they're not perfect, but an excellent tool in large numbers for reducing transmission of the virus? I hope so, because that's what doctors who read the science are saying to me. Mostly through masks.

It's true that humans are unruly generally, but this seems to be it helps. Remembering, again, that the goal isn't 0% transmission, and nothing is done in isolation.

I understand there's no good data on this. Those event-type crowds seem to want to have proof of vaccination and/or negative testing. So, if there's less spread there, isn't that to be expected? And weren't most open-air large events, say, NASCAR races, during times of dropping transmission with warmer weather and smaller virus communities anyway? Airplanes seem to be mostly good congregating areas because of the high air filtration rates and complete masking. But other gatherings? Doesn't seem to be consensus on this that I could get from Those Who Know.

Agreed. So, I think the point is to not do these in isolation. The point is to have as much vaccination as possible. Some people might not spread the virus as much if infected if vaccinated. And mask up. Because even if there's 30% less spread, that's 30% less. Or 70%. Pick the study you like, but all of them show a significant decrease in viral transmission in masked communities, be they American schools, Danish towns, or Bangladeshi villages. And space out. Which is, I understand, much more effective if people are wearing masks. And wash your hands. If you do all these, the spread will be lower.

Every health care provider I've talked to - physician, nurse, PA, NP, researcher/non-practicing MD, MD-PHD, MD-MPH - follows these. Some I haven't seen in person in a while because they're keeping their bubble small. All wear masks. I haven't heard of anyone at an event.

So, I'm looking at what they say and do, and the People Who Know still take this seriously and are acting that way. It's mostly people who are Tired Of All This who are engaging in riskier behaviors. Understandably, I guess, but still, a risk decision.

Yes, they are adding "capacity". Not new, permanent hospitals, which wouldn't be built overnight. But people? Yes - I personally know retired physicians and nurses being granted emergency licenses to provide care in relief of overwhelmed former colleagues. I know nursing students whose nursing schools were forgoing the last semester of classroom and pushing students to their practical internships early to get bodies in the hospitals. Capacity was certainly being added. Permanent capacity? Why would they, for a transitory disease? Once it becomes endemic, it won't require overflow capacity like is being seen now.

Especially consider that hospitals are losing money from having to cancel more expensive elective/non-essential surgeries and procedures. Laid-off health care workers are coming from closing medical centers and hospitals where COVID - unprofitable COVID - is displacing sustainable business. Are they incentivized to downplay COVID numbers to get more people doing money-making procedures? Yes! Are they doing it? No, of course not. And so, they're trying to get humans to act in less risky ways so they can return to normalcy.

Talk to some doctors. Let me know if you're getting something different from the medical community. I don't pretend to be in expert in any of these topics. I told you that up front. But I can report what my small group of experts is telling me about their consensus. Take it or leave it. Just words on the interwebs.

My thought is: health care providers have been trying to get people to act in their own best interests forever. If more people listened, we and they would be better off.

I said health officials are trying to mitigate the spread. I didn't say anything - and neither has anyone else I've seen - talk about zero-covid. Neither any of the doctors I know - whether my doctor or those I'm related to - nor my local and state health officials are talking about zero-covid. I haven't seen that anywhere, except China - locking down Xi'an, a city of 13million, to stop 155 cases today. Mitigate does not mean eradicate. You're either creating a strawman or don't understand the word.

They're talking about mitigation, either of 1) severe cases by pre-infection vaccination and/or 2) the spread with common-sense daily practices like masking, social distancing where possible, avoiding large crowds, hand-washing. They're most concerned about health care system fragility and overwhelm of personnel and availability of beds.

No one expects eradication - to a person they expect, and the consensus of physicians and epidemiologists seems to expect it to become endemic, with ~100% of people infected at some point. Their chief concern is how difficult it will be to reach that. Without near-total vaccination, portions of our population are going to be disproportionately severely affected and - as we've seen before and are seeing now - hospitals will fill up and 1) inhibit other care and 2) overtax providers. That can be reduced with what they advocate for: vaccination and hygiene practices, including masking. That's what they're after. Because that's the crisis. Not the obesity, not the vitamin D, not the compromised cardiovascular health. COVID is the killer. Those other things will get you eventually, but they're not nearly as urgent as the viral disease actually doing the killing.

So, to return to your original question about why no one's talking about the common factors causing severe disease, they're dealing with the disease first, and the factors second. Any talk about zero-covid is not what you asked, nor what I answered about. It's a canard.

It is. You know it. If it wasn't well-known, you wouldn't.

Correlation, as you point out. Not causation. Why is it so highly correlated? Because the US population as a whole is vitamin D deficient. So yes, it's present, but it's not why without study. And guess what? There's been plenty of news about vitamin D for... a decade? Did you miss it? Maybe it's not ... well known.

You're now telling me that doctors and health officials have not been telling us for decades to get out in the sun and exercise more. With a straight face, you typed that?

Look, these are underlying issues that create worse outcomes when diseased. They're working on mitigating the ongoing spread of an infectious virus, rather than addressing - other than ways they've been systematically addressing - the underlying factors that create worse outcomes. You're faulting them for that? I haven't seen anything say "stop exercising because of pandemic." Have you? It's the COVID that kills people, not the low vitamin D. They're trying to stop people from getting COVID so we can go back to trying to get people to exercise. Why is that wrong?

It's an open secret that all fact-finding trips are junkets like this. I'm not saying Pelosi's excused because everyone does it. I'm saying being outraged at her specifically ignore all the other people you could (should?) be outraged at. It's unacceptable by any of them. If taxpayers could end it, we should.

On the other hand, I do want my congress to pass laws grounded in fact and politicians are not ecologists, civil engineers, medical doctors, etc. How should they write laws that affect things they're not experts in without learning about them? And some things you learn best in person. So, I ask you, how do we get useful fact trips for Congresscritters, instead of these waste trips? Watchdog groups already report on the waste. No one seems to care.

Yet another problem that doesn't have a simple, easy solution. I hate how these keep piling up. Condemn Pelosi for this junket. And everyone else who takes them. And find us a better way, please.

That's not right. Ford pardoned Nixon, who was as-yet uncharged, let alone convicted. The President can pardon someone for any crimes they committed as a result of specific actions, convicted or not. It's the un-specific actions that cause problems.

You presented that as a fact, no uncertainty. It's just plain wrong. Where did you come to learn that? And how are you so certain in something that's just flat wrong?

Oh.

I'm on board with "it's countermeasures when a spy satellite over a nation's territory is zapped", where does it say in the article - or where does the general say - that it only happens over the territory of certain nations? Maybe I missed where this was in the article. Point me to it? I see "ground-based" a couple times, to distinguish from satellite-satellite play, but that doesn't mean "from a certain nation."

I mean, sure, your scenario leads to the conclusion, but it reads like you just took a general thing that's happening - "satellites are being attacked" and turned it into "satellites are being beamed while over Russia and China" and lampooned that. It reads like a strawman.

And Russia hitting a satellite with a projectile that causes uncontrolled debris - that's not countermeasures. That's dangerous to self and others.

You know, I agree with a lot of this, but this right here is wrong in the analysis. This is exactly like the classic equity versus equality cartoon, but it's the one where there are multiple boxes of the same size, and one box is taken away from the tall person and given to the short person. Resources from the higher math are being devoted to teaching lower math to others longer. This is equity playing out, and you - and me - and others are having difficulty with the "take higher math away from higher-achieving students to supplement others" part.

I happily taught my kids the times tables, flashcards we made. Do you have any idea how much time they save over their lifetime doing math in their head in a second, rather than looking for a calculator to do 8x7? Or 60x9, which looks daunting to anyone who can't do mental math? Jeez, just let them struggle with adding 4s to get to 24 for as long as it takes to memorize it when you could be done in a couple hours? What insane person would torture their children by expecting them to excel at math if they spend all their time calculating multiplication or reaching for calculators when they could be one to the next thing instantly? My wife has a bachelors in math, and a masters in education. You think this is ignorant rote learning? What an uninformed opinion.

If I have learned anything in my time on the planet while equipped with critical thinking skills - let's say, mid-20s on - it's that there is rarely one root cause and simple solution to any complex problem. Politically, they sound great. Economically, they sound like they'll solve 80% of the problem, and we can ignore the other 20%. Social Justice-y, they are race-based, and we need to address that first. Mathematically, they're impossible to model. And pragmatically, it's that "the solution" is almost always "something iteratively better" and not a solution. But that doesn't mean we don't improve. I'll take better over perfect any day, every day, and twice on Sundays. Because it can actually happen.

So what's the answer here? I have no idea. I don't know nearly even enough to begin to form an opinion. I, at least, know this. It's amazing reading the armchair experts here on most topics. So certain. So uninformed.

It was assuredly both. There were patients who were told they had a positive result for a disease or reading outside the acceptable norm - falsely. There were also those who were told they had no problems and nothing to worry about - by what later turned out to be mis- or un-calibrated machines. People who relied on Theranos to screen their blood were certainly victims.

Yeah, he was wary of the jihad, but didn't hold back. He wanted vengeance on the Harkonnens (and the Emperor for his part in it). And got it. "Peace", if it came at all, was the byproduct of the bloody universal war that followed and was spawned by his quest to rule by toppling his enemies for killing his father. That's how I remember it. That "bring peace" stood out to me, too. I guess you could say his Fremen side was looking to pacify Arrakis and terraform it, and that's what he promised the Fremen, but peace? No.

In other words, you're saying we should reject anecdotal evidence - I agree - but you know something's true and happens all the time because it happened to you once ten years ago. That's some serious cognitive dissonance going on there. And it couldn't be that hospitals have emergency plans for mass trauma or overwhelm, right? It has to be that it happens all the time? Why am I even trying reasoning with you?

Let's talk reality, then. Is there anything that would convince you that Covid-19 is serious and we should take it seriously? Sure, let's go with the majority of sufferers don't die. Is that the only thing that matters? What about those who get it, don't die, and pass it on to someone who does? Is that a problem? What about those who have long-term organ and vascular damage? Long-Covid sufferers? Add-on effects like the cancers not being diagnosed or treated while hospitals deal with Covid capacity? Do any of those matter, or just that some people have light cases of Covid and are not hospitalized?

We just passed 700,000 dead in the US. Seven hundred thousand people dead. So far. Far from done, right now. Sure, it's not more, but holy crap, you don't think we should take some measures when 700,000 people have died in a year an a half? 9/11 was less than 3,000. For that we spent 15 trillion dollars, invaded two countries and passed the Patriot Act, giving up countless civil liberties. How is it that orders of magnitude more are dead and we can't do things like require people to take FDA-approved vaccines?

The virus is not an individual problem, it's a societal problem. We have to respond as a society, not like a plethora of individuals. Herd immunity? Requires the herd. Pandemic requires everyone in the pan to do something - or suffer. The companion to personal liberty is personal responsibility. Your country - your society - your community - needs you to inoculate yourself against an virus that is killing your country, your fellow Americans at the rate of thousands a day. How do you love your nation so much that you'll tell it no? I never understood how people can love America so much and hate fellow Americans. In this case, be willing to place in danger our most vulnerable. Me, me, me.
  Never us. Never asking what you can do for your country, your fellow citizen.

Sorry, that went a little long. My point is: you're selfish and self-centered. If we acted like a society of people invested in our own common good, we'd all be getting vaccinated. Some people would undoubtedly have side effects, and that's regrettable. I wish we could do universal vaccination without that, but we can't. And the alternative - unvaccinated groups spreading the disease and permitting mutations - is worse. So, we should. Because we're neighbors and citizens together, and we want to help each other.

You mean, people will follow the consensus of doctors' advice to try to prevent infection by SARS-CoV-2 through vaccination? I hope so. I sincerely hope so.
  I'd hate to have to live through this again. If enough people getting annual/semi-annual booster shots ends the pandemic, sign me up. How about you?

Once you've rooted your decision-making process in ideology, you expect everyone else does the same, I guess.

All Time Heat Record... so far.

Interesting. You were conversing with someone who disagrees with you, and you got so close to engaging. You almost listened to the person and updated your thinking based on encountering someone. Changing your mind? Not necessarily. But certainly considering a new thought.

Instead, you told GP what GP thinks. And what "they" think. You created the opinions and positions of the people you disagree with and then proceeded to disagree with them.

I especially like where you took an analogy drawing and dismissed it as "cute little art" and then tore it all apart as "life isn't watching a ballgame", missing the entire point of an analogy. Also, missing the point of the drawing that equity and equality are different things, and that sometimes nuance is required to get at the heart of problems. But then, you don't strike me as being big on nuance.

Question, when "the incompetent are readily identified and dealt with", are they taken out back and shot? Fired and left to starve because they can't compete with the competent? Beaten with truncheons regularly until they learn skills? What is "dealt with" here?

Strikes me that you have some skill in creating a pretty neat strawman of anyone you disagree with. The sad part was, someone you disagree with was here, offering a different perspective, and you missed out on the opportunity to listen, rather than talk. To discuss rather than dismiss. You didn't come with an open mind and willingness to teach and learn in the same conversation. You already knew what you knew and no one could tell you differently. I consider myself reasonably intelligent and educated, and I'm nowhere near as certain of what I think. I expect there's always more I could learn, and maybe learn I was wrong about something. You don't seem burdened by any uncertainty. Makes things easier, sure, but also a lot harder to entertain new ideas.

Some people are great at framing their neighbors' positions and tearing them apart, but pretty lousy at listening to their neighbors. Thank you for illustrating the point.

The demographics of Silicon Valley are surprisingly many Boomers holding on to the houses they bought in the 80s and 90s. And passing them down to their children. Thanks to CA property taxes being capped and the family transfer exception, these people are not going anywhere anytime soon. You'd be crazy to sell a fully-paid off Bay Area home with 1980s property tax. You spend your middle class income - or Bay Area income - on non-housing and live quite happily. It's what keeps the prices high and causes people who migrated in for work to leave in frustration.

At worst the owners move, but keep and rent the home for free money. Rental prices are also sky-high. No one's going anywhere.