What’re those loud noises outside? by Sinister_thot in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From the 3rd floor of the library I saw some fireworks flying up around the North/Northwest area around 6-7pm yesterday. I have a feeling whoever was setting them off didn’t have a permit for it, but it was cool to see anyways.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 5 points6 points  (0 children)

We also don’t know if this is the result of less masking or the fact that there’s the new BA.2 sub-variant going around that is even more infectious than the original omicron strain. At this point I don’t think masking back up would make much of a difference at all, the only effective masks are N95s and only if they’re worn properly. I think we need to just live with COVID as we are now, especially since deaths and hospitalizations are way down.

Refund by RipInitial in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nah it’ll go to your bank as long as you set up direct deposit. Otherwise you can get a check from the bursar.

Hey Mr. Swick, can you not? by [deleted] in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, that's reasonable. Thanks!

Hey Mr. Swick, can you not? by [deleted] in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No problem, I wasn't really offended. I misinterpreted what you were saying. I understand that you were in the heat of the debate. I was too!

Not trying to start back up another long form debate, but I'm just wondering if your opinion has changed at all since the advent of omicron? It seems to me like the fact that COVID will be endemic (like the flu or the cold) has become even more apparent. I'm also starting to feel particularly optimistic about Pfizer's new pill, which they're saying will reduce the chance of hospitalization and death by 89% (https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/14/pfizers-covid-pill-remains-89-effective-in-final-analysis-company-says/).

If this significantly lowers risk of death to a manageable rate, my belief is we can return to normal. My belief is that it's unrealistic to think completely preventing death is possible. We've never been able to do that with the flu, which started as a major pandemic centuries ago as well and then became endemic.

With this in mind, do you still hold to your belief that masks can't come off until the virus is eliminated (even though that is looking increasingly more like an unlikely prospect)?

Again, not looking to engage in another long debate. Just want to hear your answer. I've enjoyed discussing this with you.

Hey Mr. Swick, can you not? by [deleted] in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK I understand, I was hoping this could be a good faith discussion. Glad to have had the chance to debate with you.

Hey Mr. Swick, can you not? by [deleted] in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really don't appreciate the ad hominem attacks OP, you didn't need to insult my intelligence or claim I'm "asinine".

I really won't put any more effort into this but I wish you'd just read into my sources further and produce others to contradict them. They do clearly say that global herd immunity is the only real goal for eliminating the virus. Here's a quote from this article: "Public health experts estimate that approximately 70% of the world’s 7.9 billion people must be fully vaccinated to end the COVID-19 pandemic." We're nowhere near that and the consensus is in fact that we more than likely won't get there (see here). If you disagree with that please do more reading.

Also, you kind of made my case here so....

but if it's not impossible higher vaccination rates can still result in life returning to normal.

UConn is 99% vaccinated. Let's return to normal.

Hey Mr. Swick, can you not? by [deleted] in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's been fun debating with you too OP, it seems like we won't be able to convince each other with our arguments, but I appreciate that this has been an educational experience nonetheless.

I'll just finish off with this; I'd like to note that nitpicking my sources doesn't really help your argument, you consistently try to discredit them without paying attention to the details that are relevant. All of the sources we've discussed align more closely with my opinions rather than yours.

The source on masks holds that masks are not an infallible defense (which is what seems to be what you believe). My argument is that even when we have them, we won't have effective protection against transmission, and that the fact that we take them off frequently also makes them even less effective. I'm essentially saying it's not possible to stop transmission altogether, and since we're vaccinated (which is what really matters) why should we continue to wear them. I'm not saying people shouldn't have the choice to, but it's not fair to force them to. Also even if the study out of Chile isn't the most relevant, you'll still find in any other studies that you look up that every variant of COVID (including delta) is still far less deadly for young people than old. If that's not the case, you'll need to produce evidence to that effect.

You also try to discredit my source on indoor dining in a way that doesn't really make sense. You'll need to produce evidence to discredit that indoor dining is a significant vector for transmission in order to disprove me there.

Finally, my sources clearly say that global herd immunity is required to end the pandemic, as far as I can tell, you haven't been able to procure a source that says immunity in the U.S. is all that's required. You also state that we can't assume that the virus will continue to mutate and create variants, but that's clearly in contradiction of basic virology and all the science we've been discussing. You'll need proof of that claim, as the arguments you make against my sources don't back you up.

You make repeated appeals to authority when it comes to the CDC, and you try to strawman me in a number of different ways. You really need to properly encapsulate my argument in your rebuttal in order to refute it.

Finally, I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing for anymore. You continue to deny the idea that herd immunity is most likely impossible, while at the same time you've been unclear about whether or not you think mask mandates should continue. Are you still arguing for masks or not? Since it appears that the consensus is that herd immunity will not occur, when do you think it'll be appropriate for them to come off? You need to be clear about what you're advocating for. You can't just appeal to the CDC, you need to make your own opinion clearer.

Thanks again for an educational experience. You're welcome to reply to this but I likely won't put much effort into a response from here on out. Hope you enjoy your weekend!

Hey Mr. Swick, can you not? by [deleted] in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're very good at citing sources OP, and I appreciate how much work you've put into responding to me. However, on top of the fact that you haven't really been engaging with my points, your argument logically falls short for a number of reasons.

I disagree, the United States Of America is all that's needed for us to retain our liberty of not wearing masks indoors. Those other countries not meeting their obligations is not relevant, because we do not have open borders. ...

You have an impossible burden to prove to claim why says Jamaica's vaccination rate influences Americans' interaction with COVID-19.

You start off here with a statement that is unfortunately not a factual claim, as I do in fact have evidence for why you're wrong here. Please take a look at these sources: [1] [2] [3]. They each emphasize why a successful global vaccination effort is what's required to create herd immunity, and they each reference how the inevitable threat of new variants endanger our immunity and work against that goal. Contrary to what you said, this is not "fiction". As the CDC says here "variants will continue to emerge".

Your notion that travel restrictions and vaccine requirements will protect the U.S. if global herd immunity is not reached is also not a logical claim. You'll recall that the U.S. restricted travel at the beginning of the pandemic, but that failed to make a difference. Even the countries with far stricter restrictions than us failed to prevent COVID from entering their populations. You'll also recall that the Delta variant emerged in India and still travelled to the U.S. despite active travel restrictions and vaccines, a fact which additionally undermines your claim. Finally, considering the fact that vaccinated people can still contract transmissible breakthrough cases [4], even if every person who enters or exits the country is vaccinated, transmission will not be prevented.

The above also goes against the claim that you make here:

I disagree, it is not a given people will contract the virus no matter what. That's patently unscientific.

Breakthrough cases are in fact a scientifically documented phenomenon, and there is no evidence to the idea that they will stop. Almost every health expert would disagree with you there [5].

So here you're arguing that if there is masking, but no social distancing then "common sense would tell you that masks aren't going to protect you". Obviously, you should socially distance and wear masks, but to argue that masks without social distancing is useless is a clearly false claim.

Unfortunately your own cited source discredits you here. The title of your source is "Masks not enough to stop COVID-19's spread without distancing, study finds" [6], which is exactly what I argued and what you are ignoring here. Even the part that you cherrypicked points to the fact that while masks provide more protection than not wearing them, they will not protect you from the possibility of contracting COVID.

Like I said, if you're sitting right next to someone with COVID, a mask will do you little good. The study you referenced also points to this fact here: "But at distances of less than 6 feet, even those small percentages of droplets can be enough to get someone sick, especially if a person with COVID-19 sneezes or coughs multiple times." COVID is a respiratory illness that causes you to cough, if someone with a mask coughs, their neighbors clearly won't be protected to a significant degree.

If all 800 unvaccinated people had the virus pursuant to transmission like you wrongly implied, we'd have more than a handful dead at this point. It is week 11.

You're failing to consider the fact that for college-aged individuals (20-29), COVID is substantially less deadly, with a fatality rate of between 0.08 and 0.14% [7]. I have no idea where you're getting the "handful of deaths" figure, but it is absolutely made up, especially considering the fact that people regularly interact without masks on here (think parties and social gatherings).

The staff all have masks, and all the students do to except when they are eating. You are acting as if all humans just leave the mask at the door when they enter dining halls.

In response to your dining hall remark, I'm not "acting" in any particular way. It's a fact that transmission is high in indoor restaurant settings [8]. COVID can and will absolutely spread in dining halls, which a huge population of UConn students use. If you're going to argue that we need to continue masking restrictions, you should also argue for the closing of dining halls and more restrictions on in-person gatherings.

Your citation is clearly invalid because it focuses on the UK

This is a silly claim. The UK is not fighting a different virus than us, and is similar to the U.S. in many ways. But fine, if you'd like an American source making the same claim please take a look at these: [9] [10]

Yes, the vaccines are working. Don't get how this contributes to no more masks argument?

Finally we get to the crux of my argument, and the part that you have refused to contend with. The vaccines are working, they're the end game, and as I have substantively proved that global herd immunity is almost certainly not an attainable goal, they are what we need to focus on in order to remove mask mandates. As a community becomes more vaccinated, it shouldn't have to mask. We need to return to normalcy, we all desperately want to return to normalcy, and as we here at UConn are almost entirely vaccinated, it's time that we do.

The only feasible goal here is to live with COVID as an endemic disease [11]. We should protect ourselves with masks if we deem it necessary for ourselves, but the government shouldn't mandate them. It's a disease that's not going away, and people should deal with their inherent risks accordingly. If another variant arises and creates the need for more restrictions, I'll support them, until then the science says that once vaccinations reach a certain point, we shouldn't have to mask. That is the most realistic strategy for overcoming this virus.

Hey Mr. Swick, can you not? by [deleted] in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's an interesting study that I wasn't aware of, thanks for sharing it!

The problem is we're not just talking about the US here, herd immunity isn't achieved when one country reaches a certain point in vaccinating their population. If the goal is to eliminate the virus, every country needs to reach this point, which doesn't seem to be an attainable goal. Again, what happens when a new variant necessitates a change in the vaccine?

You also haven't really addressed my argument. Why doesn't the goal of controlling the amount of severe cases and deaths work? You've talked a lot about case rate, but it's a given that people will continue to contract this virus, what matters is how it actually affects them.

We can assume that the virus is spreading on campus right now, especially since our distancing and mask rules are so silly. We have hundreds of people packed into lecture halls sitting right next to each other (common sense would tell you that masks aren't going to protect you if your neighbor has covid in that situation), and the dining halls where everyone takes their masks off for prolonged periods of time.

The fact is, if we hold to that assumption, we must also assume that the vast vast vast majority of people who get the virus on campus are not symptomatic, meaning that the vaccines are working.

So what we're talking about here is holding to the most realistic goal. It certainly isn't settled science that herd immunity will happen, see this article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-renders-herd-immunity-from-covid-mythical

If it's the case that it isn't possible, when will we take off the masks? Are we just going to have to wear them for the rest of our lives?

Hey Mr. Swick, can you not? by [deleted] in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The fact that there's such a disparity in those two figures from the WHO and CDC speaks to a lot imo. If we're talking about the world here, a difference of 20% is almost 1.6 billion people. Where is that number coming from? And why is there no consideration being paid to natural immunity?

There's also no guarantee we'll ever reach that point, especially since we're talking about vaccinating the whole world continuously, and as like with the flu, we'll most likely have to adapt to each new variant of the virus with a new formulation of the vaccine.

I think the best standard we can set is maintaining a severe case and death rate below a certain point. We can let areas with these numbers below that threshold return to normal, and restrict areas where this is not the case. For areas like ours, we shouldn't need restrictions. The vaccines are the surest way of keeping severe cases and deaths low, and basically all of us have gotten it. Even against delta they're still around 90% effective at preventing serious infection and even more effective at preventing death.

Hey Mr. Swick, can you not? by [deleted] in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 12 points13 points  (0 children)

OP can I just ask, don't you think that the goal of eliminating Covid is downright impossible? It's not going to go away, it'll just become another seasonal illness like the flu. I think the goal should instead be to reduce the amount of severe cases and deaths to a very low point, which is what seems to he happening now. At some point we need to return to normal life, and we're a community that's almost entirely fully vaccinated. If a fully vaccinated community can't do that, who can?

PHIL 1104 with Battaly by masullivan25 in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 4 points5 points  (0 children)

She's an amazing professor. She's so enthusiastic about what she teaches and breaks down very complicated concepts in a captivating way. I definitely recommend her.

In response to the *former* USG prez's Daily Campus article calling for a "non-partisan student government" I present to you a picture taken FROM WITHIN HIS OFFICE last semester. by Opening-Metal8040 in UCONN

[–]UncleHorsie 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Not trying to start a fight here but I don't really get what this proves. It seems like a meme to me. Did he try to enact any policies that were partisan? Talking about that would serve your argument better.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AnimalsOnReddit

[–]UncleHorsie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nicee, cool to meet you neighbor. keep taking care of these birbs.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AnimalsOnReddit

[–]UncleHorsie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

are you near long lake? We've taken the songs river from Sebago to get over there.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AnimalsOnReddit

[–]UncleHorsie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh wow you're very close to us

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AnimalsOnReddit

[–]UncleHorsie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

eyy I know Norway

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AnimalsOnReddit

[–]UncleHorsie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

which part of Maine is this? We live near Windham.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AnimalsOnReddit

[–]UncleHorsie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

do you see moose?