Medical Advancements in My Lifetime, Not That Many

[glenda]

I asked my husband, a physician, "What advancements have been made in a person's healthcare?"

My husband knew me well. He knew that my question wasn't ridiculous, and answered, "Not that much. As you know, It's all up to people on taking care of their health. It's all about the basics: diet, physical activity, and activities to keep the brain functioning. And as you know, tennis alone takes care of two out of the three, all the instant decision making that's required in the playing."

On physical appearances, men wearing their shirttails outside the beltline is fashionable and comfortable. But I'm well aware that the fairly loose fitting outside shirttails somewhat hide the waist blubber and the bulging belly.

And I'll never understand why some women in their wear openly reveal a waist full of blubber.

 

[LuckyR]

What's your husband's specialty?

 

[jayvee]

What's your husband's specialty?

Alchemist

 

[socallefty]

https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/pressreleases/rcpe-top20-list.pdf

 

[glenda]

What's your husband's specialty?

A general practitioner and a knee, wrist, and elbow surgeon.

On his outlook about healthcare advancement, he was singling on general health unrelated to injury.

He's dead now. Too much time worrying in the hospital and in his office and not enough time hitting tennis balls with me.

In the last 20 years, I continuously told him to get active as he was in the first 30 years of our marriage.

 

[glenda]

https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/pressreleases/rcpe-top20-list.pdf

Say what you will. The overall health of people comes down to the fundamentals with people taking care of themselves.

The best play of tennis players, including genetically athletic players, comes down to their mastering the fundamentals of the sport.

On health, here's my own example. At 11 years old, I caught the flu. It was awful. Then three days later, I returned back to action.

At 40 years old, I helped my son throw newspapers in Fahrenheit below-zero degrees temperatures. I came down with pneumonia. It was awful, coughing and coughing, throwing up, running a high temperature like the flu.

My husband insisted I take anti-biotics, I didn't. I instead countered: "My body will heal."

In five days, I was back in action. I haven't been sick since, and the only two times I've been sick. I don't take preseason flu shots, nor did I take a vaccine in the covid days and without a concern.

I'm not one who believes in God miracles. Rather, I fully believe in my body taking care of itself {you want faith, there you have it). And I've always taken care of my body and mind by activity, nutrition, and sleep.

Certainly, I'm gonna die someday. But I can't imagine illness or body failure taking me down, certainly not by a heart attack.

After medically examining me, my husband said that I'll never have a heart attack because I don't have one.

 

[jayvee]

Boomer is not here for your so-called "facts."

https://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/pressreleases/rcpe-top20-list.pdf

 

[tennis3]

Say what you will. The overall health of people comes down to the fundamentals with people taking care of themselves.

40% Lifestyle Choices
30% Genetics
20% Socio-Economic Factors
10% Healthcare

That's the general population breakdown. Obviously, it will be different for each individual person.

But you know saying. "Genetics loads the gun, but lifestyle choices pull the trigger"

 

[LuckyR]

A general practitioner and a knee, wrist, and elbow surgeon.

On his outlook about healthcare advancement, he was singling on general health unrelated to injury.

He's dead now. Too much time worrying in the hospital and in his office and not enough time hitting tennis balls with me.

In the last 20 years, I continuously told him to get active as he was in the first 30 years of our marriage.

Sorry to hear that. You're supposed to have more free time, over time. Sounds like he was referring to preserving health as opposed to treating disease. In that case he's right, though most people believe that.

 

[Soul]

From what I've read of the health care industry, I'd be frustrated as a doctor. It is more of a religion from the best I can tell.

 

[ollinger]

My husband knew me well. He knew that my question wasn't ridiculous, and answered, "Not that much. As you know, It's all up to people on taking care of their health. It's all about the basics: diet, physical activity, and activities

My husband insisted I take anti-biotics

"Not that much," he suggested, but he also suggested the most important advance in the last century: antibiotics and antiseptic techniques. The main reason USA life expectancy has increased an average of ten years in the last 75 years, and doubled since 1860

 

[onehandbh]

I came down with pneumonia. It was awful, coughing and coughing, throwing up, running a high temperature like the flu.

My husband insisted I take anti-biotics, I didn't. I instead countered: "My body will heal."

If you have surgery for something in the future, will you still refuse to take antibiotics after the surgery?

 

[tennis3]

"Not that much," he suggested, but he also suggested the most important advance in the last century: antibiotics and antiseptic techniques. The main reason USA life expectancy has increased an average of ten years in the last 75 years, and doubled since 1860

Changing life expectancy throughout history - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Rowbotham and Clayton (JRSM 2008;101:454–62) make a very important point when they draw attention to the life expectancy at birth compared to life expectancy at 5+ years of age.1 They state ‘… life expectancy in the mid-Victorian period was not markedly different from what it is today. Once infant mortality is stripped out, life expectancy at 5 years was 75 for men and 73 for women.’

 

[LOBALOT]

There is a boatload of healthcare discovery in your lifetime:

- Statin Drugs have prevented millions and millions of heart attacks world-wide.
- Cardiac Cath, Stents, Ballon Procedures
- Robotic Assisted Surgeries, Neurological, Prostate, etc.
- Bone Marrow Transplant Cancer Treatment and Procedures
- World Wide Child/Adult Immunization
- Joint Replacement Procedures extending mobility well into late adulthood
- Laparoscopic Surgical Procedures minimizing healing time and infection
- Insulin Pumps for Diabetes patients vs. multiple daily injections
- Heart Lung Machines
- Improved Transplant Procedures and Suppression of Rejection
- Colorectal Screening for Intestinal Cancers
- Genetics and Gene Therapy
- Corneal Replacement and Cataract Surgery extending vision well into late adulthood

I can keep going but these are just a few.

 

[ollinger]

Changing life expectancy throughout history - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Rowbotham and Clayton (JRSM 2008;101:454–62) make a very important point when they draw attention to the life expectancy at birth compared to life expectancy at 5+ years of age.1 They state ‘… life expectancy in the mid-Victorian period was not markedly different from what it is today. Once infant mortality is stripped out, life expectancy at 5 years was 75 for men and 73 for women.’

Well, of course, much of life expectancy relates to reduction of infant and child mortality, which are largely due to.........antibiotics and vaccinations.

 

[tennis3]

Well, of course, much of life expectancy relates to reduction of infant and child mortality, which are largely due to.........antibiotics and vaccinations.

No one that read your above post would think that’s what you meant. And most people who see life expectancy was 40 years 100 years ago think everyone was dropping dead at 40

 

[jayvee]

Now imagine having these people as parents...

 

[onehandbh]

Changing life expectancy throughout history - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Rowbotham and Clayton (JRSM 2008;101:454–62) make a very important point when they draw attention to the life expectancy at birth compared to life expectancy at 5+ years of age.1 They state ‘… life expectancy in the mid-Victorian period was not markedly different from what it is today. Once infant mortality is stripped out, life expectancy at 5 years was 75 for men and 73 for women.’

Interestingly, the maximum age that humans can reach also, hasn't changed a lot in the last 150 years. Reaching 100 is still rare.

Will be interesting to see if some of the vegan, fasters, homeopathic,etc practiioners are able to reach a higher maximum age.

 

[LuckyR]

All this talk of life quantity, but I'm happy to see that most of medical advances have contributed to life quality.

 

[WildVolley]

Well, of course, much of life expectancy relates to reduction of infant and child mortality, which are largely due to.........antibiotics and vaccinations.

I'm with you on antibiotics, but no longer with vaccinations.

Decades ago a PhD virologist from Cal told me that most of the benefits ascribed to vaccines were actually accomplished by sanitation and better nutrition. He had a number of graphs which he claimed showed this.

I was skeptical at the time, but after the Covid 19 vax dishonesty from official sources, I find his argument far more credible today. The FDA and CDC are hopelessly corrupt.

 

[onehandbh]

I'm with you on antibiotics, but no longer with vaccinations.

Decades ago a PhD virologist from Cal told me that most of the benefits ascribed to vaccines were actually accomplished by sanitation and better nutrition. He had a number of graphs which he claimed showed this.

I was skeptical at the time, but after the Covid 19 vax dishonesty from official sources, I find his argument far more credible today. The FDA and CDC are hopelessly corrupt.

Polio.

Once the vaccine was widely given, the numbers plummeted.

 

[LOBALOT]

I'm with you on antibiotics, but no longer with vaccinations.

Decades ago a PhD virologist from Cal told me that most of the benefits ascribed to vaccines were actually accomplished by sanitation and better nutrition. He had a number of graphs which he claimed showed this.

I was skeptical at the time, but after the Covid 19 vax dishonesty from official sources, I find his argument far more credible today. The FDA and CDC are hopelessly corrupt.

Ask a polio victim who watched his peers who got the shot and lived with the same sanitation and nutrition and did not contract the disease and suffer the life long effects. Complete rubbish.

 

[WildVolley]

Polio.

Once the vaccine was widely given, the numbers plummeted.

He had a graph showing that the polio had greatly diminished prior to the introduction of the polio vaccine. As I said, I was skeptical. His argument wasn't that vaccines never work, just that they had been overhyped. He said that virologists couldn't discuss this publicly without killing their academic and professional opportunities.

Apparently polio still exists, though thankfully it is quite rare. RFK Jr. has cites in his book that the polio vaccine in 1955 was contaminated and led to an RSV epidemic.

I'd be more sympathetic to the establishment view if I hadn't just lived through massive propaganda campaigns about the C19 vax that FOIA releases show was based on lies. For example, when the CDC and President were saying that you couldn't get C19 if you got the vax, FDA & CDC officials were privately discussing the extensive documented cases that vaxed people were both catching and spreading C19. This was prior to the mandates, which means they were both unethical and illegal in the United States.

 

[Bambooman]

Polio is not Covid. Let's keep it real.

 

[socallefty]

Another medical thread devolves into a vaccine conspiracy thread - sigh!

 

[LOBALOT]

He had a graph showing that the polio had greatly diminished prior to the introduction of the polio vaccine. As I said, I was skeptical. His argument wasn't that vaccines never work, just that they had been overhyped. He said that virologists couldn't discuss this publicly without killing their academic and professional opportunities.

Apparently polio still exists, though thankfully it is quite rare. RFK Jr. has cites in his book that the polio vaccine in 1955 was contaminated and led to an RSV epidemic.

I'd be more sympathetic to the establishment view if I hadn't just lived through massive propaganda campaigns about the C19 vax that FOIA releases show was based on lies. For example, when the CDC and President were saying that you couldn't get C19 if you got the vax, FDA & CDC officials were privately discussing the extensive documented cases that vaxed people were both catching and spreading C19. This was prior to the mandates, which means they were both unethical and illegal in the United States.

That is the point at which I would realize the doctor is a crackpot. Any physician paying any attention in first year learns that just because 2 graphs are in alignment with each other doesn't mean there is a causal relationship between them.

 

[esgee48]

The field of Cause and Effect is a separate statistical field. Relations are hedged in studies because MANY factors affect such studies. Basically the researchers need many types of control groups to offset lifestyle behavior over a course of study. The models are well developed, but the data that can drive conclusions are very muddied. That’s why everything is presented as a %. Anytime someone just presents a set of lines and says they’re correlated, DON’T believe it unless you see the background hedging and adjustments. Even then, there can be no consensus.

With vaccines, the evidence is lower rates of infection, presence in blood, etc. But herd immunity can’t be ruled out tho it is a very cold blooded way of looking at such studies..

 

[tennis3]

I'm with you on antibiotics, but no longer with vaccinations.

Is your argument that, if no vaccinations of any kind were ever introduced:

A) Nothing changes. Vaccinations had no effect and were complete propaganda
B) There are a few more cases, but not many. Vaccinations had some effect, but it was minimal.
C) People would have been better off as vaccinations caused more harm than good

 

[tennis3]

All this talk of life quantity, but I'm happy to see that most of medical advances have contributed to life quality.

OP's argument is that good lifestyle choices greatly contribute to life quality (and quantity).

Fortunately, the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can exercise, eat right and get good medical care if needed. But which would you say has the greater effect / benefit (on average for the entire population)?

 

[stules]

Playing regularly really helps with both physical and mental health.

 

[sureshs]

I asked my husband, a physician, "What advancements have been made in a person's healthcare?"

My husband knew me well. He knew that my question wasn't ridiculous, and answered, "Not that much. As you know, It's all up to people on taking care of their health. It's all about the basics: diet, physical activity, and activities to keep the brain functioning. And as you know, tennis alone takes care of two out of the three, all the instant decision making that's required in the playing."

On physical appearances, men wearing their shirttails outside the beltline is fashionable and comfortable. But I'm well aware that the fairly loose fitting outside shirttails somewhat hide the waist blubber and the bulging belly.

And I'll never understand why some women in their wear openly reveal a waist full of blubber.

There have been immense strides in heart surgery and cataract surgery, to name only two areas in which I personally know people who have benefited. Old timers tell me that that the procedure and recovery time and return to normalcy today would have been unimaginable in their youth when they saw what happened with their older relatives.

And no, it is not "all" about people taking care of their health. There are many genetic and environmental issues which will cause disease despite a person having good diet and exercise.

 

[WildVolley]

That is the point at which I would realize the doctor is a crackpot. Any physician paying any attention in first year learns that just because 2 graphs are in alignment with each other doesn't mean there is a causal relationship between them.

He was a molecular biologist working in biotech, not a physician. I think his main point was that sanitation and nutrition had been more important in eliminating many diseases than most people believed, and that vaccines had played a smaller role. I think most of his data sets were from the United States. Would be interesting to see how effective vaccines were claimed to be in poorer parts of the world.

 

[sureshs]

I would suggest Pickleball rather than tennis because it is cheaper and easier to learn.

 

[WildVolley]

Is your argument that, if no vaccinations of any kind were ever introduced:

A) Nothing changes. Vaccinations had no effect and were complete propaganda
B) There are a few more cases, but not many. Vaccinations had some effect, but it was minimal.
C) People would have been better off as vaccinations caused more harm than good

My argument is closest to B. I think some vaccines have been very effective (good thing that small pox was eliminated), and some are complete failures. I believe that vaccine side-effects have been hidden for monetary and ideological reasons. I think sanitation and nutrition, and things like oral rehydration therapy have been underestimate in importance.

 

[tennis3]

My argument is closest to B. I think some vaccines have been very effective (good thing that small pox was eliminated), and some are complete failures. I believe that vaccine side-effects have been hidden for monetary and ideological reasons. I think sanitation and nutrition, and things like oral rehydration therapy have been underestimate in importance.

Who underestimates sanitation? I think everyone knows the benefit of clean drinking water for example. And nobody thinks that a healthy person isn't better able to naturally fight off disease better than a person that isn't healthy to begin with. So of course these are all factors.

But none of this is mutually exclusive. Why don't do all of them? I guess that is the question. Are you saying that vaccines are so ineffective (in some cases) that they should be eliminated al together? Which vaccines do you have in mind?

I also think everyone knows that some people in a population will have a bad reaction to vaccines. The question is, how common and how severe are these bad reactions. Versus, how large are the benefits to the population as a whole. Do you have some data on this?

 

[sureshs]

Having grown up seeing kids with deformities from polio dragging their bodies on the road and knocking on cars at traffic stops begging for money, I think the anti-vaccine lobby needs to be treated as criminal in its intent.

 

[WildVolley]

Who underestimates sanitation? I think everyone knows the benefit of clean drinking water for example. And nobody thinks that a healthy person isn't better able to naturally fight off disease better than a person that isn't healthy to begin with. So of course these are all factors.

But none of this is mutually exclusive. Why don't do all of them? I guess that is the question. Are you saying that vaccines are so ineffective (in some cases) that they should be eliminated al together? Which vaccines do you have in mind?

I also think everyone knows that some people in a population will have a bad reaction to vaccines. The question is, how common and how severe are these bad reactions. Versus, how large are the benefits to the population as a whole. Do you have some data on this?

It is commonly argued that Bill Gates and others underestimate the importance of sanitation, as he has spent considerable money to try to eradicate polio, for example, even though polio deaths and injuries are small in number compared to deaths from poor sanitation. RFK Jr's book The Real Anthony Fauci is useful to read if you want to see the case against Gates and Fauci.

I would not do the normal vaccination schedule anymore in the US, since it is now proven that govt/industry have worked in concert to censor vaccine injuries as seen with the C19 vaccine. VAERS threw up massive safety signals which were ignored. At the request of the Biden administration, people discussing their vaccine injuries were censored and removed from most social media platforms. FDA safety officials resigned rather than approve a vaccine without proper safety testing. There is a revolving door between the FDA/CDC and pharmaceutical companies which has corrupted the safety and oversight function of these agencies.

I for example, do not think that infants need to be vaccinated for sexually transmitted diseases (hepatitis b). I think the the flu vaccine is pushed on too many people. I would never take an mRNA vaccine until there is at least ten years of independent safety data.

 

[WildVolley]

Having grown up seeing kids with deformities from polio dragging their bodies on the road and knocking on cars at traffic stops begging for money, I think the anti-vaccine lobby needs to be treated as criminal in its intent.

What do you consider the anti-vaccine lobby? Would RFK Jr fit that definition?

 

[tennis3]

It is commonly argued that Bill Gates and others underestimate the importance of sanitation, as he has spent considerable money to try to eradicate polio, for example, even though polio deaths and injuries are small in number compared to deaths from poor sanitation. RFK Jr's book The Real Anthony Fauci is useful to read if you want to see the case against Gates and Fauci.

I would not do the normal vaccination schedule anymore in the US, since it is now proven that govt/industry have worked in concert to censor vaccine injuries as seen with the C19 vaccine. VAERS threw up massive safety signals which were ignored. At the request of the Biden administration, people discussing their vaccine injuries were censored and removed from most social media platforms. FDA safety officials resigned rather than approve a vaccine without proper safety testing. There is a revolving door between the FDA/CDC and pharmaceutical companies which has corrupted the safety and oversight function of these agencies.

I for example, do not think that infants need to be vaccinated for sexually transmitted diseases (hepatitis b). I think the the flu vaccine is pushed on too many people. I would never take an mRNA vaccine until there is at least ten years of independent safety data.

Keep your eye on the big picture.

 

[sureshs]

What do you consider the anti-vaccine lobby? Would RFK Jr fit that definition?

There are lots of people out there who look around them, see no problem, and conclude that there is no need for vaccines, without understanding how it came to be this way. In a way, vaccines are a victim of their own success.

There are some who were upset with Covid vaccine mandates, but not other vaccines. They think that Covid was really not that serious. Problem is, that depended a lot on the place. Some areas with lower population densities were doing OK, while here ambulances were in the parking lot of hospitals, unable to admit their patients. Unlike polio or tuberculosis, children were not affected. Old people were affected a lot, but that seemed "normal" to many. If children and middle-aged people were not affected that much, it gave rise to skepticism whether all this was overblown.

Along with that, other vaccines were also grouped into the same category of skepticism, as the modern generation does not know how life was before vaccines.

 

[WildVolley]

There are lots of people out there who look around them, see no problem, and conclude that there is no need for vaccines, without understanding how it came to be this way. In a way, vaccines are a victim of their own success.

There are some who were upset with Covid vaccine mandates, but not other vaccines. They think that Covid was really not that serious. Problem is, that depended a lot on the place. Some areas with lower population densities were doing OK, while here ambulances were in the parking lot of hospitals, unable to admit their patients. Unlike polio or tuberculosis, children were not affected. Old people were affected a lot, but that seemed "normal" to many. If children and middle-aged people were not affected that much, it gave rise to skepticism whether all this was overblown.

Along with that, other vaccines were also grouped into the same category of skepticism, as the modern generation does not know how life was before vaccines.

The incompetent response to Covid will have a lasting negative effect on vaccine uptake because it proved that public health officials are willing to both lie and then censor criticism from competent authorities.

I think Covid was only serious depending upon who you were. Very early on it was obvious that risk was highly stratified by age and factors like diabetes and obesity. The young were not at risk and the elderly were at high risk. Public policy should have recognized this. Instead, epidemiologists who criticized government policy, such at those behind The Great Barrington Declaration, were vigorously censored at the request of the government. Lawsuits over this violation of the first amendment are still playing out in court and Zuckerberg recently admitted he was wrong to censor people due to Govt pressure. It is far from clear that the policy to vaccinate the young, especially young men was justified by the evidence given the higher rates of myocarditis and pericarditis caused by the vaccine, especially because they were at minimal risk from Covid infection. Almost all colleges have dropped the C19 vax mandate, probably because they want to avoid lawsuits.

 

[sureshs]

The young were not at risk and the elderly were at high risk.

Yes, but was there enough time to think through all this when country after country was closing its doors and blaming other countries for not reacting?

Imagine the lawsuits if several million had died in the US instead of 600,000 and it turned out that vaccinations could have prevented it. Nothing will happen to Zuckerberg one way or another, but ordinary senior health officials in government would have been bankrupted with lawsuits and sent to prison. Would people have said: OK so you did not mandate vaccination when the rest of the world and the WHO asked for it, and 5 million are dead because of you? Zuckerberg would just say whatever he felt like with no consequences.

 

[WildVolley]

Yes, but was there enough time to think through all this when country after country was closing its doors and blaming other countries for not reacting?

Imagine the lawsuits if several million had died in the US instead of 600,000 and it turned out that vaccinations could have prevented it. Nothing will happen to Zuckerberg one way or another, but ordinary senior health officials in government would have been bankrupted with lawsuits and sent to prison. Would people have said: OK so you did not mandate vaccination when the rest of the world and the WHO asked for it, and 5 million are dead because of you? Zuckerberg would just say whatever he felt like with no consequences.

Your timeline is wrong. The vax didn't come out for most people for almost a year after the lockdowns. There were numerous natural experiments in place because different parts of the country were treating it so differently. The importance of age and health to surviving was already well known to anyone who looked at the data despite this being censored on social media. I posted often on this board to that effect, though I understand why the moderators deleted all the threads. Whenever I went to the San Diego public health website, I could see that the majority of the deaths were occurring in people over the age of 80.

For example, early on it became obvious that masks had failed as public policy. An economist I know produced multiple graphs showing it was impossible to determine which areas had mask mandates and which didn't. They both looked exactly the same. So mask mandates was a worthless public policy in terms of saving lives. Instead, places with older unhealthy populations had more deaths, and places with younger healthier populations had fewer. Even in North County, people were behaving differently. My neighborhood was completely panicked and shut down, but if I went up to Carlsbad or Oceanside, I could still go to parks and restaurants that were protesting. Since then, we have the Cochrane review of masks study which says that there isn't quality evidence that they are effective in protecting against respiratory infections. This was known prior to the pandemic.

When Biden instituted his mandate, it was already known that the shot didn't prevent the spread of C19, which is the only legal justification for vaccine mandates in US law. It was already known that recovery from infection offered at least as good protection as vaccination, yet protection from infection was ignored by government officials. The govt had time and resources to run quality randomized control studies on the mask and whether the vax limited spread. They didn't study it.

Refusing to run studies to test what you're doing is a rejection of science.

 

[tennis3]

For example, early on it became obvious that masks had failed as public policy.

When Biden instituted his mandate, it was already known that the shot didn't prevent the spread of C19, which is the only legal justification for vaccine mandates in US law.

I think it was a risk / reward analysis.

1) What is the (potential) risk of a mask mandate? What is the (potential) reward?

2) What is the (potential) risk of the vaccine? What is the potential reward?


Can you provide an answer to those questions as if you were a policymaker / public health official / politician?

What were the actual positive / negative consequences (using hindsight)? For example, if you want to cite higher rates of myocarditis and pericarditis, you need to specify numerically what the increased rates are (hint, I looked them up).

 

[WildVolley]

I think it was a risk / reward analysis.

1) What is the (potential) risk of a mask mandate? What is the (potential) reward?

2) What is the (potential) risk of the vaccine? What is the potential reward?


Can you provide an answer to those questions as if you were a policymaker / public health official / politician?

What were the actual positive / negative consequences (using hindsight)? For example, if you want to cite higher rates of myocarditis and pericarditis, you need to specify numerically what the increased rates are (hint, I looked them up).

Yes, this is the sort of analysis that should be done, but it is complicated when you're doing things that are illegal. As an economist, I'd call it cost/benefit analysis.

First of all, you should attempt an honest assessment of the potential benefits based on the best quality evidence you can find. Just having a fantasy about a potential benefit is not a good basis for making policy.

1) With mask mandates, the potential reward was a slight decrease in the rate of infections. This might seem more attractive if you have a vaccine that you hope will be effective in the near future. However, the costs are all over the place depending on who you're trying to mask. With small children, masking risks hindering language and learning for perhaps a generation. It seems little thought was given to this cost. With a mandate in stores, you have the cost of diverting labor from other functions and you create social conflict: I know of at least one murder that was precipitated by a mask mandate. You also have to factor the negative costs imposed on those who otherwise wouldn't wear a mask.

The problem was that health officials knew that the best empirical evidence from randomized control studies in actual humans (rather than lab models) showed no benefit to masking for respiratory infections, even with n95s, even with trained health professionals. Subsequent studies still haven't shown any benefit, which is why the Cochran review found that quality evidence for masking as public policy doesn't exist. This is when the lab engineer crowd go to war with the randomized control epidemiologists. In lab settings on dummies, the masks seem to work. Apply it to actual humans and you don't get any evidence of it working.

2) The potential risk and reward to the vaccine was also all over the place. Many physicians believe that the reward to the elderly and those with comorbidities such as diabetes and obesity was high, so it was worth any potential risks. With the young, evidence of potential benefit is minimal and basically non-existent for children. Two FDA vaccine safety officials resigned rather than approve boosters and shots for children due to lack of evidence of benefit.

Myocarditis is still a topic of dispute, so looking up some numbers online isn't dispositive. I've seen numbers as high as 1/10,000 risk for young men from the vax as mentioned in this article. Given the lack of benefit to this same group, risking myocarditis is irrational. https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/myocarditis-long-term-new-video

And I haven't even gotten into the costs of the mandates which are still playing out.

 

[jayvee]

Who knew a thread created by a kook would attract all the kooks?!

 

[tennis3]

Yes, this is the sort of analysis that should be done, but it is complicated when you're doing things that are illegal. As an economist, I'd call it cost/benefit analysis.

Certainly you can find "evidence" to back up any position you hold (whether you are pro or anti mask; pro or anti vaccine). And whatever your bias, that's the information you'll gravitate towards.

I just wanted to hear your analysis. It's not something I've looked into seriously myself. From a personal standpoint, I saw both the costs and the benefits as minimal for both. I really only did both due to social pressure. Far easier to get a quick shot and wear a mask than explain all day why you're not (and be branded a kook). I did tell a few people at the time that, since I already had Covid, I probably have (at least some level) of immunity. But that wasn't received too well. So I stopped saying it.

I'm talking about Covid vax specifically here. For other vaccinations, I think the evidence is pretty clearly there. But of course your post above is true. Improved sanitation and general living conditions are far more important. Which isn't to say vaccinations aren't important (they are). It's more to say how incredibly important improving living conditions are.

 

[jayvee]

As of 12 August 2024, 13.72 billion doses of COVID‑19 vaccines have been administered worldwide.

And these kooks are still going on about the vaccine

The stupid just... hurts.

 

[WildVolley]

As of 12 August 2024, 13.72 billion doses of COVID‑19 vaccines have been administered worldwide.

And these kooks are still going on about the vaccine

The stupid just... hurts.

You're not even wrong.

 

[jayvee]

You're not even wrong.

OK boomer