Notification on my phone about a Time article:
"How Long Should You Isolate With COVID-19? Experts Are Split"
Do I want to read this? No, but I did anyway. So maybe I'll save you the blood pressure spike.
Expert #1 is Osterholm. Who would have suspected? He, as he is prone to do, says that we should stop isolating because "people’s tolerance for public-health precautions has plummeted" and "many people in the U.S. haven’t paid attention to COVID-19 guidance in a long time" along with my Osterholm favorite "You have to face reality."
Let me tell you something. I only hear this "face reality" refrain from him and a certain "VP analyst" on Mastodon who blocks a lot of COVID cautious people while building a faux-COVID cautious brand here and on LinkedIn. When someone tells you this, they're basically saying, "People don't wear condoms and they love to drive drunk. Let's meet them in the middle and let them have their fun!"
Expert #2 - Lucky Tran! npub1almz26yhzkxvmg5053wg5msjfarnwztmp4ml54l60nr5ddndrxvqjk57vz (npub1alm…57vz) says this plan would be “a reckless anti-public-health policy that goes against science, encourages disease spread, and puts everyone at risk. The bare minimum we should have learned from this devastating pandemic that has killed and disabled millions is that we should stay home when sick.” Thank you Dr Tran!
Expert #3 - Elanor Murray. I honestly have no idea who she is, but I was glad to read that she thinks "it would be “really strange” for the CDC to relax its current guidance, given that even a five-day isolation period isn’t always long enough to stop the spread." Good job!
Expert #4 - Dr. Tara Bouton who would like you to believe that ending isolation would be reasonable at this stage of the pandemic "when fewer people who get infected die or become hospitalized."
Dr Bouton, I'm not *really* worried I'm going to die during the acute phase of COVID. This isn't the reality of a mass disabling event. Let's face reality here! Oops. Too soon?
Interestingly, Dr Bouton, while thinking it's great that *you* should go back to work, says that "she says she would stay home around that long because she’s able to—and because working as an infectious-disease doctor puts her in contact with lots of immunocompromised patients, who remain at increased risk of severe disease if they get infected."
The new west coast liberal refrain of "I can afford to, you can't, and I wear a mask for others." OK. I'm getting tired of hearing this one. I admit it.
Murray then nails it again. "She would stay home until her symptoms cleared up and wait until she’d gotten two consecutive negative test results, spaced out by at least a day, before exiting isolation."
Who is this person and how can we get her to start posting on Mastodon?
Dr Tran, again, awesome. "Tran says he’d go even further: he’d stay home for 10 days, self-test multiple times before ending isolation, and wear a mask—as he usually does anyway—upon returning to public spaces."
Finally, Osterholm weighs in that he'd also stay home for 5 days, and then wear an N95 in the "immediate aftermath" of his infection. Funny how the people all about relaxing protocols would follow them in their own lives, isn't it? Almost like you don't deserve them?
https://time.com/6695102/covid-19-isolation-guidelines-experts/
A Concerned Scientist /
npub1gk…qufsp
2024-02-15 20:30:12
Author Public Key
npub1gkx8d2f6ahf03mmpn45yn4fkh2rrda77x0708fz488kvtr5xfa2qmqufspPublished at
2024-02-15 20:30:12Event JSON
{
"id": "57be336257ecf5d57d9843a4200f270c545d5a33f720f5490c698f32b6e1e1ae",
"pubkey": "458c76a93aedd2f8ef619d6849d536ba8636f7de33fcf3a45539ecc58e864f54",
"created_at": 1708029012,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"eff6256897158ccda28fa45c8a6e124f4737097b0d77fa57fa7cc746b66d1998",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"4b390d648f741dc512bb49318f5e98b0b57f2afa66ef810a3f2089392299437e",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://qoto.org/users/BE/statuses/111937389298806448",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "Notification on my phone about a Time article:\n\n\"How Long Should You Isolate With COVID-19? Experts Are Split\"\n\nDo I want to read this? No, but I did anyway. So maybe I'll save you the blood pressure spike.\n\nExpert #1 is Osterholm. Who would have suspected? He, as he is prone to do, says that we should stop isolating because \"people’s tolerance for public-health precautions has plummeted\" and \"many people in the U.S. haven’t paid attention to COVID-19 guidance in a long time\" along with my Osterholm favorite \"You have to face reality.\"\n\nLet me tell you something. I only hear this \"face reality\" refrain from him and a certain \"VP analyst\" on Mastodon who blocks a lot of COVID cautious people while building a faux-COVID cautious brand here and on LinkedIn. When someone tells you this, they're basically saying, \"People don't wear condoms and they love to drive drunk. Let's meet them in the middle and let them have their fun!\"\n\nExpert #2 - Lucky Tran! nostr:npub1almz26yhzkxvmg5053wg5msjfarnwztmp4ml54l60nr5ddndrxvqjk57vz says this plan would be “a reckless anti-public-health policy that goes against science, encourages disease spread, and puts everyone at risk. The bare minimum we should have learned from this devastating pandemic that has killed and disabled millions is that we should stay home when sick.” Thank you Dr Tran!\n\nExpert #3 - Elanor Murray. I honestly have no idea who she is, but I was glad to read that she thinks \"it would be “really strange” for the CDC to relax its current guidance, given that even a five-day isolation period isn’t always long enough to stop the spread.\" Good job!\n\nExpert #4 - Dr. Tara Bouton who would like you to believe that ending isolation would be reasonable at this stage of the pandemic \"when fewer people who get infected die or become hospitalized.\"\n\nDr Bouton, I'm not *really* worried I'm going to die during the acute phase of COVID. This isn't the reality of a mass disabling event. Let's face reality here! Oops. Too soon?\n\nInterestingly, Dr Bouton, while thinking it's great that *you* should go back to work, says that \"she says she would stay home around that long because she’s able to—and because working as an infectious-disease doctor puts her in contact with lots of immunocompromised patients, who remain at increased risk of severe disease if they get infected.\"\n\nThe new west coast liberal refrain of \"I can afford to, you can't, and I wear a mask for others.\" OK. I'm getting tired of hearing this one. I admit it.\n\nMurray then nails it again. \"She would stay home until her symptoms cleared up and wait until she’d gotten two consecutive negative test results, spaced out by at least a day, before exiting isolation.\" \n\nWho is this person and how can we get her to start posting on Mastodon?\n\nDr Tran, again, awesome. \"Tran says he’d go even further: he’d stay home for 10 days, self-test multiple times before ending isolation, and wear a mask—as he usually does anyway—upon returning to public spaces.\"\n\nFinally, Osterholm weighs in that he'd also stay home for 5 days, and then wear an N95 in the \"immediate aftermath\" of his infection. Funny how the people all about relaxing protocols would follow them in their own lives, isn't it? Almost like you don't deserve them?\n\nhttps://time.com/6695102/covid-19-isolation-guidelines-experts/",
"sig": "5785066f746db81dc51eb658a3f0a1f22ad5aa4f83c7d7be37645097affd93bfa05fcb72297e0187ed79b4ff8cb1322c95b7896489cc27973b56cfd62fc200c8"
}