All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (4 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)

    Maxp

    Well-known member
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    495
    Reaction score
    848
    Offline
    I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?
     
    The contract tracers in NYC have been told not to ask people if they've attended recent protests. It seems like that will limit our understanding of how much these mass gatherings contributed to virus spreading.

    www.thecity.nyc

    Mayor de Blasio’s new “test and trace” team has been told not to ask people who tested positive for coronavirus whether they attended any demonstrations.

    Mayor de Blasio’s new “test and trace” team has been told not to ask people who tested positive for coronavirus whether they attended any George Floyd demonstrations.
    www.thecity.nyc www.thecity.nyc
     
    At first glance, I was concerned about them not asking SFL. But if you read the article, this is a long standing practice of contact tracing, to try to avoid saying anything that might make the subject defensive and cause them to clam up about where they’ve been. So it actually makes sense.

    “Dr. S. Patrick Kachur, a professor at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and a former official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said contact trackers face a balancing act: trying to obtain useful information about an infected person’s contacts without alienating them with overly intrusive questions.

    Asking someone if they’d been at a protest could wind up discouraging them from being candid in their answers, he noted.

    “I think the logic has to do with the fact that contact tracing requires a strong level of trust between the interviewer and the person they’re talking to,” he said. “It’s really important to have a good rapport and treat people with ease. It’s important to not ask questions that will impede your ability to do the best job you can.”

    For example, Kachur, who has been involved in contact tracking during previous pandemics involving the flu and Zika, noted that when investigators are trying to track the spread of HIV, tuberculosis or most diseases, they make a point of not asking about a person’s immigration status.“
     
    Last edited:
    MT15 said:
    At first glance, I was concerned about them not asking SFL. But if you read the article, this is a long standing practice of contact tracing, to try to avoid saying anything that might make the subject defensive and cause them to claim up about where they’ve been. So it actually makes sense.

    “Dr. S. Patrick Kachur, a professor at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and a former official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said contact trackers face a balancing act: trying to obtain useful information about an infected person’s contacts without alienating them with overly intrusive questions.

    Asking someone if they’d been at a protest could wind up discouraging them from being candid in their answers, he noted.

    “I think the logic has to do with the fact that contact tracing requires a strong level of trust between the interviewer and the person they’re talking to,” he said. “It’s really important to have a good rapport and treat people with ease. It’s important to not ask questions that will impede your ability to do the best job you can.”

    For example, Kachur, who has been involved in contact tracking during previous pandemics involving the flu and Zika, noted that when investigators are trying to track the spread of HIV, tuberculosis or most diseases, they make a point of not asking about a person’s immigration status.“
    Click to expand...
    That reasoning does not make any sense to me - unless it comes from a place of believing that attending the protests are an act of illegality and/or could get the person in trouble. And even then, it seems suspect.

    Should a contact tracer ask someone if they have been to a gathering of more than 10 people in a jurisdiction that has banned such gatherings for example?
     
    Well, we’ve all seen the ways that protestors have been tear gassed, had their tires slit by police, been hit with shields, been billy clubbed and shot with rubber or bean bag bullets. Why should they respond to pointed questions from an authority figure about attending events that have been the target of police harassment?

    They said they would ask open ended questions and allow the person to find their comfort level.

    IDK, maybe trust the people who have been part of a system of doing this for 50 years or more to know the best way to gain the trust of someone? Seems to be the most reasonable thing here, rather than read a single article and decide we know better how to do their job than they do. 😁
     
    MT15 said:
    Well, we’ve all seen the ways that protestors have been tear gassed, had their tires slit by police, been hit with shields, been billy clubbed and shot with rubber or bean bag bullets. Why should they respond to pointed questions from an authority figure about attending events that have been the target of police harassment?

    They said they would ask open ended questions and allow the person to find their comfort level.

    IDK, maybe trust the people who have been part of a system of doing this for 50 years or more to know the best way to gain the trust of someone? Seems to be the most reasonable thing here, rather than read a single article and decide we know better how to do their job than they do. 😁
    Click to expand...
    Yes - don't ever question government policy. Great advice!
     
    Nice, complete straw man! You probably know, or maybe you don’t, that this isn’t government policy, but rather a long-standing professional policy put in place for the public health function of contact tracing.

    There is nothing more 2020 than you thinking this is some sort of Democratic ploy to cover something up, though. 🤣🤣🤣
     
    MT15 said:
    Nice, complete straw man! You probably know, or maybe you don’t, that this isn’t government policy, but rather a long-standing professional policy put in place for the public health function of contact tracing.

    There is nothing more 2020 than you thinking this is some sort of Democratic ploy to cover something up, though. 🤣🤣🤣
    Click to expand...
    I am not sure if you have very poor reading comprehension or just make stuff up, but I never said or even hinted that I thought this decision was a Democratic ploy to cover anything up.
    I simply said the reasoning for the decision does not make any sense - and it does not.

    According to this: https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/an-inside-look-at-the-job-of-a-contact-tracer.html
    Contact tracers are to ask specific questions:
    JOHNS HOPKINS said:
    We ask specific questions around high-risk, high-profile events: Have you had any travel? Have you been to a conference or meeting? Have you been to the movie theater? We start with the two days before symptom onset, and we go day-by-day, asking about their activities.

    Asking people to remember their activities, which might be three or four weeks ago, is hard to do, so we help them walk through that process. It’s common for people to say "I didn't do anything yesterday," but when you start digging in—Where did you eat? How did you get there?—you find that they've been to three restaurants, visited two friends’ houses, and went to the dog park.
    Click to expand...
    The idea that policy would forbid specifically asking about gatherings of thousands of people is absurd.
     
    They will ask if they have been in any large public gatherings, my reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. 🤣

    They will not ask, did you protest? It’s really just that simple and it makes perfect sense. They will ask open ended questions just like the ones you posted.

    And refusing to admit that some people, after being treated the way we all saw the protestors treated, may not want to specifically admit to being part of the protests is just odd. You really can’t see the difference between the two questions?
     
    MT15 said:
    They will ask if they have been in any large public gatherings, my reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. 🤣
    Click to expand...
    Where do you see that NYC contact tracers ask if people if they have been to large public gatherings?
    I read where Nassau County asks that, but not contact tracers in NYC. Instead they ask about close contacts.
     
    JimEverett said:
    Where do you see that NYC contact tracers ask if people if they have been to large public gatherings?
    I read where Nassau County asks that, but not contact tracers in NYC. Instead they ask about close contacts.
    Click to expand...

    I am working, so don’t have as much time as would be needed to dig in. So have at it. I don’t think they will ignore any presence at a large public gathering, and I think the process is based on public health policy, not some political ploy. You seem to think that it is political, so fine, if you want to think that, knock yourself out.

    These are public health officials, not politicians doing the tracing, presumably. Personally, I think this was a throwaway article and the headline was written to make it seem like something untoward was going on, but when you read the article, it seems there’s no there there. At least to me.

    I don’t think the article disclosed every question asked, so, since you have the time, maybe you can find some list some where. I think it’s sad that everyone is so suspicious now of every single thing that any sort of medical expert says. It’s truly the death of expertise, and the growth of the idea that everyone is an expert on everything that comes up on the Internet.

    There are people convinced that the wearing of a face covering is dangerous to your health, for example. But I digress.
     
    So why do you question the practice of the NYC Dept. of Public Health? Why do you think the article was written?

    Why respond to a reasonable explanation of their practice with a snide remark about trusting everything the government says, if you don’t think something hinky is going on? Just to troll me, maybe? Honestly at this point I have zero idea what you’re trying to do here.
     
    Thought this was pretty cool:

    ABE2443C-AFED-48EC-8AED-09FF584CE762.jpeg
     
    JimEverett said:
    That reasoning does not make any sense to me - unless it comes from a place of believing that attending the protests are an act of illegality and/or could get the person in trouble. And even then, it seems suspect.

    Should a contact tracer ask someone if they have been to a gathering of more than 10 people in a jurisdiction that has banned such gatherings for example?
    Click to expand...
    I never do anything wrong or risky.....
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom