Why Big Names Are Getting COVID-19

Source: American Thinker.

The writer’s answer is bit too contrarian in my view: “Because the measures the so-called experts keep blathering about, wearing face masks and social distancing, are next to useless.”

I would put it differently: Viruses are exquisitely designed to evade containment. That is their nature, and nothing will change it.

As a result, we need to be careful in our assumptions when thinking about Covid-19. For example, suppose a Covid outbreak occurs that affects more Democrats than Republicans. Would that mean Democrats are dirty scoundrels who didn’t take known hygiene and prophylactic measures seriously?

Nope. It would take an elaborate scientific analysis, followed by publication and peer review, to reach even a hypothetical explanation of the cause of the disparate impact. And even then the final hypothesis of causation would remain dubious because the correlation between Democrats, poor prophylaxis and disease incidence could be a purely random event.

Here’s a question worth pondering: If Joe Blow doesn’t wear a face mask, how many people who come in contact with him will develop Covid-19?

8 thoughts on “Why Big Names Are Getting COVID-19

  1. Well let’s see.

    From the piece. “But the rich and powerful are surely following the rules to the best of their ability, using the finest PPE, yet they’re still catching COVID.”

    Trump, the richest (according to him) and most powerful (according to his position as POTUS) has been eschewing his own scientific experts and NOT following the rules. That is a tendency among the rich and powerful. The “I’m ten foot tall and bulletproof” mindset, often found in the young, tends to be prevalent among the powerful as well.

    By flaunting the rules, even those laid out in the piece, people jeopardize their own health and well being along with those they are closest to and interact with daily (See Trump’s latest “body man” to test positive).

    The NBA, WNBA, MLB, the NHL have done a (mostly…I’m talking to you, MLB) fine job with their “rich and powerful” and preventing the spread of the virus in their communities. The NFL needs to get their “r&p” under control. Cockiness on the field of play is one thing. Cockiness wrt to a highly contagious virus is another.

    Like

  2. One of the stupidest arguments I have seen on this poorly-named website. Your pushback is well-founded.
    The evidence that face masks and social distancing are not perfect is NOT evidence that the main point – that they are “virtually useless” – is true.

    Are these the same “thinkers” who argued that – bwah! – it is not fair – sniff, sniff – to compare America under Trump to Asian countries like Japan or Korea because those countries have a culture where masks are common? I think so.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Source: “The evidence that face masks and social distancing are not perfect is NOT evidence that the main point – that they are ‘virtually useless’ – is true.”

      Of course it is.

      Like

          1. “I’d love to see how you figure that.”

            The other day you urged everyone to THINK FOR YOURSELVES. I urged you to follow that advice. I do so again.

            The author’s main claim is that “wearing face masks and social distancing, are next to useless.” For evidence he cites various ways that these things can fail. Or ways that they could be used more effectively but people typically do not do that. In other words, he provides evidence that these measures are not perfect. Being “less than perfect” or “sometimes fail” or “not always used optimally” are not synonyms for “useless.”

            For a concrete example, imagine a mask that blocks 98% of airborne droplets which means that sometimes people wearing a mask get sick anyway. Is that evidence that such masks are “useless?”

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Being ‘less than perfect’ or ‘sometimes fail’ or ‘not always used optimally’ are not synonyms for ‘useless.'”

            So what?

            Small effects can have big consequences. Do you really mean to suggest that because some small effects don’t have big consequences.all small effects do not?

            Your reasoning isn’t logical.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s