I, too, am dismayed that HDT is planning to shut down. Since antigen tests are so unreliable early in an infection, after a recent exposure I've been frequenting the ARC and Vets for PCR testing, which is much more sensitive. I believe the idea was that the now readily available rapid tests would replace the PCR testing -- but with the repeated surges and the rapid tests' inability to identify early infections, that appears to be wishful thinking

I am watching the City Council meeting. Not a mask in sight.

No masks on Council, nor staff that I've seen, not on most commenters (sans Conner Gorman who sported a surgical mask), and significantly no masks on the two men presenting the update on Healthy Davis Together.

The City response above stated: "At this time, masking in an indoor, public setting is strongly encouraged by the Yolo County Health Officer, but it is not required."

So the message back from everyone in Chambers tonight to the Yolo County Heath Officer is "f*ck you" ??? I am not being crass just to be crass, I am emphasizing how stark a contrast this is between health recommendations and how everyone in Chambers is behaving. How else are we to interpret this ? The only other interpretation I can come up with is #wink, wink# the Health Officer is "wrong" and everyone: staff, council, and public, knows better.

Or . . . ? How do YOU interpret the discrepancy between the "strong recommendation", and the fact nearly everyone is ignoring it? That amid rising infection rates.

And what is this message "masking in an indoor, public setting is strongly encouraged" ? WHY is "masking" even an acceptable term to be used by any health official? Note: this is not to be specifically critical of our health officer, this is rampant - right up to the state and national messages about 'face coverings' as if they are all the same. That's like saying a Noah's bagel is equivalent to an authentic boiled water bagel :-|

To explain why this irks me so strongly, I read a study that starkly emphasized just how different the generic term 'masks' are in terms of effectiveness. It was an experiment that studied how long two people wearing the same mask-type could be in a room safely before the virus (Omicron variant) spread to the other person. The answer: cloth mask was little different than no mask; with surgical masks (both people wearing them) people were safe for about 15 minutes; while N95's protected the wearers for over 12 hours!!! So WHY does anyone, anymore just say 'masks' or 'face coverings' ???

Having said all this, I truly appreciate the Healthy Davis Together program and the six-month extension. But, I still don't understand the timing. I know several students who got Covid-19 in May and June, and from what I hear the number of infections is exploding.

So, therefore, time to end the testing, because -- few are dying? If that's the message, please, just end the charade and SAY it !!!

https://www.davisvanguard.org/2022/06/distrust-and-misinformation-why-incarcerated-people-are-wary-of-the-covid-vaccine/

I'll go ahead and post this here, since the Vanguard declined to do so. I don't really have any intense interest in Covid policies OR incarceration issues, but I'm also not seeing any reason that the comment wasn't posted.

June 15, 2022 at 11:21 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

From article: “Why, you ask?” Smith continues. “I don’t trust these people [officials] at all. My health is NOT their concern.”

In reading this, I might ask if anyone else’s health is the concern of others. It’s certainly not the primary reason that so many make a political issue out of this outside of prison.

From article: "If incarcerated individuals feel they cannot trust those whose job it is to protect them, who do they trust?"

The primary purpose of prisons is to protect those who aren’t in prison, from those who are. Prisons do a horrible job of protecting inmates from each other, in the first place.

From article: "Incarcerated individuals also have little to no internet access and news outlets are a common source of information in correctional facilities. In a correspondence with the Covid In-Custody Project, Brandon Baker noted that he has access to basic news channels, including those espousing right-leaning views."

I assume that we’re to conclude that the bolded statement is the “problem”.

From article: "While people in society have internet access and the ability to do their own research, the incarcerated population doesn’t have the same liberty,” Baker notes in his letter."

And yet, some complain that the Internet is spreading misinformation.

From article: “Why should someone trust the vaccine if the people forcing the vaccine aren’t vaccinated?’” Baker rhetorically asks.

Are they, in fact, “forcing it”? And again, why is it their job to “care” about you, especially if you refuse what’s offered? (One might ask that question regarding health care that’s declined by those outside of prison, as well.)

From article: "Jermain Archer, who was incarcerated in the New York state prison system, reported similar experiences as Smith. In a video series published in May 2021 by The Marshall Project, Archer stated that incarcerated people trust each other more than staff, and consequently avoid reporting symptoms and choose to care for themselves while sick."

I’d ask who (in reality) represents the most danger to inmates, themselves. Staff, or other incarcerated people? (Pretty sure we all know the answer to that.)

From article: “I don’t have a lot of faith that people actually care about my well-being,” said James Ellis, one of the survey respondents. “Most think guys in prison are the scum of the earth, so it’s hard to feel good about people who think that low of me, and it’s hard to believe they are actually doing something for me that’s in my best interest.”

Maybe so. Then again, one might ask how much those in prison think about what’s in the best interest of those they victimized, and what led them to be incarcerated in the first place. And, have they (now) started “caring about others”, themselves? (Including, for that matter, prison staff – who are also human beings?) Or, are they just demanding that others start caring about them, despite them not caring about others themselves?

Other than caring about someone simply because they’re “human”, what reason is the author providing for others to be concerned about those in prison, who have already hurt others?

Can’t help but think of wars, where humans don’t care about other humans who haven’t even victimized someone else.

Alan: Given my experiences on the Vanguard, I believe all three of those speculative "reasons" are accurate.

Then again, most of the people I know:

1) Don't like the Vanguard.
2) Don't like their opinions.
3) Don't bother posting on there at all, anymore.

Not sure why I still post on there, but even I'm losing some interest.

One thing I have noticed is that David doesn't respond directly to me on there, anymore - and hasn't for some time at this point. For that matter, I haven't even heard from "Craig".

I must admit that I take some satisfaction at the results of the latest election. Not because I don't like the Vanguard (which I don't), but because I support the opposite of much of what it supports. I am glad that the endless "debate" (much of what ends up being personal attacks) seems to be diminished.

Given the latest election results, I've concluded that the Vanguard isn't as influential as I might have initially "feared", regarding the issues at least. (Though I'm not sure what influence they've had regarding who ended up on the council, or their positions.)

"Given the latest election results, I've concluded that the Vanguard isn't as influential as I might have initially "feared", regarding the issues at least. "

Ha, given the Vanguard's (-16) net useful number from the city's Local News survey it's possible that the Vanguard might have some influence, but not in a good way.