[HN Gopher] The Coronavirus Is Here Forever ___________________________________________________________________ The Coronavirus Is Here Forever Author : prostoalex Score : 506 points Date : 2021-08-23 12:36 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.theatlantic.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.theatlantic.com) | joelbondurant wrote: | If you wore 7 masks to sleep, coronavirus would become extinct in | 2 weeks. - Math Illiterate Diaper Face Communists | JackPoach wrote: | Though coronavirus is very different in many respects, it's | worthwhile (especially if you are older like me) to remember the | history of AIDS. We've learned to live with it and limit its | spread very effectively in the western world. | smallerfish wrote: | https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/deaths-and-new-cases-of-h... | | HIV deaths were 348k in 1990 (which is the earliest year I | found stats for on a quick googling). Around 4m people died | from covid over the past year. We definitely would not want | covid's mortality trajectory to follow HIV's, which peaked at | 1.95 million, a 5.5x multiple of 1990's figure. | js8 wrote: | Yeah, we learned to limit its spread, but with "masks" | (condoms). | nickthemagicman wrote: | Condoms have a 99.9% effectiveness. | | Studies have shown that face mask policies have around a 1% | effectiveness. | joshuaissac wrote: | According to this study by the University of Cambridge, | FFP3 masks provided "31-100% protection (and most likely | 100%)": https://www.authorea.com/users/421653/articles/5275 | 90-ffp3-r... (preprint). | nickthemagicman wrote: | Face mask policies on a community level. | | Not with trained healthcare workers. | smallerfish wrote: | What studies? | Expirat wrote: | Do you need a study to understand that a latex condom can | catch infected seminal fluids while a cloth mask cannot | stop the spread of droplets, or aerosols containing | covid? | erhk wrote: | A cloth mask does reduce the spread of aerlsols as well | as droplets. Anything telling you otherwise is false and | i will happily bury you in a dozen backing studies. | nickthemagicman wrote: | It's clear masks stop droplets. That's not in question. | It's clear masks work for healthcare workers who are | trained in their use. | | But is wearing a filthy rag until the waiter brings the | breadsticks an effective community mask policy? | [deleted] | valeness wrote: | yes | gruez wrote: | That's comparing apples and oranges because you're | comparing the effectiveness of a particular treatment | (condoms) with the effectiveness of a particular policy | (mask mandates). | postalrat wrote: | Not sure you can call it limiting the spread. We slow the | spread. Which potentially prevents overrunning our hospital. | | It seems like eventually everyone is going to get it. Slowing | the spread also deepens the chain of infections and may lead | to more mutation. | Bostonian wrote: | AIDS never spread broadly among heterosexuals who did not share | needles or have partners who are bisexual or shared needles. | Everyone is at risk for covid, like the flu. | goodpoint wrote: | This is plain false. The majority of infections have been | across heterosexuals, and also by blood transfusions. | lazyjones wrote: | Plenty of people got it from blood transfers, among other | things. | [deleted] | evgen wrote: | Spoken like someone whose knowledge of the world ends at the | US border. Hate to be the bearer of unpleasant news, but | there are parts of the world where HIV was mostly a | heterosexual disease. The nature of the main infected | population depended upon how HIV was first introduced a | country and what cultural behaviors helped or hindered its | spread. | NoPie wrote: | Even in Eastern Europe currently most HIV transmissions | happen with heterosexuals. I was surprised to learn that in | the Western countries it is mostly spread by MSM (men | having sex with men) and IDU (intravenous drug use). | cmsefton wrote: | This certainly was not the experience of other countries such | as South Africa where the majority of transfer (roughly 80%) | was via heterosexual transfer. | joshuaissac wrote: | Reference: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8420583/ | redis_mlc wrote: | I'll do a PSA here for younger people since I've followed | AIDS since the beginning of news reports in the 1980s: | | - In Africa, men using hookers is a common status thing. So | heterosexual men get it from hookers and take it home to | their wives. | | - If you look at the links in this thread, you can see that | black Americans are around 5x more likely to get HIV than | other US groups. Mostly this is an aversion to condoms for | several cultural reasons. | | - This may sound surprising to men who are well-read, but | American women (and others) often don't use or demand | condoms. You'd be amazed at how little they're actually | used. I expect an epidemic of infertility and STDs as | women's partner count for all groups climbs above 100 each | (thanks, Tindr.) | | If you're in the US and need larger condoms, most chains | carry the brand-name "Magnum." | | The California Family court is awarding $2,000+/month to | baby mamas from engineers, so wrap it up, guys. | ISL wrote: | The continent of Africa would tend to disagree with such an | assertion. | | Heck, in some countries, more than 15% of HIV infections are | contracted at birth. | | https://www.verywellhealth.com/hiv-statistics-5088304 | pixel_tracing wrote: | So work from home is going to last longer then? | typest wrote: | I think the answer is yes. | | Most of the people setting the remote work/in office policies | seemed to be thinking that vaccines offered a path back to | normalcy. Delta seems to have blown that idea out of the water. | | It is possible that in the endemic covid world, there always | remains a significant health risk due to breakthrough cases, | especially for folks who are older or have comorbidities. Given | that, it seems employers may face difficulty mandating people | to work in person. | [deleted] | 4e530344963049 wrote: | https://trimread.org/articles/352 | beloch wrote: | "The transition to endemic COVID-19 is also a psychological one. | When everyone has some immunity, a COVID-19 diagnosis becomes as | routine as diagnosis of strep or flu--not good news, but not a | reason for particular fear or worry or embarrassment either. That | means unlearning a year of messaging that said COVID-19 was not | just a flu. If the confusion around the CDC dropping mask | recommendations for the vaccinated earlier this summer is any | indication, this transition to endemicity might be | psychologically rocky." | | Diseases that are endemic today, such as chicken pox, once caused | epidemics with massive body counts, notably in North America. No | vaccines, no advanced medical care, and no natural immunity meant | that some villages just ceased to exist. | | Today, thanks to air travel, the world is a village. Wuhan is | exposed one week, and the world the next. We, the natives of that | village, have vaccines and advanced medical care in finite | quantities, plus a better understanding of how to reduce | transmission rates. That's gone a long way to soften the blow. | The transition from pandemic to endemic usually kills a _lot_ | more people in a given area, and the area effected right now is | _everywhere_. | | The thing is, COVID-19 is _not_ endemic yet and, even once it is, | will likely retain the capability of mutating into a strain that | causes a new deadly pandemic. Flu is endemic, but another 1918 | could happen at any time. Until we 've built up immunity to | several different strains of COVID-19, every new strain has the | potential to overwhelm our medical systems, and a unusually | contagious and deadly mutant will always be a possibility. | | It's not as simple as flipping a switch from "life threatening | pandemic" to "quotidian endemic". There are shades of grey in | between that cause varying strain on hospital ICU's, and the | transition isn't one-way. | | Our village will be hit far less hard if we behave intelligently | about disease prevention. Turning vaccines into a political wedge | issue is one of the stupidest things I've seen in my life. | autokad wrote: | There is lots of competition for the top of the stupidity list. | | NYC locking down all summer and then 'opening up' in September | seemed top of the list to me. It's not that I thought they | should have stayed locked down the entire time, its that they | should have opened in the summer so they could lock down in the | winter if they really needed it. But seriously though, locking | down in the summer to only open up in flu season, really? | | Or maybe the whole 'if we just lock down for two weeks, this | will be over' tops the list of stupidity. or the fact people | still want to lock down despite how epically they have failed. | Germany masked, distanced, and locked down better than anyone | could expect, and here they are sitting with 4 million cases, | 100k dead and are still in the pandemic. They don't even share | a porous border with Mexico/South America. To no fault of their | own, they are hardest hit by the pandemic, and the US sharing a | border with them the way it is meant no rosy outcome was in our | future. | | Or how about how everyone was anti mask in the beginning, | including the CDC, WHO, and my very liberal coworkers. When I | said it would be advisable to wear a mask when in crowded | places March, 2020 - I was heckled for not following the | science. | | Or what about the fact we are 2 years into this and we still | haven't built a significant amount of hospitals? if we had to | lock down because of lack of hospital beds, well we better | f'ing demand they have enough hospital beds, like real soon. | This is why the lockdowns should have came at a price, you want | to lock down then we need a metric that you are trying to | achieve by the lockdown, we need timely updates on your | progress to that metric, and we need an action plan such that | this will never happen again (such as building more hosptials - | hey, how about just opening the thousands we shut down in the | last 5 years to make hospitals more profitable!). my views on | that were called 'myopic'. so we gave them lockdowns without | restrictions, and nothing was done. here we are in the same | situation, odd. | | As far as making the vaccines political, well they don't have | to be. some research has shown that they don't do very well at | stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get | vaccinated? just say do it for yourself if you want to, | politics removed. | | edit: just to be clear - I am not anti vax, I am vaccinated and | I recommend to everyone to do the same. There is unrefutably | evidence the vaccine prevents sever cases. | werm82 wrote: | > some research has shown that they don't do very well at | stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get | vaccinated? | | Do you have a link/links to where you read that vaccines | don't do well at stopping the spread? Everything I've read is | that vaccines, while not 100% effective at stopping the | vaccinated person from infecting someone else, significantly | lower the risk of spreading the virus[0]. That risk drops | dramatically when both parties involved are vaccinated. | | [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythi | ngs..., see Effectiveness --> What we know | criticaltinker wrote: | GP's statement contradicts the scientific literature - | vaccination _does_ reduce viral load of subsequent | infection, and consequently reduces transmission [1]. | | However folks should be aware that immunity acquired | through natural infection is robust and durable, and _also_ | has the same effect of reducing viral load and transmission | [2]. | | It has been documented that people with asymptomatic | infection will clear the virus quickly compared to those | who are symptomatic [3]. Recent meta-analyses [4] and large | population serological studies [5] have estimated the | asymptomatic proportion lower bound to be at least ~33%, | and the upper bound to be ~65% (even higher for young | adults). Considering recent evidence that cases may be | massively under-reported, the true asymptomatic proportion | could be even higher than suggested [6]. | | Taken together, these results imply that a majority of the | population has been already exposed to the virus, and | either through natural infection or vaccination has | acquired some degree of immunity that reduces the | transmission of the virus. | | Analogous to antibiotic resistance, vaccine resistance can | evolve if vaccines are used indiscriminately [7][8][9][10]. | So the benefits of _compulsory mass vaccination_ may not | outweigh the risks of such a policy, given the current | state of affairs. | | > so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? | | It is an important question with tremendously complex | factors that go beyond the expertise of most lay people. | | [1] Initial report of decreased SARS-CoV-2 viral load after | inoculation with the BNT162b2 vaccine https://www.nature.co | m/articles/s41591-021-01316-7?origin=ap... | | [2] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune | memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody | responses and memory B and T cells | https://www.cell.com/cell-reports- | medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... | | [3] The Natural History and Transmission Potential of | Asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus | 2 Infection https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/p | ii/S266652472... | | [4] The Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 Infections That Are | Asymptomatic | https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-6976 | | [5] Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 | infection in the general population: Analysis of nationwide | serosurvey data in the Netherlands https://link.springer.co | m/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00768-y | | [6] Evaluating the massive underreporting and undertesting | of COVID-19 cases in multiple global epicenters https://www | .sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S253104372... | | [7] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical | interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ | | [8] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and | their phenotypic consequences? | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term- | evoluti... | | [9] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine | resistance does not? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi | /pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016... | | [10] The adaptive evolution of virulence: a review of | theoretical predictions and empirical tests | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302775/ | makomk wrote: | Covid-19 vaccination used to reduce viral load of | subsequent infections. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem | to work with the current Delta variant - both the CDC in | the US and PHE in the UK have released studies finding | that the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated people | is basically the same. They're also not so effective at | stopping people from catching the Delta variant, and when | you combine that with its higher infectivity it's | basically impossible to get herd immunity using them. | autoexec wrote: | Even in the case of the delta variant vaccinated people | who get infected are more likely to have reduced symptoms | (if they have any noticeable symptoms at all). That means | a lot less coughing up huge plumes of virus over great | distances. Nothing is perfect, but in the end the | vaccines increase your odds of not being infected while | decreasing your odds of spreading the virus. Herd | immunity may not be reached but we can drastically reduce | deaths and serious illness. That's already a win for | vaccines. | dubyah wrote: | Round 13 of the Imperial College REACT-1 study did still | indicate an average lower viral load(higher Ct values) in | vaccinated individuals. | jjoonathan wrote: | Yeah, GP has a couple of interesting ideas mixed in there | (NY lockdown policy and building hospital capacity) but the | rest are bog standard anti-mask, anti-vax talking points. | Masks help, vaccines help -- it's all about pushing R below | 1, and a measure doesn't have to be 100% effective (or | anywhere near that) to push. | | Lockdowns do flatten the curve, and while we might have | built new hospitals in a parallel universe, in _this_ one | we _really_ don 't want to saturate the beds (again). I was | pleasantly surprised by the "flatten the curve" narrative | -- usually the telephone game ensures that this kind of | nuance gets buried under simpler, incorrect versions like | "if we just lock down for two weeks, this will be over," | but this time around I was pleased to see "flatten the | curve" start strong and keep its legs. | | CDC's initial mask take was wrong, but evidence changed | their minds, and that's a good sign. GP, if you want to | harp on this, tell me: if I were to dig through your post | history would I find a bunch of poorly aged posts about a | silent first wave? | autokad wrote: | I am not anti vax, I am vaccinated and I recommend to | everyone to do the same. However, relying on this vaccine | as a long term solution is a very bad idea. | | Also you are stating I am anti mask when I stated how I | recommended mask usage. Do you not read or do you just | force your expectations on people? | | Sure, go ahead and dig through my history. not sure what | you mean by 'a silent first wave'. | jjoonathan wrote: | Complaining about vaccine inefficacy is absolutely anti- | vax: these vaccines aren't just good enough to be useful | to the population, they're actually good enough to | significantly protect individuals. The only scale on | which these vaccines are ineffective is a scale with a | heavy thumb on it. | | "CDC was anti-mask at one point" is absolutely an anti- | mask talking point. They quickly figured out their error | and fixed it. There's only one reason to bring up the old | policy. | | I'm not familiar with the Germany talking point, but I am | familiar with the Texas talking point and the Sweden | talking point -- which both aged _very_ poorly. I tend to | suspect Germany is the new pivot. | | The silent first wave is an anti-lockdown talking point | that became prominent on the downswing of the first and | second waves, the idea being that a silent first wave of | asymptomatic infections had already immunized everyone | and that we could therefore lift the lockdown because | there wouldn't be another wave. Then... there was another | wave. | sam345 wrote: | Accusing somebody of following a talking point seems | needlessly provacative and ad-hominem, and not in the | spirit of HN. Better to just give reasoned cited | responses and leave it at that. | jjoonathan wrote: | I think it's important to discuss the points, but I also | think it's important to discuss the game of "I'm not | anti-vax or anti-mask, but here are a bunch of anti-mask | and anti-vax talking points." It's popular, it's | spreading, and I think it's important to call it out when | one sees it. | disgruntledphd2 wrote: | > while we might have built new hospitals in a parallel | universe, in this one we really don't want to saturate | the beds (again). | | Unfortunately, while hospitals can be built, you can't | train enough medical professionals to staff the hospital | in two years. | | More generally, rather like nobody expects the Spanish | inquisition, no health care system can cope with a global | pandemic. We'd need to 10x health care capacity, most of | which would sit unused for most of the time. | johnnyanmac wrote: | >Or what about the fact we are 2 years into this and we still | haven't built a significant amount of hospitals? | | I don't think 2 years is enough to just "build new hostipal", | let alone staff them, supply them to hospital standards, and | start taking business. | | It's not land that's short, it's talent. | orthoxerox wrote: | > I don't think 2 years is enough to just "build new | hostipal", let alone staff them | | It totally is enough time to build one. Staffing is more | problematic, but if it was a state-run hospital you | could've converted a lot of national guardsmen into nurses | in the meanwhile. You don't need a lot of talent to handle | most Covid cases, just people able to follow the protocol. | gremloni wrote: | This comment is every right wing talking point about the | epidemic with a marked attempt to come across casually. | throwawayzz007 wrote: | Hospital bed / ICU capacity is really just Hollywood | accounting. They can prepare for surges and make more meds. | There are federal and local incentives that get handed out to | hospitals that are at or near capacity. So they're always at | or near capacity. | lrem wrote: | Care to share your source on "don't do very well at stopping | spread"? When I searched arxiv, it seemed to be 4-10x | reduction in viral loads. | mirroregami wrote: | Only time CDC and WHO were anti-mask were when there were | shortages. Save the masks for the healthcare workers, | essentially. | nerdponx wrote: | But they burned huge amounts of their social trust capital | in doing so, because they didn't just say "there are | shortages, please stop hoarding masks", they outright lied | about the efficacy of masks and perpetuated the lie for | months. If people have no idea what to believe, it's | because the government led a catastrophically inept | response. | mike00632 wrote: | No. The CDC said AT THE TIME that they didn't recommend | everyone wearing masks because hospitals were facing | shortages. They have always been open about their | reasoning and data. Quit repeating this terrible lie. | malkuth23 wrote: | That is not quite true. The CDC listed several reasons | not to wear masks. They definitely mention a shortage of | masks and retaining supply for medical personnel, but at | the same time they also said they were unnecessary and | unhelpful for anyone not working directly around | symptomatic sick people. Also, most people do not | differentiate the CDC from the Surgeon General. This is a | quote from the LA Times quoting Jerome Adams: | | "Seriously people -- STOP BUYING MASKS!" he wrote in a | tweet that was later deleted. "They are NOT effective in | preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but | if healthcare providers can't get them to care for sick | patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!" | | This is a good article about the changing position on | masks: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/t | imeline-cd... | | Here are a few other sources I found with a quick google | search: | | https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2020-0 | 3/c... | | https://www.marketwatch.com/story/surgeon-general-wants- | you-... | | marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have- | to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30 | wwweston wrote: | Regarding the surgeon general quote, if you understand | that he's referring to protective masks (such as N95s) | and their capacity -- and it's pretty clear that he is -- | the contents of his statement holds up very well, even | now. PPE _is_ extra crucial for those working around | infected people. Most members of the general public _are_ | unlikely to use N95s in such a way they 'd be | significantly protective (after watching how most people | wear any kind of mask including x95s, I don't know anyone | could argue differently, and that's before you get into | the kind of fit testing that people who count on these | things professionally do and speak of as difficult). | | What happened subsequently was a shift to _cooperative_ | masks whose benefit is primarily reducing transmission | from the wearer. | | These two things are both discussed under the header of | "masks" but they are _very_ different interventions. It | 's less that the position changed, it's more that what | authorities were actually talking about changed. | | You can fairly argue that this counts as a messaging | failure and I'd agree, but a lot of people seem to be | missing what the issue actually was (especially some who | set this up as dishonesty or an attack on expertise). | Graffur wrote: | You're trying hard to rewrite what happened | gowld wrote: | Blaming the US Southern border for coronavirus spread is a | racist and Republican (anti-immigration excuse-making) trope. | [deleted] | kansface wrote: | A quick search shows ~20% of immigrants being deported | testing positive (up to 25%). There are something like 200K | immigrants currently encountered by border patrol per | month. Naively that's 50K people coming to the US each | month with covid who are poor (probably can't self | quarantine), live in dense, multi generational households | and exist outside of the law. Realistically, we'd expect | that ICE (deportation) contributes to the spread. At any | rate, I don't see how illegal immigration could be | qualified other than a significant vector in the spread of | covid. | mike00632 wrote: | Shouldn't you think about a control group? Legal | immigrants? Law enforcement gatherings? Prisoners? Local | area positivity rate? | kansface wrote: | Maybe if their rate of infection were significantly lower | than the local population, you could argue that we would | be decreasing the percentage of the infected population | which doesn't feel particularly compelling to me... but | we'd really need to know how much each group contributes | to the spread. My expectations is that illegal immigrants | make larger contributions than average given their | density in living arrangements, lack of access to health | care, inability to take sick days, etc. | | I think we are only in the business of arguing the | counterfactual of what percentage of them get covid from | interactions with law enforcement vs otherwise. | autokad wrote: | I'm not blaming the southern border, I am pointing out a | fact that has implications on how we manage our | expectations, and what actions to mitigate the corona virus | that will work better than others given our situation. if | you think facts should be suppressed then you hardly | believe in science. its sad that russdpale thinks this | comment should be removed by moderators. I also didn't | state this is the only reason, nor that the solution should | be stopping the border crossings. | | In fact, I am arguing for increased capacity to handle the | corona virus long term. short term measures like trying to | lock down borders is going to have little meaning in the | long run, and hurt a lot of people. | [deleted] | xdennis wrote: | > racist and Republican | | Are both of those insults? | wootangflan wrote: | The problem is mosaic and pretending one of the myriad | factors is marker of a hatemongerer is itself | hatemongering. | russdpale wrote: | Those types of contents are becoming more and more common | on this forum. Doesn't seem like mods care. | dstaley wrote: | > Or what about the fact we are 2 years into this and we | still haven't built a significant amount of hospitals? | | If I understand correctly, there isn't a lack of literal | beds/space; it's a lack of personnel. Basically hospitals are | unable to staff themselves at the levels needed to accomodate | being basically 100% full. This is compounded by the fact | that hospitals are struggling to retain healthcare workers, | who are burnt out, and the fact that healthcare isn't | something that someone can easily switch to. | amatecha wrote: | Unfortunately, there is absolutely a lack of beds. Someone | I know was in emergency last week (totally unrelated to | pandemic) and had to wait an entire day before actually | being properly admitted to a ward because there were no | beds available for them. So they layed in an emergency room | "booth"[0] for close to 24 hours, until a bed became | available. There are lots of news articles about the lack | of beds/capacity all over the place [1][2][3] | | [0] I don't know the right word for it, but a small room | usually used for short-term (<few hours) evaluation of a | patient before passing them along to the next phase, like | admitting to a ward or sending them home or etc. | | [1] https://vancouversun.com/news/covid-19-kelowna-general- | hospi... | | [2] https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/ore | gon-e... | | [3] https://richmond.com/news/national/with-no-beds- | hospitals-sh... | Negitivefrags wrote: | When you are told there is a lack of beds, it really | doesn't have to mean a lack of physical beds. | | A bed that isn't staffed with a nurse is no more useful | then laying in your bed at home. | [deleted] | pacomerh wrote: | > some research has shown that they don't do very well at | stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get | vaccinated? | | So why are they calling this the pandemic of the | unvaccinated? | | - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/21/how- | unvac... | | - https://www.healthline.com/health-news/risks-of-the-delta- | va... | | - https://abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks- | vaccinat... | | and the list goes on and on. | | I have personally seen unvaccinated family members get | sicker...plus countless of people mentioning the same. | [deleted] | tialaramex wrote: | > Or maybe the whole 'if we just lock down for two weeks, | this will be over' tops the list of stupidity | | New Zealand had 26 deaths in over a year of the pandemic. Not | 26 per 100k population. Not 26 per day. Twenty six people | full stop. Because in fact "We go hard and we go early" | works. | | Right now they are locked down (since last week) because they | had _one_ case in their community, but of course it isn 't | ever _one_ case and they knew that, since that lockdown began | there are now over 100 patients linked to that single | infection. Under a lockdown the people who are surprised to | discover that they 're infected are (mostly) bored at home, | not out infecting yet more people. | | I think there's a fair chance they'll beat it again, and exit | that lockdown as they did earlier ones. Because elimination | strategy works. | hcurtiss wrote: | Yes. For small island countries like New Zealand it works | "great." This was never an option for countries like the | US, or even most of Europe. Much less so for countries like | India. | | But we'll see how it goes. If New Zealand and Australia | persist in this notion that they're going to stay locked | down until the virus goes away, particularly with its | endemicity now inevitable, I think you will soon find vast | swaths of those countries in open, violent revolt. | nerdponx wrote: | You can't really look at the US and say "it doesn't | work", because even the slightest restrictions were | leveraged into a major political issue. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | You can't say it looking at the US, but I think it's hard | to find fault with the strength of the initial lockdowns | in France or Spain or Italy. | sokoloff wrote: | Agree. I don't think anywhere in the US did anything that | could reasonably be called a lockdown. | | "Try to gather in groups of no more than six (at a | time)." "When you need food, go to the grocery store (as | often as you see fit)." | | Is anyone surprised that a highly contagious virus was | able to escape these "lockdown" measures? | abraae wrote: | I live in NZ and can assure you from the front lines of | the revolt that we don't think we're going to stay locked | down until the virus goes away. | | The game has always been to play it by ear. That's been a | great call so far, we've lived normal lives for the last | year while incredible scientific advances have delivered | vaccines. | | This is a long game, and we've done well in the first | quarter. I hope the politicians continue making good | calls as the game goes on. | | Don't assume that because we locked down hard that that | will always be the path forward. That's your straw man | talking. | chinathrow wrote: | I wish you well. | | What I feel is a real problem in the makes is that you | eventually have to open up again but with not enough | folks vaccinated. | | And suddenly, you are in a situation many other countries | have right now. | mikedilger wrote: | While not disagreeing with that, I think we can continue | to eliminate. During level-4, the R value is clearly | lower than 1.0 meaning the infection shrinks. And the | infection is small since we locked down immediately when | a community case was first found. Six weeks will probably | do it... so long as we don't have (a) new cases coming in | through the border, or (b) infected people flaunting the | lockdown rules and spreading it faster than we can | contain it. Indeed, if it blows out past a couple | thousand or so, we will need to pivot. | abraae wrote: | I agree, elimination still looks a good strategy, it's | too early to give it up yet. If we can punch out the | current outbreak (I'd put money on it, but not too much) | and get back to zero then that will re-legitimise | lockdown as a strategy for a bit longer. | | We've got a few "open 'er up and let it rip" friends and | I just don't get it. There are so many potential game | changers when you are an island. If a reliable saliva- | based test appeared that produced results in say 2 hours | we could reduce MIQ and use waiting booths at the | airport. Even if it was only 99% accurate we could pool | groups of 20 into rooms together while waiting for | results. So many possibilities if we continue to think | critically instead of politically. | koyote wrote: | > During level-4, the R value is clearly lower than 1.0 | meaning the infection shrinks | | Delta is a different beast. | | Here in Australia, Victoria managed to get the Reff rate | down to ~0.75 during their OG outbreak last year with a | strict lockdown. Delta has an R0 that is multiples higher | than the OG strain so the same lockdown would not get it | below 1. You can look at Victoria's current outbreak for | evidence of this. | | Now that doesn't mean NZ can't beat it. A part from | Auckland, the population density is very low and as long | as compliance is high you might be able to just about get | it back down again; especially if you manage to keep it | out of large households and essential workers. | | I just wouldn't base my expectations on what worked last | year as Delta is quite a different game. | moonchrome wrote: | They are a bunch of islands in the middle of nowhere with a | population of a larger city - how is their situation | applicable to any major nation in the world ? | tialaramex wrote: | Uhuh. Hawaii, an entire US state that is "a bunch of | islands in the middle of nowhere" and yet somehow didn't | eliminate the virus has _far_ fewer people than New | Zealand. | schnable wrote: | Did they lockdown travel into the state like NZ did? | itsoktocry wrote: | > _Not 26 per 100k population_ | | I know people like to think that doing the per-capita | calculation puts every country on an even footing for | comparison. But it's kind of silly to straight compare | countries with vastly different geographies and economies, | regardless of population normalization. | | > _I think there 's a fair chance they'll beat it again_ | | If they are locked down, again, 16 months into this thing, | they never beat anything. | tialaramex wrote: | > If they are locked down, again, 16 months into this | thing, they never beat anything. | | They eliminated this virus across Aotearoa. _We_ didn 't | eliminate it everywhere else (actually almost anywhere | else) and infected people continued to arrive at their | border, eventually one of those infections (from | Australia) leaked into their community about two weeks | ago. | | Unless your point is some purely nihilist position like | "In the end nothing matters" (then why are you posting?) | they beat this and now they're going to have to do it | again. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | The point is that you can't just draw a line around | obvious failure modes and say they're not part of the | strategy. If you compare the median global response to | "we beat the virus with a single lockdown!", that sounds | like an obvious winner, but it's a much more equivocal | story if you compare it to "we'll be doing snap lockdowns | 1-2 times a year for the foreseeable future, and even | then we may need to give up on elimination if one of the | lockdowns doesn't work". | | (As someone mentioned upthread, this shouldn't be seen as | a slight against the people or leadership of New Zealand, | who generally seem to understand that lockdowns weren't | meant to be a one-and-done measure.) | ghettoimp wrote: | Uh. The US is suffering another 9/11 every few days. In | huge parts of the country, life is nowhere near normal. | | That's what they beat, and God willing will beat again. | trompetenaccoun wrote: | As others have pointed out they're able to totally control | their border and quarantine every single arrival. | | But more importantly, how will it end for them? Australia | and New Zealand are among the worst corona zealot nations. | New Zealand just shut down everything over a single case | and the PM told people to not even talk to each other | anymore. How will they get out of this? If they looked at | the facts they'd understand they will have to open up | eventually, might as well do it now. Instead they're now | trapped in eternal 'zero covid'. | monkeynotes wrote: | My household has had zero cases per capita. Population | count and relative isolation make a huge difference. | | You can't directly compare NZ with places like Germany or | the US. | dongping wrote: | When we talk about population count, maybe China is a | country worth mentioning here? | | The success in New Zealand seems like the elephant in the | room, that the Atlantic article failed to refer to. Not | to mention China. | DangsBaldHead wrote: | NZ has no cities. Auckland, the country's largest town, | consists of 4 or 5 blocks of high density "city". | Wellington another 2 or 3 blocks of high density "city". | Outside of those few blocks the entire country is low- | rise detached apartments, quickly giving way to semi- | detached housing, which quickly gives way to endless | suburbia. NZ has zero density. | thorin wrote: | Does anyone really believe the reported stats for China? | dongping wrote: | I'm not saying that Wuhan's number is 100% accurate, feel | free to inflate it by 10 times. But even with the | censored social media in China, words do get across, and | there's no evidence of any big outbreaks like in Wuhan or | New York after April last year. | | Virus cannot teleport from person to person, so why | wouldn't NPIs like real lockdowns with full food delivery | and mass testing (unlike mockdowns in some other | countries) work? | vkou wrote: | If you don't believe the numbers, ask anyone you know who | has relatives in China. | | Lockdowns, or mass hospitalizations/deaths from Covid are | a bit difficult to hide from the people living through | it, if either of those two things are happening, everyone | would hear about it through the grapevine. | megablast wrote: | Of course you can. They just did compare them. | monkeynotes wrote: | > better f'ing demand they have enough hospital beds | | I am pretty sure people not getting sick in the first place | is the priority, rather than making enough infrastructural | medical capacity for something that is preventable. It's not | like you can just magic up more doctors either. | | > you want to lock down then we need a metric that you are | trying to achieve by the lockdow | | Well, this is obviously the vaccine | | > Germany masked, distanced, and locked down better than | anyone could expect, and here they are sitting with 4 million | cases, 100k dead and are still in the pandemic. They don't | even share a porous border with Mexico/South America | | Are you saying you advise lockdowns (especially in winter) | and then saying lockdowns are ineffective? | paulddraper wrote: | > Flu is endemic, but another 1918 could happen at any time. | | True, though usually viruses mutate into less virulent forms. | | There's good reason to suspect that long-term COVID will be on | the order of influenza or the common cold -- common and mild | for most patients. | | > Turning vaccines into a political wedge issue is one of the | stupidest things I've seen in my life. | | Probably, but even the question of whether vaccines should be a | policy issue is in itself a policy issue. | edejong wrote: | > True, though usually viruses mutate into less virulent | forms. | | Citation needed. The delta variant is the prime counter- | example with higher R0 and slightly higher mortality. SAGE | admitted SARS-CoV-2 will very likely mutate to defeat all | build-up immunity. Variants of SARS-CoV-2 (SARS and MERS) | showed the potential to have very high infection fatality | ratios. | | There is no reason at all to suspect COVID will suddenly | become mild. | linuxftw wrote: | > such as chicken pox, once caused epidemics with massive body | counts | | Never happened. Almost nobody ever died of chicken pox. Fear | mongering like this is exactly why nobody trusts the CDC and | FDA. It's all quackery. | nvrspyx wrote: | Why would you reply with such confidence in something you | clearly know nothing about? | | Chicken pox is caused by the varicella-zoster virus, which | can certainly be fatal if contracted as an adult (i.e | shingles) and never been exposed to it as a child. _Now_, | most people are exposed to it when they're children, when | it's much less serious, but vaccination is still the | preferred method because it can still be deadly in children | in certain cases. | | FYI, ~6.4K people still die every year to chicken pox and | shingles. It may seem comparatively small, but that's still | people who die. Before a vaccine was created, it was around | 4x that. | | Vaccination has empirically been shown to reduce the number | of major hospitalizations and deaths as a result of the | virus. It's an injustice to undermine _any_ number of lives | potentially saved or thousands in hospital bills avoided | because you believe science is "quackery". | gowld wrote: | > ~6.4K people still die every year to chicken pox and | shingles | | Worldwide? That's a lifetime risk of 1 in 10,000 per | person. | | https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/vaccine-infographic.html | | Before vaccination, chickenpox killed 100 people in USA per | year. | linuxftw wrote: | > FYI, ~6.4K people still die every year to chicken pox and | shingles | | BS. Maybe if you have AIDs or are terminally ill or have | some genetic abnormality. | datameta wrote: | So those people aren't worth taking into account and can | be written off? The number of Americans with an | autoimmune condition is in the single digit millions. | linuxftw wrote: | I'm saying, they didn't die of Chicken Pox. They might | have died from some underlying condition and simply | contracted Chicken Pox. | eropple wrote: | Can you prove it? | gowld wrote: | That's what immunocompromised means. It means that you | are at heightened risk from _everything_. | heavyset_go wrote: | They didn't die from cardiac arrest, they died from | anoxia of the brain! | midnitewarrior wrote: | Everybody has pre-existing conditions, whether they know | it or not, the cause of death is typically reported to be | the straw that breaks the camel's back. People with | chronic conditions often does due to acute causes, like | contracting a virus. We often call this the cause of | death. | | If you're living with cancer and not terminally ill in | hospice and die 2 weeks later after contracting COVID, | you likely died of COVID. | nvrspyx wrote: | That's not how Cause of Death works. The specific | complications of the zoster virus that typically lead to | death are pneumonia and encephalitis. In other words, | it's typically from inflammation of the lungs or brain. | HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc. won't do that on its own. It's | specifically from the virus due to a compromised immune | system. If an underlying condition compromises the immune | system, it's not that condition that killed them, it's | the actual disease that happened to be more effective as | a result. | | For example, if someone dies from the zoster virus due to | a compromised immune system from chemotherapy, you | wouldn't consider that person died from chemotherapy or | from cancer, you'd consider that person died from the | virus _due_ to a compromised immune system from | chemotherapy. | | This discussion is absolutely bonkers. How can one person | be so dense and not practice critical thinking? Your | arguments don't even work on surface level intuition. | linuxftw wrote: | > For example, if someone dies from the zoster virus due | to a compromised immune system from chemotherapy, you | wouldn't consider that person died from chemotherapy or | from cancer | | Speak for yourself. I would consider them killed by the | chemo/cancer. | | If you're in an accident, and lose your lungs, they don't | report your death as suffocation. 'Technically, it was | the lack of oxygen to the brain that killed him.' | | But, if you're trying to make the argument that chicken | pox is actually deadly and we should vaccinate for it, | you're losing that argument. | nvrspyx wrote: | You're right. They wouldn't report your death as | suffocation because that'd be a symptom, not the | underlying cause. Just because a cause is more fatal | because of something else, that doesn't mean that | something else killed them. | | Using your own analogy, you're arguing that the speed of | the car killed them because it made the accident more | effective in killing them. | | Using your logic, it could be an indefinite number of | causes. If someone died of encephalitis from zoster, you | could say that their brain killed them with as much | equivalence as the chemotherapy or cancer. In other | words, it could be anything. | | If you died tomorrow, someone could say that this comment | caused it because it influenced the chain of events that | lead to your death. It would be just as absurd. | | > Speak for yourself. I would consider them killed by the | chemo/cancer. | | Thank god you're not the FDA. Otherwise, we wouldn't have | any type of medical procedures or medications. There'd be | no difference between going to a doctor or your pastor | for that brain tumor. | linuxftw wrote: | > If you died tomorrow, someone could say that this | comment caused it because it influenced the chain of | events that lead to your death. | | Yes, this is exactly the same as dying from chemotherapy | when contracting a virus. /s | | I suppose a more direct example would be a shellfish | allergy. Nobody dies from eating shrimp, you die from the | allergy. Dying with chicken pox is the same, it's not the | direct cause of death. | windowsftw wrote: | And what triggered the allergic reaction if not the | shrimp that you ate? If I have allergy to peanuts and eat | in a restaurant and the cook slips some peanut in a food | that is tagged "nuts free" and I die, can the family of | the diseased press charges to the restaurant? | | The answer is yes. A restaurant can be liable for food | allergies. Whether a restaurant has legal liability or | harm caused by a food allergy depends on whether the | restaurant was negligent. Because it's the ingested food | that caused it. | rednerrus wrote: | What's all quackery? | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | > Fear mongering like this is exactly why nobody trusts the | CDC and FDA. | | Do you believe beloch speaks for the CDC and FDA? | svachalek wrote: | According to wikipedia, it still kills 6400 per year. | javagram wrote: | What quackery? A quick google confirms that chickenpox has | been speculated to have caused a serious epidemic among | Native Americans. We know that European diseases wiped them | out, it just isn't necessarily clear which ones due to the | lack of record keeping and medical knowledge at the time. | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957993/ | | > In the years before English settlers established the | Plymouth colony (1616-1619), most Native Americans living on | the southeastern coast of present-day Massachusetts died from | a mysterious disease. Classic explanations have included | yellow fever, smallpox, and plague. Chickenpox and | trichinosis are among more recent proposals. We suggest an | additional candidate: leptospirosis complicated by Weil | syndrome. | MatteoFrigo wrote: | Your case would be stronger if you linked an article that | argues that chickenpox was the culprit. The article you | quote suggests that the disease was leptospirosis. | eropple wrote: | This is a statement that cannot be substantiated with any | confidence. In particular, the Native American side of the | Columbian exchange saw massive body counts due to a mixture | of diseases and my understanding is that chicken pox is among | the suspects. | | It isn't "quackery" just because you don't like it. | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957993/ | | (edit: 'javagram got there first!) | baxtr wrote: | I like your comment, but not this part: | | _> The thing is, COVID-19 is not endemic yet and, even once it | is, will likely retain the capability of mutating into a strain | that causes a new deadly pandemic._ | | I don't think that's possible, since I am not aware of a | precedent. Meaning: the other 4 endemic coronaviruses which | also started as pandemic and now are harmless cold viruses | never caused a new deathly pandemic in a mutated form. | criticaltinker wrote: | Documents from scientists in the UK government articulate in | great detail that it is a "realistic" possibility that the | virus mutates to be deadlier and/or more transmissive [1]. | | One key difference between this coronavirus and the other | endemic 4 is that mass vaccination strategies were never | used. Analogous to antibiotic resistance, vaccine resistance | is a realistic consequence if vaccines are used | indiscriminately [2][3][4][5]. So that is one way we may be | setting a new precedent here. If you take a look at what | happened with Marek's disease virus in chickens, it's not | pretty - none of us wants a world where it is literally | impossible to survive without vaccination, because multiple | generations of vaccines were undermined by viral evolution. | | [1] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and | their phenotypic consequences? | https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term- | evoluti... | | [2] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical | interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ | | [3] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine | resistance does not? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/p | df/10.1098/rspb.2016... | | [4] The adaptive evolution of virulence: a review of | theoretical predictions and empirical tests | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302775/ | | [5] Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of | Highly Virulent Pathogens https://journals.plos.org/plosbiolo | gy/article?id=10.1371%2Fj... | boc wrote: | Then why did the "worst" variant so far come from a place | (India) with extremely low vaccination rates at the time? | | It's a numbers game. With chickens there are billions of | chickens created and destroyed annually, and almost all of | them are vaccinated in utero, so it makes sense that we'd | see the disease get selectively deadlier. With Covid if you | knock down the disease rate to something that's basically a | few cases per month via vaccinations, you won't have enough | chances for mutations to occur. | peakaboo wrote: | We have immunity, it's called the immune system. | seagullz wrote: | Ever heard of "cytokine storm"? | AzzieElbab wrote: | but your immune system response is what is causing lethal | symptoms | SQueeeeeL wrote: | People will always be sceptical of deviations from the status | quo and politicians will always be there to capitalize on those | fears for substantial gains of power. We have the most educated | populis in human history and we're still seeing these problems. | I'm not sure how you could fix vaccines becoming a political | issue without major changes to the political structure. | polote wrote: | > We have the most educated populis in human history and | we're still seeing these problems | | This is not really true. Maybe more educated in some areas | but not in all of them. People used to be much better | educated to build a garden, better educated to understand the | nature. I don't think people think differently than they did | hundreds of times ago, I don't feel like we are individually | smarter | grillvogel wrote: | "The largest decrease in hesitancy between January and May by | education group was in those with a high school education or | less. Hesitancy held constant in the most educated group | (those with a PhD); by May PhD's were the most hesitant | group. " | | https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/news/news- | stories/2021/july/cov... | Tobani wrote: | That is pretty hard to interpret still. It could be that | people with "some college" respond with oh 100% I'm getting | it or 0% I"m not getting it. Where as somebody with a PHD | is like yeah. I have concerns so I'm 20% worried, but I'm | still planning on getting it. Also I would expect the more | educated to 1) be more skeptical, 2) not change their mind | when the information hasn't changed much. | IncRnd wrote: | Looking at the link that was posted, people who said | "probably not" or "definitely not" to taking a vaccine, | if offered one today, were considered to be vaccine | hesitant. | kazinator wrote: | Since I've had two shots, and it's too early for a third, | I would have to answer "definitely not". | BobJackienine wrote: | "educated populis in human history" | | populous | | I was going to say "That's not what I see as I get older" but | your post speaks volumes. | ravenstine wrote: | > politicians will always be there to capitalize on those | fears for substantial gains of power. | | And there will always be millions of saps and pollyannas who | believe _their_ politicians just want to help them. | xadhominemx wrote: | Vaccine refusal has not become a major partisan political | issue in any other country. It happened here because of the | shameless cynicism of the Republican Party and aligned media | apparatus. | lobocinza wrote: | Vaccine refusal is a major partisan political issue on | Brazil. Current president didn't want to take proper action | and pushed for "herd immunity". And created, shared and | supported the craziest conspiracy stories with his | alienated supporters. Like Trump but worse. | paul_f wrote: | I think the issue of vaccine hesitancy is much more nuanced | than this. For example, according to the CDC, the | population least vaccinated in the US are black. | https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue- | brief/latest-... | xadhominemx wrote: | Black people have their own idiosyncratic reasons for | vaccine skepticism, unrelated to partisan politics. But | anyway, Trump support is still a stronger correlation: ht | tps://mobile.twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1420745331 | 8... | paul_f wrote: | We should stop with the "it's just the Trump supporters" | thinking. Yes them, but various other groups including | PhDs. A Carnegie Mellon study identified the groups with | the most vaccine hesitancy. | | "independent hesitancy risk factors included younger age, | non-Asian race, having a PhD or <=high school education, | living in a rural county, living in a county with higher | 2020 Trump support, lack of worry about COVID-19, working | outside the home, never intentionally avoiding contact | with others, and no past-year flu vaccine. " https://www. | medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v... | snikeris wrote: | > having a PhD or <=high school education | | This is interesting. | pbourke wrote: | All PhDs are not the same. | rcpt wrote: | Having a PhD seems like a sample size issue | calvinmorrison wrote: | More like a polling one. I routinely astroturf all | surveys because I hate surveys. I am both a PhD holder, I | am under 21 and I am LGBTQ, A veteran, and everything | else at once | s5300 wrote: | Ahh, I bet you really think you're doing something to the | system by being so cool. | | No lol, you're flagged and omitted. Do you think | everybody is as dumb as you? | calvinmorrison wrote: | good. I only do it for required surveys. I dont do other | surveys | jonnycomputer wrote: | more than 93% of the faculty, staff and students at my | research institute are vaccinated. | | Having a PhD is pretty conflated with both race and | political affiliations. Who knows what the effect would | be after attempting to control for those things. | tomtung wrote: | Anecdotally, my unvaccinated roommate is Chinese, holds a | PhD degree in a very difficult field, and works as a | researcher in a FAANG company. | | I was very surprised to learn that they were unwilling to | get vaccinated. They are actually very worried about | infection, and have been very careful with wearing masks, | disinfecting things, and avoiding in-person contacts | whenever possible. They explained that they were mostly | worried about the unknown long-term side-effects of the | vaccines. Maybe having a PhD degree is correlated with | having this kind of caution. | acdha wrote: | It's definitely not just Republicans but note that | they're the only one of those groups with bullion-dollar | companies pushing a constant stream of messages | downplaying they risk of COVID and hyping any plausible | concern about vaccination or masks. If Rubert Murdoch | gave the word, the amount of energy pushing antivax | messages would go down by an order of magnitude | overnight. | rootusrootus wrote: | I'm not sure it's a guarantee that the power is flowing | from the top down. It seems more likely that the big | players are just going where the money is, i.e. where | their voters already are. | tomcooks wrote: | Please can you explain a non-american what are those | idiosyncratic reasons? | kj4ips wrote: | We've done some pretty f'd up stuff to folks of color in | the past. | | One of the most notable examples is that of the Tuskegee | study on untreated syphilis, where we denied effective | treatment w/o informed consent. | | PoC have higher infant mortality rates, and the myth that | PoC have more tolerance to pain (and therefore require | less anesthesia) is still quite prevalent. | | It was bad enough that we had to actually produce a | report on what is considered the "bare minimum", but even | that has not been totally effective. | (https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont- | repo...) | 542458 wrote: | https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/2021 | 020... | | There is a grim history of poor medical ethics | surrounding the treatment of African Americans that has | resulted in feelings of distrust from some. | | https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/history/40-years-human- | exp... | | https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by- | history/wp/2018/... | | Additionally, medical debt is such a massive burden to | many lower income households that there's this additional | layer of distrust, a feeling that you should steer clear | of any medical establishment otherwise they'll try to pin | something on you and charge you mountains of money (even | though the vaccine is free). | [deleted] | jokethrowaway wrote: | It happened in tons of countries | | People are not that different | lisper wrote: | That's not true. The same thing has happened in France and | Brazil. Possibly other places too, I haven't really been | keeping up. | jacoblambda wrote: | Vaccine refusal has gotten pretty close in Japan. The LDP | has been capitalising on this to justify their incredibly | poor COVID response and their "nothing could be done and | nothing can be done" mentality. | onetimeusename wrote: | I think making a comment like yours is exactly how things | become politicized or at the very least contributes to it | being so. It creates a climate of mutual distrust which in | turn can feed paranoia on both sides and create a hostile | environment where propagandizing and skepticism fuel a | downward spiral in discourse. | [deleted] | laurent92 wrote: | Same in France: Macron, the entire government and their | health advisors said the following: | | - Everyone should go to the opera/cinema to fight Covid | (7th March 2020) | | - Lockdown for everybody (20th March) (I guess people | caught it in the theaters...) | | - Masks are useless, absolutely useless for the general | public (June 2020), | | - Masks are mandatory (September), | | - Blocking borders is useless, Covid will be here, | | - Borders blocked during Lockdown II and III, if I remember | the dates, because it's useful (so maybe we should have | stopped the direct flights between WUHAN and Lyon earlier | than September 2020?), | | - The idea of Passe Sanitaire (a generalized QR code | suspending entrance in public buildings) is a conspiration | theory (10th May 2021) | | - Passe Sanitaire mandatory on August 1st, live and | enforced in all public places except offices, including | outdoor restaurants and public transport. | | - Trust us this time, the vaccine is the right thing, | | - But both research companies and ministers are exempt from | legal responsibility on these vaccines, | | - Given they injected 10,000 patients with AIDS in 1989, | and took 6 years to admit it, and press wasn't under Etat | d'Urgence Sanitaire at the time, | | (and also, they didn't know that Benalla had kept and used | 6 diplomatic passports after being fired, just to show how | they work). | | If anything, they have taught us to doubt everything they | say: They clearly didn't know what they were doing, and did | governance-by-lying. | phh wrote: | Overall I agree, however: | | > But both research companies and ministers are exempt | from legal responsibility on these vaccines, | | What does that even mean? You're in France, you'll be | treated no matter whether someone is responsible or not. | I don't think you can be liable of something going wrong | if you did everything properly (which is the case). | | Everyone, governement and research companies, followed | all the laws. Legal responsability exist only if you | didn't respect the laws. If they didn't follow the laws, | they won't be exempt from lawsuits. | | So. What does "But both research companies and ministers | are exempt from legal responsibility on these vaccines," | mean? | aiilns wrote: | It means that no one wants to take responsibility for any | side effects. And it obviously creates mistrust. | | If the state is practically mandating you to be | vaccinated for covid they (or the companies that make the | vaccine) should be held responsible for anything that | happens to you. | | You can't have it both ways; either there are no | distinctions between vaccinated and unvaccinated people | (no measures that only affect unvaccinated people) or | someone can be held responsible for any resulting | disability or death. | GuB-42 wrote: | None of these are contradictions, they are reactions to a | disease we don't know much about. | | - The population is panicking for only a few cases, | people are even avoiding Chinese restaurants even when | the owners have never been in China. The government wants | people to stop panicking, the risks are still extremely | low. | | - Cases rise exponentially, faster than expected | (possibly due to a new variant), hospitals are filling | up, now we need to take it seriously | | - That one is actually subtle, they told that surgical | masks are for the sick and FFP2 (N95) masks are for | health professionals, there was a shortage of masks and | we didn't have enough for the general public. But they | try to say it in a way that would limit fighting over | masks, people still fought and stole masks, leaving | people who really needed them without protection, I guess | saying that masks are vital would have made things worse. | | - Masks are back in stock | | - Blocking borders is indeed mostly useless when covid is | here in large numbers, it is only useful when you have a | strict eradication policy and your country is not well | connected, not the case of France. | | - The point of a lockdown is to limit movement in | general, blocking borders is part of it | | - In May the situation was improving, vaccination was | extremely successful, we were on our way to being mostly | covid-free in the summer. There was no reason for such | restrictions. | | - Delta variant | | - Vaccine is the right thing, it has always been the | right thing, just look at the data if you don't trust the | government. Even a less effective vaccine protects you. | | - It is an emergency situation, no time to waste in | lawyering, and I am glad they did, delta breakouts in | unvaccinated areas are deadly (see DOM/TOM). It doesn't | mean safety wasn't taken seriously, all vaccines | available in France passed the trials. | | - off topic | | I am not a fan of Macron, or any political party for that | matter, but without the benefit of hindsight everything | looks reasonable considering the information available at | that time and the specificities of the country. If you | think it is bad what would you have done differently? | Remember: you have no crystal ball, an unruly population, | and a budget. | dongping wrote: | The budget is as large as the (perceived) danger. And | there was no excuse for being ill informed, after China | locked down the whole province. | | And there's no better way to help the virus than lying to | people about the masks. Even the Chinese government | didn't lie about masks, while all the western governments | did. If masks became a strategic product, then there are | enough laws to regulate them (and France did so). | partiallypro wrote: | You must be joking? As bad as (some) Republicans are let's | not forget Biden, Harris, Schumer, etc saying they wouldn't | take the "Trump Vaccine." Not only did that put distrust | into the hearts of people on the left, it also gave | ammunition for the people on the right. It should have | never been a political issue. Unfortunately this is a | bipartisan problem (though right now it's more prevalent on | the right, I suspect if Trump had won the number on the | left would balloon,) a lot of people on the West Coast | you'd otherwise call "liberal" are anti-vaxxers and have | been for decades. It's a weird coalition of people on the | left and right. | | Now outside of the US, anti-vaxxers are in every country | including Germany, Australia, the UK. It's a global | problem. It's actually the "third world" that seems to have | less vaccine hesitance. Probably because they've seen the | recent benefits of vaccines and they have less access to | misinformation. | TenJack wrote: | As far as I can tell Biden and Harris said they | distrusted the Trump rollout of the vaccine but not the | vaccine itself. | https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/23/tiktok- | pos... | beerandt wrote: | What is that supposed to mean, except don't trust the | product being rolled out? | | The factcheck word twisting is getting out of control. | | But if anything, this distinction is worse, because | instead of saying don't trust a controversial product, | it's saying don't trust this controversial product | because you shouldn't trust the/this government promoting | it. | | And that's largely what made this, or magnified it, as a | political issue: the broader acceptance of saying it's ok | to distrust the government depending on what politician | is speaking. | QuercusMax wrote: | Not trusting that it's being distributed in the best way | is in no way the same as distrusting the vaccine itself. | btilly wrote: | No, definitely not joking. As | https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/lockdown- | effectiveness... notes, there is essentially zero | correlation between any European government's policy at | one time or another. They all adjusted to what was | happening with COVID, no matter what other political | alignments those in power had. (Yes, even Sweden.) | | By contrast in the USA, and ONLY in the USA, COVID became | a partisan issue so state policies didn't change much. | dmdmmdmdmd wrote: | lol another user gave an example of how this is a | partisan issue in France | greedo wrote: | That's a distortion of what Harris et al said. | monkeydreams wrote: | > let's not forget Biden, Harris, Schumer, etc saying | they wouldn't take the "Trump Vaccine." | | Could you point me in the direction of a source on this? | I have done my own research and pulled up absolutely | nothing. Actually that's inaccurate. I pulled up a BUNCH | of 2020 articles where Biden talks about inadequate | vaccination orders, etc. But I'd be interested in seeing | the basis of your claims. | Wohlf wrote: | The US isn't even the most anti-vaccine country in the | developed world, that goes to France. | xadhominemx wrote: | No, their single dose rate is already 10% higher than the | US and increasing at a faster rate. | hadlock wrote: | Do you have a link to the most recent data? I recall The | Netherlands having some severe resistance to masks etc, | but I haven't seen a breakdown of vaccine uptake by | country in recent months. | ithkuil wrote: | You can have a strong and vocal anti-vaccine population | and yet not have a strong divide on party lines. One | factor is that not all countries have such a strong two | party system that polarizes every single thing. | boringg wrote: | We might have one of the most educated populations of all | time but it's still woefully uneducated. | imbnwa wrote: | Yeah, the value of "most educated populations of all time" | depends on the outcome you value: "everybody has a minimum | accreditation"? "Everyone is capable of robust reflection | that presumes change over time"? | l30n4da5 wrote: | > Turning vaccines into a political wedge issue is one of the | stupidest things I've seen in my life. | | This is just history repeating itself, unfortunately. The | Spanish flu had people protesting the counter-measures put in | place to reduce transmission, as well. | craftinator wrote: | It just boggles my mind that with modern understanding of how | these things work (and we have a MUCH more complete | understanding than they had during the early 1900's), we | repeat this ignorant mistake. | Clubber wrote: | "Masks aren't effective" | | "Masks are effective" | | "Vaccinated don't have to wear masks" | | "Vaccinated should wear masks" | | "COVID is not airborne" | | "COVID is airborne" | | "COVID came from a wet market" | | "COVID came from a lab" | | "If you caught it, you have immunity" | | "If you caught it, you might not have immunity" | | It's not difficult to understand why there is so much | confusion. Our government was and has been quite inept at | its messaging in both Trump's and Biden's administrations. | The sad thing is many people still hold up the government / | bureaucrats / politicians as omnipotent. It's called the | _novel_ corona virus because it 's new. What we think today | may not be true next month or next year. | | I think one of the big problems of course is the government | / bureaucrats / politicians are afraid to be straight with | us. They think we'll freak out set everything on fire or | something at the first hint of bad news. I feel their | elusiveness is much, much worse; now trust is pretty low | which makes the already ineffective government / | bureaucrats / politicians' messaging even more ineffective. | The government / bureaucrats / politicians found a hole and | made it much bigger. | kevinob11 wrote: | Is this really so confusing to most people? I feel like | it was pretty clear throughout that the first statement | in most cases was: "We expect X is [not] effective based | on history, but we aren't certain because this is so new" | and the second statement was "Our initial research shows | that we were [right / wrong]" followed sometimes by a | third statement which is "As more information arrives we | were right about Y and wrong about Z". | | I agree with you that politicians are afraid to give it | to us straight, but I attribute their hesitance not to | how they expect the people to respond but how they expect | media to respond. You get in a little trouble for being | wishy-washy, but you get big trouble for giving a | straight, honest well-informed sounding (described this | way because its not like the announcers are the ones | actually doing the research) detailed response and then | finding out some of your details are wrong. | | I have been thinking about this a lot, we all hate the | way politicians speak (me included) but we made them | speak this way because while they may not impress anyone | they don't give definitive sound bites that will then be | repeated over and over on the news when they happen to be | wrong. | [deleted] | Covzire wrote: | It's not just that the CDC/Fauci and the Government have | been a major contributor to the disinformation out there, | it's that there is a political force running at full | power pushing vaccines as the one and only possible | solution to COVID-19. Before Trump left the White House, | the Democratic party leadership came out against the | vaccine. NOw that they're in power again, every signal | and message they send is Pro Vaccine and Anti Everything | else, and it seems all of SV is ready to help by any | means necessary, including a lot of people on HN calling | anyone and everyone who even questions the safety or | necessity of these vaccines as Anti-Vaxxers. We're | rocketing towards a new civil war if you ask me. | spookthesunset wrote: | Honestly at this point in the game I have no clue what is | factual and isn't. I don't know who the hell to trust | anymore. | | > The sad thing is many people still hold up the | government / bureaucrats / politicians as omnipotent | | And so-called "experts"... by which I mean only the ones | that say this is the worst thing ever. Any expert in the | field with any objections or criticisms to what we've | done immediately gets the online equivalent of being | letter bombed. | | The public health messaging for this whole thing has been | absolutely horrific and has only been getting worse. | They've managed to cast so much fear, uncertainty and | doubt on what are in fact remarkable vaccines... I don't | know how they will ever repair their trust or | credibility. | ragingrobot wrote: | > They think we'll freak out set everything on fire or | something at the first hint of bad news. | | Could it be that they've used this tactic so often just | to get this effect when they so desire it, that now they | fear that it will be our only reaction? | endgame wrote: | The smug confidence when the outlets assert these things | is one of the most galling parts: | | > Babies and young children study faces, so you may worry | that having masked caregivers would harm children's | language development. There are no studies to support | this concern. | | https://twitter.com/AmerAcadPeds/status/14258570414579425 | 42 | | There are "no studies" because you can't do studies like | that on humans! I guess absence of evidence = evidence of | absence now. What about on monkeys? | | > The face-deprived monkeys and control monkeys were | scanned by fMRI when they were six months old to measure | their neural responses to faces and other visual stimuli. | | > Control monkeys had face patches by the time they were | six months old; the face-deprived monkeys did not. | Patches for other visual categories that both sets of | monkeys saw equally, such as hands and bodies, were | roughly equivalent between the two groups. | | https://massivesci.com/articles/facial-recognition- | patches-b... | Tobani wrote: | Almost all of the statements were true. They just needed | more context with them. | | > "Masks aren't effective" | | The point of the (non n-95) masks is not to protect the | wearer. They didn't want everybody to cause a run on the | n-95 masks for healthcare workers. The cloth masks may | not very effective at protecting the wearer. | | > "Masks are effective" | | Masks are very effective when the infected wear them. | Everybody should wear them because they don't know if | they're infected or not. | | > "Vaccinated don't have to wear masks" | | Currently we don't believe vaccinated people. If you get | vaccine you don't have to wear a mask. | | > "Vaccinated should wear masks" | | Unvaccinated people were the first to go everywhere with | out masks. That carrot didn't work.. Everybody put them | back on. | | > "COVID is not airborne" | | This could be true! | | > "COVID is airborne" | | But it catches a ride on water droplets! | | > "COVID came from a wet market" | | I haven't seen this as part of government messaging | | > "COVID came from a lab" | | I haven't seen this as part of government messaging | | > "If you caught it, you have immunity" | | For some amount of time, yes | | > "If you caught it, you might not have immunity" | | Yep we've got new variants that yo _might_ not be immune | to. | filoleg wrote: | > _Almost all of the statements were true. They just | needed more context with them._ | | You nailed the issue in the first 2 sentences. All of | those things listed are technically true, as long as the | context is provided and understood. But when you have the | whole situation turn into a bipartisan shitshow, context | goes immediately out of the window (both intentionally | and unintentionally, just like nuance being lost in | twitter discussions). It is you vs. them for everyone | emotionally invested into this. | | "CDC said COVID is airborne, and if you disagree, you are | a science denier and probably a nazi too. No, I am not | gonna listen to your 'context'". | | "CDC said there is no evidence that COVID came from the | wet markets, which means that you claiming that it is | possible is a conspiracy theory". | | "CDC said that people don't have to wear masks, but now | they say people have to wear masks, they don't know what | they are doing and are just trying to pacify the | population. I don't need context, I am just reciting what | CDC said." | | Actually looking into the context of the official | statements on COVID, there isn't really a contradiction, | and their recommendations make sense. But then if you | actually absorb the context, then there is no team sports | fight to be had, there is no side to cheer and root for, | and there are no opponents to defeat who are dumb and | wrong (unlike you and your team). The intensity and | excitement of the "battle" is positively correlated with | willingness to omit context and refusal to consider it. | Tobani wrote: | If it ain't in the headline it's "SO CONFUSING" | collaborative wrote: | The one thing that still bothers me is that we don't yet know | how quickly this coronavirus evolves, and from what we know it | very likely escaped from a gain-of-function laboratory that | specializes in quickly mutating viruses. I didn't see Delta | coming. I want to believe that this is the worst of it. But | this coronavirus has so far kept us on our toes so it may well | have a few more surprises in store | tboyd47 wrote: | Any time you use the government to force people to do something | against their will, you have made the issue political. Politics | is the business of force. | masklinn wrote: | > Diseases that are endemic today, such as chicken pox, once | caused epidemics with massive body counts, notably in North | America. No vaccines, no advanced medical care, and no natural | immunity meant that some villages just ceased to exist. | | You may be confusing chickenpox and smallpox? Chickenpox is | generally considered a pretty mild disease (many countries | still don't routinely vaccinate against it), and was so | historically as the infectiousness ensured essentially | everybody would be infected as a child. | | WHO guidelines are actually to only vaccinate if rates can be | kept above 80% consistently, otherwise it'll likely hit older | populations with much more dire consequences. | senderista wrote: | Chickenpox _seems_ like a mild disease, until it develops | into shingles, decades later. I sure wished I had gotten the | chickenpox vaccine after I nearly lost my eye from shingles. | recursive wrote: | Chickenpox is mild in children. More severe in adults. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenpox#Adults | | If you get you case in childhood, as most do, then you have | immunity through adulthood. If introduced in a new | population, the consequences to adults would be much | different. | nkozyra wrote: | > If you get you case in childhood, as most do, then you | have immunity through adulthood. | | Sort of. I got shingles (early 40s) this year. Completely | knocked on my ass for a week and maybe 2-3 months to be | mostly back to normal. I recommend the shingles vaccine to | anyone who will listen. | waych wrote: | Did you get shingles shortly after getting a vaccine? | sokoloff wrote: | I just got the shingles vaccine this year (two shots | about 3 months apart). That vaccine knocked me down from | hour 6 to about hour 54 both times. Worse than any other | vaccine experience, including Pfizer C19. Still recommend | it, but schedule it wisely. | chrononaut wrote: | > That vaccine knocked me down from hour 6 to about hour | 54 both times | | Not sure I understand this. Can you elaborate? | sokoloff wrote: | Sorry. I had relatively strong reaction (weakness, | soreness, slight fever, and overall malaise) starting | about 6 hours after the shot and lasting for two full | days. | | Get the shots, but if you get them on a Friday, you might | be writing off the weekend. | masklinn wrote: | > If introduced in a new population | | Ah true, I had not considered that unlike eurasians | american populations would obviously not have had it as | children. | johnnyanmac wrote: | > Turning vaccines into a political wedge issue is one of the | stupidest things I've seen in my life. | | Something tells me that this is just history repeating. The | difference here is the same as your metaphor; the world is a | village and now its much easier to see that one conspiracy nut | every village has that gets outcasted. | | The problem of course is that now those nuts can band together | in the thousands thanks to worldwide communication and argue | against the (still vast majority) of the village now. | criticaltinker wrote: | The SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are a "political wedge issue" not | because of the "conspiracy nut in every village", but because | the scientific literacy of the general public is | astonishingly low, and the second and third order | consequences of public health policy are tremendously | complex. | | We _must_ encourage discussions that move beyond overly- | simplistic dualistic framing such as "vax versus anti-vax", | "individual choice versus public health", etc. | | Looking back through human history we can find numerous | examples where scientific consensus was wrong, or where we | created powerful new tools that backfired in unexpected ways. | Diversity in opinion and choice is natures way of arriving at | optimal decisions. Although it feels like friction and | divisive arguments to us now, these are critical discussions | that help expand everyone's knowledge and awareness. | | At one level it appears to be chaos, but at a higher level it | appears as harmony. We are now living in the age of the | super-organism. The age where we all must become acutely | aware that the separation between you and I - the separation | between self and other - must be dissolved and reformulated, | for the survival of our species and our planet. | dpweb wrote: | Also, the question of should a government force its | citizens to have a medical procedure. Or de-facto forcing | by requiring proof for common daily activities. | | This issue was then weaponized for political purposes, and | people got militant about it. | | But governments have consistently lied/been wrong about | this virus, so there is no trust either in their messaging | about this crisis. | quickthrowman wrote: | > Also, the question of should a government force its | citizens to have a medical procedure. | | There's a Supreme Court decision[0] about whether states | can mandate a vaccine (they can). | | [0] | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts | paulddraper wrote: | > The SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are a "political wedge issue" | | They are a political wedge issue because some want them to | be policy. | | Anything that is policy -- taxes, marriage, controlled | substances, international trade -- is political. | | And always someone says "why is policy X political?" | without realizing what "politics" is. Usually, they mean to | say "why doesn't everyone agree with me?" | wiremine wrote: | > "The SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are a "political wedge issue" | not because of the "conspiracy nut in every village", but | because the scientific literacy of the general public is | astonishingly low, and the second and third order | consequences of public health policy are tremendously | complex." | | This. Feels like the future depends on identifying the root | cause of these issues and working to overcome them. | spfzero wrote: | It is a political wedge issue because it generates fear. | Anything that causes people to be fearful is going to be | exploited, and amplified, by political parties in whatever | way they feel would benefit them. | | It's a handle they can pull, so they pull it. It can be | xenophobia, it can be "look at what they're doing in country | X, what if they did that here?" It can be fear of loosing | jobs, fear of wildfires, sea-level change, and it can be fear | of getting sick. | gfodor wrote: | Yes, calling people nuts is a sure fire way to solve this | problem. | | The "nuts" were also saying covid was coming and was | dangerous and were called crazy xenophobes. | | I'm vehemently pro-vax but there are as many idiots on both | sides of this issue as there are non-idiots. Note that I need | to disclose that, since the scarlet letter being handed out | now has the power to prevent you from being on YouTube and in | some places soon will probably bar you from your local | grocery store (now that that is normalized.) | vlunkr wrote: | I don't disagree about name-calling, but the responsible | thing to do is to adapt your opinions as new knowledge is | revealed, not everyone is doing that. | mewpmewp2 wrote: | You can never convince someone by calling them stupid, | selfish, irresponsible or in general blaming them. All | you will do is create hatred toward yourself as well as | your viewpoint and further the disagreement. | | Best way to convince someone is to make them think it was | their idea all along. | | At this point, I figure much of the anti vax crowd may be | actively hoping something would go wrong here, due to the | hate they are receiving. | | Why does anti vax crowd look at things like Ivermectin | etc which hasn't been tested at all compared to vaccines | and could potentially have more unknown risks? Because it | wasn't shoved down their throat and they were able to | find it by themselves. | | Even those who are in the middle, vaccine hesitant for | example may be feeling the hate that is coming towards | them, making them avoid vaccines altogether out of anger | towards the other vaccinated side. | Tobani wrote: | > The "nuts" were also saying covid was coming and was | dangerous and were called crazy xenophobes. | | I only ever saw people saying that calling it things like | "Wuhan Flu" was xenophobic. | mrkramer wrote: | >Today, thanks to air travel, the world is a village. Wuhan is | exposed one week, and the world the next. | | Why didn't China impose strict lockdown in the early days of | epidemic in Wuhan area instead they let millions of Chinese | people travel around the world and spread COVID? | | But then we wouldn't know "the true power of mRNA therapies and | medications". | | Honestly death rate of 0.1% is not something to go crazy about. | The thing to worry about is the intensity of the attack on | COVID which is akin to abuse of antibiotics which led to | occurrence of "superbacteria" which no antibiotic at the time | can kill. The same can happen with viruses. | salamandersauce wrote: | It's not a 0.1% death rate. Over 1.6% of US confirmed covid | cases have resulted in death for example. To get a 0.1% death | rate you either have to assume there is 10 times more | unreported cases (in which case everybody in the US has had | covid once or multiple times already at this point) or claim | stupid shit like people with comorbidites were going to die | then anyways. | | Please don't spread misinformation. | ianai wrote: | Wow, no mention of long covid in the entire article. People are | making a lot of assumptions about a disease with billions of | people naive to it (the unvaccinated) and selective pressure from | the vaccinated. I think we could all benefit from some humility. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | > ""A big question mark there is long COVID," says Yonatan | Grad, an immunologist and infectious-disease researcher at | Harvard. There are still no data to prove how well the vaccines | prevent long COVID, but experts generally agree that a | vaccinated immune system is better prepared to fight off the | virus without doing collateral damage." | ianai wrote: | I did miss that. I still think humility and caution are | warranted. The preliminary numbers for long covid in | breakthrough infections were similar to the unvaccinated in | the Israel report, for instance. | xyzzy21 wrote: | Yes. And it will evolve into a fairly benign endemic virus just | like its cousin: the common cold coronavirus. | jhpankow wrote: | Or as TFA speculates: an endemic virus like the flu that kills | 10k-60k in the US every year. | codehawke wrote: | What if it evolves into SARS? | KaiserPro wrote: | SARS is simpler because people become sicker quicker and | don't spread it about anywhere near as much. | api wrote: | The virus will evolve so as to make more copies of the virus. | This can go more than one way. | | The viral evolutionary definition of benign is "does not kill | the host or harm the host in such a way as to greatly reduce | its ability to spread the virus." | | Making the host brutally ill and totally non-functional for | weeks is generally fine. Causing harm to the host that reduces | its vitality or life span in the long term is fine. Polio met | these criteria. It did not usually kill its host. | | Benign is only one evolutionary path though. Another | evolutionary path for a virus is to boost the R factor so high | that it can burn through its hosts _and still find more hosts_ | , especially if there are say... seven to eight billion hosts. | Smallpox was more like this. A more contagious form of Ebola | could be like this. | nradov wrote: | It's not that the virus will necessarily evolve to become | benign, but rather that most people will get infected when | they're young and build up natural immunity which protects them | later in life. This is what already happens with the other 4 | endemic common cold coronaviruses. Each of them probably killed | a lot of people when they first emerged. | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252012/ | MontyCarloHall wrote: | Yes. Hopefully, vaccines confer the same immunity as exposure | during youth. Based on their efficacy, it seems they're quite | close, at least for current strains--even with delta, the | overwhelming majority of breakthrough cases are benign or | totally asymptomatic, just like with a common cold. | Pyramus wrote: | This is the correct answer and should be highlighted more. | The virus doesn't evolve to become benign, it's the hosts | that will evolve. In addition to the endemic coronaviruses | that you stated, another example are endemic/seasonal | influenza strains vs. new strains. | | (Yes the virus will evolve but in general mutations will | optimise for transmission and be indifferent to lethality.) | lamontcg wrote: | Mutations will optimize for transmission, but once there's | a high level of immunity against this strain (all the | variants are still one strain) then the virus will face the | pressure to mutate to achieve actual immune escape. There's | 20 epitopes on the spike that need to change, and some of | those should come at a cost to fitness, and eventually it | should face a choice between trying to increase its | transmissibility to find immunologically naive humans | (where delta variant is probably reaching its limit) and to | better transmit in recovered/vaccinated individuals due to | immune escape. | q1w2 wrote: | This is not exactly true. Keeping your infectious host | alive longer, will increase transmission. | | This is why there is an evolutionary pressure for all | diseases to keep your host alive, and why some | diseases/parasites ultimately evolve to be less | harmful/lethal. | defgeneric wrote: | > This is why there is an evolutionary pressure for all | diseases to keep your host alive | | Lethality should be distinguished from "keeping the host | alive." For example, HIV is more than 90% lethal | (untreated) but can take a decade before killing the | host. | Pyramus wrote: | No, there is no "evolutionary pressure for all diseases", | only for those where lethality precludes transmission, | i.e. there is some cap at a some max. | | Which is not the case for SARS-Cov-2 - viral titers peak | after 2-4 days and population-weighted IFR is relatively | low. | peteradio wrote: | It seems like lethality can become a first order | evolutionary driver though by turning our focus on it and | quickly smothering any "hot" virus but allowing "warm" | virus to spread. Can't humans play a part in the | evolutionary process of the virus? | Pyramus wrote: | In theory yes - and that's what's happening in many | countries. E.g. in Germany there is a differentiation | between high risk areas and virus variant areas, with | different testing and quarantine protocols etc. | | However on a global scale only some countries are | sequencing some of the time, and only in humans (with ad- | hoc exceptions)! Which is simply not enough. | erhk wrote: | We cant stop it from spreading during its asymptomatic | phase. | HarryHirsch wrote: | How do you know? HIV hasn't evolved to be any less deadly in | the 40 years it has been around. Instead, there's most | excellent treatment available and people have changed their | behaviour. | argvargc wrote: | And despite killing ten times as many people as COVID, these | changes were achieved without destroying small businesses and | jobs, plunging millions into poverty (and likely later | starvation), gross human rights violations and police | brutality, and reintroduction of segregation into previously | free democratic societies. (Just like with all other | communicable diseases of modern times.) | | Go us. | HarryHirsch wrote: | You have to give it to the homosexuals - they started using | condoms and shut down the clubs where you would have sex | with ten different men every night. Meanwhile, in large | tracts of the country we are still arguing if masks are a | good idea. | argvargc wrote: | Well that comparison might make sense if the masks were | made of latex. | Expirat wrote: | Yes, condoms = face masks. Expert tier logic. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | > And despite killing ten times as many people as COVID | | That's an INCREDIBLY disingenuous comparison considering | that COVID-19 has been with us for less than two years. | | And, though I object to your characterization of said | measures, extreme measures weren't taken because you | couldn't catch it just via proximity. Also important to | point out one big similarity - denial of both was used to | dehumanize swathes of the population who were especially | vulnerable. | argvargc wrote: | Not really, at the rate death is declining overall COVID | will almost certainly kill far fewer in the same | timeframe. | | And given differences in policy, and differences in | resistance to them have not resulted in any discernible | difference in result (ie, it's wild mess that makes no | sense and more typically returns results opposite to | expectation), it largely appears this would have been the | case had we not ruined everything over it. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | > Not really, at the rate death is declining overall | COVID will almost certainly kill far fewer in the same | timeframe. | | Looking at Google's worldwide deaths I don't see much of | a decline. Sure, it's down from a peak, but it's actually | on the way back up. What data are you using for that | assumption that deaths are on the decline? | | > And given differences in policy, and differences in | resistance to them have not resulted in any discernible | difference in result | | South Korea, with a population of 51.71 million, is | currently sitting at just over 2,000 deaths. Do you | believe it to be sheer chance that their deaths are so | low when compared to America? | argvargc wrote: | Sweden and UK saw an almost identical death curve per | million despite diametrically-opposed policy decisions. | | Gibraltar had almost no COVID, vaccinated literally | everyone and then had a massive (and ongoing) outbreak. | | We can go back and forth for hours with many examples | proving and countering each factoid of the "narrative" - | and only make my point; it's an inconclusive mess. | | Rigid adherence to the prevailing dogma is clearly | foolish in such a situation. | | As for deaths, if you really want to argue about it, you | need to exclude the "died within 28 days of a positive | test"'s, the ridiculously-ignored co-morbidities, and the | "cases" that resulted in death that were based on RT- | PCR's at cycle thresholds above 35, obviously. Those | coronavirus "high score table" sites don't do that nor | bother to account for any of many subtleties in reporting | that can and do have major impact on results. | | Good luck trying to figure any of it out then. But hey, | don't let that stop you entertaining a false adamancy - | I'm sure it feels just great. | | Using Ioannidis and others you can make some attempt | using seroprevalence studies if you're really interested, | suffice to say it's just generally much, much less | overall than the SAGE-induced nonsense, you've | undoubtedly succumbed to, would have you believe. | | Finally, as now hundreds of peer-reviewed RCT's worldwide | have shown, it's now one of the most treatable illnesses | out there, if you bother to understand its mechanism of | cell infection and how to inhibit that, instead of not | doing anything to help and then putting people on a | 25%-survival-rate ventilator, which thus far has been the | most common response. | | The problem is not scientific or medical anymore, its | political and social. The science and medicine has been | worked out for months now. | [deleted] | erhk wrote: | He didnt die of a gunshot wound he had a comorbidity of | blood loss. | | Ah well, he tested positive for gunshot wound but thst | was 28 days ago. | | This is not an inconclusive mess in the peer reviewed | scientific community when people use real data and | studies to back their claims. The problem is that you are | not sourcing your opinion from that community you are | sourcing it from pointless online bickering and a | confirmation biased perspective. | | As for sweden your comaprison to the UK is disingenuous. | Compare it to norway and finland for real understanding. | argvargc wrote: | Governments the world over have made repeated, clear | statements that if someone tests positive for COVID, and | then dies within 28 days _for any reason_ , the death is | counted as a COVID death. | | _That is the end of any validity in test-derived deaths | data._ | | I am sourcing my opinion exclusively from published, | peer-reviewed science in well-established journals. If | you are not aware of _any of it_ , as it appears you just | admitted, you are not a sufficiently qualified researcher | and should refrain from comment. | selimthegrim wrote: | You do understand in vivo and in vitro are different | terms for a reason right? That chloroquine worked in the | lab but that the coronavirus can use a different pathway | than the one chloroquine inhibits? | argvargc wrote: | You're completely misinformed. | | There have been hundreds of peer-reviewed RCT's _in vivo_ | , in _live human COVID-infected patients_ of many | differing treatments for COVID, several of which have | demonstrated high efficacy in reducing hospitalisation | and death as both prophylaxis and treatment. | | https://c19early.com/ | selimthegrim wrote: | Please explain how this is completely misinformed with | regard to chloroquine, which is all I mentioned. | | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32698190/ | nobleach wrote: | Well, keep in mind that the transmission vector of HIV and | SARS COVID are completely different. If we had found in the | 80's that HIV was transmissible by simply breathing the | same air as those infected, we'd likely have seen a similar | response... without all the "work from home" benefits that | we currently enjoy. | argvargc wrote: | I doubt it. Pandemic preparedness, including for airborne | diseases, was the same for decades until it was all | thrown out the window to do something wildly different | that had never been done before. | | Which - evidently, as we're still having "lockdowns" and | "resurgences" 1.5 years after that "two weeks to flatten | the curve" experiment - didn't work. | dont__panic wrote: | What was the old preparedness that we "threw out the | window" in favor of lockdowns and masks? As far as I | know, humanity has rarely bothered with any pandemic | reaction beyond "stay away from the visibly ill" and "go | out less". | argvargc wrote: | In pandemics, you isolate _only_ the sick, treat them, | and offer prophylaxis to vulnerable groups. | | In COVID, we isolated everyone, sick _and_ healthy | (utterly unprecedented), then flooded the most vulnerable | with sick people (bizarre care home mismanagement), and | refused to give treatment or prophylaxis to anyone until | they couldn 't breathe, at which point they were put on a | ventilator. | | In some places, that's still the protocol. Others have | learned from these mistakes and moved on. | | When everyone has, COVID will cease to be a problem. | | The original approach has worked for every other novel | virus pandemic we've had - which happen regularly every | few years. Even the very same people at Imperial College | made similarly dire predictions for some of those | pandemics at the time - and yet none registered more than | a fraction of a flu season. | | That original protocol, used repeatedly for years, was | abandoned and effectively reversed for COVID, with | ongoing disastrous results as anyone can plainly see. | monkeyfacebag wrote: | I'm old enough to remember when we didn't know who was | infected and who wasn't infected. | erhk wrote: | Iirc theres images of 1908 spanish flu protestors | inciting others to wear masks. | | Also i believe there was a pandemic response force that | trump admin threw out. | stackbutterflow wrote: | Conversely, I'm trying to imagine what would have | happened if hiv had appeared in the social media age. | erhk wrote: | Well in this thought experiment do you also have a | government that wants to use HIV to kill off the | homosexuals? | mrfox321 wrote: | HIV _has_ evolved to be less deadly: | | https://www.pnas.org/content/111/50/E5393 | q1w2 wrote: | ...and also, 40 years is not a long time for disease | evolution. ...especially one like HIV which has a much | lower transmission rate than a respiratory virus. | oblio wrote: | We'll probably do a bunch of these. Vaccines, treatment for | the worst symptoms and potentially treatment against the | virus itself. | | I think we're working on all these fronts. | | I wonder how much we'll change/have to change our behavior | long term, for example 10 years from now. I'd imagine not | much. | HarryHirsch wrote: | _I wonder how much we 'll change/have to change our | behavior long term, for example 10 years from now. I'd | imagine not much._ | | I'd say it's the exact opposite. It's known that immunity | against coronaviruses isn't long-lasting (look at the Rev | Jackson and his wife, both of whom were vaccinated early | this year and are now in hospital) and that antiviral | treatment needs to start early (does everyone really want | to do a PCR test every other day so they can start antibody | treatment early like Governor Abbot?) | | We'll have to start wearing masks indoor and stop being in | crowded rooms until the virus is eradicated. Right now, | with the population half vaccinated, we are setting | ourselves up for a re-run of Marek's disease, this time in | people. | erhk wrote: | If we got every human being vaccinated with a 100% | efficacious vaccine for all strains at the exact same | time globally without pause then MAYBE eradication would | be feasible. | | Eradication is a fever dream, did you bother to read the | attached article? | oblio wrote: | What we should do and what we'll do will be very | different. | | 5 years of reduced socialization will turn a large | percentage of the population into nervous wrecks. | ilammy wrote: | > _until the virus is eradicated_ | | But doesn't COVID have animal reservoirs? If it does, | good luck vaccinating all the bats and monkeys of the | world. Or what's the plan there? Wait until the virus has | subsided "enough", then... what exactly? Still be on | guard 24/7/365/4, paranoidally testing each and every | traveler, ready to quench a cluster formed around some | volunteer returning from a distant part of the world? | HarryHirsch wrote: | Nonpharmaceutical interventions work pretty good. Plague | is endemic in rodents in the Western US, there are | actually a dozen human cases every year, but there aren't | epidemics because we do rodent-proofing. Rabies has an | animal reservoir, but we vaccinate our dogs. | | Honestly, I don't understand the appeal of the ostrich | strategy. Vaccination rates in Florida and Illinois are | similar but in Florida, where they pretend Covid doesn't | exist, the only thing they get is overflowing hospitals. | ilammy wrote: | I'm more talking about some humans getting infected | somewhere, then bringing it in from wherever they were, | where precautions are lower than where you came from. | | The way I see it, the long-term route is treating COVID | like, say, malaria. You would get your vaccine when you | travel places. Doctors would know what to test for based | on your symptoms. But still, the contagiousness here is | radically different. By the time you get to see your | doctor, you could have infected dozens of people. So the | most effective strategy is still isolation and pervasive | testing? | | IDK, I guess we will just have to sit there and see where | we'll be with COVID in 5 years from now. Maybe the virus | will really just get bored and go away (unlikely). If | not, maybe people will get bored of being freaked out and | more comfortable with the thought that electing a new | government won't eradicate the virus but you can build | more hospitals and keep getting your yearly COVID booster | shots. | erhk wrote: | Maybe if the chinese keep their same lockdown and close | their border indefinitely, or maybe for new zealand this | is the case but for countries in the EU and NA the cats | out of the bag and it wont ever be eradicated. | | I dont know who told you eradication was still an option | but it stopped being one in feburary of 2020 when nCov19 | started commmunal spreading. | | This. Does not. Go. Away. | RegBarclay wrote: | HIV is a different family of viruses, so the comparison to | the corona family of viruses doesn't apply. | erhk wrote: | Excuse me? | manojlds wrote: | HIV is what it is because of its type. If all viruses are | like that we probably won't exist or would have evolved to | fight it better. | alecst wrote: | I downvoted for an opinion-based answer. Yea generally viruses | evolve to be less deadly and more infectious, that's the trend | (but certainly not a law), but the important thing is the time | scale. Plus there are endemic viruses that are not benign. So | this comment came across as a bit too confident. Feel free to | expand on it. | exDM69 wrote: | With regards this claim, the UK Scientific Advisory Group for | Emergencies (SAGE) addresses it in their recent paper about | future evolutionary scenarios [0]. | | Scenario Four: SARS-CoV-2 follows an evolutionary trajectory | with decreased virulence | | Likelihood: Unlikely in the short term, realistic possibility | in the long term. | | Which makes sense as most transmission occurs in the | presymptomatic phase, there's no selection pressure to evolve | to be less deadly. | | [0] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploa | ds/... | alecst wrote: | > Which makes sense as most transmission occurs in the | presymptomatic phase, there's no selection pressure to | evolve to be less deadly. | | That was my thought too. | | That was in interesting read, by the way. Thanks for | sharing. | lambdaba wrote: | Didn't the Spanish Flu (which was way more virulent) | basically evolve in this way? | Pyramus wrote: | As far as I know the virus H1N1 itself didn't really evolve | in the sense that it got milder - all hosts either | developed immunity or died off. Now our immune systems | encounter one of the endemic, seasonal strains of H1N1 when | we are young (or we get a flu vaccine) - however from time | to time a new strain of H1N1 emerges that is dissimilar | enough, see e.g. 1977 flu or the 2009 flu outbreak. | manojlds wrote: | What about the original SARS? | rossdavidh wrote: | The original SARS had a much higher mortality rate, which | meant that trace-and-isolate responses actually had a | chance of working. The mortality rate of Covid-19 is | nowhere near that of SARS, which actually allows it to | kill more people in the end because it can spread | stealthily, and no lockdown or trace-and-isolate has | worked. There are also more reports of animal reservoirs | for Covid-19 than for SARS. | erhk wrote: | It also didn't incubate the same way | mongol wrote: | SARS really seems like a bullet we should be lucky we | have dodged | erhk wrote: | No, it was never possible for original SARS to have r0 | comprobale to nCov19. However that was the fear from the | start. | Pyramus wrote: | I think it's a key point to mention that it's more that the | hosts will evolve, i.e. develop immunity or die off, rather | than the virus. The virus will continue to mutate but mutation | activity is invariant to lethality (up to a certain point where | lethality precludes transmission - where SARS-Cov-2 is far away | from). In fact, because there is a correlation between viral | load and lethality, the virus will actually get less benign on | average in the short term. | kirillzubovsky wrote: | Finally a thoughtful truthful article on the topic. It's a year | too late, but better now than never. It's time to accept the | reality and move past the hysteria. | rossdavidh wrote: | Good article, but doesn't mention the other reason that covid-19 | is never going completely away: animal reservoirs. We know that | dogs, cats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mink, white-tailed deer, a | gorilla, and a tiger have been found to have been infected with | covid-19. It is implausible that it will ever cease to have an | animal reservoir, especially given the finding in Canada of 30% | of white-tailed deer having it. | | Of diseases that get as widespread as this, with animal | reservoirs, I don't believe there is any case of eliminating it. | But, like vaccines can teach the immune system how to respond | more intelligently (and less self-destructively) to covid-19, | hopefully society can learn to respond more intelligently, and | less self-destructively, to the fact that it's always in | circulation. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | How does covid transmit to wild animals like deer that have | almost no interactions with humans ? The transmission chain | must be very long. I'd appreciate any links or resources to | read more. | | Perhaps we can learn to be more mindful of our interactions | with other animals, wear masks in public spaces or public | transport, and hopefully WFH becomes a permanent option. | | It seems that I stepped on many nerves, please, feel free to | disagree or argue. | Miner49er wrote: | People interact with deer all the time. They are all over | neighborhoods in certain areas, people hunt them, they often | are hit by vehicles, etc. | jandrese wrote: | It would only take a handful of transmissions to a community | to have something like COVID spread like wildfire through the | deer population. They may not interact with humans much, but | only one carrier could infect several others and then that | cascades to the entire population. Deer don't get vaccinated | and don't wear masks. | | The good news is that even if COVID is running rampant | through the deer populations they shouldn't pass them on to | humans very often, so if humans are good at identifying and | stopping isolated outbreaks then we can live with the risk. | nomel wrote: | > but only one carrier could infect several others and then | that cascades to the entire population | | Which is exactly how we got here. | tootie wrote: | Per CDC, "three out of every four new infectious diseases | come from animals" | | https://gothamist.com/news/germs-spill-from-animals-to- | human... | | Think about it like online ads. Even though you've never | clicked on one and don't know anyone who clicks on them, the | market is worth hundreds of billions. There are so many novel | pathogens floating around the world that if humans are | exposed to 0.01% of them we'll still see regular epidemics | and occasional pandemics. | dahfizz wrote: | > How does covid transmit to wild animals like deer that have | almost no interactions with humans ? | | I've been within a few feet of wild deer plenty of times in | my life. Humans have a lot more interaction with wild animals | than you would think once you move outside of urban areas. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | There's literally a market in Brian Head Utah where a bull | moose hangs out on the front porch most of the day. I'm | sure there are plenty of "wild" animals with petting-zoo- | like relationships with random people. This can't be the | only one. | erhk wrote: | That sounds like an exciting video once it gets realized | mr_overalls wrote: | > how does covid transmit | | It seems likely that they were drinking sewage-contaminated | water. Ingestion of contaminated water is the source of a | staggering variety of illnesses for both humans and animals. | Souce: I work in environmental monitoring. | MichaelZuo wrote: | Which towns in Canada are dumping untreated sewage into the | water? As far as I'm aware every province has an | environmental ministry that doesn't grant exemptions from | sewage treatment. So if it's still ongoing... | shkkmo wrote: | AFAIK, most of the cities on the west coast of Canada | dump untreated sewage into the ocean. | alex_c wrote: | Most towns do, occasionally - overflows happen. Article | is from 2018 but I assume nothing has radically changed | since then. | | https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ont-enviro- | report-1.4... | eloff wrote: | I don't think that's perfectly done. I was hiking on the | North Shore in Vancouver and there's a sign over a stream | warning about untreated sewage. If it's a problem in the | one of the biggest and wealthiest cities, I can easily | see it being an issue in smaller towns. | | In very rural areas, especially on reservations, I | believe water and sewage treatment is an ongoing issue. | steve_adams_86 wrote: | In my city we JUST started treating our sewage: | https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victoria- | sew... | voxic11 wrote: | https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/many-cities-still- | dump-r... | | That's from 2009 but it seems unlikely to have been | completely resolved since then given the scale of the | issue (200 billion litres a year). | q1w2 wrote: | You are assuming that it was humans that infected the deer, | while it could have easily been another wild animal. | | Wild animals are not commonly tested for covid-19, but those | that have been have seen widespread infection. ...which means | most populations of mammals and possibly birds are infected | as well. | | ...so the deer could have caught it from any number of other | animals in the wild - or more likely, from their droppings. | rossdavidh wrote: | As to "how does covid transmit to wild animals...", I think | it is an excellent question, but I don't think we have a | definitive answer. Clearly there is something about the | transmission we don't understand (which suggests why current | measures to halt the spread such as lockdowns, masks, etc. | don't seem to work well). | | As for the "stepped on many nerves", I think your comment was | interpreted as meaning "we should stay at home and wear masks | forever", whereas the general patience for such measures is | wearing thin. My guess is that part of the reason for a | rising rate of violent crime in the U.S. in the last twelve | months is simply more people with rising frustration, such | that they are more willing to resort to violence. | | By the way it appears that white-tailed deer in the US have | now also been found to have antibodies likely indicating | covid-19 exposure: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/20 | 21.07.29.454326v1.... | PartiallyTyped wrote: | The replies I received are mostly insufficient or very | handwavey. | | Interactions with humans transmitting the Delta variant, in | very extreme (NB shortest) cases need upwards of 50-60 | seconds, where common transmissions need longer. Which | suggests that people need quite long 1-1 interactions with | multiple animals to spread it, which to me appears very | unlikely. | | This belief is based on research that supported that covid | was unlikely to happen until the first super-spreader event | in the wet market. | | Furthermore, given the symptoms observed in humans, if we | are to assume similar symptoms in the wild animals, then | odds are these animals become easy(er) pray, which reduces | odds of mass transmission. Finally, even if wild animals | spend a lot of time in 'close proximity', they are | constantly out-doors and in much larger distance than | humans sitting in public transport, which suggests there | are super-spreader "events" or viral-sources that dump | virus particles on wild animals and allow the virus to | enter the population. | | So I do agree that there may be something we are | overlooking, perhaps related to waste-water, but this is | why I am asking. Even if it doesn't matter anymore wrt | covid, it matters for the future. | | As for the people that misinterpret the noun 'option' | accompanied with the adjective 'permanent', they need to | understand that the ability for those willing to WFH, will | help deal with covid, reduce road congestion, gas | emissions, time wasted in commute, and ease measurements. I | am not advocating for permanent lockdowns or anything | alike. But it is common knowledge that flu infections have | reduced significantly, and masks can help deal with smog in | cities, as is done in cities in Asia. | N1H1L wrote: | It could be simply from a human being to their dog, who | chases a deer and passes it on. | uCantCauseUCant wrote: | Thats quite a nice way of putting it, that covid will lower the | average life expectancy even of a vaccinated person by 20 | years. Cause repeated tissue damage to lungs, heart and neural | pathway tissue, accumulates and those 20 today will sound all | like darth vadder in there sixties. | | I still think this is a problem, but hey, if your are already | that old and on your way out, who cares. Same attitude as with | global warming.. | alex77456 wrote: | It's not the society that we need to worry about. In the | beginning a good chunk of society was ringing alarms to close | borders, but the economy was too important to protect. | mrkramer wrote: | >Good article, but doesn't mention the other reason that | covid-19 is never going completely away: animal reservoirs. | | You realize there are thousands and thousands of viruses that | are circulating every day for billions of years. New epidemic | or pandemic can happen anytime anywhere. You can only mitigate | it not prevent it. | | >It is implausible that it will ever cease to have an animal | reservoir, especially given the finding in Canada of 30% of | white-tailed deer having it. | | >Of diseases that get as widespread as this, with animal | reservoirs, I don't believe there is any case of eliminating | it. | | Exactly | | >But, like vaccines can teach the immune system how to respond | more intelligently (and less self-destructively) to covid-19, | hopefully society can learn to respond more intelligently, and | less self-destructively, to the fact that it's always in | circulation. | | For example society and in particular Institutes of Virology | should take extra security precautions when experimenting with | gain of function viruses. | erhk wrote: | This is mostly irrelevant from my understanding. Of the few | diseases that humanity has eradicated, one is found in wild | animals. Animal resevoirs are simply not the problem. | mdp2021 wrote: | In some Countries, one of the current common shouts is | "vaccinate everything". It seems that in part, this is to | relieve the hospitals, and in part, to reduce contagion as | much as you can (the transmission rate in the vaccinated is | lower or, in the exceptions emerged, resolves faster). | | Now, let us suppose that cats may be vehicles. "Vaccinate | everyone" and "cats do not matter" is inconsistent. | q1w2 wrote: | Airborne diseases with wild animal reservoirs cannot be | eradicated, and never have been. | | It's unclear why you think a wild reservoir isn't a problem, | nor which eradicated disease you're referring to. | WillPostForFood wrote: | What disease are you talking about? Smallpox doesn't have an | animal reserve, Rinderpest doesn't infect humans. | skohan wrote: | As far as I understand, MIRS is continuously reappearing in | humans due to reservoirs in camel populations, and it's only | able to be controlled du to vigilant monitoring in vulnerable | areas. | Scoundreller wrote: | Add ferrets to the list of natural reservoirs. | | Thankfully birds and pigs seem to be immune, which could have | had a _huge_ impact on food supply and transmission. | | https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6494/1016 | rossdavidh wrote: | I seem to recall them walking back the conclusion that dogs | do not transmit well, but don't have the reference at hand. I | wonder if they were actually mistaken at first, or if the | virus has simply evolved in the direction of being better | transmitted by dogs? | | I wouldn't be surprised if they end up concluding that pigs | can catch and transmit as well, eventually. Birds does seem | to be more likely to hold true, as I don't know of any non- | mammals that have been found susceptible yet. | verall wrote: | I dunno what you're on about, dogs do not realistically | transmit covid. Their respiratory system is more different | to humans than a cat's. Ferrets and other animals with | extremely similar respiratory systems are known reservoirs | and have already been culled in some countries. | heavyset_go wrote: | Animal reservoirs are also responsible for helping to breed | illnesses that are able to evade our attempts to stop their | proliferation, like with antibiotics, antivirals, and vaccines. | SuoDuanDao wrote: | >We know that dogs, cats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mink, white- | tailed deer, a gorilla, and a tiger have been found to have | been infected with covid-19. | | And at least one papaya, apparently. | https://globalnews.ca/news/6910821/coronavirus-papaya-goat-t... | h3cate wrote: | Unpopular opinion but as countries get majority vaccinated they | have to learn to not be as scared of it. | Zigurd wrote: | That is only unpopular when it serves as an excuse for being | against mitigation measures. Those same people are clogging | the hospitals, diverting medications from people who | genuinely need them, and raising the noise level for real | advice to overcome. Everyone wants to go back to normal. The | people who from the beginning were contrary just for the lulz | are ruining our return to normal. | rossdavidh wrote: | I think the people who don't like that opinion, although | very, very loud online, are not actually in the majority. | But, it sure sounds like it online though. | h3cate wrote: | I hope that's the case. The question becomes though, what | influences politicians in their policy making the most? | pohl wrote: | Even less popular opinion: fear is irrelevant. What we | actually have is a cultural gap in how risk is assessed. Some | only consider individual risk of death. Others also consider | risk to beyond death, and beyond themselves. Casting the | latter as afraid is unhelpful. | h3cate wrote: | If you are a healthy person then you are low risk. If you | are unhealthy (smoke, overweight, health condition) then | you are at risk. I think a lot of people demanding the | mandating of vaccines and mask wearing are in the smokers / | overweight category and yet those people are never told to | become healthy in themselves. People with health conditions | have thought about illnesses long before covid. Thoughts? | t-writescode wrote: | I think a look at Texas shows the real danger of Covid. | Near 0% ER (edit: availability). | | If you're in a car accident, you may not get the life | saving attention you need, because so many someones | refused to vaccinate. | | That's the cascading effects we need to deal with, here. | | I'm not worried about getting covid, myself. I wasn't too | worried before I was vaccinated and I'm not worried at | all, now. | | I'm terrified of needing normal, emergency medical care, | or so-called elective surgeries (which is almost all | surgeries, even the vital ones), and being unable to get | it because thousands of beds are filled with people on | respirators. | luckylion wrote: | Casting those who have a higher risk threshold than you as | "only considering individual risk", while the other, better | people also consider others ... yeah, that's helpful. | spideymans wrote: | "I'm young, so I have nothing to worry about", is a | sentiment I've seen expressed all to commonly. | luckylion wrote: | I'm not young, I'm overweight, my risk is elevated. I'm | also vaccinated, but chose to get it way later than I | could have based on priority, because I calculated my | personal risk to be minimal, and others' to be | significantly higher despite lower priority. | | And "I'm so wise and noble and everyone who doesn't share | my opinion is a selfish ass" is still a dumb way to frame | it. | colmvp wrote: | I'm not scared of Covid-19, I'm mostly concerned that as the | numbers continue to rise and the hospitals/ICUs around me get | more Covid-19 cases, it'll force the government to have to | issue harsher measures to prevent the system from bursting at | the seams because hospitals don't have limitless resources. | People who don't want strict measures can't hand-wave that | potential reality away. | doubled112 wrote: | It was pretty much this for me and at this point more so. | | I've received both shots and was pretty low risk to begin | with. | | However, local hospitals were shipping patients off to | other cities, and sending adults to the children's | hospital. | | I don't think it's a stretch to believe that the outcome of | something like being in a car accident would be worse now | than normal. | ethbr0 wrote: | At some point prior to saturation, hospitals and the public | _deserve_ to have unvaccinated COVID-19 patients (without a | medical reason) turned away. | | We can do one of two things as communities: | | (1) Mandate vaccination for everyone, and provide everyone | care | | (2) Allow everyone the freedom to remain unvaccinated, and | limit care | | There's no other "normal" world where a highly communicable | disease that causes a sufficient number of hospital cases | exists and circulates in the human population. | | * Where normal means "normal freedoms of movement" + | "normal social interactions allowed" + "normal economic | operation" + "hospitals aren't overwhelmed and have | capacity for normal care" | jcadam wrote: | By this logic, we should also turn away the morbidly | obese, all smokers, anyone who injured themselves while | participating in risky activities (e.g, skiing), and so | on and so forth. | wonderwonder wrote: | No. Everyone deserves medical care, even if you and I | consider the decisions that led to that care to be | illogical. You are proposing a slippery slope. Currently | you could say that we should turn the unvaccinated away | but why not the obese? If someone is obese, generally it | is a personal choice much like the unvaccinated. What | about homosexuals that contract AIDS. I am all for | vaccines and I even support businesses requiring their | employees be vaccinated. But I am very much not for | beginning to play the game where your lifestyle choices | determine if we provide treatment. Everyone deserves to | be treated to the best of the hospitals ability. | ethbr0 wrote: | Yes. Everything about health insurance (which is what | we're basically talking about) is a slippery slope. | | Our health care system is unsustainable. And it's | unsustainable because of one very simple reason: we want | people to have absolute freedom _and_ an absolute right | to emergency care. | | I don't think those two are compatible. I don't think | they've ever been, but historically that contradiction | has been papered over with others' money (either in the | form of your insurance premiums or your tax dollars). | | Cue present situation. | | We have a scenario where there is a (1) free, (2) | available, (3) well-tolerated, (4) effective preventative | option in vaccines. | | If someone chooses to remain unvaccinated, without | medical reason, that is a pure personal choice. | | And moreover, unlike in normal scenarios, their making | that choice _directly_ burdens everyone else. | | Economically, through damage to normal economic | functioning. And medically, through consuming limited | hospital capacity. | | These arguments could be made for other conditions (e.g. | obesity), but in a much murkier and more tortured manner. | COVID is crystal clear: if you _can_ be vaccinated, and | you _choose_ not to be, you are imposing a greater burden | on society. | | Last I heard, the anti-vax crowd was big on personal | responsibility. So why shouldn't individuals pay that | debt of their own making? | wonderwonder wrote: | I hear what you are saying but I can see this spiraling | out of control. What happens when global warming and over | population is considered to be a dire threat to the | continued existence of human life? Do we allow hospitals | to refuse services to women on their third child or men / | women that refuse to be sterilized after the government | approved x children. Seems far fetched but our definition | of clear and present dangers can shift over time to fit | the scenario something similar has already happened in | China. I am very much not for allowing institutions to | make those sort of decisions regarding the care provided | to people as entities don't usually relinquish power once | granted. | | Edit: I am ok with triaging the vaccinated over the | unvaccinated in a scenario with limited space as | mentioned by another poster below. | ethbr0 wrote: | What's the alternative? | | You can't solve a resource limitation problem by | mandating access. | | And pretending to have free access, while in reality | prioritizing the wealthy, is just a free market with | ethical window dressing. | h3cate wrote: | Do hospitals turn away people with the flu away if they | are not vaccinated? Or is it only Covid that you would | impose this rule for? | pbourke wrote: | Has there been a flu season in recent history that caused | the hospital system to collapse? | nradov wrote: | Hospitals in some areas were overwhelmed with influenza | cases as recently as 2018. | | https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu- | patie... | ethbr0 wrote: | For reference, when I looked up the numbers, influenza | hospitalizations (estimated, total annual US) vary from | around 150,000 to 550,000, depending on the year and | strain. | | So yes, year to year has a lot of variance. | ethbr0 wrote: | Fair question. | | It looks like flu (influenza) hospitalizations run at | about 0.15% of total population, per year. | | SARS-CoV-2, at 1-5%? Although that might be vs confirmed | cases (?), which would muddle the numbers. | | But suffice to say substantially higher. So I think | there's an argument to be made for this being a COVID | only measure (and probably measles, etc too). | | IMHO, people are entitled to freedom regarding their | choice to vaccinate. | | But _if_ they choose to exercise _their_ freedom in ways | that limit _my_ freedom (via resulting lockdowns, | mandatory masking, banned social gatherings, preventing | businesses from operating normally, etc.), then that | doesn 't feel very fair. | | They're externalizing the consequences of their decisions | onto me, and the rest of society. | | So yeah, IMHO, their decisions: their bill to pay. With | their life, if necessary. | | (But I may be biased, as I have family working ICU, | triaging unvaccinated coronavirus deniers who show up at | the ER, begging to be saved, who are then sapping care | from non-COVID patients...) | luckylion wrote: | > But if they choose to exercise their freedom in ways | that limit my freedom (via resulting lockdowns, mandatory | masking, banned social gatherings, preventing businesses | from operating normally, etc.), then that doesn't feel | very fair. | | You can easily make that argument for plenty of things | though. Didn't care for education and wanted to party | instead? No welfare for you! Overweight? Sorry, you're | limiting my freedom via increased healthcare costs. Broke | your leg while skiing? Sorry, you knew the risk, now live | with it, insurance is for _real_ accidents only. | ethbr0 wrote: | All of those other examples have additional | characteristics that cast the argument differently. | | Education and obesity both have income and access issues. | In that, if you are poor, you don't have access to the | same options as those who are wealthy. | | Skiing is actually the best example (Alaska aside!), | given that it's a purely personal decision to engage in | or not. | | So hypothetical... | | If hospital ICUs were filling with ski accident victims, | to the extent they were unable to provide normal care to | non-ski patients, and the economy was being impacted | (businesses unable to operate, jobs lost, etc.) due to | this ski pandemic, then you would say "Skiing is a | personal choice that everyone deserves to make, and I | have no problem with my tax and insurance dollars paying | for skiers"? | luckylion wrote: | > Education and obesity both have income and access | issues. | | Some, but not primarily, so it still stands. I'm sure you | can find similar reasons with vaccine-anxiety. People | aren't choosing to be afraid of vaccines "just because", | there's something going on that terrifies them. | | > then you would say "Skiing is a personal choice that | everyone deserves to make, and I have no problem with my | tax and insurance dollars paying for skiers"? | | Yes, because that's the principle the system is built on. | | I mean, I think lots of people somewhat consciously make | lots of terrible decisions all the time, and the | consequences of their decisions do cost giant sums of | money that I have to pay lots of taxes for and that | cannot be used for people who face truly accidental | hardship (think extreme skiing vs walking and a suitcase | dropping from a plane). | | But we've generally decided that that's totally fine, and | I've accepted that and I pay taxes to make sure they | don't have to face the consequences of their decisions. | We cannot say "that's fine for everything, but not here" | if we operate on a principle. It's either "you're on your | own" or it's not, but it has to be consistent. | h3cate wrote: | I don't think anybody that's unvaccinated wants any | restrictions either. So if it was proposed there would be | no more restrictions on society would you still turn away | unvaccinated people from hospital? Going off your logic | they are no longer impacting _your_ freedoms. | gilbetron wrote: | Health systems operate by prioritizing, via an imperfect | system, patients based on need. If you run a red light | and slam into another car, but you're more injured than | the other person, you will be prioritized even though you | were culpable. I think that is the appropriate, ethical, | and practical approach. | | However, the calculus changes when the health system is | at or over capacity. Now, if two people come in and both | are critically ill, but you only have room for one, I'm | ok with choosing the one that was vaccinated. Likewise | with many other situations and illnesses. If you cause a | car accident, and both you and the person you hit require | the ICU, but there is only one spot open, I'm ok with the | person that got hit getting the spot. | | Now, I'm assuming you are jaded like me and know that | _actual_ answer is probably the person with the most | money tends to get the treatment, but that 's another | bitter, cynical discussion. | ethbr0 wrote: | Here's my current level of jade -- listening to repeated | stories about hospital staff having to argue with a | patient's family (all unvaccinated) about why they can't | visit the patient (also unvaccinated) in the COVID ward, | when care is being withdrawn due to organ failure. | | At some point, it's like, "Jesus. Just stop talking, and | please let me help you not kill yourself." | adrr wrote: | People aren't scared up. Concern is around ICU usage and that | elective surgery in hot areas are put on hold which include | critical cancer removal surgeries. | | Also we have a large group of unvaccinated group which are | under kids under 12. With life going back to normal, the | standard diseases are back like RSV, paraflu and others. Get | two at the same time and it's a emergency room visit. Get 3 | at the same time and it's life threatening. Two at the same | time isn't uncommon before covid. Now my pediatrician says 3 | is happening and it's a kid killer. It boggles my mind why | there is pushback on mandating kids to wear masks in schools. | h3cate wrote: | Are there any studies into the effects of being infected by | multiple of these viruses at the same time? Or is this just | what your doctor has told you? Also what do kids under 12 | have to do with any of this? | ceejayoz wrote: | Studies will take time. That said: | | https://www.npr.org/2021/08/14/1027663917/rsv-covid- | children | | > At Texas Children's Hospital in Houston on Thursday, 25 | of 45 hospitalized pediatric patients were diagnosed with | RSV as well as COVID-19. "A hospitalization rate much | higher than for either virus alone," according to | officials. | | > At the moment there is little data available on the | impact of contracting both viruses and whether the two | together can make a person sicker. But health officials | worry it could put young patients -- who are not eligible | for the vaccine -- at greater risk. | AndrewBissell wrote: | > _At Texas Children 's Hospital in Houston on Thursday, | 25 of 45 hospitalized pediatric patients were diagnosed | with RSV as well as COVID-19. "A hospitalization rate | much higher than for either virus alone," according to | officials._ | | Would be interested to see the exact breakdown here. If | 19 children are hospitalized with RSV+Covid, 5 with just | RSV, and 1 with just Covid, it could just indicate RSV is | particularly virulent for children and they are likely to | also have Covid given they have been exposed to RSV. This | would certainly fit with what we already know about the | relative risks posed to children by RSV vs Covid. | | This article from the Guardian suggests that the reason | RSV is having an off-season surge is because children now | have an "immunity debt" from being isolated as part of | Covid protocols. It would probably not be a good idea not | for us to double down on the measures that have brought | us to this point. | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/new- | zealand-ch... | | Good thread by an MD here discussing these issues and | saying that coinfection rates are 50% for kids: https://t | witter.com/contrarian4data/status/14298548764151316... | h3cate wrote: | Interesting but until there is some real data around this | personally I would rather see people who we know are at | risk, elderly in poorer countries, get the vaccine over | under 12s in first world countries. That's just my | opinion though | fxtentacle wrote: | Only recently did we reach the threshold where the majority | believes in evolution, as opposed to "God created | everything". | titzer wrote: | > It boggles my mind why there is pushback on mandating | kids to wear masks in schools. | | It doesn't really boggle my mind, it's just that the | conclusions it suggests about fellow Americans are really | hard to swallow. There is a lot of political polarization | in the US and cranking through the implications and reasons | for ostensibly pro-COVID policies and attitudes is really | disheartening. It's a schism that isn't healed easily. | | If anything, an impersonal virus, an implacable, | impossible-to-anthropomorphize, zero-upside health hazard | could have easily been something for the _entire world_ to | unite against. Instead, we got more and deeper division and | louder and more extreme and more destructive arguments. And | we lost a lot of people and maimed even more. And the | reason that couldn 't happen: Money. The economy. Me. | Freedumbs! | | COVID exposed people's real priorities and objectives and | showed how craven and myopic our political leaders really | are. | commandlinefan wrote: | > mandating kids to wear masks in schools | | There's no evidence that wearing masks prevents contracting | Covid (or any other airborne virus). It does a bit toward | preventing spreading it if you already have it, but if you | already have it, the schools send you home anyway. It's | also not as if masks are themselves neutral either - | constant mask wearing is associated with higher rates of | bacterial pneumonia. Even medical professionals never wore | masks all day (until last year), just when they were | performing surgery. | bobsomers wrote: | > There's no evidence that wearing masks prevents | contracting Covid (or any other airborne virus). It does | a bit toward preventing spreading it if you already have | it | | What you just described is the same thing, it's simply a | matter of perspective. If _you_ wear a mask, it helps | _me_ by reducing the chances that you spread it to me if | you have it but aren 't experiencing symptoms yet. It | works the same way in reverse. I don't wear a mask to | protect myself, I wear it to protect others in the case | that I'm shedding virus and don't know it yet. | jdavis703 wrote: | > It does a bit toward preventing spreading it if you | already have it, but if you already have it, the schools | send you home anyway | | Most of the schools that do testing due so weekly. With | delta someone can be contagious up to 36 hours after | infection. That means someone who gets tested on Friday | morning, goes to a poorly ventilated party with a | COVID-19+ that evening and returns to school on Monday | could spread the disease for a week. | martin_bech wrote: | The masks part is easy.. it has no effect.. | | We have been on and off masks here in Denmark, and it seems | to have no effect on spread. Also mostly you get covid when | not wearing one.. from a family member or a friend.. | baron_harkonnen wrote: | > The masks part is easy.. it has no effect.. | | > Also mostly you get covid when not wearing one.. | | The conclusion I would draw from your own beliefs here is | that we should be wearing _masks_ all the time, | especially around family... not that masks don 't work. | | Personally while I wear a mask most of the time when out, | I do feel that we really don't know as much as we'd like | to think about mask efficacy. The trouble is your own | reasoning here is inconsistent. Either masks don't work | as well as we think and risk of infection is equally | likely in public or at home, or they do work effectively | but we don't wear them at important times. | | The argument you should have from your own beliefs here | should be for more mask wearing not less. | commandlinefan wrote: | > it seems to have no effect on spread | | We wore them for a year. Covid is still here. It won't go | away if we wear them for another year. It won't go away | if we wear them for another ten years. | spookthesunset wrote: | And it might be a shocker to some, but there is more to | life than myopically focusing on slowing the spread of | exactly one disease. We have the rest of our lives to | worry about. Expecting society to live a covid centric | lifestyle where all that matters is "does it slow the | spread" for 1.6 years and counting is does not make for a | mentally healthy population. | darkarmani wrote: | > We wore them for a year. Covid is still here. | | That sounds like an argument against bullet proof vests. | People still die while wearing them. LEO have been | wearing them for years. Obviously, they don't work. | | You don't understand the actual goal of wearing masks: | protected people and reducing the spread of covid. It's | not going to magically eliminate covid when half the | country doesn't actually wear them. | commandlinefan wrote: | > LEO have been wearing them for years | | So in other words, your expectation is that we'll be | wearing masks for the rest of our lives? | code4money wrote: | "Compared with a baseline of 1-foot separation with no | masks employed, particle count was reduced by 84% at 3 | feet of separation and 97% at 6 feet. A modest decrease | in particle count was observed when only the receiver was | masked. The most substantial exposure reduction occurred | when the aerosol source was masked (or both parties were | masked). When both the source and target were masked, | particle count was reduced by more than 99.5% of | baseline, regardless of separation distance or which type | of mask was employed." | | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00 | 256... | GeekyBear wrote: | We no longer believe that Covid is spread by large | droplets that will fall to the ground within six feet of | being sneezed or coughed out. Cloth masks catch those | droplets just fine. | | We now know that Covid is spread by minute particles so | small that they float on the air for hours. Cloth masks | do not filter the air you breathe from particles of that | size. | | You would need an n95 mask or better to do that job. | | Remember that mask wearing almost completely did away | with last year's Flu season while we simultaneously had a | huge Covid surge. | spookthesunset wrote: | > You would need an n95 mask or better to do that job. | | And not just that but you have to wear it properly. This | means if you have a beard, you better shave it. | GeekyBear wrote: | Indeed. If you need to filter out tiny particles from the | air you breathe, you can't allow unfiltered air to leak | in and out through the sides of the mask. | | >Studies that have been done show that if an individual | might get infected within 15 minutes in a room, by time | and concentration of the virus in the room, add a face | cloth covering you only get about five more minutes of | protection. | | On the other hand if you use the n95 respirators and fit | them tight to your face, you can actually spend 25 hours | in that same room and still be protected. | | https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/do- | masks... | tehjoker wrote: | There's even speculation that low quality masks create | selective pressure for higher binding affinity to ACE2. | We should all be wearing N95s... | orhmeh09 wrote: | What if we gave N95 masks to everyone? Several countries | have mandated N95 or FFP/equivalent masks. America can | afford it. | tazjin wrote: | All the pro-mask studies are like this: Some simulated | situation that doesn't take into account whether spread | actually happens like that in real life. | | They can simulate blowing stuff through various types of | filter material all they want, it doesn't change that | none of the epidemiological curves reacted to mask | mandates anywhere. | | They do work great as an ideological symbol though, | thanks to the topic's polarisation. | throwaway4good wrote: | It has a quite an effect. | | If you notice at the moment the corona numbers are high | in Netherlands and Denmark while low in Germany. | | Because Germany has kept more restrictions in place, in | particular mask wearing in shops and transport. | martin_bech wrote: | The case count for Germany atm is very impressive, but we | ditched masks in June, and cases actually plummeted after | that, and only started to rise with the delta variant. We | still compared to most have a low infection rate. | martin_bech wrote: | There is nothing to support the theory that shops are | hotspots for spread, if that was true alot of supermarket | employees etc, would have been infected, at a larger rate | than average. However this has not happened anywhere. | spookthesunset wrote: | Correlation is not causation. Just because "cases went | down" doesn't mean masks (or lockdowns) were responsible | for the drop. | AndrewBissell wrote: | You can cite 100 counterexamples when using this | simplistic kind of reasoning. Covid numbers are quite | high in South Korea and Japan which both have sky-high | mask compliance, for example. | AdamN wrote: | Isn't that part of the scientific process? Is there some | other way to come to the truth aside from observation and | examining variables related to the observed outcomes? | martin_bech wrote: | Thanks for the downvotes.. still wont make the masks | work. Get vaccinated. | playguardin wrote: | Bad news. The vax doesnt work either. :( | open-source-ux wrote: | There remain differences of opinion among scientists on | how effective _non-medical_ masks are in reducing | COVID-19 transmission. | | However, on the question of medical-grade masks, there is | clear research that now shows some masks (e.g. FFP3 | masks) are effective in stopping COVID-19 infection. | | _Covid: Masks upgrade cuts infection risk, research | finds_ : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57636360 | grumpitron wrote: | Isn't this a contradiction? | | "Masks don't work" and then in the next paragraph "mostly | you get COVID when not wearing [a mask]" | jandrese wrote: | I think this works like condom statistics, where the | statistic is that they are 98% effective, but that | statistic includes people who go "we normally wear | condoms, but we didn't that one time and she got | pregnant" as a condom failure. | | So basically, the masks are effective, but people take | the masks off around family and friends and if one of | their friends or family has COVID they will pass it on | during the unmasked time. | heywherelogingo wrote: | Only if you truncate the sentence as you have done. | grumpitron wrote: | Can you help me understand how "catching COVID while not | wearing a mask" is meaningfully different from "catching | COVID from a family member while not wearing masks" in | the context of whether masks are effective in preventing | the spread of COVID? Seems an irrelevant distinction to | me. | anang wrote: | I think: | | You're not catching covid in situations where you'd | typically wear a mask (regardless of masking), rather | where you typical don't wear a mask, like from family | member. | | I'm not really saying I agree, but I think that is the | context. | rayiner wrote: | > It boggles my mind why there is pushback on mandating | kids to wear masks in schools. | | It really shouldn't if you're an educated person who is | following what scientific authorities are saying. The | science here is still uncertain, but leaning towards masks | for kids in schools not being worth it. See: | https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/the-science-of- | maski... | | > At the end of May, the Centers for Disease Control and | Prevention published a notable, yet mostly ignored, large- | scale study of COVID transmission in American schools... | Distancing, hybrid models, classroom barriers, HEPA | filters, and, most notably, requiring student masking were | each found to not have a statistically significant benefit. | In other words, these measures could not be said to be | effective. | | > In the realm of science and public-health policy outside | the U.S., the implications of these particular findings are | not exactly controversial. Many of America's peer nations | around the world -- including the U.K., Ireland, all of | Scandinavia, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and | Italy -- have exempted kids, with varying age cutoffs, from | wearing masks in classrooms. | cageface wrote: | Delta wasn't dominant by May. Does this still hold? | JeanMarcS wrote: | Well I can't speak for other countries, but in France | mask is mandatory in schools from age 6. It's been like | this for a year and will most likely continue in | september for the new school year. | unityByFreedom wrote: | Long-term we should just adopt the practice of wearing | one if you're symptomatic. It helps reduce spread. This | is what Asia started doing after SARS. It's considered a | courtesy, just as we consider it a courtesy to cover your | mouth when coughing or sneezing. | kmeisthax wrote: | Japan kept doing it after Spanish Flu. | | Unfortunately, given that 1910s America and 2020s America | both had significant (and in my mind, unwarranted) | resistance to wearing face masks; I would not be | surprised if "wear a mask if you feel sick" fails to make | it into common understanding in America a _second time_. | hackersword wrote: | Have you looked at the actual report and not the anti-vax | site summation of the report? | | >. The 21% lower incidence in schools that required mask | use among students was not statistically significant | compared with schools where mask use was optional. | | I'm not sure how 21% lower is considered "not | statistically significant", in trying to suppress the | spread, ANYTHING > 0% is helpful. Full stop. | | Other stand out qualifiers from same report | | >This finding might be attributed to higher effectiveness | of masks among adults, who are at higher risk for SARS- | CoV-2 infection but might also result from differences in | mask-wearing behavior among students in schools with | optional requirements. Mask use requirements were limited | in this sample; | | >The findings in this report are subject to at least four | limitations. | | > * First, many COVID-19 cases were self-reported by | staff members and parents or guardians, and prevention | strategies reported by administrators or nurses might not | reflect day-to-day activities or represent all school | classrooms, and *did not include an assessment of | compliance* (e.g., mask use). | | >* Second, the study had limited power to detect lower | incidence for potentially effective, but less frequently | implemented strategies, such as air filtration and | purification systems; only 16 schools reported | implementing this ventilation improvement. | | > * Third, the response rate was low (11.6%), and some | participating schools had missing information about | ventilation improvements. However, incidence per 500 | students was similar between participating (3.08 cases) | and nonparticipating (2.90 cases) schools, suggesting any | systematic bias might be low. | | >* Finally, the data from this cross-sectional study | cannot be used to infer causal relationships. | | Basically was relying on self reporting. If a student | contracted and was asymptomatic, not shown here, etc. | traek wrote: | > I'm not sure how 21% lower is considered "not | statistically significant", in trying to suppress the | spread, ANYTHING > 0% is helpful. Full stop. | | Statistical significance has a specific meaning in the | context of hypothesis testing. It is a measure of | likelihood that the observed result occurred due to a | real difference between groups (rather than random | chance). | eliasmacpherson wrote: | It seems that they are adding up the margin of errors for | 82/1461 and 87/1461, (schools responded divided by | schools surveyed), giving a total margin of error of ~20% | for these optional vs. mandatory masked student | statistics. This is a problem with using surveys with a | low response rate. | | In their own words in that section, by the incident rate | ratio it is statistically significant, even after having | been adjusted for county level 7 day incidence. | | You can try and figure it out on page 4 of the cdc | report, it does not appear to be a null hypothesis test. | | https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7021e1-H.pd | f | [deleted] | [deleted] | ericb wrote: | Self-report is a notoriously bad way to "study" almost | anything. | timr wrote: | > _did not include an assessment of compliance_ (e.g., | mask use). | | This is not a rebuttal. | | If you establish a policy, and people _do not follow the | policy_ , that's on you, not on the people. You don't get | to compare your intervention against an ideal world and | claim that "it would have worked, if only for those | darned humans!" | | > Basically was relying on self reporting. If a student | contracted and was asymptomatic, not shown here, etc. | | A great many of the pro-mask papers in 2020 that claimed | to "prove" that masks work started from self-reported | data (the infamous "hairdressers" CDC report comes to | mind...if a customer was asymptomatic, they were ignored; | there was no control, so it's impossible to know what | would have happened otherwise; etc.) The standards for | "proof" across the pandemic have been dismally low, and | tribalism and politics have supplanted science. | | The difference here is that we actually have examples | from across the globe where kids _weren 't_ masked in | schools, and no matter how you look at it, it doesn't | seem to make much of a difference. If we're going to be | skeptical (we should!) let's be skeptical of _every | claim_ , and demand proof of effectiveness for our | medical interventions before imposing them across all of | human society. | jdavis703 wrote: | This is like saying antibiotics don't work because many | people don't complete their course of treatment. | detaro wrote: | It depends what you are looking at. "Do antibiotics | work?" is a slightly different question than "Is | prescribing antibiotics effective?". | | Of course you'd want data on how people actually take | them, because to make decisions you'd like to know if the | result means "prescribing antibiotics just doesn't work" | or "we need to figure out how to make sure people | actually take the prescribed antibiotics effectively" | timr wrote: | Exactly. A more apt analogy would be the hypothesis _" do | antibiotics reduce the prevalence of MRSA, if prescribed | for everyone?"_ | | We can know that antibiotics work, but still fail | spectacularly when used improperly. It's important to | test both. | chlodwig wrote: | _I 'm not sure how 21% lower is considered "not | statistically significant", in trying to suppress the | spread, ANYTHING > 0% is helpful. Full stop._ | | 1) Is your government adopting a comprehensives and | realistic plan to achieve zero covid? (Such a policy must | include 100% international travel shut-down, zero | exceptions. If there are exceptions, your government does | not have a zero covid policy.) | | 2) Is ICU or hospital usage approaching capacity in your | area? | | If the answer to those questions is both "no" (as it is | in my jurisdiction which is requiring school kids to | mask) then your statement is not true. A 21% lower | incident rate is not helpful at all, everyone will still | all get exposed to covid eventually. | cookingrobot wrote: | If we can keep kids from catching it for another few | months, they can get the vaccine. That's a huge benefit. | chlodwig wrote: | The net-benefit of the vaccine in kids is likely to be | borderline at best. That is because 1) kids are already | at very, very low risk from covid 2) the side effects of | the vaccine seem to be as bad or worse in the young in | healthy 3) actually getting the virus allows the immune | system to see a much more complete picture of the virus | which may lead to better long term immunity. The kid who | actually gets the real thing may end up having a better | chance of being protected at age 25 or 45 than the kid | who just gets the vaccine. See this article for some | discussion of this issue: | https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58270098 | rayiner wrote: | > anti-vax site summation of the report? | | New York Magazine is an "anti-vax site?" | hackersword wrote: | Looking at the authors listed contributions to that site, | he specifically appears to have a distinct bias and | railing very specifically on something near and dear to | him. | | https://nymag.com/author/david-zweig/ | | 7 articles about kids/scool/covid in last year, and one | "asking the question" if vaccine is causing a dangerous | heart condition in young men. | lern_too_spel wrote: | > The science here is still uncertain, but leaning | towards masks for kids in schools not being worth it | | The science is uncertain but leaning towards masking | children at schools being worth it. The fact that a study | that included mask intervention in Georgia schools showed | a double digit percent reduction in community | transmission but was underpowered to be statistically | significant by itself should not cause us to update | beliefs very much, let alone update them in the direction | of the null hypothesis, let alone update them _all the | way to the null hypothesis_ as Zweig has done, given that | our priors are informed by CERN simulations, mechanistic | experiments, and adult transmission studies that | demonstrate effectiveness. That just demonstrates Zweig | 's poor understanding of statistics terminology. | eli wrote: | Yes, scientific uncertainty is a thing. It would be great | if we instantly had tons of studies and replications | showing exactly how effective different measures are, but | that is just not how it works. I can cite many models | that show masking works, if you're curious. | | This same line of argument was used to question climate | change for decades and to support the argument that we | should not take any aggressive measures to avoid it. | | There's a good chance wearing masks in schools makes the | community safer from serious illness. And the risk in | wearing masks if they prove to be useless is...what | exactly? That masks are a little uncomfortable? | techbio wrote: | Serious illness, bad as it is, is a lot more predictable | than fear/security driven social engineering, and when | cover-your-smile is rolled into cover your cough, I'd | expect unintended consequences, socially, | developmentally. You must realize there are other | problems than COVID, and some are much more important. | Your Pascal's Wager about masks is a bit revealing vis-a- | vis any certainty about the evidence. | crateless wrote: | I am reminded of Slavoj Zizek's story about Niels Bohr | having a horseshoe above his door:[0] | | "surprised at seeing a horseshoe above the door of Bohr's | country house, the fellow scientist visiting him | exclaimed that he did not share the superstitious belief | regarding horseshoes keeping evil spirits out of the | house, to which Bohr snapped back: "I don't believe in it | either. I have it there because I was told that it works | even when one doesn't believe in it at all." This is | indeed how ideology functions today: nobody takes | democracy or justice seriously, we are all aware of their | corrupted nature, but we participate in them, we display | our belief in them."[1] | | [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8859145 | | [1] - http://brooklynbooktalk.blogspot.com/2010/02/its- | ideology-st... | eli wrote: | Unlike horseshoes, there is credible research and wide | consensus among experts that masks work | commandlinefan wrote: | > leaning towards masks for kids in schools not being | worth it. | | The problem is that we're dealing with "if it save even | one child's life it's worth it" (for any "it") reasoning, | which is impossible to argue against. | AdamN wrote: | This makes it sound like there was some groundbreaking | CDC study that got hidden for political reasons. | | It was a study of a single month in Georgia before Delta. | Aside from the narrowness of the inputs I highly doubt | school policy and ground truth were aligned. | | That study is not enough to be driving policy. | rhino369 wrote: | The evidence for cotton and surgical mask--as used in | actual practice--being effective at reducing the spread | is pretty weak in general. | | Most I've seen cited by mask proponents either don't use | control groups (and thus can't really distinguish btwn | other factors that correlate with mask wearing) or are | laboratory tests just testing what % of particles are | blocked by masks--which ignores almost every relevant | question about mask mandates and relies on suspect | theoretical models about how covid actually transmits | between people. | | I'm mystified why people on both sides are so up in arms | about masks, but nobody gives one shit about | uncontroversal and more effective mitigation techniques | like air filtration and circulation. | | An infected kid in classroom without proper air | circulation could fill the classroom with enough virus to | cause a super spreader event--mask or no-cotton/surgical | mask. | guelo wrote: | The riled-up anti-mask parents get all the attention but | in every district there are also parents pushing for more | ventilation, testing, vaccinations, etc. In my school | we've been able to get the ventilation upgraded with | MERV-13 filters. | triceratops wrote: | > nobody gives one shit about uncontroversal and more | effective mitigation techniques like air filtration and | circulation. | | How much would it cost to retrofit a bunch of schools | with this stuff? | | Ideally you'd do both. Have better air circulation, and | institute masks when the regional caseload goes above a | certain threshold. | AdamN wrote: | Billions in the US and it's part of the infrastructure | bill and alot of investment right now. This is a multi- | year effort (although IMHO functioning windows should be | more normalized instead of going all in on HVAC). | rhino369 wrote: | I don't know, but it should pay dividends for generations | given it'll probably slow down colds and flus too. | | Even things like a box fan in a window are probably | significantly more effective than scooby doo masks. | triceratops wrote: | > box fan in a window | | That's fine year-round in the south and southwest. Not so | much in the rest of the country though. | edmundsauto wrote: | Why should one preclude the other? Defense in depth and | all that. | johnold wrote: | I know that our teacher's union and the district we work | for negotiated for almost a week about air filtration and | circulation. | | The HVAC is continuously circulating air from the time it | is on until after school when it turns off. There is some | time before school and maybe 20min after school when it | is on. | | They have settled on only pulling air from the outside | instead of recycling the warm or cool air in the room. | | And having some kind of agreement on the merv rating of | the filters. It may be merv 7(but I'm not sure.) | spookthesunset wrote: | The default policy should be a normal non-masked school | year. People pushing masks need to produce a hell of a | lot of evidence that masks work and are worth all the | negative effects they might have on kids. In addition | they need a clearly defined exit strategy. They should | also articulate what problem masks on kids are trying to | solve. | ceejayoz wrote: | People claiming "all the negative effects they might have | on kids" "need to produce a hell of a lot of evidence" of | that. | spookthesunset wrote: | That isn't how this works. It isn't my job to provide | that evidence. Y'all want to force my 4 year old to wear | a mask at her preschool. Prove it is necessary and won't | cause long term development issues. | | It isn't my job to prove it _isn 't_ necessary. I'm the | one that needs to be convinced, not the other way around. | Y'all are the ones trying to force this, not me. | IX-103 wrote: | How full is your local pediatric ICU? | https://www.google.com/search?q=pediatric+icu+beds | | If it's full then risking developmental issues for your | child should probably be a less important to you than | risking a highly contagious illness with the | complications that entails (complications include death, | permanent cognitive, neurological, respiratory and | cardiovascular damage). | | Ideally every responsible* parent could choose how they | want to manage the risk for their child, but that's not | always practical. With limited daycare and schooling | facilities, there's a strong push to follow the more | ~conservative~ (cautious) approaches. And this is at it | should be. As they say "Your freedom to swing your arm | ends at my face", so to should your freedom to choose the | level of risk you are comfortable with be limited by the | freedom for others to choose their level of risk. | | *A responsible parent considers the welfare of the child | first and foremost, not using children as tools to make | points or demonstrate a commitment to a particular | ideology or to otherwise serve their own interests. | spookthesunset wrote: | Hospitals aren't full. ICU's will never fill up with kids | having covid. It just won't happen. | | Kids aren't at risk. We have more than a year and a half | of data to support this. | | > A responsible parent considers the welfare of the child | first and foremost, not using children as tools to make | points or demonstrate a commitment to a particular | ideology or to otherwise serve their own interests. | | Correct. And I'd argue almost everybody in favor of | forcing kids to wear masks at school forgot this. | chlodwig wrote: | Depriving kids of seeing facial expressions, depriving | kids _of seeing the smiles on the faces_ of their friends | and teachers, for an entire year (or more?), during most | of their socialization hours, is in and of itself a | direct and terrible harm. It 's one thing to require | masks in the grocery store and at the doctor's office | just to be on the safe side. Not much harm in that. But | all-day, every day at school, a place which is the | primary place to make friends, and not being able to see | friend's smile? That is a horrible thing. If covid was | actually so dangerous that we needed to worry about kids | dying, then the proper response would be shutting down | the schools entirely. If it is not dangerous, then we | should allow kids to attend mask free and have an | actually fully human experience. | spookthesunset wrote: | If covid was so dangerous to children that they were | dying all over the place, they'd have been first in line | for vaccines way back in December. | | Also it sickens me that people downvote your valid | concerns. Kids need facial expressions. They need to hear | and see each other to learn. I don't know why that is so | controversial. | op00to wrote: | Please list the negative effects. Should be easy since | there are so many. | chlodwig wrote: | Not being able to see the facial expressions and smiles | of their friends and teachers. | Retric wrote: | "masks need to produce a hell of a lot of evidence" vs | "all the negative effects they might have on kids" | | Those are some wildly different standards. You can | convince yourself of anything if you assume it's correct | and raise the bar high enough for counter evidence. | adambard wrote: | There's an intuitive model that makes some sense of this | finding: Masks, air filters, and distancing are effective | at preventing transmission by reducing -- not eliminating | -- viral load. What suffices to prevent infection from a | 15-second encounter with a stranger in line at the | supermarket, may not be enough when kids are in the same | room breathing the same air 6 hours of every day. | | We now know what it takes to protect a person from COVID | in an environment where they are likely to be exposed to | significant virus concentrations; unfortunately, getting | kids to scrub up like COVID ward nurses is probably not | realistic. | gilbetron wrote: | So the CDC are not educated nor intelligent, I guess? | | "Due to the circulating and highly contagious Delta | variant, CDC recommends universal indoor masking by all | students (age 2 and older), staff, teachers, and visitors | to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status." | | https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schoo | ls-... | | Also, the very study NYMag talks about still recommends: | "Because universal and correct use of masks can reduce | SARS-CoV-2 transmission (6) and is a relatively low-cost | and easily implemented strategy, findings in this report | suggest universal and correct mask use is an important | COVID-19 prevention strategy in schools as part of a | multicomponent approach." | Miraste wrote: | The CDC's public guidance during this pandemic is going | to end up in communications classes alongside New Coke | and the Osborne 1. They're so lucky they were bailed out | (mostly) by vaccines. They opened by saying masks didn't | work (a straight up lie, even if a well-intentioned one) | and stuck to that line for at least a month. Then they | did a 180, deleted their tweets, and spent the rest of | 2020 saying masks were necessary. Then it was no masks | for the vaccinated. Now it's masks for everyone again. | Along the way they've somehow managed to lag _and_ jump | ahead of the actual research on masks and public trust in | the CDC, their greatest asset, is now around 52% - | poetically the same as the US vaccination rate. | h3cate wrote: | I'd love to see a teacher try and mandate correct use of | masks on a bunch of 2 year olds :D | spookthesunset wrote: | CDC doesn't make public policy. Nowhere did you mention | what the harms of this forced mask use could be on kids. | Even if masks offered some protection it has to be | balanced against all manner of long term social, language | and developmental effects caused from wearing a mask. | darkerside wrote: | Critically, this is all pre-Delta. It seems common sense | to me that kids should wear masks at school, and I don't | think we have science that can dispute that common sense | at this point. | | Of course, the problem is, and always has been with | COVID, that my common sense is different from yours and | vice versa... | simonw wrote: | How is "the science here is still uncertain" an argument | against masks in schools? | | If it turns out they are useful, wearing them will have | been a good idea. | | If it turns out that they weren't useful, what harm has | been caused? | | (I'm aware that there are people out there who think | wearing masks for a year or two will scar children for | life, but for the most part I don't think those people | are arguing in good faith. The biggest harm I see is to | children with hearing problems who are prevented from lip | reading.) | op00to wrote: | Muh freedoms is why there are still people fighting | masks. | spookthesunset wrote: | Good question. Who are they now protecting? People who | refuse to get a vaccine? | h3cate wrote: | Exactly this. This is why the vaccines have been rolled | out. If somebody doesn't want to wear a mask now they | shouldn't have to if the vaccine has been offered to | everyone in their country. | danenania wrote: | It seems obvious that wearing masks all day would hinder | social and verbal development in toddlers and small | children, at least to some extent. I think everyone can | agree that they wouldn't _help_ in these areas? | | You might think the public health benefits outweigh this | concern, but it's disingenuous imo to just assert that | there are no conceivable negative effects for a two year | old having their first social experiences. | simonw wrote: | This is a good answer. I've not been thinking in terms of | two year olds - I've been assuming this debate is mostly | about children who are elementary school and above. | [deleted] | BoxOfRain wrote: | Not to mention the effects on children who struggle with | their hearing and need to lip-read, from a disability | rights point of view I don't think it's quite as simple | as "masking kids is great, end of story". | rayiner wrote: | You're absolutely wrong about the last point. The people | raising risks to childhood development from masking are | serious people making serious arguments: | https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/article/mandatory-masking- | of-sc... | | This is as an article by medical professors at USC and | Stanford: | | > At the same time, the long-term harm to kids from | masking is potentially enormous. Masking is a | psychological stressor for children and disrupts | learning. Covering the lower half of the face of both | teacher and pupil reduces the ability to communicate. In | particular, children lose the experience of mimicking | expressions, an essential tool of nonverbal | communication. Positive emotions such as laughing and | smiling become less recognizable, and negative emotions | get amplified. Bonding between teachers and students | takes a hit. Overall, it is likely that masking | exacerbates the chances that a child will experience | anxiety and depression, which are already at pandemic | levels themselves. | | I don't know if you have young children, but facial | expressions are a huge part of communication. My kids are | constantly looking at my face to for "is this okay" | signals. Kids learn to look at facial expressions of | peers to understand what they're thinking and feeling. | There's just tons and tons of research on this. | | Masks for kids isn't like masks for adults, where you can | say "well even if they don't work there's no harm." What | we don't have is research showing that wearing masks has | persistent negative effects on kids, but based on what we | do know that's a real possible harm that has to be | weighed against the possible benefits of masking. | rcpt wrote: | > My kids are constantly looking at my face to for "is | this okay" signals | | Nobody's expecting you to wear masks at home. | spookthesunset wrote: | Whats your point, that doesn't invalidate the argument at | all. | timmytokyo wrote: | The article discusses a few of the potential harms to | young children. At that age, children are learning how to | read social cues, and they do that by observing faces. An | indefinite mask mandate that lasts for years could have | developmental consequences for these children. | Godel_unicode wrote: | One possible harm I've seen postulated is moral | licensing, i.e. wearing a mask makes people feel safer | and thus makes them more willing to be indoors in close | proximity for longer. | | A counter-argument says that wearing a physical thing can | act as a constant reminder of covid, causing people to | act more responsibly. | | Back on the harms side again, there's a possibility that | teaching kids "just do this and don't ask questions" can | have negative consequences. Again, the counter argument | of letting them ask questions and carefully explaining | what we do and don't know can be a positive. | ummwhat wrote: | >Back on the harms side again, there's a possibility that | teaching kids "just do this and don't ask questions" can | have negative consequences. | | Don't worry. The schools teach that with or without | masks. | simonw wrote: | I wonder if there has been research that attempts to | answer the question of whether masks encourage less safe | or more safe behaviour - it feels to me like something | that would respond well to a well designed study. | BoxOfRain wrote: | Anecdotally speaking, in my corner of England social | distancing went out of the window shortly after masks | were mandated in shops. | nerdponx wrote: | In addition, several of the "masks don't work" studies I | saw had to do with people touching or messing with their | masks undoing any benefits of actually wearing a mask. | spookthesunset wrote: | A year of a kids life is an eternity for them. Two is | forever! You are stealing their childhood away from them | to protect who, exactly? What is even the point of | masking them. | | Teachers have been vaccinated. Parents have been | vaccinated. Kids aren't at risk. Why this obsession with | reducing cases if we took the sting out of covid? | | Kids need to be children. They aren't human shields for | adults. Adults are expect to sacrifice for kids, not the | other way around. Kids deserve their one and only | childhood. They don't deserve to be treated like disease | vectors that need to be muzzled to make frightened | parents and educators feel safe. Double so when all those | adults can get a free, highly effective vaccine. | | Making them mandatory is even worse. The state has no | right to force my kid to wear a mask at school in order | to have an education. Parents should be making that call | for their own kid. | peder wrote: | Exactly right. The parent poster you replied to is | another in the long list of people that flippantly | disregard the harms of masking. Good luck dealing with a | generation that has developed unhealthy phobias and has | severe emotional attachment issues that's also unequipped | to enter college. | tehjoker wrote: | Delta infects and kills kids. PICUs are getting full in | some areas. | amatecha wrote: | As a former kid (lol), I can't say having to wear a mask | would have had any adverse effect on my school | experience. It sucked anyways. I hated being there and | hated wasting my life every day being shown material that | was of zero benefit to me, and being treated like crap by | people who don't even know me. | | Honestly back then I would have felt the same thing that | I do now: that I am happy to wear a mask so I and/or my | parents/grandparents or other people around me don't die | of a completely preventable virus, and that people who | refuse to wear masks are idiots for not doing the most | simple, effortless thing to help prevent the needless | spread of the virus. | | Wearing a mask doesn't steal anyone's childhood. Does | wearing glasses steal your childhood? How about braces? | We do A LOT of uncomfortable things in our life for our | health and future. Wearing a mask is one of those things, | due to the ongoing pandemic. | | I mean, added bonus, I haven't had a single cold or flu | or anything like that in over a year and a half. I'm | guessing you (and anyone reading this) can probably say | the same, if you strictly masked up, used hand sanitizer, | etc. Yeah I've been sick for other reasons, but not a | single time have I been sick from something transmitted | by another person. First time in my decades of life that | I've gone this long without any transmissible illness. | spookthesunset wrote: | Honestly, all of your stuff sounds like rationalization. | Rationalizing putting masks on kids despite there being | little evidence they work, are something society wants, | and won't have any negative impact on kids. Don't forget, | kids have agency. Has anybody asked them what they want? | | And it isn't my job to provide proof or data. I'm the | critic. I'm the one that wants things to operate as | normal. All the burden of proof is upon those who wish to | force my child to wear a mask her entire school day 5 | days a week. Thus far, all I hear is "OMG CASES", "kids | are resilient", and a bunch of weak rationalizations. | Nobody has made a case who or what we are protecting. | Nobody has provided an end game. Nobody has proven it | won't harm kids. Nobody has even asked kids. It's | disgusting, really. | jackson1442 wrote: | Aren't we protecting our health systems? Mississippi is | out of ICU beds[0]. As in, if you are in critical | condition for ANY REASON, you're just out of luck. Kids | are gross. They're going to spread disease. Why not take | a (relatively simple) precaution that can save lives, | including people who didn't even catch COVID. | | It's like how I look both ways before turning onto or | crossing a one-way. Sure, it probably doesn't help much, | but there's a chance that it could save my life and | another driver's. | | [0]: https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/14,21994,420,87 | 3.html | spookthesunset wrote: | From everything I've read Mississippi is out of ICU beds | because they test everybody for covid and if you are | covid positive, regardless of symptoms, you get the | "covid protocol" treatment. Said protocol adds | significant overhead to everything. Perhaps they should | revisit testing every individual for covid or maybe stop | freaking out over every positive case. | | Also, they had 1.6 years to build infrastructure to deal | with this. That was the entire damn point of this in the | first place. "Flatten the curve for two weeks to make | sure healthcare systems can handle the load" There is | literally zero excuse for society to suffer because no | capacity was added. Zero. | | You cannot even blame staffing shortages... they could | have thrown truckloads of money at doctors and nurses to | get them onboard. It would have still been cheaper and | more effective than the nonsense we are doing now. | | In short, yeah it sucks hospitals might be "full" but | that ain't societies fault and we shouldn't be punished | for it. | pettusftw wrote: | Judging by your stance across this thread I doubt it will | matter, but I'll share it anyway for the readers. Take it | for whatever you think it's worth. | | My anecdotal experience via my SO who is an ICU nurse is | that what you've read is not accurate. In the ICU I'm | familiar with they do not have fewer beds available due | to the covid protocols. The protocols do make their job | more difficult and time consuming, but they have more | beds than ever. Still, they're at capacity across our | state due to an extreme influx of severe covid cases | since delta made its way here over the past 6 weeks. | Previous to that this particular ICU was ~20% covid, 60% | capacity. Now it is ~90% covid, 110% capacity. This is | not just because they tested positive - these are people | on various levels of oxygen. They are intubating covid | patients in the ER because there's no room anywhere else. | | I'm in arguably the reddest state in the US where most | people share your views. I'm not sure how you can say | apathy toward spreading a contagious virus is not | societies "fault". | | PS: they are throwing truckloads of money at doctors and | nurses, luckily for us. | nostrademons wrote: | "You are stealing their childhood away" | | Stealing their childhood away, really? It's an article of | clothing. My kid objects to wearing pants a whole lot | more than he objects to wearing a mask. He still needs to | wear pants. | | Come to think of it, maybe that's why this is such a huge | deal. People have come to think of clothing as a marker | of your tribe, and not wearing the expected clothing as | social deviancy. That's why wearing a hajib is so | triggering for so many Americans, or why guys wearing | skirts is an affront against nature (but strangely not in | Scotland!), or why folks get killed over wearing gang | colors, or why I desperately wanted a denim jacket when I | was in 1st grade in the 80s. | | And if that's the case, sure, you can have your tribe and | I'll have mine, and my kid will wear a mask because | that's what the people around him do, and yours won't | because that's what the people around _her_ do, and then | maybe my tribe will still have ICU units available and | yours won 't. Okay. But I can assure you that kids in | Singapore or Taiwan or now California, where mask-wearing | is just accepted, grow up just fine. | [deleted] | h3cate wrote: | I never considered this argument. Glad this comment | thread hasn't descended into silly name calling and | people are actually putting their arguments forwards | nerdponx wrote: | It's a surgical mask, not a ball and chain. | spookthesunset wrote: | You are forcing children, who are entirely dependent upon | the judgment of adults, to wear a mask every day of | school--indefinitely. That is a pretty big ask. | Especially with almost no proof that it is required, | works, and doesn't harm children. | orf wrote: | What's the difference between that and asking them to | wear a uniform? | simonw wrote: | "Teachers have been vaccinated. Parents have been | vaccinated." | | I really wish that was true! Sadly in the USA the amount | of "vaccine hesitancy" remains unbelievably high. | spookthesunset wrote: | Who cares? If you and your loved ones are vaccinated | y'all are good to go. | | As the article this discussion is about... covid is here | forever. Time to accept it and move the hell on. | EForEndeavour wrote: | > Who cares? If you and your loved ones are vaccinated | y'all are good to go. | | The effects of COVID complications aren't somehow | magically isolated to the patient. Good luck to anyone | who's young, healthy, and COVID-vaccinated, but has a | bike or car accident, gives birth in a hospital, falls | down some stairs, or otherwise requires inpatient care. | | Remember the endlessly repeated mantra to "flatten the | curve" from circa March 2020? The "curve" refers to ICU | occupancy. Max that out and suddenly the effects of COVID | spill beyond just sickening and killing its direct | victims to complicating your health system. | jstanley wrote: | I thought we already flattened the curve. In March 2020. | So why aren't we back to normal now? | simonw wrote: | I care. | | I'm vaccinated. I can still catch it - I'm much more | unlikely to end up in hospital, but it's still an | unpleasant illness to have, with a small chance of long- | term complications that are not at all well understood. | | And if I do catch it I can still spread it to others, who | may not be vaccinated. | | I very much care about not killing someone else by | spreading Covid to them, even if they deliberately chose | not to get the vaccine. I'm furious with them (and with | the information sources they consumed that lead them to | that decision) but I absolutely don't want to contribute | to their suffering or death. | peder wrote: | >I can still catch it | | Yes, you can still catch it regardless what we do with | NPIs. Stop living in fear. | umvi wrote: | I advise you don't go into forests to enjoy nature, there | is a small chance you'll get bitten by a tick and | contract chronic lyme disease which happened to my | brother in law. It could happen to you too, there's a | chance. Better not risk it. | h3cate wrote: | I hate to be blunt but sometimes life is unpleasant, even | more so now. Do you think that it's fair to demand people | change their way of living because you don't want an | unpleasant illness? I think it's unpleasant when people | eat seafood (I don't like the smell) but I don't demand | everybody stop eating seafood. | spookthesunset wrote: | You do you. Just don't force society to continue doing | any of this, that's all I ask. It's time to move on. | FiberBundle wrote: | It's obviously perfectly fine for you to feel that way | about Covid, but in my opinion the correct thing for you | to do would be to isolate yourself and try to minimize | the chance of being infected instead of wanting further | damaging restrictions to be forced on other people (I | don't mean relatively non-intrusive measures such as mask | wearing, but any form of lockdowns). | jstanley wrote: | Let me try and follow your logic here. | | You say the vaccine doesn't stop you from catching or | spreading the virus, it just stops you from getting as | badly sick. If that's the case then why do you care | whether others are vaccinated or not? If it doesn't | change the chances of them passing it on to you, and just | changes how sick they'll get, then surely it doesn't make | any difference to you? | detaro wrote: | > _If it doesn 't change the chances of them passing it | on to you_ | | Where are they saying that? | chlodwig wrote: | _If it turns out that they weren 't useful, what harm has | been caused?_ | | Socializing in masks is massively inferior. It sucks | talking to other people and not being able to read facial | expressions or to see smiles. Right now American health | officials are asking children to an spend the majority of | their waking hours for an entire year of their lives (or | more??) around friends and teachers without that | essential human experience of _seeing smiles_. That is | harm in an of itself. Even if the kids bounce back, and | you can 't find a developmental difference in any | statistic, that year of their life, a year they will | never get back, will still have been a year of being | deprived of essential human connection. | pyronik19 wrote: | Because I don't want to is a perfectly acceptable reason | to say no. "Muh Freedoms" is all the argument you need. | pengaru wrote: | > If it turns out that they weren't useful, what harm has | been caused? | | If masks are ineffective, wearing them amounts to | theatrics/fiction. | | If that fiction creates a false sense of safety, it can | encourage people to take risks like interacting in closer | proximity than they would otherwise. | | I have no knowledge or expertise on if masks are | effective nor have any children, this is just an | observation of what seems like an obvious potential harm. | sk2020 wrote: | For the same reasons, I think that lucky rabbit's feet | should be mandatory. Also, horoscopes should be consulted | prior to attending schools. If you can think of anything | else that didn't work for this or any other illnesses in | history, then I think that you should demand schools make | them mandatory, just in case. | epmaybe wrote: | Would note that the report found 21% reduced risk of | infection in required mask use for students vs optional. | Not considered statistically significant because the | confidence interval included 1.0. (CI was 0.50 - 1.08) | | One could argue that an increased sample size would yield | a statistically significant result, and on the flip side | another could argue that the effect size would be minimal | if you need a larger sample size. | | The rebuke, of course, is that even one extra case could | kill a loved one that the kid would spread disease on to. | | Personally, perhaps reframing the argument that one | should wear a mask at school so that they shouldn't have | to wear one at home would be a more compelling argument, | but I suspect many would disagree.. | edejong wrote: | The author of the article doesn't understand science: | | "Distancing, hybrid models, classroom barriers, HEPA | filters, and, most notably, requiring student masking | were each found to not have a statistically significant | benefit. In other words, these measures could not be said | to be effective." | | No! If you cannot find a statistically significant | benefit, perhaps your experiment design is flawed. | Perhaps your sample size is too small. Perhaps you have | too many confounders. But you cannot conclude the | measures are not effective! | | It gets better! Read the article. It says: | | "COVID-19 incidence was 37% lower in schools that | required teachers and staff members to use masks and 39% | lower in schools that improved ventilation. Ventilation | strategies associated with lower school incidence | included dilution methods alone (35% lower incidence) or | in combination with filtration methods (48% lower | incidence)." | | In other words, the study actually found many significant | interventions in schools, among which masks. Unbelievably | bad reporting from Intelligencer. | JeremyNT wrote: | Notable is that the article is referring to a pre-delta | study of _elementary_ aged school children (elementary | school normally caps out at around age 11 in the US). | Young kids have long been known to be less prone to | infection, less prone to suffering ill effects from | infection, and less prone to spread the disease. Delta | doesn 't really change much of that, they are not the | primary victims nor spreaders. | | It's the older kids (who could have received the vaccine | but opted out) who will have more "adult-like" patterns | of transmission and should be more of a concern (not for | their own health, really, but they might infect their | elderly or infirmed unvaccinated relatives). One would | expect masking to help prevent spread from these people. | | But of course... these kids and their families likely | already self-select and associate closesly with other | anti-vaxers outside of school to begin with, so school | seems like the least of their worries. At a certain point | you kind of have to ask whether it's worth trying to | protect people from themselves. | grimjack00 wrote: | > Delta doesn't really change much of that, they are not | the primary victims nor spreaders. And yet, in some parts | of the US, government guidance requires masks from age 2. | JeremyNT wrote: | My own suspicion is that it does probably help on the | margins with young kids and delta, but we obviously don't | have data on it yet. On paper, erring on the side of | caution is desirable even if it proves needless | eventually, since there's no direct health downside. | | Unfortunately, since this is also a political issue, | erring on the side of caution with mask requirements and | being wrong generates more mistrust amongst the older | people who have opted out of the vaccine (i.e. those | already distrustful of the CDC and at risk of serious | illness just have one more reason to dig in and ignore | the advice to get vaccinated). | | It's possible that such mask mandates for young children | may prove harmful because they further entrench anti-vax | sentiment (even if is ultimately proven that they have | marginal benefits in reducing spread). | | This is a fascinating and complicated issue indeed... | spookthesunset wrote: | > On paper, erring on the side of caution is desirable | even if it proves needless eventually, since there's no | direct health downside. | | Being treated like a toxic disease vector for two years | surely has direct health downsides. Not learning to read | faces surely has direct health downsides. Breathing god | knows what those masks are made of every day surely has | health downsides. | | And it isn't even my job to prove any of that. People | that want to force kids to wear masks at school need to | prove those aren't something to worry about. They can't | just shrug they crap off and say "yeah well covid". We | are well beyond being able to simply use covid as an | excuse to enact some restriction. Prove kids need masks | and prove they won't suffer long or even short term | effects from wearing masks all day. Then and only then | can you even dream of forcing kids to wear masks. | darkerside wrote: | My understanding is that Delta is being spread more | easily by children of school age | rayiner wrote: | Right, but the CDC guidance recommends masking | elementary-age children (2+). We'd be having a different | conversation if the CDC guidance was 12+ like several | European countries. | op00to wrote: | Delta actually changes that. | | https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/arti | cle... | Aeolun wrote: | If they're spending the whole day in a classroom together | the effect of masks is going to be minimal. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Masks is too broad of a term as being used. There are | OSHA environments where proper N95-type masks can protect | you from aerosol risks for 8 hours a day. | | The likelihood that a cloth mask can do that in a | classroom however... | | Best mitigator would be good HEPA room air purifiers, | ideally multiple per classroom. | handrous wrote: | > Best mitigator would be good HEPA room air purifiers, | ideally multiple per classroom. | | They can be too loud to run while class is in session, | especially if they move enough air to be worth a damn. | Double-especially if you're also masked (so speaking is | already a bit muffled). | tehjoker wrote: | Why don't we shift classes to be outside and swap summer | and winter for now? | patentatt wrote: | I've got a couple of Coway HEPA purifiers, and they can | be quiet enough for a classroom. At low speeds, the | closest to inaudible that I've ever heard, and at higher | speeds a very even and tolerable white/brown noise. | handrous wrote: | I'm sure some that are good-enough and not loud exist, | and some classrooms probably have them, but I can also | say for a fact that some schools that have managed to get | ahold of good purifiers for every classroom haven't also | managed to get ahold of _quiet_ good purifiers, which is | why those schools only run them part of the time. It 's | another hurdle to the solution of "just filter the air", | which isn't _per se_ a bad idea--but, whoever 's | procuring them must think to look into the noise when | choosing which to buy, must have the budget to buy quiet | ones that move as much air as appropriately-effective | louder models (I assume there's a cost premium for "quiet | and _also_ effective "), and if someone's _already_ | bought purifiers and they 're too loud, you're out of | luck on getting anyone to pony up cash for a second set | of (maybe even more expensive) purifiers. | cpuguy83 wrote: | We seem to be forgetting something here: the aerosols we | are protecting from are from other peoples nose and | mouth, which are covered by a cloth mask which vastly | reduces how much makes it into the air. | | There is no "best" here, mitigations all mitigate | different things and work together to provide a safer | environment. | GeekyBear wrote: | Here's one of the scientists on President Biden's Covid | advisory council being interviewed on PBS. | | TLDR: To get the sort of protection people imagine that | cloth masks provide, you would need to be wearing an n95 | mask, tightly fitted to your face so no air leaks in | through the sides. | | https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/do- | masks... | stetrain wrote: | But what's the actual effectiveness of most people | wearing their normal cloth masks? | | It doesn't have to personally protect you at high | effectiveness from getting infected to reduce spread at a | population level. | | Even a 50% reduction in spread is huge in a population. | Maybe we aren't getting that with masks, but it's not a | binary "you are protected"/"you are not protected" | problem. | GeekyBear wrote: | From the interview: | | >Needless to say, masking is political hot button beyond | anything I've ever seen in public health. | | At the same time i think we've all done a disservice to | the public. | | When you actually look at face cloth coverings, they | actually only have very limited impact in reducing the | amount of virus that you inhale in or exhale out. | | Studies that have been done show that if an individual | might get infected within 15 minutes in a room, by time | and concentration of the virus in the room, add a face | cloth covering you only get about five more minutes of | protection. | | I've been really disappointed with my colleagues in | public health for not being more clear about what can | masking can do or not do. | | On the other hand if you use the n95 respirators and fit | them tight to your face, you can actually spend 25 hours | in that same room and still be protected. | | The bottom line though is by telling people that in fact | just putting a face cloth covering on is going to protect | you is simply not true. | | https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/do- | masks... | | Cloth masks are nowhere near good enough protection to | allow children too young to be vaccinated to return to | school. | stetrain wrote: | I agree. | | I'm just asking if we have info on population spread | effects for masks / no masks. | | "Masks won't protect you" isn't an answer to that | question. I don't wear a mask when requested by local | guidelines or businesses as some kind of guarantee that I | don't get COVID. | | And yes, having kids not all go to school and then return | to their families on a daily basis would probably have a | much bigger affect on community spread. But if we can't | get political will for masks or vaccinations then I don't | know where we're going to find it for another round of | kids staying home. | GeekyBear wrote: | > Masks won't protect you" isn't an answer to that | question. | | The answer to the question is that cloth masks are | effective against viruses with a droplet based spread, | but not against a fully airborne virus. | | Note that cloth masks almost completely did away with | last year's Flu season, while we were right in the middle | of a huge Covid surge. | chlodwig wrote: | _Even a 50% reduction in spread is huge in a population. | Maybe we aren 't getting that with masks, but it's not a | binary "you are protected"/"you are not protected" | problem. _ | | A 50% reduction and we still all get covid. It is | actually binary -- either we have a realistic and | obtainable plan for zero-covid (which we do not) or | everyone gets exposed to covid eventually. | | A 50% reduction in spread might be helpful in certain | areas where the hospitals are on the verge of being | overwhelmed (in which case just close the schools for a | few weeks), but in the United States there are a lot of | mask mandates in schools being pushed in areas where the | hospitals are not under any significant pressure. That is | nonsense. | stetrain wrote: | One issue is that with exponential curves it's often | difficult to make these big policy changes as local | conditions change. | | Sure in an ideal world as soon as hospitalizations or | case rates went above some metric we'd introduce stricter | local procedures, hopefully fast enough that the wave of | hospitalizations 1-2 weeks later isn't too bad. | | But so far it seems like we're too slow on that. Things | get bad, _then_ we start changing our behavior. Time | matters and it 's not binary. That's been the whole | principle of managing this thing in the US at the | beginning. If you let the spike get too big too quickly | then it gets bad before we can take corrective action. | | And how would we even manage changing these guidelines on | a week-by-week basis in every zip code? How do you even | disseminate that information to all businesses, citizens, | parents? | | Of course I don't think all restrictions make sense in | all places, nor do I want them to go on forever. | Vaccinations for a large majority of eligible individuals | would go a long way to reducing spread and | hospitalization load. | | In theory we are trying to bide time until we get there | (manageable COVID, not zero COVID) but in the US at least | we're not heading towards "large majority" very quickly, | and we are still having those exponential local spikes. | NationalPark wrote: | That's simply not what the research has found. | | Edit: Allow me to clarify - the research everyone is | citing that says masking is effective in teachers and | ineffective in students (the 37% number) predates both | the delta variant and widespread infection in Southern | states. Further, masking is understood etiologically as a | prevention method and has been used successfully in other | outbreaks and in other countries. Clinicians and policy | makers as a rule work with incomplete data in an emerging | situation, so unequivocally stating that masking kids in | schools doesn't help is a very bad misrepresentation of | both the data/research and the implications to policy. | AndrewBissell wrote: | Here's an NPR article discussing a CDC study which found | no statistically significant impact from kids wearing | masks in school: | https://www.npr.org/2021/05/21/999106426/schools-are- | droppin... | | Key paragraph: _Between Nov. 16 and Dec. 11, researchers | found that infection rates were 37% lower in schools | where teachers and staff members were required to wear | masks. The difference between schools that did and did | not require students to wear masks was not statistically | significant._ | | A good recent article in NY Mag also discussing this | issue, including the fact that the _World Health | Organization_ recommends against masking kids under six: | https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/the-science-of- | maski... | | Many countries in Europe have decided against masking for | any students in K-12 schools because it is unclear that | the harms outweigh the benefits. The idea there is some | "simple" scientific & research consensus on this is | wrong. | only_as_i_fall wrote: | Can you provide a source? | | My understanding was that masks were primarily effective | at preventing high viral load droplets from spreading the | virus during short interactions. | | I don't have any source to prove that to be the case | because data on the effectiveness of masks seems | frustratingly sparse. | gzer0 wrote: | When a novel situation presents itself, sometimes we do | not have all of data we would like and clinicians have to | make judgement calls to the best of their knowledge. | | We may not have trials or studies (these things take | time) to back a very certain and/or specific claim such | as "do masks prevent the spread of Covid 19?" What we do | have, is fundamental knowledge and common sense and so | typically, in a clinical setting we ask these questions | when any new situation arises (as it happens often in | medicine): | | - Does this reccomendation cause more harm than good? | | - is there even a slight chance that this clinical | decision would increase the percentage chance of | survival? | | - is it worth the inconvenience it could cause? | | This is called Clinical Reasoning. Thinking critically | and clinically is a core tenet of the field. | only_as_i_fall wrote: | I don't disagree with anything you said, and I'm | certainlynot an anti-masker, but was skeptical of the | parent claim which seems to be | | "Research shoes masks are still effective even when | spending the whole day in the same room" | | I'm not aware of any evidence that this is the case and I | worry that people are putting too much stake in masks | when really social distancing is much more effective than | masks ever will be. | [deleted] | AdamN wrote: | Keep in mind the initial dose is highly relevant to the | impact of the virus in your body. There's a big | difference between getting a single virus, enough to | cause an infection, and enough to be highly overwhelmed | before your immune system kicks in. | nradov wrote: | There is no real scientific evidence that disease | severity is correlated with initial viral dose. It's a | plausible hypothesis but so far due to ethical concerns | no one has done the human challenge trials that would be | necessary to settle that issue. | AdamN wrote: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8045461/ | | This is a common attribute of infections and is really | more of a math issue than anything SARS-specific. The | bigger the initial dose, the sooner it will get to the | impact stage, and the less prepared your immune system | will be at that time. | heywherelogingo wrote: | Is there any point spending the day in the classroom with | reduced oxygen to the brain? | ceejayoz wrote: | Are you under the impression surgeons in hospitals are | chronically hypoxic? | thephyber wrote: | Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that a | cloth or N95 style mask reduces oxygen to the brain by | any measurable amount? | cpuguy83 wrote: | Is that from that one Armchair U study? | dboreham wrote: | Isn't that the mainstream opinion? | jokethrowaway wrote: | The fact this is an unpopular opinion drives me crazy. | eli wrote: | Cases are more than doubling every 2 weeks. Hospitalizations | are up every day. | | If the numbers were flat maybe you would have an argument, | but I strongly disagree that we need to "learn to live" with | a situation that is rapidly getting worse. I do not want to | learn to live with full hospitals and oxygen shortages, as is | currently happening in parts of the US. | thingification wrote: | Long COVID exists. Personally, it's always worried me more | than the risk of death from COVID. | | I think people who haven't had a chronic condition (including | doctors) tend to underestimate the impact they can have on | your life. Long COVID symptoms may not be "severe" or | "serious" in a medical coding dictionary, but those terms in | a medical dictionary are quite distinct from their everyday | meanings. | | The best evidence we have seems to be that somewhere very | roughly around 20% of people who get infected (vaccinated or | not) get it -- more if you're older, less if you're younger. | Experts don't seem to be willing to say much about what | fraction of those people will have symptoms forever, or to | what extent (very happy to hear otherwise if somebody knows | better!). | | While case numbers are high again (in the UK) and with the | more infectious and virulent Delta variant having replaced | others, it's not totally clear to me that the risks from long | COVID are even all that much changed since before the | vaccines. | [deleted] | yourapostasy wrote: | As someone in a cognitive-dominant industry on an industry | board, I'm baffled why more people aren't discussing long | COVID-caused brain fog here. The chances of getting long | COVID once infected are better than 1 in 3,000, the odds of | a US residential structure fire, an insurable event. If you | live in the US, then unless you have established gold- | plated short- and long-term disability insurance, then long | COVID-caused brain fog for an average HN participant is | likely a career-altering diagnosis. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | People just aren't generally interested in small but | severe risks like that. I've seen about as much long | Covid discussion as I see carpal tunnel discussion. | thingification wrote: | Curious why the downvote? | | Perhaps because "always worried me more than the risk of | death"? If so: this is because the evidence always seems to | have said that the risk of long COVID has been at least an | order of magnitude higher than the risk of death. Also, if | you have no dependents, death involves less suffering: in | the unlikely event it happens, you're out of the picture | already after a short period of misery. On the other hand, | chronic illness can come with a lifetime of suffering. | rossdavidh wrote: | Yes, but, the reality is that everyone is going to get | exposed to this virus eventually. Probably not that long | from now, if you haven't yet. Pretending that evading it | forever is possible, is not helping people to make wise | decisions; I think many of the unvaccinated currently | believe they can evade both the virus and the vaccine (they | are incorrect). Eventually, long covid or not, we are all | getting exposed. We should act accordingly. | thingification wrote: | One point is that the consequences of getting COVID are | likely to become less serious over time as prevalence is | controlled (via better vaccines, we hope, masks etc., if | we're not fatalistic), better drugs are found. | | Another important point is that currently, the risks of | long COVID seem not at all well understood. "Unknown | risk" is quite a different thing than "low risk" or "high | risk". The lengths to which it makes sense for people to | go to avoid it right now depend on those risks, so lying | low seems quite sane to me. | | A worse problem still is, I think, that "we're all going | to get it" is a self-fulfilling prophecy: viruses have | been unconquerable in the recent past, but this is 2021, | we have incredible understanding of the mechanisms (no, | not most of the details: they're not all worth knowing) | that _should_ give us incredible power over them at some | point in the relatively near future (as in the next few | decades). If the next few decades, why not the next few | years? If we believe it 's "inevitable", we'll make it | so. (not to mention abandoning effective measures like | masks) | orhmeh09 wrote: | Speak for yourself or get on respirator crew. | gunshai wrote: | Why is this unpopular. | Miner49er wrote: | Maybe because the vaccines are looking like they aren't | going to be be as effective as they were originally made | out to be, but I still think we need to return to normal at | some point. | tootie wrote: | They are as effective as we thought they were. Delta is | just more virulent than previous strains and we're at | barely 50% vaccination rate. We're still waiting on safe | doses for children and the millions of stubborn people | who think public health is a personal decision. | [deleted] | h3cate wrote: | Post it on twitter/reddit and see what response you get | bin_bash wrote: | Well that's the case expressing any kind of opinion about | COVID | h3cate wrote: | Unfortunately | lp0_on_fire wrote: | Because there is a non-insignificant portion of the | population that is thriving off corona hysteria. | SamPatt wrote: | And a not insignificant proportion of politicians more | than happy to take advantage of the fear and expand their | power. | lp0_on_fire wrote: | Tale as old as time. | | I'd say I'm disappointed and surprised that more people | aren't concerned about it but there's a reason it's a | historical trope. | xunn0026 wrote: | > more people aren't concerned about it | | I think a lot of people are concerned about it. And I'd | further say for a segment of population this also | triggers vaccine hesitancy. | lijogdfljk wrote: | Also because of how terrible hospitals are in many | places. Wait times insane, staff overworked, etc. | | I'm vaccinated but quite fearful of anything which puts | me in needing medical attention. The unvaccinated are a | burden i'm tired of supporting. | outside1234 wrote: | I don't think that's unpopular. More precisely, once the | vaccine is available to all age groups, the only people that | need to be scared of it are the unvaccinated. | | And they will have had every opportunity to get vaccinated, | so we shouldn't optimize for them. | h3cate wrote: | Why do you need to be scared of the unvaccinated? | pasquinelli wrote: | i think they're saying only the unvaccinated need to be | afraid. | h3cate wrote: | Ohh I see. Is that a warning or a threat? :D | outside1234 wrote: | Its a reality. If you not vaccinated, you will get COVID, | and you could die or end up with Long COVID for 12 months | -- and we will not feel sorry for you or shutdown. | h3cate wrote: | You're stating that as if it is fact when you know it is | not. I don't think we should shutdown for unvaccinated | and I have never said we should. I also don't think we | should shutdown for those who are "at risk" but | vaccinated. | greyivy wrote: | Not the immunocompromised or those who are legitimately | unable to get vaccinated? Not a very nuanced take. | mwint wrote: | What can we do for those people, assuming forever- | lockdowns aren't an option? | [deleted] | jjoonathan wrote: | Pressure those who choose to go unvaccinated for | misguided "personal freedom" reasons to reconsider their | choices. | pc86 wrote: | How's that been working out so far? | | At some point life returns to normal. | SamPatt wrote: | The article explains why a vaccination is not a long term | guarantee you will not get and or spread this new flu. | erhk wrote: | Yes, and parachutes do not prevent airplanes from | crashing. | | Brushing your teeth doesnt guarantee you will have no | cavities. | | Radiation doesnt guarantee you will be cancer free. | | At no point did the vaccine promise full immunity. | jjoonathan wrote: | "It's not a perfect solution so we might as well do | nothing instead!" | | Come on. Getting vaccinated has more than enough utility | for you and for others to make it a good choice on either | principle alone. | camjohnson26 wrote: | Wearing a helmet on an airplane isn't a perfect solution | to airplanes crashing but it could potentially save your | life, but we seem fine with the risk trade off of not | wearing one. No decisions we make about responding to | COVID will be risk free, the question is which trade offs | we should accept. No matter how much pressure is put on | the unvaccinated some people will refuse to get it, and | unless you're suggesting administering it by force | eventually that tactic will meet diminishing returns. | shkkmo wrote: | You picked the wrong example. Helmets will do very little | to reduce fatalities from air travel simply because the | mechanics of how those fatalities occure. | | Wearing a helmet while driving a car, however, has a | pretty good chance of reduxing injuries and fatalities | (probably even better than wearing a helmet when riding a | bike on a seperated bike path.) | | I don't think this is really a question of people | analyzing the trade-offs. This how to do with how the | risks and the activity are percieved, people are | generally really at accurately assessing such risks. | ineedasername wrote: | The article also explains about the significant risk | reduction for getting & passing it on, so I think the | point still stands. | erhk wrote: | Have ICU beds ready to accommodate them and not have them | filled with unneccesary cases from unvaccinated | individuals that have chosen freely to be unvaccinated. | | But in my callousness I would simply illegalize treating | people that are anti-vaccine. | h3cate wrote: | Is any country with high vaccination numbers struggling | for ICU beds at the minute? | base698 wrote: | We should do this with people who are obese and ride | motorcycles as well. Given obese take up hundreds of | thousands of beds a year. | orthoxerox wrote: | > But in my callousness I would simply illegalize | treating people that are anti-vaccine. | | What about not treating lung cancer in smokers? Or | diabetes in morbidly obese? | outside1234 wrote: | There are very few people who can legitimately not get | vaccinated for science reasons. | | The immunocompromised will have accelerated shots etc. | | More generally, we can't solve for the 0.5%, we have to | solve for the 98%. | h3cate wrote: | What would you have us do instead? The elderly are | severely at risk from the flu but we don't have winter | lockdowns for them? | Cd00d wrote: | I'm not totally sure what point you're making, but we | _do_ strongly recommend the flu vaccine for people | interacting with the elderly. | h3cate wrote: | Yes we do. But do we have yearly winter lockdowns to | protect the vulnerable from flu? | ineedasername wrote: | Then those people should be at least as scared of the | unvaccinated as COVID itself. That will be their primary | infection vector. | h3cate wrote: | You still spread covid whether you are vaccinated or not | ineedasername wrote: | Sure, there's just many fewer vaccinated people getting | infected, so many fewer spreading it. And when they do | get infected, they are infectious to others for | significantly less time. | | Either way, you're still less of a risk to your own | health and the health of other people if you get | vaccinated. | | You seem to be trying to make a black & white argument: | The vaccine isn't 100% effective, and therefore isn't | necessary/people shouldn't feel obligated/it doesn't | reduce risk/or something like that. But it doesn't have | to be perfect in order for it to be much much much much | much much much much much much better _than nothing_ | logicalmonster wrote: | > Either way, you're still less of a risk to your own | health and the health of other people if you get | vaccinated. | | Both potential short and long-term side effects of the | vaccines put aside for a moment and how important things | like fertility and reproduction cannot have been | adequately tested yet, I think the comment about risking | others' health is completely backwards once you think | through the logic of it. If my reasoning is in any way | illogical, please clarify for me how you think it is | wrong. | | If the vaccines are reducing symptoms to the point that | the vaccinated might not quickly realize that they're | Covid carriers and are still going about their days, | wouldn't they be more likely to encounter and put at risk | more people than the unvaccinated who know that they're | sick and far more likely to stay at home and isolate? | rootusrootus wrote: | I agree. Once my kids can get jabbed, I will cease giving | covid much thought. I don't want to get a breakthrough | case, even if it's not dangerous, because I loathe being | ill, but getting sick periodically is an unfortunate fact | of life. | erhk wrote: | Depending on the age of your children you can mostly | cease giving it thought already. | | https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus- | covid-19... | | Barring unusual preconditions | ryantgtg wrote: | > there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer- | term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways | the virus may harm the long-term physical health of | infected children, as well as its emotional and mental | health effects. | | Thanks, but I'll still be thinking about it. | deelowe wrote: | Data for Delta is still coming in, right? I thought there | are concerns about it causing more complications in | children than previous variants. | fidesomnes wrote: | the vaccinated still spread it. side effects of the | vaccine are increasing at an alarming rate. it's a | bioweapon and you would be wise to challenge your | assumptions. | OJFord wrote: | Vaccine efficacy isn't 100% though. People can (and are) | getting infected even after (enough time has passed but not | so long they'd be due a booster since) being vaccinated. | tomp wrote: | I wish this was true. Most Europe is still under various | lockdown restrictions, even though in a lot of countries, | there's been enough vaccine for everyone (who wanted) to | get vaccinated by now. | sgc wrote: | Children under 12 are a major group that drop vaccination | percentages down significantly everywhere. The hope is | that once this age group can also be vaccinated, we can | find the new normal and let people individually hedge | their own bets. | h3cate wrote: | Why vaccinate children under 12? The only good reason I | can see is if they have some sort of known health | condition. Is there any other reasons why you would do | this? | danans wrote: | The same reason to vaccinate everyone else: to minimize | the opportunity for a more virulent strain to emerge - | one against which current vaccines are ineffective. | SuoDuanDao wrote: | Given that viruses respond to evolutionary pressure such | as vaccines, this seems like a strange position. | base698 wrote: | I think you have that backwards: | | https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/leaky- | vaccines... | | Selection pressures and non sterilizing vaccines are what | causes more virulent strains to emerge. | h3cate wrote: | But covid mutates and replicates in people whether | they're vaccinated or not? | robocat wrote: | Vaccinating the ~50 million kids of the US would make a | 1% dent in the ~5 billion unvaccinated worldwide. | | That won't really make much of a difference in new | strains emerging. | | https://fortune.com/2021/07/14/covid-vaccine-tracker- | update-... | xorcist wrote: | Why not vaccinate kids for every other endemic virus | under the sun then? | outside1234 wrote: | We should if that virus kills people at a high rate like | COVID! | spookthesunset wrote: | Given the flu kills more kids than covid, we should | probably require them to get that vaccine. Given more | kids drown than die of covid, we should probably restrict | their access to water. Given more kids die in fires, we | should keep them out of structures made of wood. Given | more die in auto accidents, they shouldn't be allowed in | cars. | handrous wrote: | > > We should if that virus kills _people_ at a high rate | like COVID! | | > Given the flu kills more _kids_ than covid | | Emphasis mine. | h3cate wrote: | When did adults become so afraid of kids? :D | [deleted] | saalweachter wrote: | ... we do? | fxtentacle wrote: | Lower risk of heart muscle infection. | h3cate wrote: | This. | anonymouse008 wrote: | > the only people that need to be scared of it are the | unvaccinated | | We often overlook those who were previously infected. I | believe this is a common mistake that makes for inaccurate | groupings, which negatively affect the common good. | bialpio wrote: | Can you elaborate a bit on how they are overlooked? You | can still get vaccinated after recovering (high-profile | example: D. Trump), and the recovered that have been | processed by health care system can for example get the | same QR code that the vaccinated get in the EU (helps | with travel I believe). | anonymouse008 wrote: | The most prominent example I can offer is when speaking | about hospitalizations. | | Headlines and policy have adopted the narrative that the | unvaccinated are driving the most severe cases. Those | previously infected are not acknowledged and could | significantly overlap with the unvaccinated population. | | Those who have previously had an infection with mild to | no symptoms should be acknlowedged as a third group in | evaluating public health policies (vaccinated, previously | infected, and unknown exposure). | ineedasername wrote: | _We often overlook those who were previously infected_ | | What aspect of them are we overlooking, and what is the | impact on the common good? I know they have some | resistance, though not as much as if they also got | vaccinated, so it seems like the original point still | stands: Unvaccinated should still be scared of it. | thedevil wrote: | > not as much as if they also got vaccinated, so it seems | like the original point still stands | | If previously-infected had as much resistance as | vaccinated, they should not be more scared than the | vaccinated. Even if they would have more resistance if | they were also vaccinated. | | Did you mean to say that previously-infected have much | less resistance than the vaccinated? I would very | grateful for a source on that. I tried to find out | numbers on that but couldn't find apples-to-apples | comparison. | ineedasername wrote: | _Did you mean to say that previously-infected have much | less resistance than the vaccinated? I would very | grateful for a source on that. I tried to find out | numbers on that but couldn 't find apples-to-apples | comparison._ | | I'm saying that the previously infected w/o a vaccination | are more likely to get reinfected that those who were | infected and then get vaccinates: about 2.34x as likely. | Reinfection rates are low [0] | | The risk of reinfection if not vaccinates may also be | higher than the risk for an initial infection if | vaccinated: Reinfection rates are about 0.31% [1] and as | high as 0.7% in some populations [2] while infection | rates among vaccinated are about 0.18% [3] | | [0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s | _cid=mm... | | [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine | /fullar... | | [2] https://medicine.missouri.edu/news/study-finds- | covid-19-rein... | | [3] https://www.medpagetoday.com/special- | reports/exclusives/9392... | sreque wrote: | The CDC report that 2.3x number is based off of was bogus | science and it's been debunked repeatedly: | https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/08/more- | voodoo-e... | | TLDR: The CDC is dishonest and cherry-picks data to meet | their narrative. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have | shown natural immunity to work at least as well as | vaccine immunity for COVID. | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209951/pdf/ | RMV... | | https://www.cell.com/cell-reports- | medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... | | https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2589-5370(2 | 1)0... | | https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2781112 | [deleted] | da_chicken wrote: | Previous infection provides relatively short-lived | natural immunity to COVID-19. | | I tested positive the last week of December 2020 (exactly | three weeks before I was scheduled to get the vaccine, | which I did also eventually get). When I spoke to the | county health department, they said they had already seen | repeat infections. They said immune protection from | direct exposure only seems to last 3-6 months, which is | backed up by the fact that the virus had only been in my | state about 10 months at that point. | | Vaccine protection is much more robust. | krona wrote: | The vaccine will prime your immunity to one (important) | protein. Natural infection could prime your immunity to | up to 29 proteins. I'm not sure 'robustness' right word | in the context of rapidly evolving variants. | wang_li wrote: | According to data from Israel, immunity from having | gotten the infection is much better at stopping the delta | variant by a factor of around 7x. | | Other research shows that natural immunity is long | lasting. | | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4 | shkkmo wrote: | That's not what that study shows. | wang_li wrote: | The link is for the second sentence. To quote from the | abstract: | | > Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with | SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived | humoral immune memory in humans. | | As far as the reports from Israel: | | > By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 | times more likely to get infected after the shot than | after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the | 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated | getting infected in the latest wave. | | https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762 | newbamboo wrote: | Neither you nor the parent are paying attention to recent | science. Natural immunity lasts longer than the current | vaccines. And it's likely the virus will escape the | current vaccines over a long enough timeline. That's not | a problem if we can roll out new vaccines quickly enough | to stay in front of new mutations. But that's an if. This | is the reason Fauci and others who understand the science | are focusing on treatments. | newbamboo wrote: | Here's the source for my claims. Still preprint but the | best (only randomized) study to date. | https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/covid-19/covid-19-infection- | survey/... | erhk wrote: | No its not and this kind of speculation is incredibly | harmful. | | Please stop using atomic anecdotes to percieve the world, | or at least stop propogating them. | kurthr wrote: | How do you know it is not more robust? | | Almost certainly vaccine immunity is more robust than | asymptomatic infections (especially those that rely on | the innate immune response rather than adaptive immune | response). Asymptomatic infections (especially in the | young) are extremely common and possibly in the majority | for those under 30. | pc86 wrote: | We know it's not robust because this anecdote of N==1 | directly contradicts peer-reviewed longitudinal studies. | kurthr wrote: | Should I assume that you're referring to a JAMA article | or perhaps one of the Nature publications? | | Those only measured patients who suffered acute symptoms. | Those are unlikely to represent even a bare majority of | infections although it's quite difficult to get accurate | data for asymptomatic infections. | | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03696-9 | | "only 10% had been hospitalized" | | I look forward to your citation of relevant peer-reviewed | longitudinal studies. | | Even more interesting from a medical point of view, what | mechanism do you propose for developing long term | immunity, where the innate immune system rapidly controls | infection? | sreque wrote: | https://www.cell.com/cell-reports- | medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... | | "Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune | memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting | antibody responses and memory B and T cells". | | Is that good enough for you? | erhk wrote: | Your article only suggests that getting vaccinated after | infection is still better than not getting vaccinated | after infection. | | The point I made was that vaccination is not more robust | than being infected, or at least dont assume it is | without solid evidence to support it. | h3cate wrote: | Are there any links to studies that say antibodies | produced from having covid only last 3-6 months? | AndrewBissell wrote: | The myopic focus on antibody levels is misplaced. We know | that for Covid there are much broader forms of immune | response which are not captured by antibody titers and | are quite long lasting. | da_chicken wrote: | Here's a recent study from this month: | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13372 | | A quick scan says: | | * 13% of those with natural immunity "lost detectable IgG | titers" after 10 months | | * Protection durability from the vaccine is still mostly | unknown, but appears to be good for 2-3 years | | My anecdote is from 8 months ago, so I'm not surprised | the data has been revised. I got my first dose of the | vaccine less than a week after I'd recovered, which at | the time was the recommendation of the CDC and health | department. Less than three weeks after my first dose, | they revised that to have people wait six to eight weeks. | h3cate wrote: | Strange as vaccines were only starting to be rolled out 5 | months ago and yet my country and already starting | booster shots next month | da_chicken wrote: | Did your country do a staged rollout where healthcare | workers, the elderly, and the infirm were vaccinated | first? That's how I got mine in January. I work at a | public K-12, where our staff were vaccinated in Phase 1b. | h3cate wrote: | Yes frontline staff started getting them around January | but the elderly are the ones getting the boosters over | here and that was around March time if my memory serves | correctly | majkinetor wrote: | > Vaccine protection is much more robust. | | This is insane. No vaccine works better then natural | protection from real stuff - simply because its less | stressful to the body and more stress equals better | immunity. | | I have nothing against vaccines in general but this is | nothing but pharma propaganda. | WoodenChair wrote: | > They said immune protection from direct exposure only | seems to last 3-6 months | | I'm sorry about your experience. Having Covid sucks. But | your anecdotal data here is inaccurate at best, | especially since it was from pre-Delta variant (you said | December 2020 was your time of this happening) and we do | have studies from that time showing how robust immunity | was for those who had natural infections: | | "Available scientific data suggests that in most people | immune responses remain robust and protective against | reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the | longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is | currently approximately 8 months)." [0] | | No offense, but these kind of anecdotal reports that | "someone said" (even a health official), which sound | authoritative because of the context, are how | misinformation spreads. | | 0: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/34124 | 1/WHO-... | da_chicken wrote: | While my figure of 3-6 months has been revised upward to | 6, 8 or 10 months, the core sentiment of my post remains | unchanged: Vaccine immunity is believed to be better. | Vaccines are still believed to be good for 2-3 years | based on how similar vaccines for other coronaviruses | have worked. That is either enough time for the immune | system's natural protection to atrophy, or for the virus | to change. That still means vaccine immunity is likely to | be more robust protection than natural immunity, even | though the general sentiment seems to be a shrug for how | long protection from the vaccine will actually last. [0] | | _That 's_ why they still exclusively discuss being fully | vaccinated, and discount natural immunity. They believe | it's better. | | Furthermore, I have seen _no-one_ in the health community | that has recommended _not_ getting the vaccine if you 've | already had the virus. Compare this to, for example, | chicken pox, where they only recommend the vaccine if you | haven't had it. | | In the context of this thread where the comment I was | responding to was trying to argue that natural immunity | is being short-changed somehow, I think the sentiment I'm | expressing is perfectly accurate regardless of how exact | timelines have been shifted in the past year. You still | need to get fully vaccinated even if you've had the | disease. Nothing about that has changed. | | [0]: | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13372 -- | This study was published this month | majkinetor wrote: | There is nothing at [0] claiming vaccine protection is | longer then natural one. It literary claims that it | remains to be seen in future research. | sreque wrote: | Actually we are seeing the opposite to be true. Recent | Israel data shows vaccine antibody counts can drop | sharply in as early as 2-3 months: https://www.i24news.tv | /en/news/coronavirus/1617185858-antibo... | | Also, Most of the re-infected in Israel were from the | vaccinated population, even after you adjust for | vaccinated vs. unvaccinated population sizes: https://www | .deseret.com/coronavirus/2021/7/20/22584134/whats... | | On the other hand, with natural immunity, even after your | antibody count wanes in your bloodstream, you still have | your bone marrow and memory B cells to protect | you:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34030176/ | | It's looking more and more like natural immunity will be | more long-lived than vaccine immunity: | https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 | polished85 wrote: | Once my family and I are vaccinated I assume we are | protected and don't have much to worry about. Why should I | care if someone else is not vaccinated? If everyone that | wants the vaccine can get it, why does it matter if some | people don't get it? | ajross wrote: | Alternatively: the unvaccinated are simply mistaken, and | represent people's cousins and friends and children and | grandparents, and their suffering and death would represent | real loss and tragedy even to people who did everything | right and got their shots. | | The desire to see this pandemic solely in terms of an | individual moral play (on all sides of the debate!) is | really strong on this website, and I think it's very | unhelpful. | | We're all in this together. I got my shots. All my family | members of age are vaccinated. All our friends and regular | acquaintances are vaccinated. | | I still wear my mask where I have to be near people in | public, because every little bit helps. My risk is not | zero, and if I get sick so might someone else who isn't as | protected. I still avoid restaurants. I still work at home. | I still limit travel. | | We can stop this when the pandemic is controlled. Until | then, it remains all of our collective responsibility. And | I for one am willing to bear that. | zarzavat wrote: | Your compassion is noble but the reality is that few | share it. Very few vaccinated people are willing to | accept restrictions on their liberty to help protect | people who are unvaccinated by choice. | | Besides, the virus is not standing still. It is | responding to selective pressure by becoming ever more | transmissible. The more we try to control the virus by | social distancing, the more the virus responds by | becoming easier to transmit. We cannot control this | pandemic long term via social distancing, even with | perfect compliance. | h3cate wrote: | Do you think that there should be restrictions on society | to protect people that are unvaccinated by choice? | ajross wrote: | > The more we try to control the virus by social | distancing, the more the virus responds by becoming | easier to transmit. | | That is a mischaracterization. I mean, it's true, but | only in a specious sense that all organisms respond to | changes in their environment (including vaccination | techniques!). It's absolutely not an argument that | pandemic mitigation strategies are universally doomed to | failure! | | > We cannot control this pandemic long term via social | distancing | | Again, this is wrong. And in fact it worked to control | covid (not perfectly, but well, well under what you'd | expect from the early exponential curves in places like | Milan and New York) for almost a year before vaccines | showed up. | | You're making another common mistake here, and imagining | that all arguments are about absolutes. In your mind, | mask wearing either Works Perfectly or Must Be Abandoned. | | In the real world, you wear masks when the pandemic is at | a high infection rate and growing, (like now) because | marginal improvements are important ("every little bit | helps"), and not as much when it's low and shrinking (as | it was in June, when I even went to a few restaurants | unmasked!). | zarzavat wrote: | Pandemic controls are already doomed to failure in the | case of COVID. If you look at countries where they have | had very strict and successful pandemic controls, such as | Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand, they are finding it | impossible to contain the delta variant. It has several | attributes that make control difficult. | | Would the delta variant have arisen were it not for | social distancing? Perhaps, that's unknowable. But we | certainly created a lot of selective pressure for it to | exist. | | That's not to say that social distancing was bad or | wrong. It was our only choice at the time. But in a | future where social distancing is much less effective and | where compliance by vaccinated people will be low, the | utility of these interventions is becoming ever smaller. | You can of course do whatever you want individually | according to your conscience. | | Where do we go from here? The world needs to increase | vaccine production to billions per month, and decrease | response times to new variants so that if there is a new | vaccine-resistant variant we can vaccinate the world | again quickly. | ajross wrote: | No. No, no, none of that is correct. Stop saying things | that are untrue simply because they feel like they should | confirm your priors. Delta outbreaks in many places have | peaked and subsided well short of saturation. Look at | India, where it was first detected. They peaked in May | and are now at about 9% of peak infection rate. | | In fact objectively India's net response to Delta, both | in width of infection wave and peak outbreak rate, has | been _better_ that the US 's, despite near zero net | vaccination. | | And why is the US so bad at this? Largely because of | _PEOPLE LIKE YOU_ who insist on crazy pseudoscience | theories like "Masks don't work" or "treat it with | dewormer" or (sigh) "Pandemic controls are already doomed | to failure" instead of just doing the right thing. Stop | it. Stop trying to be smarter than everyone. Just get in | line and do the right thing. | dom96 wrote: | > Your compassion is noble but the reality is that few | share it. Very few vaccinated people are willing to | accept restrictions on their liberty to help protect | people who are unvaccinated by choice. | | It's not about protecting those that are unvaccinated by | choice. It's also about protecting those that cannot get | vaccines for whatever reason and also to stop | breakthrough infections. | | Also the majority of UK residents at least are still | wearing masks[1] so I think at least that's some evidence | that people do share this compassion. | | 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/20/uk- | still-weari... | defgeneric wrote: | I refuse to massively change my lifestyle and limit my | freedom because some people have incorrect beliefs. | | Post-vaccine, we are not all in this together. | rajin444 wrote: | > We're all in this together | | No, we aren't. Obesity is an epidemic. Nearly all of | those people made a decision to make themselves more | likely to contract covid, more likely to exhibit symptoms | longer (thus spread it), and more likely to occupy | critical healthcare infrastructure - as well as more | likely to die from covid. | | There has been almost 0 acknowledgement of this as well | as 0 promises to fix this issue. If you're still obese | (or not calling for mandatory weight loss) and upset | others aren't getting a vaccine you're not fairly | applying "every little bit helps". | | You're picking and choosing which issues we should bear | "collective responsibility" for. It's some kind of irony | we're passing out krispy kremes when you get your | vaccination. | h3cate wrote: | This is the most annoying point. One of the biggest | factors in whether you will end up in hospital is obesity | and smoking and yet for some reason this is never | addressed. | wonderwonder wrote: | Unfortunately we are not all in this together. One group | is vaccinated and has done their part to protect | themselves and others including those that cannot be | vaccinated due to age limitations. There is another group | that refuses vaccination, sees it as an impediment to | their freedom and if they don't think Covid is a hoax | then are quite willing to sacrifice others. There is no | common ground between these groups and the vaccinated | group very much sees the second group as needlessly | prolonging this pandemic and engaging in a lifestyle | choice that is very much a risk to their children. | lovich wrote: | > We're all in this together | | I used to think this too, but the "Covid is a hoax" crowd | have made it very clear that we are not | guscost wrote: | Yep, you're gonna leave us alone from now on. Also I'll | decide for myself what to fear, thanks. | smt88 wrote: | If you get Covid and are hospitalized, do you feel that | your treatment should be paid for by others (meaning | through your insurance or govt assistance)? | | If so, doesn't that mean your decision affects others? | | I hope that you would do the responsible thing and offer | to pay your full medical bill in that scenario, in which | case, disregard my question. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Ummm, you could use this reasoning on obesity, STDs, | etc... | smt88 wrote: | Obesity is not a disease with a clear diagnosis. You | can't just say someone got rectal cancer _only_ because | they 're obese. | | STDs don't have a vaccine. You can get one entirely | unpreventably as well, e.g. because your spouse is | cheating. | | Most importantly, preventative measures for obesity and | STDs are not: | | - nearly 100% effective | | - totally free | | - easily available | | - universally recommended by health organizations | erhk wrote: | Great so did you decide to fear a vaccine or are you | happily doing your civic duty for the sake of your | countrymen. | guscost wrote: | The latter. I'm probably not at risk from either the | virus or the shot. | | Unfortunately you can't isolate a world-altering issue | like this from its psychological and political context, | so for me any respiratory-disease-related risk is | secondary to the much bigger threat. "Live free or die" | is not an empty slogan. I will be standing with the | unvaxxed to the bitter end, although it probably won't go | that far. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Almost nobody is at risk from COVID-19. The 600k+ people | who died from it so far in the US represents a tiny, tiny | percentage of the population. Even after every single | person has been exposed to the virus, it seems likely | that the individual risk will remain extremely small. | | The problem with COVID-19 has never been the risk it | poses for you as an individual, but the public health | aspects. It is highly infectious; some number of cases | require hospitalization; if too many people require that | at the same time, the public health implications are | substantial, much broader than COVID-19 itself, and | potentially lethal. | | Ergo, we have a civic responsibility to take steps to | reduce the chance of this happening, and the simplest way | to do that is vaccination and masks. | adventured wrote: | > Almost nobody is at risk from COVID-19. The 600k+ | people who died from it so far in the US represents a | tiny, tiny percentage of the population. | | True for the US, sure, because of its healthcare capacity | and financial resources (rapid development and deployment | of potent mRNA vaccines). Peru has likely lost near 1% of | its entire population due to Covid (200k deaths, 32m | population, guaranteed vast undercount due to local | conditions). They'll recover from that no doubt, and the | population will ultimately acquire widespread immunity | with or without vaccines (which would bring down the rate | of deaths), however it's definitely not a tiny percentage | of the population to lose so quickly. | | It's going to be an incredible rolling challenge to | handle the bottom ~3-4 billion people getting Covid | vaccinations every year to prevent millions of people | from dying annually. And that's assuming the mass | propogation of Covid to all humans and a lot of animals | isn't going to eventually unleash super deadly strains. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | >... isn't going to eventually unleash super deadly | strains. | | The Guardian had an interview last week or the week | before with someone who appeared to know what they were | talking about. They made the point that there are dozens | of known respiratory viruses already, and that although | they constantly mutate and pose new challenges, we have | not seen them ever mutate into "super deadly" strains. | | I take some comfort from that (even though it is clearly | not a sure thing). | erhk wrote: | You misunderstand me. Being vaccinated is your civic | duty. Failing to do so is unpatriotic. | outside1234 wrote: | But then you spread it someone else that is at risk. | | Getting vaccinated is not about you only. It is about | reducing the risk to all of us. | eagsalazar2 wrote: | It is an empty slogan coming from you. You apply it so | nonsensically here that it is obvious you care more about | chest pounding faux-nationalism than the true meaning of | those words. Consider the fact that right now _in the US, | no one is being forced to take the vaccine_. No one. So | your choice to defiantly refuse the vaccine is just | defiance against a boogeyman you have self-servingly | created, not an act of defiance against oppression. | | Note: there _are_ _half-way_ decent arguments against | taking the vaccine. Resisting govt oppression is not one | of them. | guscost wrote: | You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but I am | still going to do what I feel is right, and you are going | to deal with it. Simple as that. | OJFord wrote: | Well to be fair there's significant 'peer pressure' (just | look at this thread!) and there's debate about 'vaccine | passports' for non-travel, i.e. restaurants etc. | | I had my second dose today, but I'm against having to | 'prove' (or comment on) that when I decide to go anywhere | (within the UK, I don't mean for travel) again. | eagsalazar2 wrote: | Why? As a private business I can exclude you for many | reasons. If I believe you pose a health risk to me, and I | demand you prove you've been vaccinated, that's my choice | and it is your choice to take your business elsewhere. I | might piss off or lose all my customers but that is my | right. Again, no govt oppression or threat to your | liberty. | Bhilai wrote: | Very curious to know, are you and your family (if you | have kids) have not vaccinated for other kinds of stuff | like Polio, HepA, HepB, Varicella etc. or is your | objection just for Covid vaccines? | pasquinelli wrote: | being scared doesn't actually do anything for anyone, but | the vaccinated do not have zero risk. if the virus is | always kicking around, then there will always be vaccinated | people dying of it. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | tens of thousands of people in the USA die every year | from influenza. This does not cause most of us to be | "scared" of influenza. Why not? Because (1) the | individual risk is vanishing low except for a relatively | small high risk demographic (2) the public health aspects | (i.e. overloaded health care systems) are generally easy | to control because it is not extremely infectious. | | (1) is and always has been true for COVID, but (2) | remains unresolved at this point. | thingification wrote: | The risk of long COVID sticking around in immiserating | form long-term once you have it is unknown, but the risk | of getting long COVID (defined along the lines of at | least a few COVID symptoms sticking around for a few | months) is much higher than the risk of death from Flu | (starting from the assumption of not yet having caught | either in a given year). I hesitate to post anything here | on this subject that's not carefully worked out, so all | I'll say is my personal back-of-the-envelope order of | magitude calculation based on public data, comparing with | other per-year risks such as cancer, didn't give me any | confidence at all. | heywherelogingo wrote: | To think the unvaccinated should be scared of it reveals a | perspective born of mania. I'm unvaccinated, had covid last | week, it's preferable to a common cold. There is no way I | will bother with the so-called vaccine, which is more of a | mere remedy, when covid is so insignificant to people who | are healthy. If you are so unhealthy that you need the | vaccine (remedy) then you have bigger concerns. | pasquinelli wrote: | the point of the vaccine for healthy people is to limit | the spread of the virus. a virus turns your cells into | virus making factories. immunized people have a lower | risk of infection by the virus, so are less likely to | become virus factories, and so are less likely to spread | it. | outside1234 wrote: | So you are selfish, because you could have passed it on | to a number of people in the meantime for whom it will | not be a common cold. | heywherelogingo wrote: | Right, because 0.1% of the population expecting 99.9% of | the population to lockdown and inject things too isn't | selfish? | shkkmo wrote: | Made up numbers are made up. | erhk wrote: | What is a remedy in this context? Can you put this | chicken scratch in real terms or are you simply so far | into pseudoscience that you've disregarded language as | well? | | 90% of ICU cases are people that think like you in my | county. Almost all new severe cases and deaths are people | who believe they are above the risk. | | Tell me this, since you are a "healthy" individual do you | also forego all cancer screening? Do you simply have such | an attunement to your own body that you can feel any | rogue cells as they form? Perhaps you rub yourself with | quartz because you consider it to be a "good" crystal | with healing properties. | ineedasername wrote: | I guess what it comes down to is this: Do you think that | if most people got vaccinated, fewer people would get | seriously sick & die? | | If so, then your position is hard to justify. If not, | then I would be interested in your explanation for that | belief. | | _had covid last week, it 's preferable to a common cold_ | | Glad it worked out for you, but plenty of other healthy | people are dying. Others are passing it on to people who | then die. | | _when covid is so insignificant to people who are | healthy._ | | A truly selfish perspective | | _If you are so unhealthy that you need the vaccine | (remedy) then you have bigger concerns._ | | Sure, and plenty of people have underlying conditions | through no fault of their own, and the unvaccinated are | adding to their concerns significantly by gambling with | their own health (which is alright, I guess) and by | extension the health of everyone around them (which, | again, is selfish) | | Also what do you mean by remedy? Definitions that I see | do not match your use of the term. That word may not mean | what you think it means. | luckylion wrote: | > I guess what it comes down to is this: Do you think | that if most people got vaccinated, fewer people would | get seriously sick & die? | | > If so, then your position is hard to justify. | | Sorry, no. For the record, I'm fully vaccinated, but that | argument doesn't work. If we all stopped driving cars, | fewer people would die in accidents. That's no belief | etc, it's a fact. Yet we obviously don't, because cars | are super convenient and relatively few people die. We're | perfectly fine accepting some people dying for lots of | convenience for everyone. | | The same will have to eventually be accepted for Covid. | We can't live in a perpetual half-lockdown because the | omega-variant will kill 0.1% of seniors otherwise. | shkkmo wrote: | > Yet we obviously don't, because cars are super | convenient and relatively few people die. We're perfectly | fine accepting some people dying for lots of convenience | for everyone. | | Speak for yourself. There are a significant number of | people on this site who are pretty vocally opposed to | cars precisely due to the safety hazards. There was an | article on here just the other day about how drivers of | larger trucks and SUVs are twice as likely to kill a | pedestrian as drivers of sedans. | | I would posit that reasons why these risks are so | underappreciated (and why we don't wear helmets in cars) | is due to long-term concerted efforts to control how cars | are understood and protrayed by those who make money from | them. | luckylion wrote: | > There are a significant number of people on this site | who are pretty vocally opposed to cars precisely due to | the safety hazards. | | No, they're not, otherwise they'd be on a farm and live | of the land. Living in the city and being able to walk to | the grocery store depends on other people with cars doing | all the heavy lifting and delivering whatever they need | by car to where they pick it up. | | > I would posit that reasons why these risks are so | underappreciated (and why we don't wear helmets in cars) | is due to long-term concerted efforts to control how cars | are understood and protrayed by those who make money from | them. | | I fundamentally disagree. Plenty of people die falling | off of a ladder each year. Every time you use a ladder, | there's a non-zero chance of dying. But ladders are | great! They allow you to reach stuff you couldn't get to | otherwise, so of course they're worth the risk. So do | cars. | | You can go over that for pretty much any topic. Want to | live in a house? Construction workers are dying. Want to | eat? People die in the process. But they're few, compared | to the population of country, and houses and food are | great. | | If risk minimization is the goal, we'll all run around | like the Michelin figure so we don't hurt ourselves. But | we don't, because we want to get shit done, and for most | things, there's a giant area where the risk is much | smaller than the cost associated with avoiding it. The | same is true for illnesses. Yes, it sucks, and of course | nobody wants to die, but we can't go on like this forever | because _it could save lives_. | h3cate wrote: | I get what you're saying but we're seeing the virus | spread through the vaccinated. Because the vaccinated | aren't getting sick and ending up in hospital, they're | spreading it to more people and the virus is mutating the | whole way so I struggle to follow your logic. | ineedasername wrote: | Where is the flaw of logic in these points: | | 1) The vaccinated are not getting it anywhere near the | rates of the unvaccinated, so they are not spreading it | at anywhere close to how much the unvaccinated spread it. | | 2) If they do spread it to another vaccinated person, | that person is highly unlikely to get very sick at all. | | 3) If they spread it to an unvaccinated person, that | person is much more likely to get sick and have a better | opportunity to spread it to even more people. | | 4) People who get sick & end up in the hospital still | have lots of time before they get to spread the virus | before being hospitalized. | | 5) Vaccinated people who get COVID are infectious to | others for significantly less time than unvaccinated | people. | | 6) Current does not show vaccinated people causing new or | more powerful strains. [0] | | 7) New strains are still significantly less infectious & | dangerous for those who are vaccinated. | | So I fail to see how your points are relevant from an | overall risk-reduction point of view. Available evidence | points towards vaccination as a superior risk reduction | mechanism than the alternative (which I guess is _do | nothing_? If not, please clarify) that you are proposing. | | [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine- | variants/f... | h3cate wrote: | 1) We don't know this is true. We know that people that | have been vaccinated show much less symptoms and are | therefore less likely to get a test which can explain the | lower positive test rate. | | 2) Again to point 1 | | 3) They will most likely spread it back to said | vaccinated people who are less likely to get sick | | 4) Back to point 3 | | 5) Has this been proved anywhere? | | 6) For the time being. The delta variant only mutated 12 | months after the first infection | shkkmo wrote: | It's hard to follow logic when you make up your own facts | to fit your argument. | bialpio wrote: | Last time I saw a number, vaccinations offer more than | ~60% protection against infection with Delta altogether - | did you run the numbers / see some study to arrive at | "they're spreading it to more people", or is this a case | of "it aligns with what I already thought / it justifies | my current behavior so it must be true"? | h3cate wrote: | Take out the word more and I will stand by what I said. | Also you might have less chance of getting infected but | you also are less likely to develop symptoms and so will | most likely not isolate when you are infected. | | You are trying to condense a very complex scenario into a | very simple argument. | ineedasername wrote: | _it justifies my current behavior so it must be true_ | | That would be my guess, since actual evidence shows that | vaccinated people are infectious for a significantly | shorter period of time: | | https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta- | var... | AndrewBissell wrote: | > _once the vaccine is available to all age groups, the | only people that need to be scared of it are the | unvaccinated_ | | The age groups to whom the vaccine is not yet available | have no reason to fear Covid in 2021 any more than they did | influenza in 2019. | mike00632 wrote: | Vaccines are available for the flu and we take them... | The whole anti-vaxx mindset is bewildering. Even if | COVID-19 was just like the flu we would still want to get | vaccinated for it | TulliusCicero wrote: | The ICU's of some areas are so full that they have to turn | people away and let them die. How is that a good time to "not | be as scared"? | nikkinana wrote: | You're full of shit. | akira2501 wrote: | > We know that dogs, cats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mink, white- | tailed deer, a gorilla, and a tiger have been found to have | been infected with covid-19. | | How do we know this? PCR test? At what threshold? Or, antigen | test? Is there a guinea pig antigen test for COVID? | | I'm suspicious of this reasoning due to the apparently | complicated and necessary natural pathway this virus used to | become infectious to humans in the first place. This apparently | doesn't apply anymore? | | > Of diseases that get as widespread as this, with animal | reservoirs | | The contact with those reservoirs needed to be much more than | casual in order for infections to pass. I'm not sure this logic | applies to a SARS virus. | [deleted] | tehjoker wrote: | I like how the mainstream media is on a "live with the virus" | blitz while Delta counts soar. | otabdeveloper4 wrote: | "The coronavirus"? | | News to me. There isn't a "the". | msoad wrote: | maybe because you didn't read the article? This is not about | COVID-19 specifically. | [deleted] | ttobbaybbob wrote: | It will be interesting to understand the long-term impact of | covid on immunity. Given that covid came from GoF research have | we developed defenses (albeit at an ultimately very-high price) | that will protect us from future novel coronaviruses ? | | other classes of virus? (ie how the plague resistance in those of | european descent gives some level of protection against hiv [0]) | | Is this something we have a way to measure or will it be | impossible to tell once everyone in the world has some amount of | covid immunity? | | 0: | https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325234239.h... | (first thing i could find) | frakkingcylons wrote: | While the lab escape theory is possible, there's definitely not | enough evidence to just state it like it's fact (as you just | did). | gHosts wrote: | > It will feel strange for a while and then it will not. It will | be normal. | | Except for the people who, in addition to those who die year | after year after year from flu, now die will die from Covid. | | For them it won't feel normal at all. | creamynebula wrote: | Specially given that after a year and a half we still don't seem | to ponder that livestock, hunting, deforestation, and all sorts | of animal experimenting mean another deadly disease could slip up | anytime as it just did. | erhk wrote: | Deforestation is relevant here? What are you on about | jpeloquin wrote: | "anthropized environments can provide an acceptable habitat | for a large range of bat species, generating thus a higher | diversity of bats and in turn of bat-borne viruses next to | human dwellings ... This increases the risk of transmission | of viruses through direct contact, domestic animal infection, | or contamination by urine or feces." [0] | | "Deforestation has also been associated with the increased | emergence of viral pathogens, such as SARS, Ebola and other | viruses of bats." [1] | | The conclusions of the first paper (from April 2018) seem | prophetic in hindsight: "The risk of emergence of a novel | bat-CoV disease can therefore be envisioned." | | [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5904276/ | | [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2829318/ | xdennis wrote: | I don't think it's clear that the origins of covid are natural. | This has become less controversial recently. | creamynebula wrote: | I would put gain-of-function research on the umbrella of | animal experimenting. | habosa wrote: | At this point we almost know too much about the spread of this | disease. Never in history have we tested so much for one thing. | Never in history have we really worried about asymptomatic cases | of anything. This is probably the first time in history that the | whole world has the same scary thing as their front-page news. | | It's going to be really, really hard for us to shake the mindset | that thousands of covid cases === danger. I am sure there are | many thousands of cases of many other diseases in my community | right now that I will never know or care about. | | I'm not trying to detract at all from the seriousness of the | pandemic, just saying that going forward we'll have to pay a lot | less attention to covid-19 if we want to have mental space for | anything else. | burlesona wrote: | I don't know if that's true. Case in point, the reason that | Florida is drowning in COVID right now is that the majority of | people there don't think it's a big deal. It's the same thing | and many other parts of the country. There are still a lot of | people who are freaked out, but most ordinary people are | starting to tune out the news and lose interest because the | media calls to be scared and panic just make them numb | eventually. | dang wrote: | To read all the 600+ comments in this thread you need to click | More at the bottom or on links like this: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28274819&p=2 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28274819&p=3 | | (Comments like this will eventually go away. Sorry for the | annoyance. The server is hurting today.) | dpweb wrote: | The only things pushed were masks and vaccines. Nothing about | Vitamin D (or C for that matter) supplementation. No push for | healthy lifestyles or reduction of obesity rate. Nothing about | developing new mask or shield technologies. Nothing about the use | of UV light safe to stand in that kills virus. Nothing about | ventilation system technology. Or permanently moving some | activities outdoors. | | We should have had a full-court press in all areas to fight this | virus. Not just a $100 billion for big pharma for a vaccine that | always works, except when it doesn't. It's no wonder 25% of the | US have adopted the idiotic position that they wont accept a mask | or vaccine. People are so done with the 'new normal' for this | week that just needs to be accepted. | nomel wrote: | > No push for healthy lifestyles or reduction of obesity rate. | | Obese and unhealthy people won't become healthy if you ask the | nicely. It's requires a lifestyle change. | | > Nothing about developing new mask or shield technologies. | | Not even a simple lifestyle change like putting some cloth over | your face is being tolerated. | | > Nothing about ventilation system technology. Or permanently | moving some activities outdoors. | | And many things that would help would be at an fairly | incredible financial cost (~$2 billion to cover schools, at an | incredibly unrealistic $15k/school), or impossible ( _most_ | local climates do not allow for comfortably staying outdoors | all day). | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | > The server is hurting today | | I get the tech hipster ethos that it's cool to just run one big | ass server and supposedly avoid a lot of complexity cost. But | it's the year two-thousand and twenty-one. The fact that the most | well-known tech forum in the world either can't or won't set up | autoscaling is an indictment of the entire tech industry. We're | living in the binary age, but we still need humans to push the | bits around by hand, like 1960's operators juggling wires on a | switchboard. | skadamou wrote: | Does anyone know of any resources that talk about how endemic | COVID might look for immune-compromised folks? I recognize there | probably just isn't the research yet to make too many claims | about how this disease effects people on immune-supressing drugs | but I have found vanishingly little on the web that even takes a | stab at what life should look like for those folks in the long | run. | | This is a rare Atlantic article that I think takes a level-headed | and nuanced approach to a topic that requires some level of | technical understanding. I tip my hat to Sarah Zhang. | at_a_remove wrote: | It will be interesting to see if this will mutate into less | harmful variants, or, with vaccines go the way of Marek's | disease, and become _more_ lethal. This is a fascinating global | experiment that will determine our policy for decades either way. | | Personally, the first thing I did when I heard that a vaccine was | coming was try to find out if it was "leaky" or not. I could not | find this information. We ought to be hustling on a non-leaky | version, and perhaps that will be the policy lesson learned. | thisiscorrect wrote: | Wasn't the lethality of Marek's disease for poultry driven by | immune escape from vaccination? | at_a_remove wrote: | It was the leakiness that drove it, from what I read. | dongping wrote: | Nonpharmaceutical interventions do work. With Internet and | E-commerce, full scale lockdown becomes tenable. Together with | mass PCR testing, the virus can be eradicated. | | The virus can't teleport, and it is here to stay only because the | decision-makers thought that it was the cheaper option to let it | spread (it is not), then didn't want to admit being wrong. | | It is sad to see that with all the technologies available, the | world is still in the middle of the pandemic. | nomel wrote: | I think it would be useful for you to go through the employment | by occupation percentages [1] to get an idea of the percentage | of jobs that would be eradicated with sustained full lockdown, | for those that can't work from home. | | 1. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/emp-by-detailed- | occupation.ht... | dongping wrote: | How long would a full lockdown take? (a real one, not a | mockdown) | | The experience in Wuhan shows that 76 days would be enough to | eradicate the virus from a massive outbreak. So the loss | would be way less than 20% of the GDP (since essential | economic activities would still be going on [1], and there | would be people being able to work from home. Government | could still use financial instrument/regulation to alleviate | the damage). | | I don't think the the US would be able to do such a large | project, but I had thought that the European bureaucratic | system was organized enough. I was apparently wrong. | | [1] To give some perspectives on the GDP contributed by | different sectors | https://www.statista.com/statistics/247991/value-added-to- | th... | grillvogel wrote: | permanent lockdown should be encouraged because we have the | internet and can buy stuff online? sorry but no. | dongping wrote: | Either we do a full lockdown to reach zero COVID, like NZ and | China did (while buying stuff online), or we would have to do | prolonged mockdowns like in Europe. | | The Chinese have been living a mostly normal life (albeit | with limited foreign travel possibilities, and sporadic | lockdowns in isolated locations) for a year. | grillvogel wrote: | zero covid is unrealistic. how are things gonna pan out | when the hypothetical zero covid nation opens up to outside | travelers? | dongping wrote: | I would argue that opening up is unrealistic. | | How are things going to pan out, when we apply selection | pressure to the virus, while letting the virus sieve | through the whole human population, creating dangerous | variants due to our leaky vaccines? [1] | | I would have had agreed with you if we had a sterilizing | vaccine that would help us to reach herd immunity. But we | don't. | | Those travels which cannot afford 14 days quarantines, | are non-essential travels. We fortunately have internet | and the possibility to do remote meetings. | | The only thing missing is tourism, though. That's sad, | but better travel locally than killing people. | | [1] | https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky- | vac... | theknocker wrote: | >everything the media has been telling you this entire time was a | big lie to manage hospital capacity without tanking the economy | corona-research wrote: | Corona is dystopian fascism. | tamaharbor wrote: | Frankly, from the tone of these comments, it appears we don't | know anything for sure. | User23 wrote: | What baffles me is the total failure to highlight one of the best | ways to mitigate the risk of severe covid complications: don't be | obese[1]. It's also a good life choice for those who also prefer | not to die of non-covid conditions. | | Edit: And it increases your risk for long covid[2]. | | [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/latest-evidence- | on... | | [2] https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210608/obesity- | increases-r... | greedo wrote: | Obesity is something that can take quite a while to address. | What baffles me is the total failure of some people to see one | of the best ways to mitigate the risk of severe covid | complications; TAKE THE VACCINE | at_a_remove wrote: | The, uh, tone of your comment suggests that there is this | epidemic of obese people who simply have neglected to press the | STOP BEING OBESE button. "All you have to do is ..." "Can't you | just ..." In technology, we hate hearing that from people who | do not have a grasp of the situation -- why are you doing it | here? | | That button doesn't exist. That's the source of your | bafflement. | hnuser847 wrote: | Perhaps we should have nutrition passports. People wouldn't | be allowed to visit fast food restaurants until they have | sub-30 BMI. | at_a_remove wrote: | If I could short stock in this idea, well, it would be like | getting in early on crypto. | president wrote: | You could same about "Can't you just take the jab?" and | "Can't you just wear a mask?". If you want to be the one | deciding who has to do something, then that's called | authoritarianism and it's the reason why so many people are | pissed off about the all of the covid restrictions. | jmull wrote: | Do you really think there are a lot of obese people around that | can simply stop being obese but just haven't had a reason to | yet? | | Where do people come up with this stuff? | abstractbarista wrote: | I think most people can stop. | | I also think most people lack the resolve to stop. | swader999 wrote: | I was 35 pounds overweight. Saw the writing on the wall and | in three months I'm down 25-30 pounds. Stopped eating sugar | and bread and only eat one meal 2-4 times a week. | unbroken wrote: | The trick is to keep that going in the longterm. I did | manage to lose that amount of weight in the same amount of | time as well, but ended up gaining it back in under 5 | years, which I hear is the fate of most people who lose | weight. | swader999 wrote: | So true! | misiti3780 wrote: | Unfortunately, it would seem the data would suggest yes. | | Per the CDC: | | From 1999 -2000 through 2017 -2018, US obesity prevalence | increased from 30.5% to 42.4%. During the same time, the | prevalence of severe obesity increased from 4.7% to 9.2%. | | https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html | javagram wrote: | Obesity has also increased among wild animals | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28261232 | | While dieting can control obesity, we have decades of | evidence to show it isn't easy. Bariatric surgery does seem | to work but is invasive and dangerous. | 74d-fe6-2c6 wrote: | who even cares? many bad things are here forever ... why is this | such a shock to many people - I don't get it. | tpaulin wrote: | The Plague is one good example: | https://www.cdc.gov/plague/maps/index.html | resource0x wrote: | I have an idea: can someone write a script to compare current | covid cases among countries as a function of vaccination rates. | Same for deaths/1 miliion population. I don't have skills for | that, but this is HN after all, so there should be someone... | (One of the parameters should be a timeline of vaccinations - | vaccines tend to wane over time, we have a chance to figure out | to what extent). | thaumasiotes wrote: | > can someone write a script to compare current covid cases | among countries as a function of vaccination rates | | This isn't really a good idea, because cases as a function of | vaccination rates won't tell you anything meaningful. | Vaccinations aren't distributed at random - they are heavily | skewed towards people at risk of serious health effects from | the virus, and skewed _away_ from people with low risk. | | So if you were to tabulate that data, you'd be hopelessly | confounded by the differing population structures among | different countries. | resource0x wrote: | So, there's no way to figure out the effectiveness of | vaccines from the data? Then how? | AkshatM wrote: | Vaccine trials run large randomized control experiments to | estimate vaccine effectiveness. i.e. they compare a control | group to an experiment group, both equally likely to | contract the virus, and observe if a smaller percent of the | experiment group contracted the virus compared to the | control group over a certain time period. | | Continued vaccine efficacy data is measured longitudinally, | by tracking the cumulative infection rate across | populations with similar risk profiles but different | preventative measures in place. | | The data for vaccine effectiveness is already publicly | available and compiled through reports and infographs on | the CDC website, the FDA website and the WHO website. xkcd | even had a comic about a graph of vaccine efficacy pulled | directly from the FDA's preliminary brief about the Moderna | vaccine trial results last year. There are papers that have | been published regarding longitudinal results for countries | - for instance, you might have heard about studies from | Israel claiming that vaccine efficacy has dropped by some | 60%, while other studies continue to cap the drop at | anywhere from 0 to 10%. | mmcdermott wrote: | It would have to be a multivariate analysis. That's sort of | the problem with x over y analysis - the question | presupposes a very narrow range of answers. | | There are good reasons to believe the vaccines help, but | you don't want to beg the question when you start the | analysis. | resource0x wrote: | > you might have heard about studies from Israel claiming | that vaccine efficacy has dropped by some 60% | | Yes, I heard it. 60% is not a constant, the effectiveness | keeps dropping over time. So what gives? In country A, | everybody has to take a vaccine every 5-6 months with | lockdowns in between, while another country doesn't | bother vaccinating, and life returns to normal? Is this | what you expect from the vaccine? | goda90 wrote: | I really hope we take this as a call to put more research into | effective and affordable antiviral treatment. Vaccines are great, | but there is always a limitation. Better antivirals could save a | lot of lives, especially early in a pandemic. | cm2187 wrote: | That's why I don't really understand why there are still covid | restrictions in countries that are close to full vaccination, | like the UK. There isn't really a next step after having | vaccinated the population, it is "steady state". So do they want | us to have these restrictions (countries you can't travel to, | endless testing, mask requirements) forever? | celticninja wrote: | What restrictions do you mean? I am in the UK and facing no | restrictions in daily life. | cm2187 wrote: | No restriction? You will have a nasty surprise if you return | from a red list country. Plus mandatory covid tests before | and after returning to the UK. Plus mandatory face masks in | public transports. Plus mandatory self-quarantine if you are | pinged by the NHS app. Many companies have not returned to | the office. We are not back to normal. | luffapi wrote: | > _Many companies have not returned to the office. We are | not back to normal._ | | This is the new normal (thankfully). Government regulations | or not, management will not be able to force people back in | the office. Office culture was a quirk of the 20th century. | A halfway house between the assembly line and the internet. | Covid just forced its inevitable collapse. | bserge wrote: | Nice bubble you live in. | luffapi wrote: | I hesitate to feed the trolls, but this is a well | documented worldwide phenomenon. Hardly just my personal | experience. | bserge wrote: | Yeah, well, on the other side of the coin, people are | being forced back in the office, some have never even | been able to work from home and many actually like the | work/home separation. | | Not to mention the millions of jobs that can't be done | remotely no matter how hard you try, but that's on a | whole 'nother planet. | tyfon wrote: | Yeah my team will meet in the office for an hour once a | week otherwise WFH. | | I suspect once the bean counters discover that the office | is only used for an hour once a week also after corona | there will be pressure to remove a lot of the seats. | | The only one really resisting at my company is the | "office manager" for some reason ;) | rpadovani wrote: | > Plus mandatory face masks in public transports. | | I really hope this will stay forever, or at least until | people don't learn to stay home when they get a cold | odessacubbage wrote: | last time i tried to stay home [from a public facing food | service position] due to the flu i was fired over | Christmas. until you change the culture around working | through illness and the punitive nature of sick days, | especially for those with children, people are not gonna | stay home if they think they can tough it out. | [deleted] | hutzlibu wrote: | "or at least until people don't learn to stay home when | they get a cold " | | Not everyone can afford that, with a fear of losing their | jobs. | nextaccountic wrote: | Then we need better labor laws. | hutzlibu wrote: | Possible, but it is hard to implement in a failsave way. | | How can the new employee proof he was fired, because he | was sick too often? | chrisseaton wrote: | > Plus mandatory self-quarantine if you are pinged by the | NHS app. | | I think you're poorly informed - it has never been | mandatory to self-quarantine if pinged by the _app_. | | And government mandated face masks on public transport went | away on the 19th of July - but people are still encouraged | and I think required by some _individual institutions_ not | by Her Majesty 's Government. | | And I don't think jet-setting around is 'daily life' so | that's disingenuous. | bodge5000 wrote: | self quarantine through the app couldn't be mandatory | seeing as the app isn't mandatory | | The only thing OP has a point on is travel abroad, which | yeh as you say isn't really daily life for the majority | of people and probably isn't too big a pill to swallow | temporarily, and continued working from home, which to my | knowledge is the choice of companies, not the government | (though either way, I'm not complaining) | Uberphallus wrote: | We're better than normal. My employer already decided to | allow up to 60% time remote, no questions asked, forever. | You can still come 100% of the time to the office if you | want. Some restrictions are still in place, but the future | seems brighter for the workplace. | FridayoLeary wrote: | Enforcement is a total joke though. | whoooooo123 wrote: | Well in the UK we've had three separate scandals where | major government officials (including the fucking HEALTH | SECRETARY) were caught flagrantly violating their own | rules with minimal consequence, so you can hardly blame | the public for taking things no more seriously than our | leadership does. | celticninja wrote: | No mandatory face masks on public transport, and only | advisory quarantine if you are pinged by the app. I don't | want to go back to the office. | | Sure it may differ If I travel but that's one restriction | not a multitude as you suggest. | andyjohnson0 wrote: | > Plus mandatory face masks in public transports. | | Not true. There is no national requirement to wear a mask | on public transport. London Underground and the Manchester | Metro have used mayoral powers to require mask wearing - | with variable compliance. Elsewhere its down to individual | choice. | | > Plus mandatory self-quarantine if you are pinged by the | NHS app. | | Not true. The app gives a recommendation. Only the NHS test | and trace service can legally require you to self isolate. | And for that you need to test positive (pcr) and not be | fully vaccinated. | whoooooo123 wrote: | > with variable compliance | | Anecdotally, it seems to me that around 70-80% of people | on the London Underground are still wearing masks. Which | is to say that the "mandate" is a joke (like so many of | our restrictions have been) and clearly isn't being | enforced. | | The percentage of people wearing masks on the tube, where | masks are "compulsory", doesn't seem much higher than the | percentage of people who are voluntarily wearing masks in | other public places which have no mandate, so the fact | that most people are still wearing masks on the Tube is | probably less because of the mandate and more because of | people's general sense of precaution/paranoia. I suspect | if the mask mandate were lifted then most people would | continue to wear masks voluntarily anyway, just as | they're still doing at the supermarket. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | Same for Denmark. We are at 85% first dose and 78% second | dose for the 5.1m people a vaccine was offered, so we are at | 75% of the population with at least one dose [1]. Everything | is open, there is a suggestion to wear masks in metro, no | idea about buses or trains. | | [1] https://www.sst.dk/en/english/corona-eng/status-of-the- | epide... | sleepysysadmin wrote: | >That's why I don't really understand why there are still covid | restrictions in countries that are close to full vaccination, | like the UK. There isn't really a next step after having | vaccinated the population, it is "steady state". So do they | want us to have these restrictions (countries you can't travel | to, endless testing, mask requirements) forever? | | Our government loves to pat themselves on the back having 80% | vaccination. Which is more than double the usual flu shot | rates. Yet here we are with a 4th wave, talk about complete | lockdown. | | At what point do you say that our approach is no different than | the usual flu season? In my opinion that was long ago. | | So why? Technically don't know the answer. You can look at it | from liberties point of view. That the reason these | restrictions haven't lifted has nothing to do with covid. | | Another theory which seems legit. Vaccine doesnt work. If you | follow texas gov abbot. TONS of articles slamming him for | getting covid. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/17/texas-gov- | abbott-who-banned-... | | Texas Gov. Abbott, who banned mask and vaccine mandates, tests | positive for Covid | | But wait... Abbott is fully vaccinated. That's a huge issue. | You can't slam him banning masks and all that. Vaccination is | vaccination. | | Article title should be "Texas Gov. Abbott, who is fully | vaccinated, tests positive for Covid" | | But that's where the politics of the situation come in. It's | very evident covid-19 is completely influenced by politics. | Which brings you right back to liberties point of view. | chitowneats wrote: | Greg Abbot even received a booster shot prior to infection. | | https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/texas-gov- | gre... | lamontcg wrote: | > Vaccine doesnt work. | | 80% vaccine efficacy. We were hoping for 50% so that's | actually pretty good. | | This is on par with "we had a snowstorm so climate change | isn't real" levels of logic. | | Abbott has a mild case and isn't sucking on ventilator. | sleepysysadmin wrote: | >80% vaccine efficacy. We were hoping for 50% so that's | actually pretty good. | | CDC says 94% efficacy. | https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7018e1.htm | | Immunocompromise is 6%. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/vaccine | s/blog/immunocompromised-... - Estimates are that about 6.2 | percent of adults ages 18-64 in the U.S. are living with | weakened immune function, | | The vaccine is 100% effective for healthy fully vax people. | That 6% is concerning and will differ amount countries im | sure. | | >This is on par with "we had a snowstorm so climate change | isn't real" levels of logic. | | I find your analogy to be very telling. You have moved to | another political issue that is quite divided along the | same political lines. | | >Abbott has a mild case and isn't sucking on ventilator. | | Does abbott have a compromised immune system? Shrug? | | Should we even discuss the possibility that covid testing | has high false positive testing? That Abbott never had | covid and his more recent tests only days later he tested | negative. | lamontcg wrote: | > CDC says 94% efficacy. | | Published in May, using data from Jan-Mar. | | Delta didn't exist. | | > I find your analogy to be very telling. You have moved | to another political issue that is quite divided along | the same political lines. | | I mean, yes. Science has become politicized and one side | of the debate keeps making poor arguments. | | > Abbott never had covid and his more recent tests only | days later he tested negative. | | He's vaccinated. Ct loads of viral mRNA drop more sharply | if you've been vaccinated. Having it clear fast is | expected. | | https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.212612 | 95v... | dragonwriter wrote: | > But wait... Abbott is fully vaccinated. That's a huge | issue. | | No, its not. While the rates are somewhat higher with Delta, | breakthrough infections were always expected. The accines | reduce the probability of getting COVID with similar | exposure, they don't 100% prevent it. | | > You can't slam him banning masks and all that. | | Yes, you can. Even if schools _weren 't_ full of unvaccinated | people, which they are, the existence of breakthrough | infections would _underline_ why banning mask mandates is a | culpablr error. | jdhn wrote: | > breakthrough infections were always expected | | That isn't the way it was portrayed. The way that it was | initially portrayed by the media is that these would be 99% | effective and that after getting the vaccine you could go | back to normal. | geofft wrote: | I mean, that's definitely not the impression I had after | getting the vaccine (first shot March 24, well before | anyone came up with the "Delta" name for B.1.617.2). I | stayed home and wore masks just as much as I did before | the vaccine. I knew the vaccine would make things safer | when I did need to interact with other people, but also | that it was hardly a reason to "go back to normal." | | Maybe your problem is you listen too much to the | mainstream media instead of doing research for yourself? | The corporate interests are trying to get you to consume | more and so they wanted to entice you with the prospect | of "going back to normal" and consuming things you don't | need. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | You could and lots of people have. The visibility of | masks (literally in your face!) tends to distract people | from this, but the vast, vast majority of Covid | restrictions were revoked after vaccinations became | widely available, including anything in the vein of "stay | home" or "social distancing". In all of the US and I | think a substantial chunk of Europe, it's considered safe | as a matter of policy for vaccinated people to go | wherever they'd like and do whatever they want. | sleepysysadmin wrote: | >No, its not. While the rates are somewhat higher with | Delta, breakthrough infections were always expected. The | accines reduce the probability of getting COVID with | similar exposure, they don't 100% prevent it. | | That's not my understanding, I'm in IT and not a biologist | or whatever. So perhaps you can explain to me. | | A vaccine is something that boosts/helps the immune system | develop protection against the disease. | | Measles vaccine means nobody got measles until antivaxers | started spreading measles. | | Yes there can be a portion of society which does not have | an immune system for the vaccine to help or boost and | therefore the vaccines aren't useful and doesn't work. | Percentages will change per country/society. However, | someone fully vaccinated in my mind is someone who is never | going to be infectious. Therefore prevents it. | | >Yes, you can. Even if schools weren't full of unvaccinated | people, which they are, the existence of breakthrough | infections would underline why banning mask mandates is a | culpablr error. | | The problem with covid is that it clearly divides directly | down political lines. Perhaps Texas guy is politically | motivated and making bad decisions. The problem is the | opposite as well. CNBC is clearly attacking when it's | clearly unreasonable to do so. | | I have no pity at all for anti-vaxxers who get covid. I'm | not in the USA, nor do I care about Texas. | raesene9 wrote: | Also not a biologist, but on the point of vaccines and | whether they prevent the disease full-stop or just reduce | the risk of serious illness, that's covered in the | article. | | My synopsis of that was that it was not expected (by the | developers of the vaccines) that it would prevent people | getting the illness, but that it would considerably | reduce the risk of serious infection. | | Some early trial results raised hopes that it would | prevent people getting it, but with Delta that's not been | borne out. | | That said, in addition to reducing the risk of serious | cases, it does also help reduce transmission as | vaccinated people who get it, generally have less serious | cases, which mean they are infectious for a smaller | amount of time. | superkuh wrote: | Spread of sars-cov-2 in human populations can be stopped. It | first requires intramuscular vaccination to provide IgG | antibodies in the body proper to prevent serious disease _and | then_ just as importantly, an intranasal vaccination to provide | resident B and T cells in the surface mucosa tissues of the | upper respiratory tract where the B cells will make local IgA | antibodies and provide sterilizing immunity and prevent spread | from person to person. | | Intranasal boosters are the one obvious thing we could do top- | down to end the pandemic and only have to deal with epidemics. | | ref: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6553/397 | | ref: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term- | evoluti... page 5, #8. "Whilst we feel that current vaccines | are excellent for reducing the risk of hospital admission and | disease, we propose that research be focused on vaccines that | also induce high and durable levels of mucosal immunity in | order to reduce infection of and transmission from vaccinated | individuals. This could also reduce the possibility of variant | selection in vaccinated individuals." | | ref: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00550-x | AndrewDucker wrote: | To slow the spread so that hospitals are not overwhelmed. You | can be up for letting it spread through everyone, but not think | that letting everyone catch it at once is sensible. | slickrick216 wrote: | Don't know about the UK but in other EU countries with near | full vaccination rates it does seem like they want a perpetual | semi lockdown yes. Directive 10-289. | howaboutnope wrote: | Well, it's been profitable so far, so of course it's going to | get milked for as long as possible. | | https://inequality.org/great-divide/updates-billionaire-pand... | andyjohnson0 wrote: | > That's why I don't really understand why there are still | covid restrictions in countries that are close to full | vaccination, like the UK. | | There are almost no UK legal restrictions relating to covid. | There are some rules about people returning from certain high | risk countries. And unvaccinated people who test positive still | have to self isolate. And that's about it. | | Many people (like myself) still wear masks in busy indoor | locations. And many are choosing to forego foreign holidays | this summer. | | Life here in the UK doesn't feel entirely normal, but it's much | much nearer to pre-pandemic conditions than this time last | year. | whoooooo123 wrote: | > many are choosing to forego foreign holidays this summer | | "Choosing" is a strange way to put it when COVID testing and | quarantine requirements have added hundreds (and in some | cases thousands) of pounds to the cost of most foreign | holidays and the rules are changing so frequently and | suddenly that it's a big financial risk to book anything more | than a few days in advance. | Expirat wrote: | > That's why I don't really understand why there are still | covid restrictions in countries that are close to full | vaccination, like the UK | | Because it s not about the pandemic. It s about asserting | control over population and making them obey whatever govts, | ongs, big pharma or big corps come up with. A kind of a mass | scale social engineering project. | | Edit: this btw doesn t need to be some sort of a secret group | project. It can rise naturally and decentralized among many | connected decision groups(govts, academia, big corps, etc) | which already happened. | evnc wrote: | Why is this different from other instances of governments | instituting laws or regulations for the sake of public | safety, of which there are already many? | | Are seatbelt laws a mass experiment in social control? | | Are laws mandating wearing underwear in public "about | asserting control over population and making them obey"? | elastic_is_slow wrote: | > Are seatbelt laws a mass experiment in social control? | | For this, or other instances you might come up with, you | had a large consensus between the rulers and the ruled. No | one questioned the motif behind seatbelt wearing or other | public safety measures. | | Do you have such a consensus for vaccine mandates, | lockdowns, mask wearing or covid passports? It seems not. | The only consensus you have is at the top between those who | hold the power, resources and influence. | | When you have skeptic voices and vaccine hesitant people | among medical personnel we can t really talk about a | consensus. If you can't even persuade some doctor or nurse | to agree with your medical decisions without using coercion | what should the average joe do? What does that tell us | about the motifs of those that hold the decision power? | bodge5000 wrote: | A pandemic seems like an awfully long and expensive way of | doing that, especially considering they already did so before | the pandemic through so many means (many of which actually | make them money rather than cost them, I assume you pay | taxes?) | | The only group who can be said to have really profited off | this is pharma. Maybe they have orchestrated the whole thing, | but I'd like to see some evidence first. | whoooooo123 wrote: | The pandemic doesn't need to have been deliberately | engineered; it only needed to provide an opportunity for | nefarious actors to exploit. | | Unless you think we're living through the only crisis in | history which powerful people haven't exploited to further | their existing agendas. | elastic_is_slow wrote: | > A pandemic seems like an awfully long and expensive way | of doing that... | | Actually a pandemic is a great way of establishing control | and surveillance. Read Michel Foucault's analysis of the | way the plague has shaped the society and power play | between decision makers and average citizens. | | https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.disciplineAndPunis | h... | | > The only group who can be said to have really profited | off this is pharma. | | Really? The rich getting richer off the lockdown doesn't | count? The governments getting excuses to strengthen the | hold on their citizens? | | Two groups off the top of my head. | | Also don t try to find some ulterior motif for all of | this(conspiracy ppl do this a lot), it can very well be | done just for the sake of it. | alphager wrote: | > close to full vaccination, like the UK. | | Why do people not consider kids younger than 12yo as part of | the population? MILLIONS of kids can't be vaccinated yet (but | will hopefully come december). Any talk of lifting restrictions | before march is basically a re-formulated "fuck the kids". | colordrops wrote: | No it's not. There's still no evidence that there is any real | risk to children. Please prove otherwise. Anecdotes and one | in a million cases don't count. | brown9-2 wrote: | If you want to talk about "real risk" then I think it's | only fair to ask you to define what that acceptable risk | level is. | colordrops wrote: | It's the job of those imposing restrictions to define the | risk. | Thiez wrote: | Almost 4000 children die each year from drowning in the | USA, with double that having a non-fatal drowning [0]. | Note that non-fatal drownings can cause long-term health | problems. They haven't banned pools yet, so it follows | that, as a country, the USA considers 4000 dead children | an acceptable risk of having open water, such as rivers, | ponds, and pools. And bath tubs, I suppose. | | Now with that number in mind, how many children are | expected to die if all of them were to be infected with | covid-19? I found it hard to find some numbers about | this, in my country all corona-deaths of people aged 49 | or less are grouped together these days because there are | so few that they could be traced to individuals | otherwise. | | [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/facts/index.html | ksaun wrote: | The information on that CDC page is misleading. While the | page is about children, the text that mentions the 3960 | annual drowning deaths does not specify "children," and | the number seems to be across all age groups. | | This source states ~800 children deaths/year to be | children (in 2014). [0] | | (I am not commenting on your overall point, just that | statistic.) | | For reference, the CDC notes annual total US children | deaths (if defining "children" as <= 14) as a little over | 9000 (in 2019, I think). [1] | | [0] https://www.safekids.org/press- | release/almost-800-kids-drown... | | [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm | Thiez wrote: | Thanks for the correction! I guess I sound a bit callous | in my previous post, but I'm quite happy to learn that | 3000 fewer children drown each year than I anticipated | (it did feel like a high number). The 800 deaths per year | figure can still function as a comparison for the | expected child deaths from covid-19. | ericbarrett wrote: | "North Texas runs out of pediatric ICU beds amid Covid | surge" (August 13): https://news.yahoo.com/north-texas- | runs-pediatric-icu-175912... | colordrops wrote: | Anecdote. | CodeWriter23 wrote: | Only 73 Pediatric ICU Beds in North Texas (from the | Yahoo! Article)? This article puts a little different | perspective on that reality - 'No Staffed Pediatric ICU | Beds Available' In North Texas Area, DFW Hospital Council | Says https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/08/12/no-staffed- | pediatric-icu... | king_magic wrote: | This is absolutely not true. | | https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/child- | covid-19-hospital... | firecall wrote: | This is not true of Delta strain. | | Younger people, under 30, and children are getting it and | ending up in hospital. | | It's widely reported here in Australia. | | Children are at risk. | shakna wrote: | > Younger people, under 30, and children are getting it | and ending up in hospital. | | To emphasise this point, in Victoria, Australia, most of | the cases are in the 20-29 age group. Most of the active | cases are in the 0-9 age group.[0] NSW data doesn't have | the pretty graphs, but the raw data [1] bears out similar | groupings. | | [0] https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/victorian- | coronavirus-cov... | | [1] https://data.nsw.gov.au/data/dataset/nsw- | covid-19-cases-by-a... | MontyCarloHall wrote: | Your first link reports that out of the thousands of | total cases, only 20 are in the hospital, 9 of which are | in the ICU. This does not support the claim that young | people are "widely" ending up in the hospital from COVID. | | A COVID case != serious illness, especially in vaccinated | individuals. We need to stop pretending that they are | equivalent. | shakna wrote: | > Your first link reports that out of the thousands of | total cases, only 20 are in the hospital, 9 of which are | in the ICU. | | My first link reports 492 total active cases, not | thousands. | | If you want to use the total cases, then you should be | noting that 820 people have died, and 20,212 have | recovered. The mortality calculated from that is a simple | 3.8%. | | 20 hospitalised cases out of 492 total active cases, is | about 4%, and the 9 in ICU are about 2% of total active | cases. | MontyCarloHall wrote: | >My first link reports 492 total active cases, not | thousands. | | You are correct, I was looking at total cases, not active | cases. My apologies! | | However, this still does not support the claim that young | people are "widely" going to the hospital. Even assuming | that age ranges are going to the hospital at equal rates | (which is a preposterous assumption), given 20 total | hospitalizations spread across 492 active cases (of which | 290 are ages 0-29), we would only expect ~11/290 active | COVID cases under 30 to be hospitalized. But again, this | an extremely unrealistic upper bound, based on the | ludicrous assumption that all ages get hospitalized at | equal rates. | | On top of that, these data are from Australia, where the | population is still not widely vaccinated. I assume the | vast majority of hospitalized COVID patients in Victoria | are not fully vaccinated. | | >The mortality calculated from that is a simple 3.8%. | | This (and all previous calculations) depend on accurately | estimating the denominator, i.e. the total number of | cases. Given the amount of asymptomatic/low symptomatic | cases, how is this accurately done? Has the composition | of who gets tested shifted over the course of the | pandemic? Has it ever actually accurately sampled the | true number of cases? | colordrops wrote: | Data please. | jtbayly wrote: | It's widely reported in the US, too. But the data doesn't | bear it out. | shakna wrote: | The vast majority [0] of cases in Victoria are for the | 20-29 age group. There are as many cases for the 10-19 | age group as the 40-49 age group. | | The vast majority of currently active cases right now are | for the 0-9 age group. | | Whilst there isn't a current breakdown of mortality by | age rate, the overall mortality rate for Victoria is 4%, | meaning that there is a high risk to children. | | The data does bear out the risk. | | [0] https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/victorian- | coronavirus-cov... | nradov wrote: | A mortality rate of 4% in Victoria is obviously wrong. | The only way to get a number that high is to ignore all | the asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic cases. US CDC data | shows a mortality rate of only 0.6%, and that's mostly | from earlier in the pandemic before vaccines were | available. | | https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases- | updates/burd... | jtbayly wrote: | > The vast majority of currently active cases right now | are for the 0-9 age group. | | Either I can't read graphs, or you can't. | | And you absolutely cannot take the overall mortality rate | and apply it to the one age group we know practically | none have died from in the past. | | So, as I said, the data doesn't bear this out so far as | I've seen. | shakna wrote: | > Either I can't read graphs, or you can't. | | That would be _you_. Here's the numbers from said active | case graph. | | + 0-9 - 112 | | + 10-19 - 100 | | + 20-29 - 78 | | + 30-39 - 105 | | + 40-49 - 54 | | + 50-59 - 25 | | + 60-69 - 14 | | + 70-79 - 3 | | + 80-89 - 1 | 22c wrote: | The Victorian government data you linked is very unclear. | | It treats cases in aged care vs. not in aged care as | separate sets, but is not clear on whether or not | hospitalisation cases come from both sets. | | At the top of the page it says "cases in hospital by age" | but I can't seem to find any reference to the age of | those people in hospital. | | What's clear to me, though, is in the age group of 0-29 | there's been a total of 1 death in Victoria. It's not a | whole lot to go on, but it seems unlikely to me that many | in the 0-29 group require hospital treatment. | jtbayly wrote: | Just to be clear, you said: | | > The vast majority of currently active cases right now | are for the 0-9 age group. | | And then you shared data that shows 0-9 age group with | less than 30%. Since we apparently agree on how to read | the chart, I can only assume the words "vast majority" | were not what you meant. | anyonecancode wrote: | I suspect the reason children are the hold up here is less | around current data than around where we are in this | pandemic and patterns of thought/risk assessment. Here's an | analogy that maybe will work with the HN crowd. Say we've | got a service that, for 75% of the API endpoints, often | gets a severe error. 25% of the endpoints only very rarely | get the same error. My team discovers that by applying one | simple change to the 75% of the affected endpoints, their | error rate drops dramatically. We can't, for whatever | reason, apply the same fix to those 25% yet, but we're | confident that within a relatively short amount of time | we'll be able to. | | Do we declare that the service is now working well and move | on to other items? Maybe -- in a real setting it'll of | course depend on what other priorities the team's juggling | at the moment. Maybe this is "good enough" to move on. | Still, I think we can all relate to the emotional pull to | say "hold on, we still don't actually know why those 25% of | our endpoints weren't affected as often. Something could | easily change there so that we start seeing similar error | rates. We have a fix on the way for this -- can we wait | just a bit longer so we can roll this out?" | | I think that's where a lot of people are. Again, one could | certainly argue that we're close enough, but OTOH I think | the reluctance to declare this "over" yet makes a lot of | sense too. | colordrops wrote: | Too many holes in this analogy. For instance, there are | other unrelated errors that happen more frequently. | luffapi wrote: | There are risks to _all_ of us when we let millions of | children act as a breeding and mutation substrate for the | virus. I would think that would be blinding obvious to | anyone with even a basic grasp of biology. | | It's also completely unknown what the long term effects of | the virus are. | | Edit: Disappointed but not surprised by the amount of anti- | science on this site. I feel like a lot of people have let | politics destroy their ability to think critically to the | point of near suicidal ignorance. Sad. | FridayoLeary wrote: | >It's also completely unknown what the long term effects | of the virus are. | | Long term beyond a year and a half? I think it's safe to | assume there is very little. | hcurtiss wrote: | Given global vaccination rates, it will have abundant and | plentiful opportunities for breeding and mutation | forever. There is no vaccinating the entire globe for | coronavirus. Certainly not in our lifetimes. And not | given the declining effectiveness of the vaccines. | luffapi wrote: | I agree that the whole globe will not be vaccinated and | that will continue to be a problem. That doesn't negate | what I said though, unvaccinated children are a huge part | of that problem. | | > _And not given the low effectiveness of the vaccines._ | | I have no idea what this means. It sounds like you're | under false impressions. The vaccines are quite | effective. | hcurtiss wrote: | I meant "declining." Revised simultaneous with your | comment. If the vaccine immunity does not persist and | requires boosters, we will never reach global here | immunity. The parent article is on point. | x1ph0z wrote: | > And not given the declining effectiveness of the | vaccines. | | Times like these I wish HN had a downvote button, since | that's total misinformation. | hcurtiss wrote: | It does once you have sufficient karma. Also, you're | wrong. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine- | booster-shot-cdc-... | playguardin wrote: | Wrong. | rajin444 wrote: | It's really concerning you're wrong and also wish for the | ability to silence others instead of engaging with them. | | https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0818-covid-19-bo | ost... | Thiez wrote: | The other user was suggesting lifting restrictions would | be equal to "fuck the kids". Clearly _that_ is not the | case. | | As for the risk of new mutations: if we were truly | worried about that then perhaps the priority should be | vaccinating the populations of poorer countries instead? | luffapi wrote: | I don't think that's clear at all. | | > _As for the risk of new mutations: if we were truly | worried about that then perhaps the priority should be | vaccinating the populations of poorer countries instead?_ | | Vaccinate everyone, there's no shortage of vaccine. | Remember when Bill Gates fought to stop the manufacture | of vaccine in other countries? People like him are the | enemy to a fully vaccinated population. | HarryHirsch wrote: | Early this year it looked as if the virus was on the way | out in Israel until they started opening up schools again. | The risk to children is small, but it's a communicable | disease - school is how it spreads between households. | | When doing risk assessments I wish people started looking | beyond their own immediate circle. Then again, Pharao let | the Children of Israel go only after his own firstborn son | died. | CountDrewku wrote: | Asymptomatic spread of the virus is negligible from | everything I've read. Children that don't show symptoms | aren't a threat. Additionally, there's really no evidence | that schools are spreading the virus more. | | https://www.npr.org/2020/10/21/925794511/were-the-risks- | of-r... | laputan_machine wrote: | It's not about children getting it and being ill, it's | about children getting it and spreading it. This is the | concept behind 'herd immunity'. If we can cut the chain, we | mitigate older and people with weakened immune systems from | getting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity | Expirat wrote: | > It's not about children getting it and being ill, it's | about children getting it and spreading it. | | Vaccinated people can still get ill and spread it so why | do you keep pushing vaccines to children who have no risk | whatsoever if the vulnerable groups have been vaccinated | and are safe?? | cm2187 wrote: | But if vaccinated people are also spreading it, I don't | get the point of waiting for kids to be vaccinated. | | The population at risk being vaccinated was the big deal, | but that's done now (apart from those who refuse to be | vaccinated, but then it is their problem). | brown9-2 wrote: | > But if vaccinated people are also spreading it | | It is not a binary 0 or 1 as far as if vaccinated people | will spread the infection if they are infected. The | vaccine lowers the chances, so the more people we can get | vaccinated, the lower the chances can get. | ceejayoz wrote: | > Bit if vaccinated people are also spreading it | | They are less likely to be infected, and it looks like | they have a shorter infectious period. | | Herd immunity may be achievable with this in mind, but no | one really knows right now. New variants may change the | calculus too. | nradov wrote: | The Delta variant is contagious enough that we'll never | achieve a level of herd immunity sufficient to protect | unvaccinated people. All of us will be infected | eventually, it's basically inevitable. Fortunately the | vaccines are very effective at preventing deaths. | | https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd- | immu... | ceejayoz wrote: | This presumes we can't tweak boosters to better target | Delta, which seems like a silly assumption. | hutzlibu wrote: | Yes, but parent poster wrote: "Any talk of lifting | restrictions before march is basically a re-formulated | "fuck the kids"." | | which is not honest in my opinion. The kids so far have | suffered the most from corona - no school, no friends - | no activities - yet had the least, to fear from it. | | So vaccinating the kids is not really about saving the | kids - it is about the older population. | colordrops wrote: | Did you already forget the comment that started this | thread? This is assuming the rest of the population is | vaccinated. | rajamaka wrote: | Older people can get vaccinated | jcrben wrote: | Nearly 300 hospitalized per day, nearly 500 dead so far. | https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/07/health/children- | covid-19-prot... | | Unknown how many will long-term health effects. | | Even seemingly innocuous viruses like Epstein-Barr are tied | to various health problems later in life. Why should we | knowingly expose an entire generation to a little | understood virus? | colordrops wrote: | So less than one in a million children hospitalized per | day. And 500 dead after almost two years is nothing, | sorry to be so blunt. | | You can say epstein-barr, I can say other corona viruses | like the cold virus. You can't just choose an arbitrary | virus to compare to. We need strong evidence of serious | risk to impose such restrictions, and not ungrounded fear | which is not backed by data. | MatteoFrigo wrote: | CNN is fake news. Stop spreading misinformation. | | Raw mortality data at https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and- | maps/ show no discernible increase in mortality for | children 0-14 in England (or anywhere else for that | matter). | nkohari wrote: | Influenza kills thousands of people under 18 every year: | https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html | | We are actually _incredibly_ fortunate that Covid spares | children to the degree that it does. | throwaway169169 wrote: | > Influenza kills thousands of people under 18 every | year: | | No, it does not. You didn't actually look at the numbers. | One of the worst years overall shows 115 for 0-4 and 528 | for 5-17: | | https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm | | There are some years where the total is a little over a | thousand, but most are well below. | | Don't spread this bull. | qweqwweqwe-90i wrote: | So looks like more kids were hospitalized and more died | from the flu? What bull are you referring to? Were you | outraged about them in any of the last 20 years? | throwaway169169 wrote: | > What bull are you referring to? | | The bull that was clearly quoted? "Influenza kills | thousands of people under 18 every year". The linked data | does not say that at all. | | You're being difficult just to be difficult here. | hcurtiss wrote: | Except that in kids COVID is about as lethal as the ordinary | flu. It's more transmissible, but the number of kids we've | seen suffer serious consequences across the US has been very, | very low. We don't make kids wear helmets everywhere they go, | though it would be decidedly more efficacious from a safety | perspective. It seems to me some relativity is in order. | firecall wrote: | This is outdated information. | | Delta strain is worse - more dangerous for kids and those | under 30. | hcurtiss wrote: | More dangerous than what? Even if it were 200% more | lethal, 2x a very small number is still a very small | number. | shakna wrote: | Whilst I don't have the figures to specifically source, | yesterday's daily pressing briefing for my area had the | health minister saying that delta was 100x more lethal | than the flu in children, or 1000%. | | That is not a very small number. | 2trill2spill wrote: | Your health Minister seems to be spreading | misinformation. | shakna wrote: | The mortality rate for my state is 4% of all cases. [0] | The mortality rate for the entire country is about 5.6% | [1]. | | There has not been a single certified influenza death in | Australia since 2020. [1] | | It certainly appears that my health minister was | downplaying the difference, not playing it up. | | [0] https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel- | coronavir... | | [1] https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes- | death/provis... | wk_end wrote: | Unless Australians are an order of magnitude more | vulnerable to COVID than elsewhere in the world, those | numbers are more the result of low test rates missing | infections than anything else. | | In the US, the CDC estimates an actual mortality rate of | 0.6%, compared to the ratio of cases/deaths of ~1.6%. | | https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases- | updates/burd... | shakna wrote: | Australia has had an order of magnitude fewer infections | than elsewhere in the world. We have come close to | eliminating its spread altogether several times, so it | should come as no surprise that the proportion of deaths | is higher than somewhere else that has failed to contain | the illness. | spookthesunset wrote: | Australians now have to post a sign on their door saying | they are in quarantine. People are not allowed to travel | within the country. They locked down a state of 1.3 | million people with 5 hours notice because of one case | they said was from a pizza box. | | They are also building giant quarantine facilities, | indicating they are gonna do this for the long haul. | | Australia is hardly a model country for how to handle an | infectious respiratory virus. | | https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-21/sa-tougher-border- | res... | | https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8980913/South- | Austr... | wk_end wrote: | How does that follow? How deadly a virus is for any given | individual should be independent of how many other people | got it (outside of situations where the health care | system is overwhelmed and can't provide adequate care - | but that'd make the numbers worse for the US, not | better). | shakna wrote: | If the virus is under better containment, those more | likely to be infected, are more likely to be comorbid | with other conditions. Thus death rates when looking at | the entire length of the pandemic are likely to be | higher. | | Delta is the first time Australia has seen widespread | infection in healthy people. | wk_end wrote: | > those more likely to be infected, are more likely to be | comorbid with other conditions | | I'm not totally sure that's the case - it's at least | something you can't just aver as self-evident. I'd guess | that those most likely to be infected early on are going | to be people who travel or those who come most into | contact with them (service & tourism workers). | | But I also think it's a moot point. In the context of | this thread - which is about how to move forward once | we've accepted that containment is off the table, and | especially about the risk that poses to the healthiest | members of society (kids) - it doesn't make sense to cite | numbers that you yourself acknowledge overstate the risk | of COVID by being biased towards the _most_ unhealthy | members of society. | hcurtiss wrote: | Excess mortality rates aren't relevant at all to the | lethality of the delta variant in children relative to | prior strains. Overall mortality isn't even asking the | right question, and it's a very poor proxy even for the | lethality rate of SARS-COV-2 (contingent on pervasive | testing). And that we've eliminated influenza deaths is | no argument that influenza is no longer lethal. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Source? | only_as_i_fall wrote: | Isn't the concern that children act as a massive spread | vector such that breakthrough cases in adults may still | overwhelm hospital systems? | | A couple months ago I would have maybe agreed, but the | delta variant seems to really through a wrench into this | line of thinking. | freewilly1040 wrote: | Serious breakthrough cases remain rare, delta has not | changed this | lamontcg wrote: | If they fall down in the playground they don't carry that | injury home and kill one of their parents with it. | cfn wrote: | But their parents are (or can be) vaccinated, thus imune | to the disease. | nradov wrote: | The CDC estimates that the survival rate for the 18-49 | age bracket (which accounts for most parents of young | children) is 99.94%. And that's since the start of the | pandemic without vaccination. For vaccinated parents now | the survival rate is virtually 100%. | | https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases- | updates/burd... | lamontcg wrote: | Some 18-49 year old parents have cancer diagnosis that | they're living with and are taking immune suppressants, | or they're taking care of older family members. | | You can't erect a solid barrier around that population | demographic like they never come into contact with | vulnerable sections of the population. | | And enough people are being stupid about vaccinations | that they're out there getting sick, and unfortunately if | you just let them roll the dice while letting the virus | rip through kids, it will find all the vulnerable people | out there and overload the hospital system and affects | everyone. Kids don't exist in a vacuum and the virus will | happily hop through them to find every vulnerable adult | it can. | | Once again we find ourselves in a "flattening the curve" | problem. | | And you need to stop focusing on death rates. In terms of | hospital resources, a patient who spends 2 weeks in the | ICU and recovers is just as bad as one that spends 2 | weeks in the ICU and dies. And per patient they're more | resource intensive than other respiratory viruses. | hajile wrote: | > Some 18-49 year old parents have cancer diagnosis that | they're living with and are taking immune suppressants, | or they're taking care of older family members. | | If your immune system is already compromised, there's | TONS of other stuff just as scary as COVID. The risk of | the flu to these people in past years was just as high, | but this argument wasn't used because the entire world | can't put life on hold forever. | freewilly1040 wrote: | Do any downvoters care to actually explain their | reasoning? Wikipedia puts flu deaths during the last pre- | pandemic season at 60K in the US. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_influenza_sta | tis... | spookthesunset wrote: | I mean there is no reasoning. We never did this crap for | other illness. It's as if people woke up on March 2020 | and discovered "holy crap people die of illness!!" | lilactown wrote: | Immune suppressed individuals and the people who interact | with them I would assume are, as a population, used to | taking care of themselves in the face of the common flu | and other things which present danger to them. | | The ease at which COVID, especially delta, spreads | basically guarantees immune suppressed individuals will | come into contact with it w/o everyone taking | precautions. | | You don't have to put your life on hold forever. Wear a | mask, be vaccinated, and encourage others in your life to | do the same. Live your life within the bounds that helps | others survive this. We're in this together. | only_as_i_fall wrote: | According to those same cdc numbers the hospitalization | rate in that same population is ~40x higher than just the | mortality. | | It doesn't matter how low the death rate is if the | hospital system collapses. | ansible wrote: | So, yeah, I guess the grandparents and older aunts / | uncles they may be living with are fucked. But who cares | about them? | nkohari wrote: | I really just don't understand the hyperventilation about | this stuff. At this point, the vast majority of elderly | people are fully vaccinated, and breakthrough cases -- | especially those resulting in severe illness or death -- | are extremely rare. The risk is nonzero, but living with | zero risk is simply not a realistic goal. It never has | been and never will be. | spookthesunset wrote: | You educate people on the risks of covid, tell them how | it spreads and let the individuals and families decide | what level of precautions they feel are appropriate. | | Grandma only has a few years left... they wanna see their | grandkids. My daughters grandparents would rather die of | covid than not be able to hug and interact with their | grandchildren. Who the hell is the state or some blowhard | health "expert" to deny them that? | [deleted] | hcurtiss wrote: | The odds are overwhelmingly high they won't with COVID | either. Let's not forget that the survival rate in all | populations is well north of 90%. Parent age populations | closer to 99%. Even higher if the parents are vaccinated. | spookthesunset wrote: | Adults sacrifice for children. If children aren't at | risk, we have a moral obligation to let them be kids and | live their short, once ever childhood. | | Making kids protect adults by sacrificing their one and | only childhood is morally bankrupt. | | Also, adults have a vaccine... so they aren't at risk | either. | CountDrewku wrote: | Because COVID poses very little risk to children. The flu | poses more risk to that age group. No one is running around | saying we need to mask children for the flu and vaccinated | all of them. | unclenoriega wrote: | The CDC definitely says we should vaccinate almost all | children against influenza. | https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaccinations.htm | CountDrewku wrote: | Cool now show me the school lockdowns, masking, and | forced influenza vaccine passports for children. | | https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1920estimates | .ht... | | No more than 64% for school aged individuals. So, since | you're supposedly using this as a reason why we should be | keeping everyone locked down then I'm going to assume you | feel the same for influenza? Which means you're saying we | should have shut schools down and mandated all sorts of | measures to protect them since the inception of the | influenza vaccinations? | | Full vaccination COVID is not an achievable goal. | jfengel wrote: | It's not so much "fuck the kids" as "fuck the teachers". | | Even if you believe that "kids don't get sick from COVID", | you can't ignore that teachers do. And many of them are in | high-risk groups -- older, with comorbidities. Most are | vaccinated, but they're still taking a risk. | | Teachers are already smarting over the fact that (in the US) | they're literally trained to take a bullet for their kids. So | when you tell them to open the schools "for the kids", | they're hearing that they're disposable human beings, and | they don't like it. | | Open the schools incautiously, and there won't be any schools | to open. Because a school without teachers is just a | warehouse. | rajin444 wrote: | > Most are vaccinated, but they're still taking a risk | | Pre pandemic they took a risk every day as well, so it's a | matter of acceptable risk, which I believe is what the | article was focused on. What level of risk is that? | jfengel wrote: | That existing risk was already at the limit of | acceptability. New risk being added on pushes many past | that limit. | | It's made worse by the fact that this additional risk is | being left out of the discussion so often. People talk | about what's good for the children and their parents and | the economy, but not about what the teachers need. | They're being treated as disposable, which exacerbates | the perception of risk further. | | Discussions about school openings that ignore a critical | factor are not going to result in what people hope for. | rajin444 wrote: | So 0 covid is the only answer? I don't think 0 covid is | possible. We would need vaccines that provide sterilizing | immunity for that. | chki wrote: | > That existing risk was already at the limit of | acceptability. | | Do you actually thinks so? I've never heard that aspiring | teachers are thinking about their increased risk to | illnesses, especially since many have children of their | own and are exposed to an increased risk by children | anyway. | tomp wrote: | > That existing risk was already at the limit of | acceptability. | | Nobody forced them to become teachers. | jfengel wrote: | And nobody is forcing them to remain teachers. | | With the rise in gun violence at schools, teachers have | had to undertake additional training for scenarios that | they had not priced in their initial decisions. They did | not like that, and they like even less being ignored in | the discussion of whether or not to open schools. | | So a great number will not remain teachers if they do not | feel like they're part of the decision. They're used to | being told to "do it for the children", but there are | limits, and this will push many past them. | nradov wrote: | Gun violence in schools is extremely rare. Students and | teachers are far more likely to die in vehicle accidents | traveling to and from school. | | https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/11/lockdo | wn-... | cortesoft wrote: | Also, kids are absolutely getting sick from Delta. | cfn wrote: | Isn't it easier and safer to vaccinate the teachers? There | are less of them and they are of the age where the current | vaccines are considered safe. | hajile wrote: | In NYC, teacher's unions refused to go back to work until | a vaccine was available. Despite that, the vaccination | rates were only 40-60% before the mandate that public | sector workers be vaccinated. | cfn wrote: | I suppose that the teachers that chose not to be | vaccinated would not want to impose that on their pupils. | cpr wrote: | Because it's all about control, not about a virus with a 99.8% | survival rate. | Expirat wrote: | Apparently this is something so complex that the big brains | here cannot wrap their heads around no matter how smart and | informed they think they are. | KineticLensman wrote: | > That's why I don't really understand why there are still | covid restrictions in countries that are close to full | vaccination, like the UK | | I cracked some ribs three weeks ago and coughing / sneezing are | really painful. I am keeping my mask on because I really don't | want even a mild cough, for whatever reason. | | More generally, the vaccines are not 100% effective, the virus | can still be transmitted and spread. For lots of people, | getting COVID is still life threatening, even if the average | case is not as bad as it used to be. | 2trill2spill wrote: | So you want country wide restrictions solely for your own | comfort? Sounds incredibly selfish. | s5300 wrote: | You really don't see the irony in this statement, do you. | spookthesunset wrote: | That is exactly what people are asking for and it is super | selfish. Asking everybody to hunker down to assuage people | who continue to be afraid. | | Sorry. Life is short. I've sacrificed 1.6 years of it for | something I've never been afraid of. I've played by all the | rules, but enough is enough. It is super selfish to insist | we continue to live this way. We aren't living, we are | being kept alive... life was meant to be lived. | op00to wrote: | Wow you're so tough and edgy. You must have very thick | chest hair or whatever you're trying to compensate for | with this rediculous machismo. | spookthesunset wrote: | Machismo? Dude. 1.6 years is a non trivial amount of my | life. I've already put my career on hold because of this, | sacrificed my daughters well being, and a bunch of stuff. | I got the shot. I'm fully vaccinated. How much more do | you expect from me in order to protect people who don't | want to get vaccinated? | | The only person who truly looks after my well-being is | me. I can be selfish. I deserve to have my actual normal | life back. My 2019 life didnt revolve around worrying | about stopping the spread of exactly one very specific | disease. | | If y'all want to hide under the bed at home until some | undefined end date... go for it. But forcing society to | do the same with you is incredibly selfish. | swader999 wrote: | I don't care about myself but the social isolation of | kids was pretty bad. I hope we can get back to where they | can fully interact with each other again. | spookthesunset wrote: | We could do it today if we wanted to. The only thing | stoping it is tribalism and irrational fear. | Alex3917 wrote: | > That's why I don't really understand why there are still | covid restrictions in countries that are close to full | vaccination, like the UK | | If you get it after being vaccinated, you still have a ~20% | chance of becoming disabled. | josephcsible wrote: | That's a really extraordinary claim with no evidence | whatsoever. | Alex3917 wrote: | How does this not count as evidence?: | | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/16/well/live/vaccine-long- | co... | | It literally says: "While most of the breakthrough cases | were mild or asymptomatic, seven out of 36 workers tracked | at six weeks (19 percent) still had persistent symptoms. | These long Covid symptoms included a mix of prolonged loss | of smell, persistent cough, fatigue, weakness, labored | breathing or muscle pain." | | It's certainly not great data, but it's still the best | information we have as of right now. | josephcsible wrote: | I don't think very many reasonable people would count a | "persistent cough" as "becoming disabled". | Alex3917 wrote: | When you have a persistent cough due to lung damage then | your chances of death the next time you catch a minor | illness go through the roof. It's why so many of the | people who survived SARS initially are no longer alive. | lp0_on_fire wrote: | calling that "disabled" is incredibly misleading to the | point of being disingenuous. | Alex3917 wrote: | I mean if you're basically paralyzed, how does that not | count as being disabled? What do you think muscle | weakness and fatigue actually means in this context? | lp0_on_fire wrote: | Muscle weakness and fatigue is in no way shape or form | like paralysis. | | I'm starting to think you've never encountered someone | with a disability in your life. | Alex3917 wrote: | > Muscle weakness and fatigue is in no way shape or form | like paralysis. | | Having muscle weakness in your arms mean that you can't | do things like raising your hands to chest level and | squeezing someone's hand. In practice it means you can't | do everyday things like opening doors, or else can only | do them with great difficulty. | | Having muscle weakness in the legs means that if you're | lying on your back, you don't have the ability to raise | your legs off the ground. In practice, it means that you | can't do everyday things like walking, or else can only | do them with great difficulty and probably some form of | assistance. | | It's obviously not exactly the same as being paralyzed, | but it's not that far off either. On the spectrum from | "I'm not setting new deadlift PRs lately" to "I'm likely | going to hospice soon", it's a lot closer to the latter | than the former. There's a good chance that it means | using a wheelchair, possibly indefinitely. I think you're | doing people an extreme disservice by underplaying how | serious this is. | | With paralysis, the cause is usually traumatic spinal | cord injury. Whereas with muscle weakness, the cause is | usually something more like an autoimmune disease | attacking the tissue around your spinal cord. But in both | cases the end result is nerve signals not getting | properly transmitted, and the impact on everyday life is | pretty similar. | josephcsible wrote: | COVID doesn't cause what you just described as "muscle | weakness" in anywhere near 20% of people. The thing it | causes that other people describe as "muscle weakness" is | much closer to "I'm not setting new deadlift PRs lately". | Alex3917 wrote: | Muscle weakness is a standardized medical diagnosis. When | you see the term being used in a medical paper, it always | means the same thing. C.f.: | https://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/0401/p1327.html | lp0_on_fire wrote: | This is basically the same argument that gets trotted out | whenever someone points out Telsa's deceptive advertising | wrt "autopilot". | | "Real pilots know that autopilot means you still have to | pay attention - nevermind that 99.9% of society thinks | that idiom means they can sleep behind the wheel while | it's turned on" | josephcsible wrote: | This is worse than that. With that, the argument sticks | with that one definition throughout. Here, one meaning of | "muscle weakness" is being used to make it sound scary, | and another meaning is used to say COVID causes it. It's | the equivocation fallacy. | josephcsible wrote: | Nobody reasonable would say "muscle weakness and fatigue" | means "you're basically paralyzed". | SamBam wrote: | Since no one under 16 has been vaccinated yet, about 70% of the | population is vaccinated (44M out of 67M). That might be barely | enough for herd immunity for some diseases, but the case | numbers in the UK are still very high and trending back upward, | showing that this isn't enough for herd immunity for Covid. | | Hospitalization rates are also back up to significantly higher | than they were this time last year. | | And that's with the restrictions you're referring to. So, no, I | don't think that it would make sense for the UK to just go | right back to normal just yet, at least until the vaccinations | rates are high enough that you see the case rate go back down | and stay down. | spywaregorilla wrote: | Herd immunity cannot be measured by an arbitrary percentage. | Maybe it is 70% or 80%, but only if that's a random sample of | the population. Social networks determine the relevance. If | you have a single homogenous group of individuals that | interact with each other that is unvaccinated then there's | still plenty of threats. And that generally includes children | as a big intermingling block. | qwerty456127 wrote: | I'm almost sure 100% vaccination rate with the vaccines | currently available won't change much. I hope I'm wrong. But | there already are cases apparently confirming this. | | IMHO we should just return to normal, consider this a new | kind of flu and deal with the fact it's more deadly. I always | knew there is a chance a flu can kill me one day. I'm Ok with | the fact the chance is higher now. | | My personal (apparently risky, I don't recommend it to | others) strategy is living an active social life to be in | regular contact with the virus (while testing every now and | then to make sure I don't spread it) so my immune system | keeps on producing the natural antibodies (I also test for | every couple of months). | 001spartan wrote: | Returning to normal is a terrible idea when COVID patients | are overwhelming hospitals across the world. How can things | be normal if our healthcare systems are nearing collapse? | | You might be willing to accept the risk of getting sick on | your behalf, but by advocating a return to 'normal' before | we have the capabilities to deal with this virus, you are | advocating for putting even more stress on healthcare | systems across the globe already on the verge of failure. | There are patients in heavily-impacted areas who cannot | access healthcare for other life-or-death concerns because | hospitals are crumbling under the workload of COVID cases. | | The article even states this; COVID is likely to reach | endemic status eventually, but we are still nowhere near | that. Ignoring it will have enormous costs on vulnerable | populations -- even more than it already has. | hncurious wrote: | It does sound like they are on the verge of collapse... | | "Tallia says his hospital is 'managing, but just barely,' | at keeping up with the increased number of sick patients | in the last three weeks. The hospital's urgent-care | centers have also been inundated, and its outpatient | clinics have no appointments available." | | "Dr. Bernard Camins, associate professor of infectious | diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, says | that UAB Hospital cancelled elective surgeries scheduled | for Thursday and Friday of last week to make more beds | available" | | "We had to treat patients in places where we normally | wouldn't, like in recovery rooms," says Camins. "The | emergency room was very crowded, both with sick patients | who needed to be admitted" | | "In CA... several hospitals have set up large 'surge | tents' outside their emergency departments to accommodate | and treat ... patients. Even then, the LA Times reported | this week, emergency departments had standing-room only, | and some patients had to be treated in hallways." | | "Hospitals across the state are sending away ambulances, | flying in nurses from out of state and not letting | children visit their loved ones for fear they'll | spread... Others are canceling surgeries and erecting | tents in their parking lots to triage the hordes of... | patients." | | "We've never had so many patients," said Adrian Cotton, | chief of medical operations at Loma Linda University | Health in San Bernardino County." | | ...but then again, maybe not. These are all quotes from | 2018, flu season. | | https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/142224380853671526 | 5 | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Vaccinated Covid patients are NOT overwhelming hospitals. | LA county isn't that extraordinarily highly vaccinated. | It's a county much denser and with a greater population | than a lot of countries in Europe. There's been <4000 | fully vaccinated people in 8 months admitted to the | hospital. Only 36 have died. Not a lot more have needed | ventilators. | | This is a blip in the ocean of hospitalizations in LA | county. | qwerty456127 wrote: | Politicians say this all the time. I doubt anything we | can do can change this. Just build more hospitals. We | have resolved the masks shortage, we will resolve the | shortage of ventilators and hospitals also. We can even | soften the shortage of medical personnel by directing the | unemployed to paid full-time medical boot camps. | | I understand this is much easier said than done but we | hardly have a choice if we actually want to do something | useful. | jrockway wrote: | If medical boot camps are as effective as Javascript boot | camps... you may want to wait a while before exposing | yourself to other people's germs. | spiderice wrote: | This is an incredibly bad faith argument. There is a | whole lot of room between a 6 week bootcamp and a 12 year | medical program. I'm pretty confident someone would learn | to treat Covid patients in 2 years. | | edit: your comment did make me laugh though. So perhaps | you were just going for humor, in which case you | succeeded and I apologize for being a wet blanket. | zzt123 wrote: | So, the initial job will get done, but please don't look | under the covers, and please do not attack it with | anything infectious? | | Might be better than having nothing, in the case of ICUs | being overwhelmed and overcapacitied. | tharne wrote: | > If medical boot camps are as effective as Javascript | boot camps... you may want to wait a while before | exposing yourself to other people's germs. | | This line made me both laugh and cry a little. | 001spartan wrote: | Building more hospitals is a long-term process. Training | medical personnel is a long-term process. Emergency | measures intended to bridge the gap are untenable | politically, and people are dying because of it. | Thousands of them per day. | | The answer to this is not to say 'we can't fix the | underlying issues right now, so we're not going to do | anything'. The answer is to take measures that we _can_ | implement until those longer-term solutions can come into | play. | N1H1L wrote: | > Building more hospitals is a long-term process. | Training medical personnel is a long-term process. | Emergency measures intended to bridge the gap are | untenable politically, and people are dying because of | it. Thousands of them per day. | | It's like the whole chip shortage thing. Most people ask | why aren't we building more chip-building plants? The | answer is we are doing that, but it takes billions of | dollars and a lot of trained manpower to set up such a | factory, and all of that takes a lot of time. | | These are what are called in economics as highly | inelastic supplies, which it seems is unknown to many | commentators, who BTW have a habit of quoting Econ 101 in | every discussion. | qwerty456127 wrote: | What measures we can implement doesn't matter if these | measures don't work. | 001spartan wrote: | Vaccines work. Vaccinated people are far less likely to | contract COVID, and when they do they are far less likely | to require healthcare resources beyond the standard | treatments for someone who has the flu (stay home, rest, | treat symptoms as needed). | | Social distancing and masking work. They reduce the | possibilities for spread between people -- not perfectly, | but enough to reduce it to a manageable level for our | current healthcare resources. | | Saying that our current measures to combat the virus | don't work is disingenuous at best, and a blatant | disregard for everything we've learned from the past year | and a half at worst. | qwerty456127 wrote: | > Vaccines work. | | I have always been a vaccine enthusiast but now I see | infection surging even in the most vaccinated areas. | | > masking work | | I have always been saying this, even when officials | denied. Yes, mandatory masks in public transport and | grocery stores are the only of all the deployed measures | I recognize as actually working. | | > blatant disregard for everything we've learned from the | past year and a half at worst. | | I actually don't think we have learnt much. | drunner wrote: | > I have always been a vaccine enthusiast but now I see | infection surging even in the most vaccinated areas. | | https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine- | breakthrou... The reported share of | COVID-19 cases among those not fully vaccinated ranged | from 94.1% in Arizona to 99.85% Connecticut. | The share of hospitalizations among those with COVID-19 | who are not fully vaccinated ranged from in 95.02% in | Alaska to 99.93% in New Jersey. (Note: Hospitalization | may or may not have been due to COVID-19.) | The share of deaths among people with COVID-19 who are | not fully vaccinated ranged from to 96.91% in Montana to | 99.91% in New Jersey. (Note: Deaths may or may not have | been due to COVID-19.) | boredumb wrote: | *may or may not have been due to COVID-19 | | How is this data useful what so ever? I don't | particularly care if someone in a car accident was or was | not vaccinated unless Pfizer has came up with an MRNA | based seat belt recently. If anything this data just | muddies up the waters further. | nanis wrote: | > _(Note: Hospitalization may or may not have been due to | COVID-19.)_ | gunshai wrote: | My company had out local health official come to our town | hall meeting at talk. About covid. | | Over 94% of patients are unvaccinated... It's pretty | clear in my mind what's happening here. | 001spartan wrote: | The vaccines are not failing. They are incredibly | effective at preventing infections _and_ reducing | severity of breakthrough infections. The Delta variant is | more easily transmitted and more likely to cause | breakthrough infections, but that does not account for | the majority of the surge [0]. It's largely a surge | amongst unvaccinated populations, buoyed by a smaller | proportion of breakthrough infections. The ease with | which Delta spreads, combined with relaxed restrictions | on gatherings and masking, accounts for the surge in | infections. | | Despite the decline in vaccine effectiveness (I've seen | conflicting studies of how much this has changed), | they're still incredibly effective compared to any other | protection we have at the moment. | | None of this changes the fact that people are going to | continue to die until a higher proportion of the | population receives a COVID vaccine -- and that we _can_ | mitigate this through other measures. None of these | things lead me to the conclusion that we should return to | normal and accept an increased healthcare system burden | and death rate. | | [0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e1.htm?s | _cid=mm... | vanattab wrote: | Lol homeless people with scalpels what could go wrong? | qwerty456127 wrote: | Besides hardcore homeless drunkards there is a sufficient | population of totally reasonable people who have just | lost their jobs because of the crisis and can totally do | nurse/paramedic job if taught for free and supported | financially. I would steadily go for this if I had lost | my job. | [deleted] | nradov wrote: | There was never a real ventilator shortage. Doctors | figured out quickly that mechanical ventilation does more | harm than good for the vast majority of COVID-19 | patients. It's only used on a few percent of hospitalized | patients now. | | https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/nhcs/intubation- | ventilator-... | umvi wrote: | > How can things be normal if our healthcare systems are | nearing collapse? | | Why are healthcare systems unable to scale (horizontally | or vertically) to meet demand unlike every other industry | in the world? That should be a red flag that you don't | have a robust system when it is unable to scale. We've | had nearly 2 years since the start of covid to make | healthcare systems more robust. Why haven't we? Maybe we | should focus on that instead of telling people to mask up | from cradle to grave. | | Imagine if the computer industry were the same and we | asked people to limit their internet time for 2+ years | because the servers and routers that make up the internet | were always on the brink of collapse? Like... wouldn't we | just build more servers and routers until demand could be | met? | hcurtiss wrote: | It seems one option is to increase hospital capacity. | There should be ways to do this without needing more RNs | and MDs. | TomVDB wrote: | Spend a bit of time on the /r/nursing subreddit and weep. | | ICU nurses have been worked to the bone for 18 months | now, and often already at higher patient/nurse ratios | that customary. | | The coming problem won't be one one of insufficient beds | but insufficient people to care for them. | rabboRubble wrote: | duuuuuuuuude do you have any idea how labor intensive | care for ICU patients is? ICU patients can't move. | Requires staff to turn them so they don't get bed sores | and to prone them stomach down for lung function. | | If the ICU patient can't breathe on a vent and are able | to secure ECMO, the ECMO specialist ratio is ideally 1:1. | Under a crush of patients maybe 1:2 patients. A 1:3 ratio | is risking all the patients under that specialist's care | because the patients are all too tenuous. Let me | reiterate and restate: 3 ECMO patients are too much for a | single ES to support. | | The ECMO specialist isn't the only person caring for the | patient. There is the ICU nursing staff, the pulmonary | therapist, plus the actual pulmonary doctors, the renal | doctors, plus plus plus. You are talking decades if not a | hundred+ years of study just to take care of a single ICU | patient. | | Labor and not beds is the bottleneck. | greedo wrote: | Hmm, who provides care at a hospital? Wow, RNs and MDs. | Do you expect a janitor to intubate you? Increasing | hospital capacity is hard, expensive and takes time. | nradov wrote: | Intubation procedures are often performed by respiratory | therapists. | HarryHirsch wrote: | You go first! We'll give you 6 weeks training, and then | you can go work in intensive care around infectious | patients. | nradov wrote: | You seem to be ignorant about health care. Respiratory | therapists have at least 2 years of training. | ekianjo wrote: | There's never been a better reason to start building | capacity. | qwerty456127 wrote: | I don't need a person with a doctorate degree to treat | me. I just need a person who has a reasonable | understanding of how does a human body work and a | reasonable skill of doing particular medical procedures. | greedo wrote: | Doctors generally don't have doctorate degrees. That's a | Ph.D which is a doctor of philosophy degree. A physician | becomes a doctor by earning degrees as an M.D., doctor of | medicine, or D.O., doctor of osteopathic medicine. | | What you're describing is either an MD, a NP, or a | traditional nurse/specialist. | treesknees wrote: | This is a pretty ignorant suggestion. It's like saying | that my company should dramatically increase its software | output without hiring software engineers. These are | people, not robots. You must hire more skilled labor if | you wish to expand the capacity which requires that | labor. | | If you're saying we should fill that labor requirement | with low-skill medical technicians, you're | misunderstanding the needs of the hospital. If you are | ending up in the ER or ICU with covid, or any other | cause, you are beyond the help of an at-home med tech, | which is why you're at the hospital in the first place. | bko wrote: | We get more efficiency out of nearly every sector of the | economy. We grow more food despite an ever decreasing | number of farmers. | | The problem is that the incentives aren't aligned with | health care primarily due to third party payer system and | onerous regulations. | | You ever wonder why there is a line of people outside of | urgent care every day to get tested for covid? | Presumably, there are cheap tests that be administered at | home without having to see a nurse or doctor. Or if you | really can't do that you can train someone how to | administer tests in a few hours and have that as a | service. But in the US at least, it's nearly impossible | to do these things. It took until April 2021 for the FDA | to approve at home covid tests, and they're still not | popular or available (at least I haven't seen them) | | https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live- | updates/2021/0... | tomp wrote: | Medicine is a field notorious for its gatekeeping. | | But a lot can be done. In Italy during the height of the | pandemic, they "emergency graduated" 5th (or maybe 6th | ... near the end) year medical students. I really wonder | if there's any data whether they provided worse care | after some on-the-job training than "fully educated" | practitioners. | 001spartan wrote: | I agree! But the issue is that where these processes | exist they are not designed for the scale of the current | pandemic, are too inconsistent when implemented, and rely | on spare personnel that do not currently exist. | mywittyname wrote: | That's not an option. Hospitals in many were already | understaffed before the pandemic. And the pandemic has | caused such a severe worker shortage that traveling RNs | are getting paid upwards of $200/hr in remote parts of | the USA. | | The only way to deal with this pandemic is to vaccinate | as many people as possible. It's the best way that we | know of to reduce spread of, and the effects of catching | covid-19. | qwerty456127 wrote: | > Hospitals in many were already understaffed before the | pandemic. And the pandemic has caused such a severe | worker shortage that traveling RNs are getting paid | upwards of $200/hr in remote parts of the USA. | | This has always been a systemic problem of how hard | medical education and license are to get. I'm pretty sure | medical personnel can be trained to reasonable (mediocre | but better than nothing) skill level much faster and for | much cheaper than it normally is. | xyzzyz wrote: | Yeah, if the problem is lack of staff in COVID wards, | just start COVID-specific training programs and hire | COVID-specific personnel, who are only allowed to work | with COVID patients. That should reduce training time a | lot. | | This approach might sound like some completely out of the | box, untested and extreme approach, yet it's completely | standard in industries that are not as heavily regulated | as medicine is. Alas, healthcare has its Rules and | Procedures and Best Practices, and as a result, everyone | else must adjust and implement novel approaches, so that | the healthcare industrial and regulatory complex doesn't | have to. | TheCapn wrote: | The vast majority of COVID patients aren't just "COVID | patients". They're people with comorbidities that put | them in a more serious position than a regular (otherwise | healthy) individual with a respiratory illness. To | "specialize" in COVID you likely need to have training on | diabetes, neuro, renal, cardiac and other systems. To a | certain point, you just need a fully trained nurse | because you can't specialize too deeply on "COVID" | without needing training on the comorbidties that come | along with an ICU patient. | | I guess I'm bias because my spouse is an ICU RN, but the | ignorance of HN comments boggles my mind. Do all the | hackers try to solve domain problems they have absolutely | 0 experience in? I don't pretend to have solutions for | the healthcare system because I don't work in the | healthcare domain. I can assure you, the red tape that | exists is there for very good reasons, because we've | tried "unregulated" systems and they were a disaster. | We've learned from our mistakes, and that means rigor | that can't be replaced by some keyboard jockey writing | webdev or embedded systems for unrelated fields. | selimthegrim wrote: | And knowing they are going to get laid off when COVID | dies down, do you expect people to be stampeding to be | hired to a job with no transferable skills? Have you seen | the Medicaid nursing home labor pool? | kolanos wrote: | > That's not an option. Hospitals in many were already | understaffed before the pandemic. And the pandemic has | caused such a severe worker shortage that traveling RNs | are getting paid upwards of $200/hr in remote parts of | the USA. | | How did this understaffing happen? | | > More than 260 hospitals and health systems furloughed | workers in the last year, and many others implemented | layoffs. | | [0]: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/20-hos | pitals-l... | mywittyname wrote: | As someone whose partner is a med-surg nurse, and whose | extended friend circle contains a lot of current and | (mostly)former nurses, that post is not really the case. | That's like saying that the shortage of software | engineers is down to InfoSys having a bunch of IT | layoffs. | | The big issues are: the job sucks, the patients suck, the | insurance companies suck, the hospital administration | sucks. It's a hard, thankless job, where you get shit on | all day by everyone, figuratively and literally, and for | not much pay. Pre-COVID, pay was maybe $30-35/hr for most | floor jobs. Or you could get an hospital office job, | making more than that working a basic 9-5, no shit, no | working holidays, no lawsuits (due to bone-headed | coworkers fucking up), no feeling like a waiter, or being | groped by patients. | | Nursing is a terrible career anymore. | anthomtb wrote: | Do you believe that expensive cures are preferable to | cheap preventions? | switch007 wrote: | > COVID patients are overwhelming hospitals across the | world | | Extraordinary claims... | bingohbangoh wrote: | Are they really overwhelming hospitals? | | This keeps being repeated but most hospitals operate at | about 80% capacity as-is. Places in Tennessee and Florida | are currently, with COVID-19, operating at about 80%. [0] | | If we look at Israel, which has a very high vaccination | rate, we see that they're supposedly running out of | hospital space. [1] But the article linked doesn't say | _anything about their actual numbers atm_ and points to a | fiscal problem rather than a manpower problem. | | There was a recent Science Magazine article that states | that 13% of the hospitalized-and-vaccinated group are | under 60. That amounts to 39 people in a country of 9 | million. [2] | | I've asked this before both here and elsewhere: If these | vaccines aren't "good enough," what is? At what point | does this become "zero COVID" in that "nobody can ever | die from this disease again?" | | [0]: this may have changed -- things are changing quickly | -- so I'd be curious if you have any recent (<1 week old) | information on this. | | [1]: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-s-public- | hospital... | | [2]: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/grim- | warning-israel-... -- and I took this from Louis | Rossmann's video | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYtfT7HsJq0 | Calavar wrote: | Total bed usage is a very poor metric for this. | | The bottlenecks here aren't total capacity, they are (in | order of importance) 1. the number of vents, 2. the | number of nurses with ICU level training, and 3. the | number of ICU beds. The total number of hospital beds | doesn't even factor in. | | Source: I am a physician. | starik36 wrote: | > At what point does this become "zero COVID" | | In New Zealand, it already has. Every time there is a | single case or two, the entire locale (Auckland in this | case) fully locks down. This is the 5th time it locked | down. | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/world/australia/new- | zeala... | | It's ironic that Covid has been arguably more disruptive | in NZ than in US, which has a ton of cases. | xadhominemx wrote: | Definitely not more disruptive in New Zealand over the | entire course of the pandemic and also we have suffered | 600,000 fatalities as a result of the virus. | DanielR31D wrote: | This is untrue. In New Zealand we locked down a | reasonable amount for the information we have on the | case. With the current lockdown, there was a single case | with no known link to the border which had traveled | around the country while infectious. Knowing just this | and that every case in managed isolation (iirc) was is | the Delta variant, we went into lockdown. Also, '5 | lockdown' is misrepresentive. We can see on this page | https://covid19.govt.nz/alert-levels-and-updates/history- | of-... that while some lockdowns were very restrictive, | country wide, and long (2.5 months), most were short and | regional (with other regions maybe going to lvl 2 alert) | starik36 wrote: | How is that untrue. There were three Alert Level 3 and | two Alert Level 4 instances. | | > short and regional | | Downplay it all you want. Auckland is a pretty big place. | Alert Level 4 means that 1/3 of New Zealand population is | locked down. | JamesSwift wrote: | Anecdotal, but an acquaintance here in Florida had to | wait over 14 hours to get an emergency appendectomy (and | over 12 hours to get from check-in to a bed in the ER) | recently, due to both COVID protocols as well as COVID | workload. | cogman10 wrote: | So, the anecdotal evidence would be to visit /r/medicine | and /r/nursing on reddit. | | It may not be universal, but it certainly appears to be | the case that many hospitals are being pushed over the | limit due to covid patients. | | Part of the issue, though, appears to be the fact that | hospital admins are unwilling to raise salaries on | essential employees like nurses. | bingohbangoh wrote: | I know many nurses and doctors who work at hospitals in | and around the NYC tristate area -- they all say capacity | is well under the normal rates for them. | | Note: last April (2020), they said it had exploded due to | COVID-19. | cogman10 wrote: | Yeah, the main difference appears to be states that have | high vaccine participation and states that don't. | sreque wrote: | This is just your bias showing, nothing more. COVID has | been shown to be seasonal and to hit different parts of | the world at different times of the year. Southern states | appear to get hardest hit in the summer, while the colder | Northern states are harder-hit in the winter. | | Florida has the second-oldest population in the U.S., but | it's death rate per 100,000 is average among the states. | NYC and NJ are two states with the highest death rate per | 100,000. | bingohbangoh wrote: | So what is there to say about Israel or Gibraltar? | | Both have very high hospitalization rates. Both also have | very high vaccination rates. | cogman10 wrote: | IDK, hard to say what's going on there. | | In the worst case, it may just been that the vaccine | effectiveness wanes over time. | spookthesunset wrote: | What is a covid patient? One that tested positive and is | in the hospital for something else? Or one that is | actually sick from covid? Because absolutely none of | these articles I read clarify that tidbit and it is very | important. | | Positive covid tests require a hell of a lot more | hospital overhead to deal with, even if they don't have | symptoms and are in for something else. It could very | well be the case that this is a self made problem. We | very well could be artificially overloading hospitals | because we dictate that every positive test, regardless | of symptoms, invokes massive overhead. | | And again, every article I read never clarifies this. In | fact many conflate "people with covid but there for | something else" and "people sick with covid". | | I am fully inclined to believe that this hospital | shortage is a self inflicted problem. If this was | literally a hospital full of people choking on their own | ooze, the media would be all over it like moths to a | flame. | cogman10 wrote: | > What is a covid patient? One that tested positive and | is in the hospital for something else? Or one that is | actually sick from covid? Because absolutely none of | these articles I read clarify that tidbit and it is very | important. | | The stories on the reddits I suggested are all pretty | much the same. Patient comes in struggling to breath, | tests positive for covid, ends up with blood clots or | pneumonia which pushes them into the ICU. | | Here's just one of many stories of burnout [1] | | [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/nursing/comments/p9ps06/the_ | burn_ou... | spookthesunset wrote: | Those are anecdotes not data. | cogman10 wrote: | Clearly. | | > So, the anecdotal evidence would be... | | I'm not trying to represent it as anything other than | that. | KaiserPro wrote: | India: yes. | | The UK: in local areas, patients had to be diverted | sometimes hundreds of miles to a hospital with space. | _all_ non emergency hospital care was stopped, and some | emergency routine care was delayed. | | Belgium was overwhelmed. | | The issue is this, we can't just not admit the over 60s. | even if we did, that would only free up 50% capacity (ie | you could go one more cycle of exponential growth, | doubling every n weeks/days)[source https://coronavirus.d | ata.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=...] | | filling hospitals means that the resources used to treat | both sudden hospitalizations and long term are diverted. | so car accident/drinking/heavy sports/DIY injuries have | worse outcomes, and cancer outcomes drop off a cliff. | | if the UK manages to keep the total number of patients in | hospital with covid to less than 7-10k that would be a | brilliant outcome for winter. we are currently at ~6k, | and its still summer. | | The issue is there are not enough trained doctors and | nurses. They take at least 8 years to train. that's the | main constraint. Suitable beds can be made up in a number | of weeks (see china and the "nightinggale hospitals") but | if there is no staff, they are pointless | qwerty456127 wrote: | > you could go one more cycle of exponential growth, | doubling every n weeks/days | | I'm not sure a big percent- of people is prone to hard | covid. I tend to believe the majority of people has | already went through it asymptomatically/easily and so | will the majority of those who still hasn't. | | Exponential growth in positive tests doesn't imply | infinite (limited only by the size of the population | itself) exponential growth of severe cases or deaths. | zeku wrote: | Here is the Tennessee reporting. NO ICU beds. | | https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/health/2021/08/19/t | enn... | dragonwriter wrote: | > Are they really overwhelming hospitals? | | Yes. | | > This keeps being repeated but most hospitals operate at | about 80% capacity as-is. | | They aren't overwhelming total hospital capacity, they | are overwhelming specialized resource capacity, | particularly ICU capacity. | | > Places in Tennessee and Florida are currently, with | COVID-19, operating at about 80% | | In Florida and numerous other states ( _not Tennessee_ ), | there are significant areas over 95% ICU capacity. [0] | | [0] | https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/08/17/us/covid- | delt... | sumnuyungi wrote: | Do you have a non-paywall link to that article or a link | to the actual data? The article should list sources. | xadhominemx wrote: | Have you tried Google? | ekianjo wrote: | > there are significant areas over 95% ICU capacity | | It's not like there is any large ICU capacity anywhere | anyway. | erhk wrote: | Those patients simply go somewhere else and cause more | strain. We on hacker knews should known the pain of | cascade failures more than other platforms. | zeku wrote: | There are NO ICU beds in Tennessee. | | https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/health/2021/08/19/t | enn... | dham wrote: | Is every hospital getting overwhelmed though? I keep | seeing reports of staff getting fired or quitting because | of vaccine requirement. Maybe I'm getting fake news? | dragonwriter wrote: | > Is every hospital getting overwhelmed though? | | In the country? No. In large areas? Yes. | | > I keep seeing reports of staff getting fired or | quitting because of vaccine requirement. Maybe I'm | getting fake news? | | There are vaccine requirements being adopted some places, | and there are departures related to it. But if you are | seeing news suggesting that that is the major source of | capacity strain (or even the major source of COVID- | related causes of people departing healthcare jobs), it | is, at least, _distorted_ news. | bingohbangoh wrote: | I'll throw in a anecdote: my family in nearby hospitals | are *not* being mandated to get vaccinated. | | This is precisely because there is high demand for | registered nurses and other medical staff at the moment. | qwerty456127 wrote: | > This is precisely because there is high demand | | Ok. At least somebody can exercise reason when necessary. | | By the way (I believe that's is nonsensical but I also | believe I am probably wrong - I am far from an expert), | what's the point of force-vaccinating people who have | obviously contacted the infection on many occasions and | still are Okay? To me this indicates their immune systems | are doing a great job and we should rather avoid teaching | them (their perfectly competent immune systems) how they | should do it. And I don't know about any evidence of | vaccinated people being less contagious than those | naturally immune. | bingohbangoh wrote: | > what's the point of force-vaccinating people who have | obviously contacted the infection on many occasions and | still are Okay? | | I don't know but, fwiw, Europe is considering prior | infection proven by an antibody test as equivalent to | being vaccinated. | qwerty456127 wrote: | Not all Europe. Some countries governments are stubbornly | against this and only accept a positive PCR test taken | during the actual sickness. | kxyvr wrote: | Yes. Unquestionably. | | Here are a few different articles from around the gulf | coast states that speak to this: | | https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/hous | ton... | | https://www.npr.org/2021/08/19/1029260134/alabama- | hospitals-... | | Something that may be a little confusing as well is what | does "full" mean. Both morally and legally, it is very | difficult for a hospital to turn someone away. Rather | than turn someone away, the hospital will have new people | wait, attempt to make more room, and provide less care to | more people. This leads to the question: Is a hospital | full if they're stashing patients in hallways and | providing hallway care? Within an ICU, typical care is | either one nurse to two patients or one to one depending | on the reason for the ICU stay. At the moment, the ratios | are 3-4 to 1, which is not the standard of care, but the | best they can do. Does this count as a hospital being | full? | | On a more personal note, my wife is an ICU physician. At | the moment, I'm writing this from a hotel room because I | started traveling with her to help alleviate the stress | from her work. On this trip, she will do seven days of | twelve hour shifts in a row. The hospital has asked us to | stay for longer, but we're exhausted and have work | elsewhere. This sort of thing does not happen during flu | season, so I will assert strongly that we are still not | close to the realm of normal. | | In a direct answer to your manpower question, this | hospital does not have enough staff. They don't have | enough physicians and they don't have enough nurses. | Recently, this particular hospital acquired multiple new | ECMO units, which do absolutely help with care. They | can't use them. They don't have the nurses. | | As one more anecdote, a friend of my wife who is also an | ICU physician called the other day with a story from her | unit. She just admitted a patient who spent six days | waiting in the ER with COVID. They had no available, | staffed beds until then. | | Now, to be sure, I am just another voice on the internet. | You can choose to believe me or not and that's fine. I | will say that getting news from what actually occurs in | the hospital is difficult. Reporters are people too and | they're not necessarily trained to understand the nuance | of hospital reality. That doesn't mean what they report | isn't useful, but it may be frustratingly incomplete. | | Some questions that may help with any personal | investigation: | | 1. What are the number of staffed bed available in the | hospital? Beds are different than staffed beds, but they | are sometimes used synonymously. Right now, with the lack | of staff, it may not be. | | 2. Are the ICUs in the Level 1, 2, or 3 trauma centers | full? Trauma center designation gives information about | the number and type of staff that a hospital is required | to keep available 24-hours a day. Generally speaking, the | large trauma centers have better staff and better | equipment. Even if there is an ICU bed available in a | regional medical center, it doesn't mean it can provide | the care required. Simply, they may not have the | equipment or specialists required for care. As long as | the large hospitals in the cities are full then transfer | is not possible and overall medical care in that region | is reduced. | aero142 wrote: | From what you are hearing, are staffing levels the same | as pre-covid, and how much is reduced staff vs increased | COVID patients contributing? | kxyvr wrote: | That, I don't know. Since we've been together, prior to | COVID, I never recall her mentioning they had trouble | getting nurses. If there was a particularly busy night, | the nurse manager had a number of nurses on-call who | would then come in to staff beds. Now, that's impossible. | They're not there. On top of that, the nursing staff | calls out sick far more often now than before. | | Are these difficulties because there are fewer nurses on | the market, the existing staff are burned out, there are | better opportunities to work locums, or some other | factor? Not sure. Mostly, it's to say that there was | never a conversation between us on the lack of nurses | prior to COVID. | | As far as physicians, also not sure. I will say that | demand was consistent prior to COVID, but now demand for | both temporary and permanent positions is extremely high. | They won't stop calling. Something to understand here is | that the supply of new critical care physicians takes a | very long time to ramp up, four years of medical school, | four years of residency, and two years of fellowship. | They're not easy to replace. | | As a final side note, whether they do or not, they would | all _like_ to quit. They 're burned out. This has gone on | too long. The families dealing with end of life care are | often abusive. Virtually all of their patients are | unvaccinated, which means that this is preventable. | They're frustrated that their professional opinion has | very little impact on the public discussion of COVID, | especially when they deal with the issue so intimately | and they spent a good portion of their life dedicated to | understanding and treating the issues behind illness. | kolanos wrote: | > More than 260 hospitals and health systems furloughed | workers in the last year, and many others implemented | layoffs. | | [0]: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/20-hos | pitals-l... | spookthesunset wrote: | Those articles never define what "covid hospitalization" | means. Is it people in the hospital because of covid or | is it people that test positive for covid and are there | for something else? There is a big difference between the | two. Covid positive test results probably invoke a lot of | extra overhead even if the patient has no symptoms and | this could be a self made problem. | kxyvr wrote: | If someone is COVID positive, then they are likely | contagious even if they have no symptoms. This means that | they must be isolated from the other patients that do not | have COVID or else there is a high risk of infection | spreading to other patients. In places like the ICU, | where all of the patients are critically ill, any | additional infection will likely kill them. | | Isolation from other patients means that they need other | rooms and other nurses. It is not safe to have a nurse go | from a clean room to a COVID room repeatedly if they | don't have enough PPE to fully gown between rooms. | Otherwise, there is cross contamination. Currently, there | is not enough PPE. If a hospital has the staff, they will | also isolate the physicians to either COVID or non-COVID | wards to prevent cross contamination. Often, they do not | have the physicians, so there is a time cost to | constantly changing PPE. Time spent changing PPE means | time not taking care of patients. | | When a patient dies in a COVID room, the room must be | cleaned. This takes time and staff. Failure to do so can | also lead to increased infections. | | To be clear, infections that spread in the hospital are | very well studied. It's the reason why hospitals have | very strict rules about things like hand hygiene. It's | one of those inspections that can cost a hospital a lot | of money. | | That's a long way to say, it's not a self made problem. A | patient that comes in for something like a heart stent | who is also COVID positive is far more work than one who | does not have COVID. I do not know if these news articles | are referring to these cases as COVID hospitalizations. | In some sense, it doesn't impact the broader issue: In a | good number of states, hospitals are effectively full. | The reason behind this issue is unvaccinated people | catching COVID. | spookthesunset wrote: | It is a self made problem. Imagine if we tested people | for every infectious disease and put them into crazy | protocol-land even if they don't have symptoms. Nothing | would ever get done! | | We need to accept that vaccines exist and work. It | shouldn't matter if the dude in the hospital has a | positive covid test because everybody in that room can be | vaccinated if they want to. | | This mass testing created a bunch more problems than it | solved. | kxyvr wrote: | No. It is not. | | The difference between COVID and something like cancer is | that cancer is not highly contagious. COVID is. Further, | it's contagious and deadly. That's why it requires | special care. COVID is also not the only disease where | these kind of precautions are taken. Another one is TB. | Now, there are other diseases that are contagious, but | not right now. For example, syphilis is both contagious | and deadly. However, you're not going to catch syphilis | when you're sitting next to someone who is positive. With | COVID, you potentially will. That's why they have to test | for it in the hospital. | | Now, I will agree that vaccines exist and work. In the | sense that there are people who choose to refuse | vaccination, I will also agree it is a self made problem. | However, this affects everyone to a high degree and not | just the vaccinated. | | Case in point, my wife and I are vaccinated. If she gets | COVID, she most assuredly won't die, but she can't work | in the ICU. She would risk getting her patients infected | even though she is vaccinated. That means the hospital | loses a physician in short supply. They're going to test | you in the hospital because they can't afford you getting | their staff sick. | | This also affects you. You're vaccinated. However, say | you're appendix bursts, you may or may not be able to get | into the ER before you become septic. Yes, the ER will | triage based on need. However, if there's no beds there's | no beds and you will not be seen. | | However, to reiterate, the hospital will always test you | for diseases that they believe will affect their staff. | You come in with respiratory symptoms. You're getting a | COVID test. Having surgery? They'll test you for HIV. | It's a protection issue. COVID is a pain because airborne | infections are hard to contain. | spookthesunset wrote: | Stop counting cases. We already know covid is endemic and | isn't going away. Why continue to test every patient for | it? What purpose does it serve? Anybody that wants to be | protected can be with a simple vaccine. | mbesto wrote: | Here ya go in Texas: | | https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/10/coronavirus- | texas-ho... | | As the pandemic started, ~70% of ICU bed use was normal, | since then its been around 80~90% and now approaching | 100%. | | https://covid-texas.csullender.com/ | | So yes it is overwhelming hospitals. Even if you're | vaccinated, this should scare you. | mdp2021 wrote: | The information up to now was a mess, but one of the early | "educated opinions" was that one is more contagious in the | days just before the explosion of the symptoms. So, if that | holds, and if you lived an active social life and tested | from time to time, you risked being a spreader. | | Second, about "getting antibodies the natural way": what | about a 7 points IQ drop as a risk? What about a first- | level-paretian-20-per-cent risk of long consequences, "the | fifth wins four fifths of the jackpot"? A few made that | reasoning and could tell you it was not a good idea, some | still feel damaged. I invite you: do not focus on death as | a risk. | elcomet wrote: | > I'm almost sure 100% vaccination rate with the vaccines | currently available won't change much. | | How can you be almost sure ? Are you an immunologist or a | contagious disease expert ? Do you have data to back this | up ? | jasonlaramburu wrote: | > My personal (apparently risky, I don't recommend it to | others) strategy | | This seems to be the fundamental disagreement between the | 'anti' side (anti-mask, anti-vaxx etc) and the 'pro' side. | The reality is that different people can have vastly | different risk tolerances. Some people are ok knowing they | could die from a circulating respiratory illness and some | simply are not. Some people believe vaccines are risky, | others do not. | | The challenge is it's very hard (maybe impossible) to | change someone's personal risk tolerance. Imagine trying to | convince someone with a fear of heights to go skydiving. | You can state the facts, cite safety figures for parachutes | etc but you are still unlikely to get them on a plane. | jader201 wrote: | A lot of people are ok with risks, until they're bitten | by them. | | There are many articles (I've seen two just in passing) | where nurses talk about COVID patients going on a | ventilator, and begging for the vaccine, only to be told | it's too late. | | I feel that most people that are taking risks with COVID | (e.g. healthy people not getting vaccinated) either don't | have enough foresight to realize they actually don't want | to be hospitalized/die from this, or they don't believe | the risks are real. | | Risk assessment is something many aren't great at -- that | is striking a reasonable balance between no fear and too | much fear. This is made worse by conflicting opinions and | studies, and not being able to discern truth from | fiction/sensationalism. | mdp2021 wrote: | > _going on a ventilator, and begging_ | | You read about it, I have heard from the witnesses. Some | beg, some show fatalist. In fact, | | > _until they're bitten_ | | some do not quite realize that it is death involving slow | asphyxia we are talking about... Days of drowning, not | minutes. | | > _Risk assessment [...] is made worse by conflicting | opinions and studies, and not being able to discern truth | from fiction /sensationalism_ | | Which is one of the biggest mess behind e.g. vaccine | hesitancy, not to mention not convincing narratives about | correct behaviour to prevent spreading. | | Anyway, the communicational mess is a disaster, while | this reference "fiction" is more problematic. It is not, | at this level, something you discriminate easily. When | Derek Lowe writes some find him credible, when Robert | Malone speaks some find him credible - keys for | discrimination are not easily at hand. | ummwhat wrote: | Based on the error bars I've seen, you should be closer to | 40% sure. Or less. | | Maybe on the next mutation I'll have cause to agree with | you. For now, herd immunity is still an endgame worth | pursuing. | [deleted] | xx511134bz wrote: | We can test your model of reality. When X amount of | youngsters get vaccinated, will we go back to normal? Ye or | ne? My mental model says ne. | dham wrote: | The vaccine isn't a vaccine, it's a treatment. Cases are a | poor indicator. It's time to go back to normal. | carnitine wrote: | What restrictions are there in the UK? As far as I know in | England and Wales where the vast majority live there are none | except for those around international travel or imposed by | private enterprise. | jjgreen wrote: | They're pretty much gone, there are still some mask | requirements on, e.g., London underground, but 50% | compliance? There is some talk of introducing a vaccine | passport for nightclubs, football grounds in a month or | two. | | For me, the mood in London is "we've had enough, it's | endemic, let's live with it". | dehrmann wrote: | > That might be barely enough for herd immunity for some | diseases | | Also remember that herd immunity works best when those who | are antibodies are evenly distributed. Schools will become | major places where it's spread because of how many people | without immunity are in one place. | cm2187 wrote: | These herd immunity thresholds assumed that vaccinated people | do not transmit the virus, but it appears that they do. | Vaccines seem to be very efficient at preventing | complications, which is great and good enough to neutralise | this virus. But they don't seem to have made a dent into this | summer's cases numbers. It doesn't look like vaccines will | prevent the virus from circulating. | | Hospitalisation rates have been pretty much flat vs previous | waves (there was no wave last summer). | hutzlibu wrote: | "It doesn't look like vaccines will prevent the virus from | circulating." | | Do you have some numbers? | | As far as I know, it indeed supresses the virus from | circulating, it just doesn't stop it completely. | | Here in my area, which started early with broad | vaccinations - the numbers are way down. | simonsarris wrote: | Israel also started early with broad vaccinations. Now | compare latest waves in USA/GB/Israel: | | https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data- | explor... | | For fun, add India, which has comparatively low | vaccinations, where Delta began: | | https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data- | explor... | hutzlibu wrote: | Do you know about the quality of the data? I would | suspect they match the big picture by now. | | But while I was looking into that, last at the beginning | of the year - the quality was horrible. Even here in | developed germany, it was hard to get meaningful numbers | from different districts. I mean, there were lots and | lots of data flying around, but most of it not solid or | directly comparable in my understanding. | | And here india looks interesting, if true. That would | speak for a sort of herd immunity? | simonsarris wrote: | I really don't know what to think about India. I add it | only because its so weird how quickly Delta seemed to | fizzle out there, and then everyone stopped talking about | it. Lots of very strange cases like that in the data. | | I think most data is not really comparable across | countries, only across time (and even then: discard data | early on), because of different levels of data | collection. So best only to compare the same country vs | its own prev spikes. But this is esp true with India vs | smaller countries, you may be able to compare Euro | nations to each other more accurately, but would caution | against interpreting small differences as meaningful. | [deleted] | ekianjo wrote: | > As far as I know, it indeed supresses the virus from | circulating, it just doesn't stop it completely. | | Nope, it does not. Check your facts again with the Delta | variant. | cm2187 wrote: | The size of the peak cases in countries that have high | vaccination rate, vs previous peaks before vaccination. | | UK for instance: | https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases | thom wrote: | Has the UK peaked? | eloff wrote: | You are comparing different variants as if they are | equal. That makes no sense. If you look at the data so | far available it does seem to reduce incidence of | infection. | riffraff wrote: | we know the new variants are more contagious than what we | had last year, if the vaccines didn't limit growth we | should see a steeper curve, I believe. | rajin444 wrote: | How do you account for prior immunity as well as the | "pool" of people that would show up as a case going down | as well? | | Both those factors would result in a softer curve without | any vaccination. | tharne wrote: | > Since no one under 16 has been vaccinated yet, about 70% of | the population is vaccinated (44M out of 67M). | | This fact really bothers me. I feel like once adults got | vaccinated we all spiked the football and said "F--k the | kids, I got mine". | jtbayly wrote: | The kids aren't in danger. | Filligree wrote: | Say that to my cousin's niece. | | Wait. You can't anymore. | jtbayly wrote: | Sorry for your cousin's and fam's loss. | | Sorry, also, but that's an anecdote. | | All the data I've seen doesn't bear out all the | hyperventilating of increased risk for kids. | tharne wrote: | The kids weren't in danger, that appears to be changing | very quickly with the new variant. Let's not be like | George W. Bush standing on the aircraft carrier saying | "mission accomplished", when we're still in the middle of | this thing. | nkohari wrote: | There is no data to this effect. There are some anecdotes | from hospital staff saying they're seeing more kids now, | but you might expect that given that adults are | vaccinated. | | Until there is data that shows conclusively that Delta | affects kids more than previous variants, you should not | parrot lines like "that appears to be changing quickly". | Substantiate your claim with data or at least say it's | anecdotal. Alternatively, if you have data, please share | it. | jtbayly wrote: | Show me data. | tharne wrote: | This "show me data" line works well in debates, but not | in the real world. You often don't have the time or | ability to wait for data to roll in, do a study, have it | peer reviewed, and then make a decision. In real life you | constantly have to make decisions under uncertain | conditions with limited information of unknown quality. | And that's the situation we're in right now. | | We can send the kids back to school with no vaccines, no | masks, no precautions, and say "We don't have any data | that this thing is dangerous for children". The obvious | problem there is that we don't have a ton of data in | general with this variant. So, if we're wrong about the | danger, we risk harming a lot of children while we | dutifully wait for the data to roll in. | | This is the same reason that most women (and many men for | that matter) will cross the street late at night if they | are on an empty street and see a large man approaching | them. They have zero evidence suggesting that the person | is a threat, but the cost of being wrong in such cases is | very high. So, having limited data, they tend to take a | very cautious and conservative approach and cross the | street. In our case, just change, "Cross the street" to | "Wear a mask". | | This comparison is far from perfect, but you get the | idea. | telotortium wrote: | We _are_ in a debate though - seems like a good time to | show data. | | No arguing on Hacker News is going to change the policy | response anyway. | ekianjo wrote: | > The kids weren't in danger, that appears to be changing | very quickly with the new variant | | Death rate for kids with new variant please? | stonogo wrote: | "Dangerous" and "fatal" are not the same word. The Delta | variant is more contagious, meaning more children are | being hospitalized. Even if the Delta variant isn't "more | dangerous" per case the same level of danger is _more | prevalent_ because of the contagion. | | https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus- | covid-19... | bluGill wrote: | There is more than death. We still don't know enough | about Long Covid - depending on who you believe it is | anything from normal things blamed on Covid to additional | life long complications. Until science figures this out | (I expect it to take years) I don't know if it is safe to | risk my kids or not. | spookthesunset wrote: | And we still don't know the long term effects of kids | breathing god knows what substances these cheap Chinese | masks contain. We also have no clue what it will do to | their language and social development. Yet people cheer | on forcing them to wear one for an entire school day 5 | days a week. | bluGill wrote: | Like what? This is the first I've heard such a thing. It | isn't hard to do a chemical analysis, so if there was any | grounding in it I'd expect to have seen a better source | then a random comment. | | That said, my kids are wearing made in the USA masks. | grillvogel wrote: | also keep in mind that any "children" statistic refers to | people anywhere in the range of 0-18 | zeku wrote: | Right now kids are in danger because they are getting | covid and RSV at the same time. RSV is surging in many | areas of the USA. | flycaliguy wrote: | I can see 2035's viral video already. Targeting people who | were too young to get jabbed, some of which still living | with the effects of long COVID. Others blaming long COVID | for other issues. The narrator turning them against us, | endless b-roll of both anti-maskers and politicians | reopening cities. How selfish of us, reopening before they | were protected. | jdminhbg wrote: | Actually the old have been fucking over the young to | protect themselves since March 2020. | AshamedCaptain wrote: | Speak for yourself, I have been parasitizing the young | ever since before I was born. | tzs wrote: | What's delta like for under 16? | | In the US through May 2021, so it might not be a good | representation for delta, here were the infections, | hospitalizations, and deaths per 100k for various age groups: | Age Inf Hosp Deaths 0-17 37k 287 0.5 18-49 | 44k 1100 25 50-64 32k 2600 85 65+ 22k 5200 | 1140 | | Unless the numbers for delta are way higher, that suggests | that for under 17 getting your immunity by actually getting | COVID is fine. The main reason then you want to prevent kids | from getting COVID is not so much for its danger to them but | rather for the danger to the adults that the kids will spread | it to. Kid gives it to a grandparent, and that grandparent is | 20x as likely to be hospitalized and 2000x as likely to die | as the kid. If the kid gives it to their parents, the parents | are 4x as likely to be hospitalized and 50x as likely to die. | | If the numbers for delta are at all similar for kids, then | there is a good chance that there is not much difference | between a population where everybody gets vaccinated and | population where all the adults get vaccinated but the kids | do not, suggesting vaccinating adults should be the priority. | | The long term endgame is probably a population where it is | endemic, everyone gets it as a child when they are young | enough that it doesn't cause serious illness, and then keeps | getting it every year or so for the rest of their lives. | Those subsequent cases don't cause serious illness because | they still have protection from the last time. | | That's what happened with the four other coronaviruses that | are in wide circulations in humans. They are thought to have | caused terrible pandemics when they first got to humans which | were deadly in adults but not bad in children. Nowadays they | are still around, everyone gets them frequently, and we don't | even bother to have a separate name for the illness they | cause. We just lump it in with the illnesses from a bunch of | other viruses and call it the common cold. Around 20% of | common colds are from those coronaviruses. | defgeneric wrote: | > That's what happened with the four other coronaviruses | that are in wide circulations in humans. They are thought | to have caused terrible pandemics when they first got to | humans which were deadly in adults but not bad in children. | | Yes, this is now thought to be the case for the 1889-1890 | pandemic. | jypepin wrote: | How do you get half a death?! | estebank wrote: | .5 deaths per 100K is 1 death per 200K. | clairity wrote: | for comparison, all cause mortality[0] in infants (<1yr) | is ~500/100K, and for 1-19 year olds, ~100/100K. for | kids, covid is not even a blip on the mortality chart, | being 2-3 orders of magnitude smaller. | | [0]: https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/infant-child- | and-teen... | marwatk wrote: | Even with your numbers it puts a kid's chances of ending up | hospitalized with covid at 1 in 128. Granted we're probably | way under counting infections in that age group, but I'll | still feel much better when my kid is vaccinated. | freewilly1040 wrote: | The positive case count is not the denominator. The | chances of your kid ending up hospitalized with Covid are | 287 / 100K, or .29%. | marwatk wrote: | Can you help me understand why the case count isn't the | denominator? | | The posted numbers seem to imply that if 37k out of 100k | kids had covid, 287 of them end up in the hospital. Does | it not follow that if 100k out of 100k had covid that 775 | kids would have been hospitalized? | freewilly1040 wrote: | It's in your parent comment: | | > Granted we're probably way under counting infections in | that age group | | People get tested when they feel sick enough to be | worried, there are many very minor and/or asymptomatic | cases for which we won't have data. By using the positive | case counts as the denominator you are using the most | serious slice of cases to argue that coronavirus | infections are serious. | marwatk wrote: | I'm not sure that follows. That would imply that every | kid has already had/been exposed to COVID and that's | resulted in those per 100k numbers. | | It's definitely not exact to use the infection as the | denominator, but I'd argue it's much closer than using | the 100k as the denominator. I think I stand by my | original post. | maccam94 wrote: | There's about 50 million kids under 12 in the US, so | while that percentage looks small that's still ~150,000 | kids going to the hospital. I believe the real percentage | is probably a bit lower due to underreported infections, | but it's worth remembering that even small percentages | can have huge effects in a country with hundreds of | millions of people. | freewilly1040 wrote: | Yes, given a large denominator rare events will happen. | So what? | | The relevant argument with kids and Delta is not about | whether it happens to some people, it's whether the risk | rates high enough to mobilize large scale, disruptive | countermeasures. | | I can only find data on deaths, not hospitalizations [1], | but assuming the numbers are roughly proportional here | are things that are more dangerous to kids than Delta: | - Drug ODs - Car accidents - Cancer - | Heart disease - Drowning - Suffocation | | Caveat of course is that the data might be out of date, | at least with respect to pockets with high rates of | infection | | [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsr1804754 | dota_fanatic wrote: | Aren't the vaccines still not available for those under 12? And | they're emergency use only in many of those countries? Not sure | how you can say any country, even Israel, is "close to full | vaccination". 28% of their population is 14 and under _. | | _ | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Age_str... | lokedhs wrote: | There are studies ongoing and Singapore is planning to | vaccinate kids below 12 as early as next year. | https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/3rd-shot- | covid-19-vaccine-... | peteradio wrote: | 1 year ago the hive mind was buzzing about protecting the | "elderly/infirm" with the warp drive wunder drugs. So it | shouldn't be surprising that "full vaccination" might be | calculated with "elderly/infirm" pop in the denominator. | modzu wrote: | once you have power its hard to give it up | geofft wrote: | Long-term mask-wearing seem like an entirely reasonable social | change. | | It's like any other clothing: you're protecting a vulnerable | part of your body and also displaying respect for others. And | it's mostly enforced by social norms: though in many places it | is in fact illegal to go without clothing, people wear clothes | regardless of the law. (I was in San Francisco at the time the | public nudity ban, or shall we call it the "clothing | requirement," was passed, and I can assure you that people were | generally clothed in San Francisco even before then.) | | As another comment pointed out the other day | (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28255121), it's not just | going to be SARS-nCoV-2. There's going to be a lot more easily | communicable diseases in the future in dense locations. And | there was the first SARS, of course, and countries hit hard by | the first SARS already adopted a norm of mask-wearing in | crowded locations like public transit, which helps them with | other diseases that are "here forever" like the seasonal flu. | | I think mask-wearing in public is going to become a sign of | basic respect and decency and hygiene. We're already | comfortable with "No shoes, no shirt, no service." | swader999 wrote: | Hard no to that. | q-rews wrote: | People love downvoting 'round here, but the comment is | sensible. | | Don't shoot the messenger, even if we all hate the news they | bring. | blacktriangle wrote: | Yes, yes they do. And they're even starting to be honest about | it, look at the press coming out of NZ and Scotland. Many of us | called this the second the lockdowns started and we were right. | Coronavirus is real, but it's nothing more than another SARS, | H1N1, Hong Kong flu, etc. The only difference between now and | then is now governments were prepped for a full on power grab. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | > Coronavirus is real, but it's nothing more than another | SARS, H1N1, Hong Kong flu, etc. | | SARS in 2002-2004 killed 811 people. H1N1 killed 18,500 in | 2009. Neither of those had the sort of mass lock-downs | mitigating their spread that we are experiencing now. I don't | know about you, but I can see a big difference. | wongarsu wrote: | The vaccination rate in the UK is 67%. A year ago the estimate | was that we need about a 75% vaccination rate to reach herd | immunity, and I doubt that the new mutations have pushed that | number down. | fatfox wrote: | Yes, with the Delta variant herd immunity seems out of reach | according to experts, as vaccines can't completely stop | transmission: | | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta- | variant-... | | https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/02/herd- | immu... | pm215 wrote: | The article's answer to this question is "the eventuality of | endemic COVID-19 does not mean we should drop all precautions. | The more we can flatten the curve now, the less hospitals will | become overwhelmed". There are currently ~6000 COVID patients | in hospital, which is a little less than 1/6 of the Jan 2021 | peak and over 1/4 of the April 2020 peak. Which is to say, | manageable right now but probably not something you want to let | burn much hotter than that. | basisword wrote: | The UK dropped all restrictions with the exception of some | travel related restrictions (to prevent the import of variants | that could breakthrough the vaccine). | | Any restrictions you see in the UK are implemented by | businesses/local government (e.g. masks on the tube, or in some | shops). | switch007 wrote: | That is fake news, sorry | | The law to imprison yourself (isolate) still is very much a | law. | HarryHirsch wrote: | Israel has close to full vaccination, yet cases are going up | because immunity is falling again and there are new variants. | It's understandable why the restrictions are back again. | pcurve wrote: | Yeah it's sad to see death rate spiking back up as well. | https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/ | | It's better than before, but it's too dangerous. | | Maybe the only out of this is wait for more mutations with | lower fatality. | | :( | superkuh wrote: | It is not because of the new variants and antibody escape. | Prior variants before delta, gamma specifically, actually | escape antibody neutralization far more than delta does. | | No, what the world is seeing is that intramuscular | vaccination for respiratory diseases does not provide long | lasting IgG antibodies to the upper respiratory mucosa | tissues. They seep into the lower lungs and provide | protection there though. This has been known since the 1960s | when the first intranasal flu vaccinations were introduced to | combat the problem. | | It wouldn't matter what variant is going around, it just | happens to be delta now. The problem is the lack of | persistent IgG antibodies in the surface mucosal tissues. To | get long term protection from infection of these you need | intranasal vaccination to recruit resident B and T cells to | the mucosa to make IgA antibodies. Intramuscular does not | prevent spread, it only prevents hospitalization and death. | This is also true for intramuscular flu vaccination. | leoedin wrote: | But what's the end goal? Do we keep lockdown restrictions | forever? The case fatality rate for a vaccinated population | is really low. There must be an acceptable level - after all | we don't lock down for other endemic viruses which also have | non-zero CFRs. What is it? Have we reached it? | lamontcg wrote: | The acceptable level is pretty much defined by when the | hospitals aren't falling over again. | | If everyone would just get vaccinated, we'd be there. | | Instead people are for whatever reason ignoring the risks | of the virus, and if the rate of hospitalization in their | age category is only 1 in 50, enough of them making that | choice mean that 2% of them guessing wrong is knocking the | hospital system over again. | rainbowzootsuit wrote: | Maybe without a vaccination card or other pass that | you're ineligible for the vaccine you get triaged right | back out the door. That would help the hospital capacity, | encourage vaccination, etc but it will probably need to | get a bit more morgue capacity ramped up. Easier to train | for. | lamontcg wrote: | The hippocratic oath prevents that fantasy. | rainbowzootsuit wrote: | That's why I called it triage. You can give steroids and | O2 for home consumption? I guess it depends on the | seriousness, on average, of the other people who are | unable to use the hospital's services because it's | overloaded and what their mortality rate is vs the | unvaccinated who show up and are given some reasonable | treatment to try, but not a bed. Not an easy decision or | calculation to come up with. | HarryHirsch wrote: | We'll have to have some restrictions in place for the | highest-risk activities. I really wouldn't want to give | introductory lectures in a room that seats 250 people and | has been in use all day and then find out, like the | Reverend Jackson, that the vaccine protection has worn off. | CountDrewku wrote: | >I really wouldn't want to give introductory lectures in | a room that seats 250 people and has been in use all day | and then find out, like the Reverend Jackson, that the | vaccine protection has worn off. | | Ok then don't? No one is forcing you to go out. | | Let everyone else make their own decisions. I'm kinda | tired of the hypochondriacs forcing everyone else to do | what they want. Everyone has access to the vaccine, they | can stay in and mask all they want, they do not have to | go near people. There's absolutely no reason to be | locking down the rest of society. The only argument to | keep these restrictions in place is if the hospitals get | over capacity and that's not happening. | bmitc wrote: | > if the hospitals get over capacity and that's not | happening | | It's happening in quite a few places. | fidesomnes wrote: | no it isn't getting full yes, and sending patience | farther away yes, but overflowing and collapse of order | like in Contagion, no. | CountDrewku wrote: | Show me the data for the US please. | | https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/hospital-utilization | c0nducktr wrote: | Some of these people appear to live in a completely | different reality. | CountDrewku wrote: | Data for hospitals that are over capacity in the US | please. Should be easy to find since I'm apparently | living in alternate reality. | | https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/hospital-utilization | | Additionally you need to provide a strategy that would | stop this. Since apparently mass vaccination and locking | down for nearly 2 years didn't help. Or you can keep | supporting the same thing and hoping for different | results. | celticninja wrote: | Everyone can make their own decisions, but can everyone | give an introductory lecture? Perhaps the 250 attendees | can decide if they want to be there in person or | remotely, why would you remove that choice from the | person giving the lecture? | | And we are not talking about locking down the rest of | society. That was the extreme end of the spectrum when we | were trying to get it under control. The only place still | with national lockdowns are NZ and Australia because they | were able to contain and control the virus earlier on. | | Sounds like you are equating your experience with | everyone. Not everyone has access to the vaccine, not | everyone is able to work remotely, some people have to | interact with the public as part of their job. Perhaps | try looking at things from the perspective of people who | are less fortunate than yourself. | | There is an underlying current of selfishness behind | everything you say. | CountDrewku wrote: | >Everyone can make their own decisions, but can everyone | give an introductory lecture? Perhaps the 250 attendees | can decide if they want to be there in person or | remotely, why would you remove that choice from the | person giving the lecture? | | How am I removing that choice? Did I say anywhere they | were not allowed to host it virtually if they chose to do | so? The only one removing choices is the individual that | decides they don't want anyone in person. | | >Sounds like you are equating your experience with | everyone. Not everyone has access to the vaccine, not | everyone is able to work remotely, some people have to | interact with the public as part of their job. Perhaps | try looking at things from the perspective of people who | are less fortunate than yourself. | | Every reason you listed here only supports NOT locking | down. Everyone in the US does have access to the vaccine. | I am looking at it correctly, you're the one that wants | people not to work by locking down everything. What's | your solution? Wait until everyone gets it, which will | never happen? | | The irony in calling me the selfish one. I'm not making | anyone do anything here. Exactly how is telling everyone | they must do something not selfish? Anyone supporting | more lockdowns/masking at this point is only doing it for | themselves and no one else. | celticninja wrote: | I have not proposed a lockdown in any of my comments. I | think you are looking for an argument with someone who | wants another lockdown. I have not seen anyone proposing | a new lockdown and think that the majority of people in | the UK would neither support another lockdown or even | think it is necessary. | | Literally the only country that should be considering a | lockdown at this stage is New Zealand due to them being a | great way to prevent spread if there are very few cases | in the general population and the majority of people are | unvaccinated. For everyone else the only realistic | solution.is vaccination for as much of the population as | possible. | josephcsible wrote: | > Perhaps the 250 attendees can decide if they want to be | there in person or remotely, why would you remove that | choice from the person giving the lecture? | | If the lecturer is remote, then the 250 attendees don't | have the choice to be there in person. | celticninja wrote: | Big screen in a lecture hall is one option. | spookthesunset wrote: | The only people who are being selfish are the people who | insist the entire human population change their behavior | in an extremely negative way for more than 1.6 years for | a virus that we now have remarkably effective vaccines | for that anybody at risk can take for free. | | Sorry. It is selfish to ask people to continue to cower | away in order to assuage peoples fear. | depaya wrote: | I'm tired of prudes telling me I can't drink and drive. | Let everyone make their own decisions. Everyone else can | stay home or drive sober if they want, but we shouldn't | prevent the rest of society from having fun! | josephcsible wrote: | A better analogy than driving drunk would be driving at | all. | boredumb wrote: | I think the analogy is that there is a small percentage | of our population that cannot drive a vehicle without | dying and so everyone has to stay home and not drive in | order to get rid of the .06% of of the population that | will die driving on the road. | CountDrewku wrote: | I wasn't aware that you could pass drunkenness through | the air with no symptoms. That's new to me. | | Are you suggesting we should all be responsible for | stopping other people from drunk driving and also | stopping anyone from getting into a car with a drunk | driver? Are you also attempting to suggest that everyone | else get should have their drivers' license revoked for | the few that are caught drunk driving? That's essentially | what masking, forced vaccination, mandated passports is. | | Might wanna find a new metaphor. I'm sure you think that | was an intelligent comparison but it absolutely sucks. | You're comparing something that would take a deliberate | act to something that might or might not be happening | passively to you. | depaya wrote: | I agree it's not a great metaphor, but my point is that | "let everyone make their own decisions" isn't some end- | all argument. All rules and laws in society are about | _not_ letting people do whatever they want for the | benefit of society at large. | | Also you're trying to appeal to emotion by framing mask | wearing as some sort of punishment ("revoking" people's | drivers licenses) vs a precaution (like wearing a | seatbelt... or not driving drunk). Furthermore, people | caught drunk driving DO get their licenses taken away. | josephcsible wrote: | For how long? Certainly you can't mean forever. | HarryHirsch wrote: | Yes, forever, like gay men won't have orgies without | condom any more. | SuoDuanDao wrote: | Public acceptance of perpetual lockdowns, or at least at- | will lockdowns, probably is the goal. People get more | tolerant of authoritarian governments when there's a high | prevalence of infectious disease. Governments seeking re- | election pushing a narrative that the danger from | infectious diseases is high while also being seen to be | 'doing something' is likely a self-reinforcing dynamic. | HarryHirsch wrote: | To be honest, until two weeks ago the official narrative | has been that we'll all go back to normal once everyone | has taken the vaccine. Unfortunately, the virus has | thrown a spanner into the works. This wasn't planned. | Mattasher wrote: | Maybe you remember way back at the very beginning that it | was "two weeks to slow the spread"? | | The narrative has _always_ been we'll be back to normal | in X weeks if we are all good little boys and girls and | do what we're told. Unless of course some other really | good reason to lockdown arises, like that single case in | NZ. | toast0 wrote: | The acheivable goal of lockdowns outside of effictively | island countries is to keep hospitals open with sufficient | capacity. When hospitals don't have enough capacity, any | reason to go to the hospital has a worse outcome. Physical | beds are one thing, but staffing is a bigger issue. | | The problem is it's a tricky system to manage. We can | measure hospital utilization, but that lags infections. We | can mandate lockdowns, but compliance varies and too many | changes risks more non-compliance. | | Also, there are existing reasons leading to too many people | in hospitals that reduces capacity. And systemic issues | that make staffing a challenge. | MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: | If COVID is here to stay and previous lockdowns still did not | stop the spread, even with vaccine rates at almost everyone, | how is another lockdown going to stop it? This isn't just | ignorant "muh freedoms" talking here but irrational | governments playing god too much as if they could even | possibly do that that without complete fascistic control. | lokedhs wrote: | Israel is at 68%. I wouldn't call that close to full. | Portugal is at 82%, and I wouldn't even call that full. | crubier wrote: | Portugal is at 66% | mdp2021 wrote: | Portugal: 66.5% double jab, 75.8% at-least-single-jab. | (22 Aug 2021) | | (I was right in front of ourworldindata.org) | staticassertion wrote: | The UK seems to have a 62% full vaccination rate with 71% | having at least one dose[0]. That sounds really low to me. | "Close to full vaccination" to me would imply close to 100% or, | reading "full" as "reaching herd immunity" I'd think 70-80% | fully vaccinated - still a very long way to go. | | I hear you that we will eventually reach a point where we've | hit the new normal. It's just going to be whether that point is | reached because we've given up (due to people refusing to | vaccinate) or because we've managed to vaccinate enough. I | think many people aren't ready to give up. Personally, the | restrictions are quite meaningless to me in the US, but I can | imagine that that's just because I get to work from home and | all that. | | [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/united- | kingdo... | NonContro wrote: | 92% of Brits have COVID antibodies, either through exposure | or immunity: | | https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-around-nine- | in-10-adults... | phreeza wrote: | 92% of the Brits eligible for vaccination. | staticassertion wrote: | That feels a little selective. | | > Latest estimates from the Office for National Statistics | (ONS) show 89.8% of adults in England are likely to have | the antibodies, with the highest percentage of adults | testing positive for them estimated to be the age groups 60 | to 64, 70 to 74 and 75 to 79 (all 96.8%). | | > The lowest percentage was for 16 to 24-year-olds at | around 59.7%. | | The 92% (91.8% cited) is presumably from this sentence? | | > In Wales, 91.8% of adults are estimated to have | antibodies in their system | evgen wrote: | The UK has only just started vaccinating under-18s, who make | up a significant chunk of the population, and they are not | vaccinating anyone under 16 yet. This is going to skew the | numbers a bit. Among older age groups the numbers get up into | the 80s and 90s. | | We are also lagging among BAME groups and in certain | economically deprived areas. If you are a white 75 year-old | in Wimbledon the odds that you are vaccinated are around 95%, | while if you are a 30 year-old Pakistani immigrant in | Bradford then I would put the odds closer to 50%. Still a | long way to go, but constantly improving. | selimthegrim wrote: | >a 30 year-old Pakistani immigrant in Bradford | | Are there reasons for hesitancy expressed among the | population? | ekianjo wrote: | > That sounds really low to me. | | Low compared to what? Do you know the vaccinations rates for | all other diseases for which we have vaccines for? | staticassertion wrote: | Low compared to my third fucking sentence jesus christ. | Synaesthesia wrote: | The UK already went ahead and reponed prematurely with a huge | influx of new cases following | rgrieselhuber wrote: | Yes | jrockway wrote: | Maybe "mask requirements" are a sign of society advancing? | There was a time in human history when we didn't bathe | regularly, or brush our teeth, or have sewage removal systems | in cities, etc. Maybe the next step is "you know, breathing in | particles that came from the other 600 people in this railcar | is not so great". | | I certainly don't see a reason to go maskless on public | transportation in the future. And, as supply chain problems | work themselves out, someone will probably make masks that | actually filter out virus-size particles and fit more people's | faces. (I feel like every mask I've bought so far during the | pandemic has either been completely ineffective, or has been | designed to fit someone that is 1/3 my size.) | josephcsible wrote: | You're saying society should keep wearing masks everywhere | literally forever? That's so insane I can't tell whether | you're even serious. | jrockway wrote: | Yeah. I basically agree with the article: | | > The experience may also prompt people to take all | respiratory viruses more seriously, leading to lasting | changes in mask wearing and ventilation. | | I don't think that mask mandates will continue, but I do | think that many more people will choose to wear masks in | situations that warrant them. In Asia, it was already | pretty common before COVID-19 and even before SARS. Walk | around Tokyo on any given day and you'll see people wearing | masks (mostly to protect others). I think the West now has | some idea why that might be a good thing. | | The world has irreversibly changed. There is no getting | around that. | s5300 wrote: | Ahh, I too remember when escalators instead of stairs were | seen as so insane that the public couldn't tell whether the | mall owners were serious... | sintaxi wrote: | Interesting. Were you required to strap an escalator to | your face? | evnc wrote: | Is it insane that everyone should keep wearing clothes | everywhere literally forever? | | If I found being nude to be significantly more | comfortable/freeing than being clothed, I would still be | expected to wear clothing in public spaces for both | politeness and sanitary (e.g. sitting on subway seats) | reasons. | geofft wrote: | Is there a particular reason you think that people | shouldn't keep wearing masks everywhere literally forever, | or is it just that it hurts your feelings? | | Barely a century ago, it wasn't common for doctors to wash | their hands, because it hurt doctors' feelings. Dr. Charles | Meigs, an obstetrician, said, "Doctors are gentlemen and a | gentleman's hands are clean." | | But, of course, _factually_ they weren 't clean, factually | they were full of germs, and factually Dr. Meigs was | killing several of the people he operated on through his | unclean hands. There was factual data that infant mortality | dropped significantly in clinics where doctors were washing | their hands. | | But the response to hand-washing was much like yours. | "You're saying society should keep washing hands everywhere | literally forever? That's so insane I can't tell whether | you're even serious." And in fact they sent the doctor who | suggested hand-washing to an insane asylum, where he died. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_to_Igna | z... | dudul wrote: | It is very important for young children to be able to see | one's entire face. Facial expressions such as smiles help | them understand context when communicating. | robhunter wrote: | Who in the world is downvoting a statement like this? | jrockway wrote: | I think you should pretty much ignore voting in | contentious political threads. People have it in their | heads that the "side" with the most upvotes "wins", so | people are reading comments to determine sides and then | to vote appropriately. | | All I can say is that people are going to be super upset | when they go to cash in their HN karma and find that it | isn't honored as legal tender ;) | dudul wrote: | I'm just happy HN is such a fringe community not | representative of the general population. It's pretty sad | when you reach a point where you make medical decisions | to "own" the "other team". | josephcsible wrote: | Doctors washing their hands saves way more lives than | masks do, and hand washing doesn't have negative side | effects like masks do (e.g., constantly fogging up | glasses, and keeping people who are hard of hearing from | reading lips). | joshuamarksmith wrote: | Your example is incorrect, actually. | | This scenario [1] is a specific instance of using | chlorinated lime to clean your hands after dealing with | cadavers, which is a totally different scenario. In fact, | he apparently references this as an alternative to | "normal hand washing". The mid-19th century is not the | middle ages, we knew about washing hands. | | > Semmelweis's key claim was that physicians contaminated | their hands with "cadaveric particles" in the morgue | while conducting autopsies. He pointed out that ordinary | washings with soap did not remove these particles, | because the hands could retain a stench for several days | in spite of such washings. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_reaction_t | o_Ignaz... | dont__panic wrote: | Curious what kind of design workarounds we'll see for really | hot and/or humid regions -- where I live, it's pretty | comfortable to wear a mask 90% of the time. But where my | parents live, it's a very different story: hot, humidity 90%+ | a lot of the time, often rainy, few places have A/C. Wearing | a mask is a lot less pleasant there and I suspect that's part | of why mask mandates have seen resistance there. | rossdavidh wrote: | In the case of the U.K., it's the population (not the | government) that is holding things back. My impression is that | Boris Johnson is opening things up as fast as he thinks he can | get away with, without an enormous backlash that gets him | removed from office. Unlike, say, France where the positions of | government and popular backlash are reversed. | nly wrote: | Boris isn't in danger. He got what he always wanted - to be a | wartime PM | somewhatbetter wrote: | Thanks to god for covid i don't have to return to the office. It | is a small price the humanity have to pay for that, so it is ok. | erhk wrote: | Ill happily find you a remote job pre covid to undo all this | sdze wrote: | I feel you. | asadkn wrote: | Wouldn't it be better, then, at this point, to focus on | hospitalization numbers rather than infections or deaths alone. | As vaccines have been, reportedly, very good at preventing | hospitalizations. | | It doesn't matter if there's 1 death, if hundreds are being | hospitalized per day, overflowing the health care system. | | The problem isn't just mortality rate of covid-19 itself, it's | also how hospitals are other treatments are affected. You better | hope you don't get sick when the health care system is overloaded | or at capacity. | websites2023 wrote: | That this article is even necessary proves that our leadership in | the west has utterly failed to convey the goal of Coronavirus | suppression tactics. Either that, or the sensible message is | being morphed, funhouse mirror style, even through the most banal | of media outlets. | | COVID-19 in some form was always going to be around forever. The | goal was never complete eradication. Perhaps the miracle of the | mRNA vaccine led us to fantasize, a little too openly, about | going back to the pre-pandemic status quo. But that was never | going to be the case. | | Personally, I've already moved on. I'll wear a mask as the | situation dictates. I'll get the boosters. I'll keep mailing in | my nasal tests twice a week and check the results. I'll keep an | eye on the hospital numbers and modify my risky behavior as | needed. I won't argue with people about the mask, about vaccines, | about the origins. I'll work from home as long as they'll let me | and go into the office when they say I've got to -- or I'll find | another job. | | I've already made peace with this thing. I've moved on. If I get | it, I get it -- but there's no real use in obsessing over it any | longer. I've adapted, and I'm ok with that. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-08-23 23:01 UTC)