More Americans are saying they’re ‘vaxxed and done’
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
As a parent of a young kid it kind of feels like everyone has just moved on. I know folks in here will tell me that statistically speaking my children are unlikely to be hospitalized and so on, and I agree. But I know enough kids who got COVID and suffered the symptoms (e.g. a months-long scratchy cough) that I'm not going to stop worrying about it. We're still very unclear on the long-term effects of COVID, after all.
Couple that to daycare/preschool shutdowns: if there's a case in the class we've got to keep our kids at home for a week. We both work. We can deal with it, lord knows we've had to do it enough times already, but it's absolutely draining. And the stress of waiting/expecting the phone call from the school is always there, particularly in this Omicron phase where it feels like everyone and their dog is contracting it. And this comes from two parents that work from home. We're the luckiest of the lot!
Pfizer has already announced their trial with under 5s was not successful and they'll have to restart. Moderna was supposed to close out a trial in late November but instead expanded it to hundreds of new participants. Why? Unclear. Last I saw no-one seems to be covering it in detail. Out of sight, out of mind.
Parent of 2 very young kids here btw - it's been brutal, I feel your pain. Frankly, our kids get enough other diseases from nursery that a months-long scratchy cough doesn't sound too terrifying.
I have no idea. I'm not an expert. And no experts seem to be talking. Our preschool recently switched from a 14 day shutdown to 7 day plus negative PCR test to re-enter. At least there's that?
> Frankly, our kids get enough other diseases from nursery that a months-long scratchy cough doesn't sound too terrifying.
We'll have to agree to disagree there. My kids have never had anything that's lasted for months, the kid I know with the cough was waking up in the middle of the night coughing most nights. No thank you.
Our youngest also had Croup last year, which is pretty scary if you don't know it. It shows up as a horrible, barking cough, and can make it look like your baby is suddenly struggling to breathe. We panicked and called an ambulance. The little one was just fine, but had the horrible cough (which is much worse at night) for a while.
Once our pre-school care re-opened (it was shut for many months after March 2020) and the regular diseases started circulation again, it felt like we were ill for several months, albeit with different diseases. We'd send our kids in on Monday, and wait to see what we'd have for the weekend...
I'm not saying this to complain - as I see it, this is the reality of life with the little snot-nosed monsters.
Every single one of those kids at drop-off and pickup has a runny nose. I am pretty sure we have an informal agreement amongst all the parents that no one gets their kid tested for COVID. It is one thing to do all this song and dance without an available vaccine, but it has been widely available for over a year.
The vast majority of those in ICUs and morgues are unvaccinated.
Where I live (Wales), total ICU usage right now is 77%. The absolute numbers are very small. If you want to make an argument that people should not add an un-necessary burden on the health services, then why restrict the discussion to Covid?
Few parents would willingly sign their preschooler (or themselves) up for intellectual disabilities, type-1 diabetes, or chronic fatigue syndrome.
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e2.htm
[3] https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-region/2022/01/08/lo...
Yes, I have seen many preliminary studies linking Covid to many different long-term health problems [1]. Personally, and especially as Covid has been around for over 2 years at this point, I strongly prefer to avoid the obvious long-term damage caused to my kids by the disruption of their academic and social development.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/10/01/restless-an...
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/11/18/1055071...
Given the incredible age-based disparity in severity of Covid, I wonder if any of those results (such as they are) are even applicable to our discussion.
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/does-covid19-cause-d...
We'll get long term data, after a long term has passed.
And yes, there are always going to be >0 people with permanent organ damage. Because disease progression in a human host is a complex system. But what actually matters is the incidence rate at scale.
Or, to put it another way, everyone has a >0 chance of winning the lottery, but does that mean they should invest in lottery tickets?
https://dom-pubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dom.142...
Diabetes has been documented as a symptom of cytomegalovirus (mono), mumps, rubella, rotavirus, and enteroviruses (polio and hand-foot-mouth). Fatigue is a symptom of lyme disease and mono.
I don't want my kids to get any of those either, and they were vaccinated for mumps, rubella, rotavirus, and polio by age 1. If I have the choice of being cautious for 3 months until a vaccine is available for COVID, I'll take it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytomegalovirus
Most cases of mono are caused by EBV, but CMV primarily presents as mono, and sometimes pneumonia.
EBV/mono is another common childhood illness with lots of nasty potential chronic complications, including lymphoma, other cancers, CFS, and autoimmune diseases like lupus, MS, and rheumatoid arthritis.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's lower incidence of chronic complications than Delta and earlier variants, though. Long COVID seems to be associated with (but not unique to) more severe cases. If there's pneumonia or ARDS, there's a much easier pathway into the bloodstream than if it infects mucus membrane tissue in the upper airways. It likely can still cause long COVID, but at a lower rate corresponding to its generally lower severity.
Obviously, full studies of long-term effects are lacking, since Omicron has only been out for a month and a half.
There is a lack of data on the long term effects of the disease, as well as the recommended treatment.
I guess I am quite surprised to hear that there are drug trials for healthy children that young.
In this case, the risk/reward seems very imbalanced almost to the point being unethical.
You can not know longer-term effects before the 5 year trial has concluded, so approving after a short trial and then inevitably mandating is one of the most reckless large-scale experiments ever done.
In addition to cutting down approval steps due to a shortened time frame as well as using a vaccine protocol to EUA a gene therapy based vaxx tech, they are also skipping the childhood science advisory panel after they said no the first time [1].
This is not how you do science.
[1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters...
There are trials for all sorts of drugs for all ages. Generally they’ll “walk down” the age spectrum, ie start with adults, then teens, then younger kids. Pfizer is running a vaccine study for <6-month olds, too. Covid is less of a risk for little kids, but it’s not zero risk, and I’d rather my kids not be immunologically naïve when they encounter it.
Regulatory - The FDA et al. have a higher standard for what they'll approve in young children, given their developmental stages and substantial post-vaccine expected lifespan.
Biological - Early childhood immune systems work differently than adults', in that they have substantially boosted innate/naive defenses, but much poorer adaptive defenses. Consequently, whether and at what dosage a vaccine will be effective changes.
(Welcome corrections if the above summary is inaccurate)
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolesc...
Shouldn’t we try very hard to avoid the possibility of screwing up a growing child’s body?
That's why we have the vaccine trials.
They're the very last step in testing a vaccine. And there really is no other option: if the end result is going to a vaccine given to small children at some point you're going to have to give it to some small children and see what happens. The only way around it is to not vaccinate children at all... which doesn't seem great from an ethical standpoint given the number of lives that have been saved by vaccines.
The FDA skipping essential vaccine approval procedures in childhood vaccines, given fewer kids died of covid in 2020 than from the flu the year before, is one of the best signs that we are in a mass formation [2].
I understand that because there is only a liability shield for vaccines given to children pharma wants it for business reasons, but the FDA science advisory panel said risk vs reward does not scientifically justify childhood covid vaxx.
[1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLDpZ8daIVM
There are studies coming out showing heart inflammation in younger people caused by the vaccines.
We should weigh up all the info to make a properly informed decision. Trials are there for a reason after all.
See the graph here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0/figures/2
Yes, that's why we vaccinate. Those pesky diseases can screw up a growing child's body quite effectively.
How many children are you referring to?
The 100,000 doses of Cutter-manufactured Salk vaccine in 1955 with insufficiently inactivated, producing ~300 cases of paralytic polio, and causing the NIH & PHS to create and apply minimum manufacturing standards?
Then, consider that women are born with all the eggs they will ever have.
Now tell me it is a good idea to roll the dice and give that vax to a 5 year old girl and risk harming her reproductive future to avoid what will essentially be a cold to her if she contracts.
Pharma is a business. Children are just another demographic for them to expand into. In the aggregate, they have shown that they care very little about the long term negative effects of any drug.
Maybe that is OK when we’re testing MS drugs or on people with shortened life spans, but children need to be protected. They are stuck with any damage that is done for the long, long term.
That being said, after hearing about 10- and 11-year-olds pretending to be 12 so that they could get vaccinated I did have a moment where I wondered if she could pass for 5.
The major downsides are that you'd be missing out on information about side effects from vaccination, and on possible clinical-trial data that might show a different, better, dosage in your kid's age range.
Why? Is there any data to suggest that children are at risk of severe illness or complications? Isn't it a fact that children do not appreciably spread covid?
can someone please explain to me the thought process of enrolling your child in an experimental medical trial for a medicine they probably don't even need?
There's a lot of reason to be optimistic about omicron.
Many many many people are getting omicron and having relatively mild infections. It is not the same variant. That doesn't mean it's 100% safe, obviously, but it certainly appears to be safeer.
Nobody says that if they know what they’re talking about.
The phrase is actually “The plural of anecdote is not evidence”. You can Google it if you don’t believe me.
You can’t collect a couple of anecdote and pretend it’s data.
I always thought the phrase was "The plural of anecdote is not data" but it looks like that is a misquote:
Nelson W. Polsby PS, Vol. 17, No. 4. (Autumn, 1984), pp. 778-781. Pg. 779: Raymond Wolfinger’s brilliant aphorism “the plural of anecdote is data” never inspired a better or more skilled researcher.
I e-mailed Wolfinger last year and got the following response from him:
“I said ‘The plural of anecdote is data’ some time in the 1969-70 academic year while teaching a graduate seminar at Stanford. The occasion was a student’s dismissal of a simple factual statement–by another student or me–as a mere anecdote. The quotation was my rejoinder. Since then I have missed few opportunities to quote myself. The only appearance in print that I can remember is Nelson Polsby’s accurate quotation and attribution in an article in PS: Political Science and Politics in 1993; I believe it was in the first issue of the year.”
To add another link to the one Bumby has http://blog.danwin.com/don-t-forget-the-plural-of-anecdote-i...
which actually it makes a lot more sense to me this quote than the misquote because >You can’t collect a couple of anecdote and pretend it’s data.
sure but you can collect 10000 anecdotes, put them in a spreadsheet with some information about the people who said it, and suddenly you got data.
I mean that is basically what I thought to myself every time somebody said the plural of anecdote is not data but bit my tongue because not wanting to get into a war over it, and now I find out the original was actually exactly what I thought it should be.
Thanks munificent! Your name certainly applies for me.
"The plural of anecdote is not data."
The methodology of collecting anecdotes matters immensely. Merely collecting anecdotes based on whoever manages to comment in a random thread opens your collection process up to massive selection bias. In fact we even have a name for this process: a filter bubble. Every filter bubble in existence is the result of people assuming that not only is the population of their bubble representative of the average person (it's not), but also that people on either side of an issue will be equally likely to offer their anecdote (they're not).
Without rigorous collection methodology, anecdotes do not sum to data.
(Note that this comment says nothing about the broader topic of omicron severity; I don't have data, listen to people who do.)
But that's not as pithy.
> you can collect 10000 anecdotes, put them in a spreadsheet with some information about the people who said it, and suddenly you got data.
You can, but that's not a controlled study. The anecdotes can't be verified. So that data is not worth citing. I wish it were, which would make science a lot easier.
This is about more than denying issues. It's about trying to get the whole picture. Ignoring any anecdotes you don't agree with doesn't help you get the whole picture.
I think you misunderstood. The point was that it’s not about picking anecdotes that support your conclusion.
You have to look at broader data collection and studies, not just whatever small bits of anecdata are conveniently nearby.
Moreover, those who get better nevertheless contribute to the stresses that are stretching health care system and economy to its limits. These stresses cause second order harms to those having to go without care as resources are mobilized to support those who "will be fine."
>A study looking at interventions in 11 European countries found that lockdowns and social distancing in the first wave helped lower the reproductive number (R) to below 1 by early May 2020[2]. R measures how many people one infected person will pass the virus on to. When R is above 1, the number of infections can rise exponentially. When R is below 1, the number of infections drops.
>In this study, the scientists developed a model to predict how many people would have died in these 11 countries, if no lockdown measures had been introduced. Comparing the actual number of deaths counted with the number of deaths predicted by their model, in the absence of any interventions, they found that around 3.1 million deaths were averted across these 11 countries from the beginning of the epidemic up until 4 May 2020. Scientific evidence shows that COVID-19 restrictions reduced virus transmission and, by extension, saved lives
0: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/evidence-shows-that-l...
Regardless of what you think of Makary's original opinion, there's no universe in which a prediction of the future from a medical expert should be labeled misinformation. If that's the bar, then ~all of the statistical models used to make scary predictions about Covid are also "misinformation", as are 95% of the things Anthony Fauci says on cable news.
"Politicians are holding children hostage in the basement of a pizza place" => clearly incorrect factual statement.
"I think that Covid infections will be far below their current numbers by summer" => opinion about the future.
(Regarding the particular claim advanced by health feedback here: it's a "fact check" based on a single paper, written by Neil Ferugson's group, that attempts to validate the predictions made by...Neil Ferguson's group. There have now been many others that say the opposite [1]. At the very least, you'd hope that a reputable "fact-checking" site would discuss these to present a balanced picture of the debate. Health feedback doesn't bother.)
[1] https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-co...
So I'm really not even sure where to start. Perhaps I should start with the fact that, under the best possible interpretation, you're treating the conceptual nuance of prediction vs. statement of fact as if it completely discredits the ability if Health Feedback to accurately parse COVID research. That is totally out of proportion to what would actually be proved by that argument.
It's also, I believe a distinction that is basically without merit as a commentary on what does or doesn't count as misinformation. Predictions most definitely do contain misinformation, serve to spread misinformation, can be based on bad reasoning that it is appropriate to criticize well ahead of the events they are predicting. In this case, the WSJ prediction turned out to be false and it was perfectly appropriate to call it out for the misinformation it was, and seeking cover by litigating whether the misinformation was retrospective or forward looking without defending the accuracy or underlying reasoning is asinine.
>Regarding the particular claim advanced by health feedback here: it's a "fact check" based on a single paper, written by Neil Ferugson's group, that attempts to validate the predictions made by...Neil Ferguson's group.
And this is so unhinged I almost don't even know what to say. There's nothing untoward about doing research that weighs on other research you have done; it's in collaboration with other partners and peer reviewed. If something was actually wrong with the study you could come out and say so instead of making captain of the JV debate team insinuations about hypothetical possibility of impropriety.
None of this is true. Frankly, I'm not even sure what the middle part means...herd immunity is not a "strategy"; it's just a fact. It's like claiming that "gravity" is a "strategy" for landing an airplane.
> So I'm really not even sure where to start
It's always good to start with something that isn't a fabrication and an ad hominem.
Their "Herd Immunity Strategy": Keep the elder parts of the population locked up and let children and younger parts get it without vaccination: https://gbdeclaration.org/
"In October 2020, AIER sponsored the “Great Barrington Declaration,” a controversial statement advocating for a herd immunity strategy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Health Organization and other health experts have suggested a herd immunity strategy would be “unethical,” dangerous, and deadly."
More info: https://www.desmog.com/american-institute-economic-research/
Again, herd immunity is not a "strategy". It is a fact. Global vaccination is also a "herd immunity strategy", in that it tries to achieve herd immunity in the population.
But now that I've cleared that up, you should also know that's not what the GBD says. Maybe you should actually read it, instead of repeating what other people say about it?
This willingness to rely on hearsay explains a lot why you're eager to dismiss a page full of links to studies (which is honestly the only reason I used the AIER page), instead of, you know, considering that there might be a debate here.
Obviously, it's much easier to pretend that you're right when you impugn any source that disagrees with your opinion, for disagreeing with your opinion.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2
if you are right, fix the Wikipedia entry ;)
Did you check who co-signed it? Mr Banana Rama, Dr Johnny Bananas, Dr Johnny Fartpants, Dr Person Fakename, Harold Shipman, Professor Notaf Uckingclue, and Prof Cominic Dummings.
Also the study your sit you are in good company ...
And does not address any articles published in that year that showed effects. Here's one: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7
You can find way more than the "sources" your article cites. AIER is partisan and does not give you "the evidence."
But the model probably relies heavily on extrapolation. It is like an election forecast. That can have merit, but doesn't really lead to a definitive result.
Suppose 990/1,000 people that took a pill where fine and the rest died. Clearly it’s a serious risk even if you’re almost guaranteed to be fine. Looking at anecdotal evidence would show “most people where fine”/“10 cases of people dying!” But let’s change the numbers 999,999,990/1,000,000,000 took a pill and 10 died, now is it a serious risk or roughly as dangerous as driving to work? You still have “10 cases of people dying!” but it’s nowhere near the same thing.
The vaccine that was pulled very much came down to anecdotes vs numbers of injections in a cost benefit analysis. Presumably it would have still been administered to the elderly if their where no alternative vaccines. But as their where alternatives it wasn’t worth putting people at even such low risks.
You can download the data and crunch it... https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html though note:
> Reports may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.
> The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted or used to reach conclusions about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
I love basing my opinions off of shitty data.
I would not be surprised that the anti-vaxxers know more about VAERS than the general population.
E.g. if 100 people walked out the door and had a heart attack the next day, you need to understand the base rate of heart attacks to know whether 100 is high, low, or normal. Then you need to put that number in the context of statistical significance, e.g. p < 0.05 means an up to 1 in 20 probability that your data is there by random chance, and if you look through all the AEFI data you'll analyse much more than 20 types of adverse event, so you'll most likely find an adverse event or two that looks statistically significant but fails to replicate in any studies.
> A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.
(crunching some data... Death... Death of pet is listed as one of them? well... ok)
And just looking at that data its... self reported. For example, running it for the current vaccines there's one death reported for a person under 6 months old which is rather surprising since it's not authorized for that age range.
Anyways, the thing is that doing the "simple" query on this shows that 2,694 age 80+ died after receiving the vaccine. That needs to be calibrated against the question of "how many people aged 80+ would die in that time range without either covid or the vaccine being present?"
And that is exactly the problem that you're describing.
The key thing is its there and if people want to approach the data using the proper statistical rigor... the data is there.
The relevant pipeline blog post: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/get-ready-false-si...
> Bob Wachter of UCSF had a very good thread on Twitter about vaccine rollouts the other day, and one of the good points he made was this one. We're talking about treating very, very large populations, which means that you're going to see the usual run of mortality and morbidity that you see across large samples. Specifically, if you take 10 million people and just wave your hand back and forth over their upper arms, in the next two months you would expect to see about 4,000 heart attacks. About 4,000 strokes. Over 9,000 new diagnoses of cancer. And about 14,000 of that ten million will die, out of usual all-causes mortality. No one would notice. That's how many people die and get sick anyway.
> But if you took those ten million people and gave them a new vaccine instead, there's a real danger that those heart attacks, cancer diagnoses, and deaths will be attributed to the vaccine. I mean, if you reach a large enough population, you are literally going to have cases where someone gets the vaccine and drops dead the next day (just as they would have if they didn't get the vaccine). It could prove difficult to convince that person's friends and relatives of that lack of connection, though. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the most powerful fallacies of human logic, and we're not going to get rid of it any time soon. Especially when it comes to vaccines. The best we can do, I think, is to try to get the word out in advance. Let people know that such things are going to happen, because people get sick and die constantly in this world. The key will be whether they are getting sick or dying at a noticeably higher rate once they have been vaccinated.
The referenced tweet is: https://twitter.com/Bob_Wachter/status/1333966348972539904?s...
Do you think it is worth getting the vaccine if you’ve already had covid and it wasn’t a big deal?
As in if you have firsthand experience that covid didn’t affect you much, wouldn’t that maybe be a valid reason to just say I’m not going to get vaccinated even though the risks of adverse short term effects are small (still don’t know about long term but probably small is my guess)
That said, quite a few people that had COVID before end up suffering far more the second time. As long as we are talking about individual cases, the first person do die of omicron was in their 50’s and had COVID before but never got vaccinated. But again even if we are talking about a 25 year old athlete you only get ~70 * 365 days, why spend more of them sick than you need to?
No reason to undermine a response that clearly was comparing one anecdote with another. Considering how children have been amazingly spared the effects of sars-cov-2 it is hard to see that they seem to have held the lions share of the mandates to slow the inevitable spread. And still do as the vaccined did not provide the high immuinty they initially promised.
The vaccines do an amazing job reducing hospitalizations among the vulnerable, it is not clear they have much benefit for the toddlers, and may even be harmful. Lets move on.
Externalities are real, and as such the discussion is about acceptable risk. So yes, in the most ridiculous and obvious sense it includes your kids, but you're assuming a lot too, and I question whether you're willing to reason critically - rather than emotionally - about school policy.
Compare [2] to an estimated 216 deaths ages 0-4 and an additional 156 ages 5-17 from the flu in 2018-2019.
Those aren't perfectly comparable -- we took serious additional measures against covid that we don't take against the flu. On the other hand, how much actual masking of the 4 and under set is going on in preschool or kindergarten?
[1] https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-...
I dunno what the right measures are to take for kids that young, but the difference we're seeing between the flu measures we (mostly don't) take and some anti covid measures for young children is hard to explain.
And any time someone says, um, the data appears to show that covid is not actually that dangerous to young children, you get people (who I'm 99% sure don't lock their kids in the house for flu season) having a fit that you're risking their lives.
Not just kids learning verbal skills and to speak with masks on, but non-verbal-receptive kids, who rely more on facial expressions and visual cues.
For them, it's a double-whammy, because you're delaying their speaking and language/ listening skills further, but also depriving them of the alternative forms of communication that they rely on to cope with the primary deficits.
And that's before getting into whatever effects decreased socialization overall will have.
[1]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/24/covid-...
https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...
Roll a 100-sided die enough times, and eventually you will get a LOT of ones.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-trend
It's an average, some are 55% some are 146%
It's clearly a very systemic disease affecting almost all organs and long term effects are impossible to tell right now (as opposed to the vaccine btw which cannot by definition create random effects some years later).
This hasn't been shown at all, that study can only show that diabetes and Covid are correlated. There's no reason to think the causation doesn't run in the opposite direction.
> What are the implications for public health practice?
> The increased diabetes risk among persons aged <18 years following COVID-19 highlights the importance of COVID-19 prevention strategies in this age group, including vaccination for all eligible persons and chronic disease prevention and treatment.
• The only <18's they can track is those who get tested
• You're more likely to get tested if in the hospital or showing severe symptoms
• <18's rarely have serious symptoms unless they have comorbidities (e.g. obesity)
• Therefore, most <18's with COVID that they can track were already unhealthy prior to the disease and already more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes or another chronic health condition.
That study doesn't show Covid increases risk of diabetes, it shows that children hospitalized with Covid are more likely to develop diabetes. Two very different things.
Edit: Fixed formatting and spelling from posting on mobile
[1] https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/does-covid19-cause-d...
> "Third, the present analyses lacked information on covariates that could have affected the association between COVID-19 and incident diabetes, including prediabetes, race/ethnicity, and obesity status."
It is also important to note that correlation is not causation and this study only observes a correlation in the data set which may very well disappear after controlling for the aforementioned factors.
In New York, hospitalizations among kids quadrupled.
In Washington DC, children’s hospital admissions have roughly doubled.
In Texas, children’s hospitalizations were described as “staggering”.
In Alabama, cases were “like a rocket ship”.
In Louisiana, one doctor said: “We’ve never seen anything like it.”
In Ohio, one associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics critical care recently told ABC news: “We’re on fire.”
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/05/covid-hospit...
>> of course hospitalizations are going up
It's not the anecdotes that are scaring people, it's the number of kids in hospitals that's scaring people.
In New York, hospitalizations among everyone more than quadrupled. So if kids quadrupled, they are doing better than average:
https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/daily-hospitalization-summ...
Quotes about staggering, flaming rocket ships aside, if you don't bother to normalize your data to a meaningful baseline rate, you're either not capable of objectively analyzing the situation, or you're trying to mislead.
(It's also worth pointing out that in NY, something like 40-50% of "Covid hospitalizations" are unrelated to Covid, per the state's own statistics [1])
[1] https://gothamist.com/news/new-preliminary-state-data-shows-...
My main point is that everyone just seems to have moved on from under 5s. We've adopted a stance of "vaxxed and done" for adults and older children and paid no attention to the vax trials for under 5s taking forever. It's barely even mentioned. So we have parents across the country relying on the generosity of their employer in handling shutdowns, illnesses and so on. I'm lucky, my employer has been flexible and understanding. But I know that's not the case for a lot of people.
Moreover, the government should be representative and derive it's power from the consent of the governed. Not enforce compliance to administrative state edicts. The slide from a representative republic to a technocracy is worrying.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters...
Moreover, the governed don't want the actions of others to kill them. That's why they created a government that prevents others from polluting, driving dangerously, and spreading disease.
400
> Why are you comparing across years?
Many seem to have the misconception that covid is risky for children, while they are at low risk, so I highlight that the child covid death numbers from covid was low and comparable to a normal flu season like the one in 2019.
That would make Covid hundreds of times deadlier for children than the flu. If it were a regular flu season without the mitigations that dropped flu deaths to 1, Covid would have killed even more children.
I saw one paper claiming the reason is that MMR vaccine gives children some protection against "severe" covid due to overlapping T-cells, but didn't check if it reproduced so wouldn't believe too much in that. (And I saw it on twitter from Dr Feigl-Ding who's an alarmist type.)
This is likely correct, but
> Omicron is much less risky than other kinds of covid.
There's some indication (though no solid proof) that the jump in child hospitalizations is due to omicron being _more_ severe in children. The proposed mechanism is that its focus on the upper respiratory system instead of the lungs makes it less severe for us and worse for young children (in line with other childhood diseases that are generally taken somewhat seriously).
I think you meant to type 'vaccine'
If they are ignoring symptoms to approve a vaccine who's primary remaining benefit is ... reducing severity of symptoms ... then how exactly has the trial proved anything?
Since antibodies are no longer a reliable indicator of immunity or of preventing transmission, then reduced severity is the primary remaining benefit.
Ideally they'd be looking at a cumulative risk/prevention assessment, but I don't see how they do that while excluding observed symptoms.
If they are using antibody levels as a proxy for this when they could just ... directly observe symptoms... then there would be a bigger problem with the study than just a failure to show sufficient efficacy.
It's just a fine line between arguing what would justify FDA "approval" vs what merits have changed that actually increase the risk-versus-reward assessment.
Put another way, when the biggest excuse for not getting vaccinated was "it's experimental and not approved", it became a straw-man-esque "gotcha-trap" of a battle to achieve "approval", even though that approval process looked nothing like any before it (no matter how many times "full fda approval" is repeated).
When the metric becomes the goal, it's no longer a metric, and all that.
We get bogged down arguing whether criteria of a definition or standard are being met, while the regulators end up just redefining things.
And we're supposed to pretend the teacher applying a curved grading scale actually represents a difference in the students performance.
BUT, the tests were administered based on self-reported symptoms which were then evaluated by a staff member to decide whether a test was warranted. This absolutely blew my mind.
This kind of avoidable subjective decision making should not be happening in a clinical trial. All participants should have been tested at regular intervals.
Passed+Failed = "Passed!"
[0] There will be a reason given to ignore that first trial, it just likely won't be a good one.
How does anyone convince themselves that this is actually a problem?
Especially when the vaccine no longer prevents catching the virus or transmitting it.
What remaining benefit are people so eager to confer upon their toddlers?
-- writing this while my toddler is banished from daycare for 10 days because a single kid there tested positive.
Hopefully it's transient, soon followed by calm risk-benefit analysis.
Also vaccines reduce risk of some post-acute COVID disorders like MIS-C (which can result even from asymptomatic COVID).
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e1.htm
And of course you don't want to infect your child with a disease that has long term consequences which we are still learning about. Diabetes hit the news recently in the US, but it is actually been known for a while in other countries.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e2.htm
https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/11/e170/35903/N... (UK)
https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/27/archdischild-20... (Finland)
If that wasn't bad enough, diseases that are associated with T1D like celiac disease are on the rise, and show stronger association in COVID patients:
The study you cite specifically excludes those under 5.
Not for kids under 5. That's why it's not approved.
>And of course you don't want to infect your child with a disease
Breakthrough cases are so common now that the media refuses to use the term anymore. That (lack-of) "preventing-infection" efficacy is baked into the <5 study that showed no benefit.
>that has long term consequences which we are still learning about.
Why is this a valid concern, but potential long-term effects of the vaccines aren't? Especially the known risk of inflammation in still-growing bodies and especially in developing hearts.
Wrong. Per the Pfizer press release [0], the immunogenicity analysis of the trial failed in children ages 2 to 4, but succeeded in children ages six months to two years. Given the small dose (3ug) in that study cohort, there was probably not enough rna in the vaccine for the 2-4 age group to show any effect.
>Why is this a valid concern, but potential long-term effects of the vaccines aren't? Especially the known risk of inflammation in still-growing bodies and especially in developing hearts.
The risk of developing myocarditis from the vaccine is about 100-150 in 5 million [1]. The risk of developing myocarditis from COVID-19 is about 150 in 100,000 [2]. I know I'm picking the vaccine for my child.
[0] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02740-y [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
edited for typos.
The issue is that you're not comparing apples to apples. The Israeli data is looking at the entire population that received the vaccine. The COVID study is only looking at hospitalized patients with/without COVID which is a subset of the entire population restricted entirely to those experiencing the most severe symptoms.
This is not an easy problem to solve. A more apples to apples comparison [3] puts the COVID:vaccine myocarditis ratio at about 6:1, but it also suffers from a bias. In order to measure those rates they relied on the population that tested positive for COVID. This excludes the population of individuals which were infected with COVID but did not received a diagnosis who presumably also had a near 0 rate of myocarditis. This bias [presumably] becomes more pronounced at lower age groups where COVID displays milder symptoms making it less likely to end up diagnosed.
Finally, there is also the consideration that while the vaccines have not yet changed - COVID has. And its likely that the omicron strain will have a different distribution of side effects. It's a difficult problem to solve, and conflicts of interest abound make it all even more challenging.
[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm [2] - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02740-y [3] - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v...
Statistically we should be much more worried about something like RSV or the flu (even after vaccination).
Despite its name, SARS-CoV-2 is not strictly a "respiratory virus". While it is spread airborne, it attacks multiple tissues besides the respiratory system, and causes multi-system dysfunction (including but not limited to MIS-C, type 1 diabetes, celiac disease, acute kidney injury, erectile dysfunction, ...). Many of the damages are immune-mediated, which is in line with what we know about T1D and celiac as autoimmune disorders.
Pneumonia.
I’m all for getting kids vaccinated when it’s deemed safe and effective (my daughter got vaccinated the first week it was available). But the risk to kids is quite low.
As does early treatment, https://c19early.com
Vaccine efficacy decays monthly (Delta/2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZMtSPX3iE
Also, are you aware that children sometimes die from RSV and even the common cold? The problem COVID vaccines for kids are facing is that the problems from COVID in that age are so infrequent that they are essentially in the noise.
I think the very young child (<18 months) is at higher risk, though.
Which means that scenario playing in your head is just as likely to happen (or more likely, not happen) whether your children are vaccinated or not.
The unvaccinated get COVID 400% more than the vaccinated, and the unvaccinated die from COVID 1,200% more than the vaccinated[1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
It is pointless to quote rates without their context (country, age, virus strain, month, etcetera).
(Edit: forgot the source :P) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.30.21262866v...
Post vaxx kid: "I don't feel good." Doctor: Let's check you for this myocarditis thing I've read about.
Pre-2020 kid: "I don't feel good." Doctor: You're probably fine.
It’s true, but we’ve had plenty of vaccinated that were 90%+ effective compared to the Covid vaccines at 30% for infection risk.
My problem with that statement is that it wasn't a fact. The vaccines do prevent catching the virus, just no where near as well as they used to and even at their best they never eliminated the risk of catching and transmitting the virus.
It sucks that the new variants are able to overcome so much of the protection we had from vaccines, but we always knew there was a risk that would happen if we allowed the virus to spread uncontrolled. We didn't do enough to keep the number of infections down and evolution did its thing resulting in poorer vaccine performance.
I really hope that adjustments are able to made to existing vaccines to compensate or new vaccines are developed which do a better job, but it's going to be an arms race until people stop passing this virus around by the millions every day giving it more opportunity to mutate and spread again.
Right now, the vaccines are still the best defense we have. 30% is a hard number to hear when we had 90% but 30% of 7.9 billion people is 2,370,000,000 so it can still prevent a whole lot of infections in the world and if we work harder to bring the number of infections down hopefully we can prevent things getting much worse. My biggest fear was that some variant would evade the protections we have entirely and negate the lessons we've learned in treating the sick and we'd be right back to where we were early 2020. That's still a possibility we have to be ready to face.
Albeit, I do not believe it is that common, it's still possible. However, if you isolated in a remote location in the woods miles away from humanity, then perhaps you'd be safe, I suppose.
What we do have evidence for are future problems caused by these coronavirus infections along with a long list of immediate problems like deaths, severe (sometimes life altering) symptoms which can at times persist for weeks, months, and years, healthcare systems being overwhelmed preventing or delaying access to care and making accessing health services more risky, etc.
If you have to choose between getting a vaccine which appears to be perfectly safe but maybe could cause harm at some point in the future, and not getting it which we know does cause harm now and is very likely to cause harm in the future the choice is pretty clear. We can only deal with the evidence we have today and our best understanding of our current situation.
Especially when the vaccines benefit us not only by keeping us healthier and helping to eliminate the strain on our healthcare systems, but they are also our best bet to help reduce the need for social restrictions and disruptions in education and the economy.
There's still always that chance that the vaccines will have some negative impact on us later, but anyone in the future looking back and seeing our current situation won't have to wonder "What were they thinking taking their chances with this new vaccine!" It should be very clear to them that because we had no indication that there would be problems with the vaccine and because the vaccines were our best option to keep ourselves and each other healthy in the face of current problems and known future problems caused by the virus it was perfectly reasonable to take the chance on the vaccines and that doing so saved many lives and prevented many problems.
And I hope that should we have to deal with any future consequences from these vaccines that we can once again turn to medical science to find the best available option to treat those problems using the best understanding of them we have at the time. A huge percentage of the global population will be impacted after all so once again we'll be in a position where the entire world has an incentive to work together to find a solution which will hopefully go even smoother next time following the lessons learned here and now.
With more research and time things could change, but until there are indications that the vaccines could cause more harm than the known harms of the virus the vaccines will remain the smartest option we have today, no matter how tragic things turn out decades later.
This is enough for me to avoid them. I didn’t read the rest because it’s a short essay.
Oh please. We have a truckload of vaccines that convey multi-decade/life-long immunity. case: the smallpox vaccine, polio vaccine, etc
We truly never had a real Covid Vaccine - we only have "protective boosters" and for Omicron they are utterly in-effective.
https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/how-effective-are-co...
I wonder if the early data has been proven wrong or if something is wonky about Alberta. At even 30% effectiveness you’d expect to see a big gap between unvaccinated and vaccinated new cases.
Weirdly near the bottom of your link they show nearly 90% effectiveness against all the variants of concern, but omicron isn’t listed. It seems like the vaccines would have to be negatively effective against omicron for all the other data to work out, though.
It seems unlikely that the Alberta population is experiencing a significantly different pandemic than neighbouring regions (demographics and responses are largely the same). I also wouldn't conclude from this data that vaccines are negatively effective as hospitalization rates are lower in the vaccinated group.
I agree. But I don’t understand that data. It doesn’t seem to line up with data from other areas.
e.g. Seattle is seeing 2.5x more infections among the unvaccinated.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/record-covi...
If you search hard enough (and quickly enough, they’ll likely be removed soon as they’re anti-narrative) you’ll find articles of people discussing exactly this. That the vaccine actually increases your chance of infection.
You can find anything online if you search hard enough. That doesn’t mean it’s true. It probably means you’re actively seeking out bias-confirming articles.
> (and quickly enough, they’ll likely be removed soon as they’re anti-narrative)
And now it’s full on conspiracy theory. This stuff is nuts. People like Alex Jones loudly put forward blatant lies that are “anti-narrative” and no one shuts them down. Why does every group imagine they are persecuted?
> you’ll find articles of people discussing exactly this. That the vaccine actually increases your chance of infection.
I would be interested in any relevant reputable articles showing this, but I’m pretty certain there are none.
It's not conspiracy theorist BS to suggest Google shapes search results for various reasons, to include politics. They been forced to admit as much. And before you use the confirmation bias argument, I'm pro-vax and all in favor of as many boosters as they offer.
The existence of that article in the New York Times would certainly seem to indicate a lack of suppression.
I do appreciate the link, though. That’s interesting and I hadn’t heard that was a concern. I wonder if there is science evidence that or if it’s hypothetical. The article doesn’t indicate one way or the other unless I missed it.
I don't know a ton about the science behind it other than some teams in Israel seem to have pretty strong feelings about it (more pointed than what's in the NYT article), but in my quick search I didn't see them in the search results.
With regards to search shaping, it's pretty easy to see: just Google image search "black inventors" then "white inventors". Also try "black family" then "white family". I'm not claiming any kind of oppression here, just noting that one of the sets of results looks like a Benetton-style diversity ad, while the other just has black people. I find it difficult to believe this was an organic result that wasn't explicitly influenced behind the scenes.
You could be right. I certainly see that “white family” involves a fair number of pictures of non-white folks. Individually the results all make sense (one from an article called “my white family”, stock photo “interracial black white family”, another about from an article about adopting a white child), but it’s odd that “black family” doesn’t have the same.
At the same time, it’s entirely plausible that this is just surfacing biases in the input. Maybe articles about families that aren’t just white have higher page rank? Maybe it’s something else. It’s interesting, but I’m doubtful it’s intentional (but it could be). If Google wanted to push a bias, it would make a lot more sense to push it on the unqualified “family” or “inventors”.
“White inventors” showing some black inventors makes a lot of sense given popular articles like “The iconic American inventor is still a white male” that specifically discuss non-white inventors.
The vaccines never stopped catching or transmission... they lessen the chances of you developing severe symptoms, your immune system still has to work.
Although I hope we will see vaccines that do a better job at preventing infection and transmission the benefits we're getting from them right now are enough that everyone who can should be vaccinated and boosted as needed to maintain those benefits.
Do you have a source on that?
My understanding is the reason it's taking so long is 1) an abundance of caution because the risk/reward calculation is different and 2) young children's immune systems don't work the same as adults').
The unvaxxed won't be killing off each other at a rate much (if any) higher then the vaxed and this is clear as day right now. Numbers.
What is it about this disease that is causing otherwise intelligent people to step into this reality of alternate (and untrue) facts? Even US supreme court justices.
I don't mean this as an attack, it's just I don't get it.
> Preliminary state data suggest that more than 90 percent of today’s deaths are still among unvaccinated people.
Source they provided: https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-sta...
From the numbers, it seems fairly clear that this virus is much more likely to cause death amongst the unvaccinated - unless I'm misinterpreting.
Given that fully vaxxed places are blowing up in case numbers, the vax obviously isn't stopping transmission much if at all right now.
Many more people are vaxxed then not right now. So if you are unvaxed and infected on a trip to the store who most likely gave it to you? A vaxxed person or an unvaxxed person?
"Unvaxxed killing each other off" is a hysterical take and inaccurate.
According to NatGeo "mass die off" is 90% of the population. I'd be alarmed at 6% die off in humans and not even be posting on the topic, but we are at less then 1%. For the unvaxxed.
"Killing each other off" just doesn't fit here.
Some countries reported more all-cause deaths for 2020.
Some states/countries sent Covid-infected patients into nursing homes, which did not help.
This is one of those "obvious" things that mathematically isn't obvious at all.
Any slope of a line could be steeper or shallower, so looking at that alone obviously can't tell you if the slope is 1% shallower than it could be, 5%, 10%, 50%... it's not like we hit "100% of the population has had covid now" overnight.
Where I live, in California, there has been a months-long-and-holding-steady trend that vaccinated people have much lower cases per capita and much, MUCH lower deaths per capita. Total cases went up when we relaxed restrictions which coincided with when vaccines were widespread. That's not the same as vaccinations causing those higher total case numbers! Now total case numbers are going up again due to seasonal factors + omicron having a lot of mutations; it's too early to say just yet exactly how the vax/unvax per-capita numbers will look for this wave when it's over. As of Dec 26, it was tracking pretty similarly, though[0]... it seems to blow up that dude's case: many fewer vaccination doses are being given now than during the last big waves!
EDIT: here are the money bits that I would need to see really compelling evidence to believe are coincidental/misinterpreted/etc:
* From December 20, 2021 to December 26, 2021, unvaccinated people were 3.9 times more likely to get COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
* From December 13, 2021 to December 19, 2021, unvaccinated people were 10.1 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
* From December 6, 2021 to December 12, 2021, unvaccinated people were 16.6 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
Transmission, severity, and death, all. And that's after the omicron variant reached the state, especially for transmission, though admittedly before it has peaked (it possibly hasn't even peaked yet, still).
UK numbers show that only 1% of Covid-recovered people are reinfected, which is why the EU pass equated recovery with vaccination (which does not prevent infection or transmission).
It would be more accurate if US hospital data was separated into:
Fully vax
Partly vax
Unvax + Covid-recovered
Unvax + Covid-naiveWhy?
If someone in the US continues to reject vaccination, I don't know what to do about it at this point. But there's big populations that haven't been vaccinated because they haven't had a chance. It's crucial to give them that chance.
This tautology doesn’t inform me of anything.
Are you this unempathic and selfish in real life?
> Are you this unempathic and selfish in real life?
I do as little as possible for people who do not do for me.
2. Because the quicker and more widely covid spreads the more chance it has to evolve new variants, and those variants will spread worldwide. So everyone has an interest in slowing it down everywhere in order to protect themselves against potential future variants.
We do place limits on risking death in our society. I don't know if it can be based on objective criteria. We don't let people drive cars without seat belts, or attend school without certain vaccinations. Widespread exposure to a disease of the nature of COVID, under a flood of misinformation, had exactly zero advocates two years ago.
I don't have an answer, and was deliberately being a bit vague about whether I'm at peace with it or not. I'm willing to leave it at being on the fence.
Bicyclist probably get way more injuries per mile than motorcyclists. It's risky!
Dedicated, fully separated paths with no conflict points have very low fatality rates. Also, even in risky areas there is a net positive effect on mortality.
Cyclists have to figure out safety by guesswork. One thing that's reasonably certain is that cars cause the majority of cycling injuries (not counting mountain biking, which I'm not equipped for). I have a rule of thumb, which is that if a car can crash into another car, or into stationary objects such as buildings, then it can crash into a cyclist. So I look at where car crashes occur: Mostly on higher speed, congested roads, and especially at intersections. My first safety rule is route choice, and I avoid routes with a lot of car traffic. I rarely encounter cars on my commute to work.
From what I can tell, Europe has more regulations and fewer lawsuits.
Most likely they’ll get the disease, completely recover and move on.
If you believe prior cases of COVID don’t affect your survival rate in subsequent cases, and that there will be an infinite number of similarly deadly successive variants, then you conclude that most unvaccinated people will eventually get the variant that kills them.
I think this makes three large assumptions:
1. That natural infection doesn't result in durable immunity. This appears to be, unquestionably, not true [1].
2. Those that are unvaccinated will not get a natural infection. This is exceedingly unlikely, assuming they're living normal lives.
3. Vaccines will be constantly updated. This appears to be true, with a large time delay (see omicron vaccine being worked on now).
I agree that "kill one another off" was a bit hyperbolic, but it was past the edit window before I noticed that it was being genuinely misunderstood. All I meant was what would seem to be happening: People exposing one another to a communicable disease with a death rate of X. I was arguably using the wrong terminology for the magnitude of X.
Whether a death rate of X is acceptable or not may depend on social acceptance of the cause, the visibility of the cause (plane crashes always make the news, suicides don't) social class, etc. This is evident in the use of analogies within this sub thread, as a way of trying to make sense of the issue.
With natural immunity [1], the death rate will not be constant [2].
1. https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
& for those who want to go “buhh we don’t know how duh vaccine will effect their developmental growth either” - I don’t have much to say to you other than I wish you had an education…
Bronchitis is not a communicable disease.
Bronchitis is inflammation of the lining of the bronchial tubes which is typically caused by either smoking or viruses.
If you don't smoke, then what you got from your young daughter was almost certainly a virus.
Could have been influenza, or the common cold, or covid again.
I also hope the collective we makes progress on understanding the nature of long COVID and can find a strategy for mitigating its consequences. Anecdotal accounts of the bewildering and depressing range of affects it is having on some people (last estimate I saw, 30% of cases, but that's pre-omicron AFAIK) make me very much wish to avoid omicron, and keep my kids free of it if possible (very unlikely given our collective decision in the US that it is now "endemic.")
What we do know about covid is for example fatigue and long term lung damage, both which can have very debilitating effects on health, wealth and social well being. Lung damage in particular can be hard to detect without doing an actually study after the infection.
I'm not saying this to downplay the effects of Covid/Omicron, but rather to make the point that long-term damage from "mild" infections is not new. What matters is how many people are affected. Omicron will undoubtedly ruin the lives of some people who recover from the initial infection.
The criteria I would use is if the medical community is recommending testing for damage after illness. I an pretty use the recommendation is not to test the lungs, kidneys, heart, and brain after an influenza infection for people with no other symptoms. I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me here.
I do know however that dive doctors recommend divers to test for lung damage after a confirmed covid infection, even with no symptoms after infection. There is no such recommendation for influenza, so I would hazard a guess that the risk for otherwise healthy divers after an influenza infection is less than of covid. I have yet see a recommendation for omicron, but for now I would be cautious until the data is in.
For covid it is good to keeping an eye on oxygen levels. There are not many good tools to do this, through the skin do turn blue when things start to go very bad. Oxygen capacity can go down a fair amount before there is obvious signs, especially if the patient is laying down. The recommended medicine is pure oxygen which will require a hospital visit.
Personally I am more worried about covid. It is easier to monitor the fever of the flu, the signs for trouble is more clear, and the medical guidelines for when to go to the hospital is well established. Worrying oxygen levels are silent, harder to measure, and the medicine isn't something that people usually have at home. The guidelines are not fully established and there is ongoing research studies on the effects.
I've had a couple different SPO2 meters for a few years, they seem to work pretty reliably.
Not yet as accessible as a thermometer if you're talking about population measures, but since it sounds like this is something that concerns you personally it might be worth getting one.
With proper discipline, it is straightforward to avoid it.
I do agree with you about that being a defeatist attitude.
On the other hand, I wish we knew more how this is transmitted. People eating indoors isn't the main vector of transmission. And masks don't help much either. And eventually getting a booster every 6 months won't do much either
this doesn't diminish the importance of the tie, but rather should just reveal that what we've always known about covid remains true - its a serious disease and having other underlying medical issues makes it significantly worse.
i would bet against any conclusion however that having covid makes kids more likely to develop diabetes.
What does that mean and how is it not self-defeating? As in presumably one avoids covid due to its adverse impact on quality of life. But if you're willing to fully sacrifice your quality of life, then my assumption must be flawed.
What's the value you're maximizing here?
These kinds of comments baffle me. It's almost as if people can't imagine that other people might have very different experiences, and that those experiences are equally valid.
Pandemics are statistical events. Individual stories are irrelevant because the true picture is always a collective summary of cause and effect.
No one can generalise from personal experience - except possibly those working on the front lines, who have to deal personally with the consequences of poor decisions.
The reality is that when you have a rapidly mutating pathogen, the pandemic is done when it stops mutating and becomes mild enough for health services to return to something resembling normality.
This may or may not happen after Omicron. It might, but it just as easily might not.
Personal opinion is absolutely not a factor in this.
There's reason to be optimistic about Omicron, but one of the things that irks me is people getting ahead of themselves with that optimism (e.g. get taking preliminary reports that it could be milder as "it is milder so we don't have do anything anymore.").
I haven't looked into it in enough detail to be making any categorical recommendation to parents, but it's worth pointing out that this is one case where omicron is not cause for optimism.
Even if they never contract COVID, you still have to worry and plan around the unknowable - can I take that meeting two weeks from now? I may have to be home quarantining with my kids. And since by definition you don’t know when or if that will happen, you have no way to quell that anxiety. It just exists as constant background noise you never had before. It’s debilitating.
You're making it sound like contracting covid is a one-and-done thing.
Yet, it isn't. Far from it. People already caught it multiple times, from multiple strains, some with deadly consequences.
Furthermore, thus non-chalant approach to covid actually contributes to it's spread and consequently increases chances that an unmanageable strain pops up. I mean, since the initial epidemic at Wuhan, we already saw the inception of at least two new strains which were deadlier and more contagious.
At least now people start to realize that they work too much and that schools are not institutions of education any more but rather prisons for children so that their parents can be exploited by the capitalist elite class, having to work only to barely make rent.
Parents should be able to parent their children and the time effort required for that doesn't fly with both parents having to work 40 hours a week. When you have to get up at 0600 to get ready for the day, leave at 0800 for the job, come home at 1800, spend an hour making and eating dinner, you only have four to five hours with your children - and stuff like hobbies (both for parents and children), sex, dealing with adult stuff (insurances, paperwork) hasn't even been included yet.
Those who bear the full load have no representation in politics, either by socioeconomic class (most representatives are highly privileged) or by ethnic history (non-citizens cannot vote, even if they have permanent residence and pay taxes).
But isn't that normal at times for a cold season with kids?
There are lots of really nasty diseases children can get, where safe vaccinations exist. But most data so far told me with covid I have to worry much more about the social developement of my kids. That was really restricted and that is not good.
It's just the cough that remains.
https://www.medscape.com/answers/971488-177692/what-is-the-p...
Children don’t exist in isolation. They’re phenomenally good at spreading every infection to the rest of the household and everywhere else they go.
Trying to focus on children's outcomes and ignoring all of the second-order effects is dishonest. Children don’t live alone.
RSV isn't really safe for adults either. But we accept the risk.
Calculate (1-(98.99/100)7.753 billion to get 78 million deaths Calculate (1-(99.998/100)7.753 billion to get 155,060 deaths.
That seems like really good progress.
Everyone else already has it, and have access to vaccines
Closing schools while opening bars is huge failure of leadership.
Delay isn't worth anything unless hospitals are so bad people will die from preventable deaths.
Line 2: Agreed, close bars, no one needs more drug addicts
This really is _the_ important point of contention.
Phrased differently: Does viral spread in one cohort drive the viral spread in another?
And can policy be designed to drive wedges between cohorts to reduce such co-factors?
That being said, as it stands, the data doesn't support your claim. It seems child activity is largely independent of spread among adults.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1146/6024998
15 June 2021, Meta-analysis
> Children are Infrequently Identified as the Index Case of Household SARS-CoV-2 Clusters
> In analysis of the cluster index cases ... only 3.8% were identified as having a pediatric index case.
> These pediatric cases only caused 4.0% of all secondary cases, compared with the 97.8% of secondary cases that occurred when an adult was identified as the index case in the cluster.
> Clusters where the asymptomatic/symptomatic status of the contact cases was not described were excluded from the analysis. Even with this broader definition, 18.5% children were identified as the index case in the household clusters.
Also, generically, when we have a super spreadable disease, we want to minimize transmission. This is done as a precaution against mutation (the more infections mean more mutations!) and because we don’t have a good idea what the long term effects are.
If you only look at the daycare closures in isolation, you’re not doing the calculus for the system. If there is one thing we’re learning during Covid, it’s how interconnected we all are.
Finally, is the acceptance of RSV a result of a good public health decision? Or have we, as a society, just massively underindexed on ignoring public health?
There is a contradiction in there. Minimizing transmission of super spreadable disease is extremely hard, precisely because it is super spreadable; in this case, just by breathing in the same space. It could be done with very harsh measures - see the Zero Covid strategy in China - but after two years of pandemics, people are tired.
"as a precaution against mutation (the more infections mean more mutations!)"
True, but there are 8 billion people out there and a majority of them aren't living in countries that successfully minimized transmissions of covid. Further mutations will likely come anyway, as the global viral load is probably in trillions of viral particles daily. At that point, it is a question of tradeoff.
The point of the remaining ones is to not send people to hospital and spread it out some until we get antivirals.
Specifically, staffing levels are impacted by the policy of people who have tested positive but are not sick.
>>> "The crisis from the Omicron peak is not generated by serious COVID illness in regions with highly vaxxed populations," Noble wrote in an email to SFGATE. "The crisis we are suffering in the Bay Area is largely driven by disruptive COVID policies that encourage asymptomatic testing and subsequent quarantines.
Via professor of emergency medicine at UCSF https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/COVID-San-Francisco-s...
I have no idea what these asymptomatic folks are wasting hospital resources for
[1] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/ny-covid-cases-t...
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/COVID-San-Francisco-s...
I wonder if an irrational fear of COVID makes people lose all critical thinking skills.
I do not live in a state or metro with high vaccination rates.
Although, even vaccinated people hospitalized "for covid" at the moment are mostly there for things like dehydration, similar to the flu.
What? My uncle (father's real brother) is a doctor and he is fully vaccinated and boosted. Two other cousins are doctors are vaccinated and boosted. My wife's side of family has several in nursing and administration staff at hospitals, all of them are boosted. Most of the hospitals these folks mentioned above are associated with have fully vaccinated staff.
If you want to continue locking your self up fine, I don't care. Just don't try to force others to do the same.
If you do not accept the risk of coming in contact with things like the Common Cold, Flu, and now COVID, then you need to structure your life to be hermit, not have society bow to your fears
It's an absurd point and highlights the ignorance around the entire problem. Your personal choices have consequences far outside of whether you personally suffer or end up hospitalized.
Ignoring the abhorrent – yet apparently acceptable to you – idea that these people should be left to die (due to what I can only guess is some sort of naive ideation of a "survival of the fittest" concept), these people dying and being hospitalized will certainly have a negative effect on the health system and economy. While their lives may not be of interest to you, surely you can appreciate the risk of a fragile economy.
Why were we willing to let these people die in 2019 and earlier? I don't remember being told to go out of my way to protect immunocompromised people from the flu, colds, and other viruses. Were we just a more savage society back then?
We both know the answer is no. It's unfortunate that immunocompromised people are vulnerable but it's not something we can fully control in society. It's up to them and their close relatives to be as careful as they can as society cannot function in isolation forever.
This is implying that the situation pre-2020 was the same as it was during the pandemic. Is the argument really "it's just the flu"?
> It's unfortunate that immunocompromised people are vulnerable but it's not something we can fully control in society.
Indeed, it's not something we can fully control, hence we do our best.
Ultimately, my comment was in response to the idea that people who are worried should simply isolate. I gave an example of why that's fallacious. You can argue all you want about how victims are inevitable, how covid is now endemic, etc., but then say it as it is: "I don't care for the lives of the vulnerable". That would be a more factual and sincere statement.
In the technocracy we are transforming into those that happen to occupy the territory are under the care, custody, and control of the administrative state and then there are those who are noncompliant. So from that viewpoint it is perfectly logical to deny the things the administrative state provide to the noncompliant, because in the technocratic administrative state the people are granted privileges instead of the state deriving its representative power from the people. Read more here [1].
[1] https://www.takimag.com/article/prisoners-of-the-new-order/
That's a terrible response because regardless of your vaccination status, you still have an impact. Just saying "I make my choices, you make yours" is a complete misunderstanding of the entire viral nature of this.
How does not wanting a child to get an infectious disease get extrapolated to never going near a car? They are not comparable at all.
Also OP is not asking you to stay home. They are merely concerned about minimizing harm to their child (as parents do) and hoping the <5 y.o. vax approval comes sooner than later.
I chose to vaccinate myself. I don’t have kids, but I’m not sure it would be a given that I would vaccinate them yet. I think I would want to have a better understanding of the risks. Sorry you’re in that position, I’m sure it’s stressful.
After listening to Dr. Robert Malone, I’m beginning to wonder if there aren’t a non-trivial number of physicians against vaccinating kids, who are getting censored. He is adamantly against it. Problem is we can’t even have conversations about it in social media without folks getting censored.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-m...
TLDR: he got spurned early on in his career, is bitter about it, and seems to be willing to say just about anything as long as someone will give him some modicum of fame.
Wikipedia's not perfect, but his article there would be an improvement.
Ridiculous to try to sum up a scientist's life with a shallow hit piece written by a daft "woke" author.
Typical mudslinging strategy to discredit dissenters.
I can't believe people actually read trash like The Atlantic at this point.
Furthermore he states that "These proteins *often* cause permanent damage in children’s critical organs, including -Their brain and nervous system -Their heart and blood vessels, including blood clots -Their reproductive system, and -This vaccine can trigger fundamental changes to their immune system" There is absolutely no data supporting any of this as far as I can find.
Should we trust this person?
[1] https://globalcovidsummit.org/news/live-stream-event-physici...
It was removed from wikipedia, but here's an archived version:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210614140319/https://en.wikipe...
He invented the initial platform and performed the first mRNA vaccine experiments in 1989.
There's 9 patents in his name for the platforms and his name is all over the original experiments.
I don't think the powers at be can memory hole him that easily.
> What does that even mean, a "viral gene"? Toxic spike proteins?
What he's getting at is, the spike protein the vaccine makes you generate enters the heart and other organs easily and causes damage.
The spike protein itself is potentially toxic to us and causing myocarditis. There is evidence of that, how widespread is disputed.
Whether "long covid" is a symptom of this spike protein toxicity, vaccine induced or natural, is unclear.
Many many things related to covid, some taboo, some not, are yet to be determined.
> Should we trust this person?
Should we trust media reporters and random people slinging mud on the internet, I doubt it.
In this field, we should listen to him, yes, not shun him, as he has relevant domain knowledge which is clearly verifiable.
Trust implies faith, why are you "trusting" scientists? You should listen and verify.
The fact you are attacking him and not trying to disprove what he is saying is suspect.
I trust consensus I guess but I'm not an expert in any of this at all so my ability to verify anything is quite limited. I might have made a mistake here but I'm still not convinced he's trustworthy.
A scientist isn't trustworthy or not, their work speaks for itself. He invented the original mRNA platform. He was a key scientist in the first mRNA vaccine experiments.
Until then, for me, he's in the same corner as others hanging out with right-wing extremists [1] spreading misinformation.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-m...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29881075
Please be specific which statement you disagree with.
If you're referring to the statements about child vaccine side effects, I mentioned those in my earlier comment.
(1) https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-mrna-vaccine-in...
Also with regards to fundamental changes to the immune system - this is also true.
""" See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin
Original antigenic sin, also known as antigenic imprinting or the Hoskins effect,[1] refers to the propensity of the body's immune system to preferentially utilize immunological memory based on a previous infection when a second slightly different version of that foreign pathogen (e.g. a virus or bacterium) is encountered. This leaves the immune system "trapped" by the first response it has made to each antigen, and unable to mount potentially more effective responses during subsequent infections """
As far as I understand (from the wikipedia article) the Hoskins effect (also) applies if you simply got infected once. It's not something specific to the vaccine.
Claiming the "vaccine causes a fundamental change" is a bit misleading. The vaccine OR infective exposure have the described effect, which is normal! And altering the immune system to prepare it for future infections is the point of any vaccine, isn't it?
Now, one might say that it's not good to vaccinate everyone so that there remains a population that can get freshly infected with new variants and build up immunity fresh. But they'd then be altering their immune system by the response to that as well, if they don't die from the infection.
Recently, he published an article highlighting a noted increase in insurance claims (death and disability) in Indiana. He then intentionally implied a link and placed blame on the vaccine.
However, he took no care whatsoever to do any thoughtful analysis of the data before presenting the conclusions he did. He did not even attempt to perform a comparative analysis between Indiana and other states based on vaccination rates. This is low-hanging-fruit simplicity that could have either disproven his claim or supported it - if he cared to. He did not.
This is not the type of information I expect to see come from someone supposedly claiming to be on the right side of science here.
And yet it remains heavily influential, reaching millions of people via Twitter, Joe Rogan, and other mediums, reducing critical analysis to trivial opinion masking as expertise.
Since you brought it up, let's discuss it, what's your hypothesis on the cause of this death uptick?
Please put us "on the right side of science", which apparently Dr. Malone is on the wrong side of due to his hypothesis, not his contributions.
But to test these hypotheses, we would require investigation into the deaths, which maybe Dr. Malone was just trying to get people to look at.
--
For those interested in seeing the topic you're referencing for themselves:
https://www.thecentersquare.com/indiana/indiana-life-insuran...
> “And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.
> and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64”
> Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths, Davison said.
> “Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.”
Nor do we know the long term effects of the vaccines. What we do know is that children have “statistical immunity” to dying from covid right now. Long term consequences could come from either covid or a vaccine, worry about what you can control. And covid is out of control so stop worrying about it.
Also, the problem with VAERS reports is the people may just have already had it - that's why side effects for medications sometimes list the original condition as a side effect.
At this rate we're taking boosters more often than we're risking coming down with Covid. Maybe there will be some diminishing returns.
I didn’t say there were no effects from the vaccine. The fever is enough to make it not worth taking current formulation boosters twice a year.
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myoca... (second image, source is linked directly above it)
Until several years pass we don't know. Both vaccine long term effects or Covid
If you want to do some productive worrying, figure out how to reduce your child's risk of dying in a car crash. That's much more of a risk.
>Moderna was supposed to close out a trial in late November but instead expanded it to hundreds of new participants. Why? Unclear.
If I had to guess it is probably because you need a large group to prove its effective since so few children get seriously ill. Child mortality is under 0.0002%. You need a huge control group to get any sense of whether the vaccine works at preventing deaths.
Most parents already do some form of this. Car seats, booster seats, researching crash test data....
So I understand that you still need to be cautious, but you can also advocate for daycares and preschools being less hardcore about it.
I'm definitely moving toward being vaxxed and done, but the mom of my (vaxxed) 7 year old (i.e. my ex) is still in the cautious camp. I'm ok with waiting till the end of the surge or the end of the winter to dispense with the masks, but at that point.... yeah this thing needs to end. If you are dumb enough not to get yourself vaccinated and boosted, well, I'm sorry but that's on you.
Before the attitude changes and governments broaden their view, I can understand why people feel "done" with it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-10/air-po...
Like you’re free to worry about it, you’re free to be as safety minded as you want, you’re free to treat covid like the Black Death for all I care.
Am I free to just not worry about it anymore than I would the flu? (Which is very little, unless I’m going on a trip in like a week then I’m like I ain’t going out for anything)
I will pretend like covid is just a common cold until the fearful ask me to do some silly exercise like put my mask on at target so that their minds can be put at ease.
I'm not sure how it compares to the effects of covid itself, just something to think about / read up on to make an informed decision.
> We estimated extra myocarditis events to be between 1 and 10 per million persons in the month following vaccination, which was substantially lower than the 40 extra events per million persons observed following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
> Whilst myocarditis can be life-threatening, most vaccine-associated myocarditis events have been mild and self-limiting. The risk observed here is small and confined to the 7-day period following vaccination, whereas the lifetime risk of morbidity and mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantial.
"Subgroup analyses by age showed that the increased risk of events associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those aged under 40 years."
This graph shows it: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0/figures/2
I think if you are vaxed and boosted, and your older children are vaxed, and you don't live with an unvaxed vulnerable person, you can now safely continue your life activities ... mask if it doesn't inconvenience you.
And even less so the vaccines.
When your kids catch COVID they will have mild symptoms for a day or two and bounce back much faster than you or I. And yes it's a "when", not an "if". Vaccinating them against this virus is lunacy. There have been no long term studies on these shots.
Anyway, keep doing your best. There are those of us who still have empathy for you, even if many want to bully you as some sort of coward for being cautious around a novel virus that’s killed 1 million Americans and disabled countless others.
Well if you look at all the European countries that are no longer giving Moderna to males under 30, I think you'll have your answer. Don't wait for CNN to tell you why either. Also, scroll through here https://airtable.com/shrbaT4x8LG8EbvVG/tbl7xKsSUIOPAa7Mx
So we punish all of society to lower the probability of kids getting a disease which may make them uncomfortable for a while but may do basically nothing to them? Sorry but I'm willing to call that an acceptable risk.
I'm vaxxed and done (until booster time)... 4 yr old is ASD spectrum, can't really keep him out of school he needs to learn socialization skills, etc... 3yr old is way advanced verbally and starts preschool as soon as we can get him in.
I've kinda given up on worry, because there's really no way it hasn't already come around us. Maybe during allergy season in the fall when we all were sick'ish. Or maybe some fluke it hasn't - but my county has 42% vax rate, so doubt it (Utah).
I just can't mentally focus on it anymore (anxiety kills too), and statistically we're better off than before the boosters.... so in my brain it's over...for us.
We probably should go back to masking up, and have thought about it. Really can't get myself motivated to even decide if it's worth it... I have ADHD and my exec/function motivation is suffering bad lately from the stress.
I think people are literally idiots who aren't vaxxed, and I wouldn't be so cavalier if we weren't...my biggest fears were not so much my kids getting sick but my kids growing up orphaned by Covid. They already lost a grandma (Cancer+lack of decent availability to treatment during covid). If my wife and I passed in our sleep, I can't imagine what would happen to the boys all by themselves until someone checks in on them...
I'm glad that fear is mostly off the table (I mean -- death is always lurking....but not like before).
So instead of agonizing about the inevitable, we just live our lives and focus on all the other ways we can improve our health and safety. We had months long scratchy cough from swine flu before, didn't stop traveling because of that, will not stop now.
Asking because kids 1-4 are being hospitalized for COVID at the rate of 1.6/100,000, deaths are at 2/1,000,000 and traffic accident mortality is 11/100,000.
https://emilyoster.substack.com/p/covid-risks-for-small-chil...
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...
The answer to that might be to just all agree not to do this any more. Vaccine or not, the policy of shutting down a whole class if anyone has a case of CoVID is just silly for preschool aged kids.
A more cynical view:
There is already a known safe and effective way to develop antibodies in children to stop transmitting CoVID, and that's ... letting them get CoVID!
So actually if a child in the class gets CoVID, maybe they should be required to sing to the whole class in a small room for a week.
It looked for a while there like this could be a thing that gets “done”—that we would get a good vaccine into enough people, then incidence would decline so far it just goes away.
That didn’t happen. We’re stuck with it for a foreseeable future. Well, one can cry for the world that was, or one can get up and live in the world that is.
We’re not going to be done with vaccines and mandates. And that does not have to be a big deal. I have had to prove vaccination status of my kid for schools and camps for years. It’s annoying but not any harder than keeping my car registration up to date or any other minor bureaucratic headache.
I know someone who almost quit a great job because they were mad about a vaccine mandate from their employer. They were going to give up a good salary, great benefits, and a stable career because they were “so over COVID.” That is what failing the marshmallow test looks like.
I caught covid early, and while (for me) it was a nasty bug, I recovered with nothing more than a lingering cough for several weeks.
Against enormous pressure I decided not to get vaccinated. Everything I read supported that natural immunity is at least as protective as the vaccine, and most studies I've seen say it is much better. This makes sense to me, a natural immune response in a healthy person should be stronger than a vaccine, given that all a vaccine is supposed to do is "train" your immune system via an immune response to a "simulation" of the actual virus (apologies for the gross oversimplification).
I thought the marshmallow test was in the other direction - the millions of people who acquired natural immunity through infection, but "grabbed the marshmallow" in the form of the vaccine. What will the long term effects be? We don't know.
FWIW, my immunity does seem to have been pretty effective, since I just tested positive for Covid. My only symptoms were a light headache and backache. My wife, however was sick for around three days with fever and sore throat laying right next to me in bed, coughing. I took care of her, kissed her on the forehead, etc... I didn't get as much as a sniffle.
I know this is a dangerous topic, especially on the internet with strangers, so feel free to just not respond - that would be understandable. But I am curious to hear your thought process.
Chickenpox (a form of herpes) lies dormant in the system for decades causes Shingles. Vaccinations are recommended at 50+ for people who have had the former to prevent the latter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenpox
A vaccine would have lowered the odds of that, and it will still lower the odds of it happening again in the future. On the other hand, the risks and downsides of getting vaccinated are negligible.
This is like asking why it's worth driving sober when you already have seatbelts (masks) and airbags (natural immunity).
>the risks and downsides of getting vaccinated are negligible
You can't know what the long-term effects of this new type of vaccine are. Especially given people have to take it over and over again for to have any effectiveness, so negative effects could possibly accumulate. But it won't prevent catching COVID anyways. Like 5 of my friends and family recently got COVID over Christmas that were all vaccinated. The stats on case numbers bear this out: vaccinated are catching the Omicron strain. The vaccines can't stop this. Natural immunity works many times better than these vaccines and providing protection against infection anyways. This is how it will go, no matter how many boosters you take.
This is a disease that mostly harms the old and the obese. Just workout, lift weights, get vitamin D and lose body fat. This is what should have been promoted for most people, not worrying about getting 4 rounds of an experimental vaccine that doesn't protect you from actually getting the disease.
>No one suggested that the vaccine would prevent infection 100% reliably
Sure they did, but whatever. It's over man. People need to wake up from this brain rot and move on with their lives. They've destroyed young kids childhood development[2] and they can't let it go. You got young healthy people that have no business worrying about this virus still panicking and avoiding real social lives.
>better understanding of the long-term effects of covid
Because it's a coronavirus that you can't generally avoid getting as it becomes endemic (and weaker). The threat is normal like most other coronaviruses. What is new and novel is the experimental treatment that has to be retaken over and over to actually do anything but will fail anyways. And there already are side effects. Long term, you can't know what this will do but common sense says avoid this, and accept the minimal "risk" you can't avoid but which runs its course quickly and easily (covid).
[0] https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange/status/14805951564830720...
[1] https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/what-sh...
[2] https://www.macleans.ca/society/the-cruel-ridiculous-reality...
If you have a gripe with the recency of mRNA technology, you could just as easily advocate for more traditional alternatives. If you're scared of needles and don't like being pressured to get an injection, you could just say that. As-is you're discrediting yourself entirely.
Sure they did [suggest that the vaccine would prevent infection 100% reliably]
The comment you're replying to (mine) certainly did not. I'm not sure who you're referring to.
They've destroyed young kids childhood development[2] and they can't let it go. You got young healthy people that have no business worrying about this virus still panicking and avoiding real social lives.
Sure. None of that is my preference and it isn't relevant to my comment.
There doesn't seem to be a solid reason to take the vaccine, for me specifically. Could easily make me sick for a day(s), with a very small chance of even worse side effects.
Some of it I'm sure is a personality trait, I just generally need a good reason to do things.
If vaccines passports or other such measures get introduced (UK) I'll get it reluctantly, because that's a bastardized reason & a benefit.
The mechanism by which mRNA vaccines work is different than standard vaccines. What are the unintended consequences? You have no idea. What is the risk if of COVID, especially the weakened Omicron strain?
The CDC Director states that 75% of COVID deaths occurred in people with 4 comorbidities [0]. For someone under 50 that is fit and isn't overweight, COVID is statistically nothing to worry about. And this person already got sick so has natural immunity.
What is the sense in assuming the prudent course of action is injecting a new pharmacological substance in your body instead of just allowing your own immune system to protect you naturally? Most drugs go through multiple rounds, over many years, of FDA testing and often side effects are discovered. What is gained by taking it? Almost nothing. What is risked? You don't know. I think the smart money will be on the side of the cohort that avoided this mind-virus of being gaslit into taking some pharma drug instead of just facing the minimal threat head on.
[0] https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange/status/14805951564830720...
In any case, common sense says the natural coronavirus would be handled by your body in predictable ways versus the new mRNA engineered substance. Are you telling me since you got the vaccines, you actually think you're going to avoid getting COVID? If this is not what you think, then what the hell are you talking about?
The reason is in part because there is less variability from dose to dose of an mRNA vaccine than there is among extant variants of viable SARS-COV-2 coronavirus. That makes it easier to predict what will happen.
And it is in part because mRNA vaccines are built up from the existing biochemistry of the body. That is, mRNA vaccines are not a new thing we created, they are a distillation of a natural system that we discovered and studied.
A) Hasn't been around long, we know it can have some horrible long-term effects. B) Hasn't been around long, have found almost zero long-term effects, yet.
A has at least 100x chance of dying than B, and at least 1000x chance of hospitalization.
And you think it is sensical to choose A? I don't get it.
The vaccines will not prevent you from getting covid. So what's with all the convoluted thinking where you pretend you won't get it?
The risks of death from covid are a rounding error if you're young and healthy. People mistakenly act as if this disease is affecting everyone in severe ways equally. It is drastically skewed to older and unhealthy.
You have no idea what the long term effects of the vaccine are stop pretending like you do, it's ridiculous.
"When new vaccines are released, the unknown side effects, if any, show up within two months of vaccination. This history goes back to at least the 1960s with the oral polio vaccine and examples continue through today." [0]
"First, when these [delayed side effect] events occurred, the onset was within eight weeks of receipt of the vaccine. Second, in all of these cases, except narcolepsy following H1N1 vaccine, the side effect of the vaccine was something that could be caused by the infection, meaning that getting infected with the virus also carried a risk of experiencing these outcomes. " [1]
"Forget adverse effects over five or ten years: the way your immune system works does not allow for such long-term safety concerns." [2]
[0] https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19...
[1] https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-va...
[2] https://bostonreview.net/articles/the-long-term-safety-argum...
I didn't, in fact the opposite. You have no idea what the long term effects of covid are stop pretending like you do, it's ridiculous.
You're playing russian roulette and have the choice between two guns. One has 1000 chambers, the other has 1000000 chambers, and you are choosing the first one and acting like you are relying on statistics.
Your immune system provides very little natural protection until after you have been infected at least once, which subjects you to all the risks of actually having COVID. The point of vaccination is to get your immune system to that point without having to go through actually having COVID first.
> Most drugs go through multiple rounds, over many years, of FDA testing and often side effects are discovered.
Vaccines aren't most drugs. For the mRNA vaccines all ingredients are known to be long term safe except the actual mRNA itself, but the mRNA makes no permanent change nor does it last very long, so any bad effects from the mRNA itself must show up short term. (This has also been the case for all previous vaccines--if something bad was going to happen it didn't take long to show up).
The spike protein that the mRNA instructs some of your cells to make also does not persist. Your immune system does react to it which will cause long term changes--but those changes are the whole point of vaccination, and they are the same changes that would be made if you were not vaccinated and caught COVID.
In an alternate reality where SARS-CoV-2 was not going to become endemic and it might be possible to purposefully avoid getting COVID long enough for us to eliminate the virus you could maybe make a case for that instead of getting vaccinated.
We are not in that branch of reality. Unless you happen to have a short remaining lifespan, you will get COVID at some point. The health downsides of doing so unvaccinated are now a superset of the health downsides of getting vaccinated first.
> What is gained by taking it? Almost nothing.
An order of magnitude reduction in the risk of hospitalization, and an even larger reduction in the risk of death, from COVID.
It comes down to three things:
1) the studies I've reviewed, which overwhelmingly support the strength of natural immunity
2) the adverse reactions that I've seen personally (I personally know more people that have had more severe reactions from the vaccine than I know who have had severe outcome from covid - purely anecdotal, but hard for me to ignore), and from VAERS (truly frightening), and
3) the very strange authoritarian approach the government and media have taken with this. I don't know of any vaccine or drug trial that would have survived the number of adverse effect that have been reported without being pulled. We keep seeing strange things like the CEO of Reuters being on the board of Pfizer as [1] mentions. But it's immediately flagged on HN. You can't even discuss it. Medical opinions from highly qualified doctors and health experts being silenced, accounts being canceled and removed from FB, Google, etc... frankly, it has me creeped out. I've never seen anything like it.
The "othering" of people who make informed choice about vaccination and decide against it is extraordinary. It's a global phenomenon. You can see it in some of the responses to my comment here on HN, even. Take a look at the downvotes for my comment - just for saying that my natural immunity seems to be robust. There don't seem to be many people willing to engage in an open and honest dialog about this, other opinions are silenced by any means available.
Maybe it's because I'm older and cranky, maybe it's because of a deep distrust of centralized authority, but the more someone pushes me to do something, anything really, the more I tend to resist.
When I couple that with the risk/reward evaluation and the advice of my doctor, all things things come together to make me decide not to do it.
A severe outcome from COVID is hospitalization. You seriously know multiple people who were hospitalized as a result of a vaccine? (X) Doubt.
The "othering" is because people who opted out of getting a vaccine have endangered the rest of us. It appears you've continued to participate in society, as evidenced by your reinfection. People generally shouldn't be surprised that they face social sanction when they act in an antisocial way! If you drive recklessly, you go to jail. If you don't get certain vaccines, you don't get to enroll in school. You can't smoke indoors, or even close to doors, in most parts of many countries.
The fact that your "informed choice" is driven more by gut feelings, selection bias, and an innate opposition to any and all authority further underscores the point.
Many people that share your opinion feel so strongly that they "know the truth" and "are right" that they feel justified in "othering" - even though most have no qualifications for the subject.
I'm not sure what causes this, or what the solution is. It's certainly not how science works, or how a liberal society should operate. If those are values that are still important to us, I feel like there needs to be some sort of solution to this.
Maybe the problem lies in the medium. I wonder if you would be so hostile if we were discussing this over beers somewhere? Perhaps. I hope not.
Society is generally hostile to behavior it views as being in the latter level of seriousness and talking about it over beers doesn’t generally make people more open to the idea that you are risking their lives
> Society is generally hostile to behavior it views as being in the latter level of seriousness and talking about it over beers doesn’t generally make people more open to the idea that you are risking their lives
That's what's so strange about this, isn't it? I haven't seen any evidence anywhere that deciding against getting the vaccine puts anyone else's health at risk. I've certainly heard some politicians say this, but I haven't seen it backed by any reputable studies. The phrase "pandemic of the unvaccinated" has been bandied about quite a bit, without any supporting evidence that I'm aware of.
From what I've seen, omicron is spread by fully vaccinated folks without much inhibition. Apparently, being vaccinated reduces the severity of an already (relatively) mild variant. So why all the hyperbole? Why the draconian mandates? Why ignore the demographics of vulnerable populations and insist on mandates for everyone? Even children?
Risking lives? Unless you have severe comorbidities or are very elderly, there's asymptotically approaching zero risk of a severe outcome from any Covid infection, especially not with omicron.
You've struck to the heart of the matter. Somehow, many people have been convinced, against all reason and science, that deciding against getting vaccinated is somehow antisocial. Why? What are the motivations involved? Who is doing this? There's a reasonable argument that skipping that vaccine isn't smart, but antisocial? That's a very different and aggressive narrative.
It all comes across as very scary to those of us who don't necessarily agree with the prevailing interventions of the past couple years. They don't appear, on the surface, to be evidence based.
Lockdowns certainly were not, and now that we have retrospective data, we know that they were ineffective and in most cases quite harmful.
Universal masking wasn't effective, but some states and companies are still requiring it. Why?
Shutting down schools was a societal nightmare, with no demonstrated benefit. Yet we see some places doing it again. Why?
At each step of the way with these interventions, those who argued against them were also considered to be "antisocial" and were silenced, ridiculed, and othered.
Now we have mandated vaccination, ignoring immunity status and demographics. Even for children, who have a much higher risk from the flu than they do Covid. Doesn't it seem strange? School districts don't mandate the flu vaccine, but several have proposed mandatory Covid vaccines? Doesn't it make you wonder why?
What could possibly justify Austria's extreme measures, police brutality and draconian mandates? In Australia, a grandmother was just put in jail for not wearing a mask. I've seen videos of similar things happening in the U.S. How can we even pretend to be a civil society and tolerate this?
Why have we allowed ourselves to believe that "othering" anyone is ok? These are the first steps down an extraordinarily dangerous path, history shows us.
It's been so sad and disheartening to me to watch our society progress from "free hugs" towards a dystopian nightmare. Were we always so fragile? Were our liberal beliefs always just a beautiful lie waiting to be exposed at the first test?
How would you square this with unvaccinated people filling up hospitals preventing those with unpreventable health issues from getting care?
https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/covid-hospitaliz...
My response is that, like everything, there's a ton of nuance.
It requires a very careful reading of that article, paying attention to not just what they say, but what they explicitly fail to say.
First, I couldn't find any reference in that article to people being denied care, did I miss it?
But regardless, it's a really great example of what causes a lot of my deep suspicion. For example, the article details the low hospitalization rate amongst all vaccinated people, with lots of zeros after the decimal point, presenting it as evidence for the effectiveness of the vaccine - however, it doesn't mention anywhere the rate of hospitalization for the unvaccinated. Most likely because the numbers would look very similar to the reader.
Another example, the article says that most of the vaccinated covid patients are elderly, or those with severe comorbidities. It doesn't mention, however, that that is also true for the unvaccinated.
Another omission - the article doesn't discuss the difference between patients with covid, and patients admitted because of covid. That's an important variable, but until recently it's been a bit suppressed.
Another thing the article fails to mention is confounding factors like age when considering vaccination rate and infection rate. It's a confounding factor because (according to what I've read) the most completely vaccinated are young, healthy people. Many cranky older people like myself are not. That's a pretty important confounding factor when you're looking at hospitalizations and comparing populations.
The article is pretty heavy on hyperbole, but doesn't mention that hospitals (especially the ICU's) are designed to operate at or near capacity. Hospitals are sized based on the community they serve and must remain mostly utilized in order to remain profitable.
One fun thing to do that demonstrates this is to go back and search for articles for years prior to Covid, where there would be hysterical articles about the flu "overwhelming hospitals" and "ICUs at 99%" etc... it's an old trick that the media plays, historically it was to garner ratings/clicks. Is that still the reason? Could be.
That article is deeply misleading, at best, in my opinion. It goes to great lengths to paint a very distressing picture, without providing objective analysis. It's a great example of what I've been talking about.
I could mislead in the opposite direction. I could say something along the lines of "Great news everyone! Covid is over. In Tarrant County, for the first week of January, there were only a total of 11 deaths out of 22,000 cases, and all of those had underlying conditions. In january, your total risk of dying from covid was .000005, and if you are healthy it's zero! So hug everyone, don't worry!". According to the Tarrant County, TX Covid 19 dashboard and tracker, everything I just wrote it 100% true, but it's highly misleading.
It's completely understandable how someone could be mislead by an article like the one you referenced. I typically try to avoid the media reporting like that because the quality is so poor, to quote Thomas Jefferson "Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle."
I typically go to reputable medical journals and critically evaluate the studies (to the best of my ability). It gives me a very different picture than articles like that paint.
https://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/coronavir...
For people aged 18-37, risk of getting hospitalized is 10x if unvaccinated: https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/...
The case rate is not as much higher for young people, only 2x, but the hospitalization rate is 10x higher. This is the youngest age group as well, and the data is worse as the age increases.
Putting the two together, the picture is clear: there are people in the ER (or ICU) that don't really need to be there, and because of how easy it was to avoid they are directly responsible for the suffering they cause in those who have to wait. I'm not sure how a layer of nuance beyond these facts can change that.
The situation is that anti vaxxers are assumed not to be automatically wrong, but to be noise. There is zero useful information to be had from engaging with them.
If they go against the scientific consensus it means nothing, if they don’t have an opinion on the scientific consensus, it means nothing, and if they agree with the scientific consensus it means nothing.
There’s this implicit assumption that everyone in a conversation deserves to have their opinion heard or examined, but these guys have burned every shred of credibility they have
The largest hospital in the area, Barnes Jewish Hospital with over 1,100 beds had only roughly 10% of them filled with covid patients as of the last week in December. Most of the hospitals were no where close to capacity.
Mercy hospital, the second largest after Barnes had an average of 102 of 959 beds filled with Covid patients, again somewhere around 10%.
Also, these are patients with Covid, not necessarily patients admitted because of covid.
If we take the article's statistic of 2/3 of the admissions being unvaccinated, then for Mercy, for example, 67 of their patients are unvaccinated Covid patients, possibly incidental to their admission reason.
We're seeing 50-70% of "Covid admissions" in some places are actually "incidental", they were admitted for other reasons [2]. So the real number of unvaccinated sick covid patients at Mercy is probably somewhere between 30-50.
St Louis has a population of almost 310,000.
Doesn't really seem worth breaking out the pitchforks over, does it?
[1]https://data.thespectrum.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/miss...
[2]https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-safety-outcome...
I'm sorry, I had to sort of chortle at this one.
According to that doc, the chance of hospitalization is 0.00037 instead of 0.000036 in the age group you mentioned for the unvaccinated.
Sure sounds a lot more scary to say "10 times the chance!" though.
Full disclosure: I am one of these people.
As it is, I view not getting the vaccine as anti social because the rate the unvaccinated are getting hospitalized at is tipping over our healthcare system. I might not feel this way if the unvaccinated were consistent and laid in the bed they made but it seems like a rare occurrence. What I am seeing is the unvaccinated being up all these claims about adverse affects and the rushed nature of the vaccine development combined with “possible” long term side effects. The same people then end up rushing to the hospital and taking all sorts of medical treatments that were also rushed or filling themselves with the random chemical of the week to stop covid(ivermectin and the hydrochloro something one).
It’s a negative externality that’s gotten too big to bear and I view the behavior as the same level of anti socialness as major polluters
Do you have data to prove that the healthcare system is "tipping over"? Not articles from media outlets, but hard data.
ICU and inpatient bed utilization has been remarkably consistent throughout the entire pandemic (roughly 70-80%).
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-trend
I’ve looked at hard data for discussions around these issues for nearly 2 years. Every time the anti vaxx crowd has been wildly incorrect, but claim that where they moved the goalposts to is a reasonable position that I will need to do hours and hours of research to even question.
I ran out of energy to deal with the firehouse of bullshit they spew constantly and at this point the anti vaxxers need to convince _me_ if they want anything they’ve said to be even considered.
If that upsets them because I’m not considering their “freedom” to limit my freedom and safety then were at an impasse, and it looks like my side has most of the power so good luck
Liberty is the result of those who hold power willfully divesting themselves of it, and using what remains to protect the inalienable rights of the individual.
This idea that power itself is a justification for action - it is anathema to any form of liberty. It carries the stink of tyranny and oppression - those that believe it share in dark and disturbing company.
Edit: removed some questions that while not intended to be negative, could have been interpreted as directed personally to the parent poster.
Do you think your a good person? I literally cannot empathize with someone who believes they should not get a vaccine because of freedom issues and thinks they are a good person. I do not submit to your position that I need to defend my way of life. I, and many other americans, are done with acting like the sane option in life needs to be defended against an insane group.
And yes, I understand how both sides think this way about each other. This is probably why we are going towards violence/revolution because thats the normal course of action whenever 2 groups in a country can no longer find a common ground. I am still not willing to cede the idea that your point of view is the standard and mine needs to be defended
> Do you believe in a liberal, civil society?
Do you believe in a liberal, civil society where people are allowed to fire rounds in the air or near your head because it didn't immediately directly kill you? Is it ok for you to take some action that is spreading a disease that's in the top 3 causes of death in our society because you don't feel like it?
>I wonder because I see a lot of people who do, but then say things like this, and I wonder how they justify it internally.
I justify it because the current path you and your ilk is suggesting leads us to a complete breakdown of society and economic regression. Your side is incapable of operating in a system where your actions can generate negative externalities that can break down society, and unfortunately reality is a system where that is true.
>The idea that power itself is the final justification for any action, is anathema to any sort of concept of liberty. It carries the stink of tyranny and oppression - those that believe it are in some dark and disturbing company.
Power isn't the justification. Power is your problem to deal with because we have no sympathy for your side when you are advocating what sounds like social suicide.
If you want a tl;dr, the vaccinated group is warming up to the idea that the unvaccinated group is no longer part of the same society. This is a line in the sand and where you stand is the group you are part of. The "othering" you mentioned in other comments is the act of people implicitly realizing that this reordering of tribes is occuring
A better analogy would probably be “eating a peanut butter sandwich in the lunchroom”
Because everyone has been clearly and explicitly asked to get vaccinated to protect the vulnerable members of society.
Experts often get things wrong, but they tend to become less wrong over time. See the shifting consensus about aerosol spread.
Experts think vaccines are a good idea. The data continues to reinforce that position.
If you were a family member, an old friend, or otherwise closely connected to me, I'd talk to you on the phone. I love my family, and I would not sit down and consume anything with you. You literally could not pay me enough. Not because I abhor a liberal discussion--quite the opposite. You've shown yourself to be irrational and unwilling to adapt your position, and as a result you've managed to catch Covid a second time. Your wife got it too? I'm not going to waste my time and breath on you.
Consider this: what would it take for you to reconsider your position? Because billions of doses of several different vaccines have been delivered to an exceptionally weary world, and a tiny fraction of those recipients have seen negative side effects.
Vaccinations are more effective at preventing disease than recovering from the native variant: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
Would you have a meal with a vaccinated family member? Why is that safer than a non-vaccinated?
https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/case-numbers-and-spread (COVID-19 cases by vaccination status)
Unvaccinated people are a danger to vaccinated people???
Isn't the main purpose of the vaccine protection against a severe case of COVID? I don't understand why someone who is vaccinated would feel endangered by anyone, regardless of their vaccination status.
Haha seriously…this has become such culture war bullshit at this point.
Its too bad that my comment kicked off just the sort of nonproductive back-and-forth I was hoping to avoid with my phrasing (in the other threads, not in your comment). Sheesh.
I appreciate the genuine question, and I don't mind explaining my reasoning. It's a complex subject, highly nuanced and riddled with early and inaccurate data and conflicting studies.
There's also a huge political component to it, which inevitably drags personal identity and emotion into the conversation. Back-and-forth and hostility are going to require a lot of disciple to avoid, which we thankfully mostly see on HN.
It's been strange to watch my karma fluctuate wildly from my comments in this thread. I would love it if there was some sort of indicator on HN about magnitude on votes. Right now, my comments are roughly net-neutral, but my karma has swung about 10 points either way in this discussion.
even if I think I've mastered the material, I still study before the final exam. because...why wouldn't you?
I would suggest that as concerning as your fork-three factors are, they should have no input at all into your personal health decisions!
Thank you for bringing this up. It isn’t “anti-science” to ask these type of questions and expect answers.
Indeed, it has always been the job of the FDA to hold drug companies responsible for proving that their drugs do not harm. Guilty until proven innocent. Given the rushed approval, incredible profit motive, reluctance of the FDA to respond to FOIA requests and the strong pushback against those who ask questions I think some skepticism is warranted.
So far, the cost-benefit for those not in high risk groups (especially children) seems waaaaay off. Why vaccinate children that are at almost no risk of serious illness when we clearly do not have all the info on long term vax risks?
There has, however, been evidence of long-term effects of catching COVID in some cases.
It is pretty obvious which option to take with the currently available evidence.
A couple of people have died, I'd call that a long-term adverse effect. Presumably way less people than would otherwise have died from Covid, so not to say you shouldn't get vaccinated. But to claim there are no known long-term adverse effects is wrong.
Long-lasting but quickly appearing adverse effects, like death, are pretty well understood and are calculated in.
This tells you nothing about the predictability of the practice of the science. It also cannot be used to gild by association anything that wishes to be marketed as a "vaccine".
So far, there hasn't been nearly the same amount of public scrutiny as with your average vaccine, either. Sure, people have taken in record numbers, but we have far less information about long-term effects than usual. And certainly, there have been extraordinary incentives to push vaccination, along with extraordinary mismanagement of the pandemic in general.
The difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated isn't that one is more ethical or risk-averse than the other. It's a difference in estimation of where the most risk resides: in the disease, or in our management thereof.
The eyes of the world have been glued to this. People actually know the different "brands" of vaccines. Tabloids have discussions on them and their side effects … the scrutiny and expectations from the public seem extremely high, so I’m not sure why you think anyone involved in this could afford to no be very tough and detail oriented in the scrutiny of this vaccine.
This seems like a deeply weird worldview that doesn’t in any way match up to reality. Your statement seems highly implausible and just makes no sense. Do you have any concrete evidence to back it up?
the vaccines came out last year, there hasn't even been a long term yet.
mrna vaccines are definitely new science, unless you can point me to another mrna vaccine that has been distributed to the public at this scale?
If there's any long term effects, the drug companies are well insulated from any blowback.
Also, please see vioxx to learn more about how pharma will push drugs with known, serious side effects and try to bury the evidence.
Most of these people have their professional lives tied up in a specific drug. You better bet many of them will do damn near anything to push it thru regardless of the human cost.
Remember that when there is wrongdoing the individual whistleblower is the exception. The only person out of many that was willing to come forward to do the right thing.
Assuming that natural immunity is still up to date and kicking, then there shouldn't be any issues with this. After all, the body should recognise and then proceed to battle the vaccine.
You may experience symptoms, but at least the way I understood it these are short term, not in the long run.
On the other hand, if the natural immunity has weakened then this is good training.
So really, as far as I can see there is no reason to ever not take a vaccine unless you had an infection just a short while ago
People who are relying solely on disease recovery are far more likely to be reinfected, and face worse outcomes, as compared to people who get their full three-dose vaccine (two primary + booster).
Incidentally, your thought process is suffering from the naturalistic fallacy.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfe...
That is the exact opposite of what i have read. One random example:
And the CDC essentially admits the vaccines no longer do much to prevent spread (due to waning protection and new variants). Maybe previous natural immunity has seen the same reduction, but you can't assume that.
And it's starting to look like a pretty good description. There are plenty of people who were on-board with the "temporary" restrictions initially who are now doubting that these promised marshmallows are ever going to be delivered. I'm vaxxed. And I'm done. Good luck on getting your marshmallows.
Blind mistrust in authority is as detrimental to long term outcomes as not being able to delay gratification
Whats the magic number? There are places like New York that have 95% over 18 with at least 1 vaccine and 83.3% with completed vaccination status. But the problems still persist and the entire focus is on those last few percent of people moving the needle, when in the past we've been told "herd immunity" would be conservatively reached at ~70%.
The at-risk should get used to wearing an N95 mask, but I'm done complying with mitigation measures (I'll get future boosters if they actually do anything for me).
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
Per your link, not NYCity, and not NYState. Maybe some regions of NY have that number?
Also, people under 18 exist. Vaccinating adults-only is never going to create herd immunity.
https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/demographic-vaccination-da...
In a few decades, coronavirus may actually end up being just as lethal as the flu! One can hope, at least.
> Take-home message:
> - The idea that viruses always evolve to become less lethal because it is advantageous to them is an old theory that has been shown to be wrong
Thank you for correcting a misconception of mine! :D
[1] https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19/do-bad-viruses-al...
Such as?
It's also worth nothing the sacrifice to be made isn't consistent and is highly subjective to an individual. A single person who moved to a new town and spends months isolated, or a business owner, etc. is making very different sacrifices from a person who's in a stable marriage with a family working a software engineering job.
Or perhaps it's a matter of personal principle. Personal conscience and conviction used to be held sacred in the US ... to the point that conscientious objectors wouldn't be forced to fight in wars (they could be assigned to work as medics in Army MASH units, for example, as my grandfather was in the Korean war). In modern US politics, it has become politically incorrect to have a personal principle or conviction that contradicts the approved viewpoint, or otherwise goes against the grain.
Because consideration for personal liberty has gone by the wayside, people are reacting by flatly refusing to be vaccinated. Many are convinced that the vaccine is actually harmful... and I'm convinced that viewpoint only gained traction because of the strong-arming going on in government.
It would have been much better to communicate clearly what we know, keep updating that communication regularly as new data comes in, fund efforts to develop and distribute vaccines, and let people choose without mandating anything. I'd bet the world would look very different today, and far more people would be vaccinated, if the US government had taken this route.
You sure it was "COVID denial" that poisoned the well of information and not:
1) Health officials lying about masks at the start of the pandemic 2) Government officials encouraging people to crowd into primary booths during the height of the pandemic to vote in the Democratic primary. 3) Health and government officials declaring that it was safe to attend riots and mass street protests, but not to go out for any other reasons. 4) That it was a racist conspiracy theory that COVID was created in a lab and not started by people eating bats in China. 5) That the vaccines were safe and effective, and that you couldn't get or spread COVID if you were vaccinated. 6) That vaccines would never be mandated. 7) That its absolutely essential that every receive(at least) a 3rd dose of the vaccine as a "booster" when even the most favorable studies show that "boosters" reduce the odds of serious illness and death only by fractions of a thousandth of a percentage point.
At this point the well contains no water at all - just poisons - and it isn't the skeptics who are responsible. At this point anyone who isn't skeptical about what they are being told by our Dear Leaders has their head buried deep in the sand.
Anecdotally, my mom didn't believe it was a real virus even after I got it, tested positive, and got pretty sick in 2020. When she and my unvaccinated dad got it in summer 2021 and Dad was hospitalized with severe illness from it, she changed her mind on it being real, but is still convinced there are conspiratorial forces behind it, the vaccine, public health measures, etc.
Trying to pretend that the top levels of government are free from corruption and that Pfizer is the one good company that isn't evil and that there isn't a major incentive for Pfizer to ensure approval and mandates, and those imposing mandates don't have incentives to do so, whether implicit or explicit, is simply naive.
So all that talk about the military industrial complex wasting money to waste money to ensure dominance isn't likely, or even possible? Because thats exactly what people believe is happening with pharma. And that's what people believed was happening to pharma until Covid.
The question isn't whether Pfizer is an Evil Corporation (of course they are). The question is whether the vaccine that they manufacture and market is effective. And in the full light of day, they proved, first in randomized trials, and then in the real world, that their vaccine is safe and effective.
Full disclosure, I was a test subject in the original Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, and continue to be a test subject in the booster trial.
My guess is that you also don’t understand the reasons why others are denying the vaccine. Do you think some people are incapable of doing the only thing that will help us, isolating? Vaccines are child’s play to staying in your damn house.
From my perspective it’s the vaccinated that keep this pandemic going. Exactly in the spirit of this statement. “Vaccinated and done”. People think once they get vaccinated they can continue life like normal. Meanwhile the unvaxxed i know are isolating and most still haven’t caught COVID. The few that have realized, after having few or minimal symptoms, that this entire mandate thing is about control.
TLDR, no they’re exactly on point. Democrats are wannabe dictators and the goal of the mandates are an attempt to test power.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
> Harlan ruled that the vaccination law did not violate the 14th Amendment because the police power of the state may be allowed to constrain individual liberties through reasonable regulations when required to protect public safety. He reasoned that individual liberty does not allow people to take actions regardless of the harm that they could cause to others. Harlan felt that the plaintiff had failed to show that the vaccination law was arbitrary or oppressive, or not reasonably required for the safety of the public. He noted the increasing presence of smallpox, which prevented the plaintiff from convincingly asserting that the rule had no real or substantial relation to protecting public health and safety. Although the plaintiff presented evidence that some doctors believed that the smallpox vaccine was not effective and could cause further diseases, Harlan pointed out that the opposite view represents the common medical belief and is followed by more reputable doctors.
EDIT: Getting downvoted so here's the primary holding. Read it for yourself.
> A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox and protect public health. The legislature may exempt children from the law without violating the equal protection rights of adults if the law applies equally among adults.
Not the same thing at all. And you also don't want to go down that road.
Take drunk driving, for example. We don't give people the freedom to do that. On the other hand, we do allow people to smoke and to eat unhealthily, both of which impose costs on the rest of us. So there seems to be a balance - we allow some behavior that impacts our personal freedoms, but not egregious impacts.
So: If someone doesn't get vaccinated, how bad is the impact to you? Given that vaccinated (and boosted) people can still get infected and spread the infection, how bad is the impact to your personal freedom to live a healthy and free life if someone doesn't get vaccinated?
Vaccines reduce transmission. They do not eliminate transmission completely.
in any case, i have friends here in progressive seattle who were part of the “vaccinate and done” group back in Apr/May but once the governor used vaccine uptake as an excuse to enforce new mandates now say “i’ll get the booster once i know doing so means i get to go back to normal”. so mandates definitely do push a certain type of otherwise compliant person away from getting the vaccine. i only have anecdata, but i think it’s worth keeping an eye on that viewpoint. could this “vaccine and done” group grow into a “reject mandates (including boosters) and done” if the mandates prevent them from actually being “done”?
Personal conscience and conviction -- as overwhelmingly stupid as the vast majority of people are with or without it -- is at least extremely important for the minority of people who end up being front-runners for society.
But so too is society a super-organism, in which we are but cells. And cells which actively spread disease for their own sake are kind of independent to a flaw: cancerous one could say.
Maybe there's a better world in which context is a factor in whether or not a persons convictions are the most valuable thing in the room. Personally, I'd say if you're killing others for your beliefs, then your beliefs should be allowed the same treatment. Whereas if your beliefs are merely unpopular.. well, I wouldn't fix a car with a popularity contest, let alone a toaster or an entire fucking government.
You would have ended up with full hospitals everywhere and people dying in the streets, and the Delta variant way before a vaccine was ready if we didn't do lockdowns.
However, covid in the 70s would have been substantially worse than the flu - a large reason covid nowadays is not deadly is due to increases in quality of care.
Non-medical interventions were also employed during the 1918/19 flu pandemic, also in the US. In fact, when things like school closures were initially discussed people were literally looking up old data from the 1918/19 flu pandemic to see what, if anything, we could learn from the non-medical interventions back then.
I doubt that we would have been able to create a vaccine (as quickly) in the 70s or 80s. Our knowledge about corona viruses wasn’t there yet and we also didn’t have plausible easy technological paths towards a vaccine.
So that would have sucked a lot. Really, a lot. Given that I think we would have necessarily accepted more deaths – but it would still all have been quite annoying since you really don’t want to run your hospitals at 110% all the time even if you are willing to accept all the deaths.
It’s just that now vaccines do provide a good solution with dramatically reduced deaths, hospitalizations, even (though much more limited) spread. Which makes it all the more frustrating that people aren’t taking advantage of that.
So I’m not so sure why you think that if we miraculously had an effective and safe vaccine for a novel pandemic corona virus in the 70s or 80s we there wouldn’t be mandates. Seems quite in line with US and overall Western tradition.
Presumably we would have increased hospital capacity, rather than slightly decreasing it [1][2].
[1] https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals - total staffed beds 919,559
[2] https://www.aha.org/statistics/2020-01-07-archived-fast-fact... - total staffed beds 931,203
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-joe-biden-no-vaccines-ma...
I think you might have a grandiose mental image of America’s past. The 1798 Sedition Act ‘made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials’[0]. A congressman went to jail for speaking critically against President John Adams. President Nixon tried to suppress the 1960s cultural revolutions. The US has always had a bit more of an authoritative twist than the American History books write.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Alien_and_Sedition_...
I feel like this mythical conception of the history of America has been increasing with time.
> I think you might have a grandiose mental image of America’s past.
And your attempt to use the historically trivial 1798 Sedition Act in the manner that you did indicates you may have the opposite and mistaken mental image. If anything the US learned from the Sedition Act and became better for that very short-lived mistake.
> It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed forces or that caused others to view the American government or its institutions with contempt. Those convicted under the act generally received sentences of imprisonment for five to 20 years.[2] The act also allowed the Postmaster General to refuse to deliver mail that met those same standards for punishable speech or opinion. It applied only to times "when the United States is in war." The U.S. was in a declared state of war at the time of passage, the First World War.[3] The law was repealed on December 13, 1920.[4]
Holy moly! Land of the free indeed.
On the contrary, I think we're at the other extreme. There would be an uproar if people were even forced to work as medics today -- or to do nearly anything at all beyond their own self-interest.
I was forced to be vaccinated as a child to go to school, and there were no exceptions for personal convictions. There was also no uproar. Everyone did it because it was normal and there wasn't any legitimization of "alternative" information.
It seems to me this is really the cause far beyond any other factor. The fragmentation and "democratization" of media over the past 15-20 years led to a devaluation of expertise and qualification. It's not so much anti-elitism anymore (although they seem to overlap) but simply that nobody cares what your credentials are, they are no longer necessary to reach a mass audience.
(This is also the cycle against seatbelting.)
It's a great argument, so long as "rejecting a vaccine during a pandemic" meets the same moral tests as "opposing war". In fact it does not, and so this "personal principle" is quite silly and actively harmful.
The government has not done anything in mandating vaccination that it has not done, over and over again, with total societal unanimity. Until some people decided there was political hay to be made with a bad, dumb argument about "personal principle" and now tens of thousands of people are dead for no good reason.
It's super dumb, and the "personal principle" argument fails every test you could throw at it.
You say this, but you don't name any criteria by which this judgment should be made.
Could you elaborate?
It's not hard to understand the difference.
Why do the people that accept driving on the government mandated side of the road for public safety, who accept food being cooked to government standards for public safety, who have gotten the other multiple government mandated vaccines for public safety, who don't get into fights in stores for being required to wear shoes for public safety, who don't march against government mandated building codes for public safety, and so on for literally hundreds of items, suddenly obtain "personal liberty" for this particular vaccine, which has killed more Americans than any event in history?
Because they've been fed a constant stream of chaos from the grifters milking them, grifters that mostly got the vaccine themselves.
It's amazing what culture and virtue signaling can do.
The fact that so many people disagree with your position seems to suggest that you might not be as correct in your thinking as you believe.
That statement does not make sense under any possible rational interpretation.
"No serious adverse effects" < Nonsense. People have been injured and died from these vaccines. Perhaps you meant to say "side effects so far appear very rare"? (which I'd agree with).
If there are no serious side effects we can remove the liability protections drug companies currently enjoy right?
I do agree the vaccines work to an extent for some months. They have reduced deaths. I'm glad they exist and would encourage any vulnerable person to take them. But my risk profile is very low. My Covid experience was a short cold a week ago. And the statistics aren't showing they do a whole lot to prevent transmission.
So I won't be playing any level of Russian roulette with unneeded pharma products, even if it's a 1 in a million chance of serious issues or death.
This is deeply irrational and highly antisocial behavior. It it disgusting and awful. Bodily autonomy is not that important, either.
To you.
If bodily autonomy isn't that import rape only lasts 10 minutes so what's the harm? Nope, it's of primary importance.
Lose some weight and keep your D levels high, get vaccinated if you chose, and stop demanding that everyone engage in risky or unnecessary performative behavior to create an illusion of safety.
Really, how many? How many have died that didn't take it that could have?
Those honestly medically unable to take it (which is a crazy small number) compared to those that don't out of willful ignorance is a drop in the ocean.
>So I won't be playing any level of Russian roulette with unneeded pharma products, even if it's a 1 in a million chance of serious issues or death.
hahhahaha.... Right now you'll not take something you claim affects under 1 in 1 million while helping spread something that has killed 1 in 400 in the US. That's a difference by a factor of 2500. 2500 - think about that. And has likely given millions lifelong permanent damage.
You really prefer a 2500 times increased death rate, and view that as defensible for society? Really?
Now, let's look for demonstrable numbers. About 500 million doses have been given in the US last year, 206 million people fully vaccinated, many partially vaccinated. Where are the hundreds dead by your claims? There are currently (as far as I can tell on Google scholar, CDC, etc.) exactly ZERO people whose death is attributed to the vaccine.
So go ahead and show me your data.
So it's not 1 in a million - it's likely more like 1 in 100 million or even fewer that die from the vaccine. 1 in 400 die from COVID.
This clearly shows the lack of compassion, understanding, numeracy, that such arguments display.
Has this been quantified or is it just hand-waving? Because it's very obvious transmission is widely occurring regardless.
I've already explained how the vaccine does not help me. Was not needed.
We know short term risks exist from vaccination, we know people have died, we know that it is rare to have very serious side effects (like death). What about long term risks? More hand waving claims of "unlikely"?
The end of your post is a long way of saying "well you are dumb". Ok, whatever. If you don't want to accept rationality or have different views of human agency, it's not my business.
I've clarified my position on these vaccines. I'm glad they exist, I recommend vulnerable people take them. I don't need them and won't be taking them. Unless it can be clearly shown it would be of great benefit to others (we've already established minimal risk for myself). And that somehow taking the vaccines with immunity from previous infection already existing is needed to do that.
In many (most?) adult cases the risk from the virus is many times greater then the _known_ risk from vaccines. No argument.
But the risk from the vaccines is not 0 and we should be clear about that. Additionally (and this is one of my main issues), the risk of allowing big pharma subscription model to be instituted by force is also not 0.
That number seems to be nonsense [0]. Since the VAERS data is on the CDC site, care to show me the real number? It looks like this claim is QAnon nonsense.
Do you understand what VAERS is? It is an adverse effect, death, from ANY reason, following someone taking a vaccine. The reason is to LOOK for things caused by vaccines by follow-up investigations. A VAERS deaths is not a death caused by a vaccine; it is a possibility.
So far, ZERO of them, count it, ZERO have been shown to be from the COVID vaccine. Here's another take [3] on the actual VAERS data: "no evidence has established that a COVID-19 vaccine authorized in the U.S. caused any deaths".
If someone is old, takes the vaccine, and dies from old age. That is a VAERS death. Given that about 400,000 people die a year from old age, many of them are going to be VAERS entries. It's the followup studies that determine if there is any issue caused by COVID vaccines, and so far, there simply is not.
Here [1] are the VAERS reports for the past 21 years. Go ahead and read about before you make such goofy assumptions. I'm pretty sure the COVID vaccine wasn't killing people in 2002. Here's [2] an overview of the VAERS program. First page, in bold, so people don't do what you are doing: "a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event".
Read that again: "a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event".
Now, please show me the report, study, publication (not some rando website or youtube video), that has shown these deaths to be caused be the COVID vaccine, because there just isn't the evidence.
>In many (most?) adult cases the risk from the virus is many times greater then the _known_ risk from vaccines. No argument.
So why subject yourself, your loved ones, those around you, and your community to the "many times" greater risk? I honestly don't understand how someone could believe they're putting so many at risk for such severe consequences and simply continue to do it. The death and destruction is obvious. Go to your local funeral parlor and ask them about it, if it's real, and watch some families come through, and see how many are glad they exercised bodily autonomy. That should be a sobering experiment.
And the risk of transmitting it to others, the risk from straining the medical system so others that need help for other things, vastly increases as the unvaccinated spread the disease more and more, is completely immoral. Just because the unvaccinated don't see the deaths and destruction don't mean they're not contributing through ignorance and self-absorption.
I'm pretty sure we're done here. You've obviously believed a lot of bad sources of information, and have posted a decent amount of super easily disproven stuff. I've found it's not generally worth the time to unwind someone from this, since it takes so long for someone to get into this state. You are the rare one that also seems to believe that vaccination has vastly better outcomes than not being vaccinated, yet still refuse it, which is odd.
I would recommend you find higher quality information sources to base your beliefs on - start with things rated as unbiased as possible, like Reuters, and completely avoid crap like youtube, facebook, tiktok, or any of the zillion fringe sites designed to suck people into a cycle of chaos and fear.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid19-vaers/fact...
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/...
[3] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/sep/20/facebook-p...
What that means is you can determine when you are "done here". You don't determine when "I am done here" (unless you somehow control access). It's a lazy attempt to shut things down and have the last word so as to appear correct.
You point to a fact checker, a "trusted news source" for one month, that says the number of deaths claimed for the month is not exact and say "see, not proved". I'm sorry that is very weak.
There has been a massive uptick in VAERS reporting since the introduction of this series of vaccines. Massive. Now, understood these vaccines are being administered widely all at once so they may or may not be more dangerous then say, the flu vaccine. And in raw numbers, so far, the risk of taking them appears very low.
But they have a risk profile. The manufactures admit it. The CDC admits it. Myocarditis has been observed. Is it unreasonable to suppose that the corresponding (very large) uptick in deaths reported in VAERS might be responsible? One would have to be willfully blind not to acknowledge that.
You never address unknown future risks. It's obvious it was unknown (or unstated) that the vaccines would only be effective for such a short time without continuous boosters and exactly how effective the vaccines would be. What else don't they know or are not saying?
You never show, nor has anyone else, that "others around me" is a valid consideration in the context of transmission. So I take them "for the common good". How long does that last? Not a year apparently.
"Straining medical system". Not on my part. That's a very weak argument. It's largely untrue in the extreme and perhaps points to larger problems with the medical system if the 500 or so people currently hospitalized (with not from Covid) in my state with a population of millions is breaking things. What other things might be "straining the medical system"? Can we start mandating on that too?
You haven't "disprove" anything as you claim, just more "you are dumb, Q nonsense" and lazy attempts to circumvent. Yes people have died from the disease no need for the emotive funeral home spiel.
You can leave off statements like "ignorance and self-absorption". You don't see me saying "scared, cowardly, unperceptive, and prone to authoritarianism".
This is apparently a highly emotional issue that makes people on all sides not be as objective as they may be in other contexts. I've made my points and don't have much else to say in this thread. I don't fault you for your point of view and assume you have good reasons for it but do not agree it's objective.
I just posted the data, which you ignore. Post this "massive" increase, because, as I show next, ....
>There has been a massive uptick in VAERS reporting since the introduction of this series of vaccines.
This amuses me - you put such effort into reading the worst materials and believing them, while ignoring any good, reliable sites, or putting any thought why there might possibly be an uptick in deaths not attributable to vaccines that also shows up in VAERS....
Maybe there has been an uptick in deaths unrelated to the vaccine, say, perhaps, from the worst pandemic in 100 years? Gee, guess what. Increased deaths for ANY reason will increase deaths in VAERS.
COVID was 10% of deaths in 2020. That is a large increase, so large, that life expectancy dropped. It's a category that did not exist in 2019. The US death rate soared 17% in 2020, with no vaccines, leading to, you guessed it, a ~20% increase in VAERS deaths, because the underlying population is also dying.
Before the vaccine. Yet you are happy to put the blame on a vaccine that had not been invented?
Same in 2021.
If you actually find the VAERS deaths, and look at the graphs (which are public) you will see no such massive uptick - there is one, which begins, you guessed it, when COVID started, not when the vaccine did.
So, again, cite a source. Because this is not true, except for tiny values of "massive"... And again you will not cite a source....
This is why it's not worth my trying to give you data - you ignore, attribute the least thought out and nonsensical claims attributable to data that is easily explained not needing such fear and doubt.
Again, any death in VAERS cannot be attributed to a vaccine until a study determines the cause. Stop making this simple reasoning mistake. It's clearly stated on the VAERS site that this is faulty reasoning, I pointed it out, and you do it again.
Seriously - why do people believe fringe sites, youtube idiots, facebook, ticktok, over the people that have put entire careers into hard science to solve precisely this type of problem?
>Myocarditis has been observed
This is the perfect example of spreading fear and doubt. Quick question: which has shown more likely to increase the chance of myocarditis: getting the vaccine or getting COVID? Hint, one has been shown in peer reviewed, vetted, published papers to have a vastly greater (over 10x) chance of leading to myocarditis. Yet you continue to recite the fear and doubt nonsense on the opposite side of what the actual evidence is. The evidence so far is not getting a vaccine leads to a higher chance of getting myocarditis by a large margin since it comes along with COVID.
Seriously - put the time into learning this stuff before you continue to spread more ignorant fear, which is exactly what such statements are. They are the opposite of reality, completely well documented, yet you must have consumed enough nonsense fear sites to repeat it without simply looking at the evidence.
I'll help you - go to google scholar, google covid myocarditis and read rates, then add the word vaccine, search again, and read the rates. Done. Now you know, and should never repeat such nonsense again. But you won't put in the work and will repeat it I am quite sure.
>attempt to shut things down and have the last word so as to appear correct.
No, it's realizing that, as I wrote, people that have worked themselves into such deluded worldviews do not change easily, so becomes worth less and les of my time the clearer it becomes such people straight up ignore well presented data. I've requested multiple times you source ANY of your claims with reputable sources, and so far, zero. I only continue since others that are not like that do learn from such discussions get better knowledge. And it's interesting to see how people rationalize behavior.
Once I realize that someone does not want to look at evidence, look at data, cite and inspect reputable sources, it is clear they are not someone who uses reason to make choices or adapt. At that point it's sometimes useful to poke them enough to anger them into looking stuff up. Or give up on them. That's the game, purely rational based on actions.
The fact that so many of those dying right now are precisely such people, and by using up so much hospital resources, they are causing others who where responsible to suffer.
Correctness in thinking is not popularity. It's demonstrable statistical evidence.
>perhaps they think that none of what we are doing kept those 800,000 out of the grave
This is complete nonsense. There is no question whatsoever that vaccinated people are not dying at the rate unvaccinated are. I work with a decent number of medical personnel, and more importantly, can read the science.
>Perhaps they, rightly in their mind, think there are far worse threats out there than Covid and being asked to make such a significant sacrifice doesn’t make sense.
Are you claiming that the outcomes from taking the vaccine are worse than the outcomes from not taking it? Care to provide a single peer reviewed, published article that supports this?
Can you truly say these things with a straight face, in light of the countless laws banning voluntary consumption of drugs and the millions of harsh prison sentences that have been handed out for breaking those laws? People literally lose their freedom - they are put in poorly-maintained cages - for exercising their personal liberty in that fashion. That has been standard procedure in this country for generations with little dissent. Yet the voices that seem the loudest against vaccine mandates (voices that barely exists for the dozen or so other vaccine mandates over the generations) don't seem to be speaking up to these far more grievous and damaging violations of personal liberty.
Liberals support "my body, my choice" when it comes to abortions, but they don't want you to have a choice over whether or not to get the vaccine. Conservatives support "my body, my choice" when it comes to vaccines, but don't want to you have a choice over whether or not to get an abortion.
There, it's settled. You're all hypocrites.
And for the record, I'm triple vaxxed, anti-mandate, pro-choice, and think all drugs should be legalized.
But when it comes to abortion, it's not "my body, my choice", according to pro-life advocates. It's two bodies, one of which is not yours.
There's more nuance in these discussions than can be reduced to a slogan or talking point. "Freedom" ought to map to what gives people the most personal liberty possible while restraining evil and its proliferation. But pursuing that requires defining "evil" which maps directly onto worldviews -- and we land squarely back at square one.
We all may be hypocrites in some way, but the real problem is that we don't agree on what is good and evil -- or rather, that a sizable portion of the population (or all of it) is wrong on that most important question.
Modern US politics is what it is because of strongly differing worldviews.
Im also anti-mandate but certain job should require you to wash your hands with soap and be vaccinated to keep your job (teacher, nurse, doctor ..) but nobody is forcing you to choose those jobs.
Also - the Covid vaccine is really more like religion in that - most parents are fine with vaccinating their children. But like religion - now they’re choosing which vaccines (gods) they don’t believe in and it mostly comes down to tradition. There’s almost no logical thought in it.
Some reading I've done recently has changed my mind on this. Check out the recently released unclassified (but suppressed) DARPA documents on the SARS-Cov2 virus.
It appears there actually has been a significant information war going on from the top... but I suspect it remains to be seen why exactly the campaign took place.
The article's description of the "vaxxed and done" mindset is not very different from what you have described -- we accept that the disease will be endemic, and we treat Covid like we treat the flu, including keeping up with annual shots.
That situation is impossible to assess without knowing the job description. I would also be hesitant to work at a place if the employer demands vaccinations because they are refusing remote work even when the job description does not require it. We have a pandemic and employers need to minimize unnecessary risks like open floor plans and crowded meetings rooms for employees that doesn't need physical proximity in order to do their job. On the other hand if the job description is being in a hospital or elder care facility, it would be irresponsible to let nonvaccinated employees treat clients. Everything between is a sliding scale that in a pandemic should lean towards safe rather than unsafe.
Every person who get injured at work is to some degree harmed by the company that allowed that injury to occur. This is why companies has insurance to deal with that. If vaccinations is required for the job then getting vaccinations is by definition work, should happen during paid hours, and any adverse effects dealt with as with any other work related adverse effects.
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmall...
Coronaviruses in general are endemic to humans, and SARS-CoV-2 in particular appears to infect animals. Even if at some point no humans carried the disease, it'd still come back from some cross-species transmission. The only "done" state I ever expected is/was the same situation we have with influenza -- annual vaccine and seasonal waves of illness.
This is certainly beside the (your) point, but it's worth mentioning that mourning and grief (ie, to "cry for the world that was") is a crucial and possibly unskippable component to "live in the world that is."
They're certainly not mutually exclusive activities, and I'd love to see more STEM demographics recognize the former's necessity.
I have many reasons. Unrepentant corrupt, incompetent, and lying governments and pharmaceutical corporations are among them. But the biggest ones are my anger for coercion and threats of financial ruin people have suffered; the collectivization of health and personal responsibility; and finally I just don't like the way I'm spoken to about it and so I take great pleasure in the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the ruling class enraged by the commoners who refuse to bow down and submit to them.
Sure it does. My body, my choice. I have no problem quarantining myself and have left my house less than 40 times in 2 years. I’m quite capable of managing my health and preventing others from getting what I don’t have so why take the risk with the vaccine? Do you believe that there are no long term effects?
I double vaxxed and boosted. Stopped wearing a mask for the most part, but with Omicron I started wearing a mask again because I just don't want this stupid virus. I'm healthy and would probably not have a symptomatic infection. But I still don't want this stupid virus, and I don't want to spread it.
I think for 2022 I am going to try to argue less, and focus more on my areas of personal expertise. I've done a lot of arguing and feel like I'm generally worse off for it.
Meanwhile in the airport you are in a large building with many other people, you might come into contact with 100s of new people from a wide variety of places.
Obviously mitigations won't help if you're blasted in the face by an airburst (nuclear or biological), but it seems like it could still help if you're on the fringe of exposure.
[edit]: maybe some of the more "extreme" (n95 masks, etc) have some decent level of protection, but I'm not sure anybody knows, at least with this variant. Even for previous variants all I've seen so far are models, which as we all know have a lot of assumptions.
It seems active / non-retired people will have a hard time avoiding it but after all the current wave will stop like the others so maybe I'm wrong.
https://calmcovid.substack.com/p/youre-not-doomed-to-get-omi...
A double vax from back in April or so would have substantially diminished protection by now.
At least you know you did everything you reasonably could and didn't just give up like the "vaxxed and done" crowd.
I'm sorry you're sick, that really sucks. I hope it's asymptomatic and you can get back to living your life soon.
For reference, this case is described here:
Gu H, Krishnan P, Ng DYM, Chang LDJ, Liu GYZ, Cheng SSM, et al. Probable transmission of SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant in quarantine hotel, Hong Kong, China, November 2021. Emerg Infect Dis. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2802.212422
Those staffing shortages are in turn caused by strict quarantines for people who are asymptomatic but test positive.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/COVID-San-Francisco-s...
Our office director is scared and has closed down again (were doing 3 days a week in person) due to Omicron. I don't personally think it was necessary and I liked working there in the quite (away from kids).
But, whatever. I am done with the fighting and with the political division over it.
Vaccinations were sold as the solution to the pandemic.
Yet worldwide infections are going up at the same speed if not faster than before vaccinations. But no policy maker acknowledges this. They refer to the lowered death rate, or blame a new variant.
But it means that policy that gave people more freedom because of their vaccination status are not having any significant effect on decreasing the spread of the disease, they might even make it worse by allowing infectious people to mingle.
Therefore it's very unreasonable and authoritarian to not allow travel, shopping and even fire people over their vaccination status, when an individual decision clearly has a minimal effect on the collective.
Yet politicians are not budging but doubling down on vaccination policy, if there was any trust left in the integrity and capability of our leaders...
It is a bit of a paradox. There is no right action it seems, locking up doesn't make sense but neither does opening up.
From a policy perspective, it’s not clear that unvaccinated individuals will stay home with symptoms since some percentage of them seem to think is not real, not a real threat, etc.
Edit: summary article that covers some of this (though keep in mind science is still working through this and each variant changes things) https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/new-data-on-covid-19-trans...
I mean, "breakthrough infections among vaccinated individuals remain uncommon" is simply false?? My friend's entire family of 15 people all got Omicron despite being double-vaccinated and boosted. After they already all had Delta last year as well! That's not "uncommon", that was literally a 100% infection rate, twice, for the family members who gathered.
Here is a equally unsubstantiated claim: voluntarily unvaccinated people are going about partying and otherwise carrying on because they largely don't believe that COVID is real or has ever been a problem worse than a cold or flu, or don't care either way.
We don't know how differently vaccinated and unvaccinated people are behaving right now. Nobody is collecting that data. The only thing we know is that most of the severe hospitalized cases now are among the unvaccinated, and that the hospitalization/infection rate is significantly lower with Omicron than Delta.
Everyone is just trying to figure out how to keep the health system from being overwhelmed since The infection rate for this variant is so much higher. With the exception of the voluntarily unvaccinated, there is little blame to be laid on anyone in this situation. We are all just trying to do a controlled landing into the endemic stage of this virus.
Do you live in the US? It’s not illegal in most southern states to go to bars and clubs with COVID, people do it often enough. Places aren’t checking your temperature or vaccination status.
Also, you must have missed the non-vaccinated college parties and then them returning home for break.
> I mean, "breakthrough infections among vaccinated individuals remain uncommon" is simply false??
The CDC defines a vaccine breakthrough infection as one in which a nasal swab can detect the SARS-CoV-2 RNA or protein more than 14 days after a person has completed the full recommended doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine. [1]
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...
Now, we have vaccinated people allowed to mingle and do "high risk" activities without being tested, despite the vaccine increasing the likelihood of asymptomatic infection. Unvaccinated people, who are more likely to be symptomatic, and therefore more likely to know if they have covid, cannot do those high risk activities.
So the irony is that the people more likely to be unknown carrier, have more freedoms and can therefore spread the virus more easily.
It was a guess from day one (because "novel virus"), that got treated as fact. (From memory) asymptomatic spread before the vaccines was found to be virtually nonexistent near the end of 2020. I don't recall findings about presymptomatic.
The height of infectiousness is just before or around the start of symptoms. You are infectious maybe a day or so before symptoms start. You aren’t infectious for that many days. This means pre-symptomatic spread is a major factor.
Truly asymptomatic cases also exist but they aren’t that common (and many of those, if examined very closely, turn out to be cases with symptoms, just extremely mild ones). So presymptomatic spread most certainly is a major factor. It’s how this virus can spread so effectively without non-medical interventions and vaccines (which, yeah, also reduce transmission).
That’s basic virus 101 and while we didn’t know a lot about this in mid 2020 we do know a lot about this know. This isn’t even speculative or on shaky ground, this is quite solid science.
It blows my mind that people do not know this.
You’ve basically chained a series of specious conclusions together and it definitely seems like those conclusions serve to support a particular political narrative.
Preventable Covid-19 cases can lead to higher health and life insurance rates. Firing employees who refuse the vaccine is smart business.
Vaccine mandates save the government a lot of money in several ways:
- US government pays $770B a year for medical care for older people and poor children [1]. Covid cases increase those costs. Fortunately, vaccines prevent most cases and reduce severity of all cases.
- US government has 23M veterans and pays $40B a year for their medical care [2]. Covid cases increase those costs. Fortunately, vaccines prevent most of the cases.
- When a person goes to the hospital and cannot pay, the hospital takes a loss and reduces the tax they pay. Hospitals write off about $40B in uncompensated care every year [3]. Uncompensated covid care makes those numbers bigger and taxes lower. Fortunately, vaccines prevent most serious covid cases.
- Workers can't work when they have covid or their dependents have covid. Covid sickness reduces economic output. Because taxes only apply to profits and most businesses have low margins, small reductions in revenue cause large reductions in taxes. Fortunately, vaccines reduce severity of all cases, so people recover more quickly and workers can get back to work faster.
[0] https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/there-is-good...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)
[2] https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/QuickFacts/Expenditures_quic...
[3] https://www.aha.org/fact-sheets/2020-01-06-fact-sheet-uncomp...
in a lot of ways this is a PR issue and undermining of good faith more than a facts/data issue. There may not be any specific conspiracy but for whatever reason they're acting in an untrustworthy manner.
That's complete bullshit. You can find many examples of experts, governments and politicians claiming that's exactly what was likely going to happen.
That was the message people were sold.
For good reason, there are many diseases that have been wiped out by vaccination.
Around November/December people suddenly started treating it as if no one ever said that, as if they suddenly realized they were lied to and didn't want to look like they were fooled.
The issue is getting to this state with the least casualty, and vaccines are best for that.
I checked for other pandemics to see how they ended, and they all seem to end the same way, by reaching large herd immunity either through vaccination, or just everyone catching it and having the weak die off, and the survivors pass on immunity to the next generation.
it required vaccines that actually slow the spread of disease
PRC, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other countries had SARS-CoV-1 in 2003 [0]. It kills 9% of people who catch it, even young people. Their governments performed effective contact tracing and forced quarantining. Everyone in those countries was careful not to catch or spread the disease. It nearly became a pandemic, but the people stopped it.
I hoped that Americans would do the same with SARS-CoV-2 (covid).
Instead, we went half the pandemic without a pandemic expert (epidemiologist) on the National Covid Task Force [1]. Our national leader downplayed the pandemic, refused to be careful not to catch or spread the disease, caught the disease, exposed his political opponents to it during debate, recovered, and consistently undermined and contradicted our national pandemic experts (CDC) [2].
Our government contact tracing programs have been underfunded and ineffective. Only schools performed effective contact tracing. Quarantine is not enforced or even checked. There are no fines or prison time for sick people who go to work or to gatherings and spread the disease.
Many Americans refused to take simple precautions to avoid catching or transmitting the disease. Some places even banned such precautions [3]!
About 20% of adult Americans refused the vaccine [4].
Americans refused to cooperate and achieve herd immunity. Do not blame epidemiologists for telling us what was possible. We should blame callous & incompetent politicians for undermining our medical professionals, blame callous & greedy media companies for targeting medical advice with their anti-establishment dogma, and blame callous & gullible Americans for refusing vaccines and carelessly spreading the disease.
Cities with cooperative people did achieve herd immunity. For example, San Francisco did in 2021-06 [5].
Then Delta and Omicron variants arrived. They break through existing immunity. USA now has 700,000 new cases of Omicron per day [6]. So we should reach herd immunity for Omicron in March. Then the pandemic will be over for us, unless another breakthrough variant arises.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Coronavirus_Task_F...
[2] https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-fall-of-the-cd...
[3] https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-issues-execu...
[4] https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-st...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_San_F...
[6] https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=usa&cumulative=0&...
Unless you listened to Joe Biden, the President, who said this in October 2021:
“We know there is no other way to beat the pandemic than to get the vast majority of Americans vaccinated”
https://www.aol.com/news/biden-defends-vaccination-requireme...
1/2 the population stopped paying attention to Dr. Fauci after he lied about masks (understandably). Then we were told that that funerals were bad, but outdoor protests were ok. Then it was racist to even consider the virus came from a lab leak. Then Fauci claimed that technically, he didn't fund gain of function research (in the most scripted,PR speak possible). Then we were told that vaccines would allow us to go back to normal. The level of trust lost by major institutions in the US, both medical and media-based is astounding. Biden said he would end the virus, then he said that there is no federal policy to stop the virus. Trump was racist/xenophobic for closing boarders to China, but Biden closed boarders with South Africa and wasn't racist/xenophobic.
This isn't about politics, im double vaxxed and survived omicron. This is about a huge failure across the board, and I'm not sure how you turn it around. We need to change some of the political systems in the US. There needs to be term limits (in congress, supreme court, executive branch). The executive branch needs age limits, with a hard cut-off at like 65. The fact that the choice in 2020 was between septuagenarians is pathetic.
If you spent 1% of your time paying attention to anything called media, the gaslighting is obvious.
Biden Blocking SA flights was dumb given SA alerted the world but wasn’t necessarily the source of Omicron.
He admitted he lied about mask effectiveness to prevent runs on PPE.
Trump is racist. He called COVID the kung flu. Closing a "boarder" is a bit different than blaming a demographic.
Biden is not an overt racist, so it's not likely that a border closing will get characterized as racist. It's up for debate whether it was good or bad, however.
First, they gave vague recommendations to immunocompromised folks. They said everyone else probably didn't need it. Then they said well, ok for older folks. Then this new omni variant comes out and they're badgering everyone to get boosted NOW or your no longer considered fully vaccinated.
There would have been so much less confusion if they were consistent with their communication from the start, and did a phased rollout of the booster just like they did with the original vaccine.
Edit: My point is that they knew there was reduced efficacy of the vaccine back in September. They knew the general public would eventually need a vaccine. They should have had a plan to gradually get the population boosted. If they had, most who wanted a booster would have had one before omni existed.
There's a reason emergency services dispatchers have such a stressful job, they're making these decisions all the time based on very limited amounts of data. Unfortunately we're all living in a situation right now where we're making emergency decisions as new information emerges.
Not me, but you seem to be hooked on fear. May you find some peace in life.
This is an unnecessary insult. You could have left it with "I'm comfortable not treating this as an emergency situation." I'm not sure what you gained from this post. Hopefully you got the performative internet points you were looking for.
In the past week:
- The CDC director acknowledged and downplayed the severity of omicron by stating the vast majority of hospitalized patients have multiple comorbidities. This has been true since the start of the pandemic, but is only being addressed now.
- CDC and several states are making the distinction between "hospitalized from" and "hospitalized with" COVID. This has also been a point of contention for the past 2 years. For some reason we're changing that now. Your guess is as good as mine, but I'd bet it has to do with the omicron spike making govt. middle manager KPI graphs look bad.
"Trust the science" is a nonsense term. We're being asked to "Trust the policymakers". Why should we? Ok, so they're informed by science. But if the scientific consensus is obviously in rapid flux and can't be used to predict anything, then why should we trust the policies or their makers?
Furthermore, there is now widespread suspicion that the CDC's current recommendations are not based on science anymore: for example, the 5-day vs 10-day isolation period.
What's especially bad is the advice not to use tests after 5 days, followed a few days later by advice that tests are optional after 5 days -- everyone knows that advice would be different if there were not test shortages. That's not science, that's pragmatism, and that's fine and they ought to just say so, but the CDC continues to make the transparently false claim that their advice is based purely on science.
That really hurts the CDC's credibility -- now, when they make an announcement, we all have to ask ourselves whether it's truly based on science. Smart people of all political stripes now realize this. Even the liberal cable TV talking heads are attacking the CDC over this.
People will put up with just about anything if they think there's a good reason for it, but if instructions seem arbitrary then people tend to stop giving officials the benefit of the doubt.
Transparency can go along way towards maintaining public trust. I'd rather the CDC err on the side of over-sharing than the reverse.
I think it's worth considering a different framing:
> "There would have been so much less confusion if COVID variants and transmission/hospitalization/death rates remained consistent from the start"
It's easy to call out the communication, and don't get me wrong, it surely could have been better. But I often see this sentiment without acknowledging that the communication problems are a symptom, and driven by a very unpredictable situation, and very appropriate changes in policy based on that evolving situation.
Throw in politicization of it, tons of non-mutual “facts” going around, a heap of anecdotes, and you’ve got a communications nightmare.
No, that's not what is being said. In the case of boosters, the communication (c|sh)ould have been "we're gonna give booster. For now we think only immunocompromised people will need them, but we can't really rule out other options. Further research will tell us whether other categories, or perhaps the whole population, could need it, although this does not seem the case at the moment."
Of course there's multiple problems with this: you don't sound on top of things, media will extract the most definitive quote from it anyway, hard to imagine the worst case scenario, etc. But it does seem that most government are messing up the communication badly (either sounding very paternalistic, blaming the citizens, never showing uncertainty despite the situation, changing measures before the previous ones can show an effect, etc.), at least for what I would consider a good, mature way to communicate with citizens. I'm no expert, tho.
isn't the rational thing to do to start ignoring some of the "meta-policy" framing and just treat it as "this is the best idea people have at the time, but I expect it's subject to change."
Truthfully, we should be more open to all sorts of policy changing over time. Every other entity in the world is expected to evolve.
And I'm open to policy changes as well.
I'm just disappointed by the (as I said in another reply, Italian or Dutch) governments treating people like kids, washing away the complexity and nuances in communication with the public, expecting them not to understand that they don't have all the answers and that decisions might change in light of new (possibly even contrasting) information. Is that wishy washy, or treating the population as adults? For me it's the latter.
It does, however, assume a certain degree of scientific literacy that is lacking in many people (including politicians?), so maybe that's an answer for why it's not like that.
I don’t think you can be wishy washy, and the lack of respect for science and science education in the US certainly doesn’t help.
I like to say "I believe in science". However, what I've seen in the last 2 years is only science by name and by fiat.
We've been fed wrong information after wrong information "for our own good", which has caused the population to lose confidence as the article perfectly explains.
This is terrible, as trust and confidence take a long time to build. Now we have a wonderful new technology (mRNA vaccine) that could be helpful against many ailments, but that the population has learned to fear.
The root cause seem to be the government desires to cover their own mistakes (ex: the masks being inefficient: because they didn't have enough at first, how hands washing was so important... for airborne virus (!!!): because air filtration was too expansive, how the old vaccine is so important against omicron: because they haven't adapted the vaccine so hey let's give a 3rd, a 4th shot and so on, sending people known to have covid in retirement homes full of vulnerable people: because they hadn't built adequate facilities...)
I believe in science, but I can hardly blame people who now subscribe to weird ideas: in their defense, they have noticed some of the lies so in a Bayesian setting they have adjusted their priors: by default they now distrust every official message, and unfortunately for them they may not have the proper scientific knowledge to better adapt their probability distributions.
I seriously hope there will be official inquiries about a level of mismanagement that borders criminal negligence, and that will have cost human lives.
This isn't what the government said. The government said that masks were inefficient at preventing the wearing from contracting Covid, which is true to this day. They didn't want people to hoard masks at everyone else's expense, especially healthcare workers.
What would you improve in the message sent? To me it seems the parts you ask for are pretty much there?
While in NL the scientific advice and communication has been simply ridiculous (mandatory masks introduced at the end of last year, with still the idea that "science doesn't know if they work, but we are gonna make them mandatory" from the government, and "we're against that, they don't work" from the head of the CDC-equivalent), in Italy it does contain the cautious wording that I advocate for.
However, this is the official communication that is written in "legalese" and not passed through the people by means of interviews and press releases. The media of course bears a lot of responsibility for the dilution of the message, chasing scoops and making headlines that leave no space for doubt; but the communication of the government to the public ends up using similar headlines, which I see as the problem in this case.
Could have? Yes. Should have? $20 says 90% of the population simply ignore communication worded this way, and that "GET BOOSTER NOW, YES YOU" is more effective.
Oh no no no.
This is probably the absolute worst possible wording. Any time a government agency has had to chance their stance on something, they get accused of lying.
They have to be careful with how to present preliminary information. If they state anything "may" be true, then news outlets will treat it as true, and then hells breaks loose when they discover it was wrong.
Of course, if they wait until they're absolutely certain of something, then until then, they get accused of incompetence and of doing nothing, while some news outlets just make up bullshit.
We absolutely did not know that cloth masks would help. We (incorrectly) thought that anything less than a N95 mask would not help at all, and so that is what was communicated. Since then we have done a lot of science and have learned that while N95 masks are a lot better than, say, double-layered cloth masks, the latter are still much better than nothing in slowing down infection rates.
We also were very focused on the effects for the wearer of masks. We were not focused on the effects of a possible spreader wearing the masks. Part of this was that all of the previous pandemics had diseases that people were symptomatic when they spread the disease. With Covid-19 we have a disease the mostly spreads when people are a-symptomatic. So the potential spreaders are the ones who most need to be wearing masks, and since we can't tell them apart, we need everyone in masks.
All of these things are things we learned along the way. Harping on the CDC (or others) for not knowing them is just wrong. For some of the references here please see:
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...
Haven't the horrors of history given enough examples? The ends do not justify the means. Lies like this have most definitely already backfired hard. Anyone who thinks they are some special elite who is entitled to lie to the public for the greater good is wrong, evil, and unfit to hold any sort of power.
Political and scientific leaders knew this, and they made a decision to exaggerate the level of confidence they had or should have had in several of these matters. No one seriously expected leadership to have complete knowledge from day 1, but that's not the criticism. Nor is the criticism that facts change on the ground in fast-moving situations. Of course they do.
The criticism is that they knowingly overstated their factual case at the time so that they could implement their chosen strategies, even to the point of suppressing legitimate scientific dissent, and are now unconvincingly trying to use "facts on the ground change", "science learns over time", and "of course we couldn't have been expected to know everything" as excuses for those decisions.
If you're making very confident policy-guiding assertions to the public on behalf of Science (TM), and when you're right, it's evidence of how great Science is, and when you're wrong, it's because Science is a process of continual revision and uncertain information, that creates a bit of moral hazard. It works internally in science, where there are no consequences for being wrong other than wasted time, but not in the real world where there are real consequences for being wrong.
consistent communication could have been: boosters are recommended, we'll open them to relevant age groups in the future.
though honestly they should have opened boosters to everyone in september and called it done. we knew then everything we needed to know. which are:
1. risks of the boosters. 2. average declines in protection.
> during unpredictable situations
Unpredictable: adjective - "not able to be predicted"
> it makes it MORE important to be consistent in communication
Consistent: adjective - "unchanging in nature, standard, or effect over time"
If you wish to deliver a message that is accurate during a time that cannot be predicted and actively changes, you cannot do so and remain consistent without starting to misrepresent the truth.
If you wish to deliver a message that is consistent during a time that cannot be predicted and actively changes, you cannot do so and deliver current/accurate information.
In essence, your options are:
1. Be accurate/informative, but the message will change as the situation changes.
2. Be consistent, but the message either a) cannot contain any meaningful guidance or b) will be wrong
we knew by late june boosters would be needed. so all messaging after june should have been consistent. it wasnt.
what wasn't predictable was when precisely we needed to issue boosters and to whom. because we simply didn't have the data on that until around september. However since september it was very predictable that we needed them for the holiday season. I got mine in early november because it was fucking obvious. omicron wasn't 100% assured but it was in the news and most sound bites were 'more contagious'.
its entirely possible to be consistent in the face on unpredictable events.
1. outright say 'we don't currently have the information needed yet check back later' or 'worst case scenario would be X, we're going to start with those assumptions'
2. repeat step 1 until you have the data or know you never will
3. once data is acquired adjust statements.
this is being consistent and clear. another example of this is masking and viral spread.
1. assume worst case for viral spread (airborne)
2. message masks are necessary until more is known about how the virus spreads.
3. if results come back disproving airborne spread, say so.
instead we got:
1. masks not necessary. virus doesn't seem to be airborne.
2. OOPS VIRUS IS AIRBORNE.
the first case is consistent, assume worst case and then ease restrictions. the 2nd case is completely inconsistent.
The virus is mutating so the government strategy has to adapt too. Elimination was an option for a while.
However these countries were always going to have to open up and accept the virus eventually as it became endemic in the rest of the world. They were just delaying the inevitable. As it happened, the evolution of the virus made the decision for them. However if Delta had not happened they would still have had to make the decision to open up at some point, probably after a significant proportion of the population was vaccinated.
But let me ask you this. Are we going to need a fourth shot / second booster in 2022? I'd say it's almost certain. Find me a public health authority who is saying this in the United States. I can't.
There's some legitimately changing facts. But there's also nonsense, like health officials saying masks don't help with a respiratory disease, that has nothing to do with changing facts.
Now, the reasoning for the former was that they were concerned about PPE supplies, but that doesn't change the fact they reversed themselves very shortly, and expected people to forget the earlier messaging.
The government didn't need to be an oracle with a perfect track record, but I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that they should have been honest. If you can't see how the pandemic was used for political purposes, I don't know what to say.
It seems to me from this excerpt of his email to a colleague on February 5, 2020, Fauci really did not think masks were effective initially.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...
This goes back to the comment you replied to. The government can't give perfect hindsight advice at the beginning of any situation. it seems like your complaint here is "science isn't perfect"
* I have not made and continue to not make any statements regarding mask communication, nor about reports on reasoning for that.
* I am not engaging in nor countering absurd conspiracy theories
* I am not broadcasting my feelings and thoughts on political purposes and what I do or do not see to you, so I don't know why you think you are capable of surmising what I can and cannot see.
* I do find hilarious how very angry you are that I pointed a logical inconsistency.
But pointing out the the messaging from the government has been, at best, muddled--and at worst, misleading, if not downright dishonest--you interpret as "anger"? I find that pretty disingenuous. You are again inferring that which is not implied.
As things stood? The CDC basically said 'you should get a booster only if you're high risk'. They went back and forth over whether to recommend it to the general public for the longest time. This lead to a lot of confusion, and a lot of folks essentially shrugged and went on with their life. If they had been consistent with messaging a much higher percentage of the population would currently be boosted.
While that's true, I don't think it's reasonable unless, like a sibling suggested, the disease would be consistent from the start.
What would be nice is if they contemplated and acknowledged that the recommendations would be changing. Rather than saying 'others don't need a booster', they should be saying 'at this time, based on current understanding, etc, others don't need a booster'. In some situations, they can probably suggest what conditions might cause a change in recommendations.
But they do. E.g. go through https://web.archive.org/web/20210715000000*/https://www.cdc...., it's always wrapped in "We are monitoring the situation. High-risk populations first. Recommendations will be adjusted as needed." disclaimers. But we have a strong tendency to only remember the short head-line version, even if we looked at the full statement at the time. And if you go by headlines or equivalent short news, it's likely you haven't seen the disclaimer, but good luck getting the details into headlines. It's a pattern that repeats over and over in discussions of this.
Not having increased risk of heart inflammation and rare dangerous thromboses would be nice too, but then again it seems like Covid causes those anyway. So maybe we just need to update our base rates for those conditions and move on from the way things used to be.
Plus, if I can still spread Covid and make grandma critically ill even after I have the booster, whereas I'm at super low risk for serious illness, is the booster even doing anything to reduce hospital utilization?
I had what I think was omicron, and it seems like I don't really need a booster on top of it... or do I?
The point is that I have no idea what the right thing to do is.
I feel like there's no public health response in the USA anymore. The President is just telling people to f*cking "Google it", everyone seems to be either a paranoid wacko anti-vax Covid denier Bill-Gates-is-coming-for-your-body-fluids-and-children cultist or a "trust the science" cultist, and the big pharma companies (Pfizer, Moderna) seem to be just raking it in hand over fist with all these vaccine doses.
Seems like everyone has to brush up on their statistics and start reading the research, because the news and government agencies just aren't worth a damn anymore when it comes to communicating. It seems that the Trump legacy of "abject societal dysfunction" is here to stay.
</rant>
By the time the Omicron-specific vaccines are approved by the various government health bureaucracies, Omicron will have run its course. Unless you want to live like a hermit for the next few months, it's probably best to get a booster and live your life. All of my friends & acquaintances who've contracted omicron have had a booster shot and all of them said that the worst part was isolating. Their symptoms were extremely mild- just a sore throat or cough for a few days.
It would be nice if one could choose a lower dose of vaccine. The second shot (and booster) of Pfizer were absolutely brutal for me. A baby aspirin version of the vaccine would provide most of the protection without the days of debilitating pain and fever. When I got my booster I asked the guy giving the shot if he could inject a partial dose because my previous reaction was so bad. He just laughed, emptied the syringe into my arm, and told me to drink lots of water. :(
The problem here is that we have a lot of internalization of changing your mind is bad in the political arena. "Flip flopping," etc. Inquiry is discouraged.
The article is actually much more interesting because it's about how views are changing differently for different groups even inside the same partisan grouping. It shows that conversation and messaging is an ongoing thing.
One of the theories on the origin of omicron seems to be that it evolved in animals for a while before jumping back to humans (the weirdness being that it's not evolved from Delta, and it has a number of mutations all at once). [1]
And even if it's not the origin of this variant, it could easily be the origin of a future variant (that's why they're considering it).
And it's quite unlikely we could vaccinate every animal on the planet, so this idea that if we had just gotten all our shots this variant would have never happened is pretty ridiculous.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-did-omicron-covid-varian...
If we had gotten 80% (some magic number between 70% and 95% I pulled out of nothing) of the US adult population vaccinated, and quarantine locked down the borders we could have snuffed covid out and been in a bubble paradise like New Zealand managed to do with just hard and long enough quarantines.
We didn't get there, and Delta and Omicron did get to us; two variations that are each insanely more viriliant and spread despite the vaccinations which are now only good enough to prevent serious infection and death most of the time.
Yes, physical borders are long stretches that are difficult to secure, and I have seen the TV footage. Doesn't mean that a policy can't be _sufficiently_ effective to make a difference.
Also, reflexively speaking of borders; effective policies probably involve a mix of carrot and stick. The carrot being a legal path to do what people are going to do anyway, but in ways that are documented and regulated. Exact details of either side of that are far, far off topic in this thread.
The virus stuck around and we got Delta, and now Omicron.
And we're STILL at less than 70% vaccinated. I don't know what's required for herd immunity, but it doesn't take a Ph.D in virology to know that 70% isn't it.
So I'm not sure what the intended end game of the people trying to limit the spread is. "Flatten the peak so hospitals are less likely to be overwhelmed" may or may not be realistic, but at least it's a coherent goal. "Keep vaccinating and closing things until COVID goes to zero on its own" just seems like denying the reality that COVID is endemic at this point, so any non-acute mitigation measures we want to take now had better be mitigation measures we're willing to keep taking forever.
To a certain extent, I blame the use of the term "reaching herd immunity" instead of "reaching an endemic state" for giving people unrealistic expectations.
At this point, yes.
But last year? In Spring and early summer? Look at COVID cases compared to vaccination rates. Case counts were dropping fast, but then vaccination stalled. A couple months later, Delta began ripping through and we got our second wave.
I sincerely believe that we could have been through with this if we had reached 95% vaccination by July.
I'm undecided if we should still continue masking and any restrictions at this point. I want to say "Fuck it. Everyone who wants a vax can get one, if you don't, I will have zero pity if you get infected.", but the fact is, ICU's are still being overrun.
It would not have made a difference.
Singapore, Israel and a large chunk of Western Europe had very high vaccination rates before they got pummled by a Delta wave.
And for anyone wondering if boosters are enough to quell Omicron: Israel is the perfect case study as they're currently being pummled by Omicron after having finished their booster campaign (they're onto their 4th dose now).
Are lockdowns the answer to Omicron? Well the Netherlands went into a preemptive lockdown several weeks BEFORE Omicron took off and I think their case trajectory paints a very clear picture now that Omicron has taken off (they are still in lockdown).
To me, it looks like the vaccine's efficiency in terms of reducing transmission wanes after 3-5 months and it's quite clear when you look at the different waves countries are experiencing around the world.
All omicron cases in the US can be traced back to infections from outside of the country. Getting 95% of eligible people vaccinated and getting cases within the country to zero prior to omicron being introduced would have been nice, but that alone would not have stopped the current omicron wave. We'd be in a somewhat better place now, but since a significant factor in hospitals being under load now is vaccinated medical personnel being out with covid, we'd still have a hospital load problem.
I can see maybe some justification in instituting restrictions to try to flatten the peak of the omicron wave, until such a time as case numbers start to decrease again. But such restrictions, if put in place, should be done with the understanding that all we're doing is shifting infections in time, not changing the total number of infections.
> I want to say "Fuck it. Everyone who wants a vax can get one, if you don't, I will have zero pity if you get infected.", but the fact is, ICU's are still being overrun.
This is basically where I'm at, except at this point it doesn't seem like there's any coherent idea of when the inevitable infections that occur won't overrun ICUs, and I don't particularly think it's worse to have ICUs overrun for a few weeks right now than it is to have ICUs overrun for a few weeks a month from now.
Do you understand it crosses between humans and animals such as deer and even house cats? You can sincerely believe in the Easter Bunny along with sincerely believing all animals can be vaccinated on approximately the same week, but sincerely believing in something does not make it possible.
Covid seemed to be on track to have be almost entirely wiped out in the U.S. until Delta and Omicron came along, and now it's not clear that even 100% vaccination rates would be enough.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-...
Currently the CDC still considers someone fully vaccinated after the two dose series. As far as I can tell there aren't any booster requirements at the national level.
The problem is: science is continuous discovery of and adaptation to new facts. In a society where significant amounts of the population have such a low respect for science that they seriously believe that Earth was created by God 6000 years ago, it is obvious that these people literally cannot grasp or cope with the fact that new discoveries come in timespans of single-digit weeks... Omicron was discovered at the end of November, barely a month later cases worldwide reached Delta records and now they went through the roofs.
I agree that there have been communication fuck-ups by politicians and the media, but basic science education in schools (and scientist staff in mass media) would have lessened the impact dramatically.
Biden called for a booster dose for everyone in September. The CDC and the FDA didn't agree.
I'm not risking another ER visit, not paying $3500 more for "societal good", and I've lost trust/faith in the establishment to not play bait and switch.
[1] - California had a brief period where if you got vaccinated you could be maskless in gyms and restaurants, this was rescinded in August 2021
[2] - https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126... The redefinition undermines what most would colloquially understand as a vaccine -- much like a "cure" something that to a major extent stops one from getting the disease, which the vaccine does not. Yes it's 80% effective at eliminating _hospitalization_ but vaccinated people still get Covid, still go through fever & long covid symptoms (loss of taste/smell anyone?), and still must quarantine else infect others.
I agree, it's now known as a "rare" side effect, but I wasn't aware either until after I got the vaccine.
How did you know something was wrong? I think a lot of people (including myself) feel heart pain after the vaccine but aren't sure if it's worth going to a doctor about it.
after EKG, xrays, bloodwork, a big scare and such the doctors put me on ibuprofen and it subsided after another ~3 days
from those i've spoken with who had the same issue I think they should add this warning for Men (especially really fit men) under 40 -- "Do not engage in strenuous exercise for 1 month after getting your 2nd dose (maybe boosters too)" . All the cases i've heard they have been exercise onset. Mine was shortly after a I returned to the gym too, albeit for weight lifting.
The cardiologist I went to see about the issue said he's seeing people like me daily.
Further investigation found a coronary artery blocked 90%, and another blocked 80%. I now have two stents in my heart.
So, the last sentence in the first paragraph is "how you know" (or at least one way you know).
Note well: I am not claiming that the vaccine caused my blocked arteries. Did it contribute all of the problem? The last 5%? None, and it's just a coincidence in timing? I don't know. And that really bugs me, because it affects whether I should get a booster or not.
Where you see "a political thing" I see "a trust thing". I have been burned too many times to sanely remain trusting . It's not politics I dont care if red/blue/pink/pirate team is pushing it, I have lost blind faith and now scrutinize as I'm able. And there used to be a time when I just trusted whatever came under the banner of "Science" thinking that smarter people than me were benevolently doing the best for all.
But since I've experienced unexpected costs I've done more research and been shocked at what I found, for example Pfizer the maker of my vaccine has been fined ~$5Bn over 75 separate situations over the past 20 years [1]. Or Merck paying out 4.7Bn in damages , $1Bn in fines -- but gathered $12Bn in sales[2] ... No one went to jail. There is too much corporatism[3] for me to trust. [1]: https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=p...
[2]: https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/joe-rogan-ne...
[3]: (i'm not against other strains of capitalism)
And of course, 75 situations over 20 years is meaningless. One situation was a $7,500 workplace safety issue. These aren’t “Pfizer killed people with their products!” violations. Should someone go to jail? Seems odd to throw that out without talking about what the violations were.
What is it with antivaxxers and their complaints about the definition of vaccination? They complained that the definition was changed to include a new way of conferring immunity. They complained that the definition was posted to be more accurate.
Vaccines have never been 100% effective for any disease I’m aware of. It’s entirely reasonable that the CDC would change the definition to be clearer.
Edit: “Immunotherapy” is also definitely not a more understandable word. Half of immunotherapy is dedicated to making the immune system do less.
I'm not an antivaxxer per se, people should do what they want, but I'm pretty unimpressed with what we got in the box that said "Vaccine".
Where are these part of the definition? This isn’t something they put in their definition so far as I can see.
Anyone who thought that the previous definition meant “100% effective, no symptoms” was woefully misinformed. Indeed, if people thought that before, then it’s really, really good that the CDC updated their definition.
> The real issue at hand is that the public has an understanding of what a "vaccine" means to them, and that public definition and the establishment provided new definition are grossly different. I'm not a fan of being told what a word means by overlords who control the definitions of language.
Then, again, the public was woefully (willfully?) misinformed. Vaccines have never given perfect immunity to all recipients. I don’t know anyone in my personal life who has ever indicated that they thought vaccines were 100% protective, though.
I also don’t know who should be defining the word vaccine if not medical professionals. It also looks like Webster agrees with the CDC, though for all I know they’ve changed their definition recently.
I question the intellectual honesty of the people spreading these complaints, because many of these same people talk about “natural immunity”. Someone who thinks “immunity” means “0% chance of infection” shouldn’t be talking about “natural immunity”, either. (I’m not saying you, here, to be clear.)
My (and by proxy am guessing at the public's) understanding would be something like ~90% effectiveness at all but the most benign symptoms, and importantly minimal concerns of transmission.
For example MMR Vaccines meet this standard [1]
> A person with two doses of MMR vaccine has about an 88% reduction in risk for mumps;
In replying to you I also read this[2] which is quite interesting,
> MMR vaccine prevents most, but not all, cases of mumps and complications caused by the disease. People who have received two doses of the MMR vaccine are about nine times less likely to get mumps than unvaccinated people who have the same exposure to mumps virus.
So I guess there is a middle ground between people expect the Covid vaccine to mean "you no longer can get it", and the reality of past vaccines "9x less likely to get it [at all vs hospitalization]" -- I just don't see the current covid vaccine providing the "get it at all" portion vs "hospitalization" target/success metric.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/mumps/vaccination.html [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/mumps/outbreaks/outbreak-patient-qa.html
If you walk out on the street and ask people how effective the Flu vaccine is, I bet very few will tell you it’s around 90%. (It’s closer to 50%generally.) Most people are well aware that not all vaccines are hitting 90% protection bar. And again, to the extent that you’re right and I’m wrong, this is an argument in favor of the CDC making the definition clearer.
I would expect that vaccines are most effective on viruses that mutate less. Influenza and coronaviruses both mutate quite a bit. It’s actually kind of impressive that the original COVID vaccine is still providing so much protection for later variants.
> So I guess there is a middle ground between people expect the Covid vaccine to mean "you no longer can get it", and the reality of past vaccines "9x less likely to get it [at all vs hospitalization]" -- I just don't see the current covid vaccine providing the "get it at all" portion vs "hospitalization" target/success metric.
I think part of this is because it is a moving target. Omicron is quite new (less than 2 months old) and it takes a while to gather meaningful data.
Both Pfizer and Moderna demonstrated over 90% effectiveness on the original virus, in terms of reducing risk of infection at all. This dipped with subsequent variants like Delta and now Omicron. PBS says protection has dipped to 30-40% against infection and 70% against hospitalization, with a booster pushing it back up to 70-75 against infection, which is nothing to sneeze at considering that were several mutations away from the original at this point.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/how-effective-are-co...
What this reflects is the tribalist nature people like yourself have subscribed to.
And to be honest its a valid assessment because who would've thought we would need a 4th booster as Israel has done?
At the point that you start casting the CDC as nefarious actors for clarifying the definition of “vaccination”, though, you’re just spreading FUD. If there was some substance to the criticism, it would be a different thing. But there is no substance to the criticism. No vaccine has ever given 100% immunity to everyone who got it. Nothing changed. It’s also inaccurate to claim that the vaccine does nothing to prevent infection. Breakthrough infections are certainly happening but unvaccinated are getting infected at a higher rate. (Plus the risk of severe infection.)
This narrative that they’re sneaking around changing definitions to trick people is absurd. They made the change publicly. The data used to make decisions around COVID is public. These aren’t back room secret deals. It’s public health policy being endlessly debated in public.
> And to be honest its a valid assessment because who would've thought we would need a 4th booster as Israel has done?
A ton of people expected this. People were talking about likely needing yearly boosters before the vaccines were even available. Maybe every 6 months is sooner than expected but boosters were totally predicted.
100% wasn't stated by me as a target, the really interesting part is the shift of the target from "you dont get it" to "you wont be hospitalized" ... elsewhere in this I posted about some of my readings about MMR vaccines, they confer something like a 9x decrease in infections (at all, again not just hospitalizations) .
2 doses/boosters is fine, even multiple years apart... Breakouts happen (with MMR) etc. But IMO the term "vaccine" meaning like the MMR vaccine, is not the same when applied to covid -- hence why I said "immumotherapy" seems more apt.
> This narrative that they’re sneaking around changing definitions to trick people is absurd. They made the change publicly. The data used to make decisions around COVID is public. These aren’t back room secret deals. It’s public health policy being endlessly debated in public.
I agree this is a good and valid point, part of the issue is messaging. Why is this redefinition not making news, and widespread announcement? I was getting texts to stay home, there were mailings and mandates about masks... Social media ads saying what the CDC is doing and why would be quite helpful to combat FUD... anyways I digress...
As for the messaging:
1) I would bet all of my money that at least 95% of the people complaining about the CDC updating their definition had never once read the previous definition until they read some article trying to cast the CDCs actions in a nefarious light. It’s not clear to me why this redefinition is worthy of a news story at all.
2) I am very doubtful that the CDC engaging as you’ve described would help anything. Their detractors would absolutely call it propaganda.
In my opinion its insanity to give this to children, especially now that omicron is here.
[1] - Table 2, https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safe...
Recent data from Ontario has effectively ended this debate. Myocarditis is definitely more common from dose 2 moderna than from covid in young boys, and the same is probably true for Pfizer mostly because we don't actually know how many people have caught covid.
I had 3 weeks of intense chest pains after 1st Pfizer and another week of mild chest pains after the 2nd dose. All tests normal. Four separate doctors said it was a common side effect and they had no idea what it was.
Now 3 months after my 2nd dose I still get chest discomfort after lifting weights, and have had to quit caffeine entirely as it results in days of chest pains after physical activity. Didn't have those issues prior.
Vaccine-induced costochondritis seems to fit best.
It's very common for people outside of a profession to misunderstand terms from within that profession. That generally doesn't mean we get to redefine it on the fly. The Covid vaccines are vaccines because it is the correct and appropriate terminology to use within the fields that develop and administer vaccines. In terms of not being a "cure" and needing boosters, that is true to varying degrees for most vaccines. Flu vaccines - which for years have uncontroversially been called vaccines - are often less effective than the Covid vaccines.
Nothing wrong with needing boosters (eg you get one multiple years apart for MMR, you get one, what every decade with Tetanus?) , but every 6 months for only reduced risk of hospitalization is quite the stretch...
And my understanding is flu vaccines give great protection of getting anything from very specific strains, and lesser effects to varyingly differences in those strains[1]. This "vaccine" doesn't give great protection to any strain, unless "protection" just means you still get covid, but not hospitalized.
It's pretty disheartening to hear you essentially say that the professionals get to redefine words to benefit themselves to the detriment of the public...
[1]: https://uabmedicine.org/-/flu-strains-explained-and-how-the-...
Never said any such thing, so feel free to be reheartened.
The CDC, being a public health agency, had a definition of vaccine that was intended for the public's consumption. Scientists generally do not have to check the CDC website for terms of art regarding their profession.
There is/(was?) a general understanding that a 'vaccine' was an injection or spray or ingestable that primed the immune system to fight a potential 'real' infection of a disease. This priming meant that while you may come into contact with the disease, you would be exceedingly unlikely to develop symptoms.
Changing the public definition of the vaccine after the initial covid vaccines had already been released to allow 'vaccine' to mean any therapeutic that gave any degree of protection from a disease is an obvious bait and switch. Evidence of this definition being changed as a damage control measure due to floundering public trust is evident from emails made available through FOIA requests.
We are not going to pretend that updating that definition was a sincere miscommunication of the science when the text is so obviously not scientific. The political motivations and objectives are clear.
If this had been a single event we may still express doubt, but these language games that prey upon the public's preconceived definitions of common vocabulary have been rampant for years at this point. 'With-cause' being another recent instance.
When reporting covid hospitalizations the phrase "X people hospitalized with covid" was used. Last week we had Fauchi on air explain that although those people are in the hospital _with_ a positive covid test many of them are asymptomatic and are in fact at the hospital _because_ of something other than covid; they just happened to test positive as well. Yet for months these numbers stood without question or explanation allowing a narrative of 'high covid hospitalizations' to be pushed.
Effectively we are treating the public as if they are idiots for hearing the obvious common parlance meaning of such statements-- "hospitalized with covid" when instead they should read as lawyers questioning every word. This is governmental malpractice.
A small note on season flu vaccines. The public generally understands that scientists are playing a guessing game with the flu and some years they guess better than others. But on years where they do guess well, the flu vaccine operates as the public generally understands it in what I've written above. Not only has there been no messaging that these covid 'vaccines' are playing a similar guessing game there has in fact been the exact opposite messaging. We developed an 'alpha variant vaccine' now we are developing a omicron variant vaccine. These are being discussed like treatments that 'should work' similar to a flu vaccine on a good year.
This has literally always been the definition of "vaccine". Flu vaccines work like this. Polio vaccines work like this. Smallpox vaccines work like this. I don't think you can blame the CDC if you didn't know how vaccines work.
The point of vaccines has always been to drastically reduce the chances that you get sick at all, and if you do, the chances that you will get hospitalized or die. Given that the chance of getting myocarditis from these vaccines is far less than the chances of you getting hospitalized/dying due to COVID, it's the smarter option.
90% of people who are dying from covid are unvaccinated.[1]
10 in 100,000 people in your likely age range experience myocarditis.[2]
However, yeah, if you have had a bad reaction before, you are likely to have another bad reaction. I'm sorry you went through that.
> Yes it's 80% effective at eliminating _hospitalization_ but vaccinated people still get Covid, still go through fever & long covid symptoms (loss of taste/smell anyone?), and still must quarantine else infect others.
I would argue 80% effective at eliminating hospitalization is not a trivial number. That is extremely effective. I will take those odds vs the chance of having an extremely rare myocarditis episode.
0: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/characteristics-of...
1: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/covid-omic...
``` Among more than 2.5 million vaccinated HCO members who were 16 years of age or older, 54 cases met the criteria for myocarditis. The estimated incidence per 100,000 persons who had received at least one dose of vaccine was 2.13 cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 2.70). The highest incidence of myocarditis (10.69 cases per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 6.93 to 14.46) was reported in male patients between the ages of 16 and 29 years. ```
seems pretty clear cut to me.
I actually entered the hospital without Covid and got it while I was in there. They had the entire place divided into separate wings and I had to be transferred between them. 103 degree fever, pulse 130, was pretty awful but came out of it fine.
I, too, am done with all of it. Let the chips fall where they may now.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidvi...
There's a clear difference in hospitalization and death between the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. You don't have to take the CDC's word for it - other countries can see the same thing in their numbers.
Calling getting the vaccine "an extremely inconvenient lifestyle" is silly.
Getting a vaccine isnt inconvenient, except that it was: I spent an entire week unable to use my left arm and feeling very sick (and my doctor didn't care). But also there's a ton of other issues, like my kids not being able to go to school, stores closed, having to greatly limit travel, etc.
> You don't have to take the CDC's word for it - other countries can see the same thing in their numbers.
Any way you slice and dice the data comes up with the same answer; vaccination reduces hospitalization and death.
The best way to think about CDC press releases is that they not intended to be read by scientists. They are intended to guide good behavior and may not be 100% accurate in terms of medical/scientific knowledge.
Good examples here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2022/omicr...
Screenshotted here due to paywall: https://imgur.com/a/gk73qDy
https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/covid-hospitaliz...
So, any evidence that contradicts your feeling will be dismissed?
> Second, there are more people being hospitalized in my area (which has high rates of vax) than there are unvaxxed people.
Sure. In a place with 100% vaccinated people, they would be all of the hospitalizations.
Relative proportions matter.
Just be aware: you're arguing with a scientist who worked for decades on medical biology who has, until recently, generally been quiet when seeing huge amounts of misleading medical knowledge trotted about to justify one procedure or another. I am always open to data and my "feelings" don't matter- except that most of the time, when I dig into the underlying claims, I find that they are misrepresented (usually unintentionally). So I use my own priors, and frankly, all I can say is that finding stats on a government page or a news article and using those to justify policy isn't convincing to scientists (and, it appears, the vast majority of the american public).
Ultimately, our public health people lost the PR war, and they did so through muddled messaging. Literally everything about vaccines has turned out to be less effective that public health leadership predicted, or claims. I'm not really surprised; I've commented many times on HN about how deeply challenging it is to do public health with a noncompliant population.
On the internet, no one knows you're a dog.
(I'm also glad the CDC employs more than just biologists, as statistics seems to be a fault here more than biology.)
> I wasn't talking in proportions, I meant absolutely.
Cool, so entirely pointless.
This popped into my inbox today: average daily cases, per-capita, for Seattle and NYC. Another clear distinction between the two populations. https://imgur.com/a/mjVxIhB
You can dismiss it as faked or rigged or manipulated again, but there's plenty of information out there to validate this sort of thing, and you don't have to take the US's word for it; other countries publish the same sort of information.
Ultimately I think you're not completely incorrect and I agree with teh directionality of what you're saying, but taken generally, the reality is that omicron does a much better job of infecting people (who were previously infected and have natural immunity, or who were vaccinated) and so much of this entire vaccine exercise has shown that we either need to move quickly/plan for regular 4-month updates (can you imagine trying to get everybody in the world to vaccinate every 4 months?) or maybe acknowledge that vaccination isn't the solution it was pitched as.
> At this point I don't really think that pointing at CDC public health releases is going to convince a scientist like me.
I just watched you move the goal posts in realtime.
(people that have covid and end up in the hospital) / (those who have covid)
Instead, we're looking at the ratio:
(vaccinated people who have covid and go to the hospital) / (unvaccinated people who have covid and go to the hospital)
Note that many people who end up the hospital either didn't know they were infected, or got infected there. And probably many of the people with COVID who go to the hospital don't actually need hospital levels of treatment. We have a tendency to overtreat with technology.
However the difference for me was that I was at home and all I needed to do was take my inhaler if I felt short of breath and take advil quite religiously for the fever.
So I don't feel there is any difference between their symptoms and mine, and I am an asthmatic and also a bit overweight.
Anecdotally, Advil worked much better than Tylenol. Advil made the body aches stay away for 6 hours, while Tylenol was more like 2 hours.
But as stated elsewhere in the thread, I should have qualified my statement with "don't give aspirin to kids" due to Reyes syndrome. Totally spaced that detail.
I'm glad you made it through okay, but statistically your risk was higher by being unvaccinated when you caught it.
Also if I was short of breath, a heart rate above 120 randomly, and had a fever of 102 (at the same tmie) during this pandemic, as an overweight asthmatic myself, I wouldn't have risked staying home and would have headed straight to the emergency room. Especially if I checked my Oximeter and it was in the lower 90s.
Please don't do that. Besides, how do you feel about Dr. Robert Malone? Is he an authority enough for you?
How do I know? This is exactly what happened to my wife.
I would have also used the nebulizer before going in, most likely (I have one at home), so I would know ahead of time how well it was working out. Also I did say I'd check the oximeter I have first, and if my blood oxygen level was low then according to that I probably need to be in the hospital and they'd hopefully take that measurement and react appropriately (Hopefully. I know hospitals have been overwhelmed at times, especially New York's)
I am a bit lucky in that the hospital closest to me, so far, hasn't run out of hospital beds this entire pandemic (currently has 80 regular beds and a dozen ICU beds available), and my state has, with a little luck and some decent policy decisions, has mostly kept things under control.
But once vaxxed+boosted, what more realistically can we do? I mean sure, let's maybe avoid coughing into each other's open mouths. But apart from that, Omicron seems to be so contagious, we're all bound to get it eventually unless we literally lock ourselves at home for the next 3 years.
1. Vaccines (most effective do it first).
2. Masks everywhere.
3. Lockdowns, if necessary.
--------
The big question right now is if we should push button#3. Many of us hoped it wouldn't be necessary, but things really are that bad now that we're contemplating pushing the button.
Lockdowns are themselves staged. We can lockdown schools (already happening in many colleges effectively. I have cousins who are off of college because they've extended their winter break, to minimize COVID19 spread).
---------
There's also lesser actions: I work in technology. All in-person meetings have been canceled. Schools are "sometimes online" in my area, depending on local conditions. Testing has gone up significantly, we try to catch the disease and encourage people to stay home asap to minimize spread. Etc. etc.
There's plenty of actions we can do, even if we decide against lockdowns.
I think my overall point is that we're well into discussing options between 2 and 3 now. This Omicron surge is truly ferocious, and far worse than people predicted (or really, hoped for).
There's also the evidence that Omicron subsides rather quickly (at least, in South Africa it did). So any such emergency measures would truly be temporary, more so than the original strain or Delta-surges of the past. Under these statistics / calculations, it makes more sense to perform bigger actions.
My 2020 Roger Waters concert was canceled. Sure, that made sense -- 15,000 people all packed inside the venue. But at the same time, my hairdresser was shut down, not even a single customer at a time allowed. Made no sense to me.
I think you have the theoretical game plan right, but I’d say that #3 is no longer within the realm of possibility in the US. There’s just no public support for it amongst anyone but the tiny percentage of the most cautious among us.
On #2, I’d even say that yes, masks still make sense in crowded indoor non-optional settings - meaning places we all have to go like public transit, grocery stores, and hospitals. But I’m already past the point of ever wearing a mask outdoors, and I’d also argue that it shouldn’t be a requirement for vaccinated individuals in optional spaces like gyms, bars, restaurants.
Being unmasked for 50% (?) of the time (while eating, say) you are in an enclosed space is obviously less risky than being unmasked 100% of the time.
My wife an I recently went out for breakfast. There was no wait for a table, so the masked time was basically less than a minute, but let's call it a full minute. Then, we were there for about 40 minutes unmasked.
That's a 97.5% time unmasked, talking or eating. You cannot possibly convince me that the 1 minute I had my mask on made ANY difference.
That said, the alternative to the "mask until you're seated" policy was never going to be "no masks", it would end up being "no indoor dining".
Or were you socializing for 30 minutes after actually eating for 10? And during the socializing period, you didn't feel like wearing a mask?
---------
Surely, when you were seated, you didn't have food yet. You had some time to place an order. It takes a few minutes to even fetch drinks from the back sometimes, depending on what the drinks are.
But everyone who is going to a restaurant in a "mask to the table" kind of area is wearing it for about 30 seconds til they sit at their table. Maybe on the way to the bathroom.
I know a few states had tried to pass mandates about wearing your mask when you were being waited on or when you were socializing/not actively eating. I don't think those stuck though because they are impossibly hard to enforce.
I don't always practice what I preach, but I've done so on multiple occasions. (IE: I've kept my mask on for the "social" phases of the Restaurant, and only took it off for the eating phase).
Given that we're currently facing an unprecedented hospital shortage _RIGHT NOW_, its certainly a behavior worth revisiting and advocating.
We can't stop all restaurant visits or family gatherings. But we can lessen the spread of COVID19 while we do gather.
No. I’m boosted. I’ve got plenty of other problems that are far higher in priority than Covid or the spread of Covid. Nobody should be required by law to wear a mask indoors at this point.
Why? No one has ever been able to tell me why a mask on a face was so terrible, to the point where I'm pretty sure that its just partisan bickering / political theater.
Masks are absolutely corrosive to society. They should have stayed off last June.
But in public, its important to reduce the hospitalization rate and COVID19 rate of spread. As corrosive as you "think" masks are, I guarantee that the long-term effects of COVID19 are more corrosive.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/rxwnbl/i_am_a_new_york...
Just 10% of this school has gotten infected with COVID19, and you can see how much of a nightmare its become. Not enough substitute teachers to watch kids. Kids mingling in the auditorium because there's not enough teachers to watch them. Spreading COVID19 further and further, causing more kids to be absent, causing more teachers to be absent, preventing school from effectively functioning as a learning environment.
You can't ignore this crap. Its evidently and immediately an issue right now.
I think a more salient question is if we can push button #3. Nobody wants more lockdowns. The vaccinated are tired of the unvaccinated fucking everything up for us, and the unvaccinated have never been open to the idea.
This is another thing pointed out by the article: there just isn't the will to do it, even if it was necessary.
This isn't being made as a medical decision, it's being made as a political decision.
You either do an orderly shutdown, or you get de-facto shutdown.
In the case of this high-school, they only needed ~10% of students / teachers to get COVID19 before chaos reigned supreme. Students are now skipping classes out of fear of their own safety, teachers are collecting students into auditoriums (because too many teachers are sick, not enough substitute teachers to watch the students 30-at-a-time anymore, gotta collect all the students together to more efficiently watch over them).
At this point, the high-school in this Reddit discussion should have just an orderly shutdown, rather than pretending everything is fine.
An orderly shutdown is better, because all the students remain at the same point of their lessons. If you're a calculus teacher currently teaching basic integrals this week... you won't be able to teach "integration by parts" (or other advanced integrals) 1 month from now, because 10% of your students were missing.
----------
In contrast, a formal shutdown means that _EVERYBODY_ gets held off at this lesson. You cut your losses, formally shutdown school, and start everybody up when times are safer.
You can plan around a formal shutdown. You can't plan around a de-facto shutdown. All the students are going to have bits and pieces of knowledge and are unable to catchup, because they all randomly lost bits of information due to randomly missing class.
A lot of this gets left to the choice of business owners and school administrators who have to balance their choices with fiscal concerns and public perception. There is no political leadership position for them to fall back on. Basically everyone's hands are tied, and some group is going to be upset whether buttons get pressed or not.
So are you suggesting vaccines, masks and lockdowns forever? I don't think many will agree to that. I certain don't.
Given that our hospital systems are being pushed to basically their breaking point, we need to do what we can to help our the nurses / doctors handle this situation.
A cloth mask is something like 30% effective. That's better than nothing, and certainly can slow down the spread if used universally. Booster-vaccines are something like 70% vs Omicron.
You do what you can, with the tools you have.
If you are sick, stay home. Don't infect your colleagues, don't infect your patients. Its not that hard.
---
The fact that you're arguing for the opposite is incredibly callous and reckless of you. Its like the pandemic has removed you of common sense.
That's literally why we have paid sick leave. Having 5% of your workforce stuck at home is better than those people coming in and infecting _EVERONE ELSE AT THE OFFICE_.
There seem to be people arguing for the COVID19 sick doctors/nurses to come in and work as usual, even with symptoms.
If that's not the case in UK (and if you're still on the old 10-day quarantine), then I guess your local politics are just different than what I'm dealing with here. We can blame this misunderstanding on our different local situations for sure.
-------
EDIT: https://www.reddit.com/r/nursing/comments/s0jaai/hey_cdc_im_...
Frankly, we're erring on the side of "too short a quarantine" right now in the USA with these 5-day periods.
I'm sure people are arguing for that somewhere, but it doesn't seem like it's anywhere I can see in this thread.
Please give the /r/nursing topic I posted in as an edit a review.
I'm not sure that's an outcome you want, though.
But this line of discussion is so bad, that I can only imagine it originated from Russian propaganda. How the hell does bringing in _PROVEN_ COVID19 positive people into a face-to-face setting with sick/immunocompromised patients a possible benefit in this situation?
The situation is sickening to think about. Its not something a rational person could ever possibly come up on their own.
On the other hand, if only 0.1% stay home sick with COVID, then the effect of their absence will probably be to reduce deaths if their job can be covered by others adequately.
So what we have is a question of degree: there exists a threshold at which doctors (or nurses, etc) should come in even if they have COVID. And somewhat counterintuitively the more doctors who are sick, the greater the likelihood that if they came in with COVID there would be fewer deaths overall.
Exactly where this threshold lies is an open question, and will depend on the facts.
Our hospitals have been pushed to the breaking point for a long time. Maybe we should focus on extending our ICU capability to meet the demand better, given that this may be the new normal for who knows how many years yet. I think we need to come to terms with this and expand accordingly on a more permanent basis.
TLDW: lockdowns are ineffective because they focus on protecting the wrong people. They can also cause harm to people.
They also touch on schools/colleges and say it makes no sense to lock them down because young people are very low risk.
There are several ways this could end, but the scenarios that could realistically keep most people from encountering the virus have proven implausible. So while you can use maska and lockdowns indefinitely, it's not much of a plan.
Arguably boosting the entire population and waiting for the last wave to pass is a more realistic plan, even though nobody so far seems willing to admit they're planning to do this, they just are doing it.
COVID-19 doesn't effectively transmit outside, so mask mandates outside are at best useless.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/01/07/deer-ohio-inf...
Are white-tailed deer commonly seen indoors? Or maybe, your assertion is full of crap.
"It's possible the deer in northeast Ohio contracted it from contaminated water, since the novel coronavirus is shed in human waste. But alternative sources — such as trash, backyard feeders, bait stations and wildlife hospitals — have to be considered, Bowman said."
What does this have to do with masks again? Perhaps you can organize a scientific experiment equipping half the deer with masks, and report back to us with the results.
Maybe the original case came from water, but we all know that COVID19 is primarily a respiratory virus that spreads by breath and air.
"A Japanese investigation of 110 cases found the probability of transmission to be 18.7 times higher indoors compared to an “open-air environment.” And a more recent study, which looked at transmission between 18 infected construction workers and 496 of their close contacts, showed that the infected individuals were nearly 25 times more likely to spread the virus to coworkers in enclosed spaces compared with outdoor settings. They transmitted the virus to 26 percent of their indoor coworkers while infecting only 1.4 percent of their outdoor workmates — this despite being significantly more likely to share meals and talk loudly while working outside."
Does it EVER spread outdoors? Sure. Is it very likely to? Not even close. We've known this for a long time, and yet we still have municipalities welding basketball hoops shut and filling skate parks with sand.
There's a restaurant close to me that's got "outdoor" seating. Its a tent with the sides down and heaters. It happens to match the legal requirements for "outdoor seating" in my county, but we all know that COVID19 is spreading everywhere inside that small tent.
--------
Its not like people are social-distancing at national parks. People are abusing these declarations in ridiculous ways.
> People are abusing these declarations in ridiculous ways.
And yet, the declarations are also ridiculous, which is the point that OP was making (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29880264). In the past (and maybe now, not sure) people have been required to social distance at national parks - or even forbidden from going to them at all.
On the other side of "ridiculous": 6 feet of "social distancing" wasn't enough to begin with. Building and elevator capacities were a sham. And, my employer (and likely many others) skirted all of these ridiculous rules in ridiculous ways - which is the point, that regardless of how people behave (which isn't relevant for this discussion, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up), some of the rules are still bad and useless.
The vast majority of covid-related rules are unnecessary, hygiene theater, woefully inadequate, or some combination of all of those - and, yet, governments and people of a particular inclination insist on following this charade anyway and using various logical fallacies (e.g. strawmanning, as you did above) and emotional attacks on those that have the audacity to question them.
Its not enough for you as an individual.
But such a rule lowers the "blast radius" of who gets infected when a case comes up. People's breath travels like 20 feet. If everyone is 6-feet apart, you only get ~3 people in front of you sick.
If people are ~2 feet apart instead, you infect 300% more people.
---------
There's a thing about big groups. What's good for the group isn't necessarily what's best for the individual.
Read the quote I pulled: outside = "open-air environment".
> People are abusing these declarations in ridiculous ways.
And this is being obtuse about "these declarations" to avoid acknowledging the fact that the person at the top of this thread is correct: COVID, statistically, almost never transmits outdoors. It's been studied, multiple times, all coming to the same conclusion.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/12/third-oh...
COVID19 is _effectively_ spreading to the entire Ohio deer population.
> The investigators said the prevalence of infection varied from 13.5% to 70% across the nine sites, with the highest prevalence observed in four sites that were surrounded by more densely populated neighborhoods.
Furthermore, it seems like we humans are spreading it to deer, with the deer in higher-density human neighborhoods reaching ~70% infection.
-------
I don't think we humans are sitting around talking to deer indoors. Any reasonable application of Occam's Razor is that humans are spreading COVID19 to deer through some kind of outdoor setting.
It doesn't suggest anything.
You're conflating two uses of the English word "effectively". One means "efficiently", which is the only one in use in the thread above, and the only one under debate. The other means "functionally" or "the effects are the same as", which is what you used in this single comment - but not even correctly. 1/3 of the deer population is not "effectively" the entire Ohio deer population in the sense that you meant it.
Furthermore, COVID19 does not spread effectively (in the sense of "efficiently") outside, as a comment that you've already read has pointed out[1]. 18 to 25 times less likely to spread to co-workers in an "open-air environment" (which kind of implicitly is still not like being in a park) fulfills the definition of "ineffective".
> Any reasonable application of Occam's Razor is that humans are spreading COVID19 to deer through some kind of outdoor setting.
Nobody claimed that there were no cases of outdoor human-to-deer infection - you were suggesting that the virus spread effectively outdoors in [2], which Occam's Razor does not support in the slightest.
You also moved the goalposts from "The fact that there's a bunch of infected deer means that covid effectively transmits outside" to "There's some outdoor transmission", and those two positions are completely different.
So, yes, Occam's Razor does support your (silently) revised claim in this comment, but definitely not the comment you originally invoked the Razor in.
The deer samples were anywhere from 14% to 70% COVID19 infected.
You're grossly underestimating the amount of COVID19 we have spread to the deer population (and likely, that deer have spread to each other). All of which happened outdoors.
[1] https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/01/07/deer-ohio-inf...
...with an overall rate of 36%, which is given in that very article that you linked. It doesn't matter if 70% of the deer at one site were infected, if the average is significantly lower than that.
...which isn't even relevant, because again, you're moving the goalposts, as stated above.
> You're grossly underestimating the amount of COVID19 we have spread to the deer population
I'm not underestimating anything, as one of the researchers said: "there is no documentation of deer transmitting the virus to humans or vice versa"[1] (another article which you have linked but apparently failed to read).
...and, as a previous study found[2], the virus does not spread effectively outdoors.
You're literally fabricating claims from thin air. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever for effective human-deer or deer-deer COVID transmission.
[1] https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/01/07/deer-ohio-inf...
[2] https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2021/08/how-safe-ou...
Deer don't do social distancing. They sleep together, and move around in herds for most of their day. COVID can both spread terribly outdoors (which it does) and lots of deer can get it exclusively outdoors.
Here in the UK we are in a terrible position of having to eventually pay for insanely expensive lockdowns that effectively did very little.
And we are now in the exact same place, as we were previously, having the same "discussion".
Masks make sense locally, temporarily, and as circumstances warrant. Such as a hospital or pharmacy during a flu outbreak, or when someone thinks they may be sick (cough or sneeze fits).
There doesn't seem to be much we can do to stop this in the near term. The idea of stamping out COVID quickly like we thought we could do in the spring of 2020 is gone.
It is time now to understand we live with it, to be cautious when we feel ill and isolate ourselves, and to get the preventative measures that help best (vaccines).
#2 and #3 are for imminent emergencies.
I am hoping that trend continues in the western world but who really knows
ffs, wear a mask.
By "what more realistically can we do" I'm really talking about shutdowns, lockdowns, and capacity reductions. I'm ok with continuing WFH for people who can... so I suppose my stance is inconsistent: I want to get back to "normal" but I'm ok with WFH and masks.
Overall, I'm frankly at a point where, double-vaxx'd and boosted, I really want to go back to not having to second-guess my decision to go out for a bowl of ramen.
Dwell deeply on that. The hospital is incapable of keeping people safe from Covid.
All the masks, social distancing and testing, and you catch Covid at the hospital.
B) why aren’t we testing and segregated people in hospitals? If society is expected to segregate unvaccinated people why can’t hospitals test and segregate healthy patients from anyone with Covid?
C) what expression is appropriate for a hospital that was incapable of preventing a patient free of Covid from contracting Covid in the hospital? Unwilling perhaps? Uninterested?
The standard response is "Just imagine how bad it would be without all the restrictions!". Which is exactly the problem, perhaps. You're using imagination and not a quantitative approach. You can say that about literally anything. "Just imagine how much worse we would have lost that game if I wasn't wearing my lucky socks!"
The follow-up question is - if we can't stop infection in hospital buildings, where the most vulnerable are literally cooped up together for days and weeks at a time, what's the point of the rest of the restrictions? If you follow the logic used to set guidance and law where I live (ie, closures of various categories of business at various times, and ongoing), then logically we should also have shut down the hospitals...
This was to ensure non-emergency admissions could continue without risking infection.
thanks for "letting the chips fall where they may" on everyone else who still would much prefer not to get sick and risk long covid but I will keep the mask on for now, thanks
But what's the plan? Covid is showing no signs of going away.
If things stay the same, is your stance going to change in a year? 3? 5?
Besides, there is nothing wrong with being “anti mask”. Covid is endemic. I’m boostered. Why should I continue to be forced to wear a mask? Is Covid still the only problem I can ever focus on?
After COVID, what are the media and these people going to do? The gravy train is going to run out, everything else will be boring for them in comparison.
for example, I have relatives who watch FOX news all day. they are convinced covid vaccines were created to kill people, for the purposes of "thinning the herd". the reason for this "thinning the herd", which they seem to believe is happening? despite most everyone they know including their whole extended family shaking their heads at their crazy facebook posts being vaccinated without any issue? is so that this would somehow pave the way for "communism". that's their whole worldview. so those are folks who think we're somehow all on board with covid being great, or something.
I wanted to know if they were prepared to go on for 1, 3, 5, 10, 20 more years of mask wearing in public, travel restrictions, remote learning, testing, etc. if things stay the same.
I wouldn't say that. On the extreme end, if I found out that this thing was not going to be "over" during my lifetime, I'd say it doesn't make sense to continue doing this for my entire life. What kind of life is that?
And to be fair, I'm from the perspective of the Bay Area which has some of the strictest restrictions in the US. If you live in a more red area then you're more likely to already pretend it's over.
> ask, if you're willing to ignore reality and just pretend it's over, why not just start pretending now?
That's what I've been asking myself. I don't know the answer.
I have to cover my face every time I talk to someone. That's in no way inconsequential. It's depressing and antisocial.
I have to wear a mask while at the gym. That's in no way easy, particularly for cardio.
I'm lucky that I can work from home, otherwise I'd be wearing a mask for nearly my entire day at work.
And of course masking is just a part of the overall Covid restrictions that we still have to deal with.
To be clear, I'm in the bay area and fully follow local mask guidance. I can do that while also trying to figure out how long we can do this for, and acknowledging that I can't do this forever.
Is it? Why?
> I have to wear a mask while at the gym. That's in no way easy, particularly for cardio.
Of course it isn't at first. If society was such that we already used masks all the time I suspect people would just get used to it.
> I'm lucky that I can work from home, otherwise I'd be wearing a mask for nearly my entire day at work.
And...? We also wear clothes all day long at work. I suppose some people would call it bothersome or depressing or antisocial, but mostly we're all so used to it we don't even think about it.
I'm not opining on whether or not society can keep intermittently locking down forever, but we can certainly keep masking forever.
Huh? You don't just get used to a soggy, restricting mask. I tried running with a mask for like 3 months and it sucked the entire time.
> We also wear clothes all day long at work.
I don't think my belly button would contribute as much to building connections with people as my facial expressions do.
> we can certainly keep masking forever.
I can't. Period. And I don't think I'm a minority here.
Sure you do, the same way you get used to soggy clothes. You're telling me you ran with a mask for 3 months with no major issues other than "it's soggy and it sucked". Of course, but soggy clothes suck.
> I don't think my belly button would contribute as much to building connections with people as my facial expressions do.
Plenty of ways to build connections with people without them seeing the entirety of your face. Heck, I've plenty of internet friends who have never seen any part of it!
> I can't. Period. And I don't think I'm a minority here.
What I'm saying is: yes, people could, as in, they won't die or be permanently injured by it. At most there would be a few minor inconveniences, particularly during the time it takes for people to adapt. People say they can't, in general, to mean that they won't and as a way to feel less guilty about it.
I can understand people who say it's worth it, but not those who say it's inconsequential. Especially compared to seat belts.
(Edit: seat-belts address a threat that ought to be persistent, because it's inherent to driving, so they're easier to accept. Covid is, at least allegedly, temporary.)
I wasn't alive in the 80s, but honestly it seems pretty similar. A lot of people hated the laws, there were public fights and court challenges for a while, and then eventually society got over it.
right now almost nothing is known about long covid except for the very terrifying pathways by which the virus causes it takes effect, directly attacking organs, cardiovascular, lungs, immune system, and brain with long term, extensive damage in some cases. no thanks
so the plan is "wait and see" until more is known. if indeed it's established that long covid is much too dangerous to be risked (in the same way that lyme disease is currently considered to be too dangerous to be risked) then hopefully they will work towards producing newer vaccines that keep the initial antibody wall up against variants, and oral antiviral drugs that stop the virus much more quickly will also be commonplace. as well as that the global population will slowly (very...slowly) be getting more and more immunity from vaccines and re-infection, hopefully reducing the rate at which new variants emerge.
so in 3-5 years there will be lots of things improving the situation. we are not there yet.
Uh yeah sorry, I'm already losing it less than 2 years into this thing. There's zero chance I'm making it another 3-5 years. It's just not possible mentally for me. I don't know exactly what my time frame is, but 3-5 years is certainly beyond my limit.
From your username I'm guessing you're in your fifties, that's my age and I have fond memories of EMM386.
At that age the calculation starts getting a little different. I'm also vaxxed-and-done but still a little bit cautious.
Pretty good guess :)
Late 40s though. Started programming at 8 years old on a PcJr and a Compaq "laptop" and am still at it.
Which, according to the commenter, don't work, apparently
> mandates and social distancing.
Yea lets put everyone under house arrest for the rest of their lives.
> "We've done everything we can do, there's nothing left to do now but roll the dice"
I was double vaxxed and boosted, so I essentially did exactly what I was told to do, it didn't help.
Since Covid is never going away, I don't want booster shots that don't work every few months.
This has nothing to do with harming others in society. If I end up with Covid again, I'll isolate myself.
Did you just entirely dismiss what he said about catching it?
It is not his responsibility to protect you or anyone else. YOU can stay home and isolate if you can't handle being out. Stop putting your burden on everyone else. You (and your ilk) have no right to demand protection from others while putting yourself in harms way.
"I can't handle my own health anxiety so I'm going to make sure everyone makes ME feel better regardless of how it affects their lives"
You're the selfish one in this situation.
Who are we protecting? What measures? Why is he responsible for the health and actions of others? Who exactly is he helping by getting more boosters?
Why is it hard for you to understand that a free society doesn't put the onus on others to keep you or anyone else healthy. You are free to boost the shit out of your system, quadruple mask, and lock down all you want for the end of time. No one will force you to go out. Leave the rest to freedom of individual choice.
Eh? We restrict activities that have negative externalities on the people around you all the time. To name a few: anything that creates pollution, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, even having ridiculously bright headlights in your car.
Most of those things are restricted when they actually harm people NOT before. You are not restricted from consuming alcohol unless you go out and drink or do something else under the influence. You are not restricted from smoking unless you do it in a place where the smoke cannot be avoided. In this scenario you'd be demanding someone stop smoking while walking towards the smoke.
Lastly, I'm sort of done convincing people like you. I no longer care what you think. I and many others are going to move on with our lives. What are you going to do to stop us?
In this country we typically don’t care how our actions and policies affect broader society, from NIMBYism to faux-meritocracies to non-universal healthcare.
I really can’t fault anyone for not caring how their actions affect others, it’s been engrained in our culture/laws/policies as long as I’ve been alive.
Let the strongest survive. We do it in every other facet of our lives (well it’s more let the strongest take all and let the weakest suffer for decades).
I’m vaccinated, boosted, and wear masks when needed. I do that for me, not for society. Personally, I’d love 20-40M Americans to kick the bucket with this pandemic, free up housing, decrease the labor supply, lower carbon emissions. Sounds wonderful.
I don't hear much about it these days but a few years ago MRSA was talked about commonly in this context. I think that was the big fear there as well. You go for a minor surgery or whatever and come out with a bone infection you'll never completely shake.
What I wish we focused on instead, is the medical system as a whole. We've been hearing stories everyday about how hospitals are on the brink of collapse. Why, in 2 years of this pandemic, have we not devoted the resources to expanding bed capacity and staffing hospitals? Why is testing still so unsustainable? From day 1 of the pandemic, from social distancing, to masking, to now getting vaccinated, the messaging has been do all of these things to avoid overwhelming the hospitals so it seems weird to me that 2 years later the messaging is exactly the same.
It doesn't matter how much money you throw at things, the number of doctors isn't going to change drastically. You can pay them 10x and the number won't change. We only have so many medical schools, and so many people willing to throw themselves on the sword to get through them.
Nurses are a little more flexible in that more money might mean more nurses, but only up to a point.
In either case, throwing a ton more people into a long term career to deal with a short term problem (I don't see hospitals needing the same capacity in 3 years that they do for the next wave) will cause other problems down the road.
I don't think that's true. If being a doctor had the same work:pay ratio as being a SW dev I think you'd have more smart people choosing that career. Health regulations and extra procedures certainly helped to discourage employment as well, but I think pay would help.
> I don't see hospitals needing the same capacity in 3 years
The baby boomers are just starting to enter their mid 70s. Sure, it may not reach COVID-surge levels, but they are going to need a lot of health care.
I just have the compulsive need as the son of a nurse, who is now dating a nurse: nurses could use the monetary incentive, too.
And I have to feel the vast amount of regulatory paperwork doctors (and other medical providers) have to go through is a constant nagging discouragement. I mean, I think that evolved for good reasons, to help create accountability to to ease care when the patient enters a different part of the system, but holy crap, it’s a lot of forms to fill out as a medical care worker.
1) No matter how much the pay goes up for doctors, medical schools are still only going to have so much capacity, capacity which is artificially constrained. We are already at a place where many more people that are highly competent and intelligent want to be doctors than are actually able to become doctors simply because of medical school bandwidth.
2) Work:Pay ratio is already higher depending on the kind of medicine you do, but even lower pay programs still have no problem filling up.
The issue in the US clearly is not incentive, it's the obstacles, both administrative and personal. I could go on a rant about not every doctor needing to be the best and brightest, but that'd be off topic.
> The baby boomers are just starting to enter their mid 70s. Sure, it may not reach COVID-surge levels, but they are going to need a lot of health care.
Seeing as how that's near the end of life expectancy, demand for care should actually start to fall in the near future. Maybe it increases slightly short term, but we'll be on the other side of that in less than 10 years.
When I say "resources", people are included in that. Human resources one might call it.
> Nurses are a little more flexible in that more money might mean more nurses, but only up to a point. In either case, throwing a ton more people into a long term career to deal with a short term problem (I don't see hospitals needing the same capacity in 3 years that they do for the next wave) will cause other problems down the road.
I understand what you mean but I think you greatly underestimate how many nurses work contract and are not employed by hospitals. Almost all nurses I know, and I know quite a few, are all working as contractors for agencies. The hospital assignments are just almost never worth it.
She's currently working as a residential assistant at rather nice elderly care facility where they are short staffed. She makes about what she would make at a fast food restaurant despite working in a semi-skilled position(requires CNA credentials) and working with COVID positive residents. They are just now discussing possible pay raises.
The pandemic experience is likely to push people out of health care and result in even less people choosing it as a career unless compensation and the workload changes. This comes just as the baby boomers are reaching an age when they'll start to need serious care.
The elderly who are already retied and likely have a fixed monthly expenditure?
Meanwhile, even for increasing salaries for nurses in the health care industry, in the USA the improved image has to have a positive profit-based motivation.
I hope one day it does, but until then “who’s gonna pay for the salary increase?”
We cannot move on until we eliminate all this mass testing. Yes test for confirmation before administering something specific to Covid but testing somebody whose only medical issue is something that can be bought over the counter… what is the point?
All this testing is just causing chaos in peoples lives.
This has been the entire point of mitigation efforts from day one.
What useful information does knowing you have Covid instead of the myriad of other respiratory viruses actually provide? The treatment for all of them is gonna be basically the same for like 99% of all cases.
There would be a perception for a lot of the time that the cost of all of these things is wasteful - whether you're talking about public or private healthcare.
Not being able to say when the next pandemic might occur is going to make it a hard sell - how do you tell taxpayers or shareholders that you need to keep extra staff on retainer for something that may not happen for 100 years?
If you put these extra staff to use on other types of (non-essential) healthcare, then you're going to have to cancel all of that when the next pandemic happens. That will then lead to backlogs as operations are cancelled, screening isn't carried out etc. - and you're back to healthcare having to shut down.
Also, what do you plan for? Not every pandemic is the same.
When have we ( assuming you are US, forgive me ) ever devoted resources to anything other than the military industrial complex and tax-cuts for the rich?
We don't HAVE resources. We have already scraped out every piece of public spending and public works program out of our budgets.
You expect us to be able to just scale back up after systematically disassembling our university[0] and medical systems over the past 30 years?
OK, we increase capacity. We save a few people, so what? We are running a BUSINESS HERE. We can't have any extra capacity, that would cut into profits! Plus we are still low after paying $600 per insulin shot last month.
Besides, haven't you heard? Everyone made a killing off the pandemic! It was great for business! BCBS posted 2 billion in profit last year! Don't worry your little head: Our healthcare and technology CEOs didn't have to sell their private jets or wait on buying that new yacht they have been eyeing.
This is what neoliberalism looks like. Every drop of blood drained out of public spending, so we can reroute it to whoever gives our senators the largest bribe.
0: Which creates professionals upon which US healthcare depends
I personally look at the raw data of death. I believe that most data you would get around COVID have bias, and only overall data speak the truth.
Look at what happened in Europe: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps (This does not include hospitalizations) First of, you realize that the pandemic is not at all what we have been told. We can observe an increase in death in the winters, but somewhere like peaks with 10% more deaths than the years beforehand.
You realize that for the 0-44 age group, there has been NO PANDEMIC. So from the beginning, we should just let this age group live normally. (no mask, no restrictions, no mandatory vaccine, no pass, no isolation)
Then comes the other age groups > 44, that did have excess death especially during winters. We should focus on the care to them and allow them to have a better access to their doctor, even when positive. Equip all of them with early treatment pack (antiviral and antibiotics for the first phase, anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory for the second). Provide them access to vaccines, only if they want to take them as it is an experimental treatment.
The main reason why the hospitals got over populated is because we told people to isolate and not see their doctors. They wait to be really sick and have no choice than going to the hospital.
Then come the health structure. We should just double the wages of all the nurses, auxiliary, GP, emergency doctors. Allow quick formations for unemployed and military to become auxiliary.
And if you think we cannot pay for that, think about the cost of a single day of nation wide lockdown.
This is the FIRST time humanity has come together and actually come up with a way to beat a virus WHILE a global pandemic is still ongoing. At no other time in history have we even had the option of a solid way to protect ourselves like we do now. I think instead of focusing on how awful the past few years have been this is an important thing to remember - it is truly a turning point in human history and I think we are going to look back at the centuries beforehand and appreciate how far we have come.
4 million, my mistake, squeezed an extra zero in there.
If you're old and vulnerable, but not near death, a year of reduced social exposure might be better for you.
Sadly the pandemic measures have forced us to sacrifice one for the other. I fear my toddler's development will always be just a little decayed due to masks during her early linguistic development and being shut in the house during shutdowns. But I also acknowledge some old folks may have been saved at her expense.
It's a somewhat more reasonable stance since omicron seeing as our ability to prevent spread is greatly reduced and infection severity is also down, but I haven't been convinced completely yet. The current healthcare "collapse" is a real enough consequence to make me think twice.
That’s pretty great even if not perfect. Much better than we ever had when facing the initial waves of any previous pandemic virus.
Unfortunate that delta and then omicron seem to have bypassed the immunity from getting sick but most of his have had a “mild” sickness many times in our lives and the vaccine will prevent it from getting worse.
For decades people would ask, "why is there no vaccine for the cold or flu like smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox?" and the answer was that they were fast evolving corona viruses and you cannot vaccinate for those.
Then suddenly we have one this time. But it's efficacy drops - according to Pfizer's own trial - to ~47% after six months. And people "double vaxxed and boosted" still get it. And still die from it.
So...we still don't have vaccines for those it seems to me. It doesn't matter how many people call them that, they don't provide immunity like vaccines do.
Big pharma did get super rich off of them. And you can't sue them if they kill your spouse. So there's that at least I guess.
I would suggest doing some research on Google. We’ve had vaccines for influenza (flu) for over 70 years.
And yes, sometimes their efficacy was under 50% but they’ve always been called vaccines and have saved thousands of lives.
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is 91% effective in preventing the COVID-19 virus with symptoms in people age 16 and older. The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is 94% effective in preventing COVID-19 with symptoms. Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. In clinical trials, this vaccine was 66% effective in preventing the COVID-19 virus with symptoms — as of 14 days after vaccination. The vaccine also was 85% effective at preventing severe disease with COVID-19 — at least 28 days after vaccination.
Source: The Mayo Clinic https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...
I'm not going to bother debunking the rest of that bullshit. Your statement is straight out of the anti-vaccine propaganda playbook. Shame on you for spreading FUD.
It's a glorified flu shot with a 6 month half life. Just like the flu shot...
In early 2020 we significantly altered society, cancelling major events, moving things virtual, and creating new apps and services to handle the pandemic. Then over the course of late 2020/2021 we created more apps and services and developed new technologies to treat Covid-19.
In just 1 year, we created and started widely distributing a vaccine which, while it doesn’t completely prevent the virus, makes it very mild for the vast majority of people. So far, at the second-year mark, over 2 billion people have been vaccinated. Along with monoclonal antibodies and other technology, we’ve significantly lowered the death rate, hospitalization rate, and likely the risk of long covid.
Imagine what an outbreak like this would do in an earlier time. You don’t really have to imagine because it’s happened before - the Spanish Flu outbreak and the Bubonic plague. Look at the population (not raw count because our population is much larger) of casualties those diseases caused. We failed to prevent covid-19 infecting everyone, but with vaccines and modern medical care we have made the infections significantly less harmful.
Probably we wouldn't have even noticed. Spanish Flu/black death is just no comparison.
Not sure if these race discussions are doing anything but dividing people more. It is having a negative effect.
I think an interesting thought experiment would be: take the modern COVID strain and go back to the 1900~'s UK/America? (That's where most the site is from as far as I know)
Just the massive lack of co-morbidities (Diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cancer) and demographic differences (Average age was far lower, population density) could make it an almost a non issue.
No way dude. History is not going to look fondly at the last two years at all. We should be ashamed at our arrogance and hubris—the idea that we could somehow contain or control an airborne respiratory virus. The sheer damage we caused to our children.
Lest we forget, China's reaction to Australia’s call for an international probe into the origins of the corona-virus pandemic was by no means working together for the global good.
I wish I could agree with the thought but that's not what I remember happening.
As for history: Communication in the 21st century has made it so that there is constant talk between countries but this cannot be confused with collaboration.
The Spanish flu of 1918 was clearly different then this due to it being in the late stages of WWI.
That said, I'm also still wearing a mask, although i'm having a hard time with the whole concept now too since i should be able to keep my immunity going simply by keeping myself exposed. I was a pretty strong advocate of mask wearing even when the CDC initially told people they could take it off, instead deciding to wait until more people were vaccinated (which never happened in TX). But now, I suspect I might be doing myself a disservice by not exposing myself to all the variants and things floating around.
What laboratory data? The page you linked doesn't provide evidence for that assertion. It's also been nearly 2 years so where is the real-world data?
Also if what you claim is true, does this policy make sense?
> Calif. health care workers who are asymptomatic with COVID won't have to test or isolate to work
https://abc7.com/asymptomatic-california-health-care-workers...
The US is doing a million new cases a day. Wearing a mask in some situations but not others is not going to make much of a difference. But it is a very visible thing to have partisan political fights about, which seems to be most of the appeal to many people.
Yeah, you shouldn’t go there either if you care about the issue.
I was one of the very small percentage actually wearing US made N95 masks, and assuring they were sealing. Probably 1/2 of the mask wearers are using surgical masks and various other pointless masks which leave massive gaps all around the mask, and are likely no more functional than simply coughing/sneezing into ones elbow. The other half recently seems to be using KN95's, which I used myself for a while before N95's became common. But, the vast majority of the amazon/etc KN95's are significantly thinner, and are very hard to seal. Maybe the actual KN95's for the Asian markets are better (definitely some of the early ones I sourced were closer to the N95s) but I'm pretty sure the majority of the ones I see people wearing are nowhere near N95 effectiveness even if people are taping the nose areas to assure they stay sealed, and I can't remember the last time I saw that.
So, for the most part "cover your cough" is probably all that is being achieved outside of less than 5% of the population that is assuring quality masks and sealing them properly.
I refuse the play the social signaling game, so it leaves the question. Am I going to legitimately continue to spend $ buying good masks, to potentially protect a small subset of the population when ~95% of people are doing basically nothing, or am I legitimately trying to protect myself.
In the end, I will probably continue to wear a mask if I'm around my neighbor in his 90's, but like the decision to eat in a full restaurant (which was said to be 100% vaccinated) in an area full of foreign tourists. I think my risk profile is going to be less about stopping spread now, and just living my life. The US government has a party that blocks all attempts at instituting scientific reasoning (and the other is barely better) so I will look towards personally preparing for the next pandemic or the next bad strain, but I'm not going to count on the government managing to do anything but make decisions that are late and ineffective. The ~30-40% of the population that refuses to get vaccinated, and a government that can't manage to control the spread of disease across the border have sealed our fate. I came to the conclusion 6 months ago that it was only a matter of time before I got it because the vaccines were going to be bypassed sooner or later. Sure enough, it took ~2 months from the detection of the new strain until I got it.
Please stop that. Don't martyr yourself doing safetyism for me. Getting yourself healthy may be best for everyone.
Once we saw the Canadian border close to travel while the Mexican border stayed open, it became blindingly care this has been theater. Many people like theater.
Honest question: do you know of any source that indicates natural exposure to C19 and variants provides stronger (or equally strong) protection than vaccinations/boosters? Thanks!
I'm vaccinated and boosted. I wear a mask in public. I don't go out much. I do travel fairly regularly (fly maybe 1-2x per month). I finally got Covid last week, likely on a flight. I had ~3 days of mild cold-like symptoms (sore throat, runny nose, congestion, very low grade fever that approached 101F). It was far less severe than any flu I've ever had. I extended my trip by a week to meet how I read the CDC guidelines (which are clear as mud for mildy symptomatic cases).
If the severity for everyone was that mild, then I'd say we're done. However, I worry about the unvaccinated and the unboosted. I wish there was better data on the severity of Omicron for different categories of people.
Omicron seems to carry far fewer of those risks from what data we have, especially if you are vaccinated.
I was in the house but didn't catch omicron due to the vaccine (I guess?).
I am triple vaxxed and will happily wear a mask for the rest of my life, but we are in the midst of a slow moving train of economic turmoil brought about by COVID and the resulting decisions(which I'm not arguing with. some were stupid but hindsight is 20/20). We will soon need to get the world back to as normal of a state as we can because we will need the economic benefits. We will need to get our kids back in school and socializing. I know many people are scarred and will not want to emerge from their caves but without compelling justification(such as a new variant which is actually dangerous) we will return to normal soon.
That was fascinating.
but it is still interesting how some people would parrot Q1 2020 rationale in Q1 2022 as if everything is the same for everyone else
Now I think the Internet actually enforces groupthink and eradicates opposing narratives. Platforms like Twitter allows people to dox those with unorthodox ideas and behaviors and cancel them, which is basically a modern day version of "burnt at the stake". It seems that the Internet also ended up give an even more effective podium for authoritarian regimes to push their narrative, best example of this being the Chinese government.
At the root of all this is human nature. Perhaps technology won't help humanity transcend, but it will only reinforce what's already there.
I have to give Hacker News a thumbs up here. I think Hacker News is much better than a place like Reddit for open-minded discussions. Reddit has become a place where subreddit are often times moderated by a group of mods who act like a single-party state.
Omicron-specific vaccines are in test. Moderna's should be out in Fall 2022. Pfizer claims March 2022.[2]
The next generation in vaccine technology is the US Army / Walter Reed Medical Center broad-spectrum vaccine. This should protect against all COVID and SARS variants.[3] That's in Phase I safety testing, with about 75 volunteers. If that works, the problem is solved.
[1] https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/-omicron-the-pand...
[2] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
[3] https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2021/12/us-army-create...
Sure, until the next variant.
The problem of the spread was mostly solved by vaccines before Omicron, at least for people who got the vaccines. Then Omicron came along and it can break through the vaccines much easier than Delta or other variants.
If we develop a vaccine for Omicron, some other variant is likely to come along and break through that vaccine too. Omicron was far more mutated than Delta. Are we just supposed to hope that doesn't happen again? Is is possible for a vaccine to protect against all possible future variants?
We can't keep a state of emergency in place and wait for one new vaccine, after another, endlessly. When does it end?
Let's say we do have a magic bullet vaccine that protects against all present variants, and all possible future variants: wouldn't a significant number of people refuse to take it, as they have refused to take the vaccines we have now?
There will always be natural disasters, whether it's earthquakes or viruses. If it's a new virus, yes people are going to die, yes hospitals are going to be overwhelmed (in fact I would be surprised if hospitals aren't overwhelmed when a new virus hits, which just means that hospital was over-funded and has too many idle staff).
The virus was a creation of nature (conspiracy theories notwithstanding), but the lockdown and all these governmental restrictions are man-made.
Even if the virus went away, the lockdown can continue if people want it to go on. It can go on for the rest of human civilization if we want it to. Or it can end right at this moment, if the people go out and tell their government that it's time to stop.
March 2020 started the first "lockdown". I though it did make sense, praised the JobKeeper program our federal govt introduced and was a bit disappointed in my employer trying to make a claim, as I thought we didn't really need it, as we didn't bear much losses. But it's a par for the course, I guess, whenever a financial support for business is made available it makes sense to claim a need. Worst case it will be refused.
By May 2020 Victoria was the last state to be getting opening up again. By then I already knew the Premier's name, but my only problem with him was that he appeared a bit too cautious (which is forgivable), and his rhetoric was the one of a kindergarten teacher - very patronizing, but not a big deal. The bigger distrust started when I've heard him saying literally "I am scared of this thing and you should be scared too". This was like a red rag for a bull for me. Since then every word out of collective govt mouth, every article, every slogan and every "order" was about drumming up fear, by all means. And those who did not want to fear were sent all sorts of "messages" and promised all sorts of punishments and executions. We've seen people handcuffed for posts on fb, pregnant lady interrogated for daring to sit on a park bench ("not one of the allowed reasons to leave home"), people arrested for sitting on a beach (more than 5km from their house), police in full riot gear, "kettling" of random people, drone surveillance, pepper spray and rubber bullets deployed liberally. It was more wild than response to political unrest in the proven dictatorship of Belarus! The fearmongering continues today with the same fervor, double vaccinated are new unvaccinated.
So yes, it was and still is all about being afraid. Sorry, this is something I cannot take from anyone. My willingness to collaborate on any issue is completely lost on govts of all colors. From now on I think it is absolutely ok to seek any possible loophole in any govt initiative, avoid paying dues as much as legally possible and generally comply with regulations in the most destructive and sabotaging ways - but all legal, of course. By the way, such was the recommendation of US or British counter-intelligence to German people sympathetic to Allied cause and wanting to contribute to counter-nazi effort without being implicated. I wonder whether the thought of such possibility crossed the enlightened minds of our new feudal lords?
Maybe this will open some eyes, and next time a government comes around saying "stop earning a living, stop being social, listen to us and everything will be fine" we can collectively shrug our shoulders and get busy living. There WILL be instances where the kind of response we had over the past 2 years is justified, but COVID wasn't one of them.
That was November 1942, with victory almost three years away. By that point, the Allies had stopped Axis advances, but were not yet taking back ground.
Nah it wasn't. Unless you expected people to get boosted ad infinitum, which was never going to happen.
JAMA article from last summer.[1] "Long COVID" is still hard to understand, but there are objective measurements, and they are not encouraging.
"Increased oxygen requirement was reported in nearly two-thirds of COVID-19 survivors (3 studies; median [IQR], 65.0% [39.3%-76.1%]). ... Overall, chest imaging abnormalities were present in a median (IQR) of 62.2% (45.8%-76.5%) of survivors (4 studies)."
That's from August 2021, so that's the original variant. Omicron, it's too soon to tell.
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
[1]https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
Then there's the risk of an inactivated or weakened virus vaccine causing the disease it's supposed to prevent. That happened in a big way in 1955, with a defective batch of polio vaccine. The mRNA vaccines can't do that - they don't have an entire virus.
There's the Guillain-Barré syndrome with some vaccines, including the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. If it shows, it does so in the first two months.
1. My personal risk, as someone who is vaccinated, 38, and in decent shape (https://imgur.com/a/gdbBKGK), is quite low. (OK, I could lose some holiday weight, fine.)
2. My immediate friend circle is vaccinated…and the vast majority already danced with Omicron already, and came out just fine.
3. I live by myself.
So…I am over it. This variant seems to be unbelievably, uncontrollably contagious, and the spread cannot be mitigated without extreme measures. And the people who are at by far, BY FAR the most at-risk are the elderly unvaccinated, who have had ample opportunity to get vaccinated. They will probably be exposed to this virus no matter what I personally do, and probably no matter what anyone does, so why should I substantially alter my life for them, when it will almost certainly change nothing?
—
And to rant just a bit more: “oh it’s just a mask”. Well, I’m sorry, I have this weird thing where I like to see people’s faces, and see their expressions so that I can get a better idea of their emotional responses. I know. So inhuman of me. (I do wonder if the people who think masks are no big deals have anything resembling social circles…)
If you are having trouble it may be a personal problem.
To get vaxxed insulates you from the risk of severe disease. It reduces the risk to the point that going out and living life is an acceptable risk, just like any other. However, it doesn't protect you from infecting others. To that end, I think that indoor mask mandates continue to be justifiable and should continue until we either evolve a COVID-19 variant weak enough that moderate disease isn't disruptive, or it fades away.
In order for us to continue to have freedom, it requires collective sacrifice. We have seen a large swath of the US population unwilling to make relatively simple sacrifices to ensure that we have freedom of mobility. This is disappointing to see.
Unfortunately this is a large individual responsibility, both in behavior and in the costs of getting enough tests. PCR tests are mostly impractical for continuous testing while going out and about becuase of the large time lag between testing and results, made worse by spiking demand and limited lab capacity, and buying rapid tests can add up as a real cost to the average family.
We need a program like that on a national scale. I know countries like the UK are doing really well with at-home testing programs, but here in the US, we’re still experiencing both PCR and rapid test shortages. We shouldn’t be seeing this so far into a pandemic.
Fully agree on the individual responsibility to quarantine regardless of clinical symptoms, too. There’s been a huge failing, this entire pandemic, at the individual level. It’s why the lockdowns were marginally effective — folks didn’t stay at home like they were asked to. It’s another symptom of a lack of collective sacrifice for the greater good.
COVID-19 has an infection fatality rate of something like 0.20%. Let's move on from these draconian restrictions and get back to reality. The flu has been overwhelming hospitals since before COVID [1], governments and hospital systems have had 2+ years to deal with the supply-side of the healthcare equation here, at this point if they still haven't figured it out it's on them.
[1] https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
And anybody except the immunocompromised - you probably know at least a couple older family members, but may not immediately think of anyone immunocompromised, but again they're around 3% of the population. It includes those suffering from or using immunosuppressive drugs to manage type 1 diabetes, HIV, arthritis, cancer, organ transplants, lupus, IBD, and many other conditions.
Even before the vaccine, I - a 30 year old in good health - had what I personally consider to be an acceptable risk profile to contracting the vaccine. For me, it's never seemed an issue of personal safety, I've always been deferring plans, wearing a mask, isolating, been vaccinated, and been boosted to protect others. There are a few faces of elderly and immunocompromised people in my life that I can recall to help my emotional processing.
But it's becoming harder to run the emotionally-loaded math and feel morally culpable for the harm caused by my potentially transmitting it to the three of my coworkers who are vocally, rabidly antivax (all 60+, two with comorbidities) and then worry about their transmitting it to their unknown peers I'm sure they associate with who may be vaccinated but might be harmed.
In any case, I firmly believe that people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to wear them. I was in Copenhagen a few months ago where no one was wearing masks anywhere including indoors, and it was so refreshing seeing life as usual again, smiles on peoples' faces, etc.
There's always been risks to life and this feels more like governments are trying to convince people the risk should be zero so they can be the heroes while at the same time expanding their powers...
The virus will keep evolving to evade our vaccines. This is never going to end. We will never eradicate Covid, and we'll never reach vaccine-mediated herd immunity.
The administration forcing a purge of unvaccinated US soldiers, government workers, and employees of companies that do business with the government is obscene. Not only is this government overreach, it's a political witch hunt. It's disemboweling of dissent from the ranks, which is chiefly undemocratic and un-American.
I'm so angry at how this has been handled by both the Trump and the Biden administrations. Give people tools and understandable science (which Trump botched), but stop trying to become Big Brother (which is what Biden is doing). And above all, stop turning this into a political matter that toys with people's safety and employment.
The one that seems odd in this list is soldiers. It's my understanding that soldiers already were mandated vaccines when put into areas where the particular diseases were common. I'm not sure why mandating covid vaccines for them during a global pandemic is different.
Maybe there's context I'm missing, but when I first read about the backlash I was confused.
I've lost 3 people to cancer this pandemic. Been to 20+ funerals in my life and I'm barely over 30. Never lost anyone to any transmissible disease.
Nah, internal conflict is a bigger threat than even a meteor or nuclear war. A civil war happened once in the US, it could happen again. If not a civil war, a complete governmental collapse. All you have to do is keep polarizing and polarizing the sides to further and further extremes and eventually reap the consequences when the government collapses.
To answer the parents question though what does it take, well of course if people are seeing their neighbors bleed out of their eyes everyone is going to sign up for vaccines even if the vaccine could possibly kill you.
Literally could not believe some walk ins have paper files and use fax, plus finding a GP apparently is a months long quest.
Visiting a specialist took ages, and I wouldn’t say it was the best / most modern infrastructure there either.
(And I went in downtown Toronto, must be so much worse for more remote places I guess).
In the end we kind of shunned the public system and decided to go private healthcare instead. But (luckily) have not really had to take advantage of it)
/rant
An enormous amount of working Americans have no healthcare at all. Would you prefer that?
In theory.
"Modern" industries like social media tend to leak personal information like a sieve.
https://www.usfhealthonline.com/resources/health-informatics...
I'm Canadian, east coast. Our Health Care system is garbage and a lot of people end up going to private hospitals because the public sector can't handle the load, even pre-covid.
People have repeatedly died waiting in hospital halls waiting for care that never came.
Our healthcare system has almost nothing to be taken example of
Our healthcare system is a disgrace and our governments only get away with it because they can point to the bogeyman down south.
In my home country, _most_ of the files are electronic (EMRAM stage 6 for the main hospital network, covering most of the country https://www.himss.org/what-we-do-solutions/digital-health-tr...).
I can see any specialist (almost any GP) and they'll get limited time access to my entire patient history. I don't have to worry of getting a second opinion from someone who "doesn't have my history".
Plus, I get insight into this data myself through an app (or web platform), where I can view the scans and take them to someone outside of the network if I want to.
Pharmacies will also start sharing data, so a GP can enter the data in a system which any Pharmacy can then enter (with your electronic ID), so no need for paper subscriptions either.
It just gives me peace of mind. :-)
Meanwhile down here in the US I was charged $150 after going to an urgent care clinic for strep throat. They couldn’t tell me how much it would cost ahead of time.
Also, due to a temporary billing error in the Manitoba hospital (everything was supposed to be charged to my sister's insurance, but some things weren't by mistake) the hospital's billing department half-assedly pursued me for payment for a renal ultrasound. The bill was fifteen (Canadian) dollars.
To be honest, I don't think it is unreasonable to pay $150 for a nurse's/doctor's time to examine you. I've gone to urgent care and the ER a few times, and they're always filled with people who are there for non-issues. If it was totally free, you'd have them filled with people with things that should really just be handled by a regular doctor's appointment.
Hell, my local hospital had to make a public statement for people to stop going to the ER just to get COVID tests.
Seeing specialists can take a long time that's right. I had a torn achilles tendon and it took almost 3 months to see a specialist with couple of days notice and no communication in between. That sucked. For my elderly parents in law it seems to be going much faster to see specialists so it might depend on severity.
[1] https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/managing-your-heal...
This is very complex and absolutely hilarious when American democrats think of Canada as a better solution.
>Literally could not believe some walk ins have paper files and use fax, plus finding a GP apparently is a months long quest.
We have very good laws in place protecting health information. $10,000 tort damages for leaking health infos and then much larger fines for more problematic issues.
Some hospitals try to do the right thing and will have high security maturity. The other hospitals basically do the opposite. They forcefully will not secure their systems and save the money and put it in a fund to pay out the inevitable breach.
>Visiting a specialist took ages, and I wouldn’t say it was the best / most modern infrastructure there either.
Canada's healthcare system is tiered. You have the public single payer which is trash at best. Virtually all employers pay for health benefits which bring you to the 2nd tier. This gets you into a ward and such. There's a 3rd tier where you get good service, private rooms, skip lines. If you work in public sector or a big union you most likely are on this 3rd tier. The final tier is for the people whose names are on the wards. The "Such and such family ward" because they donated significant money to the hospital. These people get immediate access to everything you might expect. Nicest rooms. everything.
>(And I went in downtown Toronto, must be so much worse for more remote places I guess).
85% of Canadians live in urban areas near to the US border. If you choose to live somewhere else, you know you're living far from civilization and already accept the lack of service.
>In the end we kind of shunned the public system and decided to go private healthcare instead. But (luckily) have not really had to take advantage of it)
dont get me wrong. I dont mind our tiered system. ohip covers the basics which everyone should get coverage for. Break your arm? taxpayers/rich pay to fix it. 2nd tier is plenty for most people. 3rd tier is nice but most people dont realize it exists. Ive had a lady talking to me about how she has to wait many months to get in to a specialist, the same specialist that I waited a whole 3 days for. Also yes, the billionaire folks are going to get the best treatment, it's no surprise.
I'm pretty sure the vast number of smaller clinics/etc would all still be on paper if not for those incentives because it was a pretty noticeable change over just a couple years.
My friend's mom lost her legs because the hospital didn't keep her in the right position after a surgery and circulation was cut off while she was recovering from the surgery. Huge lawsuit, but that doesn't take back the irreversible damage and lifelong disability.
Recently a doctor lied to our face and said there's no alternative to surgery, then lied to our face again when he said "that medication doesn't work for that", until we cited multiple studies and how the medication is used worldwide for the purpose we are asking for. It's just disgusting and unacceptable.
Also recently another family member nearly died in hospital as they let his weight get down to ~80lbs. They incorrectly thought he had cancer (he didn't), and they were just going to let him die because his time was limited, suggesting to the family not to bother with a feeding tube. The family insisting on trying the feeding tube saved his life, _against_ the suggestions of the doctor(s). He would be dead right now, and a family would have lost their dad, if they hadn't insisted on doing it. I'm pushing the family to sue the hospital and report this malpractice because his health is so badly harmed by having gone to such a low weight and nearly dying from it.
Honestly I can just go on all day. When I got in a car accident my broken wrist/finger were secured in place with a fucking tongue depressor and some gauze. This was the official solution because they didn't have time to put my wrist in a cast, so I went numerous days with this ridiculous solution, reducing the quality of my bone/joint healing. My pinky finger is still, forever, crooked. Really nice for someone whose career requires typing (programmer).
Similarly, another family member of mine has a permanently-deformed arm because they didn't cast the arm correctly and the bone healed crooked.
> Visiting a specialist took ages, and I wouldn't say it was the best / most modern infrastructure there either.
> In the end we kind of shunned the public system and decided to go private healthcare instead. But (luckily) have not really had to take advantage of it)
I hope you can at least deduct it from your taxes else it means you end up paying what, 60% taxes on top of having to purchase private insurance with your post-tax dollars?
That's ridiculous. Here I pay a much lower tax rate and it took me a few clicks to just get a GP.
What's their excuse?
Compared to lockdowns or even just mask mandates, both booster schedules seem like a pretty minor inconvenience given the pandemic-halting benefits.
Currently we have the highest case numbers ever. How can you type this with a straight face?
I'm OK with taking a vaccine for my own benefit, when I want. But don't pretend the vaccines have halted the pandemic.
The mostly part is that I'm open to get a vaccine now and then. The evidence shows they do seem to prevent serious complications when you do catch Covid. I'm not down with all the bullshit restrictions and government overreach that obviously isn't effective at anything except destroying the economy.
I'm not "antivax". I'm anti-inefficient-vaxes-based-on-the-strain-from-2-years-ago
If I'm going to be forced to keep current on a shot if I want to be employed or enter buildings, it should come with some form of justification that is periodically evaluated. If it doesn't work, the inconvenience should not exist. If the virus mutates and risk falls below some standard, the inconvenience should not exist.
I have been taking off my shoes for 20 years at the airport. I understand that you can never eliminate the possibility of someone putting a bomb in their shoe, so we just have to do this forever. But viruses change, and I'd at least like someone to acknowledge there should be a goal that I won't be forced to do this also in 20 years.
Many of us aren't done (and many others were done long before the vaccine came out), but we're not the subjects of this article.
And no boosters are not free. I can't wrap my head around how many people believe that boosters are free. No they are not free. If you are not paying for it directly, the government is paying for it with taxpayer money. And tax money doesn't fall from the sky. It comes out of your wallet.
Or the government can print the money and risk higher inflation, which is just an indirect tax on your money.
>Already contracted Covid, have 2 vaccines, I'm down to get a booster every year or two, at my own leisure.
I will go get the flu shot. I don't know, nor care, what strains they are going for in the flu shot. I do know they tend to target different strains every year. They can mix match as much as they like. If coronavirus is the one they want to target this time, fine whatever.
>I'm OK with and to be honest, it feels a lot like the government trying to deflect from the fact healthcare isn't OK (at least in my home country, Canada).
2 weeks to flatten the curve was only to prevent healthcare system from collapsing. But for whatever reason they switched to 'lets eradicate all illness by staying home and wearing masks.
>There's always been risks to life and this feels more like governments are trying to convince people the risk should be zero so they can be the heroes while at the same time expanding their powers...
Makes me wonder. why in history did we never try to end the flu season? there's clear starts and ends to the flu season. Mandate wearing mask in public stores seems like it eliminated flu and cold.
Though you touch on an interesting thought. Has covid really been all about government expanding their power? I dont think covid was created for this purpose, but I certainly suspect they all jumped on board to using it as an excuse to expand their power.
This is the only place I have to talk about COVID issues with smart people that I respect.
HN is one of the rare places where the Culture War is still fought in a relatively chivalrous manner.
Maybe this is the place where the Future is born? The Culture War is a philosophical one, and only philosophy could stop it.
My partner on the other hand has no desire for us to get vaxxed because they know people personally who have died after getting the shots. We also know many who died from getting COVID. We're not anti-vax people generally, our kids are all got regular shots but with this, we decided to skip it for the time being. Knowing this, we intentionally wear masks when needed and try to operate safely and give distance.
I think the US government failed in communicating properly and now with the approach of "shunning the unvaxxed", it's only causing further divide and a lot of my conservative friends will now never get it as a way to spite the government orders.
I don't think that's possible...
I think the issue now is a political one. The democratic party has hung their hat on how bad covid is and how important it is to get vaccinated and to state at this point, NVM lets just get back to normal would be a loss of face. Instead of just saying that the virus has evolved and is less lethal now they have continued to double down on the vaccine mandate which I don't agree with. I am a democrat so I am not coming at this as a republican. I am not downplaying the severity of the virus but at this point it is here to stay. Even if we locked down for 3 months, once we were released someone from another country would come in and re-infect everyone again. Also during lock down do we once again tell the poorest among us that while they are 'essential' that they are also worth less and must continue to work and face the risk alone so as to ensure the rest of us can isolate in safety at home.
Edit: I said "does not reduce your ability to spread the virus" I meant to say "does not remove". My fault.
This is in reference to a specific study that followed 1.2M fully vaccinated individuals and found that 28 of the 36 deaths had at least 4 high-risk factors (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7101a4.htm). They are not referring to the unvaccinated who still have a much higher risk of hospitalization and death.
https://acdis.org/articles/news-94-patients-who-died-covid-1...
Fortunately the vaccines and other improved therapies are now pretty effective at preventing deaths even among high risk patients.
The unvaccinated are unvaccinated. They know what they're getting into (even if they deny it), and they don't believe studies anyway. Once they catch it a couple of times, they'll be as good as vaxed anyway.
edit: if there's anything that should be done about the unvaccinated, it's to make sure that vaccines and tests are convenient and free. There are still plenty of people who aren't vaccinated because it's too much of a hassle.
The quote was the whole sentence. And the following sentences implied they meant everyone. The clarification was important.
Any way we choose, it amounts to sacrificing XYZk people so we can go back to living a normal life. I don't think that's an exchange most people are willing to take.
And yes, lockdown measures are usually in response to hospitals filling up. Check for example [0] against the timeline of lockdowns for that area. If you know any counter examples I'd like to hear about it.
[0]: https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm...
Covid does not spread in any meaningful way via surfaces. All of the cleaning and disinfecting nonsense that is still going on is pure theatre.
> Any way we choose, it amounts to sacrificing XYZk people so we can go back to living a normal life. I don't think that's an exchange most people are willing to take.
It's an exchange everyone makes every single day in order for society to function.
It's a reasonable precaution take, at least until we know precisely how the virus could get to the isolated Belgian Antarctic base, where everyone was isolated for weeks and tested and retested prior to being sent there.
Not at this rate though. In my country covid deaths are easily 20x that of traffic fatalities and the latter is seen as a serious social issue.
Also my friends in the medical profession are simply tired of doing 300h months.
You may be correct about covid, but cleaning surfaces helps to prevent other illnesses from spreading anyway. In a situation where hospitals are impacted there's a strong argument that such behavior and precautions leads to better healthcare outcomes.
Or are you talking about other considerations like vaxxed/in-vaxxed?
The voters should decide. A jurisdiction could simply decide to allocate capacity based on vaccination status (ie, if 20% of the population is unvaccinated, they get 20% of available beds for COVID). Completely fair.
Something has to be done around capacity issues, or we'll be in the same situation indefinitely. Or even worse when the next pandemic hits.
Probably not realistic, but I would love to see more personal involvement in care. One level could be prevention, and not just the vaccine. Lose weight, exercise, eat right. It's hard to change people though.
Another is care after the fact. Short staffed? Give me a procedure card and let me do the less skilled stuff. Most of nursing is really basic and many things are handled by machines (when's the last time a nurse took your BP with a manual sphig?). Maybe that's beyond many people's abilities, but there are some who are used to wearing respirators, practicing aseptic techniques, and following procedures. The artificial constraints of regulation and law prohibit it. So I guess that's another way society might be making the choice to sacrifice people.
I wonder if they have looked into it- not a new idea, China famously built a hospital early pandemic.
I do have the same questions as you though. How can we make this happen?
Empty beds aren’t making money for hospitals so they often run close to capacity.
(I wish I had the epidemiological understanding to look at data and understand that conclusion, but I don't.)
> They have also indicated that getting vaccinated does not reduce your ability to spread the virus
I said "does not reduce" I meant to say "does not remove". My fault.
As viruses can remain active on surfaces, unless you irradiate the deliveries with a UV lamp (and do it again after unboxing them, since there may be viruses on the actual item) even that would not be enough.
> Even if we locked down for 3 months, once we were released someone from another country would come in and re-infect everyone again.
That's if you assume away animals, as viruses that affect mammals are rarely limited to humans (ex: chicken flu)
> Also during lock down do we once again tell the poorest among us that while they are 'essential' that they are also worth less and must continue to work and face the risk alone so as to ensure the rest of us can isolate in safety at home
Agreed. It's time to accept we're not immortals, viruses exist, and yes it's a shame that covid is now endemic, but it's even worse to perform lockdowns of dubious efficiency that only have one guaranteed effect: hurting the economy, and the "poorest among us".
Cases of COVID-19 spreading through fomites (particles on a surface) are extremely rare[1][2] and COVID-19 has a short lifespan on cardboard[3]. Just leaving deliveries somewhere for a day is probably enough to stop transmission.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34136133/
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95479-5
[3] https://www.sciencealert.com/how-long-does-coronavirus-last-...
> Similarly, on cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 particles could be found after 24 hours, or SARS-CoV-1 after eight.
We've long known that transmission of COVID through fomites (surfaces) is very low: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-r...
If this wasn't the case, grocery store protocol would have been very different during the early days of the pandemic.
Strangely, you can find this information in Fig 2 of this short anti-vax paper claiming the vaccine doesn't correlate with case numbers at all.
I don't blame people for being confused.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10654-021-008...
Do you have a reference for this claim? Nearly everyone I know that has caught it and has gotten sick in the past 2 weeks has been vaccinated, sometimes boostered as well. I don't think this claim is true with Omicron.
Vaccination makes you less likely to end up on a ventilator.
And in a big storm, even everyone being 25% less likely to get infected impacts rate of transmission, which is the big one for resource constraints and such.
But there is no data to indicate that it's >0% effective either. So until we have data to back things up one way or the other, talking about it just creates more science disinformation.
Early studies suggested that vaccine antibodies were much weaker but boosted individuals still had antibodies that had some effect on omicron, and gave no reason to believe that non-antibody parts of the immune system would have 0% effect. So based on that, and high level of protection against previous strains, my default assumption would be "some, but much lower, protection."
Then, as of Dec 26, being vaccinated in CA still resulted in a much lower case rate per 100K: https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/#postvax-status That likely isn't 100% omicron data, but the ratio looks the same as what it was before, so still not reason to drop my belief to 0%.
It is quite the leap to say "new strain, I should restart my assumption at 0% effectiveness."
In the US, with the delta wave, case-rate-per-100k-people very much showed that the vaccinated were less likely to catch Covid. For instance: "From December 20, 2021 to December 26, 2021, unvaccinated people were 3.9 times more likely to get COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people." (with a chart showing the trend similarly for months). https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/#postvax-status
I expect the omicron wave to be less dramatically tilted, but that there will still be some difference.
Positive of which % pos test % population
Age Tests vaxed vaccinated vaccinated
<18 395,335 57,284 14% 35%
18-29 257,526 181,705 71% 60%
30-39 254,435 193,623 76% 65%
40-49 230,670 195,908 85% 77%
50-59 147,033 129,440 88% 85%
60-69 58,233 51,037 88% 90%
70-79 18,858 16,263 86% 95%
>80 9,067 7,658 84% 95%
Total > 18 975,822 775,634 79%
You had the same outcome in November, i.e. pre-Omicron.
What's the case rate per 100K at the population level there?
Edit: actually, didn't find exactly that table, but did find a section in the doc you link, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/..., on page 14, that shows vaccine effectiveness remains against symptomatic disease as a result of a study against delta and omicron both. But I would love to see the overall case rate to know about asymptomatic disease too.
The % per 100k is available p40 of the same pdf. But I find that much harder to read given that the size of the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations vastly differ.
The table on page 40 is consistent with US data, where case rates at the population. It says to read in conjunction with pages 32 to 34, which basically says "stats won't be as accurate as formal assessment of vaccine effectiveness, please see the formal data." The formal data suggests effectiveness against transmission. The raw cases-per-100k numbers agree. Yet you latch onto a different number - another one that the report says isn't authoritative for those purposes either - to claim the data shows ineffectiveness! That seems backward.
Those who don't want to get vaccinated should take personal responsibility for that, not expect society to take as much care of them when they're choosing not to help take care of society (even in terms of "reducing burden on healthcare system by getting a likely-less-severe case", even if transmissibility isn't affected as much).
If you have ethical qualms about this, I'd like to point out that ethics go both ways. It's unconscionable to take a hospital bed away from someone who needs it, because you refuse to take your medicine, with predictable consequences.
I do agree however. And, I think it's an ethically defensible position to not treat people who refuse to get vaccinated... even though it will never happen.
Will be put at the end of recipient lists, or outright denied for organ transplants if you're an active smoker of the last 6 months.
> uninsured people
Will only be stabilized in the ER and sent home - actual treatment is only to stabilize the patient to get them back out the door as-per law.
---
On motorcycles and obesity those are a bit harder to get into - but I will say that yes... for 2/4 of those we do actively deny medical treatment for better or worse. That makes me feel like we're already on the "slippery slope" - especially in regards to those without insurance... We literally have no problem denying life saving treatment to the uninsured here.
And hell - even as an ex-smoker I agree with the places that don't allow active smokers on their transplant lists. Ethically that makes perfect sense to me.
"Will only be stabilized in the ER"
In other words: they will be treated.
No one is saying we need to give the best treatments, or any kind of treatment that is scarce and competitive (like transplants) to unvaccinated people, but you're talking about refusing people any treatment and sending them out to die at home or on the streets. That's extremely cruel and certainly is not done anywhere in the US currently.
We're splitting hairs - I'm out.
You're advocating for sending unvaccinated people away with zero treatment. None of your examples are remotely comparable. If you were really discussing in good faith, you would admit it.
Right and that's why I'm out. I have made my arguments, and I don't appreciate you implying that I am discussing these things in bad-faith. If we disagree that is fine.
Respectfully, I am done discussing this with you.
They were wrong hospitals shouldn't treat unvaccinated patients. They were right withholding treatment someone needs to live months and withholding treatment someone needs to live days aren't 100% different.
I never made the claim that they shouldn't treat unvaccinated patients:
> And, I think it's an ethically defensible position to not treat people who refuse to get vaccinated... even though it will never happen.
And specifically to the parent comment I was agreeing to the following (quoting parent):
> It's unconscionable to take a hospital bed away from someone who needs it, because you refuse to take your medicine, with predictable consequences.
Although maybe it's not my best self showing here - but I do feel angry toward people taking those hospital beds away. And I was very specifically agreeing that "It's unconscionable to take a hospital bed away from someone who needs it [...]" I have friends/family who are suffering real consequences of hospitals being overrun with largely unvaccinated people...
---
Overall, I don't think "ethically defensible position" is equivalent to "they should not treat unvaccinated people" - yeah I guess this can be seen as "walking it back" but overall I did not mean to outright state we shouldn't treat the unvaccinated.
Sure - it comes from a place of frustration. But I don't think I'm alone in thinking about these things.
Sorry if this is off-base.
Thanks for clarifying. They also said "Drop the vaccine mandates, and drop the mandates to treat the unvaccinated." And you said "I do agree however." But I can believe you just meant the last sentence. Feeling frustrated is natural when your friends and family are harmed. I hope they can get what they need.
100% we need to treat people regardless of anyone's attitude (mine included), and 100% we need to continue to mandate vaccines.
Thank you again for giving me the space to clarify =)
Perhaps they should be able to opt out of both as a package deal?
No, just like how if I need surgery, and the hospital is full of anti-vaxxers with COVID, and I can't get treatment, I currently don't get my money back.
Unfortunately as much as I agree with this it will never be the case. Hospitals are hurting for blood too - sucks. These spikes are largely unvaccinated folks from everything I'm reading. They're stressing the system but I guarantee you they don't care outside of their own selfishness.
How would that work practically though? They still end up in the hospital, they're not going to test if they're vaxxed and put them at the end of the line if not.
This would be called "heartless" on the individual scale, but towards a group that I believe is being heartless on a societal scale.
Honestly, it's a capsule of where we are as a country: Here we have a government entity whose suggestions are rejected by these people still suggesting to prioritize them in order to get them the best treatment possible. I don't see anything like the same consideration for others being made by most of the unvaccinated. One side is trying to do what's best for everyone, the other side doesn't really give a shit about thinking things through.
If two do arrive at the same time, an unvaccinated person with far worse sickness faintly mumbling about ivermectin who waited until the last minute to come in, and a vaccinated person who is suffering but nowhere near the danger zone - do you put the unvaccinated person on the sidewalk outside?
What about smokers or fat people?
Long answer: you'd probably come up with a protocol around "ok, we have this ventilator available, give it to the unvaxed patient, but if we have other patients who end up needing one and they haven't improved in X hours/days, we will reallocate" and similar for all the various ways people can present, but "conveniently"... if the health system is that overloaded, you're gonna have ERs with a lot of patients all arriving at the same time.
Hell, even pre-COVID, I got stuck waiting in an ER in December for days because the hospital was full once.
(To your edit: has either smoking or obesity caused hospitals to fill to capacity and have to turn away patients? You'll notice here I'm talking about scarce medical resource allocation prioritization where they're actively competing with those more considerate of the rest of us, not something like insurance payments or coverage.)
What I remember about HIV in the early 80s was that fear of it fueled a lot of homophobia from those who were ignorant about the disease, certainly to begin with. In fact I remember it originally being seen as a disease that only infected homosexuals and drug addicts - and those being the people who were vilified - which proved to be a fatally uninformed point of view for some.
But HIV is, fundamentally, a very different pathogen to COVID. In the 80s HIV was a death sentence: if you were infected with HIV, sooner or later it would develop into AIDS and you would die. However, a relatively small proportion of the population was infected, and it wasn't very transmissible (you had to have sex or other transfer of body fluids, such as a blood transfusion). Nowadays, HIV treatments have improved to the extent that in developed countries most people receiving treatment can expect to lead a fairly normal and full life, and to live a normal lifetime (ignoring other causes of death that might intervene). I'm not sure what the story is in less developed countries, but I imagine it's not as encouraging.
COVID has never close to that deadly, but is far more transmissible. It's that high transmission rate that has seen so many people die, even though these represent a small fraction of those infected. And this time, nobody is being vilified for their sexual preference, or their gender identity, or any other characteristic that is fundamental to who they are and over which they may not have had much if any agency. You might argue that drug addicts have agency but they don't have very much once they're hooked.
No, with COVID, people are being vilified for wilful ignorance, which is a choice: a conscious decision, and one that - in this case - has a substantial negative impact on their surrounding community and the world at large.
I can't tell you how effective, or not, that vilification is, but I can tell you that a lot of people - myself included - who are fully vaxxed, boosted, and will gladly accept further vaccinations (and would also welcome effective treatments for those who are sick), are getting enormously fed up of having restrictions placed on our lives which, to a non-trivial extent, are being propagated as a result of people who are spreading misinformation and choosing not to get vaccinated. I'm not old - somewhere in the middle - but the remaining count of the best years of my life is finite and even in the best possible case very limited, so I'm getting sick to death of people telling me what I can and can't do with them.
I even agree with you that pointing fingers and calling names won't change anything, but it doesn't matter. Lots of people have had their fill and the anti-vaxxers are a convenient, and frankly not entirely unjust, target for their rage and frustration, which pays to a key point: the rest of us, the "vaxxed and done", or whatever you want to call us, will eventually tire of allowing the lowest common denominator to set the agenda. That's not a threat: it's just a reality, just who we are. Eventually we'll tire of the yoke and throw it off.
1. I live in the UK. Sadly I can't just up and move anywhere I choose. Even more frustrating, since we left the EU I can't even just up and move anywhere I choose in Europe (not that restrictions-wise it's much better there at the moment).
2. My close family are all in the UK and, although the rules have made it hard to see them as regularly as I would have liked over the past 2 years, it's been a lot easier (and less costly) than it would have been had I "just moved somewhere else", and I want to continue to be nearish to them.
4. My girlfriend and her close family live in the UK. I'm not leaving her to move somewhere else, and especially not to move to Florida - WTF. Just as importantly I can't see her being keen on living that far from her family.
5. Most of my friends live in the UK, either close to where I live now, or close to where my parents live. I could start again somewhere else but, overall, I'm fairly content with my life. Ditto my girlfriend's friends.
6. My current employer places a 45 day limit on working abroad for tax reasons. This isn't insurmountable. I could find another job but finding another job is another barrier, and I quite like my current job.
7. I have a house that I'm part way through refurbishing. I'd have to figure out what to do with that but, whatever the outcome, that decision will require a significant investment of time, or money, or both. The reality is it would be a trade-off between the two but, in any event, would represent a substantial investment that due to the need to act quickly might well outweigh what I'd invest if I were less constrained by time.
8. I've never wanted to live in the US, though I like visiting, and I'd certainly want better employment conditions than I'm likely to find there: i.e., sensible amounts of holiday, decent employee rights, not to mention public healthcare.
Yes, if I was still 28, single, had my whole career ahead of me, and hadn't yet bought a house, I could simply up sticks and leave, as long as practicalities rather than relationships were my major driving factor. But it's not so simple, and the fact that I work in tech is basically irrelevant because the only part of the equation it simplifies is the "getting a job" part, which isn't even the most important aspect of said equation. As an aside, somebody like Joe Rogan can move from California to Texas relatively easily because he's a jetsetter and all his mates are jetsetters so he pretty much only gets the upsides from that move (not a criticism: with the kind of money he has, I might well see things differently too).
But far more important than all of that, your comment plays hard to the point I was making: why the hell should I give everything up because, in some part, of a bunch of people who won't see sense? What difference does it make whether that's because of rules and restrictions, or because I've had to walk away from my life and start again because of them?
That's a great question, and it also touches on the reason I'm not only infuriated with antivaxxers: vaccines don't fully protect against illness, nor do they stop transmission. So whilst I vaccines are of substantial benefit they're clearly not a total solution to the problem of COVID, nor do I think such a total solution exists or can exist within any foreseeable timeframe.
One becomes jaded living with controls over a situation that doesn't appear to be particularly controllable; certainly not a situation that can be controlled by the UK government, or other governments in Western Europe.
I've tolerated - we've all tolerated - restrictions for nearly two years now but, if they're not making much difference, well, eff the restrictions, I've had enough. I'm not getting any younger here and I'm fed up of wasting my life away. I suppose, to some extent, I'm a bit consumed with a sort of impotent frustration.
What's the situation where you are, if you don't mind me asking?
Along the same lines my kid is also quarantined for the the next few days as someone at his table tested positive this past Friday (did not even make it a week). They can either do virtual schooling for 10 days or return once they have a negative test. Only the 4 kids at his table are quarantined, rest of the class is not. He has actually had a low grade fever (99 - 100 degrees F) the last 3 days so he may have it but he tested negative on a covid test, so technically he can go back to school monday. Not sure I trust the test and will hold him home for a few more days until he has no fever. Other than that he has no symptoms. No one else in the family is symptomatic.
In grocery stores about 35 - 40% of people wear masks. I am hit or miss, mainly miss on masks. I used to mask all the time and not sure there was a conscious decision to stop but it just kind of faded away. I did recently get the booster. Have not vaccinated the kids yet, go back and forth on it. Service workers are generally masked, not sure if by choice or company policy, I am assuming the latter. No vaccination or masking req. to eat at a restaurant. Feel a little bad about the almost dual class structure created where the service industry is masked while those they serve are not.
There are places in the US like NYC that check your vaccine card before they will admit you. Federal government is attempting to push a vaccine requirement for all companies over 100 employees through the courts, sitting at the supreme court right now, not sure what will happen with that.
It is very hard to get a test though here and the state government is encouraging people not to get tested unless they have severe symptoms. Not sure I agree with this.
I am very center of the road politically and politicians here are now extreme so I find myself lost in the shuffle not agreeing with most of those that represent me. Covid has been very much politicized now with Republican governors essentially removing all restrictions and many democratic governors adding much more stringent restrictions although I think most of them fall short of Euro style restrictions and are not close to Australian levels.
My kids did not do well with the isolation that came with the initial outbreak so I think I have tailored my response more to ensuring they are mentally well than any real concern for the physical risks of Covid which are generally low (not saying zero) in younger patients.
I vote Democrat usually but find myself disliking the hardline approach they have taken on vaccination but dislike even more any politician that refuses to acknowledge how egregious what happened when they attempted to overthrow the election for Trump last year. So I just kind of worry about my family now and attempt to block out the country at large.
Apologies for the novel.
One of the things that really resonated with me is that if you're a customer of the hospitality industry, you don't have to wear a mask, but if you're a staff member, you do. It's very two tier, and they're obviously at far higher risk of contracting COVID than the rest of us.
Something that is different is that a fair number of events do check COVID passes - my GF and I went to a gig a couple of days ago, for example, where this was the case. So this is similar to NYC.
Like you, I'm pretty centrist, but I don't think COVID has become quite the political hot potato here in the UK that it perhaps is in the US. There's a lot of sniping but there's also broad cross-party support for measures that attempt to control the pandemic. That being said, there is still a notable left/right divide with, for example, some conservatives being very heavily against certain measures (e.g., COVID passports), and some on the left always being in favour of more restrictions.
There's quite a bit of politics playing across countries in Europe around travel measures as well, with the UK I think probably as guilty as other countries in this regard.
The situation with schoolchildren has been similar, but with mask wearing for teenagers now mandatory. No issues with younger kids though, which I think is good but also marginally aggravating when GF and I take her kids places, and we have to wear masks but they don't.
The quarantine/isolation rules are loosening, which I think is pragmatically sensible, with a testing regime defining when quarantine can end, rather than some sort of fixed 7 or 10 day rule. This is really an improvement because, before, you might not even realise you have COVID for a few days, then have to isolate for 10 days after testing positive, which was pretty difficult.
We are experiencing widespread disruption across the economy due to COVID related absences though. I was in a meeting a few days ago where, out of the 7 of us, 2 had COVID, and 1 was still recovering from quite a severe infection that had hospitalised him. We've never experienced that before, and clearly it's quite widespread with many people I know now having had it recent weeks.
I don't get the impression there's much appetite for further restrictions in England or much chance of further lockdowns but, across the Union as a whole, it's a pretty mixed picture, so it's hard to say how it's going to play out over the next few months. There is a sense that people are starting to care a lot less about the pandemic though.
The government, of course, have not done themselves any favours with recent revelations about parties and drinks events. The outdoor stuff I'm not so bothered about, but what I think a lot of us find tough to swallow is the "one rule for us, another rule for them" mentality that is perhaps behind it.
(Btw, sorry I was also a bit rude about Florida: it's the heat and humidity in summer that kills me but there's a lot there to like, obviously, and despite being drenched in sweat the moment I step outside in June in Orlando, I've had great times on both the trips I took there, both for business, even managing to catch a shuttle launch one evening back in 2007, which was incredible. I imagine the winters would be fine but the summers would definitely cripple me.)
That is not correct. Vaccination does reduce, but does not eliminate, transmission of the virus
“ We found that both the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines were associated with reduced onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from index patients who became infected despite vaccination.”
If getting vaccinated reduced your odds of spreading the virus by 90%, and 92% of the population were double-vaccinated, then the majority of the spread would be...
Among, and by the double-vaccinated. (8.28% vs 8%)
Most people that die in car crashes are wearing seatbelts, but you'd be a fool to not wear one. Just like you'd be foolish to not get vaccinated.
Funny enough, I just recently checked the stats for that. According to the first report I found with a simple googling, 47% of people who died in car crashes were not wearing seat belts.
> Among, and by the double-vaccinated. (8.28% vs 8%)
I don't know how you're getting those numbers.
If baseline spread is 100% unvaccinated spreading to 100% unvaccinated, then 92% vaccinated spreading 10% to 92% vaccinated amounts to 8.464% of baseline, 92% vaccinated spreading 10% to 8% unvaccinated is 0.736% of baseline, 8% unvaccinated spreading to 92% vaccinated is 7.36% of baseline and 8% unvaccinated spreading to 8% unvaccinated is 0.64% of baseline. The total sums to 17.2% of baseline, of which vaccinated to vaccinated spread amounts to 49.2%.
(It's not terribly important since the numbers are made-up anyway, but I'd like to know whether I made a mistake somewhere.)
Iceland also has a higher vaccination rate, I would be very interested in demographic breakdowns of the unvaccinated there vs in California. Is the Iceland group much more atypical in terms of how often they leave their house, say? Is the California group possibly just much more boosted (the Iceland numbers show that the boosted group has still less Covid than the unvaccinated group stil) - but actually, that doesn't seem like it, because that ratio is still far higher than the CA one. Though... even your own link for data on boosted adults in Iceland contradicts your "not even a little" statement.
Actually I bet it's just a small number problem. Iceland has a population of 366K. 8% of that population is just under 30K. California has a population of over 39 million. Much more significant sample for unvaccinated people in CA.
Of course not. It's not about the absolute transmission rate of vaccinated people. It's about the reduction in the transmission rate compared to the unvaccinated. Regardless of the absolute effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing transmission, it seems to me it should remain fundamental to protecting public health if unvaccinated people spread the virus several times faster.
Of course, if the effect were only marginal, that would be one thing. But that is not what the data seems to show at this point.
Think of it this way: assume that an unvaccinated person, on average, spreads COVID to 10 people and a fully vaccinated person spreads it to only 1. Then put 92 fully vaccinated people and 8 unvaccinated people (I.e., vaccination in proportion to the Icelandic population.) into a room full of people. The 8 unvaccinated people will infect 80 additional people, while the fully vaccinated will infect 92. Thus, "most" of the transmission was from vaccinated people, even though the vaccine reduced transmission by 10x.
And this is probably obvious, but its worth emphasizing that vaccinating those last 8 (percent of the) people would still have a hugely beneficial effect. If they were all vaccinated, then, in the toy example, they would infect a total of only 8 people instead of 80, leading to only 100 total cases, rather than 172.
Of course, even setting this aside, the bigger issue is that your casual parsing of one country's aggregate statistics is just no substitute for the actual scientific research that GP cited.
You can't really make that conclusion based on a simple case count chart, because you don't know what those numbers would look like if the vaccination rate was lower.
I tried to find the original article about negative effectiveness in the UK but all I could find was this:
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/has-covid-vaccine-effica...
This covers Iceland, Denmark and the UK but doesn't really go into much detail about alternative explanations which I remember being covered in the original article I read.
- The majority of those who died WITH THE VACCINE had 4+ co-morbidities. The virus is still very dangerous to the unvaccinated
- The vaccine does indeed reduce your propensity to spread the virus, although it doesn't eliminate the risk.
- The reason for lockdowns is not to make the virus "go away". It is to control the impact on the healthcare system. We have now surpassed the previous hospitalization record and this thing is still going exponential. You may be fully vaccinated and at low risk for a COVID related death, but if you'd like to be able to get acute treatment for appendicitis or a heart attack, we need to take steps toward a lockdown immediately.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-breaks-covid-19-hospital...
Do we know this about omicron? How dangerous is "very dangerous"? As it is with pre-omicron, CFR for COVID-19 was, pessimistically, 0.5-1%, less if you're not in an at-risk group. AFAICT we have no reliable numbers on "long covid".
For the record, I am not anti-vaxx, I am vaccinated, I'm just anti-using-science-as-an-ideology.
Here's the early numbers out of major cities:
https://i.imgur.com/g8tyRdQ.png
It's probably somewhere between 75% as serious and as serious as Delta, but we can't be sure yet.
The handwaving about 0.5% - 1% is ultimately not something I can address because it is opinion. A million Americans are dead from this and more deaths are coming. Reminds me of the Stalin quote.
"The vaccine does indeed reduce your propensity to spread the virus, although it doesn't eliminate the risk." agreed, but at this point Omicron is so incredibly transmissible that I think everyone is going to get it and it is impossible to eliminate all the potential infection vectors. I have to come down on the side of bodily autonomy at this point. If the virus was as deadly as ebola I would likely change my mind but at this point with the severity of omicron, I have landed here.
"The reason for lockdowns is not to make the virus "go away". It is to control the impact on the healthcare system." This is a very good point but there is no way to practically implement this in the current political environment. If we implemented a lockdown, we would still be telling the poorest among us, those we call essential that they still have to go to work to support the rest of us. In addition, there is just no way that states like Texas or Florida are going to agree to a lockdown. Are we willing to risk armed conflict over this? Personally I am not.
>the virus is still very dangerous to the unvaccinated
According to gallup (which I hope we can agree is not some sort of alt-right outlet) the risk of an unvaccinated person needing to be hospitalized if they get covid is 0.89%. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimat...
That is insanely low. That is just the risk of hospitalization, the % of those that are hospitalized that actually die from (not with) covid is even lower, which is a key distinction that your Reuters article doesn't make. Most hospitals are required to test patients for covid (if they are admitted), even if they are being admitted for something else (like a broken leg) if they come back positive then they show up in the stats even if they exhibit no covid symptoms and require no to little treatment from the hospital for covid.
The healthcare system is not remotely being overrunning by covid, it only appears that way because of these scary, missleading, numbers.
Take a look.
https://i.imgur.com/o3DJfN2.png
https://i.imgur.com/g8tyRdQ.png
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/01/09/us/omicron-ci...
For reference to a Covid prevalence measurement that isn't sensitive to testing artifacts, check out the Boston wastewater analysis: https://www.mwra.com/biobot/biobotdata.htm
This would be confounded by the greater viral loads for Omicron, wouldn't it?
https://abc7ny.com/new-york-hospitals-stop-elective-surgerie...
That’s overrun in my book.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1257041/average-weight-g...
I very, very much disagree with this.
Unvaccinated people have a much higher rate of severe illness that requires hospitalization. Filling up hospitals unnecessarily kills people, and delays preventative care.
People who are voluntarily unvaxxed without a medical necessity are, to be clear, 1) categorically stupid 2) responsible for the injury and death of others.
Not if they already had covid or are young and healthly. I would agree with your statement with the qualifier "unvaccinated people that are over 60 or have comorbidity".
Unvaccinated people of all ages are significantly more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than vaccinated people of the same age group [1].
12-34 year olds are 10 times more likely to be hospitalized.
Even if the absolute numbers are very low for young and healthy people – even if that's 0.01% instead of 0.001% of cases – that is an absolutely unacceptable amount of people to be putting into hospital beds when they could just get a motherfucking shot instead.
[1] Page 3 of https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/... Study published 3 days ago.
Tell me it's not material when you're waiting in a rural ER for six hours because one of their two ventilators is taken by an unvaccinated 19-year-old who went to three New Year's Eve parties.
There would be a conversation to have here if getting the vaccine wasn't the easiest goddamn thing in the world.
But it is. So there's not.
I've yet to see any convincing evidence that a prior infection isn't good enough, but I see plenty of people convinced that the recovered are selfish/evil/stupid if they aren't rushing out for a vaccine.
I could call them names ,like typhoid Maries. Fat fucks. Ban them from participating in society unless they show a proper BMI index card. Force them into diet camps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BdPKpWbxTg.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6....
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32929833/.
But I would never do that. I happily spend my tax money for peole who smoke, overeat, drink and drive, get bothched breas augmentations, beat the crap of eachother, OD on heroin and all the amazing horrible things that make us humans.
Whatever choice you make in your life, you can NEVER EVER be threatened to have medical care taken away from you.
Unconditinal medical care is one of the corner stones of our society.
Red Cross workers in conflict areas will treat rape victims in one tent, and their rapist in the next.
Fun job, no. But if you cannot handle it than you should not have gone into medicine.
This tendency to normalice demands of who gets medical care and who doesnt stops now. There are not many things I will violently defend, but if society will ever hint that it is going to elect who gets medical support and who doesnt based on their personal life choices I will protest. Violenty if I have to.
This is a basic human right I am willing to die for.
But the idea that vaccination status is remotely comparable to weight, smoking, drug addiction – that's laughable.
It's a single goddamn shot (sorry – two shots for mRNA). You can get them fucking everywhere, for free, with a walk-in appointment.
We know they're safe. We know they keep people out of the hospital. We know that putting people in hospitals right now is a huge drain on a strained resource.
Again: people who are sick deserve care. Always. Regardless of their moronic views.
But the idea that an unvaccinated person is somehow free of the responsibility of their actions, when they could so easily fix them? I find that hard to swallow.
> This tendency to normalice demands of who gets medical care and who doesnt stops now. There are not many things I will violently defend, but if society will ever hint that it is going to elect who gets medical support and who doesnt based on their personal life choices I will protest. Violenty if I have to.
This is a basic human right I am willing to die for.
Perfectly expresses how I feel as well. Thank you.
Are you British or something?
I absolutely agree that no one should ever be threatened to have medical care taken away from them! That is precisely why I'm ok with villifying (note that I'm not saying "calling them names" or "refuse treatment") the unvaccinated, as that is precisely what they are doing! And no, this is absolutely not comparable to anything else: there has been no sudden explosion in the last two years of obesity or drunk driving or smoking to the point that there are no hospital beds for anyone else. Only covid has done that.
Hospital Costs and deaths associated with covid are easily surpassed by the obese if you add up just a few years.
https://www.healthycommunitieshealthyfuture.org/learn-the-fa...
Obese people have a much higher rate of severe illness that requires hospitalization. Filling up hospitals unnecessarily kills people, and delays preventative care.
People who are voluntarily obese without a medical necessity are, to be clear, 1) categorically stupid 2) responsible for the injury and death of others.
-------------------------------------------
See how off-putting this gets very quickly?
These two things are a perfect, 1:1 analogy.
I'm also in favor of vaccination btw, but against the shaming.
I too am double vaccinated an boosted, but everyone has a point at which they say enough is enough and will stop getting boosters and isolating indefinitely.
For instance, take the CDC guidance on preparing for a hurricane or tropical storm:
Step 1: get a covid vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/features/hurricanepreparedness/inde...
What makes you say with any degree of confidence that the virus is less lethal now?
The data's not in yet. At this point, it's all magical thinking.
It actually still is important and advisable to keep your coronavirus vaccinations up to date. There's a reason why Israel marches ahead and begins to distribute the fourth shot in a year to the most vulnerable groups, and likely access will be expanded similarly like it was for the first three shots.
FWIW, it should become a normality that people visit their general practitioner once a year, get their general fitness and blood checkup done and their missing/expired vaccinations refreshed. Our societies may very well benefit from eliminating millions of workdays lost every year to the ordinary flu [1].
[1]: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1225629/umfra...
We are losing a lot of wealth, a lot of life simply because politicians are afraid of anti-vaxxer propaganda and because prior generations have abused minorities for medical experiments (e.g. the Tuskegee syphilis experiment) or vaccination programs for military purposes (e.g. the Bin Laden discovery).
During the recent recall attempt for Gov. Gavin Newsom, the ads supporting him essentially said, "The Republican candidate will remove the mask mandate and kill your grandma. Vote to keep Newsom, he'll keep grandma alive with mask mandates." so yeah I figure it's gonna be a while before California Democrats, at least, can support easing up on the masks.
I, for one, will not go on living in fear like this.
* People can be over 65 for decades without dying.
* People can be cancer survivors for decades without dying.
* People can have type-1, type-II diabetes for decades without dying.
* People can have heart valve issues for decades without dying.
* People can have COPD for decades without dying.
Let's quit blaming those people who are in the high risk category dying from a clearly preventable illness.
Right. That's why we need vaccines, and not an excuse for the crap your espousing to not get vaccinated.
This is such a bad take. Unvaxxed cause the majority of hospitalizations, deaths and complications. This is just objectively wrong that it doesn't matter that much.
The same people who are vaccinated are the same ones who will likely isolate/mask-up if they catch the disease.
Think about this: spreading covid misinformation like this leads to people dying earlier than they would have otherwise died.
This is such a stupid lead sentence. 2020 Republicans and 2022 Democrats are talking about different diseases in an entirely different global context.
The talking points didn't "come true" any more than saying it's raining while it's sunny out "comes true" if it happens to start raining a week later. The Republicans in 2020 were completely wrong to downplay the seriousness of a rapidly spreading disease we knew little about, that was killing thousands of people, and that we had no vaccines or good treatments for.
The fact that the current strain is less deadly, we've learned more about it, millions are vaccinated, and we have better treatments doesn't mean they were somehow right all along.
I view "vaxxed and done" as a form of rounding, selected by people who find it psychologically untenable to handle a changed _risk profile_ by changing their behaviors in moderate ways. I'm boosted, as is everyone I'm in contact with - that has shifted my risk profile sufficiently that I felt comfortable eating at some restaurants (but not others) and at nearly any normal outdoor event, but not at a concert, a crowded bar, or a packed bus. But I have to keep an eye on infection rates, and change my behavior when they shift radically (as now), or when the risk profile updates for a new mutation.. And that's tractable for me - I think about everything I do, constantly, which I assume is much more true among the tech crowd than the population at large.
But most people _just don't do that_ kind of thing - being told to keep worrying about and considering a thing constantly sounds to many like "just keep stabbing yourself in the arm every day and eventually things will be fine". I don't know what there is to do about that, but I think it would be valuable for some folks in here to have a more realistic idea of the cost constant vigilance so often imposes.
- Is this a public area where immunocompromised people have to be (e.g. grocery stores, doctors offices?) If so then I wear a mask
- Is this an area which isn’t really safe for immunocompromised people anyways (e.g. restaurants, gyms). If so then i don’t wear a mask unless they require it or someone asks me
- Am I hanging out at a friends house or venue with other friends, all young and presumably vaccinated? If so then i don’t take any precautions, even if it’s a large tightly-packed gathering the risk of any serious infection is minimal and the virus is spreading anyways
People need to understand that “stay safe and weigh the risks” does not mean “take unnecessary precautions and constantly worry”. It takes 2sec to realize that hanging out with vaccinated friends and family and strangers is completely fine, and maybe i should bring a mask in my pocket just in case i need to call a Lyft or stop somewhere.
- Is this a public area where immunocompromised people have to be (e.g. grocery stores, doctors offices?) If so then I wear a mask
- Is this an area which isn’t really safe for immunocompromised people anyways (e.g. restaurants, gyms). If so then i don’t wear a mask unless they require it or someone asks me
- Am I hanging out at a friends house or venue with other friends, all young and presumably vaccinated? If so then i don’t take any precautions, even if it’s a large tightly-packed gathering the risk of any serious infection is minimal and the virus is spreading anyways
People need to understand that “stay safe and weigh the risks” does not mean “take unnecessary precautions and constantly worry”. It takes 2sec to realize that hanging out with vaccinated friends and family and strangers is completely fine, and maybe i should bring a mask in my pocket just in case i need to call a Lyft or stop somewhere. It’s basically automatic
Yes, indeed. It's time for people to resume critical thinking regarding this, and not be guided by "lizard brain" level fear responses. The virus has evolved, we've learned more, we know who to protect the most -- time to adapt.
There is also this weird fixation on being the single person who will infect another who for whatever reason is at high risk either due to obesity, not being vaccinated despite being in a high-risk group, etc. As if you're very presence in some public location is going to be the only way another person encounters the virus.
It's just not realistic. Every single person will eventually catch a cold just like every single person will eventually catch the omicron variant or whatever one surfaces next.
This fixation that we, or the government, is capable of isolating human beings in a manner to prevent them from ever being exposed to an endemic virus is utterly absurd.
The best case scenario is that it begins to look like the flu, unless someone comes up with a vaccine which makes you immune to all variants forever.
One of the bigger mistakes around this focused on a compliance percentage that was unrealistic. We can't even get people to stop killing one another, the idea that everyone was going to upend their lives in a sudden bout of cooperation was not a reasonable expectation. The resistance we are to expect is beyond the four percent "lizardman constant" and probably closer to twenty or thirty percent. And the moment it became politicized, the compliance percentage would drop even further.
Then you have to ask yourself, how long will people put up with it? How long will people stick to a diet? How long will they keep to their budgets? Generally, long-term discipline does not happen as much as we would like.
Most pandemic responses were formulated with overly optimistic opinions about compliance rates and how long people would do whatever you told them. Meanwhile, various authorities are fumbling around and eroding confidence. At one school in a city where Omicron rates were booming, school administrators made attendance mandatory for some gathering to talk about the hat situation. Apparently, dealing with the hat situation was more important than avoiding creating a possible superspreader event. The more of this senselessness that becomes evident, the less people are apt to do what they are told.
Frankly, we've done about as well as I could have expected.
But I have three children in elementary and middle school. Like school systems across the country, ours is in chaos due to COVID absenteeism. Roughly 1/3 of the students and 1/4 of the teachers are currently out sick due to positive tests, some symptomatic, some not, and the numbers keep going up every day. Just waiting for our turn and then the kids have to stay home for two weeks! Hopefully February will be easier?
https://peterattiamd.com/covid-19-current-state-omicron/
One of the big takeaways for me, personally, was that the push for boosters may be, in part, due to measuring the wrong thing, namely circulating antibodies as a measure of resistance to infection. Even when antibody levels dropped weeks/months later, it seems people still maintained B-cell and T-cell immunity.
From the link:
"A Johns Hopkins study in pre-print shows the importance of T-cell immunity in protection from COVID
-This is an under recognized part of the immune system and absent from much COVID discussion
-T cell immunity is solid against Omicron as it is for Delta"
P.S. - Here's my chance at one of my favorite dad jokes: Why have scientists been researching ants to battle COVID? Because they all have ant-y bodies... :-)
It's odd how humans of today will not agree to change their habits when the punishment is mild.
Fortunately, vaccines can improve both targets due to the reduced (though now less effectively so) infection rates, shorter infection periods, etc. This makes me personally hopeful that Omicron will become the final "pre-endemic" variant. However, while I too feel tired and sympathize with the described "vaxxed and done" mentality, I know we must stay vigilant and continue to reduce opportunities for this virus to find new ways to remain a pan- rather than an endemic. Acceptable costs of this vigilance, and the nature of it, i.e. the measures we take, need to be updated just as everything else.
I don’t know where you are getting the 10 times worse from.
There are only 17k people per year who receive any kind of spinal cord injury, from all sources, not just cars.
That means you could even count all spinal injuries as a death!! If every person with a spinal injury somehow just died, it would still be a smaller problem than COVID deaths.
COVID would still be 7 or 8 times worse than these theoretically extra-deadly roads. Even if Long COVID didn't exist, the deaths alone would blow it out of the water.
Vaccines weren't widely available back then
If you could drive drunk without risking other people, it'd be more societally acceptable. Similarly, now that vaccination is widely available for at-risk groups, it's a bit more acceptable to take actions that spread the virus that puts those folks at risk.
It was widely available a year ago. The most at risk groups were the first and most comprehensively vaccinated. What gives? If the conditions for re-opening were met a year ago why were we wearing masks outdoors and whatnot this whole time? Comments like these seem like little more than mental gymnastics to justify having held an opinion that didn't age well w.r.t. the various degrees of covid measures we've endured.
Edit: Fine then, call it 6mo. Regardless, I'd be very interested to see someone provide in a "better than just saving face" quality defense of why businesses have been at reduced capacity, government services have been limited in their accessibility, etc, etc. beyond the point at which the vulnerable were vaccinated and why we're continuing to have this debate. I know information was less great then but we have it now. How do people oppose re-opening wholesale-ish. I foresee nursing homes keeping some precautions but the DMV, using covid as an excuse for why I can't register a car at a certain service location, being masked at outdoor venues, come on.
A year ago today 0.4% of the American population was fully vaccinated. 3.1% had had a first dose. https://imgur.com/a/aUpVwtb
You're acting like there's someone who can just declare a national preoccupation to be over. As always, your problem isn't the government. It's that the majority of your fellow citizens do not agree with you.
This is further evidenced in the article, in which literally the _very first line_ is a mild dunk on the GOP. Why do Americans do this? Why must literally any policy decision be chiefly looked at through the lens of Red vs. Blue?
This is coming from a Canadian whose frequently frustrated that one can't voice any concerns about COVID policy without being lumped in with a crowd which I otherwise share almost nothing in common with.
In the first year of the pandemic, the people you're talking about were okay with the personal risk, which is fine, but also ignoring, downplaying, or refusing to care about the risk to others who couldn't protect themselves. Which is less okay in my opinion.
But now, the vast majority of people still at risk have chosen not to protect themselves. So vaccinated individuals choosing to live life normally are increasing the chances the virus spreads, but not increasing the risk of serious injury or death to the defenseless and vulnerable.
One, we've greatly reduced the risk of COVID through vaccines. This is the primary thrust of the article; if you've vaccinated, you're very unlikely to have serious consequences.
Two, we're fatigued. You just can't be constantly vigilant for two or three years without something breaking. This compounds point one. We don't, as the article mentions, know what kind of relationship Omicron has to long COVID, but at this point, many are too tired to care. "I'm safe enough" is all we have the capacity for.
Third, a large portion of the population is in denial about their own levels of risk. If there was a 1% chance of dying every time you drove a car, or even a 1% chance of dying every time you got into a car accident, there would be panic in the streets, no pun intended. But a lot of people round a 1% chance of dying from COVID down to zero.
The numbers are very clear on this:
There are people who have a 1% or greater risk of dying if they catch it.
Most people do not fall into that category, not even close.
Let's start with the fact that the 1% IFR is calculated using a faulty denominator. Due to the high prevalence of asymptomatic infection, the denominator is far smaller than it should be.
I was the only one in my household to have a single symptom when I caught it in February. My wife and two children did not have any symptoms and would not have been tested if I had not gotten myself tested. Wow this is an anecdote, it is directionally aligned with seroprevalence surveys.
Omicron is even less symptomatic and therefore, we still have a denominator that is far too small.
To put it into perspective, school children at the elementary age are actually at higher risk of death from an influenza infection than they are from a covid one. Obviously this does not apply to children who are immunocompromised or have comorbidities. They are the only age group that has a higher death rate from the influenza than from covid. But it is still notable. We have been sending our kids to schools without masks for decades even in the midst of various influenza epidemics.
Over time populations in the US that are less sensitive to media reporting, especially working class people, have formed their own intuitive risk calculations based on their anecdotal experience. Your average taxi driver has a pretty good understanding of who is at high risk and who isn't. I experienced this in Vegas when a woman driving my taxi stated to me that the people she knew who had died were all old or "really really fat". Her words not mine lol.
The people who are under 50 years of age who round 1% down to zero are more accurate than you are in their assessment. I hope I don't sound rude when I state that but based on the numbers it is accurate.
I don't intend to be rude, but what you are stating is a huge deal, and should have been earth-shattering news in the media. A doubling of fatality for a pandemic is not something that fails to make it into talking points when governments across the world are struggling to convince people to get vaccinated.
Additionally, I live in the US state of Colorado. A few days ago, a post on HN's front page showed that Colorado's cases are now 100% omicron. That's not being addressed in your statement. Eventually, omicron will crowd out delta in other places as well.
I don't think you and I differ much in our broad conclusions on covid, but I don't think it makes sense to compare "chance of dying every time you drove a car" with "chance of dying if you catch covid"--basically this is a type error, you're comparing apples and oranges. The proper comparison operand for "every time you drove a car" would be "every time you interact with one or more people in person". Of course, you don't have a 1% chance of dying by covid every time you interact with one or more people in person because each interaction has a relatively low chance of contagion. Moreover, if there's a 1% chance that the average person would die from covid, that doesn't imply that a healthy person (i.e., no co-morbidities) has a 1% chance of dying from covid, so it's perfectly possible that the cohort who are risking covid exposure also have a lower risk of dying from covid than the average person (of course, I'm just responding to your framing of self-preservation--there's a good moral argument that healthy people should also be concerned about their contribution to spreading the virus irrespective of their own risk).
An obvious example of this is that the CDC numbers on COVID deaths by age. It's blatantly obvious, yet people on here wave their hand and say "1%" as if most HN readers are remotely close to 1% death rate, when it's a community composed of software engineers, a profession that skews young as a whole.
Here's the stats. Bear in mind that the distribution of CASES skews young.
https://data.cdc.gov/widgets/9bhg-hcku?mobile_redirect=true
Roughly 20,000 people between 18 and 40 died of covid.
About 35,000 between 40 and 50.
426k of the deaths were age 75 and up. 188k were people between 65 - 74.
Case Fatality Rate = confirmed deaths / confirmed cases
Infection Fatality Rate = total deaths / total infections
Total infections can only be estimated, and is much higher than confirmed cases because most people who get COVID-19 don't get tested for it (either because they're asymptomatic, unable to get tested, or don't see see a point since they already know they're sick). Thus the infection fatality rate is substantially less than the case fatality rate.
This paper estimates the median infection fatality rate to be 0.23% https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33716331/
Also worth noting that deaths could be overestimated since anyone who dies having tested COVID positive is counted as a COVID death, and pretty much all patients who enter a hospital these days are tested for COVID.
"For more than a year, I did everything that public-health authorities told me to do. I wore masks. I canceled vacations. I made sacrifices. I got vaccinated. I got boosted. I’m happy to get boosted again."
I was expecting the article to be about people who, like me, are vaxxed and boosted and not really interested in getting more shots for this every six months perpetually.
It's time for the executives and individual teachers to stand down and work within the intent of the laws as they are on the books. If the legislatures didn't pass the right laws, then too bad, and people may die.
But anything else is tyranny of the executive. And if we don't take the power back from them now, they will never give it up later. It may already be too late.
To me it's simple: I ask my doctor what I should do and then I do it.
I'm vaccinated with a booster and I'm starting to loose sight of the point.
That said, cases are skyrocketing and hospitalizations (most of which are unvaccinated people) have only slightly increased.
I've already given up two years of my life, that's about enough.
Lies and miscommunication, over public health policy, without transparency and openness.
Silencing criticism, rather than open discussion.
I’m surprised more people are continuing to follow along.
At some point you get demoralised. And I know it isn't anyone's fault which somehow makes it worse. The Alex Jones supporters at least have someone to hate.
- What is the average level of risk to someone taking reasonable personal precautions?
- What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk?
Governments and societies have been acting out-of-control and it needs to stop.
If people don't want to take personal precautions, they should be at liberty to assume the additional risk.
Depends on how full hospitals get. We all get into accidents. We fall and hit our heads, we might get a heart attack, a pregnancy might suddenly go bad and a C-section (or worse surgery) is needed.
As COVID19 fills up hospitals around the country, the risk isn't from Omicron itself anymore, as much as it is from an overburdened health care system.
--------
The big example was the Montana train derailment last summer. It was difficult (but possible) to get all of the injured to an appropriate hospital, many being forced to go to hospitals hours away because the nearby hospitals were full of COVID19 patients. But this new wave of Omicron is even worse than the summer of 2021 by any measurement.
> - What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk?
While the health care system of the USA is technically a free market, with a mix of for-profit hospitals (and charity / religious hospitals, and a few state-sponsored ones for groups like veterans)... people expect hospitals / health care systems to be functional.
Since the state is ultimately responsible for the health care of its local population (whether they want to be responsible or not), its important to take actions needed to keep our hospital open.
The state will pull in the national guard, they will call in Navy hospital ships, they will declare emergencies to help. From that perspective, asking everyone else to get vaccinated or booster-vaccinated is just more of the same, its another action to minimize hospitalizations. Forced vaccinations are far more effective than national guard in this situation.
> Governments and societies have been acting out-of-control and it needs to stop.
I know someone who went to work while testing positive for COVID19. The amount of apathy and callousness the "individual" has in this situation knows no bounds.
"Individualism" is now selfishness. Its more important to save a few hours of PTO / leave rather than protect your fellow customers or coworkers from the disease.
People have lost their goddamn minds over this. They ignore the hospitalization stats, they ignore the overflowing morgues. They focus on selfish self-centered action rather than community.
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/covid-19-emergency-actions-ma...
Hospitals in my area have cut 20% of surgeries (ie: triaged out care to make room for COVID19). The governor has deployed National Guard to the hospitals to help out with tasks.
Are you just blind to the issues happening right now? This is happening, this is happening now. Take off your blindfolds and talk to a damn nurse or doctor. This is happening all over the place as far as the eye can see.
---------
Just call up your local-clinic and ask them for a flu-shot. Stand in line for 4-hours for things _COMPLETELY_ unrelated to COVID19, and come back and tell me that its fake. Go ask the receptionist "why is the line so long", and they'll tell you: COVID19.
I know because I done it. (Well, not for a flu-shot but for a TDAP. Nearly the same thing)
/s
That was an actual exchange I had with someone a few weeks ago with this same scenario. They'd gone from 'it's all faked' to "well, yeah, there may be people there now, and they're taking resources from non-covid patients, but the govt wants it that way, that's why they pay hospital more for covid patients! they're incentivizing people getting covid!"
I don't think it makes any sense at all, but interactions like these are more signs to me that it's harder to have meaningful interactions 'across the divide' these days.
Note that this varies by where you are. Locally, there is no health care crunch: it's easy to get a flu shot or other vaccine with no wait, and ICUs still have capacity despite a huge increase in cases. We're probably screwed in a few weeks since there's only about a 60% vaccination rate here and the most recent surge didn't start until maybe two weeks ago.
In the province of Quebec, where we have a highly vaccinated population, the intensive care units (ICUs) in all hospitals will be full within two weeks, if the rate of transmission and hospitalization continue this way. Demand greatly outstrips supply.
In Canada, the financial incentives for hospitalization and discharge are very different. Physicians get paid by a complex mix of hourly pay in addition to a fee-for-service schedule, both paid by the government. Hospitals get paid by the type of patient they admit, and their length of stay, but not always in a straightforward way.
In Canada, because of the remuneration system, physicians are the most influential decision-makers in deciding who gets to use the ICU. Roughly, no one doesn't get admitted "because they can't pay", and no one gets admitted "because they have money" .
Since hospitals are overwhelmed in Quebec, physician's incentive would be to discharge patients rather than admit. Their hourly wage wouldn't rise if they got more patients. Indeed, there is some evidence that as ICU capacity drops, physicians start discharging patients from the ICU earlier.
I should be fair to physicians in Quebec: their behaviour reflects a deep concern about the public health emergency rather than their financial gain.
I believe that, in Canada, all hospitalized patients in the ICU really need to be there.
Source: I have been studying hospitalizations due to COVID-19 illness in Quebec, Canada, and providing forecasts to the local government since the start of the pandemic.
I understand that adding a doctor or nurse isn't immediate.
Just as I understand that if a production system I oversee crashes under load, it may not have been foreseeable.
But if the system is still crashing under load in five years? Ten years? At what point is it my fault?
The U.S. healthcare spending in 2020 was $4.1 trillion. I still see the same 100 ICU beds cited as capacity in our local COVID updates.
The Maryland hospital system can support a bit over 10,000 hospitalizations. Over 3000 of those hospitalizations are COVID19 right now, and our cases continue to grow exponentially.
----------
Our hospital systems don't _normally_ get hit with 3000+ cases of a singular disease. Compared to other parts of the country, we have more hospital space, nurses and more, and we're still feeling stressed from all of this.
You _cant_ have enough hospital space during a pandemic. You just can't. The disease grows too fast, you get hit with way more cases than you've ever seen in the past 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 years. It doesn't make sense to design a system with 100-years worth of slack. It makes more sense to ask the public to do actions to cut back on hospitalizations during these rare 1-in-a-hundred-year situations.
And Chinese style hard lockdowns of whole cities are even more effective than that. Doesn't mean I want the government to have that power.
The state has a right, (7-2 decision, hardly controversial) to forcibly vaccinate its citizens against Smallpox.
It doesn't matter what you "want". There's well over 100 years of precedent on this particular issue. Go fight with history if you're really pissed.
This is the line I'm responding to.
------
You know damn well that libertarians do this bullshit when playing with "use of force" language in these discussion.
A fine is "government use of force" to a libertarian. I'd rather not get stuck in the weeds over such details. But you're trying to pin me from the other side, and I don't appreciate it.
Everything is just as controversial and the issues are the same.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts said the solution to compulsory vaccination is democratically repealing policy and law. This is exactly what these people want and are fighting for
Are you complaining that I'm using rhetorical techniques against you? The smallpox and 1918 flu pandemics from 100 years ago are guidance for what is going on today.
We can look at how our grandfathers solved the issue in their time, and compare-and-contrast with what worked today. As you mentioned, it was controversial back then. Both you and I have arguments we can borrow from them.
---------
How about instead of arguing against history, you actually take those arguments and use them for yourself? Or perhaps you recognize that the arguments said 100+ years ago weren't actually that strong or powerful.
> Jacobson v. Massachusetts said the solution to compulsory vaccination is democratically repealing policy and law. This is exactly what these people want and are fighting for
Cool.
Now explain how you'd get rid of smallpox in the early 1900s.
You're welcome to add whatever you think adds to the discussion.
Or do you just sit around and counterpunch in discussions, never actually contributing directly? There's a reason why sitting around and just countering arguments is called the "fallacy fallacy" / "Argument from fallacy".
--------
I bring up smallpox and "Jacobson v. Massachusetts" for a few reasons.
1. We defeated smallpox. It took decades, but it was soundly defeated.
2. Legally, there's a strong set of arguments that prove that these measures are constitutional.
3. There were big controversies in the early 1900s over these arguments, and we can replay those arguments again if you so desire. In effect, we know that the state's right to protect our health care system trumps the individual's choice on whether-or-not to get the vaccine.
Yes, I referred to profit, because profit is what "not wasting resources" translates to for the capitalist, but the real underlying moving force is economic and real regardless of ideology.
We largely imply that Denmark's hospitals are more efficient than US hospitals. In terms of cost, in terms of how much they can handle, in terms of number of COVID19 cases, etc. etc.
Even if we cut down to highly-developed parts of the USA, such as New York vs Denmark specifically (rather than including all of the lesser-developed rural areas which puts the US at a disadvantage), we're clearly not as good at health care as Denmark.
I agree to a point. If their personal choices endanger others, then it's less about their liberties and more about how their choices impact others negatively.
Another part of the problem is more human in nature. People are tired of others crying about their own freedoms in regards to vax, but declaring other's freedoms are their choice as well. You know the political party I'm speaking of.
> What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk?
@oauea:
> What violence?
torstenvl was specifically referring to state vaccine "mandates". Any state mandate must be enforced through violence or it has no effect.
Lest you believe that state mandates do not require violence, consider what happens if people refuse the vaccine. You can order them to get daily tests, but what if they refuse that? Eventually physical force (violence) will be required.
I don't see how that is really true. The state can, for example, refuse to provide you services if you're not vaccinated. If you're not allowed to enter a government building while unvaccinated without a justification, so as not to endanger the civil servants in that building, I'd hardly call that "violence".
How much risk to others is acceptable? Even though someone who follows reasonable personal precautions, but decided not to vaccinate and, therefore, has a higher risk of being a carrier and infect someone else who also followed reasonable precautions but cannot vaccinate for medical reasons. That second person now faces a 3% risk of dying a horrible death. Even if the second person is fully vaccinated, the chances of dying are non-zero, and increased because another person decided not to be vaccinated.
If we could contact-trace perfectly, would it be fair to charge person A with reckless endangerment, because person A didn't take all available measures to prevent further deaths? If person B dies because of person A, should we call it manslaughter?
I agree, the problem is no one is making them assume the risk. If they truly assumed the risk of not getting vaccinated, one of a few things would happen:
1. The risk of not getting vaccinated would be priced into their health insurance premiums and their costs would skyrocket.
2. If they require hospitalization, they should be turned away at the door if there is insufficient capacity. Alternatively, they can be hospitalized but discharged the minute their presence begins to strain resources. They could even be refused assistance generally.
3. If I can suggest that my infection came from person X (e.g. I was around them when they had the virus), then they should be liable for damages.
None of those things will happen, because people don't want to assume the risk that comes with their choices, they want to offload it onto other people. They want to be able to not be vaccinated then scream for help when they get in trouble and have the healthcare system ride to the rescue.
What is this referring to? Can you say what instances of "state-sponsored-violence" have occurred in the pursuit of risk reduction?
Any talk of our cultural schism over the remedial responses to the epidemic which does not include discussion of political leadership and propaganda is itself seriously flawed and misleading. Nobody gave a crap about flu vaccines. We all know why this is different.
Under 18: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolesc... 18 and over: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html
If you had asked me in early 2020 how long it was possible to keep this up, I'd have guessed 6 months or so. Lament all you want that people are dropping their vigilance, or about how effective any of it actually was, but I'm generally pretty impressed with how far the "common man" was willing to go.
This always smacks of hyperbole. How much quality of life was sacrificed, really? It's not like we had to all go dig trenches or something. We just had to stop going to brunch.
Maybe all you lost was brunch, but these last years cost many people a lot.
It’s almost insulting to just brush off what we did the last two year as something minor.
"people [who] were willing to sacrifice [..] their quality-of-life"
Not people who got fucked over as collateral damage by the pandemic. But people who sacrificed. A sacrifice is "giving up something highly valued for the sake of something else", and it's something you "give", not something someone takes against your will.
The essential workers who sacrificed were and are heroes. First responders, nurses, doctors, teachers, grocery store clerks, vaccine scientists. The people keeping us alive. They deserve our respect and admiration for their sacrifice.
But the parent commenter says they sacrificed their "quality of life". That's something very vague. It's not necessarily their livelihood, or apartment, or life. "Quality of life" could mean nearly anything that makes you happy.
There's a whole bunch of people who are not essential workers who think that what they sacrificed is just as important, and those people's "quality of life sacrifice" were leisure activities like brunch. Or, like the parents who just don't want to deal with their kids, "sacrificed their kid's education" (even though no kid's education is destroyed by a year or two of sitting inside). Probably a majority of the population complaining about their quality of life are these people, and that's who I'm referring to.
We all have our choices and risk tolerances, people can make their decision and move on with their lives. I don’t stay off roads just because some people might not be wearing seatbelts.
I wish I could feel this way! I actually have little to fear from the initial covid infection and, if covid were 'just like' the flu, I would go back to my old patterns.
Unfortunately, I know people in higher-risk categories (my parents included) for whom a covid infection would be significantly worse than the flu (though likely not fatal) and the research on 'long covid' is both developing and scary[1]. We aren't sure about the risk factors yet, which means it's hard to estimate how careful to be[2].
Ultimately we will all, individually, need to make decisions about when things seem 'safe enough.' I don't begrudge people making their own decisions, as long as they behave in a way that allows me to continue to make my own decisions.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/16/1064594... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57833394
What we appear to have with COVID-19 is akin to influenza - endemic, will never be eradicated, and thus it will mutate regularly and require new vaccines/boosters. Given that, people understandably want to treat it like the flu and get back to normal life.
> Ignorance like this has contributed to the virus mutating
Ignorance contributes nothing to the virus - it doesn't care if you have knowledge or not. This virus was going to mutate faster than we could produce vaccine no matter what we did.
If you think the 3rd shot is important, why not the 4th, 5th, ad infinitum?
Genuinely curious, not trying to be difficult.
[1]: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
I was just wondering what data your "3 is important" statement was based on.
Why the first booster but not the rest, or why the first booster at all?
Is having your heart hurt a normal side effect? A lot of anecdotes mention it as a symptom. How many of them actually go to get diagnosed?
That might change if we ever get a booster targeted toward Omicron specifically, but we don't have one, and by the time we do, I'm sure there will be other variants around.
There was insufficient data to estimate the effectiveness against severe disease.
Known downtime of a day or two (and not feeling well) is, to me, still a tradeoff to make compared to the potential of being intubated in an ICU. Each Pfizer shot I've had I've had somewhere of 8-18 hours of being really knocked out, usually starting around 24 hours after injection. I usually have milder (but some) reaction to flu vaccine each year (usually up to 8 hours of fatigue/headache/etc) within a day or so.
Risks/reward still moves to me take the shots.
Comments like this are only intelligible if one considers the probability of each outcome.
Deterministically (probability 1) getting unpleasant vaccine side effects vs. deterministically ending up intubated in an ICU? Sure, give me a booster every month. But that's not actually the relevant calculus -- your probability of ending up in an ICU is already extremely low after two shots.
Simply pumping up antibodies for a couple weeks isn't the same as efficacy.
So, here is a pre-print that does show real-world effectiveness (as opposed to efficacy). https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.15.21266341v... And of course I know that you will apply your selective rigor by pointing out that it is a pre-print. But less-biased people will realize that science can only work so quickly.
I’ve also had the flu shot most every year, even though I really have never been seriously ill from the flu, because it’s an easy preventative measure without side effects. If the booster for COVID regularly makes me more sick than the disease it protects against that’s definitely a burden, a rather large one. Just because it’s killed vulnerable people doesn’t mean the calculus for me or others with strong immune systems is the same.
To imagine that I can save a human life just by getting a shot, putting some cloth on my face, and standing 6 feet away from people, is amazing. Happy to do it. When I'm old I'll be grateful if today's children do the same for me.
Quarantine is the antithesis to that, and can throw away this opportunity.
Don't get vaccinated, get Omnicron.
Go get Omnicron, and give it to everyone, before we miss this small window.
Or do you want me to explain what happens if we miss this chance at a collective immune response.
https://www.thelocal.at/20220107/explained-what-do-we-know-a...
I am done with Covid, I did my part to stop prevention. At this point, it is damaging children to keep them locked up. People should live their lives as normal. People who are vulnerable are welcome to take precautions for themselves if they wish. I am returning to life as normal and recommend all of you do the same if you don't have a risk factor.
You, being over it and not isolating or being cautious, could mean someone's Stage IV cancer surgery is cancelled. It's not what people want to hear, but it's the truth.
I very rarely share personal anecdotes involving my family, but here goes: I have been watching my mother care for my grandmother whom is in hospice care for about a year now. My grandmother was already sickly enough that they chose not to get her vaccinated when the vaccine came out. This in part because my grandmother has a bad enough grasp on reality at this point that she becomes confused when she leaves her house and my mother is trying to avoid her having a panic attack and possibly hurting herself or straining her already damaged heart. My grandmother is housebound and mostly bed bound, and my mother mostly works at home and takes care of her. In the beginning my mother wasn't letting people into the house to see grandma, but my mother thought that there would be time for the pandemic to pass for my grandmother to see her other family members before she passed. Now grandma's health is declining and there is a growing sense of urgency. My mother is distraught... Does she let grandma pass without seeing her family members again(Really more for the family members than grandma at this point, but maybe not in my mother's mind), or does she risk bringing covid into the house and ending grandma's life potentially a bit prematurely and frankly awfully? My mother is caught in the very non-enviable decision between quality of life and length of life... For her own mother. I know this is a decision that many families have to make for their loved ones, but in the midst of a global pandemic when so many have lost their lives it feels even sadder somehow.
I'm vaccinated, not boosted. I consider myself "vaxxed and done" because, based on the data we are seeing, I don't believe it makes sense for me as an individual to become more vaccinated. People should have the choice to take it based on their own needs. As with pretty much every one-size-fits-all health program to come from the federal government, to me it's pretty clear that applying the same logic to SARS-CoV-2 is a not-so-good move in the long term. The fact that federal mandates and several boosters are on the table does the opposite of convincing me that I should continue to be a part of this science experiment.
People against these vaccines or those who had one and aren't getting any more might very well be wrong, but their reasons aren't necessarily stupid. You may not agree with my current stance, but am I stupid or crazy?
Having had COVID twice (once before the vaccine and once after) as a young person who is fit, works out, eats healthy, and has survived without even being able to tell the difference between this particular disease and a bad cold, I can't distinguish a benefit to more vaccines for myself or for others around me. If I can still spread the disease during the vaccine's full potency, and the virus is here to stay, and others can choose to keep taking vaccines, and I spend the vast majority of time isolated at home, and I get antibodies from catching the disease, and I regularly take greater risks with my life than I have from COVID as an individual, then I really just can't see the point.
What's worse is I really struggle to recognize the authority of those whom are still, nearly 2 years later, insisting on masks and vaccines and social distancing. Putting effort into vaccinating very young children and prioritizing that over vaccinating other parts of the world makes little sense to me, at least in relation to the narrative that this is a virus we can control. Is it great that we have these mRNA treatments? Absolutely. Is taking them indefinitely, using them on people who don't have a great need for them, and continuing this whole mask and distancing thing reasonable and sensible? I don't see the sense in it.
The fact that every indoor establishment, in my experience, forces you to act like the virus is only a danger until you sit down 15 feet from the entrance tells me a lot. Once you sit down at a table, then being maskless is a-ok even if you haven't gotten your food yet. It tells me that a large swath of the public either doesn't truly believe in the danger. It tells me that we are doing irrational things, and irrationality rarely occurs in isolation.
People should do what they think is important. If you're elderly, the vaccine is probably right for you. Now that we've lived in a pandemic for what seems like forever now, the intellectual insult in having absurdities thrown in my face is worse than the virus has been to me. So no, I don't plan on getting a booster, and I've moved on with my life. If SARS-CoV-2 is here to stay as another seasonal endemic disease, then it's really time to settle down with the panicking and allow it to develop into effectively any of the other coronaviruses that are already endemic. We are fortunate that's even a possibility that seems to be proving out.
Front line workers are not being compensated well enough. This means less people taking the career path and increased burn out.
We are in for a world of hurt and the only thing I can do is try to not be sick when the hammer falls.
Too many kids who want to become lawyers or software developers instead of doctors and nurses. With an ageing population that's not good.
I got both doses of Pfizer as soon as I could last year. But until a more severe (than Omicron) variant arrives, I’m not planning to get a booster.
That calculus may be different for others and I totally understand. In fact, I encouraged my parents and grandparents to get the booster as soon as they could.
Said another way, the mental health issues with being stuck in our houses are much more severe than COVID-19 at this point.
Lowkey waiting for crop dusters to drop aerosolized vaccine on the regular.
Yeah, just like with DDT!
If you support eroding this line, hope you enjoy your forcef daily nursing home sedative.
For the record vaccinated people die too.
> We have no idea what the effects of Omicron on long COVID will be, but evidence of lingering symptoms should make us wary of just letting tens of millions of people get needlessly infected.
That... reads a little bit like what your typical hypochondriacs say. We have lingering symptoms of other illnesses as well (like bronchi-pneumonia).
Mathematically speaking, all hypochondriacs are technically correct, but the same applies for many other things that people just don't think about. There is no such thing as "zero percent risk".
In the end it's all about (a) the risk % and (b) whether that % is acceptable but alas, I don't think humanity will soon agree on actual numbers related to COVID. That's the crux and the core of the entire segregation issue.
It boils down to: if COVID truly kills 3% of people then that's horrifying; but if it kills 0.03% then why bother at all?
---
I sympathize a little more with the "vaxxed and done" group. Endlessly worrying about risks that get smaller and smaller as herd immunity is nearing completion does not seem to be worth shutting down society for (if the risk is indeed getting smaller but random bits and pieces of news make me think this is the case). And we're also likely mortally wounding the economy so much that the kids whose physical health we are so worried about right now will have to deal with our mess and suffer severe mental health problems for decades (maybe a next Great Depression even?). I think that's a worthy discussion to have.
---
"We need to keep the measures for the kids"
I hear you but I don't think people will ever arrive at an universal consensus on this topic. Even if the lockdowns last forever a lot of cultures around the world will still not change. E.g. where I live kids having a scratchy cough merits a pat on the head and insistence of drinking hot tea with lemon and honey and a few pills, and the matter is considered done (and 99% of the time it really actually is done).
On the other end of the spectrum we have parents that give me murderous looks if I sneeze in the mall at a 5m distance from their kid. Sorry but it gets a little absurd at this point. I get it, you get over-protective when you are a parent but you should also abide by the society you live in. If you are that worried then maybe don't live in the city? I definitely have not gone out just to murder your kid so maybe loosen up a little. We're all in this together.
---
Many things in this world carry some risk and we just accept it and don't think about it. And I literally mean thousands such things. As COVID starts looking like a minor threat more and more with time (also illustrated by the "flurona" thing lately; it almost sounds like some medical professionals are ready to call COVID "a flu"?) we have to start asking ourselves if we aren't perpetuating extreme measures for a dwindling threat.
Continuous reassessment and readjusting is key. Maybe it's time to take a hard long honest look on how things are today. As a starting point, many doctors are saying that Omicron is more infectious but that a lot of their patients barely feel it.
IMO we shouldn't get distracted by segregation and point fingers at each other. That solved absolutely nothing so far and it's not realistic to expect it to change in the future.
Let's work on getting some actual numbers and see what we should do next?
(1) Circuit-breaker criteria for interventions (vax mandates, mask mandates, indoor gathering restrictions, etc): https://alexanderjxchen.github.io/circuitbreaker/
This chart has helped me understand how public-health entities could explain future interventions.
The major issue it illustrates is the choices of the voluntarily unvaccinated can affect everyone by clogging hospital availability for everyone. Targeted interventions can reduce this impact.
This is, notably imho, different from attempting to protect medically at-risk people who cannot be vaccinated.
(2) Ian Mackay's recent post has helped me imagine what the shift to SARS-CoV-2 as an endemic illness will feel like: https://virologydownunder.com/living-next-door-to-alice/
Mackay says that, whether or not we want this outcome, the world is making public-policy choices that will lead to humans living alongside endemic SARS-CoV-2 forever.
He says the turning point will come when there is no longer a number to put on the wall:
> And at some point soon, testing levels will drop as the public realise there is little point in queueing and getting swabbed or paying for rapid antigen tests (RAT) when there are few conditions in place to do anything with those results. Slowly those who are sick “enough” or need evidence that they are infected will get tested. Fever clinics and drive through testing will slow down and pack away. We will know only very approximately how many cases are in the community from at that point. This is a significant shift from the super intense scrutiny of case numbers we’ve had in Australia. Then the media will also stop caring as much.
While he's writing about Australia, and I think writing in the context of a public-health expert who is dispirited by seeing a case explosion accompany the lifting of restrictions, his point resonates -- my feeling is that the pandemic will be "over" in the US when nytimes.com no longer has the little sparklines with covid case counts.
Mackay suggests that the shift to endemic illness means some people who are currently being protected will die:
> Even with a great vaccine, there will be those with waning immunity. There will be new birth cohorts with no immunity. There will be those who don’t get vaccinated. There will be those with immune systems that don’t work as well as needed. There will be some with risk factors that may override the protection afforded by vaccine immunity, subjecting them to a baseline of worse outcomes. Together these people will likely see more severe COVID-19. This is a tale that can also be told about other infectious diseases. There is always a proportion we can’t protect.
He highlights post-covid conditions as the remaining wild card. What fraction of people who are infected and recover will have long-term health impacts? Will we have to adjust society to accommodate those people?
I found Mackay's early 2020 blog posts helpful in wrapping my head around what we were about to experience and thought they held up pretty well ( https://virologydownunder.com/past-time-to-tell-the-public-i... , https://virologydownunder.com/so-you-think-youve-about-to-be... ).
I also thought his "Swiss cheese" diagram ( https://virologydownunder.com/the-swiss-cheese-infographic-t... ) did a good job of communicating why classrooms should have 5-6 air changes per hour of MERV13 filtered or outdoor air and how that fits in with other ways of reducing all sorts of respiratory illness (even beyond covid).
Children are one group for whom this strategy may be problematic, and is a more significant issue in the UK than US right now given that only 12+ are eligible. This review discusses some of the arguments around this topic: https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2021/11/01/archdischild-20...
We also have CEV and elderly groups for whom the vaccine still leaves a reasonable degree of risk. Here's an opinion piece that cites research into CEV & vaccine protection: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/30/vaccinated-yet-still-cl...
In addition to the health risk/benefit to the individual, there is also the societal cost to lost productivity. This is where keeping low COVID prevalence may be worth pursuing on a solely economic basis through low-invasiveness NPIs.
Of course, there's also the risk of escape variants, and that's just simple maths. As vaccine-only strategies do not keep R(eff) < 1, there is reasonable potential for escape variants like Omicron to surface. Though I am not an expert, I am personally sceptical of arguments that suggest the evolution pathways of a virus are constrained to low virulence.
In general, I think the UK is talking about living with COVID, but really means "ignoring COVID". There is room for making accommodations to our lives that keeps COVID incidence lower than present, and these are for the most part quite easy to do. Unfortunately, our vaccine-only policy & poor mask messaging has really damaged the public's appreciation for a multi-faceted public-health approach. The UK is currently enjoying far fewer restrictions than in the early waves, and life is for the most part "back to normal". However, high incidence rates after Christmas are leading to people adjusting behaviour despite few restrictions. Anecdotally, I would not visit the pubs that I went to in October/November because COVID incidence is ~7%.
It feels to me as though western countries have forgotten that the rest of the world is in the throes of the pandemic, and ignoring this fact isn't going to help us in the long run. Despite the fact that we're all tired of this pandemic, keeping on top of things doesn't have to be draconian, and will be in our best interests whilst the majority of the world are unvaccinated.
- US midterm is coming up in november.
- One of Biden's major election point was combating Covid and curbing infections.
- This has largely been a catastrophic failure. More Americans have died from Covid under Biden than under Trump (not that it matters)
So, the left media will now begin a year long campaign down playing domestic covid severity, and make sure that Covid will NOT be a major talking point for the 2022 elections.
Edit: republican will 100% pull a "i-told-you-so" move in their campaign trails. I'm Canadian and our government (even conservative learning province/state government) is still using the partial lockdown as a mean to curb infection, it's very very obviously NOT working.
What will be really interesting is just how the medical community is so detached from the political community. I understand you shouldn't bring politics into science, but you also can't blind yourself and optimize for only one metric.. everything is a trade-off.
True, but Trump only dealt with Covid for about 9 months at most, and that was starting from 0 cases in February, meanwhile Biden has dealt with it for 13 months at this point, and also took office in the middle of the major winter wave, and then the Delta wave in mid 2021, and now the Omicron wave at the end of 2021, which were much more infectious and mostly affected those that could not or refused to be vaccinated (once vaccines were widely available in April at least).
Biden didn't create those waves, by the way. This is a global problem, and judging by how the US got the variant spikes after most of the rest of the world did, likely didn't originate here. He could have been like China or Australia and enforced hard indefinite lockdowns, but it was clear after the one Trump agreed to a partial two-week lockdown that the US public wouldn't even comply to that, so good luck Biden imposing any future lockdowns.
Yes, the majority of people were vaccinated in 2021, but I'd argue a good chunk of those same people (waves hi) were self-isolating as much as possible until they got vaccinated anyway and were much less likely to be included in the deaths of 2020 anyway.
Biden definitely could have done a better job managing Covid (ordered increased home tests made and ship them to citizens before Omicron became a thing, for one idea), but there's a good amount of the population that wouldn't have listened to him no matter what measures he tried to push.
I also disagree with you that Democrats are going to downplay covid (the media might, but it sounds like it's just to force people to go back to work and kids to stay in school because they're too afraid of the economy getting worse).
About the only thing Biden can point to as something good he's done, is the vaccine rollout, so if they downplay it they don't have much to go on.
But I agree it won't matter in the long run because the Democrats are going to lose the midterms, big time, and probably the presidency in 2024.
Biden didn't really do much after he took office, other than annoy people with inconsistent communication, federal over-reach and always singling "the others" as the root of all evil - which made them more reluctant to anything he proposed.
Trump had to scale out testing, respirators, PPE, the vaccines etc. 2020 looked much more busy than 2021, and then we got Omicron and we're completely unprepared.
I am vaxxed and boosted, but I don't want to be forced to get a shot every 6 months.
I'm trying to figure out why it took so long for the emergency OSHA mandate to become an emergency mandate. If it was so important to protect people at work then this mandate should have been figured out 9 months ago and already have been in front of the Supreme Court. One has to have realized that any such mandate would be challenged and have quite a delay before it could be ruled on in the courts and possibly put into effect.
Trump made several colossal fuckups, especially when it came to his public communications, but he made some good decisions as well (letting the early shelter-in-place orders happen, stimulus checks, freezing student loans, pushing the vaccine program, etc).
All I'm saying is that of course Biden would have had higher deaths while he was in office than Trump, unless he managed to convince ~95%+ of the public to get vaccinated right away, which was never going to happen, and unless the whole world got Covid-19 under control in about the same time period as Trump was in office while the pandemic was in the US, and if there were no other more infectious variants that happened during that time.
Using what criteria? We have no way of knowing what infection rates would be like today had Biden not been elected.
If you hear nothing else I say tonight, hear this: Anyone who is responsible for that many deaths should not remain President of the United States." Joe Biden
https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1319446692236791814
And his predecessor did not have the vaccines available to combat deaths. So they are in a tough spot to be sure. The only thing they can do now is to downplay and reframe:
"The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75% percent, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities, so really these are people who were unwell to begin with." CDC Director Rochelle Walensky
https://youtu.be/BhOoWGXRGb0?t=165
They are also finally trying untangle deaths "with Covid" and "from Covid": https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1480207649807507458
Good luck with that. When the CDC decreased the isolation time to five days, all the talk was about how they were corrupted by capitalism.
As someone who was painted hard with the "science denier / conspiracy theorist" brush for my objections to mandates, it's a very deep level of schadenfreude to see the very same people devolve into conspiracy theories of their own that put them at odds with "the science".
The government has created a dangerous foil for the "anti-vaxxers" -- people who are terrified to leave their bubble of presumed safety. Perhaps we can come up with a pejorative term for them... "Pro-hypochondriacs"?
They will not disappear so easily.
Regretfully, I don't think this is actually true anymore. I can only speak for the US. Maybe it was never true, but we're just now seeing it. The health insurance industry is heavily political, lots of money is spent drafting business friendly regulation. The pharma industry has an incestuous relation with the regulatory bodies that are supposed to keep it in check. So, it's note exactly red vs blue politics, but in my mind, there is a degree of green politics, and the actual politicians are simply clamoring for scraps of political capital during the crisis, while big pharma and unelected bureaucrats are spending tax payer dollars and controlling the medical community.
It matters enough to write it, and it struck me as weird so I looked it up. Kind of hard to put the numbers together, but it seems we're at 830k[0] deaths now; 350k were in 2020[1] (though most cases started being reported in April) which is indeed less than half of current total. I also looked up Jan. 2021, curious if it changed anything in a meaningful way and there were 77k through Jan. 26[2]; it puts the total deaths at roughly 50/50 between presidents, though one presided over ~9 months of deaths and the other over 12.
I guess that means the rate of deaths is slowing down, but not by much.
[0] https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spr... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/podcasts/2022/20220107/20... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/us-reports-record-number-of-...
Young males with history of heart arrhythmia should be vaxxed.
90% of pregnant women should be not be vaxxed.
I am not, and anecdotally nobody close to me is either. It’s not a pleasant experience that I want to repeat ad infinitum. Particularly if it’s not even going to stop the current C19 variation.
They literally tell you that. Stop handing out medical advice that's wrong.
You might have a point if I could have walked in to any pharmacy, knowing that I could get a walk-in vaccination. But that hasn't been the case in Redmond, WA. So while you say "non-event", I say "what a pain in the ass (and arm) that was".
"Who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" - Groucho Marx
The point of all the onerous COVID rules and vaccine mandates was to prevent the spread, right? Keep pressure on the hospitals down? It didn't work. In the US anyways, COVID is, and has been, everywhere. Masks? Useless. Student/teacher/daycare exclusions for exposure? Useless. Vaccines? I think worthwhile, but in the face of Omicron, also basically useless.
More and more people are realizing they will be exposed to COVID during their life. It's not an if, but a when. I knew this the minute it became a pandemic, but others had some idiotic "we can beat this virus" mentality, promulgated mainly by the (left-leaning) media.
Well guess what? The only thing that would have made one bit of a difference (besides the vaccines) was bolstering the healthcare system. But the current administration in the US has done nothing of the sort. Time to let it buck, let the cards fall where they may.
If you think this is bad, wait until there is a recombinant variant that is a mix of Delta and Omicron. They are already calling it deltacron.
-
Frankly, I don't know how much more the collective psychological fabric can withstand. So many are well-past their breaking point.
-
Sending positive thoughts to all of you that we can continue to survive and persevere.
-
Many of us don't have the option to just stop (as much as I'd like to). I've got a wife and two kids to provide for. My asthmatic mom just caught Covid. I'm past burnt out but I'm just showing up until I can't even do that anymore. I'd consider myself a pretty tough person normally but this thing has just broken me. I can't imagine how others are coping.
-
Meanwhile I'm left thinking, how can we go on like this? How can I help others?