[HN Gopher] More Americans are saying they're 'vaxxed and done'
___________________________________________________________________
More Americans are saying they're 'vaxxed and done'
Author : nkurz
Score : 352 points
Date : 2022-01-10 18:09 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theatlantic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theatlantic.com)
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| absnetneg wrote:
| The only thing keeping me from being done is the fear/suspicion
| that the healthcare system is on the verge of collapse.
|
| 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.
| AniseAbyss wrote:
| This is why I got the vaccine. I'm personally not afraid of
| COVID. But the healthcare system shutting down to the point
| where we have patients dying in the hallways? That scares me.
|
| Too many kids who want to become lawyers or software developers
| instead of doctors and nurses. With an ageing population that's
| not good.
| pxue wrote:
| Ahh. it begins.
|
| - 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.
| alpha_squared wrote:
| > More Americans have died from Covid under Biden than under
| Trump (not that it matters)
|
| 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-...
| [deleted]
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| jdauriemma wrote:
| > a catastrophic failure
|
| Using what criteria? We have no way of knowing what infection
| rates would be like today had Biden not been elected.
| steelstraw wrote:
| "220,000 deaths.
|
| 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
| spookthesunset wrote:
| It's amazing how much of what is being said was something
| that got you banned, ridiculed and yelled at by people...
| almost like the skeptics were right all along...
| cblconfederate wrote:
| I was fooled for a bit thinking that people might be coming to
| their rational senses, but it does seem there is a media
| campaign to minimize covid.
| yonaguska wrote:
| > What will be really interesting is just how the medical
| community is so detached from the political community.
|
| 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.
| cableshaft wrote:
| > This has largely been a catastrophic failure. More Americans
| have died from Covid under Biden than under Trump (not that it
| matters)
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| flavius29663 wrote:
| Well, the vaccine rollout was planned under Trump and
| execution was in full force when Biden took office (1 million
| jabs a day).
|
| 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.
| jrs235 wrote:
| >Biden didn't really do much after he took office
|
| 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.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| Biden has indirectly blamed all COVID deaths during the Trump
| administration on Trump, so it's fair to blame Biden for
| COVID deaths during his administration on him, too. Biden has
| had office for longer, but the vaccine has also been
| available for about that long, too.
| cableshaft wrote:
| I don't even blame Trump for all the Covid deaths that
| happened during the Trump administration. There were a
| bunch of factors involved, and state governments and the
| attitudes of US citizens had a lot to do with it as well.
|
| 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.
| whistlecrackers wrote:
| newsclues wrote:
| Poor communication, made up for with intense marketing push via
| all channels.
|
| 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.
| pdimitar wrote:
| I enjoy such balanced pieces and I think in times of hugely
| divisive topics like with COVID we need more of them! My big
| thanks and compliments to the author.
|
| > _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?
| cblconfederate wrote:
| I wonder if sociologists can explain the americans obsession with
| politics in everything. This is not normal, there seems to be
| something exceptional about how it is normalized to discuss
| natural phenomena with political lingo
| [deleted]
| kristjansson wrote:
| Because anything with two sides can be advantageously leveraged
| if it correlates with political alignment. An apolitical
| question is an opportunity to create and align a political
| question.
| scelerat wrote:
| Most vaccination opposition I've encountered in my personal life
| fits squarely in the venn overlap of personal fiat and political
| posturing. It's now fashionable to be anti-vax, whether because
| it demonstrates your disdain for the government or a particular
| political party. More than once I've had family members insist
| that vaccination, or mask-wearing, or any kind of caution, was
| merely a "personal choice" before themselves getting sick and
| infecting someone else who became gravely ill because of it.
|
| 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.
| serverlessmom wrote:
| It's a really hard position that we find ourselves in. In the
| beginning when we believed that there was a chance of containing
| Covid-19, many people I knew(myself included) thought that we
| would finish with this pandemic within a year. Due to a variety
| of reasons including poor over all handling of the pandemic by
| world governments, people refusing to wear masks or respect
| social distancing guidelines, or to get vaccines, that path was
| closed to us. We are now two years into this, and for people like
| me who are vaccinated and boosted... Who have spent the entire
| pandemic following guidelines, avoiding social gatherings,
| watching others flout the rules... Getting Omnicron and riding it
| out at home for supposed "super immunity" is looking pretty
| attractive. I'm exhausted from dealing with the pandemic,
| everyone is. My heart hurts for the people who can't get the
| vaccine and want to, but my sympathy is running low for folks who
| have simply refused. I experience shame when I catch myself
| thinking, "We can't let this run our lives forever!", knowing
| that it was the rallying cry of people early on in the pandemic
| who refused to cooperate with CDC recommendations.
|
| 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.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I am a gen-x firmly in this camp. I feel I've done my part for
| nearly 2 years. Unless omicron starts decimating people I'm also
| pretty much done except for future boosters as recommended by CDC
| and research. I am burned out. I am hanging out with friends who
| are in the same boat as me. I will respect masking up with people
| who want to do that, but that's much more rare these days with
| friends and family. Life is full of risk and we just have to
| weight the situation and go from there. For me, currently, that
| is I don't bother with masks and count on my immune system and
| vax.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| Given that this has an animal reservoir, and has now infected
| multiple mammals, I think we can put it in the "Never Going Away"
| category, in that even if we stopped human-to-human transmission
| entirely, it would still pop up like rabies.
|
| 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.
| titzer wrote:
| I've gone through cycles with this. Mostly I am done arguing. I
| hate arguing about this. It's just more of the culture war shit
| that so many different media sources love pushing to keep people
| amped up.
|
| 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.
| q1w2 wrote:
| I'm just happy to have a good excuse to wear a mask on an
| airplane. I always used to get sick after flights.
| JSavageOne wrote:
| I don't notice myself getting sick any less now that masks
| are required on planes. Recently took 3 back-to-back flights
| and got sick afterwards for a few days. Maybe COVID, maybe
| not (hard to tell because other than loss of taste/smell
| there are no real distinguishing features of COVID symptoms
| from the flu or common cold).
| lambdaba wrote:
| I wonder how much of this is the mask-wearing in the airplane
| and how much is simply now nobody travels with a sniffle
| anymore (maybe a slight exaggeration, but pre-covid you few
| would stay home with respiratory symptoms if they could
| physically manage it).
| zarzavat wrote:
| The airport is more risky than the airplane. In an airplane
| you are sat next to a fixed number of people and you have top
| down insertion of clean air, exactly like in an operating
| theatre.
|
| 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.
| vanusa wrote:
| Same here, and you shouldn't be downvoted for this. Flying is
| just gross.
| fourstar wrote:
| glogla wrote:
| I especially like the bottom right corner that says THE JEWS
| are all doing it. /s
| fourstar wrote:
| glogla wrote:
| > Disprove it, then.
|
| > Which families own the press? Or is it verboten?
|
| It is not verboten, it is dumb. Putting a large trend on
| religious/ethnic group of millions of people is just
| nonsensical. Do you really think millions of "jews", from
| gas station attendants to doctors to CEOs are somehow
| collaborating on pushing media a certain way?
|
| If bunch of dudes are colluding on shaping the public
| discourse from wealth inequality to something else, is it
| more likely it is because of their ethnicity or because
| they are on the "winning" side of the wealth inequality
| divide?
|
| Musing: Though considering the complaints about "they are
| now writing about systemic racism instead", it seems like
| very left-wing message (wealth inequality) packaged for
| hardcore right-wing people, so I guess complaining about
| "the jews" makes sense.
| lambdaba wrote:
| I don't want to discourage you but it appears to me like with
| this variant (and probably even more with further variants), it
| will be impossible to avoid infection whatever you do (and I
| mean, mitigation strategies will have probably no effect). Look
| at the numbers we're suddenly getting without anything changing
| in the landscape (actually, despite a very high number of
| vaccinations). It looks like the virus has become so contagious
| that it has rendered our mitigation measures moot.
| celtain wrote:
| This reminds me of people who say that "duck and cover" is
| useless in the face of a nuclear strike.
|
| 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.
| lambdaba wrote:
| I don't know how useless that would have been but in the
| case of Omnicron it does seem basically useless. I don't
| know, I don't have studies on hand or anything like that,
| but when you look at the numbers you have to wonder...
|
| [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.
| conradfr wrote:
| Maybe it's more duck and cover in the face of lava like in
| South Park.
|
| 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.
| archagon wrote:
| I don't see why that would be true if you just wear an N95
| (or equivalent) mask indoors, or whenever you're in close
| proximity to others. Eventually, the spike will subside.
|
| https://calmcovid.substack.com/p/youre-not-doomed-to-get-
| omi...
| [deleted]
| dougmwne wrote:
| Vaxxed, wearing n95s inside and avoiding crowds outside,
| wfh, and not having any close personal contacts over the
| past few weeks, I just tested positive. Omicron is
| incredibly infectious and all my mitigation strategies from
| the past 2 years stopped working.
| vanusa wrote:
| Are you ... boosted?
|
| A double vax from back in April or so would have
| substantially diminished protection by now.
| dougmwne wrote:
| Booster was scheduled for last week, 8 months post
| Moderna. Based on stronger Moderna immunity vs Pfizer and
| since I am careful, healthy and young, I decided to
| stretch a few more months out. Once I saw study that
| Moderna offered at least 10 weeks of moderate protection
| against Omicron, I scheduled booster. Could not get it
| due to symptoms.
| vanusa wrote:
| Well, bummer, and best of luck to you then.
|
| At least you know you did everything you reasonably could
| and didn't just give up like the "vaxxed and done" crowd.
| archagon wrote:
| Do you have any idea where you might have caught it?
| dougmwne wrote:
| It must have been while walking around outside or masked
| in the grocery store.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| It's not that they stopped working - it's that they
| reduce risk to a low amount, but over time, you have more
| and more opportunities for something to break through
| that low amount.
| dougmwne wrote:
| No, it's that Omicron is both more infectious and has
| significant effect immune escape.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| It's really hard to see the big picture when you're
| literally sitting there with a verifiable data point to
| the contrary (your own experience), but do you think your
| experience is a guaranteed outcome for everyone, or is it
| possible your specific situation (testing positive for
| COVID despite taking precautions) is either an outlier,
| or at least not the most common outcome?
|
| I'm sorry you're sick, that really sucks. I hope it's
| asymptomatic and you can get back to living your life
| soon.
| nradov wrote:
| The virus isn't going away. No matter what you do with masks
| and other measures you'll eventually be exposed. The most you
| can do is delay it a bit.
|
| https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Even if it's true that infection is inevitable (it's not
| true), delaying infection is a good idea, to reduce the
| immediate strain on the hospital system.
| hiq wrote:
| You may want to be exposed and catch it less often though.
| eric_b wrote:
| Yep, this hits the nail on the head. I've got my shots, and now
| I'm firmly in the "let it rip" camp. Omicron is the endgame as
| far as I'm concerned.
|
| 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.
| khazhoux wrote:
| As a side note, I want to thank dang for allowing these threads
| to stay up, even though they get a bit political and contentious
| at times.
|
| This is the only place I have to talk about COVID issues with
| smart people that I respect.
| igammarays wrote:
| The risk is now "priced in" to our consciousness. Back when it
| first started, covid was a big scary unknown risk to take for
| simply going outside and interacting with people. Now, it's a
| well-known risk, and people are willing to take that risk, along
| with other well-known risks for going outside, like the risk of
| getting into a car accident or slipping and falling.
| SerLava wrote:
| Yes it's sort of like the alarming scourge of preventable
| automotive deaths, except that it's over 10 times worse. Also
| like slipping and falling, but about 20 times worse.
| DevKoala wrote:
| In the USA, there are 4.4 million traffic accident injuries
| that require medical attention per year.
|
| I don't know where you are getting the 10 times worse from.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| USA automotive death are <40k per year. USA covid deaths
| are ~400k a year
| DevKoala wrote:
| I am confident permanent paralysis is up there if not
| worse than long COVID. My argument is that you cannot
| just put a blanket statement of which one is worse by
| looking at a single metric. Also, people are still
| performing a calculated risk, wether the risk is greater
| or smaller.
| [deleted]
| vernie wrote:
| Okay?
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Some people were in the "willing to take that risk" from the
| beginning, and were relentlessly demonized. Now it's OK though
| if everyone feels that way.
| mattnewton wrote:
| Well, they demonized for doing so on the back of the current
| medical system, which was very close to being completely
| overwhelmed. Omicron has made this the case again, though
| what changed in the meantime was the messaging after the
| vaccine. It was true that while you were immunized you could
| take these risk, but Omicron changed that and the messaging
| didn't change.
| honkdaddy wrote:
| I can't help but feel that the state of US politics from 2016
| onwards plays a role in this. Many early COVID skeptics who
| pushed for a more laissez faire style of government
| intervention were also Trump supporters. After the events on
| 1/6/2020, Trump supporters were even further entrenched as
| the nation's new bogeyman, and any views they hold as a
| collective have been systematically cut down the last several
| years.
|
| 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.
| dhc02 wrote:
| There is an important difference.
|
| 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.
| yongjik wrote:
| Taking the risk to spread it after two years of the virus not
| going away is questionable; taking the same risk at the
| beginning when nobody had any idea how bad it could become is
| pure lunacy.
| some_furry wrote:
| Now it's OK if they're sufficiently vaccinated*
|
| Vaccines weren't widely available back then
| khazhoux wrote:
| What's the * ?
| some_furry wrote:
| Correction of the post I was replying to
| dundarious wrote:
| It was never just a personal risk, so yes, those people were
| rightly scolded. Now that there are effective vaccines (and
| effective treatments here now/coming soon), it is more like a
| personal risk.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Being willing to take on the risk yourself and being willing
| to inflict it on others aren't the same thing.
|
| 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.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| > Similarly, now that vaccination is widely available for
| at-risk groups...
|
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > It was widely available a year ago.
|
| 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
| hooande wrote:
| Who makes the decision that covid is over and no one has
| to wear masks any more? There's no central authority
| here. Business and government offices are closed not
| because of any mandate, but because people don't feel
| safe going there. Rightly or wrongly.
|
| 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.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Nobody is inflicting anything on anyone. It is _your_
| responsibility to protect _yourself_ to the level that you
| feel is necessary.
| thomascgalvin wrote:
| I think there are a number of factors at play.
|
| 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.
| JPKab wrote:
| You are forgetting that there really is not a 1% chance of
| dying of covid across all risk categories.
|
| 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.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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).
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| This is an excellent distinction because it denies all-
| encompassing judgement in the instance where one individual
| sees another who isn't taking as much precaution ("oh
| typical anti-masker"; judging others for interacting when
| you have been self-isolating - but probably not as well as
| you think).
| rdw wrote:
| Minor correction: it's actually nearly a 2% chance of dying
| (1.7%), after Delta became the dominant variant. Folks never
| really upgraded their talking points but subjectively 2%
| feels _much_ higher than 1%.
| Chilko wrote:
| Indeed, particularly when you frame it as 1 in 100 vs 1 in
| 50
| JSavageOne wrote:
| Even if you're not vaccinated, you're extremely unlikely to
| have serious consequences unless you're elderly and/or have
| comorbidities. The infection fatality rate of COVID19 (which
| can only be estimated) is something like 0.20%. "Long COVID"
| is extremely rare and severely overstated.
| jat850 wrote:
| Show your math on 0.2%. This does not appear to hold true
| for any country I can think of off the top of my head. US
| and Canada are somewhere around 1.3-1.5% last I checked.
| JSavageOne wrote:
| You're referring to Case Fatality Rates.
|
| 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.
| dekhn wrote:
| I think the big question is whether deaths were front loaded.
| IE, in future waves, far fewer people will die, because people
| most predisposed to death had already died. This is my guess,
| but it's decidedly non-scientific.
| yob22 wrote:
| [deleted]
| StillBored wrote:
| Vaxxed and I caught Cov19 a couple weeks ago (likely omicron).
| Same with the wife. I've had allergies that were worse. It was a
| 3 day event with a very mild fever and a bit of a cough the last
| day. It was extremely mild, and if I hadn't decided to take a
| couple days off to catch up on my reading after getting tested, I
| would have probably just eaten a couple advil and continued on as
| though nothing happened. So now I'm considering skipping any
| future boosters unless they specifically target a new more
| dangerous strain.
|
| 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.
| layer8 wrote:
| The main reason to wear a mask is to prevent yourself from
| infecting others if/when you get infected again. One usually
| becomes infectious before the symptoms become obvious, i.e.
| before becoming aware of the new infection. Wearing a mask is
| mainly for the benefit of others, not for your own. And it's a
| game of numbers. The larger the proportion of the population
| who wears a mask, the more the spread of the virus is
| contained. It is a bit like democracy: One's own vote doesn't
| make a significant difference, but the collective votes do.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| I'm vaxxed and mostly done. Already contracted Covid, have 2
| vaccines, I'm down to get a booster every year or two, at my own
| leisure. Having vaccines mandated every 6 months is not something
| 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).
|
| 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...
| Insanity wrote:
| Tangentially, I recently moved to Canada and was surprised by
| the lack of quality healthcare..
|
| 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
| barbazoo wrote:
| Sucks that it's so difficult for you to find a family doctor
| but it does depend on where you live, for sure. Personally, I
| don't care if they have paper files, as long as, in the case
| of BC, the data ends up in Health Gateway [1] somehow and is
| accessible by whatever doctor I'm seeing. Generally I must
| say though that I'm quite happy with the quality of health
| care here where I live which is small city-ish.
|
| 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...
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| > 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?
| evandwight wrote:
| Unlikely to ever find a gp - Victoria Bc
| sleepysysadmin wrote:
| >Tangentially, I recently moved to Canada and was surprised
| by the lack of quality healthcare..
|
| 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.
| StillBored wrote:
| The only reason US doctors all have computers/etc is because
| of the feds gave health care providers a big tax credit
| towards electronic record keeping during the Obama years. And
| then medicare basically made it really hard to continue to
| get paper reimbursements/etc.
|
| 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.
| amatecha wrote:
| Yeah, I've grown up hearing constantly how good our (Canada)
| health care is. The reality is less than stellar. There are
| so, so many stories from literally everyone in my family of
| just straight up negligence and permanent adverse effects of
| malpractice.
|
| 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.
| nopenopenopeno wrote:
| American doctors all use fax machines and "heavy paper files"
| to transmit referrals. Who cares?
|
| An enormous amount of working Americans have no healthcare at
| all. Would you prefer that?
| Insanity wrote:
| So my viewpoint is EU, not America..
|
| 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. :-)
| gillibob wrote:
| 91.4% of Americans have health insurance. https://www.censu
| s.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-27...
|
| 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
| Insanity wrote:
| A friend got a head injury (kid kicked her on the ear
| pretty hard) and had to wait about 5 hours in the ER
| before they could see her, they sent her home saying it
| would be nothing bad. Two days later she went back and
| they concluded she had a concussion..
| cpsns wrote:
| The Canadian Healthcare system will never improve if we
| keep saying "but, but it's better than Americas!".
|
| Our healthcare system is a disgrace and our governments
| only get away with it because they can point to the
| bogeyman down south.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Is there really a "Canadian health care system"? I feel
| like it heavily differs between provinces/territories. It
| also depends on whether where on the spectrum from urban
| to rural you live, don't you think?
| giantg2 wrote:
| Well... not really paper files. As of a few years ago, it
| was mandated that provides maintain digital records. They
| could still send paper, but most seem to use disc and
| myChart stuff. And yes, fax is still prevalent as well
| (mostly legal compliance reasons in my opinion).
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Maybe with some modernisation the system would work better
| and therefore cheaper, so more people could afford it.
|
| In theory.
| nopenopenopeno wrote:
| That is not a theory anybody familiar with the matter
| tends to agree with.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Honestly? I don't want the medical system to be
| "modernized". The advantage of paper files is it's much
| harder for a security breach at a single facility to lead
| to everyone's records being leaked to every bad actor out
| there.
|
| "Modern" industries like social media tend to leak
| personal information like a sieve.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Already done in the US
|
| https://www.usfhealthonline.com/resources/health-
| informatics...
| ahelwer wrote:
| I guess I'll provide a counterpoint that I have been
| incredibly impressed with the quality of Canadian healthcare
| after my sister had kidney failure, was on dialysis for a
| year, then received a timely transplant from me and neither
| of us paid a dime. This was in Manitoba. She still has to pay
| for her medication, though - hopefully pharmacare passes in
| the near future.
|
| 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.
| Unklejoe wrote:
| > Meanwhile down here in the US I was charged $150 after
| going to an urgent care clinic for strep throat.
|
| 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.
| ahelwer wrote:
| Most Americans have a few hundred bucks in savings and
| you think it's reasonable to pay $150 for a strep test
| and some penicillin?
| sleepysysadmin wrote:
| Are you me? Same here. Fully vax and picked up omicron. 2 days
| bed. Every single flu I've ever had was worse than this covid.
|
| >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.
| celtain wrote:
| Why is there much difference between getting a booster every 6
| months rather than every 12-24 months?
|
| Compared to lockdowns or even just mask mandates, both booster
| schedules seem like a pretty minor inconvenience given the
| pandemic-halting benefits.
| yonaguska wrote:
| If you had an adverse reaction to any of the vaccines, every
| booster is a scary prospect, more so if they are more
| frequent. People would rather take an occasional risk over a
| frequent risk.
| nradov wrote:
| Boosters should be available to those who want them, but we
| can't boost our way out of the pandemic.
|
| https://youtu.be/GklHGYY8vN8
| csdvrx wrote:
| I'd be glad to take boosters on any schedule, if only for
| said boosters we were using the mRNA advantage of short lead
| time and quick iteration to target the ACTUAL strain, not the
| one from 2 years ago...
| p1mrx wrote:
| Pandemics are likely to happen more regularly now that
| global travel is widespread, so I imagine a future where
| all the major viruses get tossed into a 6-12 month mRNA
| "antivirus update".
| csdvrx wrote:
| And I'd _LOVE_ to see that!
|
| I'm not "antivax". I'm anti-inefficient-vaxes-based-on-
| the-strain-from-2-years-ago
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| If vaccines _actually_ had pandemic-halting benefits I might
| agree with you. All numbers currently point to otherwise.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Part of it is practicality. Even the experts agree that we
| can't vaccine the entire planet every 6 months.
| [deleted]
| valachio wrote:
| Getting a booster every 6 months vs every 24 months is a 4x
| difference in the number of boosters you have to take. That's
| 4x the potential complications (mistakes can happen in
| science, e.g. thalidomide) and 4x the cost.
|
| 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.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Vaccines have not halted the pandemic. What do you mean to
| say?
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > 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.
| celtain wrote:
| You just said you're mostly done. If not the vaccine, what
| (mostly) ended the pandemic for you?
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Oh I'm beyond done with the pandemic itself. Honestly,
| have been since I got Covid (first wave). I went along
| with some things because I'm not a sociopath.
|
| 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.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| These pandemic-halting benefits seem to be illusory with
| delta and omicron. The drug companies seem to have no
| particular motivation to release updated vaccines.
|
| 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.
| celtain wrote:
| To the people who are "vaxxed and done", the pandemic-
| halting benefits seem to be real enough.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| echelon wrote:
| Early on in the pandemic, I used to be in the camp that wanted
| mask mandates and vaccination passports. I see how dangerous
| and ineffective this is now. Governments are not good stewards.
|
| 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.
| jaybrendansmith wrote:
| Blaming the government for overreach when it seemed likely
| that the vaccine prevented further spread makes no sense, and
| certainly masks and distancing made total sense before the
| vaccine was fully rolled out. It seems awfully early to
| conclude that vaccines have zero impact on transmissibility.
| How many millions of cases are completely unreported because
| the immune system (with help from the vaccine) fought off
| Covid before symptoms onset?
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| > The administration forcing a purge of unvaccinated US
| soldiers, government workers, and employees of companies that
| do business with the government is obscene.
|
| 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.
| PeterisP wrote:
| Not even solely "when put into areas where the particular
| diseases were common", the soldiers are mandated quite a
| few vaccines even before they leave basic training to
| everyone, no questions asked -
| https://usarmybasic.com/about-the-army/army-shots
| syshum wrote:
| gameswithgo wrote:
| Yeah people like you who spread this myth is how we nearly
| had an insurrection here a year ago. Stop it. At the moment
| there is only one party working actively to dismantle
| democracy itself. Don't vote for it.
| syshum wrote:
| >> insurrection here a year ago
|
| lol, we did not have an insurrection a year go. Stop
| spreading that myth. The FBI has found no evidence of an
| insurrection, no one has been charged much less convicted
| of insurrection. It was a "mostly peaceful" protest...
| and no one there was attempting to over throw the US
| government.
|
| Labeling it an insurrection is political non-sense that
| further serves to divide the nation, and is the real act
| of "dismantling democracy"
|
| >>At the moment there is only one party working actively
| to dismantle democracy itself
|
| Ahh Yes, Voter ID... I need to show my ID and Proof of
| vaccination to eat but showing ID to vote is threat to
| democracy. Spare me
| gameswithgo wrote:
| The military has required vaccinations for decades, it is an
| operational hazard for them. In 1950 you would get booted for
| refusing your vaccines too. This would have happened Biden or
| not.
| cma wrote:
| Troops get far more vaccines than the general public, it is
| mainly political that any are quitting/opting for discharge
| over a mandate for this one.
| redisman wrote:
| At some point we should (not) start charting and obsessively
| reporting all the other endemic viruses. I'm curious how
| anxiety inducing they are compared to Covid
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I'm also curious. For the last several years some kind of
| enterovirus has been paralyzing hundreds of children in the
| US. Articles get written once in awhile, but no one ever
| talks about it. Yet COVID shuts down schools.
| he0001 wrote:
| How deadly does a disease have to be for you to feel it's not
| worth the risk? 1%, 10%, 50%?
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Depends how virulent. SARS, Ebola and others have come and
| gone.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| dham wrote:
| Are you asking because you work in a gain of function lab :D?
| It's going to be hard for a virus to come from nature that
| can spread like the Flu and be as deadly as Ebola. The
| biggest societal threat besides a meteor or nuclear war is
| gain of function.
| [deleted]
| umvi wrote:
| > The biggest societal threat besides a meteor or nuclear
| war is gain of function.
|
| 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.
| dham wrote:
| I guess maybe I mean human race threatening? Civil war
| isn't going to wipe humans out completely I suppose.
|
| 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.
| ausbah wrote:
| my guess for a while has been that covid is endemic at this point
| and will be "a thing to live with" like the flu, where it would
| be in the best interest of everyone if they stayed home, got
| vaccinated every year (or as necessary), etc. - but is now a
| "personal responsibility" or however you would like to frame it
| pradn wrote:
| I've vaxxed and boosted and will continue to get boosted as often
| as is recommended. I follow the local regulations, which in NYC
| mainly involve masking up and showing a vax proof for indoor
| activities like dining, concerts, and riding the NYC subway. I'm
| not stopping my life though. I've travelled internationally in
| the past few months, both to see family and sight-see. Seems like
| not a bad compromise. The one thing I don't as much is masking up
| outdoors, which is more common now in NYC than it was a month
| ago. I'd say 70% of people are doing that in Lower Manhattan.
| umanwizard wrote:
| You don't have to have proof of vaccination to ride the subway.
| pradn wrote:
| Yes, you're right.
| JSavageOne wrote:
| COVID doesn't transmit well outside, people who wear masks
| outside are either paranoid, uneducated, or virtue signaling.
| phillc73 wrote:
| That comment resembles the Austrian government:
|
| https://www.thelocal.at/20220107/explained-what-do-we-
| know-a...
| [deleted]
| skyde wrote:
| yeah but 45% of Americans still didn't get vaccinated :)
| nevinera wrote:
| From conversations with various people (and not any kind of
| meaningful study), it seems to me that there is a qualitatively
| different experience of this situation for people that naturally
| _think_ about things all the time. For my wife, having to skip
| the occasional event that she 'd like to go to isn't a big deal,
| but having to constantly think about how risky each behavior is
| and make a conscious decision weighing that risk against other
| factors (like social expectations and psychological needs) is
| _extremely_ effortful.
|
| 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.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| i'm young, vaxxed, and i still think about the implications of
| covid when going to events. It goes kind of like this:
|
| - 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.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| i'm young, vaxxed, and i still think about the implications of
| covid when going to events. It goes kind of like this:
|
| - 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
| nevinera wrote:
| My process is somewhat more complex than that, but similar. I
| don't know if you've ever tried telling a worrier not to
| worry about something, but it's not a terribly fruitful
| approach :-)
| BoysenberryPi wrote:
| I don't want to talk about vaccines anymore. Whatever study
| people have to cherry pick or whatever beliefs you may hold,
| whatever your stance is, most people have made the decision on
| whether or not to be vaccinated.
|
| 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.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| We aren't short on 'resources', we are short on doctors and
| nurses.
|
| 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.
| kalstone wrote:
| It also did not help to have mass firings of doctors and
| nurses just as the new variant rolled in
| 01100011 wrote:
| > It doesn't matter how much money you throw at things, the
| number of doctors isn't going to change drastically.
|
| 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.
| perardi wrote:
| > 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 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.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| > If being a doctor had the same work:pay ratio as being a
| SW dev
|
| 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.
| BoysenberryPi wrote:
| > We aren't short on 'resources', we are short on doctors and
| nurses.
|
| 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.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| If the virus is endemic, what even is the point of all this
| testing? What does is accomplish besides telling you "yup, this
| test says you have a virus"? I never got tested for respiratory
| viruses before when I got sick. Why this one?
|
| 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.
| standardUser wrote:
| Testing is so you know if you have COVID and you don't go and
| spread it. And the reason you don't go and spread it is
| because hospitals have limited capacity - and healthcare
| workers haver limited energy - so we want to avoid people
| dying due to lack of proper medical care.
|
| This has been the entire point of mitigation efforts from day
| one.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| So why aren't we testing for the cold and the flu? Those
| are just as endemic as Covid and they mutate every year
| too. Why test specifically for Covid?
|
| 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.
| standardUser wrote:
| If we know we have Covid we can avoid spreading it, and
| we avoid spreading it because it threatens our healthcare
| capacity. That is why we test. The common cold and flu do
| not spread nearly as easily and don't result in such
| frequent hospitalization. Yes, taking extra mitigation
| efforts to prevent the spread of the flu, such as
| widespread testing, may spare us a few hospital beds. But
| the return on investment is very low. With Covid, it is
| very high, since each case of Covid stands to spread more
| readily than a case of the flu, and each case is more
| likely to result in hospitalization. It's the
| hospitalizations that matter ultimately, the same now as
| when the pandemic began, and all mitigation efforts serve
| that end.
| 01100011 wrote:
| My wife is trying to become a nurse. Thanks to COVID screwing
| up her school schedule she's at least a year behind.
|
| 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.
| iqanq wrote:
| Then salaries need to increase.
| yazaddaruvala wrote:
| I agree they should increase, but who would be paying for
| the increase?
|
| The elderly who are already retied and likely have a fixed
| monthly expenditure?
| adamrezich wrote:
| idk it seems like the healthcare industry as a whole made
| bank off this whole thing, if they want to help prove it
| wasn't largely a massive cash grab for the people at the
| top, then surely they'll reinvest their profits back into
| salaries to solve understaffing issues?
| nafix wrote:
| Thank you. I've also been trying to get this across to other
| people as well. And here's the worst part. If and when another
| high-spread virus emerges in the future, there will not be a
| vaccine available at the beginning, which is also when hospital
| overwhelming is most critical. So we will be in the exact same
| situation. I can't believe no one is talking about improving
| the hospital infrastructure to handle the inevitable next
| virus. Are there things happening in this regard and I am just
| out of the loop?
| eruci wrote:
| We've fattened the curve.
| Melatonic wrote:
| I know everyone is tired of this shit but I just want to remind
| everyone of one thing:
|
| 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.
| Ekaros wrote:
| What way to beat the virus? Clearly not vaccines as they aren't
| that great... Clearly not lockdowns as as soon as we give that
| up the virus hits... We aren't beating it in anyway... Maybe it
| is time to accept the reality.
| rabuse wrote:
| I've been telling people to "get it, and get over it" since
| March 2020. The best thing anyone can do is live a healthy
| lifestyle, and the majority will be fine.
| epakai wrote:
| This was terrible advice. Rate of spread and our inability
| to treat it early on would have been catastrophic if we
| took that approach. Like it or not, lockdowns and
| mitigations were effective at keeping infection rates
| manageable and our healthcare system functioning.
|
| 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.
| standardUser wrote:
| You don't care if hospitals hit capacity and healthcare
| workers become exhausted and people then die from lack of
| care? Preventing that scenario, which has occurred to
| varying degrees in many places, is and has always been the
| primary reason _not_ to spread the virus.
| jat850 wrote:
| Not to challenge the overall idea too hard, but have you
| thought about what that really means, to say that? If you
| extend the IFR of, let's say, 1% to the entire population
| of (let's pick, for example, the US), would it be
| acceptable to just let 4,000,000 people die and take no
| mitigating procedures against that happening?
|
| 4 million, my mistake, squeezed an extra zero in there.
| notch656a wrote:
| Probably depends on a number of factors. If you're 4
| years old and the next year is 20% of your life and you
| may never have this level of social and intellectual
| plasticity again, you may be way better off being free to
| intermingle with people and learn to live life at the
| expense of more dead old people.
|
| 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.
| javagram wrote:
| The vaccines reduce the risk of hospitalization and/or death
| from the virus by 20x or more.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| holbrad wrote:
| I agree being able to deploy a vaccine in record time is very
| impressive.
|
| 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.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| I'm not convince we did beat it.
|
| 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.
| McGlockenshire wrote:
| > And people "double vaxxed and boosted" still get it. And
| still die from it.
|
| 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.
| lordloki wrote:
| Those numbers are laughable. Look around there are 100s of
| thousands of vaccinated people testing positive in the US
| daily! Those numbers may have been true against the
| original version of covid-19, but they are way off now.
| javagram wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| valachio wrote:
| There is also the possibility that we will look back on history
| and realize how hysteria and media fearmongering drove human
| society to take wholly unnecessary measures and paved a path
| towards more authoritarianism, more surveillance, a financial
| crisis due to the government printing trillions of dollars
| which a lot of it is going into the stock market and driving up
| companies to insane valuations, creating a generation of
| software addicts due to the pandemic forcing teenagers to stay
| home and cope using their computers as opposed to going out and
| interacting with their peers in person, and a myriad of other
| problems that we do not yet see in the short-term.
| notch656a wrote:
| This is the most truth I've seen packed into a few sentences
| in the past two years regarding what's happened.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Society r who had even a whiff of objection to the narrative.
| The number of ordinarily sane people who've yelled at me
| because I questioned something...
|
| 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.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| people don't seem to realize just how good we handled the
| pandemic. Of course, we handled the pandemic awful compared to
| what we could have done. But in hindsight there's always a
| better way.
|
| 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.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| > _Imagine what an outbreak like this would do in an earlier
| time._
|
| Probably we wouldn't have even noticed. Spanish Flu/black
| death is just no comparison.
| torstenvl wrote:
| I think it boils down to two questions:
|
| - 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.
| oauea wrote:
| What violence?
| vikingerik wrote:
| Australia is forcibly imprisoning people in quarantine
| facilities.
| evv555 wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cuB6XRjaH4
| oauea wrote:
| Throw shit at the police and they're going to react. Pretty
| normal and expected and has nothing to do with covid.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Preventing them from going to the bar without a mask?
| kerneloftruth wrote:
| Getting people fired from their jobs because they didn't want
| the vax is a form of state power. State power is ultimately
| backed up with police and prisons, where violence by them on
| you is legal.
| _zamorano_ wrote:
| How about Emmanuel Macron, french prime minister, wanting to
| "...piss them off. And we will continue to do this, to the
| end. This is the strategy.""
| oauea wrote:
| This is violence?
| blendergeek wrote:
| @torstenvl:
|
| > 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.
| jhgb wrote:
| > Any state mandate must be enforced through violence or it
| has no effect.
|
| 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".
| oauea wrote:
| Any real world examples?
| OminousWeapons wrote:
| > If people don't want to take personal precautions, they
| should be at liberty to assume the additional risk.
|
| 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.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > - What is the average level of risk to someone taking
| reasonable personal precautions?
|
| 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?
| bogomipz wrote:
| >"What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to
| further reduce that risk?"
|
| What is this referring to? Can you say what instances of
| "state-sponsored-violence" have occurred in the pursuit of risk
| reduction?
| dragontamer wrote:
| > - What is the average level of risk to someone taking
| reasonable personal precautions?
|
| 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.
| chrischen wrote:
| Why not just charge unvaccinated people for their hospital
| bills? Then overburdened hospitals become profitable
| hospitals.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Let's do the same with every other risky behaviour then.
| Smokers, drug addicts, overweight people, people doing lots
| of outdoor sport, people who don't wear the appropriate
| personal protection at work,...
| dragontamer wrote:
| Unfortunately, the unvaccinated apparently are a bigger
| voting group / voting bloc than we expected, and have
| considerable political power.
| fallingknife wrote:
| > Forced vaccinations are far more effective than national
| guard in this situation
|
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1905.
|
| 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.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| OK, so now people are framed as fighting against history.
| What does that change?
|
| 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
| dragontamer wrote:
| > OK, so now people are framed as fighting against
| history. What does that change?
|
| 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.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| It seemed like you felt including that case precedent
| somehow reframed the discussion. I don't see that it adds
| anything
| dragontamer wrote:
| > It seemed like you felt including that case precedent
| somehow reframed the discussion. I don't see that it adds
| anything
|
| 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.
| aserdf wrote:
| Jacobson was _not_ force vaccinated. he paid a $5 fine
| following the ruling.
| dragontamer wrote:
| My point: compulsory vaccination laws are legal and have
| been upheld by the supreme court. I dare you to find a
| proper legal counterexample.
| aserdf wrote:
| your original comment was that the state has a right to
| forcibly vaccinate citizens. i am simply contending that
| was not a result of jacobson v ma.
| [deleted]
| dragontamer wrote:
| > - What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable
| to further reduce that risk?
|
| 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.
| aantix wrote:
| Do the hospitals have any obligations in this in terms of
| scalability and sustainability of their workforce?
|
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > But if the system is still crashing under load in five
| years? Ten years? At what point is it my fault?
|
| 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.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Also, chances are we're going to exit this pandemic (whenever
| that happens) with a severely reduced medical system. We're
| burning through medical personnel at an unsustainable rate,
| and we're all going to suffer a diminished level of care
| until replacements can be retrained and hired.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| How many of the COVID-19 patients currently in hospitals
| _really_ need to be there, and how many would be triaged out
| if more urgent cases presented? If a hospital has bed space,
| why would they not admit a COVID patient? It 's money, and
| they are a business for the most part that wants to maximize
| revenue.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| The historical concern is that icus have been overfull.
| Those people need to be there. This is conspiracy fud.
| postsantum wrote:
| I fell like this rhetoric is fixed and is not changing with
| arrival of new data
| dragontamer wrote:
| > How many of the COVID-19 patients currently in hospitals
| really need to be there, and how many would be triaged out
| if more urgent cases presented?
|
| 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)
| dubya wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| yeah, but... you know... of course they're prioritizing
| all the COVID patients first, before anyone else, because
| they get more money from the government for 'COVID'
| patients!
|
| /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.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| People don't agree to go to an ICU for funsies.
| rbanffy wrote:
| But those machines are sooooo coool. Also, they give you
| ketamine to intubate, so more fun!
| nograpes wrote:
| A good way to address your point would be to compare the
| situation to Canada.
|
| 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.
| detaro wrote:
| "Triaged out" doesn't mean "doesn't need to be here". It
| just means "less likely to die tonight if not in ICU", if
| it is at the point where you are talking about "triage".
| cryptonector wrote:
| News flash: hospitals are businesses, and like all
| businesses, they are most profitable when running at close to
| capacity, therefore they're at close to capacity most of the
| time because _staffing_ is sized accordingly.
| shigawire wrote:
| Which raises the separate point that they should probably
| not be businesses. A lot of our difficulties here go back
| to this privatized approach.
| cryptonector wrote:
| You imply that running any enterprise (public or private)
| at near capacity is a bad thing, but in fact it's an
| economic necessity. You also imply that making these
| public enterprises would make it possible to run them at
| less than near capacity, but it's pretty clear from
| rationing in, e.g., the UK, that this is not so. The
| reason public health care is run at near capacity is the
| same as private healthcare: wasting resources is silly.
|
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| No.
|
| 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.
| sonicanatidae wrote:
| >If people don't want to take personal precautions, they should
| be at liberty to assume the additional risk.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| ravenstine wrote:
| I think I can tell how this will be received, but here it goes.
|
| 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.
| Jerrrry wrote:
| The best thing everyone can do is to go get Omnicron, give it to
| everyone quickly, so that we can all synchronize our collective
| immune effort.
|
| 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.
| twiddling wrote:
| wtf?
| Jerrrry wrote:
| Would you like me to explain what a god-send Omnicron is?
|
| Or do you want me to explain what happens if we miss this
| chance at a collective immune response.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| i think i'm done with current level vaccines. I've had 3 mrna.
| The second and third each took me out for 2 days. I don't see any
| reason for more unless a better one comes out. I do think 3 are
| important though.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| I've gotten my flu shot yearly for my entire living memory. I
| don't really understand why a booster vaccine for a pandemic
| that's killed an order of magnitude more people than the flu
| does per year is some serious burden.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| The covid vaccines make me seriously sick for at least a day
| or two.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| If you didn't get sick from it (current formulation or
| perhaps new ones in future), would you just take it and
| move on?
|
| 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.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| if I didn't get sick or there was a new one that's better
| of course I would take it. I think t-cells are still
| robust long term so I'm safe from severe disease. That's
| what I've read so far in the news but I'll keep
| monitoring.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > compared to the potential of being intubated in an ICU.
|
| 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.
| chronofar wrote:
| My second shot made me feel more ill than I have any other
| time in the last half decade or so aside from a bout with
| dengue. It's likely I've also had COVID within that stretch
| and it barely registered (had a slightly sore throat for a
| few days after confirmed exposure).
|
| 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.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Because there's no evidence more boosters have any efficacy.
| And there are side-effects, despite people trying to downplay
| them. My SO had a legit allergic reaction to an mRNA
| vaccine...
| jewayne wrote:
| "no evidence". The first round of boosters have shown
| strong efficacy. Why would a second round of boosters not
| have any efficacy? It seems that you've chosen the wrong
| null hypothesis.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Show a study, any study (and not just a news article that
| links to another article claiming 'studies' show blah)
| where they reduce the risk of serious infection or
| transmission versus only 2 doses.
|
| Simply pumping up antibodies for a couple weeks isn't the
| same as efficacy.
| jewayne wrote:
| First off, I need to point out that you are committing
| the logical fallacy of selective rigor. An increase in
| neutralizing antibodies is not the same as a clinical
| trial proving efficacy, but I'm pretty sure that
| increases in neutralizing antibodies STRONGLY correlate
| with vaccine efficacy, across different diseases. So
| you've already called out your own bias.
|
| So, here is a pre-print that does show real-world
| effectiveness (as opposed to efficacy). https://www.medrx
| iv.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.
| tlear wrote:
| Flu shot never made me more than uncomfortable for a day.
| Second shot of Moderna took me out of commission for 5 days.
| 2 of them being with 38C fever. I am done with the these
| shots. Did not get booster but did get Omicron over the
| holidays, it was like a weak cold that dragged on for a few
| extra days.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| The lethality of influenza is grossly overexagerated to sell
| vaccines. This started in the 90s when pharma realized there
| was an untapped market of aging Americans they could scare
| into creating demand for their product.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Why do you think 3 is enough but not 4. That's not rational,
| its just psychologically comforting
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| the reasoning is 3 provides robust long term immunity due to
| the several month gap between 2 and 3. While 4 won't add much
| benefit except to boost antibody count for a short while.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| so just like 3
| VeninVidiaVicii wrote:
| For all vaccines, neutralizing antibody titers decrease over
| time. This is why boosters exist in the first place.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| It's always been understood that antibodies wane over time.
| That's why other cells in our bodies 'remember' viral
| infections and essentially are primed to create antibodies
| again when infected
| (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z)
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| From what I've seen so far the antibodies don't really last
| long enough. I'll rely on long term t-cell protection. At
| least that's what I think so far.
| jaywalk wrote:
| No vaccine has ever had an efficacy dropoff as steep and
| rapid as the current crop of Covid vaccines.
| Ichthypresbyter wrote:
| No vaccine has ever had its efficacy measured in terms of
| infection detectable by PCR test.
| stefan_ wrote:
| "The current crop of Covid vaccines" all of which are
| engineered based on the original variant. Ignorance like
| this has contributed to the virus mutating, and obviously
| the newer variants have increased fitness against whatever
| immune response the original one provokes - otherwise it
| wouldn't exist.
| djrogers wrote:
| If you look at the history of vaccinations against other
| diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, polio, smallpox,
| etc. you won't see untying like what we're seeing now -
| those were all able to be largely or completely
| eradicated.
|
| 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.
| samspenc wrote:
| Yeah, after contracting COVID in January 2021, and now 3 shots
| (including a booster), I'm just tired of the whole thing. If
| I'm not immune "enough" after all that, so be it.
| collias wrote:
| Apparently, booster efficacy wanes after about 10 weeks[1].
|
| 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/...
| apex3stoker wrote:
| From the linked article, the vaccine effectiveness of 10
| weeks factoid you mentioned is a bit incomplete. It only
| talks about effectiveness against symptomatic infections. The
| effectiveness is dropped to about 40% around 10 weeks for
| people with AstraZeneca and then Pfizer or Moderna booster,
| or Pfizer and then Pfizer booster, and to about 70% around 9
| weeks for people with Pfizer and then Moderna booster.
|
| There was insufficient data to estimate the effectiveness
| against severe disease.
| jewayne wrote:
| My favorite part is where the referenced document doesn't say
| that. It literally shows that a third shot of Pfizer-Biontech
| is still 90+% effective against the Delta variant after 10+
| weeks. And close to 50% against Omicron after 10+ weeks. The
| only significance of 10 weeks is that was where their data
| ended, because boosters haven't been generally available that
| long.
| collias wrote:
| I'd definitely consider 50% efficacy against the most
| prevalent variant (by far) after 10 weeks to be "waning".
|
| 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.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| Being sick for 2 days. I'm not signing up to be sick 2 days
| every 2.5 months. Pounding headache, fatigue, nausea, heart
| pain.
| collias wrote:
| I agree with you that the risk/reward matrix varies greatly
| per individual; there are many like you who have had
| similar reactions.
|
| 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?
| groggo wrote:
| I'm the exact same as parent comment. For me, I was a bit
| pressured into getting the booster. I also thought it was
| 3 and done, it wasn't clear that it could potentially be
| recurring. I also thought maybe the reaction wouldn't be
| as bad as after the 2nd shot, but it was. Also, I've read
| more about myocarditis and don't really want to keep
| exposing myself to that risk.
|
| 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?
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| I think the length between 1 and 2 was too short. I think
| 3 gives more overall robust immunity. I'll keep an eye on
| the research coming out though.
| xeromal wrote:
| 3 is probably just the amount of downtime OP was willing
| to put up with before throwing in the towel.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| I actually believed we'd be able to go back to having
| normal mask free existence with 3. As of now that's not
| proven to be the case so I'll continue to wear an N95 as
| I have family to protect. Hope it will burn itself out
| and my under 5 child and older family can have a better
| idea of the risks in time.
| vmception wrote:
| Great article! Just a week or two ago on this forum there were
| people willing to treat me like a far right conservative or a
| general anti-vaxxer from the facebook troll factory, just because
| I didn't like a private institution's booster mandate.
|
| That was fascinating.
| arrakis2021 wrote:
| The hivemind has the memory of a goldfish.
| vmception wrote:
| There isn't continuity between user names, for most users, so
| nobody can tell if the person they are responding to has
| demonstrated different behaviors or ideologies before
|
| 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
| 01100011 wrote:
| Welcome to the internet. Some of it stems from exhaustion.
| People sense any sort of deviation from the official dogma and
| they assume you're another idiot who they'll end up arguing
| with. It's sad. There is a lot of nuance to many of our
| cherished positions and discussion strengthens the truth but
| many people just get offended by genuine curiosity.
| valachio wrote:
| I remember in the early days of the Internet, people were
| saying how the Internet would encourage critical discussions
| and open fruitful debates.
|
| 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.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I'm not sure vaccine or booster mandates make sense anymore
| because they're not effective enough against stopping the
| spread of omicron. Charging more for insurance for the
| unvaccinated still makes sense, though.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I am one of those, triple vaxxed and done. CDC has now said that
| the majority of those that died had 4+ co-morbidities. They have
| also indicated that getting vaccinated does not reduce your
| ability to spread the virus. So if that is the case, there is no
| longer a real need to vilify the unvaxxed. CDC statement appears
| to indicate that the primary reason for people dying is poor
| physical health prior to infection. With that said I do think
| vaccines likely reduce the severity of the infection but I don't
| buy all these people saying they would have died if not for the
| vaccine, how do they know? This has motivated me to start working
| out again and to try and lose weight. Going to make sure my kids
| are physically active now as well. Omicron is essentially
| impossible to avoid at this point short of locking yourself in a
| room and having everything delivered to your front door. The
| risks are known and its time to trust people to weigh those risks
| and make their own decisions.
|
| 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.
| csdvrx wrote:
| > Omicron is essentially impossible to avoid at this point
| short of locking yourself in a room and having everything
| delivered to your front door. The risks are known and its time
| to trust people to weigh those risks and make their own
| decisions.
|
| 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".
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| munificent wrote:
| _> As viruses can remain active on surfaces_
|
| 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.
| bko wrote:
| I see the focus being solely on vaccines leads to a lost of
| mistrust in the agencies meant to protect our health.
| Everything is viewed through a lens of "will this cause more or
| less people from getting vaccinated". At every turn the
| agencies push vaccines and vaccines alone as the answer,
| ostracizing those who choose to live with a higher risk
| tolerance. Whether its true or not, a lot of people feel that
| coverage is skewed to push vaccines and anything relating to
| treatment or healthy lifestyles is downplayed.
|
| 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...
| maxerickson wrote:
| Vaccination makes you much less likely to get sick in the first
| place and probably reduces how long you are infectious if you
| do get sick. Neither of those things fit with 'does not
| reduce'.
| srcreigh wrote:
| Yep, county by county in the USA, as of Sept 2021, higher
| %age vax populations is correlated with lower case numbers.
|
| 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.
| ..
| starik36 wrote:
| > Vaccination makes you much less likely to get sick in the
| first place
|
| 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.
| majormajor wrote:
| I have seen much discussion of vaccines being less
| effective at preventing infection with omicron but no
| indication of them being 0% effective. Of course, it will
| probably be at least a few more weeks before we have good
| overall data on this (e.g. December/January case rates
| among vaccinated vs unvaccinated).
|
| 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.
| starik36 wrote:
| > no indication of them being 0% effective
|
| 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.
| majormajor wrote:
| That's quite the statement.
|
| 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."
| starik36 wrote:
| Not saying restart all assumptions. I am saying that
| whatever you say should come with the "based on the
| previous..., it may or may not apply to current..."
| proviso.
| cm2187 wrote:
| The problem is that it doesn't show in the stats in practice.
| In the UK, the % of positive covid tests that are vaxed
| pretty much follows the % of people vaxed in the population
| (by age). If vaxed people were less infectious, you would
| expect the virus to circulate much more in the unvaccinated
| population. Particularly given that vaccine hesitancy isn't
| homogenously distributed in the population.
| majormajor wrote:
| What exactly do you mean by "% of positive covid tests that
| are vaxed"?
|
| 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.
| cm2187 wrote:
| For instance 79% of the people >18yo who tested positive
| in December were vaccinated. And that's pretty much the %
| of people over 18 that are vaccinated in the UK. You get
| pretty much the same result for each age tranche:
| 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%
|
| p36: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/
| uploads/...
|
| You had the same outcome in November, i.e. pre-Omicron.
| majormajor wrote:
| Ah, yes. That's not a very useful stat compared to
| something like case-rate-per-100K since the denominator
| could be all over the map.
|
| 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.publis
| hing.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.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Not sure what you mean by denominator? The denominator
| for vaxed positive cases is all positive cases. The
| denominator for vaxed in the population is total
| population (within the age range).
|
| 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.
| majormajor wrote:
| In "percent vaxxed among positive tests" you're only
| looking at those who got tested and were positive at a
| snapshot in time. At the very least, you also need to
| include all the people who tested negative. You complain
| that the size of the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations are
| vastly different but then use numbers where you look at
| _just_ positive tests, ignoring counts or negative
| counts. That gives you numbers with even more potential
| sources for skew!
|
| 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.
| maxerickson wrote:
| The UK is considerably more vaxxed and boosted, enough
| that the dynamics could be different.
| bserge wrote:
| vkou wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| https://www.cnet.com/health/medical/all-indications-
| suggest-...
| nopenopenopeno wrote:
| The CDC is a bought voice of the corporate ruling class whose
| only interest at this point is getting working people back to
| work, with the exception of the pharmaceutical companies who
| want people to get vaccines. This is why the government has no
| consistent position on anything.
| clarge1120 wrote:
| I get your point as a summary judgment, but it lacks
| evidence, not veracity. The CDC has multiple entities, some
| of which are non-governmental, and supported by business
| interests. Some would say that a little yeast spreads
| throughout the loaf.
| majormajor wrote:
| If we want to get rid of vaccine mandates I think the give and
| take has to go both ways. For instance:
| https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/sta...
| : "Unvaccinated individuals at the highest risk of severe
| disease (anyone aged >=75 years or anyone aged >=65 years with
| additional risk factors)." in Tier 1 for priority usage of new,
| hard-to-get treatment.
|
| 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).
| barbazoo wrote:
| > Those who don't want to get vaccinated should take personal
| responsibility for that, not expect society to take as much
| care of them
|
| 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.
| majormajor wrote:
| No, I would argue for exactly that. If ten patients arrive
| at the ER and it's full, the unvaccinated-without-a-
| medical-condition-preventing-vaccination COVID patient gets
| a bed last, after the vaccinated COVID patients and any
| non-COVID patients. For people in CA, at least, there are
| digital records of this, not much testing needed.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| pessimizer wrote:
| If they don't conveniently arrive at the same time,
| needing the same amount of care, would you advocate
| pulling the unvaccinated off ventilators and out of beds
| to be replaced by the vaccinated?
|
| 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?
| majormajor wrote:
| Short answer: yes.
|
| 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.)
| vkou wrote:
| This sounds like a wonderful idea. Drop the vaccine mandates,
| and drop the mandates to treat the unvaccinated. If people
| don't want treatments that work, they should be free to
| explore the full space of treatments that don't.
|
| 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.
| folkhack wrote:
| You can't expect those who are unvaccinated taking up beds
| (potentially or not) to think about ethics. For a good part
| of our country it's a race to the bottom of "I got mine, f
| u" and those folks seem largely represented in the group
| that's currently stressing our hospitals.
|
| 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.
| danenania wrote:
| If you open that door, should treatment also be denied to
| smokers, motorcycle riders, obese people, uninsured
| people, etc., etc.? It's about as slippery as a slope can
| get.
| folkhack wrote:
| > denied to smokers
|
| 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.
| danenania wrote:
| Not getting a transplant isn't comparable to being denied
| a hospital bed.
|
| "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.
| folkhack wrote:
| Sorry - you brought these things up in regards to a
| slippery slope being denied treatment. I responded to you
| in good faith to say that half of those do have some sort
| of denial of treatment, specifically citing what is
| denied. I do not agree that stabilization of a patient is
| treating any underlying disease or cause.
|
| We're splitting hairs - I'm out.
| danenania wrote:
| Splitting hairs? Which one of us is referring to various
| forms of medical treatment as "denying treatment"?
|
| 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.
| folkhack wrote:
| > 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
|
| 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.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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...
| bb88 wrote:
| I'm not sure why you're voted down here. A lot of good
| information.
| bb88 wrote:
| * People can be overweight for decades without dying.
|
| * 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.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Saying that someone has a comorbidity is not a judgement. Its
| simply a fact. The virus is here, we know it affects people
| with certain conditions. If we can reduce or remove that
| condition then it is on us to do so. I am probably 30 pounds
| overweight, 20 of which I put on over the last year+ with
| covid. I am now working out and trying to drop those 30
| pounds because in the context of the virus it just makes
| sense to do so. Its not a moral judgement on anyone.
| bb88 wrote:
| It's no different than saying "It's your fault for dying by
| being fat during a pandemic -- so we don't need vaccines."
| wonderwonder wrote:
| ? That is very much a stretch. This is a pandemic, not a
| politically correct hug fest. We all must be responsible
| for our own health. If I am overweight and I get covid
| and I die because of that co-morbidity, then I bear at
| least some of that responsibility. To deny our own
| responsibility for our physical states where it is in our
| control is madness. Just like if I get covid and I am
| unvaccinated and get a severe case that is also my fault.
| This is a pandemic, not a woke celebration of not hurting
| each others feelings. This is not a moral judgement, some
| people are overweight and they are more susceptible to
| severe cases of covid, why not do what you can to reduce
| that risk?
| bb88 wrote:
| > This is a pandemic, not a woke celebration of not
| hurting each others feelings
|
| Right. That's why we need vaccines, and not and excuse
| for the crap your espousing as an excuse to not get
| vaccinated.
| manquer wrote:
| obsesity is an epidemic. covid today is pandemic. while
| it is problematic like any diease that affects a smaller
| subset of the population, it lot less concerning than a
| pandemic. it has nothing to do with you deserve it or
| not.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| Done? I still get yearly flu shots. I'd be okay with a yearly
| covid booster.
| jmull wrote:
| > They have also indicated that getting vaccinated does not
| reduce your ability to spread the virus.
|
| Think about this: spreading covid misinformation like this
| leads to people dying earlier than they would have otherwise
| died.
| nradov wrote:
| I encourage everyone eligible to protect themselves by getting
| vaccinated but vilifying people who make unhealthy choices is
| never an effective public health measure. We should have
| learned that from the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
| bartread wrote:
| You can't compare HIV/AIDS to COVID in this simplistic way,
| including the attitudes and public debate around them, and
| this comment is dangerously close to some sort of public
| health version of a Godwin's Law violation.
|
| 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.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| "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 am
| assuming you are a tech worker and can find a remote job.
| Just move somewhere with no restrictions. There are
| essentially zero restrictions in states like Florida or
| Texas. I live in one of those states and aside from maybe
| 35% of people voluntarily wearing masks there are few signs
| of the pandemic. I am not denying that people are getting
| sick I'm just saying that if you dont want to deal with the
| restrictions then there are options.
| bartread wrote:
| Sure, I work in tech, but like plenty of other people who
| work in tech, it's not as simple as "just move somewhere
| else." I've only ever driven through Texas, and it's a
| big state, so I can't comment on what it would be like to
| live there but I _properly detest_ the climate in
| Florida, which I 'd find impossible to tolerate, and the
| topography there is extremely uncompelling. Still, I
| suppose who doesn't love a bit of Miami from time to
| time? But even ignoring those relative trivialities,
| there are a bunch of serious issues I'd have to negotiate
| to make any major relocation a reality:
|
| 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?
| wonderwonder wrote:
| All good points, I assumed you lived in the US, my fault.
| If everyone in the UK was vaccinated tomorrow would all
| of the restrictions go away? Iceland and Israel
| essentially show that the cases don't stop and Israel is
| experiencing a case load as high as they have ever had. I
| would argue that your main problem is not the
| unvaccinated but the restrictions put in place by your
| government that they in turn blame on the unvaccinated.
| bartread wrote:
| Fair, and no worries, I'd guess at least 50% of the
| readership here is from the US. Also, sorry if I came off
| a bit sharp: that was all written fairly hastily.
|
| 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?
| [deleted]
| jorblumesea wrote:
| > So if that is the case, there is no longer a real need to
| vilify the unvaxxed.
|
| 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.
| purephase wrote:
| Agreed. It's also likely that the unvaxxed could be
| accounting for a greater part of the overall spread too. They
| tend to be sicker for longer, and given their anti-vax
| proclivities, will likely not wear masks and continue about
| their normal daily activities spreading it far and wide.
|
| The same people who are vaccinated are the same ones who will
| likely isolate/mask-up if they catch the disease.
| floren wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| clarge1120 wrote:
| It's time we start moving on with our lives. We're going to
| figure out what it takes to live with a new disease, so we may
| as well do it now. The damage done to the to the general mental
| health due to the breakdown of personal human networks will
| exceed the loss of life due to infection with poor physical
| health.
|
| I, for one, will not go on living in fear like this.
| stuckonempty wrote:
| > They have also indicated that getting vaccinated does not
| reduce your ability to spread the virus
|
| 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."
|
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597
| xkbarkar wrote:
| look at data for iceland, 92% of the adult population and
| spread is mainly among the double vaccinated. Triple is lower
| but that is expected to wear off ( if Isreal is to be
| beleiveied ). https://www.covid.is/data. No, vaccination dos
| not reduce spread of omicron. Not even a little. It does do a
| fantastic job of reducing hospitalisations among delta
| infected.
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| I fear you're committing the baseline fallacy. If 92% of
| the population is vaccinated then the virus can _easily_
| spread mainly among the vaccinated while still spreading
| among that population at a far lower rate than among the
| unvaccinated.
|
| 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.
| stavros wrote:
| 90% of the eligible population there is vaccinated. If
| there are no unvaccinated people left, the spread would be
| 100% from vaccinated people. Lies, damn lies, statistics.
| choward wrote:
| And you don't find that ridiculous? If a virus is
| spreading quickly among vaccinated people you might begin
| questioning said vaccine and you definitely wouldn't
| mandate it.
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| > And you don't find that ridiculous?
|
| 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.
| jhgb wrote:
| No, because you can't prove that it would spread slower
| among UNvaccinated people.
| choward wrote:
| The burden of proof is on the people pushing vaccines.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| If one was of the belief that a vaccine needs to be
| either 100% or it's worthless, yes, that's the sort of
| assumption you might come to. Things are slightly more
| nuanced.
| stavros wrote:
| I don't care how fast it spreads as long as the vaccine
| helps them not die.
| nodamage wrote:
| > No, vaccination dos not reduce spread of omicron. Not
| even a little.
|
| 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.
| benmmurphy wrote:
| i've seen some claims that the latest UK data shows
| negative effectiveness for the vaccine for COVID infection.
| This is possibly due to Omnicron or due to population
| differences between the vaccinated/unvaccinated. Also, it
| is very important to note that even though the data seems
| to show negative effectiveness for infection the vaccines
| still show positive effectiveness for hospitalisation and
| mortality.
|
| 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.
| vkou wrote:
| > look at data for iceland, 92% of the adult population and
| spread is mainly among the double vaccinated.
|
| 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.
| yorwba wrote:
| > 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%)
|
| 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.)
| jusssi wrote:
| > Most people that die in car crashes are wearing
| seatbelts
|
| 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.
| weaksauce wrote:
| yeah, because the number of people getting into car
| accidents and surviving is much, much greater with those
| that wear seatbelts where if you don't wear one it's a
| high probability it's not survivable.
| majormajor wrote:
| The Iceland data is interesting and "14-day incidence per
| 100.000 by age and vaccination status" is different from
| the California data, where case rate per 100K is still, as
| of 12/26 numbers, much higher among unvaccinated (no
| breakdown for 2vax vs 2vax+booster).
| https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/#postvax-status
|
| 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.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| There are a few "buts" here. The biggest one - based on
| transmission rates in countries with higher vaccination rates
| vs the ones in lower transmission rates - is that the
| vaccinated (at least at first, when everybody believed the
| vaccine is 90+% efficient against transmission) might have
| engaged in more risky behavior as they felt "protected".
| nodamage wrote:
| > CDC has now said that the majority of those that died had 4+
| co-morbidities.
|
| 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.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Your quote is from the end of a sentence that began with
| someone explaining that they were triple-vaxed. Seems like
| the perfect study to help them make decisions.
|
| 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.
| nradov wrote:
| Back in 2020 when everyone was unvaccinated the CDC issued
| this statement: "For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only
| cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in
| addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional
| conditions or causes per 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.
| kixiQu wrote:
| And from your link I'm seeing "risk factors" included being
| over sixty five years old, which isn't typically fair to
| itself call a "co-morbidity".
| nwiswell wrote:
| Some of your points have validity, but three are borderline
| dangerous misinformation:
|
| - 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...
| dnautics wrote:
| > The virus is still very dangerous to the unvaccinated
|
| 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.
| nwiswell wrote:
| > Do we know this about omicron?
|
| 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.
| dnautics wrote:
| Just coming from a scientist that is SUPER used to
| reading graphs -- It's really hard to tell from those
| graphs because the scariness of those graphs could wind
| up being (horizontal) scaling artifacts, because we know
| in the countries that led the omicron wave it seems to
| burn out faster... If the number of deaths tails out just
| as quickly, the CFR will wind up being way lower, since
| total deaths are an integral under the curve, and cases
| are point-in-time values.
| clarge1120 wrote:
| Also, let's define "very dangerous". Every recovery chart
| I've seen shows a 98 percent or higher recovery rate:
| similar to a bad flu season.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| "The virus is still very dangerous to the unvaccinated"
| Absolutely, I very much agree with this but at this point in
| time everyone has access to the data and there is not much
| ore that can be done to make people choose to get vaccinated.
| Forcing people to choose to be vaccinated or lose their jobs
| when the primary person the vaccinated are endangering is
| themselves is not a good policy. People should be allowed to
| make their own choices at this point. No matter what we do
| the virus is here to stay.
|
| "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.
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| The only miss information here is your comment.
|
| >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.
| nwiswell wrote:
| All I can say is that Omicron is not significantly less
| dangerous. This is actually shaping up to be worse than the
| Delta surge. If you believe Delta was serious, then this is
| too.
|
| 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...
| jdminhbg wrote:
| These graphs are misleading because they do not
| accurately reflect the change in cases. Cases in the
| Omicron wave are probably closer to 10x the winter of
| 2021 than the 1.5x in those graphs, but testing sites
| have been overwhelmed and rapid tests are more widely
| available, leading most people to either test at home or
| simply give up.
|
| 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
| nwiswell wrote:
| > For reference to a Covid prevalence measurement that
| isn't sensitive to testing artifacts, check out the
| Boston wastewater analysis:
|
| This would be confounded by the greater viral loads for
| Omicron, wouldn't it?
| zimzam wrote:
| 40 hospitals in NY state we're just forced to halt elective
| surgeries:
|
| https://abc7ny.com/new-york-hospitals-stop-elective-
| surgerie...
|
| That's overrun in my book.
| srcreigh wrote:
| The only hard question is hospital triaging. Who gets treatment
| if there's only room for 50% or 20%? Who can even decide? Does
| anyone volunteer to be excluded from medical care? This affects
| more than just covid patients too.
|
| 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...
| dham wrote:
| Unfortunately we could have made this exchange in March 2020.
| Mostly older people in exchange for younger people. It would
| have been over in a few months. June/July of 2020. Now we
| make the exchange but this time it's everyone. Someone
| younger having heart attack, cancer etc. So we're mostly
| worst off had we just let it rip through society back then.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > The only hard question is hospital triaging. Who gets
| treatment if there's only room for 50% or 20%? Who can even
| decide?
|
| 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.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Perhaps we should incentivize recruitment of, and reduce
| restrictions for, medical professionals. Things like
| residency availability, overhead from various requirements
| and restrictions, and a ton of upfront investment followed up
| with long hours and potentially decades to pay of debt.
|
| 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.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Hospitals have always been overwhelmed. Check out this 2018
| article about the flu:
| https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/01/08/hospital-overrun-by-
| flu-...
|
| Empty beds aren't making money for hospitals so they often
| run close to capacity.
| srcreigh wrote:
| The question is of degree. Is "covid overwhelmed"
| meaningfully the same as "yearly flu season overwhelmed"?
| Based on Government actions, it seems like covid is much
| worse.
|
| (I wish I had the epidemiological understanding to look at
| data and understand that conclusion, but I don't.)
| jaywalk wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| csdvrx wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| jaywalk wrote:
| It was a reasonable precaution to take in March of 2020.
| But enough studies have been done by now to show that
| it's no longer a _reasonable_ precaution in general. We
| may never know how it got to that base, and even if we
| find out that it was via surface contamination, that
| doesn 't invalidate everything else we know now.
| Root_Denied wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| Tade0 wrote:
| > It's an exchange everyone makes every single day in order
| for society to function.
|
| 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.
| cascom wrote:
| I was under the impression that this was already a solved
| question in the medical community (essentially boiled down
| to: who will benefit the most from treatment)
|
| Or are you talking about other considerations like vaxxed/in-
| vaxxed?
| srcreigh wrote:
| You may be right. I guess there is a risk that even the
| number of people dying from treatable conditions exceeds
| capacity. The spectrum you mention seems more geared to
| handle broken arm vs heart attack situation, not "We have
| 100 people dying and 20 beds".
| cascom wrote:
| This takes place daily in any ER on a low intensity basis
| (broken arm can wait for the heart attack), but hospitals
| specifically consider the 100 people dying 20 beds
| situations when they train for mass casualty events (with
| specific doctors and nurses tasked with triaging incoming
| patients)
| gbjw wrote:
| Furthermore, a lesser-talked about side-effect of extended
| (semi-)lockdowns and associated measures is a general reduction
| in the _physical_ health of the populace. How many of us have
| put on a few extra pounds? This survey [1] (which, admittedly,
| seems to be probably skewed by sampling bias), shows that
| millennials put on 40+ (!?) pounds over the pandemic.
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1257041/average-
| weight-g...
| ketzo wrote:
| > there is no longer a real need to vilify the unvaxxed
|
| 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.
| Karsteski wrote:
| I very, very much disagree with this.
|
| 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?
| ketzo wrote:
| Ah, yes. Obesity, that problem that can be solved with a
| free, walk-in appointment at any drugstore in the country.
|
| These two things are a perfect, 1:1 analogy.
| danenania wrote:
| How about riding a motorcycle? It's not addictive or
| difficult to avoid. All you have to do is... not do it.
| So do motorcycle riders share similar responsibility
| because they're choosing to do something that also puts
| them at significantly higher risk of ending up in the
| hospital?
|
| I'm also in favor of vaccination btw, but against the
| shaming.
| xkbarkar wrote:
| I could use the same rationale to say people who are fat are
| willingly putting others in danger. As up to 75% of C19
| hospitaltizations are obese persons I could just a s easily
| hunt down overweights and accuse them of murder as their
| unhealthy habits are now clogging the medical system forcing
| us to shut down society to protect them.
|
| 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.
| ketzo wrote:
| Where am I saying to _stop_ providing medical care? No one
| should go untreated, not even the dumbest, shit-spewing-est
| anti-vaxxer. Human life is precious.
|
| 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.
| potato wrote:
| Just eat less and exercise more. It's free _and_ no walk-
| in appointment needed.
| Karsteski wrote:
| I appreciate you writing this.
|
| > 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.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Unconditinal medical care is one of the corner stones of
| our society.
|
| Are you British or something?
| cm2187 wrote:
| > _Unvaccinated people have a much higher rate of severe
| illness that requires hospitalization. Filling up hospitals
| unnecessarily kills people, and delays preventative care._
|
| 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".
| ketzo wrote:
| You are, unfortunately, incorrect, at least about the
| "young and healthy" part.
|
| 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/16
| 00/coronavirus/... Study published 3 days ago.
| ifyoubuildit wrote:
| I'd love to see a study like that breaking down the risks
| between seronaive and recovered people. They all seem to
| just talk about the unvaccinated as one monolithic group,
| but the difference between those with a prior infection
| and without is known to be huge.
|
| 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.
| cm2187 wrote:
| The risk of covid to healthy 12-34 is minuscule, less
| than the flu apparently. You can divide this risk by 10
| but that will do nothing materially to the risk to this
| population nor to ICU usage.
| ketzo wrote:
| > that will do nothing materially
|
| 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.
| cm2187 wrote:
| We are talking about winning the lottery kind of tiny
| risks. Your 19yo could also be vaccinated. That's also a
| plausible scenario. But both those scenarios are
| extremely unlikely.
| [deleted]
| elpakal wrote:
| American here, totally agree with your points and upvoted. I'm
| just wondering if you can provide a source for this?
|
| > They have also indicated that getting vaccinated does not
| reduce your ability to spread the virus
| wonderwonder wrote:
| https://www.deseret.com/coronavirus/2021/12/28/22855392/full.
| ..
|
| I said "does not reduce" I meant to say "does not remove". My
| fault.
| EMM_386 wrote:
| I'm double vaxxed and boosted and just spent 4 days in the
| hospital with Covid.
|
| 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.
| zwieback wrote:
| Whoa, that sounds awful, glad you made it through.
|
| 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.
| supernova87a wrote:
| I don't quite understand -- you went to the hospital for what
| original reason then, if it wasn't Covid?
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| One of the many reasons we had hospitals before covid? I'm
| not the person you asked but I don't see why it matters what
| their specific health concern was. There are many reasons to
| go to a hospital both emergency and not.
| supernova87a wrote:
| I'm just trying to understand, they went to the hospital
| for a totally unrelated reason to Covid or even suspicion
| of Covid, and then contracted Covid at the hospital.
| bserge wrote:
| bb123 wrote:
| Let the chips fall where they may == "I survived with no
| consequences so I don't care what happens to anyone else"
| fourstar wrote:
| Yes, I believe this is called _checks notes_ survival of the
| fittest.
| namarie wrote:
| So you're just straight up defending eugenics?
| bb123 wrote:
| No it's called _checks notes_ being a selfish asshole.
| fourstar wrote:
| Here's a good song for you:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnlPtaPxXfc
| [deleted]
| zarzavat wrote:
| That's an uncharitable reading of it. A charitable reading of
| it might be "We've done everything we can do, there's nothing
| left to do now but roll the dice"
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| But there's a lot we can do concerning vaccinations,
| mandates and social distancing. I'm not sure why it's on
| the reader to fish for a charitable reading of a comment
| devoid of any nuance.
| rytcio wrote:
| > vaccinations
|
| 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.
| hypfer wrote:
| > Yea lets put everyone under house arrest for the rest
| of their lives.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Because those social distancing and other mandates don't
| acknowledge that Covid is here forever. We cannot
| continue to live under these kinds of mitigations for a
| virus that will be here forever.
| CountDrewku wrote:
| How does anything he does from here on out have any
| consequence on other people's decisions?
|
| 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.
| bb123 wrote:
| Im typing this from an airport so im not sure what you mean
| about not being able to handle going out, or who my ilk is
| (people haven't had Covid yet?). The selfish part of his
| statement is this - because he is no longer personally at
| risk, he no longer supports any measures to protect those
| who still are. How hard is that to understand?
| spookthesunset wrote:
| It is super selfish to except society to continue to
| cater to the fears of fully vaccinated individuals. If
| people are scared, they can double mask up, wear
| protection and go outside or not. It's not cool to expect
| society to continue playing this game. Vaccinations were
| the end of the road.
| firstplacelast wrote:
| That's the most American-possible sentiment, so what's wrong
| with it?
|
| 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.
| peregren wrote:
| The vaccine may have kept you out of ICU. It doesn't seem
| logical to change to a "let the chips fall where they may"
| based on this experience.
| newsclues wrote:
| It doesn't make sense that individuals can do everything to
| be safe and the the hospital of all places is where they get
| sick.
|
| 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.
| ya_throw wrote:
| Of course hospitals are incapable of keeping you safe from
| an airbourne respiratory virus. Nothing can, short of a
| respirator.
|
| 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...
| iam-TJ wrote:
| In mid 2020 in the UK, The National Health Service (NHS)
| began introducing "green" and "ultra-green" pathways, and
| designating zones or entire hospitals as 'green' (CoVid-19
| free) sites. 'Green' and 'ultra-green' refer to CoViD-19
| prevention measures in the 14 days preceding non-emergency
| admissions and the status of zones (or entire sites) at the
| hospital during and after treatment.
|
| This was to ensure non-emergency admissions could continue
| without risking infection.
| alistairSH wrote:
| You can't reasonably maintain social-distance at the
| hospital. Pretty much by definition, you're in contact with
| several nurses and doctors per day, plus orderlies and
| various other staff. And that's the baseline. Add guests,
| other patients, and over-crowding (in some locations).
| ojilles wrote:
| It's not a new phenomena [1]. I do not think "hospitals are
| incapable of keeping people safe from Covid" is the best
| expression. I think "encountering any humans bears
| increased risk in Covid times", regardless if those humans
| work in a hospital (although, arguably lower risk) versus a
| shoe store.
|
| [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5414085/
| dahfizz wrote:
| It calls into question the effectiveness of all the Covid
| countermeasures. A triple vaxxed person, following all
| masking and distancing requirements, in a highly
| controlled environment still gets Covid. It makes you
| feel a bit like... What's the point? Do we realistically
| have any tools that slow the spread of Omicron?
|
| 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!"
| newsclues wrote:
| A) Covid is probably airborne and refusal to admit as
| such and this upgrade hvac is potentially an ignored
| reality
|
| 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?
| dekhn wrote:
| at this point I want better public health evidence from CDC
| etc that "the vaccine may have kept you out of the ICU". I
| need better quantification of the various risks before
| continuing to live an extremely inconvenient lifestyle to
| ostensibly save other's lives.
| wombatpm wrote:
| Here is where the details of COVID matter. Is it just a
| respiratory disease where once you are past the acute phase
| you are fine, or is it a multisystem disease where the long
| term consequences (kidney, heart, brain, blood clotting
| issues) we be on the rise for years and decades to come?
| The long term consequences (WHICH NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE)
| are frightening.
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| This information is very easy to find. See the first chart
| here:
|
| 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.
| gallamine wrote:
| Honest question, but don't we still lack the denominator
| of the ratio: (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)
|
| But, those are different types of information.
| dekhn wrote:
| yes, exactly. I am getitng tired of people citing CDC
| facts that don't answer (quantitatively) which of any of
| actions are actually useful.
|
| 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.
| dekhn wrote:
| At this point I don't really think that pointing at CDC
| public health releases is going to convince a scientist
| like me. Also, the data you pointed at doesn't directly
| answer what I said (nearly all data is ambiguous, there
| are a ton of confounders, etc).
|
| 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.
| gitgrump wrote:
| > at this point I want better public health evidence from
| CDC
|
| > 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.
| dekhn wrote:
| this is a forum, not a logician's debate club
| gitgrump wrote:
| And we're having a discussion. You asked for proof, then
| said it wasn't good enough. So why ask for it in the
| first place?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Again:
|
| > 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.
| dekhn wrote:
| I don't disagree with the directionality you describe but
| look at the case rates and hospitizalization numbers-
| even the most highly vaccinated areas of the country are
| still heavily impacted. Omicron changed everything and
| our reporting hasn't caught up.
|
| 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.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Thus far, every indication we have is that there's a
| successful decoupling of cases and hospitalization/death.
| Omicron's been in South Africa long enough for the
| lagging indicators of hospitalization/death. They remain
| low.
|
| Good examples here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health
| /interactive/2022/omicr...
|
| Screenshotted here due to paywall:
| https://imgur.com/a/gk73qDy
| dekhn wrote:
| what you're describing is mostly intrinsic to omicron,
| not vaccines.
| jsiaajdsdaa wrote:
| I am not sure if your assertion is true. I am completely
| unvaccinated and at times also ran a heart rate above 120
| (involuntarily) and a fever above 102.
|
| 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.
| cableshaft wrote:
| Different people have different reactions to Covid. That's
| true of both unvaccinated and vaccinated. But the data has
| been pretty clear that vaccinated has resulted in a lot
| less hospitalizations and death for those that take it.
|
| 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.
| jsiaajdsdaa wrote:
| Had you gone to the emergency room in lower areas of New
| York, you would have been accepted through triage (but
| not "admitted overnight"), given an EKG, given an
| albuterol nebulizer treatment, told to continue these
| treatments every 2 hours at home until feeling better. If
| the nebulizer fails to help your breathing at that
| interval, you would be told to return. And if you
| developed pneumonia, you'd be given an antibiotic.
|
| How do I know? This is exactly what happened to my wife.
| cableshaft wrote:
| That sucks for sure, and I'm sorry that happened to your
| wife, although at least you got a little information from
| that and hopefully if your wife was in worse shape they
| would have identified that at that time and admitted her.
|
| 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.
| cryptonector wrote:
| You can never know if the vaccine made it less bad. If
| you don't like anecdotes about how tame covid was w/o
| vaccines, don't say things like "it would have been worse
| w/o the vaccine".
| gitgrump wrote:
| But statistically it is. Unvaccinated people die more.
| Vaccinated people die less. You can't _know_ in a
| meaningful sense in your specific instance, but your risk
| is what it is no matter what. I'm not sure what's hard
| about this.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Sources please. Include the ones that get censored.
| gitgrump wrote:
| I'm not going to prove to you that vaccines work, sorry.
| Do your own homework, but remember that you're (probably)
| not an immunologist. Do what thou wilt.
| gitgrump wrote:
| Risk after-the-fact doesn't work like that. Probabilities
| cease to be probabilities after the event happened. Plus,
| don't forget about all of the dead people who are unable to
| write posts like this. I'm glad you're okay, but as the
| sibling comment said, your risk was higher, especially
| being overweight and asthmatic. If you win a slot machine
| one time, it doesn't mean everyone else will also win the
| slot machine. Getting lucky doesn't mean there was never
| any risk, it just means you got lucky this time.
| JPKab wrote:
| Just a note for anyone reading this but if you want to take
| a pain reliever for covid infection, apparently aspirin is
| an ideal one because the feature of preventing blood clots
| is very useful in preventing the fairly rare but serious
| covid complications caused by microclots.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| But maybe not if you're young. Aspirin is associated with
| Reye Syndrome in children with viral infections. Not sure
| I've seen whether this has been shown to be the case or
| not with COVID, but basically nobody gives their kids
| aspirin anymore so I'm not sure if it's been an issue.
| jsiaajdsdaa wrote:
| My doctor personally told me that Advil, Tylenol, Aleve,
| and Aspirin are all acceptable.
|
| Anecdotally, Advil worked much better than Tylenol. Advil
| made the body aches stay away for 6 hours, while Tylenol
| was more like 2 hours.
| khazhoux wrote:
| He/she didn't deny that the vaccine kept him out of ICU.
|
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| We all know the gameplan.
|
| 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.
| holbrad wrote:
| I think answer to #3 is no and in fact in hindsight
| should have always been no.
|
| 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".
| thomascgalvin wrote:
| > The big question right now is if we should push
| button#3 [lockdowns].
|
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/rxwnbl/i_am_a_new_y
| ork...
|
| 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.
| holbrad wrote:
| If people aren't getting COVID and are staying at home
| because of a shutdown, then this exact same situation
| happens again just later in time... (After the school
| shutdown)
| dragontamer wrote:
| No it isn't.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| You might find this video interesting:
| https://youtu.be/7s4Tp6MNhHw
|
| 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.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Let's be clear on this: The majority of humanity is not
| okay with the idea of wearing masks full-time in all
| public places, and shutting down densely populated
| activities forever.
|
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Except there are _so_ many options in between Nos. 2 and
| 3. Reduced capacity. Outdoor dining. Testing
| requirements. As well as the wide, wide gulf between
| total lockdowns and selective ones.
| dragontamer wrote:
| That's true.
|
| 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.
| khazhoux wrote:
| I'm still pissed that in California we handled the
| possible in-between steps so clumsily.
|
| 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.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Where the hell are you that this is your reality? Here in
| Texas it is absolutely not the case that "but things
| really are that bad now that we're contemplating pushing
| the button".
| khazhoux wrote:
| Is that because Texas numbers are good (I'm pretty sure
| they're not) or because Texas would never contemplate
| that button?
| dahfizz wrote:
| Texas has much lower per capita cases and deaths than a
| state like New York. But I also suspect that Texas values
| freedom relative to safety much higher than states like
| New York.
| epakai wrote:
| Texas leadership is focused on performing for their
| constituents. That relegates the contemplation to
| progressive city/county leadership who are willing to
| push back on statewide policy when the numbers get bad.
|
| 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.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Both.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Until when? Until covid goes away (which Biden implied
| earlier this year, that the reason we still have covid is
| because of the unvaccinated)? Vaccines seem to do nothing
| to infections, it only reduces the risk of
| hospitalisation and death. In the UK the % of positive
| cases that are vaccinated is pretty much the same than
| the % of people vaccinated in the population. Covid isn't
| going away.
|
| So are you suggesting vaccines, masks and lockdowns
| forever? I don't think many will agree to that. I certain
| don't.
| dragontamer wrote:
| If this is our new reality then this is our new reality.
|
| 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.
| cm2187 wrote:
| I don't know the situation in the US, but here in the UK,
| the only reason there is a strain on hospitals is not
| because of high hospital admissions, they aren't
| particularly high. It is because of mandatory self-
| quarantine requirement for hospital staff who test
| positive, which result in staff shortage. We wouldn't do
| that with a cold, and this variant, at least to the
| vaccinated, is little more than a cold.
| vkou wrote:
| The strain on your hospitals and morgues could be much
| higher, if only those COVID-positive healthcare workers
| were at work, infecting their colleagues and patients.
|
| I'm not sure that's an outcome you want, though.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Clearly if all doctors stay home sick, then it will lead
| to many more deaths than if they all came in with COVID.
|
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| I'm not so conspiracy minded typically.
|
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| For crying out loud man...
|
| 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_.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| It seems like you misunderstand what people are calling
| for. It doesn't make sense for a triple-vaxxed,
| asymptomatic, positive test to be quarantined for ten
| days. We have rapid tests that are very good at
| determining whether people are actually infectious. We
| can use those to return asymptomatic people to work
| faster with minimal risk of spread.
| dragontamer wrote:
| In the USA, we've already changed our guidance to 5-day
| quarantines. So as usual, my words are USA-focused and
| based off of our current US-politics.
|
| 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/he
| y_cdc_im_...
|
| Frankly, we're erring on the side of "too short a
| quarantine" right now in the USA with these 5-day
| periods.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| > There seem to be people arguing for the COVID19 sick
| doctors/nurses to come in and work as usual, even with
| symptoms.
|
| I'm sure people are arguing for that somewhere, but it
| doesn't seem like it's anywhere I can see in this thread.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Fair. As I said, a lot of what I say is aimed at what I'm
| feeling in public, not necessarily what someone else has
| said here.
|
| Please give the /r/nursing topic I posted in as an edit a
| review.
| godshatter wrote:
| >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.
|
| 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.
| contravariant wrote:
| Those are actions, they do not form a plan.
|
| 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.
| JSavageOne wrote:
| Shocking to me that "lockdown", ie. population-wide
| government-mandated house arrest, was ever accepted by
| the public as a viable option.
|
| COVID-19 doesn't effectively transmit outside, so mask
| mandates outside are at best useless.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > 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.
| throw10920 wrote:
| OP's exact words were "COVID-19 doesn't effectively
| transmit outside". Read the "effectively" - he's clearly
| not saying that it doesn't transmit _at all_ (obviously
| it does if you go outdoors and then cough right into
| someone else 's face from two inches away), just that it
| doesn't do so effectively.
|
| 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.
| JSavageOne wrote:
| Straight from your article:
|
| "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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| You're saying that 33% of _ALL_ deer in Ohio were
| drinking from contaminated water?
|
| Maybe the original case came from water, but we all know
| that COVID19 is primarily a respiratory virus that
| spreads by breath and air.
| zarzavat wrote:
| It certainly seems likely that deer engage in behaviours
| outside that humans do not, that leads to much closer
| contact. I can think of at least one such behaviour. I
| don't think that wild animals are a good model for human
| epidemiology.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Occam's razor is that COVID-19 spreads in the outdoors.
| throw10920 wrote:
| This is a pretty blatant strawman - OP's exact words were
| "COVID-19 doesn't _effectively_ transmit outside "
| (emphasis added), not that it doesn't transmit at all.
| dragontamer wrote:
| The number of deer who've caught COVID19 in Ohio seems to
| suggest otherwise.
|
| 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.
| throw10920 wrote:
| > The number of deer who've caught COVID19 in Ohio seems
| to suggest otherwise.
|
| 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. 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 _revised_ claim
| in this comment, but definitely not the comment you
| originally invoked the Razor in.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29883621
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29880284
| SheepSlapper wrote:
| https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2021/08/how-
| safe-ou...
|
| "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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Define "outside".
|
| 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.
| throw10920 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| > 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > On the other side of "ridiculous": 6 feet of "social
| distancing" wasn't enough to begin with
|
| 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.
| SheepSlapper wrote:
| > Define "outside".
|
| 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.
| bingohbangoh wrote:
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > The countries that have locked down the hardest (eg
| Australia, Canada) have seen no improvement relative to
| those with no lockdowns (e.g. Florida, Texas).
|
| This is a laughable assertion.
|
| Florida has 650 deaths per 100k people. Australia has 9.4
| deaths per 100k people.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| What is the demographic difference between Florida and
| all of Australia? When I visit Florida it seems like half
| the population is at least 80 years old, but maybe that's
| just my impression.
| bingohbangoh wrote:
| Age adjusted, Florida is the 11th highest death rate in
| the US. NY is the highest iirc.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Pick any US state and there's at least a roughly 10x
| higher death rate than Australia. Nationally, the US is
| at 254/100k.
| dntrkv wrote:
| In the US, there is no political capital left to even
| attempt number 3. Not gonna happen.
| kbos87 wrote:
| I put myself firmly in the camp of "vaxxed, boosted, and
| done", and I'd say that's the attitude of more people
| than we all might think.
|
| 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.
| Ichthypresbyter wrote:
| Plus of course in bars and restaurants they are pointless
| theater- wearing a mask to walk to your table, then
| taking it off to eat, drink and talk loudly for several
| hours, does precisely nothing.
| cure wrote:
| Sigh. This is wrong, and I wonder why it is so hard to
| understand that it's all about probabilities.
|
| 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.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| So what? Why is Covid the single only thing that matters.
| Covid is endemic. Mandating masks says "Covid is
| literally the most important thing for you".
|
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Keeping a mask off your face while indoors is that
| important to you?
|
| 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.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Yes. I like to see faces. I like to smile at my daughter
| and see her face and have her see mine.
|
| Masks are absolutely corrosive to society. They should
| have stayed off last June.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Were smiles banned or something? I've smiled to my niece
| and she smiled back to me last time I checked.
|
| But in public, its important to reduce the
| hospitalization rate and COVID19 rate of spread.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Except at a restaurant, the unmasked time is closer to
| 95%-99%, depending on how long it takes to get a table,
| and then how long you're there.
|
| 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".
| dragontamer wrote:
| Were you really eating for all 40 minutes?
|
| 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.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Agreed on the masks in bars/restaurants just being
| theater, but the alternative was never going to be masks
| not being required, it would be that indoor dining
| wouldn't be permitted.
| jmull wrote:
| > But once vaxxed+boosted, what more realistically can we
| do?
|
| ffs, wear a mask.
| khazhoux wrote:
| TBH, I consider wearing a mask to be so low-effort, I
| take it for granted. I know for many other people in this
| country that's not the case at all, and wearing a mask to
| the grocery store for them is somehow akin to wearing a
| 20-pound iron ball chained to their ankle. But to me (and
| my family), a mask isn't a big deal.
|
| 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.
| millzlane wrote:
| Stay away from people who don't take the pandemic
| seriously, and take every precaution you know you would
| take if this virus was any more serious. We all knew what
| to expect. Sure it sucks, but would you rather catch the
| virus?
| [deleted]
| Melatonic wrote:
| In many countries in Asia it was already considered polite
| to wear a mask if you got sick. Got a cold and coughing
| everywhere? Wear a mask so your not spewing droplets all
| over your coworkers and people at the store.
|
| I am hoping that trend continues in the western world but
| who really knows
| chrischen wrote:
| Was the hospital stay a precaution or was it medically
| necessary?
| zzzeek wrote:
| wow, you just had a really awful covid experience _despite_
| having all preventive measures in place, and now that you 're
| "done" it's time to take off the masks for everyone?
|
| 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
| yupper32 wrote:
| > 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?
| burkaman wrote:
| I mean, my stance on seatbelts is never going to change
| even if car accidents never stop happening. I have no idea
| how I'll feel about masks and everything else in 3 years,
| but for the moment it's not crazy to say "I think we should
| keep taking precautions as long as the problem still
| exists".
| mbg721 wrote:
| The ideas that masks are new and the need for them
| doesn't have a clear end-date are the major reasons why
| the opposition is so insistent. After drugs and terror,
| the West and especially the US have run out of appetite
| for endless, unwinnable wars.
|
| (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.)
| burkaman wrote:
| I get it, I'm just trying to explain that my reaction to
| "this is lasting longer than we thought it would" is "I
| guess the precautions will have to last longer as well",
| and I believe that is a reasonable reaction. I don't find
| it difficult to accept that nobody knows when it will
| end. That's just how it is, we're in a pandemic, it
| sucks. I don't have any more appetite for it than anyone
| else, I hate it.
| mbg721 wrote:
| Covid also happened at the same time as a bunch of other
| political/media holy-wars, which is why it's so bizarrely
| an us vs. them issue in the US. If seat-belts had been
| advocated by people half the country considered
| untrustworthy for unrelated reasons, they wouldn't be so
| universal today.
| burkaman wrote:
| Isn't that basically what happened with seatbelts? For
| example: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-
| xpm-1986-06-29-86020803...
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| yupper32 wrote:
| If Covid restrictions were as easy and inconsequential as
| seatbelts, I wouldn't have an issue doing it
| indefinitely. But they're not even close.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| The false equivalencies in this thread are _astounding_.
| namarie wrote:
| Masks in particular are pretty easy and inconsequential.
| zzzeek wrote:
| it's not possible for things to "stay the same" because
| long covid will have been studied for years and there will
| be tons of data on it regarding what effect vaccines have
| upon it, what different variants do as far as long covid,
| etc. hopefully it will be well established that long covid
| is preventable by vaccines and/or new treatments have been
| developed and/or more evidence that "long covid" is not
| actually permanent will have been reached.
|
| 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.
| lambdaba wrote:
| Not accusing the parent of this, but there is a significant
| portion of the population that would be quite content that
| this doesn't go away ever.
| zzzeek wrote:
| name any evidence whatsoever of this. this is a toxic
| viewpoint that conservatives seem to hold which is that
| liberals/antifa/others somehow "like" covid, or that
| governments somehow "want" to shut schools down. I see
| this viewpoint quite a bit and it is completely insane
| and not based in any reality at all.
|
| 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.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I seriously question that. Are there some? Sure. A
| significant portion? Barring evidence, no.
| lambdaba wrote:
| There's a lot of people that like masks, staying home, a
| lot of people that like that others are being forced to
| do things ("political enemies"), etc. I think it's more
| than most suppose, and they are vocal, too.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| My read is that yes, they are vocal, but precisely
| _because_ they are vocal it is easy to overestimate how
| numerous they are.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Yes. Worse the policy makers continue to listen to them
| instead of everybody who has moved on. We are held
| hostage by societies most fearful.
| zzzeek wrote:
| ive liked to stay home for decades and because of that i
| tend not to travel much. covid has nothing to do with
| that? why would i wish a certain lifestyle on other
| people? also "political enemies" who disagree with covid
| restrictions arent forced to do anything, they are
| walking around unvaccinated, unmasked, filling up the
| hospitals and crushing the healthcare system with
| abandon. Nobody is coming after them.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Tons of people love this stuff. I see it all around where
| I live. It's like a fashion statement to them.
| ryandrake wrote:
| People's stances should change as reality and conditions on
| the ground change, not based on some arbitrary number of
| months/years pulled out of the sky. What makes 3 years
| special, or 5 years? We may be at the very beginning of a
| COVID decade or even century. Do you know for sure how long
| this will last? Does anyone? Part of why we can't get past
| this thing is politicians declaring "We must be back to
| normal in [TIMEFRAME X]" where TIMEFRAME X was arbitrarily
| chosen and has nothing to do with reality.
| yupper32 wrote:
| I picked arbitrary time frames in my question because at
| some point people are going to give up, regardless of the
| conditions on the ground. A massive amount of people have
| already given up.
|
| 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.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I see. Yea, I mean the only answer that really makes
| sense is "when it's over"--by some arguable definition of
| over. If they say "Well, I'll deal with it for 3 years
| but on year 4, that's it--I'm just going to give up, and
| pretend it's over." then I would: a) question where they
| got that number 4--what it's based on, and b) ask, if
| you're willing to ignore reality and just pretend it's
| over, why not just start pretending now?
| yupper32 wrote:
| > Yea, I mean the only answer that really makes sense is
| "when it's over"
|
| 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.
| irrational wrote:
| I'm somewhat concerned by this notion that eventually everyone
| will get the Omicron variant. I personally do not have any family
| members, friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc. that have gotten any
| form of Covid (that I know of), much less died. We've all
| continued to wear masks and social distance and have gotten
| vaccinated. None of us has even had a little cold in 2 years! I
| hope that "everyone will eventually get the Omicron variant" is
| not true.
| andrewclunn wrote:
| So many commentators who say, "Your suffering is an indication
| that the vaccine worked!" or "That's the exception that proves,
| the rule! Look at this science!" when people raise concerns with
| the objectivity of our scientific institutions themselves. I am
| having a hard time distinguishing between these people and the
| thousands of CPP affiliated commenters that come on every YouTube
| video related to Chinese propaganda and policy. Here's a much
| better quote for this situation:
|
| "Who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" - Groucho Marx
| kerneloftruth wrote:
| "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. But this virus doesn't stop. Year over year,
| the infections don't decrease. Instead, virulence for people like
| me is decreasing, either because the virus is changing, or
| because of growing population immunity, or both. Americans should
| stop pointlessly guilting themselves about all these cases."
|
| 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.
| JPKab wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| 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.
| chmod600 wrote:
| Covid is no longer an emergency. It's been two years.
|
| 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.
| jpm_sd wrote:
| I wish I could feel "vaxxed and done". My whole extended family
| is vaccinated and everyone who's old enough is boostered.
|
| 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?
| __blockcipher__ wrote:
| This is an artifact of the refusal to admit that SARS-2 is an
| endemic respiratory virus. If you have to isolate whenever you
| encounter a possible COVID exposure, it will always be
| untenable to be able to actually function as a society. We need
| to go back to the way it always was in pre-COVID times: you
| stay home when you're sick, but you don't drop everything and
| stop the world if a friend of yours gets the flu, or
| adenovirus, or any of the other 4 circulating hCoVs, etc
| Miner49er wrote:
| 2 weeks? Didn't the CDC change it to 5 days?
| jpm_sd wrote:
| My mistake, the requirement is currently 10 days, not 2
| weeks. But it's up to the school district, things don't
| change overnight just because the CDC changed their
| recommendations.
| hcrisp wrote:
| Nit: "Boostered" is not a word. "Boosted" is [0]. This is
| similar to when I hear people say "orientate" instead of simply
| "orient". We don't need to over-Latinize when simpler speech
| will do.
|
| [0] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/boosted
| outside1234 wrote:
| Its time to move on. Everyone has had a chance to get vaccinated
| and boosted that is at high risk (under 5s are not at high risk).
| We can't live in our houses forever.
|
| Said another way, the mental health issues with being stuck in
| our houses are much more severe than COVID-19 at this point.
| smm11 wrote:
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post unsubstantive comments, regardless of your
| position on the topic. It degrades discussion and evokes worse
| from others.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| tombert wrote:
| Does a comment like this actually contribute to anything? I
| don't want to be mean, but this is a comment that would
| probably be more appropriate on Reddit or 4chan.
|
| That said, a fatalistic viewpoint is valid enough philosophy,
| but I am still in the camp of "even if I don't like them very
| much, the unvaccinated are still humans and we should still try
| and minimize how many of them get sick."
|
| NOTE: I'm vaccinated and boosted, and wouldn't have a problem
| getting another booster if the WHO or CDC recommends it.
| btheshoe wrote:
| It's short and curt, but it seems to present some good ideas
| that can be discussed. If COVID is endemic, then it seems
| mostly pointless to continue COVID restrictions indefinitely.
| I've never bought the "we need COVID restrictions to protect
| unvaccinated people" argument - being vaccinated should
| protect them enough, and unvaccinated people (who won't be
| following restrictions) present a much greater threat to each
| other.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I think the parent comment is relevant to the extent that
| controlling spread is a consensus problem.
|
| E.g., if I knew that a variant will be endemic unless 90% of
| a community follows certain practices, but 40% state they
| won't comply, that matters. If nothing else, it makes it seem
| pointless for me to bother wearing a mask for others'
| protection.
| dekhn wrote:
| It's not a fatalistic viewpoint and it does contribute. This
| disease will always be with us and the sooner we find a way
| to return to semi-normalcy rahter than osciallting around
| every time a new variant with different properties shows up,
| the better.
| tombert wrote:
| > it does contribute.
|
| It really didn't. It reads like something I'd see in a JPG
| compressed meme you'd see on /r/forwardsFromGrandma.
|
| Are you saying that we shouldn't do anything if we see a
| new variant?
|
| > This disease will always be with us
|
| That sounds fatalistic to me, at least with the more
| colloquial use of the word.
|
| To be clear, I don't necessarily think you're wrong. It's a
| valid viewpoint, and I think it's not unreasonable to say
| "the sooner we find a way to return to semi-normalcy rahter
| than osciallting around every time a new variant with
| different properties shows up, the better."
| dekhn wrote:
| It contributes in the sense that we comment here to
| manipulate the opinions of others, and at this point, the
| best and most important message to communicate is "this
| isn't going away no matter how much we science it, so we
| better start planning for the endemic nature".
|
| As for fatalism about a virus- I grew up during HIV/AIDS.
| It's still here (I went into biology and got a PhD and
| almost became a professor to work on anti-HIV drugs). Is
| it fatalistic for us to assume HIV will be with us even
| though we know how to completely abolish transmission,
| but people still do things that lead to transmission?
|
| best to be realistic about the future and plan for it
| than hope vaccines are going to magically solve problems
| for us.
| tombert wrote:
| > As for fatalism about a virus- I grew up during
| HIV/AIDS. It's still here (I went into biology and got a
| PhD and almost became a professor to work on anti-HIV
| drugs). Is it fatalistic for us to assume HIV will be
| with us even though we know how to completely abolish
| transmission, but people still do things that lead to
| transmission?
|
| I don't know anything about the specifics of HIV so I
| cannot speak to it, but we _have_ eradicated one virus
| completely (barring some frozen samples in labs):
| smallpox.
|
| Obviously it's an apples to orange comparison since
| smallpox isn't nearly as transmissible as COVID, but my
| point is that I'm sure that there were people in 1900
| that said "we will never get rid of smallpox".
| dekhn wrote:
| yes, that's true, we have eliminated smallpox. I don't
| think that's in any way some sort of evidence that
| vaccines are generally successful at eliminating
| diseases.
|
| I think what we've seen is that there is likely no chance
| that even 100% vaccination would have permanently
| eliminated the disease, and total lockdowns aren't super-
| effective either, given their heavy societal costs.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| The problem is that "being done" or "being over it" doesn't
| matter. The virus doesn't care how we feel. There are still
| consequences for catching the virus, even if vaxxed. There are
| consequences for spreading it, since vaccination rates in many
| places are low and unvaxxed end up in the ICU and tie up
| resources.
|
| 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.
| standardUser wrote:
| For those who think the addition of boosters is odd or
| suspicious, I suggest looking at the vaccine schedules published
| by the CDC. Not for Covid, but for the dozen or so vaccines most
| of us have already had. There is a lot of variety in how
| different vaccines are scheduled and multiple boosters are very
| common.
|
| 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
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| I'm fully vax'd and boosted. I'll probably continue to get
| boosted in the future. All that said? I feel like the government
| did a _really_ bad job communicating who needs the booster and
| when.
|
| 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.
| yupper32 wrote:
| I still don't understand how people don't get that
| _recommendations change_. It 's like two years in, how are
| people not getting how this works?
| josephcsible wrote:
| Because when the recommendations change, it's usually a "we
| were wrong all along" change, not a "the recommendations were
| right before, but now circumstances have changed" change.
| [deleted]
| sophacles wrote:
| So what you're saying is the government should have predicted
| the future perfectly, and given Post-Omicron guidelines months
| before it emerged?
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Nope. The government knew the vaccines were getting less
| effective back in september. They knew everyone would
| eventually need a booster. If they had put in a plan to get
| that done, I wouldn't have had a problem.
|
| 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.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| The government said, at first, that nobody needed to go out
| and buy masks, because they won't do any good. And then the
| government said you had to wear a mask or you couldn't enter
| into buildings.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| hooande wrote:
| Everyone thought that covid spread via touch back then.
| remember all the hand sanitizer and UV lights? then we
| learned that it was mostly airborne
|
| 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"
| sophacles wrote:
| I think you are reading way more into my response than I
| wrote. I literally rephrased a position specifically about
| the government's communication of booster shots in the form
| of a question highlighting the illogical portion of the
| position.
|
| * 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.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| Your response inferred something from the OP that was
| clearly never implied. Nobody expects perfect knowledge
| of the future, and suggesting the OP was asking for that
| is (charitably) a snarky way of pointing out 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.
| [deleted]
| bluGill wrote:
| It is the they don't do any good communication that is
| irresponsible. There was already evidence otherwise that
| they ignored, and the rest of the statement was based on
| zero evidence.
| thakoppno wrote:
| > "The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really
| effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to
| pass through the material."
|
| 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.
| larkost wrote:
| This was the medical community's censuses at the time.
| Turns out now we know that this hinged on a few
| misunderstandings and generalizations, and have turned
| that corner. But at the time it was the best information
| we had:
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-
| screwu...
| will4274 wrote:
| I'd appreciate if the government could just predict the
| future as well as hacker news. It doesn't need to be perfect.
| Look, they're gonna tell us to get booster again in 2022. I
| know it. You probably know it. Everybody knows it. Why
| haven't the CDC said it?
| majormajor wrote:
| Consistent messaging from the start in a situation where
| information and knowledge is very limited in the start = _not
| learning_.
|
| 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.
| Jiro wrote:
| Changing your mind because of new evidence is good. Changing
| your mind because the evidence is pretty much the same, but
| the previous conclusion has become inconvenient for you, is
| not good.
| toast0 wrote:
| > There would have been so much less confusion if they were
| consistent with their communication from the start.
|
| 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.
| detaro wrote:
| > _What would be nice is if they contemplated and
| acknowledged that the recommendations would be changing._
|
| But they do. E.g. go through https://web.archive.org/web/2021
| 0715000000*/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.
| nerdponx wrote:
| I'll wait until the booster actually becomes specific to the
| current strain. Ideally I'd also like the vaccine to _not_ make
| me sick for 2 days, since most other common vaccines don 't
| (e.g. influenza). But maybe that's just not possible.
|
| 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>
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| That's fine but the booster has shown that it likely incurs
| much longer term stability to immune resistance to all
| current strains that we know about, including omicron. If you
| look up the history of vaccinations you will see similar
| results and why some are carefully spaced apart at certain
| intervals as they train the human immune system
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I think the CDC did as good as you could when you design by
| committee. I didn't have any trouble following their
| recommendations or logic. It was an ongoing problem with
| incomplete knowledge on their part. It's certainly better than
| what Fox News was spewing. Science is ugly, but it is self-
| correcting, Fox and antivax people are not. At least that's how
| I see it.
| ASinclair wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Biden called for a booster dose for everyone in September. The
| CDC and the FDA didn't agree.
| [deleted]
| ren_engineer wrote:
| the bigger problem is that their initial selling point for the
| vaccine was "get your 2 shots and everything goes back to
| normal". Many people grudgingly got it despite some hesitancy
| and now have even less trust of the government now that the
| goal posts are shifting yet again
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| It _COULD_ have been "get your 2 shots and everything goes
| back to normal", but vaccine adoption stalled at about 60%.
| That's not nearly high enough.
|
| 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.
| JoshuaDavid wrote:
| It doesn't take a Ph. D in virology to know that 100% isn't
| it either, now that omicron is in the picture.
|
| 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.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > 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
|
| 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.
| koyote wrote:
| > I sincerely believe that we could have been through
| with this if we had reached 95% vaccination by July.
|
| 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.
| JoshuaDavid wrote:
| > I sincerely believe that _we could have_ been through
| with this if we had reached 95% vaccination by July.
|
| 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.
| elihu wrote:
| In the U.S. it's mostly kids that aren't vaccinated at this
| point. Among people over 18 years of age, 73.3% have at
| least 2 doses and 86.4% have at least 1 according to the
| CDC. Two shots and a booster is obviously better, but the
| number of adults that haven't been vaccinated at all and
| haven't gotten Covid at least once is dwindling.
|
| 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-...
| bluGill wrote:
| If enough people had got their shots worldwide that would
| have worked. However enough is at least 80% of the world
| population, and maybe as much as 95%. There wasn't enough
| supply in the world. If the 95% number is correct kids young
| enough still are not approved to reach that, mutations keep
| making the number higher, though we might need to get a new
| vaccine that covers new variants.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| >If enough people had got their shots worldwide that would
| have worked.
|
| 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...
| bluGill wrote:
| If we had vaccinated soon/fast enough we could have
| prevented the to animal transmission in the first place
| elihu wrote:
| I don't think that's a realistic expectation. If millions
| of people have a highly infectious disease, then it's
| very likely to spread to any wildlife (that aren't
| naturally immune) in the same general area as those
| infected humans. By the time the vaccines were available,
| Covid was basically everywhere.
| mjevans wrote:
| With the Alpha variation of the virus that would have been
| good enough. The study numbers showed someone vaccinated and
| exposed to Alpha had such a low risk of spread that even
| while fighting off the virus they were still safe 'enough' to
| be around.
|
| 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.
| nradov wrote:
| The USA has never had secure borders before. How could
| anyone believe that would be possible now? Have you ever
| actually been to the borders?
| VeninVidiaVicii wrote:
| This is effectively a disconnect between science and public
| policy. Science teaches us to keep our minds open to new data,
| so we can make new conclusions as we go. People just seem to
| get pissed when public policy changes in light of new data,
| lending to the narrative that scientists don't know what
| they're talking about.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I don't object to policy changes in light of new data, but do
| object to policy made based on preliminary data, knowing full
| well that we don't understand everything yet, and then
| changing every few months or even more often, and just
| shouting "SCIENCE!" if anyone questions any of it.
| majormajor wrote:
| What's the alternative to setting policy on preliminary
| data? Are you proposing something like "government should
| never react to anything until 12 months have passed since
| it started happening." So something like COVID just cannot
| be responded to initially?
| [deleted]
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| In an emergent situation, you'll never understand all the
| data in time. Imagine a loved one that's hurt who calls you
| for help after a crash. You could spend time trying to
| figure out their symptoms and their feelings, probing them
| for more information to make an accurate decision so that
| you don't have to actually waste the time to go over to
| them physically. Or you could just go over immediately and
| potentially waste time when it turns out your loved one
| would have been just fine without you. Most people choose
| the latter.
|
| 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.
| drugstorecowboy wrote:
| Wouldn't a closer analogy be a loved one has a crash, so
| you immediately force everyone else to wear driving masks
| to prevent crashes?
| mizzack wrote:
| People are getting pissed that public policy and messaging is
| changing WITHOUT new data.
|
| 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.
| ThinBold wrote:
| The way CDC and media swing between "this Greek letter is
| fine; no mask is fine" and "everyone get your (n+1)th dose
| real quick" is just hilarious.
| VeninVidiaVicii wrote:
| If I've learned anything through this pandemic, it's that
| people are always much more enraged than I could have
| imagined. It seems like everyone's looking for something
| new to focus all their rage onto.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| Public policy and science are not the same thing. Public
| policy has a goal, science doesn't. If your goal were simply
| "stop human transmission of the virus", well science could
| help you come to a policy of exterminating all human life -
| it's scientifically provable that it's the best way to meet
| that goal.
|
| "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?
| twblalock wrote:
| It's not policy change that is the problem, the problem is
| that nobody can figure out what the current policy is because
| the CDC is bad at making announcements.
|
| 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.
| elihu wrote:
| I think that sums it up pretty well: people would be more
| tolerant of the CDC changing their minds on things if it
| was clear how they arrived at their decisions in the first
| place and they say what data they base their decisions on
| and what the trade-offs are.
|
| 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.
| millzlane wrote:
| The fact that recent science can be proven wrong after more
| data come out seems to be some sort of "gotcha!" for them.
| smegsicle wrote:
| "Science" can't be wrong, just the interpretation. And if
| the popular interpreters are frequently wrong, they should
| be called out.
| missblit wrote:
| > Then this new omni variant comes out and they're badgering
| everyone to get boosted NOW or your no longer considered fully
| vaccinated.
|
| 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.
| haswell wrote:
| > _There would have been so much less confusion if they were
| consistent with their communication from the start_
|
| 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.
| jatone wrote:
| incorrect. during unpredictable situations it makes it MORE
| important to be consistent in communication.
|
| 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.
| haswell wrote:
| The impossibility of this is embedded in your opening
| paragraph.
|
| > _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
| jatone wrote:
| it all depends on what particular detail wasn't able to
| be predicted. in this case the need for boosters.
|
| 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.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| It's also true that most governments have not been very clear
| about what they actually wanted to achieve or perhaps more
| accurately have changed the goals over time. There's a big
| difference between eliminating COVID vs coping, for example.
| AniseAbyss wrote:
| To be fair Delta is a very different beast from Omikron.
|
| The virus is mutating so the government strategy has to
| adapt too. Elimination was an option for a while.
| nradov wrote:
| Elimination stopped being an option the moment the first
| infected carrier left Wuhan on an international flight.
| makomk wrote:
| Not necessarily; the first few carriers don't seem to
| have successfully seeded outbreaks, in general it takes a
| few attempts to get a disease like Covid established, and
| almost all countries seem to have stopped it spreading
| directly from China including closely-linked ones like
| Taiwan but also places like the UK and US. As far as I
| can tell something just went really badly wrong in Italy
| that no-one is interesting in examining too closely, and
| when this spread Covid to other countries it was spun as
| proof the other countries had screwed up and failed.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Temporary local eradication was an option for a while,
| before delta: see Australia and New Zealand.
|
| 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.
| will4274 wrote:
| It's easy to blame changing science. Science always changes.
|
| 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.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Exactly. It's quite an unfair criticism, and it keeps being
| applied retroactively to thinks like masking, lockdowns, etc.
| It's like people expect a government to have completely
| knowledge from day 1 of a new virus and all of its mutations
| across all of time.
|
| Throw in politicization of it, tons of non-mutual "facts"
| going around, a heap of anecdotes, and you've got a
| communications nightmare.
| xab31 wrote:
| The problem is that if you communicate to the public at the
| level of normal scientific certainty -- with all the
| methodological and statistical caveats -- it's very hard to
| generate the moral authority needed to push sweeping
| mandates on a population.
|
| 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.
| gattilorenz wrote:
| > It's like people expect a government to have completely
| knowledge from day 1 of a new virus and all of its
| mutations across all of time
|
| 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.
| csdvrx wrote:
| Reposting what I wrote in another thread:
|
| 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.
| Aunche wrote:
| 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
|
| 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.
| nradov wrote:
| The foundation of science is skepticism, not belief.
| _Nullius in verba._
| majormajor wrote:
| Given that you _know_ all the downsides of "wishy washy"
| communication, as well as the downsides of "overly
| certain sounding" communication...
|
| 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.
| gattilorenz wrote:
| I don't know _all_ of either :)
|
| 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.
| azinman2 wrote:
| In the beginning I feel like communication was very much
| about how they're learning more and don't much yet. That
| was pounced on for its non-information, and the
| uncertainty was ignored in the great mask debates in
| early 2020.
|
| 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.
| detaro wrote:
| This announcement of "we're going to have boosters
| (probably)!" (August 2021) seems to cover this quite
| well: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0818-covid
| -19-boost..., as does the then-published first version of
| general booster info page: https://web.archive.org/web/20
| 210821000645/https://www.cdc.g... (later iterations via h
| ttps://web.archive.org/web/20210715000000*/https://www.cd
| c.... )
|
| What would you improve in the message sent? To me it
| seems the parts you ask for are pretty much there?
| gattilorenz wrote:
| Two things to note: I'm not in the US, so my comments are
| based on the communication standards of IT and NL, which
| I follow more closely.
|
| 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.
| romwell wrote:
| >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.
|
| 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.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > For now we think only immunocompromised people will
| need them, but we can't really rule out other options
|
| 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.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I agree overall, but I do think the CDC should've known
| better with masking, at least not to discourage it like
| they did originally in spite of lots of experience in Asia.
| dboreham wrote:
| Discouraging is one thing, but they discouraged with a
| false made up reason (masks don't work). Supposedly their
| real motivations were: if we say to use masks, then
| people will just distance less and spread more; and
| healthcare workers need the masks that do work right now.
| It would have been better if they simply admitted the
| true reasons at the time.
| larkost wrote:
| Remember that in the beginning there was an enormous
| shortfall of the masks that were known to be effective in
| preventing respiratory disease. The CDC (and others) were
| very worried about medical personnel not being able to
| get them, very justifiably in hindsight. Just imagine how
| much worse the (already bad) panic buying of masks would
| have made it if the CDC had told everyone to mask up.
|
| 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...
| ufmace wrote:
| No, it's absolutely right to harp on the CDC for this. If
| you intentionally tell a lie to people in order to
| manipulate them into doing something for what you think
| is the greater good, you set your own reputation on fire.
| The truth about what you did will come out, and for
| everything you say from that point on to pretty much a
| generation of people, everyone will constantly second-
| guess whether you are once again telling a lie to serve
| what you might think is some greater good. Getting a
| semblance of that reputation back is a slow and painful
| process.
|
| 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.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| jquery wrote:
| The Venn diagram of vaccine doubt and racism is a circle for some
| reason.
| cbtacy wrote:
| "Weaponized selfishness"
| elevenoh wrote:
| The data suggests:
|
| Young males with history of heart arrhythmia should be vaxxed.
|
| 90% of pregnant women should be not be vaxxed.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| I've never had a problem with the COVID restrictions or vaccines.
| They're almost comically benign. There are so much more horrible
| things that people are forced to go through every day in this
| country; people who are homeless, who get abused, who don't have
| enough to eat, who risk getting shot or stabbed just walking
| through their neighborhood, who don't have access to
| transportation, education, jobs. Or those who juggle multiple
| jobs, childcare, eldercare, relationships, going paycheck to
| paycheck. I am incredibly lucky to be healthy and safe with a
| steady job.
|
| 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.
| 1121redblackgo wrote:
| Strange thread
| sebow wrote:
| afavour wrote:
| I'm vaxxed. I'm boosted. I'd very much like to be done. But my
| children cannot be vaccinated.
|
| 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.
| ya_throw wrote:
| Are you saying that until young kids can get vaccinated, it is
| not safe enough to remove shutdown protocols for preschools?
|
| 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.
| afavour wrote:
| > Are you saying that until young kids can get vaccinated, it
| is not safe enough to remove shutdown protocols for
| preschools?
|
| 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.
| ya_throw wrote:
| We had RSV do the rounds (twice) where I live, and all of
| us in our house were quite ill, fatigued, and snotty/coughy
| for about a month. Our friend's 6 month-old caught it and
| ended up in hospital.
|
| 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.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I am in the same boat as you. It is crazy to me that we
| accepted the risks of every other RSV, influenza, corona,
| rhino, rota, noro, and whatever other bug going around
| daycare every week prior to Mar 2020, and still do, but
| if a COVID 19 is detected, then the whole thing shuts
| down.
|
| 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.
| ya_throw wrote:
| Yep. Sometimes when I air opinions like these, I get the
| response "but attitudes like that will keep the pandemic
| and shutdowns going for longer!". It's surprisingly hard
| to explain that I also don't want my nursery to shutdown
| if someone merely tests positive for Covid. Personally,
| I've decided to re-brand "asymptomatic" as "not ill".
| pasabagi wrote:
| This sounds like a bad policy on the nursery's part. We
| have a soft lockdown when somebody has a case: basically,
| the group who had a positive test is secluded from the
| other groups and get daily tests.
| ya_throw wrote:
| We know about "soft lockdowns" too (in fact, it's now
| just standard practice around here). It's why our kids
| get less age-appropriate care - for example, they can't
| mix with the groups who share the same sleeping pattern
| as they do, and are forced to stick to whatever their
| "bubble" is doing. To me, this is incredibly
| developmentally inappropriate.
| pasabagi wrote:
| Well, pandemics suck, what's new? It's also bad if the
| kita has to shut down because all the staff are sick. It
| seems like a good balance to me.
| ya_throw wrote:
| What's new is deliberately destroying a generation's
| future potential, for a disease that barely affects them.
| What's also new is that the repercussions of our
| collective response to this disease will be felt long
| after Covid fades to another endemic sniffle.
| BTCOG wrote:
| 100% of people can get these vaccines, and 100% of people
| will still get and spread Coronaviruses. Full stop. It's
| getting really old hearing that vaccines will stop
| anything when the majority of people spreading this shit
| RIGHT NOW, are vaccinated people. The people I've been
| seeing the sickest for a year now when they do get sick,
| are vaccinated. The 3-4 people I know recently who were
| very sick with COVID for 10 or more days with breathing
| troubles, were VACCINATED. The shit is nonsense anymore.
| nostrademons wrote:
| The challenge is the lack of data on long-term effects of
| COVID. Preliminary studies have linked it to cognitive
| declines [1], diabetes [2], and chronic fatigue [3]. And
| while death from COVID in a preschooler is about a
| 1-in-100,000 occurrence, long COVID and other chronic
| outcomes seem to be much more common. I've heard figures of
| about 5% or 1 in 20.
|
| 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/PIIS258
| 9-5...
|
| [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e2.htm
|
| [3] https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-
| region/2022/01/08/lo...
| philote wrote:
| Just curious, have you seen any studies or evidence on
| whether omicron has caused the micro-clotting that seems to
| be the cause of some of these long-term effects? Everyone
| seems to be saying the effects of omicron are not as bad,
| but that talk seems to be limited to short-term effects,
| not the longer-term ones you brought up.
| DannyCasolaro wrote:
| Like much of what the CDC puts out these days (e.g.
| "natural immunity is less effective than vaccine-induced"),
| their diabetes study is junk science:
| https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/does-
| covid19-cause-d...
| [deleted]
| 8note wrote:
| Ok, but what are the long term effects of every other virus
| preschoolers could get? I doubt that covid is unique in
| that respect
| nostrademons wrote:
| Those are not insubstantial:
|
| 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.
| bonzini wrote:
| Mononucleosis is caused by the Epstein-Barr virus, not by
| CMV.
| jquery wrote:
| Worst illness I've ever had. Probably. Knocked me out
| cold for six weeks, lingering symptoms for months and
| months. All to play a stupid spin the bottle kissing
| game.
| antihipocrat wrote:
| It looks to me like most people here are making the same
| argument, just applying it to different sides of the
| debate.
|
| There is a lack of data on the long term effects of the
| disease, as well as the recommended treatment.
| a45a33s wrote:
| what are the long term effects of all the other BS young
| kids are subjected to as a result of all of this?
| nradov wrote:
| The diabetes study you cited appears to be junk science.
| I'm not claiming that COVID-19 absolutely doesn't cause
| diabetes, just that we won't know one way or another until
| larger studies are performed with proper methods.
|
| https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/does-
| covid19-cause-d...
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Also, color me incredulous that we're getting reliable
| long term data... 2 years after a disease appeared in
| humans.
|
| 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?
| nostrademons wrote:
| The CDC study does have methodological problems, but
| there's also been prior research that suggests similar
| effects (in more severely ill patients), as well as
| observing destruction of insulin-creating pancreas cells
| by COVID19. Here's a meta-analysis of 8 studies on the
| topic, with similar conclusions, done across China,
| Italy, and the U.S.:
|
| https://dom-
| pubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dom.142...
| ya_throw wrote:
| Where have you heard those figures from? (I assume you are
| telling me that 5% of pre-schoolers, in your experience,
| have had chronic outcomes from Covid).
|
| 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...
| nostrademons wrote:
| I listed sources in my original comment. From the first
| link, they observed 4.8% of lab-confirmed cases exhibited
| continuing symptoms, and the average effect on cognitive
| performance was 0.47 standard deviations (equivalent to
| about 8 IQ points, or roughly the effect of a stroke).
| The CDC study has some methodological problems (detailed
| in nradov & DannyCasolaro's sibling posts), but previous
| meta-analyses have documented similar effects; they
| covered only severely-ill patients, but came up with a
| pooled proportion of 14%. Chronic fatigue is reported as
| a symptom 6 months following in 46% of cases [2], but
| again, that study is for adults.
|
| [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/11/18/
| 1055071...
|
| [2] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/11/6/760
| ya_throw wrote:
| >that study is for adults
|
| 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.
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| A young child faces far more risk of dying in a car crash on
| the way to pre-school or Chuck-E-Cheese than they do of covid,
| but I'll wager you didn't give up driving your kid around. Your
| child could get struck by lightning, or get bitten by a rabid
| racoon, but (hopefully) you don't dwell on the risks and live
| your life paralyzed in fear by them (yes, these risks are the
| same order of magnitude of a child dying from COVID). The same
| goes for having your infant or young child injected with
| experimental vaccines, whose long-term effects are just as
| unknown and unknowable as COVID.
| rajup wrote:
| Just fyi a cough persisting for a few weeks after an initial
| infection is nothing new at all (COVID or otherwise). I have
| suffered a few weeks of persistent cough after a
| viral/bacterial respiratory infection pre-pandemic and
| unfortunately am suffering right now with an annoying cough.
| But it will go away in a couple of weeks.
| robbrown451 wrote:
| The daycare / preschool shutdowns, though, are simply because
| others haven't yet adopted the "vaxxed and done" attitude.
|
| 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.
| rhino369 wrote:
| You'll drive yourself crazy focusing on every minor risk for
| children. COVID risk for unvaxed kids is the same as fully
| vaxed 40 years and much lower than fully vaxed seniors.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| a45a33s wrote:
| lol well they already got rid of the control group at the
| beginning of the original trials
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| aklemm wrote:
| Right on, and I can't believe how seldom it's heard. The
| current work-life-society bargain is terrible and we should
| expect terrible results until it's re-negotiated.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Those in power (and many of the population on HN, I dare
| bet) have nannies, au-pairs and other forms of easing the
| load of child raising, so they don't feel the pressures.
|
| 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).
| aklemm wrote:
| And the "family values" folks, oddly, are no help.
| mizzack wrote:
| You've got your anecdotes, and I've got mine. My 3 young kids
| all caught omicron last week. Each were lethargic for a day,
| had a minor sore throat, and were back to normal in a day or
| two. The flu last month was way scarier with high fevers.
|
| There's a lot of reason to be optimistic about omicron.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| What about "long COVID"? There are some studies suggesting
| sudden spikes in kids becoming diabetic after having COVID.
| These long term health impacts will take years to be known
| and fully understood. Getting COVID is to be avoided at all
| costs, IMO.
| ballenf wrote:
| > Getting COVID is to be avoided at all costs
|
| 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?
| adlorger wrote:
| my read of the diabetes tie is that it is unlikely that
| covid causes diabetes but rather that the causality could
| be both ways, with obesity or other medical confounders
| making Covid experiences more severe.
|
| 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.
| artursapek wrote:
| There's no avoiding it.
| beamatronic wrote:
| That's an unproductive, defeatist attitude.
|
| With proper discipline, it is straightforward to avoid
| it.
| hnuser847 wrote:
| A scientific research station in Antartica was recently
| hit with a COVID outbreak[1]. 11 workers caught the
| virus. If the most remote human settlement on Earth can't
| protect itself from COVID, what makes you think anyone
| else can?
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59848160
| beamatronic wrote:
| Their discipline was insufficient
| artursapek wrote:
| This virus will probably be around and mutating forever,
| like the flu. It's impractical to try to avoid catching
| the flu virus for the rest of your life, just as with
| COVID. Sure it's possible, but that's no way to live.
| beamatronic wrote:
| I'm willing to wear a mask indoors, whenever I am around
| people outside my household, forever. I'm also willing to
| get booster vaccines every 6 months forever. I'm pretty
| ok with giving up indoor dining in restaurants as well.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| I agree with all these points. Wearing masks is now
| normalized so the likelihood of getting flu is also
| greatly reduced. Also, the disgusting handshaking habit
| is gone as well. Many wins.
| freewinz wrote:
| THIS is the defeatist attitude, not the other way around.
| I am not willing to get lackluster boosters every 6
| months - leaky vaccines that likely caused omicron and
| that have the highest rate of VAERS reports ever. Are
| people really this misinformed?
| nradov wrote:
| No one will be able to avoid exposure. Measures like
| social distancing and masks aren't sustainable, and
| they're not completely effective either. Fortunately the
| vaccines and other treatments are very effective at
| preventing deaths.
|
| https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
| hiptobecubic wrote:
| Do we _need_ anecdotes though? We have a lot of data.
| kimmeld wrote:
| asabjorn wrote:
| Singapore as well as Gibraltar are nearly 100% vaccinated,
| but are still seeing huge covid outbreaks.
|
| The best option is early treatment by stocking up on one
| out of several early treatments that exist and locating a
| hospital that will give monoclonal antibodies in case your
| kid gets Delta. Learn more about early treatment options
| and the science around them here [1]
|
| [1] https://open.spotify.com/episode/0aZte37vtFTkYT7b0b04Qz
| ?si=-...
| nradov wrote:
| The Delta variant is nearly extinct. Omicron has taken
| over.
|
| https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#nowcasting
| tanseydavid wrote:
| >> That's why we are still in this pandemic. Too many
| selfish assholes.
|
| Are you really saying that 'suggesting optimism' is
| equivalent to being a "selfish asshole"? I do not
| understand your application of logic here.
|
| Are you also saying that a particular course-of-action
| would have resulted in an "end to the pandemic" by this
| point in time?
| [deleted]
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| The parent comment kind of came off as "why are you
| worrying and not more optimistic, _my_ kids are fine "
| which seems like a dismissive way to respond to someone's
| worries about their own kids.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| The problem is the person worried about their kids also
| wants everyone else to worry about their kids.
|
| Problem is I have my own kids to worry about, and I worry
| plenty, just not about covid.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| When someone shares their feelings it doesn't mean they
| want you to feel like they do.
|
| The original comment was expressing frustration with a
| situation that feels like everyone's moving on without
| them. As a person in the same situation I didn't get the
| sense it was trying to scare me at all, and find myself
| similarly frustrated.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| Fair enough.
|
| I guess I've just seen too many people to then use those
| feelings to encourage people getting fired from the jobs
| because they are only putting themselves at risk and not
| getting vaccinated.
|
| I'd encourage you to move on though. I can't see the good
| in worrying about it. To each their own I guess.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Thanks for being reasonable and I appreciate the
| encouragement.
|
| I honestly don't see the good in worrying about much of
| anything, yet I worry all the same. Just another of
| life's frustrations.
| belorn wrote:
| I would be much more concerned about omicron. The flu is very
| unlikely to have any long term effects as long one keep an
| eye on the fever. We don't know about the long term effects
| of omicron.
|
| 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.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| We know omicron spends less time in the lungs, which is
| excellent news
| testplzignore wrote:
| Off the top of my head, influenza can cause permanent
| damage to the lungs, kidneys, heart, and brain (sorry, I'm
| lazy and not providing citations).
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| aaroninsf wrote:
| I sincerely hope they dodge long COVID and related
| consequences like increased risk of childhood diabetes.
|
| 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.")
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| One issue with long covid investigation is that it's often
| poorly defined. A person with anxiety three months after a
| covid case might be said to have long covid. It's worth
| figuring out what portion of the population has anxiety,
| covid infection or not.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| We all know that most people get COVID and then get over it,
| but using a few neutral anecdotes to deny the other issues is
| like trying to invalidate global warming because the weather
| isn't hot where you live. It's not about comparing all of our
| anecdotes.
| gilbetron wrote:
| It's the opposite, actually. People worried about Covid
| with kids are the ones saying that there is no global
| warming because it isn't hot by them. Statistics are
| backing up how little effect Covid has on kids
| (fortunately) - it is anecdotes that are scaring people.
| neuronic wrote:
| ? Consider that SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to increase
| risk for newly diagnosed diabetes in children:
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e2.htm
|
| 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).
| jdminhbg wrote:
| > Consider that SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to increase
| risk for newly diagnosed diabetes in children
|
| 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.
| neuronic wrote:
| You saying "it hasn't been shown" doesn't mean it hasn't
| been shown.
|
| > 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.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| Please note the word "following," which does not mean
| "caused by." The study was not designed to show
| causation, and it does not do so, the CDC's irresponsible
| communication strategy notwithstanding.
| MathCodeLove wrote:
| This is one of those studies where you have to dig a bit
| deeper than what's shown on the surface. Consider:
|
| * 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
| panarky wrote:
| Can't just dismiss the dramatic rise in children
| hospitalized for covid as "anecdotes".
|
| 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...
| timr wrote:
| > In New York, hospitalizations among kids quadrupled.
|
| 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-...
| gilbetron wrote:
| Because an absolutely incredible increase in total cases,
| so of course hospitalizations are going up. However, it
| isn't going up unusually given the number of cases. Also,
| those numbers include kids in the hospital for other
| things, that test positive for covid. Finally, kids get
| put into the hospital quicker if they show issues with
| covid because that's what we do with kids if they are
| significantly affected by any pathogen.
| xkbarkar wrote:
| Ane yet that is what forums like these are mostly about.
| Sharing stories and receive validation.
|
| 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.
| kimmeld wrote:
| My children's health are a risk you are willing to take.
| That's what you are trying to say.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| I empathize with you. Don't worry; you're not alone in
| how you feel.
| austhrow743 wrote:
| We risk your children's health for all sorts of things
| and it would be absurd if we didn't.
| rhino369 wrote:
| There has been little thought given to non-covid health
| and developmental issues caused by mitigations. My
| friends had to go to private school to get a school to
| accept a doctors note that their kid shouldn't wear masks
| because he's having a hard time with speech development.
| The kid already had covid--a low grade fever for two
| days.
| beerandt wrote:
| The speech development and language problems are going to
| be a huge issue, in hindsight, if not already.
|
| 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.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Yes, literally. We do the same when we discuss traffic
| laws. We're all part of the same society, you have the
| right to take whatever action is in your child's best
| interest, but that DOES NOT necessarily imply that
| everyone else must get in alignment with what you think
| is best. The city doesn't need to install roundabouts at
| every intersection on your school route because you knows
| it to be safer than the traffic lights. That's
| ridiculous. Maybe they should, but its a discussion that
| will require you to think about resources and about risk.
|
| 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.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| That's what they are saying, and that's what's been said
| during this entire pandemic. I remember in 2020 when a
| Texas Lt. Gov official mentioned letting old folks die
| for the sake of the US economy[1]. The whole "let them
| die and shrug shoulders" theme throughout this pandemic
| leads into some concerning overtones, but not surprising
| =(
|
| [1]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/24/
| covid-...
| mistermann wrote:
| It's consistent with our approach to children dying of
| malnutrition and simple (to us) ailments around the
| world. It is true that "That's different!", but when one
| aggressively plays the ~selfishness card one should also
| accept when it is played back imho.
| x0x0 wrote:
| Per the cdc [1], the US has 250 deaths from covid ages
| 0-4 and an additional 573 ages 5-18.
|
| 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-...
|
| [2] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html
| jjuel wrote:
| I know all my children under the age of 4 (3 of them) are
| able to receive a flu vaccine though. I would assume
| quite a few parents are doing the same. So not quite
| apples to apples. That being said the risk to children
| that age for COVID is quite low, and I would not be
| shutting down schools or even forcing masks. Those are
| important to development of children especially since it
| disproportionally affects low income children. So I agree
| that the risk of COVID to children is small, and extreme
| measures should not be taken. My only issue was comparing
| two things that probably cannot fairly be compared.
| meatsauce wrote:
| I mean 98% recover and many don't even have symptoms. The
| outliers are the ones getting seriously ill.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| I think the better statistic that is often ignored are
| how many end up in the ICU.
| gilbetron wrote:
| Which looks to be between 0.025%-0.4% putting these two
| sites together, depending on the state:
|
| https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-
| covid-19...
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7036e2.htm
| skyde wrote:
| then why are all ICU at 100% capacity right now ?
| _-david-_ wrote:
| All the ICUs are not at 100% right now.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| The odds of getting put into the ICU might be low, but
| the total number of cases is extremely high. The alpha
| variant peaked at 300,000 cases/day with a highest 7-day
| average of 260,000 cases in the USA. Omicron has hit over
| 1 million cases in a day with a 7-day average of 900,000.
|
| Roll a 100-sided die enough times, and eventually you
| will get a LOT of ones.
| freewinz wrote:
| Are people really this misinformed? Get a reality check
| and stop believing the clickbait. There is zero chance
| that 100% of ICUs are at 100% capacity.
| hnuser847 wrote:
| Stop spreading misinformation. Zero states are reporting
| 100% utilization of ICU or inpatient beds. Not even
| close. Most are reporting under 80% utilization
| currently.
|
| https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/hospitalization-7-day-
| trend
| Sparyjerry wrote:
| Ending up in the ICU with covid and from covid are very
| different things. You literally cannot get admitted to a
| hospital without getting a covid test and becoming a
| covid hospitalization or death. The testing itself causes
| issues as my son was admitted for appendicitis and they
| refused to remove the appendix until he had results from
| a covid test which at the time took about 2 days. Well
| they let his appendix burst and he ended up having to
| stay in the hospital for 2 weeks instead of what should
| have been a couple hour stay.
| munificent wrote:
| As they say, the plural of anecdote is data.
|
| 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 safe _er_.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > As they say, the plural of anecdote is data.
|
| 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.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| So it looks like munificent is right and everyone that
| has downvoted should upvote and think better next time.
|
| 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.
| kibwen wrote:
| Then allow me to coin an entirely new and original
| aphorism, let's call it Kibwen's Law:
|
| "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.)
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| maybe it's just the anecdote you wish to share is
| unlikely to become part of a selection of data.
|
| But that's not as pithy.
| exposingtruth wrote:
| pvaldes wrote:
| This depends on the context and the question. Some
| empiric observations are conclusive and more than enough,
| other not. Nice slogans fit great into simple problems
| but not so accurately into more complex ones. Science is
| more than just a bunch of math.
| bumby wrote:
| > _The phrase is actually "The plural of anecdote is not
| evidence"._
|
| 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." _
| quocanh wrote:
| If you're willing to dismiss an anecdote then you should
| also dismiss the first anecdote in this thread. If you're
| willing to listen to an anecdote, then you should also
| listen to the second anecdote in this thread.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > If you're willing to dismiss an anecdote then you
| should also dismiss the first anecdote in this thread. If
| you're willing to listen to an anecdote, then you should
| also listen to the second anecdote in this thread.
|
| 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.
| rabuse wrote:
| And the broader data and studies suggest most people will
| be fine who catch COVID, so what's your point?
| glenstein wrote:
| The problem posed by a pandemic is that harms affecting a
| small percentage of overall cases are nevertheless
| staggering in absolute terms.
|
| 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."
| drjasonharrison wrote:
| In other words, hospital beds and other resources don't
| scale with infection rates.
| [deleted]
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Yea and the studies and evidence usually point no-
| lockdowns, leave schools open. Is that not your
| experience?
| glenstein wrote:
| The first thing I could find from Google was an
| apparently reliable looking fact checking site[0] that
| pretty explicitly disagrees with this, at least as it
| pertains to lockdowns in general:
|
| >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...
| timr wrote:
| Health feedback is _garbage_. It is the "fact-checking"
| site that facebook uses, and has a regular pattern of
| presenting the political opinions of its writers as
| facts. For example, they flagged a WSJ op-ed by Marty
| Makary where he expressed a _prediction_ , as
| misinformation:
|
| https://archive.is/1JnsW
|
| 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...
| Retric wrote:
| Positive and negative anecdotes don't directly cancel.
|
| 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.
| infinite8s wrote:
| The individual risk is low, but given the greater
| infectiousness of Omicron, the societal risk is much
| higher, since medical resources don't scale the same way.
| kragen wrote:
| Also, and I think this is part of what you were saying,
| if 1% risk of death is unacceptably high, it takes more
| than 99 "positive" anecdotes to "cancel" one "negative"
| anecdote (of dying from the pill).
| mostertoaster wrote:
| So are you saying we should listen to the anecdotes of
| those who died from getting the vaccine?
| Retric wrote:
| Yes, record them and compare it with the numbers of
| people that where fine.
|
| 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.
| mint2 wrote:
| And don't forget, compare also to the number who would
| have died if they not taken the vaccine.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| We are talking about anecdotes aren't we? If I personally
| was hardly affected by covid, nor was my family, then
| those who died from covid aren't anecdotes I care about.
| shagie wrote:
| You are looking for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting
| System https://vaers.hhs.gov
|
| 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.
| bmeski wrote:
| I recently watched some state level testimony from nurses
| and they said something along the lines of, "our staff,
| nurses and doctors, are unaware of or trained to use
| VAERS"
|
| I love basing my opinions off of shitty data.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| Hmm makes sense to me.
|
| 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)
| Retric wrote:
| Personally, I think the risks from the Pfizer vaccine is
| low enough that it's worth it simply to reduce the
| severity in case of reinfection. A free and very safe
| shot that did nothing more than reduce the time I felt
| like garbage by 1 day on average is easy an choice for
| me.
|
| 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?
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Why would you think your three kids are somehow definitive or
| representative?
|
| 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.
| ctyc wrote:
| I had the exact same thing happen with my three kids (ages
| 11, 8, and 2). My wife and I had it a little worse, flu like
| symptoms for 3 days followed by cough and stuffiness. I would
| say that we are fortunate to have gotten omicron which has
| mild symptoms, and this also seems like a situation where you
| can run, but you can't hide from this particular variant.
| e40 wrote:
| I know about 10 people that have had Omicron or have it now.
| Very few had a mild response. Most have been hit like it was
| a bad flu.
| afavour wrote:
| I kind of regret even mentioning the effects of COVID in my
| original comment as I figured there would be a reply like
| yours and you're not wrong! But it wasn't the main point I
| was trying to make.
|
| 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.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| It boils down to risk v benefits. The under 5s have been
| relatively very low risk. If a jab can't out do that then
| there's no room to move forward with that idea. Omincron
| appears to be even less powerful, less of a threat. Those
| odds make the current jabs even less likely to be approved.
| asabjorn wrote:
| Covid deaths amongst children was lower in 2020 than from
| the flu the year before with a severe Covid strain, 400
| deaths vs 600 deaths from flu year before, and faced with a
| tame Omicron variant the FDA decided to skip the science
| advisory panel for childhood vaccines [1] because they last
| time denied the request. The way this is handled is
| unscientific, and has no balance of risk vs reward.
|
| 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...
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Why are you comparing across years? How many children
| died of the flu in 2020 during lockdowns and social
| distancing?
|
| 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.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I'm in the same place with my kids and I feel similarly. I
| feel you on the replies here too. I get it, there are
| greater risks, but that doesn't mean this isn't stressful
| along with everything else going on. Anyway, I hope this is
| the tail end of these worries and hope your family has a
| healthy 2022.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I don't think "Vaxxed and done" people are saying your
| kids getting sick shouldn't feel stressful but rather
| covid poses a risk to children that is similar to or less
| than numerous other diseases and ailments we already
| faced. Just as schools weren't closed (or whatever
| precaution you'd like to put in here) for the flu or
| pneumonia there is no reason to close them for covid.
| bmeski wrote:
| Fear is the mind killer.
| analog31 wrote:
| Going further, we've moved on from the un-vaccinated in
| general. My problem is that even though I live in a bubble
| with 100% vaccination rate among my relatives and friends
| (most of our kids are older), I can't quite make peace with
| just letting the un-vax'd kill one another off. And there
| seems to be no middle ground.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| Are you at peace with motorcycle riders? They also die at
| disproportionate rates. Try to think about unvaccinated
| as motorcycle riders: living and risking death the way
| they enjoy it.
| analog31 wrote:
| Do you mean trained, licensed, experienced, and law
| abiding motorcycle riders, acting on reliable
| information? It's certainly a good question.
|
| 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.
| Blueskytech wrote:
| This is a great analogy, I'm going to use this moving
| forward.
| thenayr wrote:
| notch656a wrote:
| Motorcycles would probably not have been accepted were
| they invented yesterday. They've been grandfathered into
| society, like tobacco. I say this as a licensed
| motorcycle rider.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| That's quite likely, I agree (I am a motorcycle rider
| too).
| analog31 wrote:
| I'm a bicyclist, same deal, except no license. There are
| a lot of people out there who believe that riding a bike
| on public roads is unacceptably risky.
| notch656a wrote:
| Yeah. I used to ride bikes (bicycles) in some super dense
| urban areas of US for years. Got hurt more on bicycles
| than on my motorcycles (my 70+ mph interstate crash on
| motorcycle not nearly as bad as getting whacked on
| bicycle by a valet going 10mph in downtown Chicago!)
|
| Bicyclist probably get way more injuries per mile than
| motorcyclists. It's risky!
| mythrwy wrote:
| I'm curious where you get this information from.
|
| 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.
| crakhamster01 wrote:
| Not that I agree with the parent comment's sentiment, but
| from the article:
|
| > 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.
| hammock wrote:
| Do you know what the death rate is today, among either
| group (vaccinated or unvaccinated)? Your link is pre-
| omicron, by the way.
| mythrwy wrote:
| https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-big-data-study-
| of-145...
| walterbell wrote:
| You're aware that "unvaccinated" includes the vaccinated
| < 14 days after 2nd shot?
|
| 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-
| naive
| mythrwy wrote:
| "Killing each other off" indicates mass die off. Are we
| seeing mass die off?
|
| 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.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I don't know if an average of 1500 deaths a day counts as
| "mass die off" or not, but it kind of feels like it does.
| tata71 wrote:
| "That's not even a 9/11!"
| mythrwy wrote:
| If you had a flock of a million birds and sixty of them
| died and you wrote a thesis with the term "mass die off"
| you would be laughed out of the room.
|
| 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.
| walterbell wrote:
| In some countries, there was no major difference in
| annual All-Cause deaths between 2020 and prior years,
| which suggested that some deaths (with? of?) Covid were
| accelerated by a few months, but would have happened even
| without Covid due to existing ailments/co-morbidities.
|
| Some countries reported more all-cause deaths for 2020.
|
| Some states/countries sent Covid-infected patients into
| nursing homes, which did not help.
| [deleted]
| burrows wrote:
| > I can't quite make peace with just letting the un-vax'd
| kill one another off.
|
| Why?
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| Most of the unvaxxed are in places without access to
| vaccines and those populations will continue to be a
| source of new variants. Delta and Omicron both came from
| places/times that had very limited access to vaccines.
|
| 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.
| burrows wrote:
| People should put more energy/money into getting vaccines
| to people who want them but don't have access to them?
| Why?
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| Poor people in other countries are still people
| burrows wrote:
| People are people.
|
| This tautology doesn't inform me of anything.
| nicoburns wrote:
| 1. Because there is a harmful disease and we have an
| available protection. It seems obvious that there is
| moral prerogative to make that protection to those who
| want and need it.
|
| 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.
| harlanlewis wrote:
| Aside from basic humanitarianism, I'd really like to drop
| the word "mutations" from the "should my kid see his
| grandparents" discussion. I only get to do that if we
| apply public health solutions to public health problems,
| though.
| burrows wrote:
| People who are not you should spent money so your kid can
| see his grandparents?
| ls15 wrote:
| What else would you do with the remaining doses?
| s5300 wrote:
| I also like the fact that nobody seems to be concerned with
| the possible effects this virus could have long-term on the
| developmental growth of a child under 5... I think I would
| be much more concerned about that than the symptoms of the
| initial infection itself.
|
| & 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...
| astrange wrote:
| Covid was never thought to be risky for children,
| especially under 5s, even when we didn't have a vaccine.
| Omicron is much less risky than other kinds of covid.
|
| 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.)
| georgekv wrote:
| The biggest reason the under 5s vaccine is taking so long
| is that they don't suffer severe enough symptoms that they
| can easily test the efficacy of the virus. The same issue
| was there with the 5-11s but pharma, CDC, & FDA just
| glossed over that to approve the vaccines.
| dataflow wrote:
| > that they can easily test the efficacy of the virus
|
| I think you meant to type 'vaccine'
| mritchie712 wrote:
| Do you have a source for this?
| throw6622 wrote:
| The success we're talking about was an analytical
| measurement of the antigen response in the body. It
| wasn't lack of symptoms which ruled that phase a failure.
| Sparyjerry wrote:
| That is incorrect, the decision making numbers used to
| test vaccine effectiveness having nothing to do with lab
| antigen numbers, they are based on how much symptomatic
| illness is avoided. All of the results such as as 95%-96%
| efficacy for Phizer and Moderna and 66% for J&J are based
| on the % reduction of symptomatic illness only. Not the
| reduction in actual illness or based on lab tests of
| antigen response.
| hammock wrote:
| I believe you are incorrect. What you say was true for
| the initial adult trials but many recommendations for
| boosters and lower age groups have been based on antibody
| response, not clinical outcomes.
| beerandt wrote:
| >The biggest reason the under 5s vaccine is taking so
| long is that _they don 't suffer severe enough symptoms
| that they can easily test the efficacy of the virus_.
|
| 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?
| notch656a wrote:
| Well Virtue with a capital 'V' is one big one! And of
| course they're an excellent source of revenue for Pfizer
| et al. You wouldn't want to risk it would you?
|
| -- writing this while my toddler is banished from daycare
| for 10 days because a single kid there tested positive.
| dpark wrote:
| It's not virtue signaling to be terrified for your
| children's health. It might not be rational but it should
| be perfectly understandable.
| walterbell wrote:
| Terror is rarely coincident with clear decision making.
|
| Hopefully it's followed by calm risk-benefit analysis.
| chithanh wrote:
| Vaccines still lower disease severity.
|
| 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/e170/3590
| 3/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:
|
| https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.16173
| notch656a wrote:
| < https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e1.htm
|
| The study you cite specifically excludes those under 5.
| walterbell wrote:
| _> Vaccines still lower disease severity._
|
| As does early treatment, https://c19early.com
| beerandt wrote:
| >Vaccines still lower disease severity.
|
| 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.
| s5300 wrote:
| Having your children's lungs scarred to 20% function and
| not getting to realize it's even happened until they
| start a sport or something doesn't sound fun to me,
| perhaps that's why.
| dpark wrote:
| Citation please. What children had this happened to? You
| can't throw out fear mongering claims about terrible
| outcomes with no data.
|
| 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.
| beerandt wrote:
| The entire point is that the vaccine didn't improve the
| risk profile for kids under 5.
|
| 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.
| swayvil wrote:
| Ignore the evidence of your senses. Reality comes from
| experts and consensus.
| [deleted]
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| What sort of test were you able to get to determine that your
| kids' cases were of the omicron variant?
| gshubert17 wrote:
| Don't know about the OP, but in my state currently, close
| to 100% of the cases are omicron based on the samples
| they've sequenced. If I get covid next week, odds are it'll
| be the omicron variant.
| mizzack wrote:
| Guessing based entirely on symptoms, onset time across the
| household, and community prevalence.
| abakker wrote:
| Guessing sounds like really good public health policy.
| nradov wrote:
| You can make a fairly accurate guess based on estimated
| infection date. CDC data shows that the Omicron variant
| has caused the majority of cases for the past 2 weeks.
|
| https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#nowcasting
| nohankyou wrote:
| 45 years old and I've had Omicron since Christmas, still
| sick, still tired. I miss the flu.
| BTCOG wrote:
| I had the delta variant a few months back and it was so
| mild, I first thought it was just allergies. 2nd day, got a
| little bit of a tingly nose, stuffy, couldn't quite smell,
| but could still taste fine. 3rd day, same symptoms, 4th
| day, I was almost better completely. Fast forward about 1.5
| months after I had that Delta coronavirus variant, and I
| got bronchitis from my young daughter. My ears became
| stuffed up for weeks, I had a bad cough for nearly 20 days
| before it was out of my system. The Delta variant was
| nothing to me. Here's more of that "anecdata."
| panarky wrote:
| _> I got bronchitis from my young daughter_
|
| 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.
| BTCOG wrote:
| Yes, sorry. The virus that caused my daughter, wife, and
| I to develop bronchitis in the same way after our
| daughter was diagnosed at her pediatrician to have gotten
| some virus that caused the bronchitis.
| fileeditview wrote:
| The flu can also make you miserable for weeks. Not sure why
| you'd miss it.
| nohankyou wrote:
| While it 'can', it never has for me.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "a months-long scratchy cough"
|
| 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.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Not this cough. One of my children has this and he sounds
| more like his 86 year old uncle than a normal child, and it's
| been going on _for ever_ , without much in terms of
| improvement. I really pity him. But I'm coughing just as
| bad...
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| I've not followed this aspect much. Certainly the virus has
| long since cleared. So, what is going on with the long-term
| lung involvement? Scarring?
| hutzlibu wrote:
| I hope you will all recover!
| amelius wrote:
| Let's be clear. More people die of air pollution and climate
| change than of COVID, but the latter turns out to be a disease
| that requires immediate care which is why it gets more
| attention.
|
| 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...
| mostertoaster wrote:
| To each his own?
|
| 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.
| artursapek wrote:
| > We're still very unclear on the long-term effects of COVID,
| after all.
|
| 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.
| nradov wrote:
| RSV is more dangerous than COVID-19 for most small children. We
| don't shut down society because of RSV.
|
| https://www.medscape.com/answers/971488-177692/what-is-the-p...
| edmundsauto wrote:
| And we aren't shutting society down because of the risk of
| C19 to small children either. The risk to children is part of
| that, but the risk to the adults who care for them is another
| reason. Additionally, staffing levels are impacted because
| the adults who have it.
|
| 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?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "Also, generically, when we have a super spreadable
| disease, we want to minimize transmission."
|
| 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.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| At this point, Omicron is looking like its going to
| vaccinate a large portion of the population, especially the
| more folks resistant to vaccination. My hope is that
| Omicron is the real first step to herd immunity.
| swader999 wrote:
| No, it'll live and mutate in deer, rodents cats etc.
| Won't see herd immunity ever. Even this 'natural' vaccine
| won't distribute fast enough to outrun the pace of its
| mutations.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| The more varieties of coronavirii that we encounter, the
| more our immune system will build a broad-spectrum
| response to that "class" of virus. To be clear, I am not
| saying that the coronavirus is going to disappear. I'm
| saying that it will become closer to a common cold over
| time.
| jquery wrote:
| Let's hope.
| astrange wrote:
| If you wanted to effectively reduce spread and mutations
| you'd have to vaccinate every mouse, dog, and white-tailed
| deer - Omicron is so infectious that there is no mitigation
| only applied to humans that could be effective.
|
| The point of the remaining ones is to not send people to
| hospital and spread it out some until we get antivirals.
| kingsloi wrote:
| My little girl was eligible for the RSV vaccine, as she was
| immunocompromised. It sucks watching/hearing our friend's
| kids being hospitalised by it, knowing there's a vaccine for
| it, but it's so expensive ($3000-$6000 /yr /child), unless
| covered by insurance (if eligible), that it's out of reach
| for most families.
| aljones wrote:
| Why the hyperbole?
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > RSV is more dangerous than COVID-19 for most small
| children.
|
| 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.
| 8note wrote:
| The concern raised is "everyone and their dog is getting
| omicron, and I'm worried about my child getting it when
| they aren't vaccinated"
|
| Everyone else already has it, and have access to vaccines
| jtbayly wrote:
| The GP explicitly says he is concerned for his child, and
| that's the only thing under discussion in this thread. In
| that context, it's worth pointing out that RSV is more
| dangerous to help people think about how they process this
| current risk.
| disambiguation wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| rhino369 wrote:
| It's society's job to protect children, not the other way
| around.
|
| Closing schools while opening bars is huge failure of
| leadership.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| Without adults there would be no one to protect children,
| your comment makes no sense. If we simply focused on
| children then society would collapse.
| amatecha wrote:
| you could be like BC and keep everything open! at least
| it's consistent! -_-
| rhino369 wrote:
| Omicron is so contagious that its going to burn through
| regardless of moderate mitigation techniques. NYC went
| from 1 case to 40,000 in a month. Even if you lock down
| for 3 months to get back to 0. We'd be back to 40,000 the
| second we reopened.
|
| Delay isn't worth anything unless hospitals are so bad
| people will die from preventable deaths.
| amatecha wrote:
| I mean, to be frank, every single COVID19 death was
| preventable. I've gone this long without getting it,
| including having been on an overseas trip in March 2020.
| No one in my immediate family has got it. There's no
| reason to accept that "it's going to burn through".
| People are just lazy and careless and think it's fine to
| spread a highly-contagious, deadly virus because partying
| it up is more important than others' lives and health, to
| them.
| mavhc wrote:
| Line 1: I'd like to protect them from becoming orphans
|
| Line 2: Agreed, close bars, no one needs more drug
| addicts
| golemiprague wrote:
| But what it got to do with vaccination? Children are going
| to still spread it whether they are vaccinated or not.
| There are some claims about vaccination reducing the load
| and therefore reducing infection of other people but I find
| it a very hard to control type of research and seeing so
| many vaccinated getting corona I don't think it is so
| significant in protecting other people and preventing
| spread. Maybe just a little bit, but how do you measure how
| much is the right amount in order to make kids getting the
| vaccination more beneficial overall than not?
| imgabe wrote:
| And as TFA says, the rest of society is "vaxxed and done".
| So why are we harming children by closing schools to
| "protect" people who are going out to bars and restaurants?
| bb88 wrote:
| "Germ Casserole" is the term I've heard used for schools
| from K through College during flu and cold season.
| BTCOG wrote:
| nradov wrote:
| The other members of the household are already vaccinated
| for COVID-19 if they want to be. The vaccines are still
| highly effective at preventing deaths.
|
| RSV isn't really safe for adults either. But we accept the
| risk.
| meatsauce wrote:
| So effective, you go from 98.999% recoverable to 99.998%
| recoverable. Amazing. So glad we shut down everything and
| destroyed countless lives for less than 1% of gain.
| neuronic wrote:
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| Your numbers are . . . oddly chosen. Nevertheless,
| consider the following:
|
| 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.
| oxymoran wrote:
| Right, so get vaccinated and get on with your life.
| neuronic wrote:
| How is it so hard for you people to understand that we shut
| down society because the health system is stressed at
| unforeseen levels? I mean just ask your fellow emergency
| workers how their life is right now.
| BTCOG wrote:
| Just ask my close emergency worker friends and family?
| They're mostly unwilling to get vaccinated, understand this
| more than yourself, and they think it's endemic and
| pointless to get the vaccine. They usually bring up the
| fact they all have MRSA in their noses and on all their
| surfaces all day long and they'll get over it. They've all
| had COVID. Immunocompromised people will continue to die
| from pnuemonia, flus, etc regardless of impositions from
| society.
| Bhilai wrote:
| > Just ask my close emergency worker friends and family?
| They're mostly unwilling to get vaccinated ...
|
| 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.
| nradov wrote:
| There is a large variance in vaccination rates among
| different types of healthcare workers. Rates are high
| among physicians but lower among nurses and aides.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7030a2.htm
| rajup wrote:
| Stressed by the numerous asymptomatic hypochondriacs you
| mean? [1]
|
| I have no idea what these asymptomatic folks are wasting
| hospital resources for
|
| [1] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/ny-covid-
| cases-t...
| astrange wrote:
| It's not "asymptomatic hypochondriacs". "Hospitalized
| with no symptoms" mean they're in the hospital for other
| reasons and just happened to test positive.
|
| Although, even vaccinated people hospitalized "for covid"
| at the moment are mostly there for things like
| dehydration, similar to the flu.
| runako wrote:
| The major hospitals in my (Top 10 American) metro area
| are currently doing patient "diversion." In practice,
| this means that they are not accepting most trauma
| patients, elective surgeries like cancer removals are
| being delayed, and patient care for non-Covid conditions
| is being impacted. This is primarily due to the hospitals
| being at/over capacity. These hospitals are not admitting
| hypochondriacs, the folks taking up the beds are sick and
| need to be hospitalized.
| neuronic wrote:
| If you listen to some of these other "smart" comments
| here it's just a cold and the hospital numbers are fake.
| jquery wrote:
| For some reason anything about Covid attracts all the HN
| cranks. Or just reminds me that HN is full of cranks. The
| kind of crowd that would get upset at calling Jan 6 an
| insurrection.
| BTCOG wrote:
| Or, you could potentially stop using this classist view
| against your fellow human and start to understand that
| for various reasonings and beliefs that people think
| differing things. Just sounds to me like you're itching
| to pull politics and identity politics into discussion
| where I haven't seen anyone attempting to use any
| politics. Because someone does not agree with you, it
| does not make one a crank.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| The crankd are the people in this very thread who are
| saying they are okay with permanent masks and boosters.
| The fact is, the vaccines are here, and they work. People
| need to stop being antivax and asking everyone around
| them to lock down just because they can't understand that
| it's time to move on and stop doubting just how effective
| the vaccines really are because of a 0.0001% chance they
| might maybe not work for them very well.
|
| What we are seeing right now is the same "pro vaxxers,
| pro science" types revealing their true face by not being
| willing to accept that the vaccine works and that the
| science is clear; omicron is mild, hospitalizations are
| fine, and that the virus is essentially harmless for
| kids. They are the equivalent of tinfoil wearers that
| "wear them just in case" aka cranks.
| BTCOG wrote:
| Uh, it factually is a coronavirus, of which several are
| already endemic "colds," and within another year or two
| (or so) we are looking at this also becoming "just
| another cold." This is the meaning of currently talking
| about the virus becoming endemic. It's here to stay like
| our other colds that should be added, were also deadly
| when they first started.
| georgeburdell wrote:
| RSV is the worst virus I've had in a decade, probably since I
| had shingles in my twenties. My daughter brought it home from
| daycare and both my partner and I had a low-grade fever for 2
| weeks, and a bad dry cough for another 2 weeks after that
| that would wake us up multiple times a night. Daughter
| bounced back in about half the time. By contrast, Covid hit
| us all recently and we were all 100% within the week. Your
| mileage may vary.
| 40four wrote:
| To be fair, the long term of effects of the vaccines are still
| very unclear. For adults and children. There are concerning
| reports regarding serious complications that tend to not get
| talked about very much in the media
|
| 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.
| barbazoo wrote:
| According to [1] Mr Malone said "mRNA vaccine technology I
| created" which is not true as far as I can find tell. He did
| work on mRNA technology decades ago but didn't invent mRNA
| vaccines. He also states that "The first is that a viral gene
| will be injected into your children's cells. This gene forces
| your child's body to make toxic spike proteins.". What does
| that even mean, a "viral gene"? Toxic spike proteins? Sounds
| like fear mongering to me given how it's worded.
|
| 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...
| jat850 wrote:
| Respectfully, Dr. Malone's entire platform is contrarianism.
| He is opportunistically acting on his own behalf in my
| belief.
|
| 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.
| warning26 wrote:
| If you're interested in Malone, I definitely recommend
| reading the Atlantic article about him:
|
| 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.
| slices wrote:
| If you're interested in Malone, don't just read that hit
| piece, written by an author who had previously stuck to
| woke issues.
|
| Wikipedia's not perfect, but his article there would be an
| improvement.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Who, the author of that hit piece, or Malone?
|
| 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.
| LouisSayers wrote:
| There's research coming out that shows the vaccines are causing
| heart inflammation (1) in younger people, so I'd show some
| caution in getting kids vaccinated.
|
| 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.
|
| 1) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0
| zzzeek wrote:
| flagged. the virus itself is much more dangerous in this
| regard, it's right in the study:
|
| > 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.
| oxymoran wrote:
| " We're still very unclear on the long-term effects of COVID,
| after all."
|
| 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.
| astrange wrote:
| Vaccines don't have long term effects.
| guilhas wrote:
| Hypothetically in 5 many vaccinated develop Alzheimer...
| "Oh... It was an emergency there was no time to worry about
| long term effects of a new vaccine technology"
|
| Until several years pass we don't know. Both vaccine long
| term effects or Covid
| artursapek wrote:
| Tell that to all the poor bastards now living with
| myocarditis.
| astrange wrote:
| That's a short term effect (i.e. we already know about
| it), and one that actual covid is much more likely to
| give you.
|
| 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.
| doopy1 wrote:
| > and one that actual covid is much more likely to give
| you.
|
| At this rate we're taking boosters more often than we're
| risking coming down with Covid. Maybe there will be some
| diminishing returns.
| TurboHaskal wrote:
| Keep doing boosters every N months and the risk of
| myocarditis will eventually be greater than Covid.
| astrange wrote:
| Good thing I didn't tell you to do that then.
| TurboHaskal wrote:
| You don't but my government does.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| And also, something like 75% of myocarditis resolves
| completely on its own (and like you mentioned, most
| myocarditis is caused by viral infection...). Properly
| risk-weighting all of this is hard, thankfully public
| health experts have done so and still recommend nearly
| universal vaccination!
| jsodw wrote:
| robbrown451 wrote:
| And we don't know the long term psychological effects of
| wearing masks and social distancing. Those may be substantial
| as well, especially if it goes on for more than 2 years.
|
| Long term COVID is known to exist, long term effects of
| vaccination are not and there is no reason to think they are
| likely.
|
| (me: vaxxed, boosted, happy to boost some more. My 7 year
| old: vaxxed. My attitude: exactly as described as a "VAD" in
| the article)
| astrange wrote:
| > And we don't know the long term psychological effects of
| wearing masks and social distancing.
|
| It might turn you Japanese or Finnish.
|
| Americans spend all their lives socially distanced anyway -
| it's called driving.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Moderna's mRNA vaccine is based on one they tested for SARS-
| Cov-1 in 2003, and they have done long-term follow-up on
| those participants. They all turned into alligators after 15
| years.
| astn-austin wrote:
| That's like saying: the crotch rocket is based on internal
| combustion engines, that have been proven safe in multiple
| automobiles. So crotch rockets are safe because they use
| internal combustion engines. MRNA is the platform. You can
| do good and bad things with the same platform.
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| More like saying, the Ninja 200xcr is a minor update of
| the Ninja 199xcr, which has been around since 2003 and
| shown to be safe when properly operated. So, Ninja 200xrc
| is almost certainly safe too.
| craigkilgo wrote:
| How do you think we got Killer Croc?
| mywacaday wrote:
| I wasn't aware that the under 5 trial had failed, we are
| currently deciding if we will give it to our 6 year old. From a
| biologial/science perspective can someone here explain why
| might the vaccine work in a 5 year old and not in a 3/4 year
| old?
| jquery wrote:
| As someone with a kid in daycare, stay close to the science.
| Young children are at low risk, the primary danger of them
| getting it is spreading it through the community. My daycare
| takes reasonable precautions and does contact tracing when a
| case appears, and follows CDC and professional medical
| guidelines, and until Omicron they kept Covid out completely.
| There's been more cases at the center in the last two weeks
| than the entire year before that. All I can do is stay current
| on my vaccines and wear a mask where appropriate.
|
| 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.
| el_benhameen wrote:
| I am with you on all of this, with one small, slightly hopeful
| note. My under-5 is enrolled in the Pfizer study, and they are
| not starting over from scratch. The existing cohort is going to
| receive a third dose at >2 months past their last dose
| (starting at the end of this month, probably), and then
| immunogenicity will be reassessed. I am incredibly frustrated
| that pfizer and the fda have been so slow to roll the vaccine
| out to under-5s, but at least they don't need to re-do
| recruitment and phase 1, etc.
| twofornone wrote:
| >I am incredibly frustrated that pfizer and the fda have been
| so slow to roll the vaccine out to under-5s
|
| 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?
| selimnairb wrote:
| Given that safety has been proven in 6mo to <5yo, and the
| dose for the 3yo and 4yo is in question (hence testing 3rd
| dose), I see no reason why doses one and two cannot proceed
| in these groups. Surely some exposure to the virus is better
| than none. At least give parents the option. My 3.7yo is the
| same weight as a median 5yo. My wife and I have had two doses
| of Pfizer and one Moderna booster. We would get my daughter
| vaccinated with one of those tomorrow if we were able to.
| el_benhameen wrote:
| I very much agree with this. The FDA seems to have decided
| that there is zero urgency with regards to under-5s and
| that they will continue to be belatedly reactive like they
| have for every other question during the pandemic.
| madcaptenor wrote:
| I had a similar thought to this (and my kid is the same age
| as yours) but apparently immune response isn't based on
| weight - see e.g.
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/well/live/child-
| vaccine-d... . It's not like giving them Tylenol.
|
| 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.
| selimnairb wrote:
| Good point re. immune response not simply being a
| function of mass. However, the doses in the <5yo trial
| were lower. So let's roll with them for now and boost
| later. Sadly @el_benhameen may be correct in the FDA's
| complacency.
| mherdeg wrote:
| Have you talked to a pediatrician about off-label
| vaccination? My understanding is that there are various
| barriers prohibiting this; this op-ed says there is a CDC
| vaccine provider agreement which forbids the practice -
| https://www.thehastingscenter.org/with-pediatric-
| hospitaliza.... But I have no idea how often it's actually
| happening.
|
| 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.
| a45a33s wrote:
| >. My under-5 is enrolled in the Pfizer study, and they are
| not starting over from scratch.
|
| 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?
| el_benhameen wrote:
| I reviewed the available data on both the vaccine and the
| disease and decided that given my children's medical
| history and my family's medical circumstances, the
| risk/benefit calculus was firmly on the side of
| vaccination.
| a45a33s wrote:
| given that your young child is literally in the trial for
| young children, what data was there to indicate it was
| safe or beneficial for them?
| el_benhameen wrote:
| They are in the phase 3 cohort. Phase 1 assesses safety.
| And while children are not just small adults, the
| successful and safe rollout in the adult population added
| to the data.
| bequanna wrote:
| Are the children in this trial part of high risk groups?
|
| 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.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| We give other vaccines to children that young [0]. As far
| as I know, there are really only two differences vs adult
| vaccines.
|
| 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...
| bequanna wrote:
| Right, but isn't the main difference that children are
| still developing?
|
| Shouldn't we try very hard to avoid the possibility of
| screwing up a growing child's body?
| afavour wrote:
| > 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.
| LouisSayers wrote:
| I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that not
| getting covid is better than not getting the vaccine for
| children.
|
| 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.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0
| throw6622 wrote:
| It's certainly worth evaluating, but if you read the
| study it says that the risk is 10-20x lower in getting
| the vaccine vs in getting COVID itself. Assuming you live
| in a world where COVID is rampant (we do), it sounds like
| the vaccines are a good call.
| asabjorn wrote:
| It seems reckless to me to enroll a kid in a vaccine
| trial where the FDA decided to skip the science advisory
| panel for childhood vaccines [1] because they last time
| denied the request. The way this is handled is
| unscientific, and I share the parents concern that this
| has no balance of risk vs reward.
|
| 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
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Shouldn't we try very hard to avoid the possibility of
| screwing up a growing child's body?
|
| Yes, that's why we vaccinate. Those pesky diseases can
| screw up a growing child's body quite effectively.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Polio.
| whatthesmack wrote:
| Are you referring to all the children that were
| mistakenly given the live poliovirus from the first round
| of polio vaccines?
| alliao wrote:
| run it in production, in smaller batches
| mint2 wrote:
| Yeah I agree, we should try hard to avoid giving novel
| viruses of concern to them without priming their immune
| system to them if at all possibel
| sokoloff wrote:
| I think we're balancing the risks of screwing up kids
| with vaccines that have shown themself to be broadly safe
| in other humans with the risks of screwing them up by
| closing schools on and off, having them develop phobias
| of germs or humans, have learning delays, etc. It's not
| like the choice is "live and teach a certain way and
| vaccinate or not".
| divbzero wrote:
| It's interesting to read your viewpoint because I can see
| your logic but happen to weigh the risks differently. I am
| personally more concerned about the long-term risk of
| disease than the risk of vaccination. As a parent with
| children I wish could be vaccinated earlier, I have
| actually wondered if (a) I should have volunteered them for
| the trials and (b) if as a society we would be willing to
| start trials for children sooner in the future.
| Larrikin wrote:
| There are so many shots new borns and toddlers receive. It
| is not unusual at all for the young to receive vaccines.
| bequanna wrote:
| Right...Vaccines we have been using for many years.
| creato wrote:
| How do you propose to get to the point that a vaccine has
| been used for many years? They were new at some point.
| asabjorn wrote:
| Normally a vaccine trial lasts for 5+ years, and many
| vaccines do not survive the trial due to adverse effects.
|
| 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.
| el_benhameen wrote:
| Vaccine trials have historically been 5+ years because of
| the way the phases are scheduled and timed, not because
| long term effects present or are tracked for 5+ years.
| astrange wrote:
| The vaccine trials normally last that long because it's
| usually much harder to get so many deaths in the control
| group. It's not done with the intent to show safety.
| BTCOG wrote:
| Absolutely. It's a live experimental trial.
| el_benhameen wrote:
| Which trials are non-experimental? Or non-live, for that
| matter?
| BTCOG wrote:
| Ah, right. I forgot to say that it was "a trial forced on
| the entire human populace." Better?
| el_benhameen wrote:
| No, the kids in this study were not specifically recruited
| from high-risk groups.
|
| 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 naive when they
| encounter it.
| astrange wrote:
| Very young kids won't be totally naive since some of
| their immune system comes from their mothers. (although
| the mom might need active antibodies for that)
| el_benhameen wrote:
| My children were born and weaned before covid came along,
| so this does not apply to them.
| afavour wrote:
| That's amazing news, thank you for letting folks know! Also
| thanks for participating in the trial, you're doing a good
| deed for us all.
| el_benhameen wrote:
| All thanks are due to the kid :). All I have to do is drive
| the kidmobile and enjoy my share of the ice cream bribe.
| [deleted]
| coryrc wrote:
| My kid's in day care. He's gotten a dozen diseases since
| starting. For all we know one was covid. With all this
| prevention none of these other diseases were stopped so why
| would anyone think covid could be stopped? It clearly can't.
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| There seems to be very strong data to suggest Covid is a non-
| issue for children under 5.
|
| 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.
| agensaequivocum wrote:
| My whole family had covid last February including my three
| young children including one under 1. The children had the
| mildest symptoms. If you are worried about your children
| getting covid then I hope you never let near a car as they are
| much more likely to die in a car crash than covid.
|
| 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.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| But you spread the virus, so it's not just about your own
| personal experience.
| myk9001 wrote:
| You spread it too. Assuming we're both vaccinated, we both
| spread it at an equal rate. I accept the risk of sharing
| air with you. If you don't, in my opinion, it's your
| responsibility to avoid contacts with me.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| That's not relevant. The original point was: "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."
|
| 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.
| MrRiddle wrote:
| He was pointing out OPs unfounded fear, and how only OP
| is responsible for coping with it. It has nothing to do
| with the virus.
| artursapek wrote:
| The vaccines don't prevent anyone from spreading the virus.
| The CDC Director just said it.
| Macuyiko wrote:
| So do people who are vaccinated and catch covid, sadly.
| syshum wrote:
| Welcome to living in a society, Some how we flipped the
| script on what freedom means.
|
| 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
| rabuse wrote:
| Exactly. Why should I have to isolate for YOUR fears? YOU
| should isolate, if you're worried.
| CabSauce wrote:
| Why should I have to not drink and drive? If you're
| worried about car accients, you should stay off the
| roads!
| MrRiddle wrote:
| You're comparing people who want to live normal lives to
| drunk drivers?
| jorblumesea wrote:
| You stop people from getting elective surgeries and
| seriously disrupt society by being out and about eating
| indoors or not taking proper precautions. This isn't hard
| to understand. Hospitals are buckling under the weight of
| cases. Even if you personally recover from it, some do
| not or the impact of your decisions is far beyond what
| you personally feel.
|
| 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.
| treebirg wrote:
| There are plenty of immunocompromised people of working
| age for whom vaccines simply do not work, and who cannot
| work from home due to the nature of their work. These
| people can't isolate, even if they're worried.
|
| 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.
| a45a33s wrote:
| immunocompromised people are not a new thing, somehow
| they survived before covid
| Sargos wrote:
| >There are plenty of immunocompromised people of working
| age for whom vaccines simply do not work, and who cannot
| work from home due to the nature of their work. These
| people can't isolate, even if they're worried.
|
| 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.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| If you haven't already, research the term "safetyism."
| asabjorn wrote:
| The panic over the Covid pandemic has been a great leap
| forward in this transformation of Western societies away
| from a representative republic or democracy.
|
| 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/
| taf2 wrote:
| If they are not immune compromised you have nothing to worry
| about. IMO - you should be more worried about the physiological
| impacts of your changes in behavior around then in regard to
| your fear... it will have probably longer lasting effects on
| them.
| [deleted]
| bumby wrote:
| I found this discussion between 3 MDs to be one of the more
| enlightened ones on the subject:
|
| 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... :-)
| [deleted]
| fallingknife wrote:
| Covid is now endemic. I have yet to see any expert analysis to
| contradict this. Endemic means that your probability of catching
| the virus eventually is 1. Covid restrictions at this point are a
| joke. I'm vaxxed and done.
| focusgroup0 wrote:
| Joe Rogan interview doing numbers LOL
| jokoon wrote:
| This virus is so weird. It's just at the limit between dangerous
| and tolerable. It just doesn't kill enough people to add more
| restrictions.
|
| It's odd how humans of today will not agree to change their
| habits when the punishment is mild.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Individual medical decisions are the domain of the individual.
|
| If you support eroding this line, hope you enjoy your forcef
| daily nursing home sedative.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Why the 'xx'? I mean "X-mas" is a cross I get that. But why
| "vaxx".
| locallost wrote:
| I'm in this group. It's not that I desperately want to go on a
| vacation or back to a normal life, whatever that is, but that the
| governments around the world have demonstrated total cluelessness
| on how to fix the problem. And I am even OK with that! Nobody
| knows and it's ok. But at least show some form of a plan and
| stick to it. Instead we have just a ton of interest groups each
| pulling in their own direction. So we have lockdowns, maybe
| something is gained from it, but then everything opens up, we
| need to save restaurants etc. and then of course we need another
| lockdown and so on. We're not accomplishing anything, that we
| have a new worse variant every nine months is proof of that. So
| yeah, I got my booster, I wear a mask, test when meeting larger
| groups of people (and others do too), but obsessing about it all
| day does not accomplish anything.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| It's amazing how many can't see overshoot when they're in. Even
| more amazing that they don't realize that those who are the
| loudest in overshoot tend to end up being those most effected by
| the blowback that results. Funny enough, one of those is going to
| end up being Donald Trump, who is still trying very hard to cast
| himself as the savior of the pandemic. Of course he will be
| mostly isolated from the consequences other than having his dream
| of a 2024 comeback dashed. It's going to be hard on those with
| lesser resources to ameliorate the storm they find themselves in.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| I feel like COVID has become like a marshmallow test for adults,
| where those who can manage their emotions and make rational
| decisions can set themselves up for greater long-term rewards.
|
| 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.
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| > I know someone who almost quit a great job because they were
| mad about a vaccine mandate from their employer. [...] That is
| what failing the marshmallow test looks like.
|
| 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.
| blululu wrote:
| Historically conscientious objector status was not just given
| out to anyone who asked for it. In general you needed to be
| an active member of a religious community with clear
| theological beliefs about war specified well in advance of
| the war. Even the Quakers didn't get a free pass - they still
| had to serve the country in some non-violent capacity as
| medics or the like.
| standardUser wrote:
| "...consideration for personal liberty has gone by the
| wayside..."
|
| 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.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| No, the freedumb that the commenter you're replying to only
| exists in their head. Freedom is whatever they want it to
| be and nothing at the same time. Compare the US's COVID
| response to China and then try to talk about freedoms.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| Or maybe the commenter is also against the war on drugs?
| And yeah I'm sure China had more "freedumb" than the US.
| Actually I'm not surprised that someone who uses China as
| a positive example would be the type to say "freedumb"
| unironically as if it's actually a negative thing to want
| more... freedom.
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| I wasn't using China as a positive example, I was using
| it as a contract in the negative. As in they _don 't_
| have freedom during COVID, as they're literally locked
| into their homes. The United States has had and continues
| to have "freedom" even in face of the mandates.
| hnuser847 wrote:
| Both liberals and conservatives are massive hypocrites.
| Neither ideology has a consistent set of beliefs when it
| comes to personal liberty. Both will use arguments from
| personal liberty when it's for something they support and
| will conveniently forgot about those arguments for issues
| they don't support.
|
| 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.
| jewayne wrote:
| I think you've got the causation wrong. People didn't start
| rejecting the vaccine because of the mandates. Mandates came
| about because large percentages of the population weren't
| getting vaccinated. And why weren't they getting vaccinated?
| Because COVID denial poisoned the well of information. Even
| today, there are virtually no facts about COVID that you
| could get 95% of Americans to agree upon. My guess is that
| close to 5% would disagree with the statement "the SARS-CoV-2
| virus is real".
| StanislavPetrov wrote:
| >Because COVID denial poisoned the well of information.
|
| 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.
| armadsen wrote:
| > My guess is that close to 5% would disagree with the
| statement "the SARS-CoV-2 virus is real". I wouldn't be
| surprised if the number is even higher than that.
|
| 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.
| abrahamepton wrote:
| > 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
|
| 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.
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| > 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
|
| You say this, but you don't name any criteria by which this
| judgment should be made. It's just a bare assertion.
|
| Would you care to go into any detail as to why?
| efficax wrote:
| When your "matter of principle" is avoiding a vaccine you're
| rationalizing an irrational choice through the mask of a
| "principle". There's no principle involved (personal liberty?
| do you also refuse to pay taxes, drive without a license,
| etc. freedom is a complicated thing)
| powerslacker wrote:
| One principle would be the belief that the US federal
| government has not been granted the power to mandate a
| vaccination. Many people opposed to vaccination in the US
| believe that states, municipalities, and private
| organizations can enforce such a mandate but that the
| federal government cannot. As for not taking the vaccine
| there is the principle of prudent decision making and
| informed consent: that each individual has the right to
| decide what is best for their health even if they are
| wrong. For example, you might choose to be a lifelong
| tobacco smoker. The current scientific narrative says that
| smoking tobacco is bad for your health - but at the end of
| the day it is a decision of personal conscience whether or
| not you choose to smoke.
| AlexCoventry wrote:
| The power was granted by Jacobson v. Massachusetts in
| 1905.
|
| 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._
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| "v. Massachusetts" and "v. United States Government" are
| two very, very different things. Are you aware of the
| differences?
| powerslacker wrote:
| No it did not. First, that is a precedent, not a law.
| Second, that case would be interpreted as affirming the
| power of a state or municipality to implement and enforce
| a vaccination mandate, which is exactly what I said in my
| original comment. The federal government of the US has
| not been given that power through Jacobson v.
| Massachusetts and if it was so clear cut a precedent the
| supreme court wouldn't even bother hearing the case that
| is currently underway.
|
| 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.
| ghoward wrote:
| That decision revolved around a one-time $150 fine (in
| today's money) and was used to justify forced
| sterilizations. And it was overturned later. And it was
| for the authority of a state, not the Federal Government.
|
| Not the same thing at all. And you also don't want to go
| down that road.
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| A vaccine objector's personal freedom should end where
| bad choices (not to vax) undermine my own personal
| freedoms to live a healthy and free life.
| swader999 wrote:
| Relevant argument if these vaccines reduced transmission
| in a meaningful way.
| CabSauce wrote:
| The vaccines do reduce transmission, so it is a relevant
| argument?
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Sometimes we buy that argument, and sometimes we don't.
|
| 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?
| ryan93 wrote:
| Doesn't apply to this virus since vaccines don't prevent
| transmission
| missingrib wrote:
| It does if his living a healthy life depends on hospitals
| not being 100% full of unvaccinated people being treated
| for a completely preventable illness.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| Tortuous logic, to be sure.
| missingrib wrote:
| Not sure how.
| CabSauce wrote:
| "prevent", no. Reduce, yes.
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597
| powerslacker wrote:
| What makes you say that? What is your reasoning? Just
| because you say so does not make it so, nor does it make
| it logical, reasonable, or enforceable. We have a legal
| framework for making these kinds of decisions in the
| United States. While I understand your position and can
| see some of its merit it's not about how you feel things
| _should_ be but about providing a system of rights and
| powers that prevent the government from spiraling out of
| control.
| mythrwy wrote:
| Mandating a medical treatment is in no way similar to
| mandating one have a drivers license.
| notJim wrote:
| I'm very skeptical of this thesis. Biden's mandate (I'm
| assuming this is what you're referring to) was not announced
| until September of last year, and there was already very
| significant vaccine refusal by that point. Up until that
| point, they had been doing exactly what you want, and
| vaccination had essentially stalled.
| nradov wrote:
| Biden had stated in December 2020 that he wouldn't impose a
| mandate.
|
| https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-joe-biden-no-vaccines-
| ma...
| sobellian wrote:
| Scattershot vaccine mandates have increased the number of
| vaccinated. Those left will naturally have resisted some
| amount of authority, but that observation basically amounts
| to survivor bias - and it doesn't explain why those
| individuals failed to get the vaccine before there ever was a
| mandate.
| wallacoloo wrote:
| we're dealing in counterfactuals here, so we'll never
| _truly_ know. one possibility is that vaccine mandates
| brought a large portion of those on-the-fence in to get a
| vaccine sooner than later, at the cost of pushing others
| on-the-fence way far away from ever getting the vaccine.
| i.e. a short-term boost in vax numbers at the cost of long-
| term rates. maybe worth it, maybe not (there's so many
| second order effects).
|
| 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"?
| seph-reed wrote:
| Why not both?
|
| 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.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| Are you implying that some people are "cancer" and deserve
| to be eradicated? Why not just come out and say what you
| really mean without the plausible deniability and
| euphemisms?
| humanrebar wrote:
| There are ways to make this point without comparing human
| beings to cancer.
| seph-reed wrote:
| Perhaps an allergic response then? The point being, units
| of the super-organism are causing the death of things
| they shouldn't be. Perhaps out of selfishness (like
| cancer), or perhaps out of a misplaced response (like
| allergies). But the super-organism has every reason to
| evolve them out.
| Nbox9 wrote:
| > Personal conscience and conviction used to be held sacred
| in the US [...] it has become politically incorrect to have a
| personal principle or conviction that contradicts the
| approved viewpoint, or otherwise goes against the grain.
|
| 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_Sediti
| on_...
| adventured wrote:
| The 1798 Sedition Act - during the second Presidency in the
| history of the country - expired in 1801. Which does a
| better job of debasing the point you're trying to make than
| supporting it. It was less than a blip.
|
| > 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.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| You've dismissed only one point that parent commenter
| made. And if the country held personal conviction to such
| a high esteem, 1798 Sedition Act as well as the other
| things parent commenter mentioned should have never
| happened. But we know they did.
| MiroF wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_19
| 54
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_v._United_States
|
| etc etc
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I am fascinated by this sort of thing. So many people
| perceive there to be some great American democratic
| republic tradition being aborated in recent years... but we
| didn't even get majoritarian democracy until the mid-20th
| century, and there was certainly not the sort of strong
| deference to the bill of rights historically that people
| seem to imagine.
|
| I feel like this mythical conception of the history of
| America has been increasing with time.
| gilbetron wrote:
| I think you're inventing a past that didn't exist. Were this
| pandemic to strike in the 70s or 80s (or earlier), we would
| undoubtedly have given people little choice to be vaccinated,
| but we also probably wouldn't have forced people nearly as
| much. Today we are stuck with these people running around
| talking about their freedom, when one of the main reasons for
| government is public health.
| valachio wrote:
| I think if this pandemic struck in the 70s or 80s, it would
| have been shook off as a moderately more dangerous version
| of the flu, and there would have been no lockdowns or
| anything like that. Life would go on as normal until
| natural herd immunity is achieved.
| [deleted]
| soperj wrote:
| We had smallpox for centuries, same with measles, mumps,
| rubella, polio, etc etc. AIDS came about in the 80s.
| How's that natural herd immunity for AIDS going?
|
| 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.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I'm a strong supporter of strong measures to combat
| covid, but your question about AIDS is obviously
| disingenuous. AIDS kills almost every one who gets it (e:
| in the _70s_ - of course as a reply mentions, it is not
| nearly as deadly today and very few caught HIV cases
| progress to AIDS in the first place now), but it didn 't
| spread very far compared to covid, so of course no herd
| immunity would develop.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| Your information seems out of date - AIDS is now mostly
| survivable and has been for perhaps a decade.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Yes, life in the developed world was still not as
| valuable back then.
|
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| > 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).
|
| 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.
| defgeneric wrote:
| > 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.
| disambiguation wrote:
| This pandemic has more in common is the Milgram and Asch
| experiment than the Marshmallow Test.
| kkjjkgjjgg wrote:
| Listen to the scientists!
| twblalock wrote:
| "Vaxxed and done" _is_ the marshmallow!
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| ellyagg wrote:
| Your marshmallow test framing fails for me. Just as it is often
| important to signal community and solidarity, it is also often
| important to signal individuality and resistance to authority.
| bko wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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%.
|
| https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/vaccination-progress-date
| holbrad wrote:
| It's almost like the COVID vaccines don't work very well to
| prevent spread. (It clearly helps against being hospitalised)
| rhino369 wrote:
| Then you can't blame continued high cases on the
| unvaccinated and you can't expect the covid risk to go
| away.
|
| 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).
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Ultimately, unvaccinated cases are irrelevant, until they
| end up in hospital, which is what's happening right now.
| creato wrote:
| It's almost like the variants of the virus prevalent today
| are very, very different from those when those estimates
| were produced.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And death. And hopefully against long COVID (prior to
| infection, that is).
| nradov wrote:
| I encourage everyone eligible to protect themselves by
| getting vaccinated but the Delta and Omicron variants are so
| contagious that there will be no significant herd immunity
| effect.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-
| immu...
| ekanes wrote:
| In a pandemic, I think herd immunity is a worldwide concept
| more than localized.
| notJim wrote:
| To be fair, many people had pointed out that unless we
| vaccinate the entire world, new variants would emerge, which
| may be better at evading the vaccine. That is exactly what
| happened with Omicron.
| dougmwne wrote:
| With a 6 month immunity window and animals reservoirs, you
| could simultaneously give every singe human the vaccine and
| it would still come back. You are misinformed that we ever
| had any chance of closing Pandora's box.
| lupire wrote:
| > There are places like New York that have 95% over 18
|
| 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.
| ceras wrote:
| OP's link supports their numbers for NY state: 95% of 18+
| year olds have 1 shot, 83.4% of 18+ year olds have
| completed vaccine series.
| lawn wrote:
| The marshmallow test has more to do with kids coming from a
| poor family, where it's the rational action to take what you
| can now as the opportunity disappears quickly, rather than with
| their willpower.
| [deleted]
| jdminhbg wrote:
| > ... set themselves up for greater long-term rewards
|
| Such as?
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Personal health, health of friends and family, continued
| employment, etc.
| typon wrote:
| Having a job, presumably
| jogu wrote:
| I agree, the reward is neither clear nor consistent to
| individuals.
|
| 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.
| belorn wrote:
| > I know someone who almost quit a great job because they were
| mad about a vaccine mandate from their employer.
|
| 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.
| defaultprimate wrote:
| What if it turns out the vaccines do have negative long term
| effects and all the people that "ate the marshmallow" the
| second it was placed in front of them with the promise that it
| would allow them to get back to a normal life are left with
| nothing but a stomach ache, and those that patiently endured
| the stripping of their rights and dignity are vindicated?
|
| What if that happens? What if it was irrational to immediately
| accept the recommendations of experts with no long term
| supporting data? (See Vioxx)
| robertoandred wrote:
| What sort of long-term effects? Which harmful vaccine are you
| using as a reference?
| defaultprimate wrote:
| Who knows? That's the point.
| Steltek wrote:
| The mRNA Covid vaccines do not alter your DNA. Conspiracy
| theorist nonsense and lies don't belong in this forum.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Noone upthread said that they alter DNA. I continue to be
| baffled by people bringing this up out of nowhere.
| Steltek wrote:
| He edited his comment some time after I composed my
| reply. He directly claimed that mRNA vaccines alter your
| DNA and "modified your cells".
|
| For the second part, being generous, you could say that
| the point of a vaccine is to modify your immune cells but
| it's more likely it was unfounded paranoia.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Fair enough.
| [deleted]
| defaultprimate wrote:
| They can and may. Try to avoid calling others conspiracy
| theorists because you're ignorant and too lazy to do
| anything but regurgitate political talking points.
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/can-the-mrna-
| vaccin...
| Steltek wrote:
| One of the co-author's of that pre-print paper does not
| agree with your interpretation of his work.
|
| > "There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of
| the vaccine mRNA is doing the same thing. The viral spike
| protein mRNA is a tiny piece. Vaccines are not inducing
| LINE element RTs," said Young. "Vaccines are protecting
| against the possibility of long-term seriously
| debilitating diseases or death."
|
| So yes, you are spreading anti-vax conspiracy theories.
| And this is why misinformation is treated as dangerous.
| It takes too much time and effort to repair the damage
| caused by this insane drivel.
|
| (Also, other readers should note that OP edited his
| comment after my reply to remove the DNA modification
| boogeyman, although he seems to have doubled-down on
| it...)
| defaultprimate wrote:
| And the other author states that it is a possibility and
| definitely can happen and is something worth exploring
| since we do not have any long term evidence.
|
| I'll stick with his quote "We welcome scientific
| discussions, not politically motivated distortions," said
| Jaenisch.
|
| Fuck off with your dogmatic antiscientific nonsense. It's
| a distinct possibility for which we have no long term
| data on the occurrence or effects, which is why we should
| try to get some. You know, the scientific method. That's
| the point in the first place.
| awb wrote:
| You can ask "What if" of anything.
|
| We have limited information in almost every decision we make,
| yet we still have to decide (inaction is itself a decision).
| The key is what you fill in those bits of missing information
| with, not the results of the decision as no one is
| clairvoyant.
|
| This sounds like a gambler. "You're putting $100 on black?"
| "Yeah, I could lose $100, but _what if_ I'm right?"
|
| For both the gambler and the anti-vaxx you get 0 applause
| from me if you randomly guess a "what if" correctly. You only
| get credit if you had a hypothesis you could intelligently
| explain and then tested it robustly. Kind of like the
| scientific process.
|
| It's fine to play "what if" games for fun, but not smart if
| you're trying to play the odds, then you need more substance
| in your decision making.
|
| Like "what if eating vegetables ends up causing heart
| disease?" We've been wrong about nutrition before so "who
| knows?"
| defaultprimate wrote:
| We're not talking about things occurring "randomly". We're
| taking about reasonable probability assessments based on
| available information. Those refusing the vaccination are
| operating with the same level of information about long
| term effects as those that get it: none. People that get
| the vaccine have no empirical evidence that it will be
| beneficial or not harmful in the long run. No long term
| data exists for the techniques or methodology.
|
| Your nutrition example is a great parallel because if we
| would have looked at the funding and long term data
| regarding the food pyramid, simple carbs, etc vs fats
| instead of just "trusting the experts" we wouldn't have an
| epidemic of obese, diabetic gen x and millennials. There's
| tons of sound empirical evidence about the long term health
| benefits of vegetables. It's complete false equivalence
| awb wrote:
| > Those refusing the vaccination are operating with the
| same level of information about long term effects as
| those that get it: none
|
| When I create a website, hire someone, fire someone,
| etc., I have no knowledge of the decision's long term
| effects. My one simple act could make the world a
| paradise or destroy it, but I have no evidence or reason
| to believe in either of those scenarios so I ignore it
| and focus on outcomes that seem reasonable given the
| information I have at the moment.
|
| It's fine to question the long term effects of a
| decision, but if you're doing so with no information or
| insight, you are just randomly guessing.
|
| So better than "what if X happens?" Is "what if Y causes
| X to happen because of Z?" Then we have the basis of a
| hypothesis that we can discuss.
|
| In the veggie example: "What if eating veggies causes
| heart disease because of Z?" "Z" is where the beef is :)
| defaultprimate wrote:
| >if you're doing so with no information or insight, you
| are just randomly guessing.
|
| No you aren't. You are doing the empirically sound thing
| and accepting the null hypothesis, the baseline of being
| unvaccinated, in the absence of sufficient evidence that
| the long term effects of the vaccines are more beneficial
| than detrimental.
| scottLobster wrote:
| So I'll ask the same question that I've yet to receive a
| concrete response to: How long is long enough before you'll
| trust the vaccine? A solid number, in years please. Every
| anti-vaxxer I've asked that to has hand-waved the question
| away, because they know if they say something like "I need a
| minimum of 20 years before I'll trust a vaccine" they'll
| sound paranoid, which they are. Also their timespan is almost
| certainly long enough that any pandemic would be long over by
| the time they'd trust it, essentially precluding vaccines as
| tool during a pandemic if everyone were to adopt their
| perspective.
|
| By virtue of its distribution these vaccines have already
| been tested far more extensively than any other vaccine in
| history at the time of their release. If you don't trust this
| vaccine then you should never trust any future vaccine.
|
| All your "what if"s remind me of the "what if it causes
| fertility issues?" that swept the internet last year despite
| zero valid supporting data. Well my wife and I trusted the
| actual data instead of internet speculation, as well as the
| data showing what COVID can potentially do to fetuses, and we
| got pregnant well after both being fully vaccinated. Thus far
| the baby appears healthy (genetic testing clean, strong heart
| beat, correct size). So it turns out the experts were right
| on that one, and it's more directly relevant than your Vioxx
| example.
| throw10920 wrote:
| > if they say something like "I need a minimum of 20 years
| before I'll trust a vaccine" they'll sound paranoid, which
| they are
|
| Chronic lead poisoning, mesothelioma (cancer usually caused
| by abestos), lung cancer (cigarettes), various types of
| cancer caused by Agent Orange, and cancers caused by DDT
| take years-to-decades to manifest. Asking for 20 years is
| completely reasonable and supported by a dozen other
| substances that _do_ have long-term side effects on that
| timescale.
|
| > Also their timespan is almost certainly long enough that
| any pandemic would be long over by the time they'd trust
| it, essentially precluding vaccines as tool during a
| pandemic if everyone were to adopt their perspective.
|
| Almost everyone that I've heard (except for a lone hardcore
| anti-vaxxer) who has expressed unease at the safety of the
| _mRNA technology in general_ , not the specific application
| of it to SARS-CoV-2 - which is understandable, as there's
| _no long-term trial data available about it_. Several said
| that they were waiting to take the Novavax vaccine, which
| uses an older technology (subunit) that _has_ been in use
| for decades.
|
| So, assuming that the majority of people uneasy about
| taking the vaccine adopt that stance above, then no,
| there's no "precluding vaccines as tool during a pandemic"
| because the criteria is whether a particular _vaccine
| technology_ has been tested for decades or not, not the
| particular payload.
|
| > By virtue of its distribution these vaccines have already
| been tested far more extensively than any other vaccine in
| history at the time of their release. If you don't trust
| this vaccine then you should never trust any future
| vaccine.
|
| Testing a vaccine with one million people for one year does
| not translate into ten years of study for one hundred
| thousand people. You _cannot_ predict long-term effects
| with short-term data, and long-term effects are what these
| people are worried about. Nobody except hardline anti-
| vaxxers (who make up a tiny tiny minority of the population
| that I 'm not discussing here) wants every single
| payload+technology combination to be tested for decades
| before use.
|
| > Well my wife and I trusted the actual data instead of
| internet speculation, as well as the data showing what
| COVID can potentially do to fetuses, and we got pregnant
| well after both being fully vaccinated.
|
| I'm reminded of a line from a sibling comment: "you get 0
| applause from me if you randomly guess a "what if"
| correctly" - and without actual _data_ as to whether mRNA
| vaccines have any long-term side effects (which is the
| issue under discussion), you 're just guessing.
|
| Finally, I'll preempt one of your talking points "We don't
| know what the long-term side effects of covid are either,
| yet, so why not pick the less risky of the two?" Because
| _that_ is a personal choice - so it 's up to the
| _individual_ , not the government to impose.
|
| It's generally a good strategy that, given ambiguous
| information, you still make the best use of what you have
| and pick the least risky option (i.e. vaccines) - however,
| in the _specific_ case of vaccines in the US, the fact that
| the US government has shielded vaccine manufactures from
| legal liability means that there 's significant downside in
| case there are long-term side effects.
|
| If you want more people to take the vaccine, you should be
| campaigning hard to get that law repealed. I don't see
| anyone railing against anti-vaxxers doing that, so the more
| likely explanation is that these people are merely using
| the vaccine as an attempt to increase government control.
| swader999 wrote:
| I've seen enough already to know the risk reward isn't
| worth it for myself or my children. Myself and my immediate
| relatives suffered too many negative side effects. FIL
| still in ICU for stroke two weeks after vax, wife severe
| migraine for ninety days and me with blood clots.
| hooande wrote:
| hundreds of millions of people were vaccinated. shouldn't
| the hospitals be full of stroke victims if those two
| things are related?
|
| if you don't want to get vaccinated, don't. no need for
| poorly reasoned rationalizations
| swader999 wrote:
| I probably didn't give enough detail but it's very clear
| to myself these issues were vax related.
| hooande wrote:
| how? think about how many people have been vaccinated. if
| it caused strokes or severe respiratory illness there
| would be ample evidence of that by now. it wouldn't just
| be this or that relative. think about even 1/10th of 1%
| of 200 million people having a stroke within the same
| time period. you think nobody would notice that?
| scottLobster wrote:
| Well maybe you guys are one of the rare sufferers of
| actual side effects/allergies and shouldn't get the
| vaccine, assuming any of the above is related to the
| vaccine and there weren't other medical issues going on.
| Or if there were maybe said medical issues interact
| negatively with the vaccine and should be accounted for.
|
| That said all vaccines have side effects for some
| populations. There a reason why when you get your flu
| shot they ask you if you've had any previous bad
| reactions to flu shots. That doesn't make the flu shot or
| any vaccine a bad bet, sometimes you bet with 99% odds
| and end up the 1%.
| hammock wrote:
| >So I'll ask the same question that I've yet to receive a
| concrete response to: How long is long enough before you'll
| trust the vaccine?
|
| At this point it's not a matter of time in many cases,
| because it's already been shown in the data for certain
| demographics that the personal risk is not worth the
| personal benefit.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I'm vaccinated, but I would go with some thing along the
| lines of 10-20 years. That is when we will actually have
| long term data. Until then, it is all predictions and
| assumptions, however well informed.
|
| I work in medical R&D and there is a long history of drugs
| and products with delayed failure and unintended
| consequences. I think the chances are low, but anyone who
| claims they are zero is lying.
| claytongulick wrote:
| It's interesting that you phrase it that way, because I was
| thinking exactly the same thing, but from the opposite
| direction.
|
| 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.
| spenczar5 wrote:
| If you don't mind, why _not_ get vaccinated? Like, what is
| the downside?
|
| 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.
| holbrad wrote:
| I'm in a pretty similar boat, young guy, had COVID didn't
| even notice. But got a positive test because the rest of
| the family was sick.
|
| 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.
| PKop wrote:
| What are the long term effects of multiple rounds of
| boosters? You have no idea.
|
| 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/148059515648
| 30720...
| gilbetron wrote:
| So you are choosing between two things
|
| 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.
| PKop wrote:
| I'm not obese, I lift weights, I'm under 50 and I get
| lots of vitamin D? You know, common sense and that which
| correlates with the data of covid risk. If you are
| unhealthy or fat I can see hoping the vaccine will save
| you from your lifestyle choices. If not, then what are
| you afraid of?
|
| 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.
| zuminator wrote:
| This is not our first rodeo with vaccines. So we do in
| fact have excellent reasons to believe they don't cause
| delayed long term effects. That is, if there were long
| term effects, they would manifest themselves in short
| order. There's no biological mechanism for a vaccine to
| lurk in hiding for years and then suddenly cause a brain
| tumor or chronic inflammation or what have you.
|
| "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...
| gilbetron wrote:
| > You have no idea what the long term effects of the
| vaccine are stop pretending like you do, it's ridiculous.
|
| 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.
| hhmc wrote:
| It's interesting that you're concerned about the long
| term _effects_ of boosters, but COVID is nothing to worry
| about since you're only concerned with _deaths_. Seems
| disengenous.
| PKop wrote:
| The vaccines don't prevent people from getting covid, so
| why accumulate risks?
|
| 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?
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The body handles the mRNA vaccine more predictably than
| the naturally occurring viable coronavirus. This is not a
| matter of common sense; it's possible to test in vitro
| and in field trials (and there have been a lot of both).
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| claytongulick wrote:
| It is a dangerous topic (which is weird, right?) And I post
| on HN under my real name. But it's a genuine question, and
| I'm going to try to give you a complete response, because I
| think open discussion on this is important, even though I
| know that it's an unpopular opinion.
|
| 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.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29879165
| spenczar5 wrote:
| Thanks a lot for the explanation. I don't have to agree
| with it to at least see where you are coming from.
|
| 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.
| claytongulick wrote:
| > Its too bad that my comment kicked off just the sort of
| nonproductive back-and-forth I was hoping to avoid
|
| 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.
| hooande wrote:
| A vaccinate _is_ natural immunity. it uses dna from the
| virus to teach your immune system how to fight this
| particular type of virus. if you believe that your
| natural immunity is strong, giving it an extra training
| course can 't hurt in any way.
|
| even if I think I've mastered the material, I still study
| before the final exam. because...why wouldn't you?
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Anyone can report anything to VAERS. It's exactly as
| scary as the boogeyman.
|
| 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.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| > _The "othering" is because people who opted out of
| getting a vaccine have endangered the rest of us_
|
| 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.
| claytongulick wrote:
| Your comment is a great illustration of my 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.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Context: I have a PhD in physics, and I've got a great
| grasp of ventilation and filtration. I don't know much
| about the immune system... My biology training never
| progressed much past Mitochondria are the powerhouse of
| the cell. I don't have qualifications in the subject, but
| my qualifications help me assess other experts.
|
| 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...
| curmudgeon22 wrote:
| Have a look as these case rates by vaccination status,
| per 100,000. There is a higher case rate among the fully
| vaccinated since late December.
|
| 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)
| lovich wrote:
| I think you're talking past the other poster. Not getting
| a vaccine is seen as an anti social action by the vaccine
| taking group. And not just in a "I blare music out loud
| on the subway" level but a "I leave piles of brush near
| my neighbors house during wildfire season" level
|
| 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
| claytongulick wrote:
| I agree, on review I was. I was trying to be careful in
| my phrasing to avoid any form of personal attack or
| hostility, since the other poster clearly has strong
| feelings about the subject.
|
| > 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?
| lovich wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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
| skulk wrote:
| > I haven't seen any evidence anywhere that deciding
| against getting the vaccine puts anyone else's health at
| risk.
|
| 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...
| claytongulick wrote:
| That's a great question!
|
| 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.
|
| It's completely understandable how someone could be
| mislead by an article like that. 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.
| luke_value wrote:
| He has natural immunity. There are literally _only_
| downside risks from taking the shot. Who gets vaccinated
| for a disease they already had? No one gets measles and
| THEN gets vaccinated.
| buu700 wrote:
| He just said he tested positive (again). That means he
| can still spread the virus to other people; it's entirely
| possible that his getting the shot would have spared his
| wife her current symptoms. Elevated risk of infection,
| even if asymptomatic, is also elevated risk of having to
| unexpectedly quarantine in the future.
|
| 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).
| PKop wrote:
| This is a very weak, modern, hyper-fearful mentality that
| is not consistent with reality. You're wishing you lived
| in a utopia, but you don't. You live in the real world.
| The vaccine cannot prevent infection from the current
| strains. Everyone is at risk of getting COVID and most
| likely will get it. You can't hide from this disease, but
| it's ok because the virus has weakened as it's become
| more infectious, as coronaviruses tend to do.
|
| >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.
| buu700 wrote:
| What are you talking about? No one suggested that the
| vaccine would prevent infection 100% reliably, and I'm
| not sure why you think we have a better understanding of
| the long-term effects of covid than mRNA vaccines (which
| aren't the only type of vaccine available in the first
| place).
| PKop wrote:
| It's pointless. If you're young covid is not a big deal.
| If you're giving the vaccine and boosters to children,
| you should be arrested for child abuse and need to get
| your brain examined. Look at the data...CDC director
| admits 75% of covid deaths are people with 4
| comorbidities[0]. Something like 80% of deaths are over
| 65 years old.[1]
|
| 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/1480595156
| 4830720...
|
| [1] https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-
| brief/what-sh...
|
| [2] https://www.macleans.ca/society/the-cruel-ridiculous-
| reality...
| buu700 wrote:
| The data doesn't support your conclusion. Death isn't the
| only kind of harm. Even if what you're saying were
| accurate, some of us healthy people do actually interact
| with older or immunocompromised people, and have enough
| courtesy to avoid putting their health at undue risk.
|
| 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.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| What does any of this have to do with any kind of
| political spectrum?
|
| It is laughable to try to turn everything into left-right
| politics.
|
| Is eating pineapple pizza leftwing or rightwing
| extremism?
| [deleted]
| curmudgeon22 wrote:
| There are risks from the vaccines, even if they are rare.
| Why expose yourself if you're protected already?
|
| Myocarditis being the main one:
|
| - Postmarketing data demonstrate increased risks of
| myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7 days
| following the second dose. [1]
|
| - The true incidence of myopericarditis is markedly
| higher than the incidence reported to US advisory
| committees. (preprint) [2]
|
| [1] https://www.fda.gov/media/151707/download
|
| [2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21
| 268209v...
| lovich wrote:
| > There are risks from the vaccines, even if they are
| rare
|
| Is pretty semantically different from
|
| > There are literally only downside risks from taking the
| shot.
|
| Which I think was the poster's point about right wing
| talking points coming from a brand new account
| [deleted]
| ancientsofmumu wrote:
| > _Who gets vaccinated for a disease they already had?_
|
| 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
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shingles
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoster_vaccine
| twic wrote:
| > Everything I read supported that natural immunity is at
| least as protective as the vaccine
|
| That is the exact opposite of what i have read. One random
| example:
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm
| rhino369 wrote:
| Tiny sample size compared to the one from Israel that found
| the opposite.
|
| 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.
| mizzack wrote:
| The free donut test.
| bequanna wrote:
| > What will the long term effects be? We don't know.
|
| 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?
| saynay wrote:
| So far, there hasn't been any evidence (I've heard of) of
| long-term adverse effects of the vaccination. Vaccines are
| not exactly new science.
|
| 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.
| bequanna wrote:
| Right, my argument would be that the "currently available
| evidence" should be viewed with skepticism given the
| incredible profit motive involved and current political
| climate.
| defaultprimate wrote:
| The time period of "long term" after vaccination
| literally doesn't exist yet
| omginternets wrote:
| >So far, there hasn't been any evidence (I've heard of)
| of long-term adverse effects of the vaccination
|
| 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.
| bopbeepboop wrote:
| peteradio wrote:
| > Vaccines are not exactly new science.
|
| 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".
| generalizations wrote:
| > Vaccines are not exactly new science.
|
| That's why it was such a PR coup to relabel mRNA
| treatments as 'vaccines' - because people would forget
| (or just not realize) that there's a gigantic difference
| between what was prior to 2020 called a vaccine, and what
| we now call 'vaccines'. Guess the trick worked.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| The definition of the word vaccine is a substance that
| stimulates immunity by imitating the infectious agent.
| There have been many different kinds of vaccines over the
| years.
|
| "Vaccine" is a word like "chair." It tells you what it
| does, not what it is made out of.
| kkjjkgjjgg wrote:
| "So far, there hasn't been any evidence (I've heard of)
| of long-term adverse effects of the vaccination"
|
| 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.
| yupper32 wrote:
| When people are talking about unknown long-term effects
| in this context, they typically mean effects that appear
| much later. As in, stuff that wouldn't be caught in
| studies and our current vaccination efforts.
|
| Long-lasting but quickly appearing adverse effects, like
| death, are pretty well understood and are calculated in.
| potatoz2 wrote:
| There's arguably some profit motive for Pfizer and Moderna.
| But there isn't any for the FDA or all its other
| international peers. Not to mention that if the vaccine
| turns out to be dangerous in any way, the reputational
| damage will be incalculable and completely wipe away the
| billions made from what will probably be at most 10 doses
| of the vaccine, if we're unlucky.
| bequanna wrote:
| There is essentially a revolving door between industry
| and regulators in the US. We shouldn't trust, we need to
| independently verify. We need openness and the FOIA.
|
| 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.
| generalizations wrote:
| They can come back from it - other companies have. Do we
| even remember the scandals Nesle and Monsanto (etc) have
| weathered? And don't forget that Pfizer and Moderna have
| been given immunity against any side effects from their
| COVID treatments.
|
| If there's any long term effects, the drug companies are
| well insulated from any blowback.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| For what it's worth, recovering from the disease and getting
| a "booster" vaccine a few months later yields the best
| protection. I hope you do this.
|
| 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.
| mehrdada wrote:
| Where did you get this data? All CDC itself says on the
| website says "Cases of reinfection with COVID-19 have been
| reported, but remain rare. [1]" and it seems there is an
| active effort to suppress the effectiveness of natural
| immunity effectiveness (at least against the same strain).
| Intuitively given vaccine's ineffectiveness at protecting
| against Omicron spread, I tend to think the push for
| boosters are quite dubious and natural immunity is at least
| as good as vax if not better, and sufficiently low risk for
| Omicron after 2x vax. Besides, anecdotal experience of
| below 40 adult friends catching Omicron with 2x or 3x vax
| has been much easier than the two days of bitter experience
| after their last dose of Moderna. The only acceptable
| rationale is to flatten the curve so the Omicron surge
| wouldn't DoS hospitals in the short term which can happen
| even if the relative risk of hospitalization is low due to
| the high transmission rates, but that can be better
| achieved via more temporary isolation/N95/etc than
| boosters.
|
| [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-
| health/reinfe...
| MengerSponge wrote:
| et2o wrote:
| Dead wrong that a single bought of COVID is better than 3
| vaccine shots. You need repeated exposure. Plus, I'm guessing
| you're young-the point was to stop the > million deaths COVID
| is going to cause in the US alone soon. Nice work.
| 7steps2much wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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
| [deleted]
| wilde wrote:
| The marshmallow test has been largely debunked by recent follow
| up studies. It largely acts as a test of socioeconomic
| conditions at home if anything. The analogy to COVID probably
| holds but not in the way you're suggesting.
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/06/marshmall...
| xapata wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| recursive wrote:
| I think the marshmallow test is pretty flawed itself. But maybe
| the marshmallow test is actually a good analogy. I suspect many
| of the test "failures" were caused because the test subject
| (kid) didn't trust the authority figure (test administrator).
| When you can see a marshmallow with your own eyes, it's more
| believable. I think it's quite reasonable to factor in some
| probability that an untrusted stranger would "alter the deal".
| If you take the marshmallow now, no one can bait-and-switch
| you.
|
| 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.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| The fact that college campuses (which have ~100% vaccination
| rates as well as young student bodies that are far less
| likely to face severe symptoms from COVID) are reinstituting
| lockdowns makes it abundantly clear that the marshmallows are
| never, ever coming.
| DaltonCoffee wrote:
| Some college campuses could also be better choices for
| lockdows because they're hotbeds of international students.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| "Just two weeks to flatten the curve!"
| rhino369 wrote:
| I would be in favor of a two week shut down to act like a
| short circuit breaker for Omicron. But I have no trust in
| local authorities, who let "two weeks" turn into months of
| restrictions even when hospitalization rates were low in
| 2020.
| hooande wrote:
| This is the test. People can talk themselves out of any
| positive thing based on the reasoning of "I don't trust
| authority". but those who are considered very successful in
| any profession have to learn to 1) delay gratification 2)
| place trust in the right people
|
| Blind mistrust in authority is as detrimental to long term
| outcomes as not being able to delay gratification
| snowwrestler wrote:
| I just picked what seemed like a well-known analogy for the
| long-term value of managing short-term emotional response.
| You could use other analogies if you want, like putting beer
| money into an IRA, or eating more veggies, etc.
| recursive wrote:
| I think the marshmallow test is more illustrative than
| those for the reasons I mentioned.
| [deleted]
| seneca wrote:
| I, personally, find it amazing that so many people were willing
| to sacrifice nearly two years of their quality-of-life to fight a
| virus that wouldn't hurt most of them. I know everyone is doom
| and gloom about covid, but I'm actually pretty impressed with how
| much the typical person (outside of political manipulation and
| coercion) was willing to sacrifice for others.
|
| 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.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| > so many people were willing to sacrifice nearly two years of
| their quality-of-life
|
| 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.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| Man the privilege required to say what you just wrote is
| amazing. Not everybody works some cushy work from home tech
| job. Many people had their life's work destroyed, their
| career ripped from them, they got to watch the education
| system fuck over their kids.
|
| 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.
| mchusma wrote:
| The author missed one point about the 'vaxxed and done'... some
| actively WANT the virus to spread at this point. If everyone is
| going to get it, then there is an argument to be made to just
| "get it over with". There are valid reasons to wait (hospital
| concerns, availability of Paxlovid), but there are also valid
| reasons to want this done now. The cost of waiting is high. The
| US is only expected to have 10m courses of Paxlovid by June. For
| a population of 330M, this means less than 1 in 30 people would
| even have access to it.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It's interesting that COVID and vaccines for it are treated so
| much differently than others. Does the average person on the
| street know which variants of influenza are currently
| circulating? Do they have a preference for manufacturer of their
| influenza vaccine? Do they know what type their influenza vaccine
| is? Probably not. But suddenly everyone cares deeply about all of
| these things for COVID.
|
| To me it's simple: I ask my doctor what I should do and then I do
| it.
| el_benhameen wrote:
| I get where you're coming from, but I think that the obvious
| difference is that regardless of the severity of the current
| covid variant in vaccinated people, the flu hasn't upended
| every bit of life as we know it for a 2+ year period any time
| in recent memory.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| My point is that there is nothing new that warrants a change
| in your relationship with your doctor or your approach to
| medical advice.
| maxerickson wrote:
| US recommends everyone get a flu vaccine and we usually only
| hit about 50%.
| munificent wrote:
| _> To understand how ideologically scrambling the Omicron wave
| has been, consider this: Some 2022 Democrats are sounding like
| 2020 Republicans. ... In the current Omicron wave, these
| Republican talking points seem to have mostly come true--for most
| vaccinated non-senior adults, who are disproportionately
| Democrats._
|
| 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.
| perardi wrote:
| This is absolutely me.
|
| 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...)_
| AniseAbyss wrote:
| I'm not an angry conspiracy theory guy but the government gave me
| the idea that we could beat corona if we just got everyone vaxxed
| and follow guidelines. Two years and 3 jabs later it's still
| SNAFU.
|
| 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.
| ensan wrote:
| I'm under 30, healthy, and have no kids.
|
| 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.
| drewg123 wrote:
| I think a lot of this depends on the typical severity of Omicron
| (and future variants).
|
| 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.
| 01100011 wrote:
| If Omicron is as mild as it initially appeared, we're back to
| normal by summer 2022. My wild assed guess is that if death
| rates don't spike by February it will be increasingly difficult
| for the government and health officials to justify a
| continuation of current recommendations.
|
| 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.
| jmole wrote:
| Exactly - Delta had a reputation for being both prolific and
| extremely virulent. Long COVID, loss of smell & taste, heart
| and lung problems, etc. A terrible illness.
|
| Omicron seems to carry far fewer of those risks from what data
| we have, especially if you are vaccinated.
| yellowapple wrote:
| My hope is that we're approaching a similar point the Spanish
| Flu did after this amount of time: Spanish Flu eventually
| lost its lethality and became symptomatically
| indistinguishable from your run of the mill flu, and
| hopefully COVID will eventually do the same and be
| symptomatically indistinguishable from your run of the mill
| cold. Obviously we ain't there quite yet, but with Omicron
| being both wider-spreading and more mild, hopefully we'll get
| there soon.
| AniseAbyss wrote:
| Iirc the Spanish flue lasted 5 years so we still have some
| time to go.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| I think the increase in travel sufficiently "stirs the
| pot" to accelerate this one. Hopefully anyway.
| ya_throw wrote:
| Interesting. Here in the UK, Delta wasn't too much of a
| concern. I suspect because the public messaging was much more
| focused on getting everyone vaccinated.
| xeromal wrote:
| This is anecdotal, but I'm the only one in my family who is
| vaccinated (which took me catching swine flu years ago to
| convince me), but my elderly mom and younger brother and sister
| had omicron and all had the same symptoms while be
| unvaccinated.
|
| I was in the house but didn't catch omicron due to the vaccine
| (I guess?).
| drewg123 wrote:
| Did you take a test? The person I'm staying with also tested
| positive, but she had no symptoms at all..
| xeromal wrote:
| Yup, I took a test every other day until 5 days after. This
| was in GA where there is plenty of vaccine and tests to go
| around due to non-compliance (I guess?)
| ashtonkem wrote:
| I personally worry about the availability of medical services
| due to attrition among medical staff and ICU load due to the
| unvaccinated. I also have taken precautions, but I can't
| guarantee that I won't get into a car crash or suffer a random
| medical incident requiring urgent care.
| drewg123 wrote:
| Yes, attrition of hospital staff is terrible. I was
| hospitalized last fall for a non-covid issue, and a volunteer
| came into the room who was a retired nurse. She told me that
| the current patient loads for nurses are about 2x what they
| were pre-covid. I checked on the nurses salaries (via job
| ads), and they honestly did not seem terrible competitive.
| CedarMills wrote:
| I'm not vaxxed - but want to be. I tested positive for COVID now
| a second time last week and taking a few days off to be safe.
| This time it felt a lot easier to go through so I assume it's
| Omicron. First time around in July 2020, I was in bed for a day
| and couldn't smell anything for about a month.
|
| 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.
| confidantlake wrote:
| They never would have gotten it anyway.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| > they know people personally who have died after getting the
| shots
|
| I don't think that's possible...
| kmonad wrote:
| Every viral replication is an event that could yield a new
| variant. A new variant can lead to new problems. It is therefore
| of interest to limit viral replications. This, in addition to the
| health care system capacities, are crucial targets to address.
|
| 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.
| ya_throw wrote:
| How can you simultaneously say that Covid will become endemic,
| and also that we need to try to control its mutation rate?
| Ongoing mutation is a fact of (viral) life.
| kmonad wrote:
| I do not understand your question in the first sentence,
| sorry. And I agree with your second sentence.
| aeturnum wrote:
| > _I'm prepared to treat this like I've treated the flu: by
| basically not worrying about it and living my life normally._
|
| 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
| Spartan-S63 wrote:
| I think the message of "vaxxed and done" is the right way for us
| to be moving, but I think it's incomplete.
|
| 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.
| csee wrote:
| I disagree with this language of "collective" sacrifice. A
| group can't sacrifice or suffer. Only individuals can sacrifice
| and suffer. Lockdowns are a sacrifice paid strictly by
| individuals.
| JSavageOne wrote:
| Personally I'm completely sick of mask mandates. First off the
| effectiveness of masks is even questionable except for k95
| masks, which are hideously uncomfortable and look ridiculous.
|
| 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.
| mattnewton wrote:
| I would agree with this but add continuous testing to the mix,
| and actually quarantining if you have a positive test but no
| symptoms. It seems like the most reasonable comprimise between
| the individual desire to return to normal.
|
| 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.
| Spartan-S63 wrote:
| I agree with the continuous testing requirement, too. I'm
| lucky enough to live in Colorado with an at-home test kit
| program. I've been able to regularly test about once a week,
| or more frequently if I have clinical symptoms.
|
| 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.
| fallingknife wrote:
| But anybody who I spread it to and is vaxxed also has minimal,
| acceptable risk. If they aren't vaxed, that's on them.
| mattnewton wrote:
| That's not true of the immunocompromised, the rare few who
| actually couldn't get the fully vaccine because of a reaction
| to the first dose, the elderly and others with co-morbidities
| they might not even know about. Those people, along with the
| unvaccinated, are still going to overwhelm the hospitals if
| everyone doesn't attempt to limit the spread with measures
| like masking and testing.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Flu is also dangerous to these people but we never wore
| masks. This is an edge case and it is the responsibility of
| these people to protect themselves.
| mattnewton wrote:
| This is significantly more dangerous to significantly
| more people than the flu so the extra masking / testing
| is warranted for the time being. That being said, this is
| probably where we will end up, with a milder and endemic
| COVID that we treat like the flu.
| JSavageOne wrote:
| Why should everyone in society be forced to bend over
| backwards to accommodate elderly people or those with
| comorbidities who decide to go out in public?
|
| 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...
| mattnewton wrote:
| I'm not saying we should lock everything down and stop
| going outside. I am saying COVID is still infectious and
| lethal enough to warrant small countermeasures like
| encouraging masking indoors and regular testing /
| quarantine if you have it to limit the spread. These are
| small, proportional measures to the danger I think.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Anybody except the elderly - a responsibly vaccinated
| septuagenarian or octogenarian has a very different, much
| worse risk profile compared to a responsibly vaccinated young
| adult. This group is about 3 out of every 100 people.
|
| 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.
| pklausler wrote:
| If they are eligible for vaccination and choose to refuse it,
| that's one thing. But there are people who cannot be
| vaccinated, and I still worry about how my actions might
| affect them.
| crooked-v wrote:
| I have to wonder how much of this comes down to a complete loss
| of empathy and patience with the willingly unvaxxed.
| omosubi wrote:
| Why would you have empathy for them? They have fought the
| vaccines for close to a year now and if they haven't gotten it
| they probably have a pretty good reason. Shouldn't the vaccine
| protect vaxxed people from everyone?? I seriously do not
| understand vaxxed people who care about other people's
| vaccination status, especially when those people aren't their
| elderly friends and family.
| egypturnash wrote:
| chronofar wrote:
| I don't think you need to lack empathy or patience to desire a
| return to normalcy with an understanding that if someone
| decides not to protect themselves they may experience negative
| consequences.
|
| 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.
| theHIDninja wrote:
| mrkramer wrote:
| >This year, COVID is on pace to kill more than 300,000
| unvaccinated people who would, quite likely, avoid death by
| getting two or three shots.
|
| For the record vaccinated people die too.
| notquitehuman wrote:
| What's the case fatality rate for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated
| people?
| brodouevencode wrote:
| I'd recommend reading "On Living In The Atomic Age" by C. S.
| Lewis.
| dirtyid wrote:
| Vaxed, booted, probably going to get omicron + super immunity
| before winter ends. What else is there to do.
|
| Lowkey waiting for crop dusters to drop aerosolized vaccine on
| the regular.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| >Lowkey waiting for crop dusters to drop aerosolized vaccine on
| the regular.
|
| Yeah, just like with DDT!
| 71a54xd wrote:
| I know a fully vaccinated person (2x pfizer vaccine) in NYC who's
| also received 2x boosters and is NOT immunocompromised and has
| legitimately tested positive for covid three separate times.
|
| 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.
| uptownfunk wrote:
| <Unpopular opinion>
|
| 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?
| adamrezich wrote:
| "deltacron" is pure memery just like "flurona" was a few days
| ago. something that comes and goes in the news cycle, people
| consume the fear porn, then a day or two passes and everyone's
| forgotten about it and moved onto the next thing while the fear
| instilled remains. I haven't kept up with this stuff because
| the whole thing is a joke at this point but a day or two ago
| when "deltacron" was announced, it was already being announced
| before the day's end that whoops it was a mistake... but it
| could still be coming!!
| throw8932894 wrote:
| I am vaxxed and done. I was told by doctors and by government
| officials, that vaccine will make me immune to virus
| indefinitely, and I do believe that. Anyone who says otherwise is
| a liar and antivaxxer for me.
| jat850 wrote:
| I am curious if those (especially posting here aligning with this
| position) would change their minds if a more deadly variant were
| to arise, if the vaccines available evolved to better match the
| strains by probability, or otherwise.
| mherdeg wrote:
| Two sources I've been reading on the endgame here:
|
| (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).
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Between the 2nd dose putting me in the ER with myocarditis which
| no one warned me about the risk of, and a $3500 medical bill due,
| being told I could be maskless and free if I got the
| "vaccine"[1], getting covid anyways and it being nbd, and then
| learning that the CDC redefined the meaning of "vaccine" for this
| treatment[2] (imo "immunotherapy" would be a more understandable
| word) -- yeah I'm done.
|
| 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.
| standardUser wrote:
| "The redefinition undermines what most would colloquially
| understand as a vaccine"
|
| 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 field that develops and
| administers 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.
| groggo wrote:
| > myocarditis which no one warned me about the risk of
|
| 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.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| I had heart/chest pain that slowly got more and more intense
| over the span of about 3-4 days after most of the 2nd dose
| side effects wore off. In hindsight I should have gone to the
| hospital much sooner for Heart attack symptoms, but I had an
| inkling it wasn't a heart attack because it entirely would go
| away if I laid on my side just so after about 60 seconds...
| and magically come back if I sat or stood up, and go away
| when I laid down again like a switch --> not heart attack
| symptoms.. anyways I digress.
|
| after EKG, xrays, bloodwork, a big scare and such the doctors
| put me on ibuprofen and it subsided after another ~3 days
| C19is20 wrote:
| Anyone got a conversion of $3500 to Euro?
| Shrimpist wrote:
| Google does
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=3500&Fr.
| .. :)
| dpark wrote:
| > _the CDC redefined the meaning of "vaccine" for this
| treatment[2] (imo "immunotherapy" would be a more
| understandable word) -- yeah I'm done._
|
| 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.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| You're not entirely wrong that terms need to be updated from
| time to time and to match new technological details. I agree
| with redefining the difference between weakened portions of a
| virus vs (as i understood it) spike proteins produced within
| us ... What I personally dont agree with is redefining the
| success % (about 80%?) and a target of a vaccine to mean "You
| wont get hospitalized" (as opposed to you will have no
| observable symptoms). 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.
|
| 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".
| ostenning wrote:
| Same here. Still have heart inflammation 4 months after my
| second dose of Pfizer. I remember when the statistics were
| "1/1000000", and now its 1/10000 for boys 12-17 [1].
|
| 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...
| conception wrote:
| The CDC's explanation "interpreted to mean that vaccines were
| 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine,
| so the current definition is more transparent, and also
| describes the ways in which vaccines can be administered" is
| totally on point and correct. People didn't really think about
| vaccines before and it wasn't a political thing where people
| are looking for gotchas like "They changed the definition of
| vaccine!" Before this age, you could just simply say "Yeah,
| vaccines give you immunity" and didn't need to be hyperacurrate
| but now everything is scrutinized, even when they provide a
| better definition apparently.
| wkd415 wrote:
| Next topic please.
| smachiz wrote:
| I don't get it. It takes 10 minutes to get a booster. It's such a
| non-event.
| turrican wrote:
| If you are one of the lucky few that doesn't get unpleasant
| side effects for 24-48 hours afterwords, this may be true.
|
| 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.
| zzbzq wrote:
| Have you tried just taking a Tylenol?
| lovecg wrote:
| 10 minutes to get it, anywhere from 0 days to a week to get
| over the side effects. Source: personal experience. If the
| calculation changes from "one and done" to "do this every few
| months on a schedule", I'm leaning towards taking my chances
| with the virus. I'll reconsider if there's a newer, broad
| spectrum vaccine available though.
| mikestew wrote:
| Bullshit, I spent hours trying to get an appointment for a
| booster, just like I spent hours last spring trying to find a
| vaccination appointment (which was 90 minutes away). And I lost
| a day to the 2nd shot, and another day to the booster, as both
| wiped me out for 24 hours.
|
| 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
| ".
| xeromal wrote:
| Plenty of people who get the booster have a low grade fever and
| sickness for a day or two.
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| Friend of mine had a week long migraine and felt like she had
| the flu for the first 48 hours.
| toshk wrote:
| Of course people are done with 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...
| isubasinghe wrote:
| At the same time though, opening up completely comes at
| hospitals being overwhelmed, supply chains breaking apart
| (already happened in my country).
|
| 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.
| lambdaba wrote:
| A lot of people at all levels are having a huge boost in the
| power (or influence) they can exert. It's hard to convince them
| to give it away, especially when they have still a sizable
| crowd cheering them on.
| amatecha wrote:
| There's some real irony that the people most likely to spread
| COVID -- those who are vaccinated and thus don't show symptoms
| -- are the ones "allowed" to engage in the most risky behaviour
| like large gatherings at restaurants, bars, theatres, sports
| arenas. Meanwhile those second-class citizens who are non-
| vaccinated won't take those risks and will also definitely know
| if they are sick, hilariously probably behaving the most
| safely/cautiously, as everyone should. Just as expected,
| infection rates just skyrocket due to new variants and people
| thinking "I'm protected" as they act as if there's no pandemic
| at all. Great.
| scottbruin wrote:
| I think you have that backwards. Asymptomatic infection with
| likely transmission (plus presyptomatic transmission) was a
| big characteristic of COVID since day one (and one of the
| reasons it's so hard to contain compared to say, Ebola).
| Research seems to show that vaccinated people have shorter
| windows of spreading virus, and (at least before omicron
| variant) were much less likely to have virus in their nose
| without symptoms.
|
| 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...
| felix318 wrote:
| All those public health decisions are taken behind closed
| doors, we are never told the full story. I suspect the point
| of the vaccine passports is really to protect the
| unvaccinated.
| mleonhard wrote:
| Vaccines were never expected to stop the pandemic. They were
| expected to stop people from dying from the pandemic. They are
| doing that. So far, vaccines have saved 1.1M Americans from
| dying from covid and saved 10.3M Americans from needing
| hospital treatment for covid [0].
|
| 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...
| zcw100 wrote:
| It feels like a lot of the replies here are dubious and I suspect
| a large number of them are from antivaxxers who are trying to
| amplify a message of, "See, even people that got the vaccine are
| sick and tired of it. They're with us even though we don't agree
| with them"
| iak8god wrote:
| "Vaxxed and done" is a strange label for this sentiment:
|
| "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.
| Animats wrote:
| We still don't know if the omicron variant leads to "long
| COVID".[1] We'll know some time in February. That has a big
| effect on what to do next.
|
| 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...
| vernie wrote:
| Nice to seeing that "hang tight for 3 weeks, we'll know more
| then" is still effective after 2 years.
| Animats wrote:
| We will know more in a month. Doesn't mean the news will be
| good.
|
| 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/fullarti
| cle...
| pavon wrote:
| Last I read, Moderna was also claiming as early as March 2022
| (but possibly Q2) for their Omicron-specific booster[1]. Has
| there been other announcements pushing that back to the fall?
|
| [1]https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-
| pharmaceuticals/...
| Animats wrote:
| https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/589040-moderna-ceo-
| say...
| andrewclunn wrote:
| Harboring concern over long term risks of covid because o f
| lack of data, but unconcerned about long term risks from
| vaccines for covid because of lack of data? You MAY be
| brainwashed.
| twblalock wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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?
| iqanq wrote:
| >The problem of the spread was mostly solved by vaccines
| before Omicron
|
| Nah it wasn't. Unless you expected people to get boosted ad
| infinitum, which was never going to happen.
| [deleted]
| valachio wrote:
| It ends when people say it ends.
|
| 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.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| It's basically this. "Science" cannot tell you when Covid
| is "over" and the people who told us to be afraid will
| never say it's truly safe. Moving on from Covid is a simple
| is not being afraid of it anymore. That's it. All that is
| required. It's all in peoples head.
| SheepSlapper wrote:
| Hopefully people are waking up to this, because it's been
| true since the beginning. If enough people say "kick rocks"
| when new restrictions appear from on high, there's nothing
| a government can really do.
|
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-10 23:01 UTC)