COVID 45: Those Are Rookie Numbers

[Knight Of Winter]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

I don't mean it as a personal attack but an attempt to make clear to you what it is you're actually advocating, because you don't seem to appreciate that. And indeed, you go on to not appreciate it at length. 

Oh great, this time it's condescending attitude coupled with oh-so-clever remarks how I'm advocating for systemic discrimination. You truly are unique in being utterly incapable of writing a post without these self-righteous jabs being all over the place. Hopefully your substance will be better than your style.

Look, I'm aware that being immunocompromised outright sucks, and that they're the ones that have been, through no fault of their own, given short end of the stick. If I was one, I'd be pretty pissed at all these people who could make my life safer by getting vaccinated and still refuse to do so.

At the same time, while protecting immunocompromised is and should be society's goal - it can't be society's only goal, nor maybe soceity's most important goal. Other principles are at play here: namely other's people right to bodily autonomy. General health of the rest of the population. Keeping the economy afloat - which pays for, among other things, healthcare system that we all need. Should we try to protect immunocompromised - yes, of course. But should we also try to achieve other goals, which will sometimes clash with the course of action that keeps immunocompromised most safe? Also yes. It's a balance of principles, rights and trade-offs. Yeah, it's multifaceted and complicated situation overall -  and you seem not to even try to handle it in its fullest, instead focusing only on one of its components and thinking it gives you some kind of moral high ground.

For example, you ask what I think we should do with immunocompromised? (and seriously, implying that I think that "team players" means that they should get covid and die is petty and pathetic). And, yes, i'd hate to see society where they are recommended to stay isolated for their own safaty, true. But I'd hate even more a society where everyone is kept locked for the sake of immunocompromised.  Or a society where vaxxed and unvaxxed are segregated. Or society that casually violates free will and bodily autonomy of its members. See - there's no easy answer there. Whataver you do, you're going to violate some principle and, perhaps unjustly, target someone beyond what's reasonable and expected. 
 

5 hours ago, mormont said:

I've said before, but to summarise: we have to reach a level of immunity in the population that reduces the prevalence of COVID to a manageable level and that means vaccinating those who remain unvaccinated. The evidence is that some intend to do it but haven't got around to it: they need a push. Others are unsure: they need more information. But the evidence is also that in most countries, at least some of those who are outright opposed to vaccination must be vaccinated for us to manage this disease in a sustainable way. 

...

Here for example, while claiming you're fighting against systemic discrimination against one group; you're advocating for systemic discrimination against different group (voluntarily unvaxxed), suggesting making their life difficult at every corner in order to push them into compliance. Not to mention keeping "robust" part of the society (vaccinated, recovered, young and healthy) restricted though risk for them is comparatively low.

And while I don't agree with you on this - I won't attack you from a moral standpoint as I get where you're coming from. Again, there's no easy answer- and no matter what you or I or anyone else suggest - no solution is ever going to be perfect.

Here's another possible solution: announce a date in the future and on that date, remove all restrictions and open everything. Advise sensitive groups (elderly, immunocompromised etc.) to be careful for a while, but ultimately leave it to their responsibility. Soon enough, everyone will be immunized: unvaccinated either by recovering or changing their mind and getting jabbed; vaccinated mostly by vaccinations. Once immunity rate is high enough, immunocompromised and others are safe to rejoin society.

Is this solution perfect? No, and I could spend paragraphs upon paragraphs finding flaws in my own proposition - for one, pressure on healthcare system will be high for some time. Again, I'm aware that so solution is ever perfect.

[Kalbear]

I also think that 'vaccine mandate' here is shorthand for 'require vaccination as we do in other cases of required vaccination'. Technically we don't have any MMR 'mandate' in the US, for example, but public schools require it, the military requires it, many professions require it, etc.

That standard seems pretty reasonable to me. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Here's another possible solution: announce a date in the future and on that date, remove all restrictions and open everything. Advise sensitive groups (elderly, immunocompromised etc.) to be careful for a while, but ultimately leave it to their responsibility. Soon enough, everyone will be immunized: unvaccinated either by recovering or changing their mind and getting jabbed; vaccinated mostly by vaccinations. Once immunity rate is high enough, immunocompromised and others are safe to rejoin society.

Yes, random arbitrary dates in the future without any changing in behavior based on new data and harm is a very sane and responsible thing that people who care about overall results definitely do

1 minute ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Is this solution perfect? No, and I could spend paragraphs upon paragraphs finding flaws in my own proposition - for one, pressure on healthcare system will be high for some time. Again, I'm aware that so solution is ever perfect.

Could you, maybe, start with one that isn't just bad on every level except for the people who don't prefer to follow rules for the sake of others?

Like seriously, what is the actual criteria you're wanting to follow here - that we're going to just stop doing any restrictions because lol they suck? 

[Knight Of Winter]

4 hours ago, Padraig said:

Knight of Winter and HoI's seem to be mainly focused on the level of condemnation thrown at the unvaccinated

Just a thumbs up and thanks - this was indeed the main point I was trying to make.
 

52 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

In many places also if you know you have an std and don’t disclose such to you’re partner you’re guilty of a crime.

That's a fair take; and I'm not opposed to legally punishing people who know are infected with covid, yet still choose to hang out with others and thus risk spreading the virus.

The point was, however, not in intentionally spreading the disease/virus (very very few would willingly do such a thing), but in underlying behaviours (promiscuity without protection on one hand; remaining unvaccinated on the other) which make the risk of spreading more likely without actively and willingly spreading it.

 

14 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I think the difference is the externalities caused by the behavior and why you are seeing this anger and rancor.  There are consequences to society as a collective as a result of an individual’s decision here.  And in many cases where there are externalities, we do govern behavior.  I should note that norms change with respect to behaviors in this respect.  I clearly remember a time when smoking indoors was totally fine in NY and everyone accepted the externalities associated with that.  But times changed and people stopped accepting smelly hair, clothes and the risk of second hand smoke and laws were passed to enforce this.  

This is a sensible take, and I'd agree with it. I understand where anger and rancor are coming from - and while they're perfectly understandable emotions given the situation,  I just don't think healthy societies should make policies based on anger and rancor.

ETA: 

8 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Yes, random arbitrary dates in the future without any changing in behavior based on new data and harm is a very sane and responsible thing that people who care about overall results definitely do

Kal, any date is going to be arbitrary. Whether the date is two days or two years from now; we can't know and can't predict with certainty what is going to happen by that date. But at some point, there has to be an exit strategy. At some point, when right conditions are met, we should be able to say "Ok, we did everything we reasonably could - there's no point delaying opening any more". We probably disagree exactly what these conditions are (although in both your and mine cases, we'll follow the similar parameters, such as: X new cases or Y new deaths a day, Z% of people vaccinated etc.); but I assume we agree that we can't be keeping society half-closed indefinitely.

 

[mormont]

46 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

For example, you ask what I think we should do with immunocompromised? (and seriously, implying that I think that "team players" means that they should get covid and die is petty and pathetic). And, yes, i'd hate to see society where they are recommended to stay isolated for their own safaty, true. But I'd hate even more a society where everyone is kept locked for the sake of immunocompromised. 

OK, but I did ask you to explain what you mean by them being 'team players' and you haven't. I'm genuinely at a loss to understand what it is you did mean, if it's not them either accepting the risk of death or being isolated so that able people can opt not to take a safe vaccine?

46 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Or a society where vaxxed and unvaxxed are segregated. Or society that casually violates free will and bodily autonomy of its members. See - there's no easy answer there. Whataver you do, you're going to violate some principle and, perhaps unjustly, target someone beyond what's reasonable and expected.

I agree there are no easy answers, and there's nothing casual about imposing a vaccine mandate by whatever means. It would be a very serious decision and we have rightly tried to avoid it. But the point at which we can continue to avoid the hard choice is approaching. If we want to get back the things you mentioned earlier, something has to give. I'm saying sacrificing a degree of bodily autonomy is the least bad of the available options, all of which (as you say) are bad.

46 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Here for example, while claiming you're fighting against systemic discrimination against one group; you're advocating for systemic discrimination against different group (voluntarily unvaxxed), suggesting making their life difficult at every corner in order to push them into compliance.

Yes.

As I've said, it's not a lightly taken position but in cases like this, the rights of these two groups are not the same. On the one hand you have disabled people, who did not choose to be disabled: on the other hand you have voluntarily unvaccinated people, who did choose to be unvaccinated. Choices carry responsibilities that accidents of birth do not. That's why when forced to choose between the rights of someone who made a choice vs the rights of someone who has a characteristic they can't change, we should (all other things being equal) choose the latter. Never lightly, and never without due consideration, but the reverse situation - allowing the freely made life choices of dominant groups to damage the lives of others who can't choose the accidents of their birth - is worse.

ETA - in what may be a karmic development, you choose, I've spent a chunk of the afternoon dealing with literally fifty-odd spam messages from some activist group screaming at us to oppose vaccine mandates for medical students, which isn't even a thing in Scotland at this point...

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

ETA: 

Kal, any date is going to be arbitrary.

Which is why you shouldn't do date-based decisions!

11 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Whether the date is two days or two years from now; we can't know and can't predict with certainty what is going to happen by that date. But at some point, there has to be an exit strategy.

Maybe based on, I don't know, vaccination, positive case rates, and hospitalization rates?

11 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

At some point, when right conditions are met, we should be able to say "Ok, we did everything we reasonably could - there's no point delaying opening any more". We probably disagree exactly what these conditions are (although in both your and mine cases, we'll follow the similar parameters, such as: X new cases or Y new deaths a day, Z% of people vaccinated etc.); but I assume we agree that we can't be keeping society half-closed indefinitely.

Sure! I just don't agree that giving up because we just can't even and setting some random date in the future is a good idea for anything.

I also don't see how anywhere is keeping things 'half-closed', much less society. To my knowledge basically nothing is closed or even particularly restricted at this point. "Half-closed" at this point means what - people need vaccinations to go into restaurants and bars? Kids need to wear masks in school? This kind of hyperbole - where people equate some things stopped as a 'lockdown' and society being 'half closed' meaning 'some restrictions on people doing anything that they want, ever, in some places.

Ultimately public health is going to have some restrictions and those restrictions are going to evolve as we get more understanding of things, and that goes for all things. We 'restrict' people's choices in what paint they use, what insulation they use, what medicines they use, what additives in food, how fast people drive, how they wear seat belts, what safety gear people have, how they can call for emergency services, how long food lasts on shelves, how we deal with infection and transmission and best practices. These are all restrictions too, and they've lasted a lot longer than the original issue.

So here's another thought - what if this is the new normal and that wearing masks is a restriction that lasts for a long time, just like wearing shoes is? 

[Clueless Northman]

49 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Here for example, while claiming you're fighting against systemic discrimination against one group; you're advocating for systemic discrimination against different group (voluntarily unvaxxed).

Voluntarily unvaxxed is a choice. Having an organ transplant or a cancer treatment isn't exactly something you picked for fun.

52 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I am wholly opposed to withholding medical care from anyone.

Thankfully this is becoming less of a risk, but that might still happen in some parts of the world and of the US: if ICUs are basically full, you are withholding medical care from people. So whom do you pick? Based on which criteria? The business-as-usual approach would basically mean first-come first-serve. During Delta wave, there were unvaccinated covid patients that stayed 4 weeks in ICU before actually dying - that's a heck of a long time compared to your average ICU stay. I hope ICU stays are overall shorter with Omicron - and I hope they are fewer of course.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Or society that casually violates free will and bodily autonomy of its members

That's exactly what the unvaxxed, unmasked, non-isolated DO!  They violate our free will and bodily autonomy, casually, for fun and to deliberately be cruel.

Stupid Sarah Palin just did exactly that, and she was allowed to by the celebrity restaurant that she entered though she is tested positive and must quarantine, and even her court case was postponed for that.  Yet out she went, knowing all this, and laffing all the way.  So think of the violation to the staff who had to be breathed upon by her.

 

[Zorral]

48 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said:

I hope ICU stays are overall shorter with Omicron 

This is untrue for the unvaccinated.

This guy was definitely not vaccinated and he's just one among hundreds of thousands in the hospitals.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/01/23/minnesota-covid19-patient-at-center-of-ventilator-fight-dies-in-texas

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Just a thumbs up and thanks - this was indeed the main point I was trying to make.
 

Which is worse. At least with government mandates there’s an argument albeit a weak of it being government overreach.

But people shouldn’t even aggressive to those who not only put their own health at risk but others as well because…that’s not nice.

2 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

You truly are unique in being utterly incapable of writing a post without these self-righteous jabs being all over the place. Hopefully your substance will be better than your style.

Eh nothing wrong with feeling morally righteous in your positions. I assume you also feel the same.

2 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

General health of the rest of the population. Keeping the economy afloat - which pays for, among other things, healthcare system that we all need.

It’s weird how people seem to think having to take time off work due to an infection or dying from an infection, or a large percentage of the population afraid if they go out shopping or working  because they don’t want to get infected can’t  also hamper an economy.

Also, in a lot of places like America, the general population’s health is terrible.

 

2 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

But I'd hate even more a society where everyone is kept locked for the sake of immunocompromised.

Eh lockdowns can be necessary at times. 

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

promiscuity without protection on one hand; remaining unvaccinated on the other)

It’s stupid not to wear a condom during sex with strangers, it’s stupid not get vaccinated when you plan to be around strangers in general society. At least with the former could be done with two or more consenting parties. The latter mostly puts other parties at risk by being in the same room as them. 

2 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Or a society where vaxxed and unvaxxed are segregated.

Eh that’s fine generally. I mean there’s a reason why most developed countries vaccine passports in order to enter their society altogether.

It’s fine for a society to have standards.

 

[Padraig]

2 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Kal, any date is going to be arbitrary. Whether the date is two days or two years from now; we can't know and can't predict with certainty what is going to happen by that date. But at some point, there has to be an exit strategy.

Restrictions have ebbed and flowed depending on infection.  If a super nasty variant appears in 6 months time, we would be foolish to do nothing because we are tired of COVID.

People may not like how restrictions can be put back in place but it does seem to be the logical approach.  Nobody wants to run out of hospital beds.  The good news for the US is that COVID does seem to have peaked (for now) with cases, hospitalisations and people in ICU all turning negative.  The fatality rate continues to increase though, so it shows how dangerous Omicron can still be.  It is now higher than the Delta wave in September.  But you'd expect that metric to follow the others soon.

2 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

I just don't think healthy societies should make policies based on anger and rancor.

While this is true, the mere presence of anger doesn't negate the need for policies.  This is why people have said we need to follow the science (not anger).  And generally, science has supported the application of measures.  In fact, from a US point of view, I imagine most medical people would say the measures have been too weak.

As Omicron recedes, there probably will be more debate on this topic.  But that's fine.  Views should change as circumstances changes.

On a related note...

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4481211-novavax-no-wind-in-the-sails

This is a very long report and there is a lot in it that I wouldn't agree with (it quotes the Daily Mail!!!) but it covers a lot of things (including this point about Novavax needing to get its EU factories online by the end of March or its EU approval ends), and I imagine the data itself is factually accurate.  This quote interested me.

Quote

 

“An estimated 97.5% of the adult population in England, 96.8% in Wales, 97.4% in Northern Ireland and 97.7% in Scotland tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies in the week beginning 20 December 2021.”

Estimates from the USA up to November 2021 at 31.6%, are not as encouraging but the data is from before the Omicron wave, hence this data set will be worth a review once it is updated to the end of January 2022.

 

I had seen this data previously but not for a long time.  But (even ignoring the different dates) there is a huge difference between the US and the UK.  And you could certainly justify a very different approach based on that.  It will be interesting to see how Omicron effects the US rate.

But in the UK there clearly isn't that much more you could do, when you are that close to 100%.  Although i'm happy for the unvaccinated to feel like they have left everybody down with their stance (although, they probably don't particularly care about wider society).  Hurting people's feelings in this situation is fine. 

I'm really curious to see what other countries antibody rate is though.

[Zorral]

14 minutes ago, Padraig said:

he good news for the US is that COVID does seem to have peaked (for now) with cases, hospitalisations and people in ICU all turning negative. 

You are wrong.  Huge swathes of the USA are dying from this, whether from covid per se, or because they cannot get the health care they need because the unvaccinated have taken all of it over.  Only a few places, including my own location, are seeing drops.

But most important, in the 'rural' places where the case are increasing still, there nearer medical care centers and hospitals have closed, the nearest left over have limited beds, and so on and so forth.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

 

 

This is a sensible take, and I'd agree with it. I understand where anger and rancor are coming from - and while they're perfectly understandable emotions given the situation,  I just don't think healthy societies should make policies based on anger and rancor.

ETA: 

Kal, any date is going to be arbitrary. Whether the date is two days or two years from now; we can't know and can't predict with certainty what is going to happen by that date. But at some point, there has to be an exit strategy. At some point, when right conditions are met, we should be able to say "Ok, we did everything we reasonably could - there's no point delaying opening any more". We probably disagree exactly what these conditions are (although in both your and mine cases, we'll follow the similar parameters, such as: X new cases or Y new deaths a day, Z% of people vaccinated etc.); but I assume we agree that we can't be keeping society half-closed indefinitely.

 

No one is suggesting vaccines mandates because angry, they are suggesting vaccines mandates because we're still having people dying because they aren't vaccinated.  

Just because someone is angry doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of valid reasons and data supporting their goals.  

 

[Zorral]

https://www.newyorker.com/science/medical-dispatch/when-covid-means-not-enough-beds-in-a-childrens-hospital-unit

 

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

You are wrong.  Huge swathes of the USA are dying from this, whether from covid per se, or because they cannot get the health care they need because the unvaccinated have taken all of it over. 

Getting beyond the peak doesn't equate to "no more dying".  Especially if the peak is quite high.  I even said the fatality rate is still going up.

[Clueless Northman]

2 hours ago, Padraig said:

I'm really curious to see what other countries antibody rate is though.

I don't know the antibody rate right now but I can guess with absolute certainty what it'll be before spring is over, for Europe and America. Like that German Minister notoriously said, by this time, everybody will have met the virus and will either have immunity or will be dead. This also means that needs for vaccine mandates - which I would've liked to see by October 2021 at the latest - will be vastly reduced, a few months from now.

1% of the entire population of Israel was just tested positive in a single day. Let that sink in.

 

[karaddin]

5 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

[Zabzie's post on concern about refusing care]

Thankfully this is becoming less of a risk, but that might still happen in some parts of the world and of the US: if ICUs are basically full, you are withholding medical care from people. 

I agree that it's (thankfully) becoming less of a risk in the immediate term. What I'm really worried about is in the longer term - covid is adding a lot of people to the numbers of people with long term disability. This is going to increase demand for disability services with a corresponding increase in the required budget for those services. I don't have the impression that public sentiment has overwhelming support for increasing the spending on these services in the US or the UK but I can assure you it definitely doesn't in Aus - our government has already been fucking around in this space before the pandemic.

I know this is a bit of a diversion from the current topic, it's not actually what we were talking about, but it is something I think we need to vigilant about. The numbers of people impacted by the Spanish flu contributed to the rise of eugenics and there are plenty of people who are already fertile ground for that sentiment to take root again, and it will function as a vector for attacking public health care generally. Frustratingly many of the people who will latch onto that are the same people that are toxically anti vaxx and anti any other pandemic management and will have contributed to the numbers of newly disabled people in some countries.

[The Anti-Targ]

29 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I agree that it's (thankfully) becoming less of a risk in the immediate term. What I'm really worried about is in the longer term - covid is adding a lot of people to the numbers of people with long term disability. This is going to increase demand for disability services with a corresponding increase in the required budget for those services. I don't have the impression that public sentiment has overwhelming support for increasing the spending on these services in the US or the UK but I can assure you it definitely doesn't in Aus - our government has already been fucking around in this space before the pandemic.

I know this is a bit of a diversion from the current topic, it's not actually what we were talking about, but it is something I think we need to vigilant about. The numbers of people impacted by the Spanish flu contributed to the rise of eugenics and there are plenty of people who are already fertile ground for that sentiment to take root again, and it will function as a vector for attacking public health care generally. Frustratingly many of the people who will latch onto that are the same people that are toxically anti vaxx and anti any other pandemic management and will have contributed to the numbers of newly disabled people in some countries.

Well, I guess the silver lining is that many of these people will be, or will have close associates, affected by long term COVID disability because of their anti-vax and anti-public health measure views and behaviour. So that may moderate their eugenic thinking at least in terms of long term COVID care.

[horangi]

5 hours ago, Kalibuster said:

I also don't see how anywhere is keeping things 'half-closed', much less society. To my knowledge basically nothing is closed or even particularly restricted at this point. "Half-closed" at this point means what - people need vaccinations to go into restaurants and bars? Kids need to wear masks in school? This kind of hyperbole - where people equate some things stopped as a 'lockdown' and society being 'half closed' meaning 'some restrictions on people doing anything that they want, ever, in some places.

Ultimately public health is going to have some restrictions and those restrictions are going to evolve as we get more understanding of things, and that goes for all things. We 'restrict' people's choices in what paint they use, what insulation they use, what medicines they use, what additives in food, how fast people drive, how they wear seat belts, what safety gear people have, how they can call for emergency services, how long food lasts on shelves, how we deal with infection and transmission and best practices. These are all restrictions too, and they've lasted a lot longer than the original issue.

So here's another thought - what if this is the new normal and that wearing masks is a restriction that lasts for a long time, just like wearing shoes is? 

Catching up on the thread, I was going to post almost exactly the same comment.  Maybe the answer to KoW's question on whether "half-closed" restrictions (with Kal's notes on hyperbole) should be left in place indefinitely is simply, Yes.  Maybe instead of trying our hardest to achieve status quo ante, we determine as a species that our little primate brains are capable of adapting as it has done in the past for better or worse (better for us maybe, worse for the rest of the planet).   No shoes, no shirts, no masks, no service.  I'm OK with society saying that those who refuse to practice basic disease prevention steps are also simply choosing to never go to a bar or eat out again. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Some people might say it's a bit late in coming, but I think this is going to be good for vaccine safety assessment, and as long as good, simple public information is provided from this work it will hopefully be a useful educational tool for the general public on vaccine safety.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/nz-hosts-vaccine-safety-project

Quote

As we enter the third year of Covid-19, the virus has taken more than 5.5 million lives. On the other side of the ledger, 31.65 million doses of vaccine are administered each day. About 9.46 billion doses have been delivered, but more than 40 per cent of the global population, mostly in low-income countries, have yet to receive their first dose.

Global problems require big-picture thinking and that has led to Aotearoa New Zealand being selected as the host of a world first-research initiative collecting global vaccine data. The project is based on the way the narcolepsy event was evaluated 12 years ago in the swine flu pandemic. Petousis-Harris says those multi-country studies demonstrated the value of a research programme being able to collate and analyse big data from vaccine rollouts.

The Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) aims to be a planet-wide system to assess safety issues that might arise from the more than 20 Covid-19 vaccine types in use, from Pfizer/BioNTech and Astra Zeneca in New Zealand and Australia to the Russian Sputnik V and multiple vaccines developed and delivered in China.

I never new about the narcolepsy thing with the swine 'flu vaccine before. I don't expect this study to reveal any earth shaking safety issues with most / any of the COVID-19 vaccines, but hopefully it can paint a more accurate picture of COVID-19 vaccine safety than those which capture unverified self-reported side effects.