Two Years Is Long Enough(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Two Years Is Long Enough
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/i-want-my-life-back-fear-covid/621214/
154 comments
That was in a very different scenario: the beginning of the pandemics with a much more dangerous variant of the virus, and nobody vaccinated.
So I don't think that what the Nordics attempted is applicable at current situation
So I don't think that what the Nordics attempted is applicable at current situation
You misunderstand me. I'm talking about right now. In the beginning the plan was to squash case counts and since border crossing was limited heavily it was feasible. Ever since vaccine uptake reached high levels the case counts were not indicative of societal danger due to vaccines decreasing the amount of people ending up there per case.
The raw number of hospitalised is still high though due to the 10x increase in daily cases due to the new variant (delta was already doing a good job) and health centres and hospitals are filled to the brim with people who are feeling unwell enough that they use health care resources.
The raw number of hospitalised is still high though due to the 10x increase in daily cases due to the new variant (delta was already doing a good job) and health centres and hospitals are filled to the brim with people who are feeling unwell enough that they use health care resources.
There’s still enough unvaccinated for the weaker strains to be a problem. Plus delta is still out there.
For which country are you talking about? The picture is different in different countries.
In my opinion countries who reached 80% of vaccinated people should remove all the restrictions, but again, this is just my opinion, and I don't have any decisional power over it.
In my opinion countries who reached 80% of vaccinated people should remove all the restrictions, but again, this is just my opinion, and I don't have any decisional power over it.
Delta is nearly extinct.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportion...
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportion...
I try to understand the current restrictions but the numbers don’t make sense to me anymore.
In my country there have been around 21k deaths from COVID (officially). 0.9% of those deaths were people that were between 0-49 years old. That’s ~200 deaths, in two years. The age group 0-49 represents 59% of the population in my country.
I wish we’d get some numbers that we can work towards, in terms of when we can open up society again. This is a very hopeless situation.
In my country there have been around 21k deaths from COVID (officially). 0.9% of those deaths were people that were between 0-49 years old. That’s ~200 deaths, in two years. The age group 0-49 represents 59% of the population in my country.
I wish we’d get some numbers that we can work towards, in terms of when we can open up society again. This is a very hopeless situation.
The two questions I'd look at:
1. What was the total excess mortality during that period? In many countries, the official totals are significantly lower because they only include lab-verified cases or don't cover things like, say, someone dying of a heart condition they had been successfully managing before contracting COVID.
2. How many people would have died without safety measures being in place, especially people who would have been unable to get unrelated medical care they needed because the medical system is over capacity.
The second number is obviously fuzzy but it touches on the biggest factor for ending it in my opinion: vaccination rates. If you have a high percentage of the population vaccinated, you are still going to see spread but that shifts it closer to something like influenza where you might still want additional measures for some high-risk activities (e.g. indoor dining without good ventilation) but you're not looking at ICUs being flooded. The current vaccines appear to give something like an order of magnitude reduction in that risk so those are what I'd tie re-opening to those rates.
1. What was the total excess mortality during that period? In many countries, the official totals are significantly lower because they only include lab-verified cases or don't cover things like, say, someone dying of a heart condition they had been successfully managing before contracting COVID.
2. How many people would have died without safety measures being in place, especially people who would have been unable to get unrelated medical care they needed because the medical system is over capacity.
The second number is obviously fuzzy but it touches on the biggest factor for ending it in my opinion: vaccination rates. If you have a high percentage of the population vaccinated, you are still going to see spread but that shifts it closer to something like influenza where you might still want additional measures for some high-risk activities (e.g. indoor dining without good ventilation) but you're not looking at ICUs being flooded. The current vaccines appear to give something like an order of magnitude reduction in that risk so those are what I'd tie re-opening to those rates.
Third question: How many people are in hospitalization, optionally compared against the capacity of the same hospitals. Since those numbers affect a lot of things from workforce availability to the ability to get emergency care if you need it.
> What was the total excess mortality during that period?
If you calculate this way, you’ll lump the damage done by lockdowns with the damage done by the disease and use it as an argument for more lockdowns.
If you calculate this way, you’ll lump the damage done by lockdowns with the damage done by the disease and use it as an argument for more lockdowns.
Researchers can look for this by comparing the places which did long lockdowns against the places which did not. Very few places had lengthy restrictions on seeking medical care except due to hospital overload, which is a problem caused by the pandemic not safety measures.
These are handwavey dismissals based on unfounded assumptions.
You can’t simply compare place a to place b because there are no two places that differ in just that one aspect.
You can’t just conclude lockdowns have no downsides because an unquantified ‘very few’ places had ‘lengthy restrictions on seeking medical care’. If you state that you assume that is the only reason which simply is an unfounded assumption.
A very simple basic fact is that if you lock down sports facilities, which happened in a lot of places, people will get less fit and thus more susceptible to COVID with a bigger chance of dying. I don’t think there is anyone who would deny that. But if you lump all excess mortality together, the resulting deaths will be an argument for more lockdowns.
You can’t simply compare place a to place b because there are no two places that differ in just that one aspect.
You can’t just conclude lockdowns have no downsides because an unquantified ‘very few’ places had ‘lengthy restrictions on seeking medical care’. If you state that you assume that is the only reason which simply is an unfounded assumption.
A very simple basic fact is that if you lock down sports facilities, which happened in a lot of places, people will get less fit and thus more susceptible to COVID with a bigger chance of dying. I don’t think there is anyone who would deny that. But if you lump all excess mortality together, the resulting deaths will be an argument for more lockdowns.
I find it interesting that when you toss out speculation it’s apparently to be treated as a given but when I describe what actual experts do it’s hand waving. Good day.
Speculation is never a given, but in your opinion speculation that doesn’t align with your views is to be simply dismissed as impossible. Recognizing the difference is called ‘nuance’.
And guess what, if you presumably describing what your favorite ‘actual experts’ are saying is handwaving, the logical explanation is that the thing you are describing is handwaving. Which, if you can look critically at the ‘actual experts’ really is quite a fair description of most of what they do.
Pretending the problems with your “solution” don’t exist and dismissing them as speculation or similar basic, hollow invalid reasoning, that is handwaving.
And guess what, if you presumably describing what your favorite ‘actual experts’ are saying is handwaving, the logical explanation is that the thing you are describing is handwaving. Which, if you can look critically at the ‘actual experts’ really is quite a fair description of most of what they do.
Pretending the problems with your “solution” don’t exist and dismissing them as speculation or similar basic, hollow invalid reasoning, that is handwaving.
Add to that number the people who are affected by long COVID, which can really impair quality of life and for which we don't have a good idea of numbers.
Further, when it goes unchecked, the hospitals get overwhelmed, which has follow-on effects. People with preventable illnesses are affected by a lack of beds.
Further, when it goes unchecked, the hospitals get overwhelmed, which has follow-on effects. People with preventable illnesses are affected by a lack of beds.
I'm confused, are you saying that because only a certain subset of society is at risk of death that everyone else should just go about their days, even though going about their days WILL put that subset of people at further risk?
Yes.
Omicron is already less deadly by 10x. Covid has a 0.5% death rate pre-omicron. With vaccinations it brings the death rate down to negligible.
At thus point I think we need to stop trying to protect everyone. Some people as going to die. It’s tragic. But we can’t keep locking down everyone.
I am currently going through Covid. I could die from it. I probably won’t. It’s an annoying cold at this point. We have to change policy to accept that for 99.99% of people omicron will be mild and will confer immunity. Some people will die like the flu. We have medication now that works. We have vaccinations that work. We have masks that work.
Let’s move on.
Omicron is already less deadly by 10x. Covid has a 0.5% death rate pre-omicron. With vaccinations it brings the death rate down to negligible.
At thus point I think we need to stop trying to protect everyone. Some people as going to die. It’s tragic. But we can’t keep locking down everyone.
I am currently going through Covid. I could die from it. I probably won’t. It’s an annoying cold at this point. We have to change policy to accept that for 99.99% of people omicron will be mild and will confer immunity. Some people will die like the flu. We have medication now that works. We have vaccinations that work. We have masks that work.
Let’s move on.
>Omicron is already less deadly by 10x. Covid has a 0.5% death rate pre-omicron. With vaccinations it brings the death rate down to negligible.
To put another way, if you are right (I haven't seen definitive numbers, other than hopes/preliminary findings that the variant seems to be less deadly), the Omicron variant is about half as deadly as the annual flu (about 0.1% IFR).
To put another way, if you are right (I haven't seen definitive numbers, other than hopes/preliminary findings that the variant seems to be less deadly), the Omicron variant is about half as deadly as the annual flu (about 0.1% IFR).
Isn't that an accurate description of how life used to work pre-2020?
You mean before there was a pandemic? Sure, it's all a matter of risk factors though. When there is a pan/epidemic that puts a large group at a 5-25% risk of mortality, that is a special circumstance.
Life expectancy numbers dropped by about 1 years in most countries, but since it is in the middle of a pandemic it will go up again when this is done. 1 year temporary drop for just 2 years is really small, it means that if covid ravaged us like this every single year people would just die 1 year earlier on average. Divided by a lifespan of 80 years it means an average person lost about 0.025 years or about 8 days. 8 days average lifespan is worth doing something about, sure, but I doubt the magnitude of the response we have seen was actually worth it.
With long Covid, I don’t think it’sa given that life expectancy will go up. If that effect is not temporary, or if it lasts across generations, your comment falls apart.
There is no evidence that long COVID is anything other than the Post-viral syndrome we've known for decades accompanies the flu and other illnesses.
I’m a little confused as to your central point.
Is it that we should be more aware of the long term deleterious effects of contracting a virus?
Because then I think we agree!
Is it that we should be more aware of the long term deleterious effects of contracting a virus?
Because then I think we agree!
My point is that "Long COVID" isn't something new, and therefor is unlikely to effect life expectancy. Viruses are harmful, they cause damage that has long-lasting effects. But COVID isn't more likely to cause those effects than the flu. And we certainly shouldn't be making policy decisions based on those effects.
The new part is the scale at which it’s happening. If we had an addition 100M flu cases, we would expect a decrease in life expectancy.
(Also, this doesn’t address the reality that we don’t know if long Covid is the same as with the flu. I just wanted to point out that even if we accept this premise, we would still se a decrease.)
(Also, this doesn’t address the reality that we don’t know if long Covid is the same as with the flu. I just wanted to point out that even if we accept this premise, we would still se a decrease.)
Everyone has the flu at least once in their life. Any life expectancy drop from Post Viral Syndrome is already priced in.
We don’t know that COVID is any different—in absence of evidence it’s always best to assume the null case.
We don’t know that COVID is any different—in absence of evidence it’s always best to assume the null case.
So you propose we should lockdown every year to prevent the deleterious long term effects of the yearly flu?
[deleted]
This always boils down to the push-pull between self-centered and group-centered people. The self-centered only care about themselves, and favor letting the weak die to further that end. I think they sound like monsters, and they probably think I sound like a "cuck."
I frankly see it the other way around. I want measures to relax precisely because I think about groups and not specific people.
The psychological damage being done, in a society which doesn't have the tools to deal with it properly (and with this I mean pretty much the entirety of western society) is not even being taken into account. Quality of living for a good deal of society has gone to hell, I can't even take a walk in the park without a mask on (I happen to be Spanish). It's madness.
Public healthcare psychology is not even brought up by GPs anymore unless you risk suicide, and even then there is a waiting period of several months. Suicide attempts are at an all-time high and the amount of depression and anxiety backing it up can't be overstated.
I feel like we are pretending we solved the trolley problem all of a sudden.
The psychological damage being done, in a society which doesn't have the tools to deal with it properly (and with this I mean pretty much the entirety of western society) is not even being taken into account. Quality of living for a good deal of society has gone to hell, I can't even take a walk in the park without a mask on (I happen to be Spanish). It's madness.
Public healthcare psychology is not even brought up by GPs anymore unless you risk suicide, and even then there is a waiting period of several months. Suicide attempts are at an all-time high and the amount of depression and anxiety backing it up can't be overstated.
I feel like we are pretending we solved the trolley problem all of a sudden.
In other words, "let the weak die...I'm tired of wearing a mask."
https://twitter.com/kombatliberlism/status/14815700214909747...
I am astonished how many people prioritize the social/pub/restaurant/movie theater scene over the literal survival chances of millions of people. I guess I should stop being astonished and accept that people are driven primarily by their desires and self-interest. Cast them into the pit, I want a cheeseburger.
https://twitter.com/kombatliberlism/status/14815700214909747...
I am astonished how many people prioritize the social/pub/restaurant/movie theater scene over the literal survival chances of millions of people. I guess I should stop being astonished and accept that people are driven primarily by their desires and self-interest. Cast them into the pit, I want a cheeseburger.
>I am astonished how many people prioritize the social/pub/restaurant/movie theater scene over the literal survival chances of millions of people.
We all do. We have always done this. That's why drugs exist. That's why transportation exists. Life is not a "maximize your lifespan" game, it has never been.
We all do. We have always done this. That's why drugs exist. That's why transportation exists. Life is not a "maximize your lifespan" game, it has never been.
I think it is the other way round. The tiny, 'selfish' fraction want to shut down the 'group' that is society because they are more at risk.
You have your groups backwards. The self-centered are the ones demanding society shut down in response to their own personal fears, even if that shut-down disproportionately effects others (i.e. the poor, the young, etc.) The group-centered people are the ones willing to accept a higher degree of personal risk in order to keep schools open and supply chains functioning.
Let's say I walk into a movie theater/church/restaurant and nobody is wearing a mask. Is everyone else a jerk for not wearing one, or am I the jerk for expecting everyone else to?
Third option: You are the jerk for not wearing a mask.
I mean, why would you worry about if others are unmasked when you already are vaccinated and wearing an N95 mask on top of that?
I mean, why would you worry about if others are unmasked when you already are vaccinated and wearing an N95 mask on top of that?
The most extrapunitive, other-blaming, people I know are sociopaths so I'm going with the latter explanation.
You sound like someone who really enjoys building up and tearing down straw men.
You sound like someone who responds on message boards with ad-hominems rather than counterarguments, nice to meet you!
Does this sentence sound that crazy to you?
The problem that should be prevented is the healthcare system from being clogged. It wasn't pretty to begin with before COVID started, and now things are just ugly (i.e. waiting lists, rescheduling vital operations). I guess as I say this, the real question will be what's the excess mortality going to become if we let COVID run unchecked? What's the excess illness going to be (e.g. depression, untreated diseases, etc.)? I don't have good data on this unfortunately.
> I wish we’d get some numbers that we can work towards, in terms of when we can open up society again. This is a very hopeless situation.
I'll give you a number that is kind of pulled out of thin air, but it gets the point across: 95% fully boosted.
> I wish we’d get some numbers that we can work towards, in terms of when we can open up society again. This is a very hopeless situation.
I'll give you a number that is kind of pulled out of thin air, but it gets the point across: 95% fully boosted.
When this thing started, I did some quick research on the Spanish Flu. It lasted about 3 years or so, so I had a baseline of what we were in for. When (insert government entity) said "2 weeks of lockdowns to get this under control," or "we'll be COVID free by Independence Day," I knew that was overly optimistic.
Anyhow, keeping that 3 year baseline helped me whether through it better mentally I think. Based on that, I'm still prepared for another year of this stuff. I also think of Smallpox, something everyone dealt with for at least 3000 years and had a 30% mortality rate and was more contagious than COVID. I'm glad it isn't that.
Anyhow, keeping that 3 year baseline helped me whether through it better mentally I think. Based on that, I'm still prepared for another year of this stuff. I also think of Smallpox, something everyone dealt with for at least 3000 years and had a 30% mortality rate and was more contagious than COVID. I'm glad it isn't that.
Yep, my SO and I have aligned our expectations with the Spanish Flu since the start of all this. And while I can't say it's an encouraging comparison, I feel like it's at least helped to keep our expectations grounded in reality, which has saved us a lot of disappointment that others seem to be going through.
Same here, not sure why anyone thought this was going to be over in a couple months. Especially here in the US which at this point is a failed state. Our government can't even provide basic services.
I had Omicron and it was easier than the common cold for me. It's over for me until we get the next variant. I honestly feel bad for our government health officials. They failed. I think "science" is going to take a little bit of a loss, unfortunately.
Are you vaccinated?
Yes with J&J
I think that's probably the key part: the vaccination discussion has generally conflated two parts — neutralizing antibodies are what help you avoid getting sick at all but those wane over time, whereas the T cell response which helps you quickly fight off an infection lasts far longer. That has been very poorly communicated because a lot of the public health people have been focused on containing spread and T cells do not keep you from being contagious but that's really what we should be communicating: get vaccinated and this becomes a lot more similar to influenza.
Could you pleeease go tell all of the people that have overflowed the ICUs of the nations hospitals that they’re overreacting & should just go home with their common cold symptoms.
Because there’s currently like 2500+ national guard members deployed to hospitals in my state alone, all elective procedures are cancelled in the major hospitals of multiple states (anything that won’t literally kill you in 3 days is elective, even end stage cancer surgeries), other types of appointments are backed up for months, and quite frankly - for the appointments I and acquaintances have had - providers are burnt the fuck out from two years of this.
Like, seriously. When thousands of national guard members have to be routed to civilian hospitals to keep them running - I don’t think “science” is taking a loss. It said this was going to happen, all of you “it’s just the common cold” people made everybody rage against science and not care, and now nobody can get meaningful healthcare because the person the nurses & attendings are referring to as “the walking dead” just have to be kept alive & filling an ICU bed for 3+ weeks stuffed with a ventilator they’re never going to have removed until they’re dead.
Because there’s currently like 2500+ national guard members deployed to hospitals in my state alone, all elective procedures are cancelled in the major hospitals of multiple states (anything that won’t literally kill you in 3 days is elective, even end stage cancer surgeries), other types of appointments are backed up for months, and quite frankly - for the appointments I and acquaintances have had - providers are burnt the fuck out from two years of this.
Like, seriously. When thousands of national guard members have to be routed to civilian hospitals to keep them running - I don’t think “science” is taking a loss. It said this was going to happen, all of you “it’s just the common cold” people made everybody rage against science and not care, and now nobody can get meaningful healthcare because the person the nurses & attendings are referring to as “the walking dead” just have to be kept alive & filling an ICU bed for 3+ weeks stuffed with a ventilator they’re never going to have removed until they’re dead.
I'd rather tell that to the politicians who spend trillions of dollars but are unable to set up dedicated decentralized COVID-19 care facilities.
Patients mainly need oxygen, no need for full ICUs.
Patients mainly need oxygen, no need for full ICUs.
USA have 2.9 hospitals bed per 1000 inhabitants, on part with Albania and less than Lebanon[1]. Japan has 13, France 6. The overflow is 100% because of underfunding of hospitals and didn't happen in any developed countries besides the first wave.
[1]https://donnees.banquemondiale.org/indicator/SH.MED.BEDS.ZS?...
[1]https://donnees.banquemondiale.org/indicator/SH.MED.BEDS.ZS?...
And shockingly, Canada has less than the US...
I said it's over for me. For my elderly parents or unhealthy people, it's not over.
What do you mean by unhealthy?
I have a friend, perfectly healthy, who was forced into crashing on their bike during commute in order to not get wrecked by a car.
He fell & broke a few ribs & wrist, was not able to be seen for 28 hours in a major city. He’s still waiting on actual treatment (surgeries) & could/likely will have long lasting damaging from the delay.
Perhaps it’s over except for our entire healthcare system has completely collapsed in the sense that it’s genuinely non-functional, except for keeping wave after wave of people, who workers already know are not leaving the hospital alive, in a bed for a few weeks.
Perhaps I’m a bit angry, but I think it’s not at all considerate of your fellow citizens to say things like this - presuming you’re in the US, that is.
I have a friend, perfectly healthy, who was forced into crashing on their bike during commute in order to not get wrecked by a car.
He fell & broke a few ribs & wrist, was not able to be seen for 28 hours in a major city. He’s still waiting on actual treatment (surgeries) & could/likely will have long lasting damaging from the delay.
Perhaps it’s over except for our entire healthcare system has completely collapsed in the sense that it’s genuinely non-functional, except for keeping wave after wave of people, who workers already know are not leaving the hospital alive, in a bed for a few weeks.
Perhaps I’m a bit angry, but I think it’s not at all considerate of your fellow citizens to say things like this - presuming you’re in the US, that is.
I think that is mostly due to USA having for profit hospitals so they don't care about who occupies the bed as long as they pay. Other countries seems to have much less hospitalisations for similar number of cases, probably because they judge that most people don't really need it so putting them in a hospital is just a waste of resources.
>for profit hospitals
Yes, this isn't in the discussion at all. Hospitals in the US do what's called stacking. Think about your calendar. Every room, every piece of equipment and every medical staff needs to have their calendar stacked with appointments, with no idle space if at all possible. They go so far as to overbook these items as well. If a resource has too much lax time, it's not used, not replenished or laid off (personnel). If a hospital doesn't have enough business to make the desirable amount of profit, it's closed.
Of course from a purely business perspective, it doesn't make sense to keep these things open, especially for a once in a century pandemic. Unfortunately the government hasn't done much (if anything) to ensure we have enough medical facilities even in good times, much less have them somewhat affordable. I was hoping the pandemic would show the cracks in our medical foundation, but for the most part they have been ignored, shifting the entirety of blame to the unvaccinated.
This article is about rural hospitals, but when you close a rural hospital, you overburden the nearest city hospital.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/why-rural-hosp...
Yes, this isn't in the discussion at all. Hospitals in the US do what's called stacking. Think about your calendar. Every room, every piece of equipment and every medical staff needs to have their calendar stacked with appointments, with no idle space if at all possible. They go so far as to overbook these items as well. If a resource has too much lax time, it's not used, not replenished or laid off (personnel). If a hospital doesn't have enough business to make the desirable amount of profit, it's closed.
Of course from a purely business perspective, it doesn't make sense to keep these things open, especially for a once in a century pandemic. Unfortunately the government hasn't done much (if anything) to ensure we have enough medical facilities even in good times, much less have them somewhat affordable. I was hoping the pandemic would show the cracks in our medical foundation, but for the most part they have been ignored, shifting the entirety of blame to the unvaccinated.
This article is about rural hospitals, but when you close a rural hospital, you overburden the nearest city hospital.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/why-rural-hosp...
Keeping in mind I can always be wrong or remembering incorrectly
I really thought there was some good data that came out showing that the profits made from elective surgeries that the mid to large hospitals churn out absolutely dwarfs the profits made from COVID patients. I think there were a few of the massive hospitals where COVID patients $ was near breaking even… but it just doesn’t add up.
The summary was that by the end of this a good amount of hospitals will likely go under due to revenue lost from repeated cancellations of elective surgeries unless they get some form of bailout.
I guess we’ll see anyways.
I really thought there was some good data that came out showing that the profits made from elective surgeries that the mid to large hospitals churn out absolutely dwarfs the profits made from COVID patients. I think there were a few of the massive hospitals where COVID patients $ was near breaking even… but it just doesn’t add up.
The summary was that by the end of this a good amount of hospitals will likely go under due to revenue lost from repeated cancellations of elective surgeries unless they get some form of bailout.
I guess we’ll see anyways.
Use vax status in giving out ICU and other care. This whole thing is only because doctors won't have a backbone and won't refuse or include vax status in triage for unvaccinated patients.
Like, I actually do not get this idea of "oh ur fucked if you get hit by a car" because it should be obvious that 80 years old grandma whose anti-vax has a lower value to life than I, a boosted young person does.
We have to do value to life calculations all the time every day, even if it is unpleasant for us to say things like this outloud.
Like, I actually do not get this idea of "oh ur fucked if you get hit by a car" because it should be obvious that 80 years old grandma whose anti-vax has a lower value to life than I, a boosted young person does.
We have to do value to life calculations all the time every day, even if it is unpleasant for us to say things like this outloud.
The narrative is changing quickly. Hold on as everyone backs away from the authoritarian rhetoric.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-monday-ja...
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-coffee-and-covid-monday-ja...
Well, that article would be instantly flagged off HN if it were submitted here, but it makes an interesting case and paints an optimistic picture. Thanks.
Well, everyone except Macron, that probably see it as his only way to win the upcoming election.
Anyway I hope the whole thing won't be memoryholed and that a special tribunal will judge the people involved in stripping citizens rights (undue lockdowns and vaccine pass) and forcing a dangerous and ineffective product on the people. One can dream...
Anyway I hope the whole thing won't be memoryholed and that a special tribunal will judge the people involved in stripping citizens rights (undue lockdowns and vaccine pass) and forcing a dangerous and ineffective product on the people. One can dream...
It's pretty interesting seeing a complete about-face from the corporate media after beating the fear drum incessantly for the past two years. They've enthusiastically supported every lockdown, every school closure, and every mask mandate. They vilified people for wanting to do totally normal human things, like going to parties, seeing family members over the holidays, eating at restaurants, or going to work. Why the sudden change in perspective?
Gotta get those economy numbers up before the delayed State of the Union address in March, in order to not lose horribly in the midte... oh perhaps I'm being too cyncial? Nah.
In the US, I remember the "fear drum" dying down considerably once vaccinations got more widespread, and then ramping up again once Delta started hitting hospitals hard, then moreso with Omicron. It seems to follow peaks in infection rates/hospitalizations.
[deleted]
There seems to be this one or the other mentality. Why not both? At some point previous pandemics are now endemic. Sure we all want this thing to end but why is it either right now, or never? Let's continue cautiously to work at striking a balance between restriction and freedom until we get a good handle on how we do yearly boosters, and have enough of an understanding of how this thing changes to keep it in check through "normal" societal processes. For those who want "freedom now" we all do. Just hang in there a bit longer until we work this out friend.
This attitude is so grossly irrational. Disasters don't end when you get bored with them. They end when they end. This kind of article is basically saying "I have reset my expectations so that I accept a higher risk of death so I can go to the movies". You can argue and end to restrictions on the merits of changing reality (ie vaccines, treatments, relative mortality of Omicron) but not "I'm out of patience with nature taking it's course". Personally I think the Omicron wave is still extremely serious and we need to wait a few more months. And if a new variant emerges it'll be longer.
> This kind of article is basically saying "I have reset my expectations so that I accept a higher risk of death so I can go to the movies".
Correct. This is a rational stance, even if you disagree.
Over the decades, I've observed that US society starts to break down when there is a danger of an unknown origin or bounds. People become irrational and panic, resulting in all sorts of defensive behavior in the face of uncertainty (some of these rituals are helpful, some not). This is true at both the macro and micro level; eg fear of getting sued, fear of computers, fear of selling collectibles.
US society has an expectation of informed consent. Crossing the street has inherent dangers. Juggling chainsaws has inherent dangers. Skydiving has inherent dangers. If US society has been largely convinced that there is codified information that both sets relative-risk and laws regarding liability exist, activities are considered "normal life" with whatever inherent dangers are "known".
I would call this known state, a narrative, but it's more like the meta-narrative across all areas. There are constant changes to these qualities, over time and space, so this affects it; eg It used to be illegal for a vehicle to turn right on red in some areas of the US, without prohibitive signage. Is that still true? The meta-narrative says that laws between states are kooky and you might want to look it up. Spoiler: it's legal in all 50 states since 1980ish. edit: not in NYC, among other cities as tootie has pointed out.
For now the meta-narrative around COVID has stabilized to: We know it's a virus. We know it's communicable by air. We know the risk groups (or can look it up). We know the defensive protocols. et al.
> Personally I think the Omicron wave is still extremely serious and we need to wait a few more months.
This doesn't require a retooling of society, reaffirmation of doubting the science, or theorizing about potential worst case scenarios. A large portion of the US public is done with the handwringing and fearmongering. You can wait as long as you want. It won't change anything about the world you adopt as the new normal. Life is more dangerous than it was a few years decade ago because there's a new vector. There is no end, much like if you get cancer or lose a limb. Life is just harder now, for everyone for the foreseeable future.
Correct. This is a rational stance, even if you disagree.
Over the decades, I've observed that US society starts to break down when there is a danger of an unknown origin or bounds. People become irrational and panic, resulting in all sorts of defensive behavior in the face of uncertainty (some of these rituals are helpful, some not). This is true at both the macro and micro level; eg fear of getting sued, fear of computers, fear of selling collectibles.
US society has an expectation of informed consent. Crossing the street has inherent dangers. Juggling chainsaws has inherent dangers. Skydiving has inherent dangers. If US society has been largely convinced that there is codified information that both sets relative-risk and laws regarding liability exist, activities are considered "normal life" with whatever inherent dangers are "known".
I would call this known state, a narrative, but it's more like the meta-narrative across all areas. There are constant changes to these qualities, over time and space, so this affects it; eg It used to be illegal for a vehicle to turn right on red in some areas of the US, without prohibitive signage. Is that still true? The meta-narrative says that laws between states are kooky and you might want to look it up. Spoiler: it's legal in all 50 states since 1980ish. edit: not in NYC, among other cities as tootie has pointed out.
For now the meta-narrative around COVID has stabilized to: We know it's a virus. We know it's communicable by air. We know the risk groups (or can look it up). We know the defensive protocols. et al.
> Personally I think the Omicron wave is still extremely serious and we need to wait a few more months.
This doesn't require a retooling of society, reaffirmation of doubting the science, or theorizing about potential worst case scenarios. A large portion of the US public is done with the handwringing and fearmongering. You can wait as long as you want. It won't change anything about the world you adopt as the new normal. Life is more dangerous than it was a few years decade ago because there's a new vector. There is no end, much like if you get cancer or lose a limb. Life is just harder now, for everyone for the foreseeable future.
I think you've buried a few interesting topics here and "new normal" is a big one. I live in NYC and am on probably my third or fourth version of "normal" in a few decades. None of the old normals were so great either.
When it comes to crossing the street, we accept an unreasonably high degree of risk even though we invest billions of dollars in enforcing extremely complex and rigid safety protocols that suck the life out of me on a daily basis yet they are "normal". And no one says the stop signs and seatbelts exist due to hand wringing and fear mongering. I'm still sitting her waiting for the bane of traffic mortality (and smog) to end, but I'm going to look both ways crossing the street until it does. People 100 years probably protested their heads off to keep cars off the road and it didn't work. The much milder Omicron variant is killing way more people than traffic. You'd be better off wearing a mask and jay walking than vice versa.
I certainly could have lived without the hand wringing and fear mongering over terrorism.
And incidentally, right on red is actually still illegal NYC.
When it comes to crossing the street, we accept an unreasonably high degree of risk even though we invest billions of dollars in enforcing extremely complex and rigid safety protocols that suck the life out of me on a daily basis yet they are "normal". And no one says the stop signs and seatbelts exist due to hand wringing and fear mongering. I'm still sitting her waiting for the bane of traffic mortality (and smog) to end, but I'm going to look both ways crossing the street until it does. People 100 years probably protested their heads off to keep cars off the road and it didn't work. The much milder Omicron variant is killing way more people than traffic. You'd be better off wearing a mask and jay walking than vice versa.
I certainly could have lived without the hand wringing and fear mongering over terrorism.
And incidentally, right on red is actually still illegal NYC.
[deleted]
I'm on board with doing more than nothing to deal with Omicron (and future variants), but risk of death for recovered and vaccinated people is factually much lower than it was prior to vaccination or recovery. The situation is changing.
Indeed respiratory virus pandemics have ended naturally in less than 2 years without government intervention.
Prior to 2020 the consensus was that these pandemics can be prolonged by measures that spread out the cases. Now we see that this is true.
Prior to 2020 the consensus was that these pandemics can be prolonged by measures that spread out the cases. Now we see that this is true.
Wow, I can't believe this response isn't higher.
> Disasters don't end when you get bored with them.
True, and they don't end after arbitrarily chosen time frames ("Gosh, I can only live with this for 2 years max!") and they don't align with political milestones and dates. This could be the early years of a 20-year-long pandemic. It could disappear in a few months. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows at this point, and you can't give the disease an arbitrary deadline.
I read these threads and it's surreal--like people sitting outside of their burning house and saying "OK, my house has been burning for 2 hours. That's long enough for me, I'm moving back in! Time to get back to normal!"
> Disasters don't end when you get bored with them.
True, and they don't end after arbitrarily chosen time frames ("Gosh, I can only live with this for 2 years max!") and they don't align with political milestones and dates. This could be the early years of a 20-year-long pandemic. It could disappear in a few months. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows at this point, and you can't give the disease an arbitrary deadline.
I read these threads and it's surreal--like people sitting outside of their burning house and saying "OK, my house has been burning for 2 hours. That's long enough for me, I'm moving back in! Time to get back to normal!"
Exactly. We are going to be dealing with climate change for maybe the next 100 years. And that may be optimistic.
I, and many people I know, are of similar thinking.
I’m actively recovering from what appears to be Omicron. I cannot A/B test my experience as an unvaccinated person, but it feels like a light seasonal cold.
We don’t get time back. IMO I want my life and city back.
I’m actively recovering from what appears to be Omicron. I cannot A/B test my experience as an unvaccinated person, but it feels like a light seasonal cold.
We don’t get time back. IMO I want my life and city back.
> I cannot A/B test my experience as an unvaccinated person, but it feels like a light seasonal cold.
I think that's a key point and it really needs to be frankly communicated that way: vaccination mandates are what makes it safe enough to re-open safely. The U.S. has relatively low vaccination rates thanks to a well-funded political movement but as soon as there are personal consequences for those decisions most people do the right thing.
I think that's a key point and it really needs to be frankly communicated that way: vaccination mandates are what makes it safe enough to re-open safely. The U.S. has relatively low vaccination rates thanks to a well-funded political movement but as soon as there are personal consequences for those decisions most people do the right thing.
So there are actual stats on hospitalizations and deaths.
Omicron is less severe, but also more widespread, so the overall effect is as bad as delta and alpha.
Omicron is less severe, but also more widespread, so the overall effect is as bad as delta and alpha.
I’m not sure why you think that or what data you are looking at, but current daily reported case count is 3x the same time last year (250k vs 800k) while reported deaths are half (4K vs 1.6k).
But hospitalizations are higher than last year's winter peak, so hospitals are still slammed (not everywhere, but in a lot of places).
Also there's been a lot of doctors and nurses that have left the profession this past year from burnout (and not enough people champing at the bit to take their place...for obvious reasons) so many places were short-staffed to begin with.
Also there's been a lot of doctors and nurses that have left the profession this past year from burnout (and not enough people champing at the bit to take their place...for obvious reasons) so many places were short-staffed to begin with.
Isn't that what they said? Less severe, more widespread.
> so the overall effect is as bad as delta and alpha
I took the overall effect to mean deaths. Based on CDC statements, it seems like they are finally trying to divide hospitalized “from” vs. “with”. I’d expect a more contagious variant to show up more in hospitals for people who have come for unrelated reasons.
I took the overall effect to mean deaths. Based on CDC statements, it seems like they are finally trying to divide hospitalized “from” vs. “with”. I’d expect a more contagious variant to show up more in hospitals for people who have come for unrelated reasons.
Omicron does seems to be less severe. But don't forget deaths are a lagging indicator. They usually trail case counts by a few weeks.
One should also caveat here that unvaccinated are far and above the ones ending up hospitalized, and dying, with Omicron. Those who are vaccinated and hospitalized very often have other underlying conditions that Omicron is exacerbating.
Everyone else who is vaccinated is just getting sick, like a strong flu or cold.
GET VACCINATED. At this point, it's the only way this pandemic will end.
Everyone else who is vaccinated is just getting sick, like a strong flu or cold.
GET VACCINATED. At this point, it's the only way this pandemic will end.
Get vaccinated yes, but that's not how the pandemic will end. It will end when most people have had this thing. Essentially it's probably over now but the media is going to hold on to it for a little while longer.
I didn't know the unvaccinated were dying of Omicron.
The things you learn on hacker news.
The things you learn on hacker news.
Not defending the original comment because no source was provided, but I didn't know this was up for debate. It stands to reason. Now, how much more unvax vs vax are dying could be debated, but to say they are dying at the same rate would be to claim that the vaccine has no affect whatsoever.
I would take that bet.
Not according to the data I saw, and for sure not in the countries I spend most of my time...
Same here, I don't care about numbers and statistics any more.
I want my life back NOW
I've had more than enough with 8 quarantines, and all of us already had COVID, we are vaccinated, and we are FED UP with rules and restrictions
It is pointless to be alive and well if you are not allowed to enjoy life
I want my life back NOW
I've had more than enough with 8 quarantines, and all of us already had COVID, we are vaccinated, and we are FED UP with rules and restrictions
It is pointless to be alive and well if you are not allowed to enjoy life
Where do you live that there are still any restrictions really worth a damn?
In the US about the only thing I'm aware of is vaccination mandates for certain jobs and activities and indoor masking in certain states. Otherwise you can do pretty much whatever you could before the pandemic. Indoor dining, bars, theaters, gyms, flights, cruises, sporting events, offices for work, whatever.
Unless, of course, the business is short staffed and has to close for a while, which is not a "rule and restriction" but a fact of life right now, which doesn't go away just because you or the government wills it to be so.
In the US about the only thing I'm aware of is vaccination mandates for certain jobs and activities and indoor masking in certain states. Otherwise you can do pretty much whatever you could before the pandemic. Indoor dining, bars, theaters, gyms, flights, cruises, sporting events, offices for work, whatever.
Unless, of course, the business is short staffed and has to close for a while, which is not a "rule and restriction" but a fact of life right now, which doesn't go away just because you or the government wills it to be so.
I live in Germany, and the problem is a bit more subtle.
At the moment is the 2g+ regulation, which basically means the if you are twice vaccinated of recovered + 1 vaccine dose you need to do a test every 24h to have a social life.
Tests are free, but you have to queue outside and spend time to get them.
Tests are not needed if you "boosted", i.e. if you had a 3rd dose (or second if you had only one), or as in my case you also recovered despite having 2 doses.
Also there is a social craziness, where schools can close because there are cases, kindergartens also can close etc. and there are limits in the number of people can enter a venue, you have to book everything online, and there are very few places always fully booked... this de facto limits your life quite a lot.
All this despite the numbers are comparable with a seasonal flu
At the moment is the 2g+ regulation, which basically means the if you are twice vaccinated of recovered + 1 vaccine dose you need to do a test every 24h to have a social life.
Tests are free, but you have to queue outside and spend time to get them.
Tests are not needed if you "boosted", i.e. if you had a 3rd dose (or second if you had only one), or as in my case you also recovered despite having 2 doses.
Also there is a social craziness, where schools can close because there are cases, kindergartens also can close etc. and there are limits in the number of people can enter a venue, you have to book everything online, and there are very few places always fully booked... this de facto limits your life quite a lot.
All this despite the numbers are comparable with a seasonal flu
It seems to me that we now face two options: we can prolong the pandemic by continuing to enforce basic safety measures like lockdowns and mask mandates, in order to reduce the load on the healthcare system, or we can just say fuck it and try to accelerate endemicity by trying to give everyone Omicron... I know that "prolonging the pandemic" sounds bad and like the opposite of what we should be striving for, but a controlled transition to endemicity may lead to a lot less of the kind of economic and social disruption that we're seeing right now with empty shelves, canceled flights, and classrooms without teachers.
In other words, we can have a shorter, more miserable end to the pandemic, or we can have a longer one with less chaos. Am I missing something here?
In other words, we can have a shorter, more miserable end to the pandemic, or we can have a longer one with less chaos. Am I missing something here?
I think the big fear is that an omicron variant will emerge far more lethal if you allow it run rampant. Even though it kind of already is so maybe thats a moot point now.
Yeah when the Atlantic says it’s long enough, you know Americans are no longer buying the cheap propaganda and hysteria their outlets been selling for last two years continuously. Or they are trying to do some damage control to redeem the leftover credibility that their so called journalists might have.
This sort of “glass half-full” analysis is often coming from white collar workers.
The actual problem is that blue collar workers aren’t getting paid enough to risk getting Covid. So as much as you might want to go out and re-create a feeling of “normal”, that doesn’t work if people aren’t showing up to work because they’re sick.
The lockdowns let us blame the government, but individuals are making decisions about their own health and service levels suffer as a result. And in many cases, the risk of getting sick and permanently disabled (yes omicron still has long-term side effects) is not worth $10/hr. We still effectively have lockdowns with many stores and restaurants closed, they’re just driven by low customer traffic or worker call-outs.
Never mind that a lot of people’s buying habits have changed to purchasing more online and via delivery — it’s convenient enough I don’t think we’re ever going back. Same with remote work; city centers are never going to open back up the way they used to be if the wealthy parts of their workforce are working from home. Remote work is here to stay. It is the norm already and companies trying to force workers back are having extreme turnover issues.
Unless you’re planning to compel workers back to their jobs at the end of a gun, we’re probably not going back to the version normal we had in 2019 ever again. We’ll eventually hit another island of stability, but given the political situation and immediacy of climate change effects, we will probably be jumping from crisis to crisis for the rest of our lives. Get used to it.
The actual problem is that blue collar workers aren’t getting paid enough to risk getting Covid. So as much as you might want to go out and re-create a feeling of “normal”, that doesn’t work if people aren’t showing up to work because they’re sick.
The lockdowns let us blame the government, but individuals are making decisions about their own health and service levels suffer as a result. And in many cases, the risk of getting sick and permanently disabled (yes omicron still has long-term side effects) is not worth $10/hr. We still effectively have lockdowns with many stores and restaurants closed, they’re just driven by low customer traffic or worker call-outs.
Never mind that a lot of people’s buying habits have changed to purchasing more online and via delivery — it’s convenient enough I don’t think we’re ever going back. Same with remote work; city centers are never going to open back up the way they used to be if the wealthy parts of their workforce are working from home. Remote work is here to stay. It is the norm already and companies trying to force workers back are having extreme turnover issues.
Unless you’re planning to compel workers back to their jobs at the end of a gun, we’re probably not going back to the version normal we had in 2019 ever again. We’ll eventually hit another island of stability, but given the political situation and immediacy of climate change effects, we will probably be jumping from crisis to crisis for the rest of our lives. Get used to it.
> people aren’t showing up to work because they’re sick
But people have been getting sick as long as there have been people, and civilization was somehow able to deal with it until two years ago.
But people have been getting sick as long as there have been people, and civilization was somehow able to deal with it until two years ago.
Yes, the flu, we deal with it, it raises our mortality rates and costs billions of dollars a year, but we deal. COVID just raises our mortality rate more and costs even more money to keep in check. Society isn’t going to collapse, but of course, it can’t ignore the problem, either.
This is the first widespread pandemic in most of our lifetimes, but definitely not the first one. The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1920 was much worse and disruptive than this.
This is the first widespread pandemic in most of our lifetimes, but definitely not the first one. The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-1920 was much worse and disruptive than this.
Yeah, and whenever there was a pandemic in the past there was a heightened period of death and typically poor economic conditions for a while. It’s not as if pandemics haven’t happened before; they have, and they have devastating consequences which is why we’re so proactive about them.
People will locally optimize in the absence of government intervention, which means lockdown-like conditions are inevitable as people simply stop going to work in large enough numbers they cannot be replaced.
People will locally optimize in the absence of government intervention, which means lockdown-like conditions are inevitable as people simply stop going to work in large enough numbers they cannot be replaced.
Civilization is still able to deal. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but it's still able to deal.
We could go back to what they did in 1347, during the Bubonic plague, and cover our bodies in a robe from head to toe and wear beaked masks stuffed with herbs, spices and straws to filter the air, and examine people using only a cane to keep their distance, like doctors did back then.
https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/whats-viral...
We could go back to what they did in 1347, during the Bubonic plague, and cover our bodies in a robe from head to toe and wear beaked masks stuffed with herbs, spices and straws to filter the air, and examine people using only a cane to keep their distance, like doctors did back then.
https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/whats-viral...
Just that it was sporadic not large amount of the workforce at once and for long stretches.
"Sick" is not a binary state
Not as many and not as coordinated.
>Unless you’re planning to compel workers back to their jobs at the end of a gun, we’re probably not going back to the version normal we had in 2019 ever again.
Maybe another version of OWS is coming, hopefully one that actually results in change and doesn't get co-opted by stupid identity politics this time around.
Maybe another version of OWS is coming, hopefully one that actually results in change and doesn't get co-opted by stupid identity politics this time around.
The next OWS will be armed. The left is seeing the way the right operates and is understanding that non-violent confrontation doesn’t work.
For better or worse, the way the laws in America are written, violence is the way we deal with problems. When someone who desires an outcome can use violent means to get you there, the second amendment ensures you have violent means to resist them.
For better or worse, the way the laws in America are written, violence is the way we deal with problems. When someone who desires an outcome can use violent means to get you there, the second amendment ensures you have violent means to resist them.
Maybe for a few people software already ate the world, but for online delivery we need storage workers and all systems involved in delivery - post and ships and trucks - working as well. Plus production sites and factories and materials extraction and should I go on? Nothing of these can be done remotely.
I completely agree, but blue collar workers aren’t eating out at fancy restaurants downtown after work. There was an entire segment of a bunch of industries dedicated to serving the needs of white collar workers in city centers, and that’s all just gone and not coming back.
Yeah, a lot of it has moved to delivery apps. Which represents a fundamental realignment of large segments of our economy. I personally believe this was always going to happen anyway, but the pandemic forced it so quickly a lot of people haven’t realized we’re never going back.
Yeah, a lot of it has moved to delivery apps. Which represents a fundamental realignment of large segments of our economy. I personally believe this was always going to happen anyway, but the pandemic forced it so quickly a lot of people haven’t realized we’re never going back.
Blue collar workers aren't people.
/s if it's not apparent
/s if it's not apparent
[deleted]
I'm in a small city in the midwest and if you went to a store today you would think there was no covid. It isn't like my state was declared the least safe for covid or anything.
I went to see Spider-Man at a 4pm matinee -the first movie I've seen in a theater since this all started and I was the only person in the theater wearing a mask.
And my state attorney general is going on tv saying he doesn't believe the statistics and the state legislature is says that teachers need to be impartial when teaching about nazis...
And people wonder why I'm such a misanthrope.
I went to see Spider-Man at a 4pm matinee -the first movie I've seen in a theater since this all started and I was the only person in the theater wearing a mask.
And my state attorney general is going on tv saying he doesn't believe the statistics and the state legislature is says that teachers need to be impartial when teaching about nazis...
And people wonder why I'm such a misanthrope.
My wife is a 2nd grade teacher, also in the midwest. 200+ kids out today with covid or b/c of a family member. Over a dozen teachers out today in a small school. There are no subs and they are asking parents who aren't sick to come "supervise" classes. The janitor quit and nobody is cleaning the bathrooms or classrooms. Yet the superintendent says schools need to be open, we are taking all the best safety precautions, etc, etc... completely ignoring the reality on the ground which I'm 100% sure he knows about. At some point reality has to set in here? right? maybe?
After these past two years, I will never again underestimate society's ability and willingness to ignore reality and base their decisions on wishful thinking and convenience. My community's school system is also closing their eyes and ears and insisting on the "We must keep schools open" dogma, despite student absences and running out of teachers, substitutes, and staff.
Just for clarification, do you mean the actual flag waving nazis from ww2, or the "nazis" that exist today?
If this is in the US and it's One Of Those States, I wouldn't be surprised if it was Flag Carying WW2 Nazis and not "cancel culture" ones. I grew up in One Of Those States and we talked highly about Slave Owners, Pinkerton, and other obviously bad people.
Those evil nazis and their matinees! If Spiderman has the decency to wear a mask, then they should too! But really, I'd almost assume that was a sarcastic post you made... if it weren't that NOT conforming to a "papers please" mentality now got you labelled as a "nazi" by the good boys and girls who do what the authorities tell them.
alYla(1)
I believe what we're seeing here is the left-media machine beginning to try to change the narrative about covid for the run up to the mid-terms elections in the US. They've hung their hat on the authoritarian approach until now and utterly failed to actually do anything, and seem to want to avoid being punished for it. There are too many of these about-face articles appearing at once to seem organic and not an attempt to manufacture consent, so to speak.
I share your distrust of the media, but I think there is an even more cynical answer at play. A bunch of my personal friends work for these publications. Almost all of us got covid in December, ironically many from the holiday parties of these publications, and came face to face with the reality that we have sacrificed almost two years of our 20s to a virus that was pretty mild. The thing we were trying to avoid came for us, so the idea that we would continue to live in fear of an event that already happened is absurd.
At home taking care of my daughter. She has covid, and now so do I. I mean when this is all said and done, I will be what the vaccines (falsely) claimed they would make me: immune... at least to this variant... for a while. If it's endemic, mutates faster than even rushed through emergency medical interventions can stop, and is now so infectious that all our present restrictions aren't holding it back, then what is the point? Never mind discussions about the costs; where's the benefit in this cost benefit analysis?
> I will be what the vaccines (falsely) claimed they would make me: immune
This really isn't true — actual experts never claimed that you would be 100% immune to everything forever. The vaccines performed as advertised against earlier strains and even with Omicron's substantially greater immune evasion compared to those earlier strains they're still quite effective at keeping people from having severe cases, which is exactly as the scientists described them — and that still seems to be better than natural immunity.
The end game here is vaccination: the U.S. has a low rate and that means that we're seeing the same medical system overload as before. Vaccination mandates are what will keep that from happening so that's what we should be focusing on as the metric for relaxing safety measures.
This really isn't true — actual experts never claimed that you would be 100% immune to everything forever. The vaccines performed as advertised against earlier strains and even with Omicron's substantially greater immune evasion compared to those earlier strains they're still quite effective at keeping people from having severe cases, which is exactly as the scientists described them — and that still seems to be better than natural immunity.
The end game here is vaccination: the U.S. has a low rate and that means that we're seeing the same medical system overload as before. Vaccination mandates are what will keep that from happening so that's what we should be focusing on as the metric for relaxing safety measures.
I'm curious what your thoughts are on reports like [0] that lots of covid cases at hospitals are incidental (e.g 60% from these 2 US hospitals), and even the ones that are admitted for covid are not requiring intubation?
It seems a little late in the game to be banging the mandate drum.
[0] https://coloradosun.com/2022/01/12/colorado-covid-omicron-ho...
It seems a little late in the game to be banging the mandate drum.
[0] https://coloradosun.com/2022/01/12/colorado-covid-omicron-ho...
I generally like Ed Yong’s take on for versus with:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/01/for-covid...
> It seems a little late in the game to be banging the mandate drum.
I think it’s other way around: vaccines are what’s making it close to the end by reducing the severity of cases. Mandates avoid delays and reduce the collateral damage — once we get <5, that should be enough to keep the hospitals running smoothly.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/01/for-covid...
> It seems a little late in the game to be banging the mandate drum.
I think it’s other way around: vaccines are what’s making it close to the end by reducing the severity of cases. Mandates avoid delays and reduce the collateral damage — once we get <5, that should be enough to keep the hospitals running smoothly.
I need to digest that article a little more, but on the mandates piece, what do you mean by < 5? R0?
If a mandate came out tomorrow in the US, and you got everyone their next shot that day, what do you think would happen?
It takes 2 weeks for the effectiveness to fully kick in, and I think I recall hearing that there may even be a potential little temporary dip in immunity directly after the shots. Omicron will likely have peaked in the States by then, and at best you end up with no better results. At worst you end up worse off because of the temporary dip (if that is a thing).
In any case, mandate + everyone jabbed tomorrow is beyond impossible anyway. Even if it was possible, there would be minimal benefit for a hefty cost (that I think a lot of people don't realize).
If a mandate came out tomorrow in the US, and you got everyone their next shot that day, what do you think would happen?
It takes 2 weeks for the effectiveness to fully kick in, and I think I recall hearing that there may even be a potential little temporary dip in immunity directly after the shots. Omicron will likely have peaked in the States by then, and at best you end up with no better results. At worst you end up worse off because of the temporary dip (if that is a thing).
In any case, mandate + everyone jabbed tomorrow is beyond impossible anyway. Even if it was possible, there would be minimal benefit for a hefty cost (that I think a lot of people don't realize).
What it means is that people would stop getting as sick, and hospitals would be able to stay off of emergency status. Yes, it would have been better to do that last spring but it’s still important now: you can get COVID multiple times - as many are seeing now - and the longer we go with low vaccination rates, the better the odds are of an even worse variant arising. Lots of healthcare workers are getting burned out and it takes years to replace them.
Vaccination rates aren't the issue, it's how many immunonaive hosts you have. You can get it again, but I'm not aware of any evidence that reinfections are any more severe than breakthroughs.
Let's do some napkin math for the US and see how this works out.
Assumptions (all from worldometer and ourworldindata):
"Most estimates have put the number of undetected cases at several multiples of detected cases".
Roughly 43 million confirmed cases recovered so 120m if we use the smallest multiple for "several".
330m total population.
74.5% with at least one dose (245m)
The set of people who are likely to have an immune system primed enough to stave off severe illness (all else equal, many will have preexisting conditions that make them at risk anyway) should be (#dosed + #recovered) - #(dosed AND recovered).
(#dosed + #recovered) is 365m (using 3x cases underestimate factor).
#(dosed AND recovered) has an upper bound of 120m if all recovered got dosed, and a lower bound of 35m (not 0 because the whole equation has to add up to total population).
So (if my math is right, no promises) the US has between 245m and 330m immune primed people today. If its anywhere near the 330m end of the spectrum today, it will be there in the next 2 weeks/30 days as the confirmed case counts go over a million per day (thats only counting confirmed cases).
The best case for mandates out of this: if we had the max of 85m seronaive and you could jab them all at gunpoint tomorrow, a huge chunk of those people will have gotten omicron before the shots take effect. You might prevent some hospitalizations before omicron burns itself out. Good luck ever getting these people to vote for you again.
In the minimum seronaive case, you prevent very few hospital visits, you create a bunch of adverse effects, you waste doses that could have gone to undeveloped countries, and you still really hamstring yourself in future elections.
Everyone's immune system is going to be primed anyway. The mandates are only an expensive footgun at this point.
Let's do some napkin math for the US and see how this works out.
Assumptions (all from worldometer and ourworldindata):
"Most estimates have put the number of undetected cases at several multiples of detected cases".
Roughly 43 million confirmed cases recovered so 120m if we use the smallest multiple for "several".
330m total population.
74.5% with at least one dose (245m)
The set of people who are likely to have an immune system primed enough to stave off severe illness (all else equal, many will have preexisting conditions that make them at risk anyway) should be (#dosed + #recovered) - #(dosed AND recovered).
(#dosed + #recovered) is 365m (using 3x cases underestimate factor).
#(dosed AND recovered) has an upper bound of 120m if all recovered got dosed, and a lower bound of 35m (not 0 because the whole equation has to add up to total population).
So (if my math is right, no promises) the US has between 245m and 330m immune primed people today. If its anywhere near the 330m end of the spectrum today, it will be there in the next 2 weeks/30 days as the confirmed case counts go over a million per day (thats only counting confirmed cases).
The best case for mandates out of this: if we had the max of 85m seronaive and you could jab them all at gunpoint tomorrow, a huge chunk of those people will have gotten omicron before the shots take effect. You might prevent some hospitalizations before omicron burns itself out. Good luck ever getting these people to vote for you again.
In the minimum seronaive case, you prevent very few hospital visits, you create a bunch of adverse effects, you waste doses that could have gone to undeveloped countries, and you still really hamstring yourself in future elections.
Everyone's immune system is going to be primed anyway. The mandates are only an expensive footgun at this point.
Vaccine were never meant to make people immune; they have been approved and evaluated based on their effectiveness to reduce severe cases and deaths. We have been lucky enough that they have also been effective to reduce the spread. Even now, they are still very effective with respect to their main goal: reducing the number of people getting into the hospital because of COVID.
After ~1 year of vaccinations and ~2 of COVID, I hoped that would have been crystal clear for most people, or, at least, for most of HN users.
Wasn't sure which of these responses to shoot down, but prior to the definition change of what a vaccine was (which happened last year, well after the release of these "vaccines") that was precisely the definition. And all these claims now that no medical authority ever claimed the vaccines were going to make you immune... I understand that the "memory hole" is a real thing, but gosh, this is seriously not difficult to find:
---
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-pandemic-vaccine-herd-immu... > "If you have 75%–80% of the people get vaccinated, you create an umbrella of herd immunity — that even though there is virus around, it is really almost inconsequential because it has no place to go, because almost all of the people are protected," Fauci says.
---
I mean they're even now just distorting the term "immunity" to mean something new, but still pushing it in relation to vaccines:
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220111/Third-dose-of-mRN...
---
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-pandemic-vaccine-herd-immu... > "If you have 75%–80% of the people get vaccinated, you create an umbrella of herd immunity — that even though there is virus around, it is really almost inconsequential because it has no place to go, because almost all of the people are protected," Fauci says.
---
I mean they're even now just distorting the term "immunity" to mean something new, but still pushing it in relation to vaccines:
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220111/Third-dose-of-mRN...
I know that it would be better not to reply in order to avoid losing points (and time), but HN users often forget that the world is not just the US. That is not a matter of "memory holes".
FDA and EMA evaluated and approved vaccines based on their efficacy with reducing the severe cases and deaths. That is what has been reported and what mattered the most. They also reduced the spreading, by giving some level of immunity, but is a pleasing secondary effect, mostly. No agency gave a red or green light based on that. This is what I said.
I agree with you that there has been a huge problem with communicating properly with the wide public, politicians making mistakes, doctors and professionals spending too much time on TV talking about their personal opinion, and too little time spent on the basics, what we know, to which degree, and what we do not know. That is a different matter from what the goals of the vaccines during their development (passing the FDA and EMA parameters) have been.
I respect that you are replying, (who cares about karma though? Internet brownie points are dumb). How is pushing vaccination under the auspices of achieving herd immunity NOT representing that these shots provide immunity? Goal post shifting by saying, "The US is not the whole world" does not answer that question.
I think that we have a misunderstanding, so I am going to stress what I replied to: "the vaccines (falsely) claimed they would make me: immune" -> they weren't supposed to, they were developed based on another criteria. This is a problem of miscommunication in my opinion, as people sold vaccines as a way to reach immunity or herd immunity. People took bets and made guesses on something hard to model and predict. We like to give people news as they are 100 % sure, making simplification, even for good reasons. Scientific research and understanding does not work like this. Reality and complex, and if we have had a better approach at explaining the current scientific consensus regarding the COVID pandemic, including confidence levels, and lack of understanding or to make reliable predictions and such, science as a whole would probably not have suffered in terms of popularity and general trust.
So because I said that "the vaccines" themselves made the claims at immunity, you are interpreting that as false, based on the notion that the approval was not contingent on them providing immunity. This does not seem like a misunderstanding to me. It sounds like the painfully obvious interpretation of "Authority figures representing scientific institutions, with credentials, promoted these vaccines, claiming they would grant immunity." I think the only way you don't interpret it that was is if you are trying to obfuscate things (perhaps to yourself because recognizing corruption in scientific institutions is a direct attack to some people's egos and identities).
That's right. There is no authority principle in science, and a representative of an institution/agency of US saying that something "should be strong enough to", does not mean that the "science" said "it is going to be like this", especially given the so many unknown variables that come into play. That is one of the common misunderstandings.
People make mistakes, and we have plenty of people with credentials that made bad predictions. The vaccines worked as intended, thought. The criticism should be targeted elsewhere. My personal opinion is that in many countries there hasn't been a good communication, and being an expert on a field doesn't qualify someone to be good at explaining things to the wide public.
My understanding is that vaccines never claimed immunity. Ever.
They claimed milder symptoms, less complications, and less hospitalizations.
They claimed milder symptoms, less complications, and less hospitalizations.
New people to work in hospitals isn’t enough because the amount of ones leaving are making the net effect zero. The disease and overwhelming numbers of people sick burned them out. Nothing that I can say is new.
Either we slow burn through this with restrictions while keeping a medium level of services available to society or burn fast while allowing many services to simply fail to deliver.
I for one would rather not visit a late night bar for months rather than worry about where I could get food to cook at home for weeks. If you didn’t experience the empty shelves due panic buying in the beginning of covid then I wouldn’t wish it on people. As a person who also needs regular medication I don’t want to think how many weeks worth of meds I need my local pharmacies have left if logistics chains would suffer from shockwaves of too many workers out sick at the same time.