For scientists, path to Covid-19 endgame remains uncertain(adn.com)
adn.com
For scientists, path to Covid-19 endgame remains uncertain
https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2021/09/04/for-scientists-path-to-covid-19-endgame-remains-uncertain/
79 comments
McSweeney's had a great piece on the absurdity of outdoor dining enclosures: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-am-the-designer-of-thi...
> This restaurant commissioned me to create a structure that would allow its patrons to dine comfortably in cold and inclement weather while still keeping them at low risk of contracting COVID-19.
There are plenty of outdoor dining structures that provide good airflow, but those ones don't support "dining in cold or inclement weather". Personally, I won't dine outside unless the outdoor dining setup actually provides good airflow.
There are plenty of outdoor dining structures that provide good airflow, but those ones don't support "dining in cold or inclement weather". Personally, I won't dine outside unless the outdoor dining setup actually provides good airflow.
While schools might be a major vector for many diseases, the evidence suggest children do not spread COVID very well to teachers. Opening schools is not a joke, it following the evidence.
Here's the US CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
"Findings from several studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 transmission among students is relatively rare, particularly when prevention strategies are in place. An Australian study of 39 COVID-19 cases among 32 students and seven staff traced contacts across 28 schools and six early childhood centers and found only 33 secondary positive cases (28 students and five staff members) out of 3,439 close child contacts and 385 close staff contacts.58, 59 Several contact tracing studies have found limited student-to-student transmission in schools."
Here's the US CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
"Findings from several studies suggest that SARS-CoV-2 transmission among students is relatively rare, particularly when prevention strategies are in place. An Australian study of 39 COVID-19 cases among 32 students and seven staff traced contacts across 28 schools and six early childhood centers and found only 33 secondary positive cases (28 students and five staff members) out of 3,439 close child contacts and 385 close staff contacts.58, 59 Several contact tracing studies have found limited student-to-student transmission in schools."
That study was way before delta, from Oct 2020 and with masking and social distancing in play. Delta is extremely infectious compared to the older strains. No way that children don't spread COVID very well to teachers anymore. Especially given the anti-masking push in schools.
I think it's safe to say that Delta has made kids (especially pre-pubescent kids) more contagious than earlier strains, but they still seem to be an undersized proportion of cases currently being reported. Even in states with spiking case loads and school in session with no mask mandates, the proportion of reported cases in children is less than their proportion of the population. That doesn't even factor in the proportion of adults who are vaccinated or have been previously infected and are much less likely to be infected now.
It's honestly a pretty interesting phenomenon given the fact that most people's "common sense" is that kids transmit viruses extremely well.
It's honestly a pretty interesting phenomenon given the fact that most people's "common sense" is that kids transmit viruses extremely well.
Sadly, cloth / surgical masks are only marginally useful. N95 and above work better, but it borders child abuse to force kids wear N95 masks eight hours in a row. Source: I have diminished lung capacity and can't wear N95 for more than 15 minutes without suffocating.
This is pre-Delta. It’s ridiculously more contagious now.
As a parent, I didn’t get tired of my kids being at home. Their grades were slipping to the point where we had no other option.
I mean lots of people lost their jobs and businesses, and saw their lives and standard of living derailed as a result of the lockdowns, but we've been told that this was worth the sacrifice.
EDIT: And I'll add I mention this out to point out the absurdity and double standards that have been applied here.
EDIT: And I'll add I mention this out to point out the absurdity and double standards that have been applied here.
One of the biggest failures still happening is the lack of communication on this.
Many people think we're going to eradicate covid-19. Even before the delta variant that seemed like an impractical longshot, and that it was inevitable that it would be endemic. I'm already starting to see polarizing politics on the fringes start to turn endemic into a dirty word instead of the likely reality.
People should be prepared and understand that over a 2+ year time frame they have a 99% chance of catching covid-19. And getting the vaccine so they don't start from zero immunity is likely the best we can do.
Many people think we're going to eradicate covid-19. Even before the delta variant that seemed like an impractical longshot, and that it was inevitable that it would be endemic. I'm already starting to see polarizing politics on the fringes start to turn endemic into a dirty word instead of the likely reality.
People should be prepared and understand that over a 2+ year time frame they have a 99% chance of catching covid-19. And getting the vaccine so they don't start from zero immunity is likely the best we can do.
It was possible to keep covid entirely out of remote populations like Iceland, NZ, Australia using biosecurity measures. Actually turned out to be almost embarrasingly easy compared with the reality in many countries. It is not practical, economical or desirable to maintain this status forever but it is nice to know we have that capability and many other countries don't.
All we can do is get fully vaccinated, have good public health measures such as masks in high density areas and isolation of sick people (with income support) and that is about it. When we hit 80% full vaccinated here in Australia the non-essential flights are going to resume and states that have maintained Covid zero for nearly 2 years are going to be asked to give that up. It is a public discussion we are having here and I think people are accepting. The arguments are mostly about when and how we pull down the quarantine measures rather than if we will do it. I think we are walking into this with our eyes open.
All we can do is get fully vaccinated, have good public health measures such as masks in high density areas and isolation of sick people (with income support) and that is about it. When we hit 80% full vaccinated here in Australia the non-essential flights are going to resume and states that have maintained Covid zero for nearly 2 years are going to be asked to give that up. It is a public discussion we are having here and I think people are accepting. The arguments are mostly about when and how we pull down the quarantine measures rather than if we will do it. I think we are walking into this with our eyes open.
This is a very optimistic take for Australia. After enduring so many lockdowns, people are going to be reluctant to open up and give up on #COVIDzero.
Opening up will need to happen at some point, but apart from NSW and maybe Victoria who have lost control of the spread, I don't see the other states doing anything but kick the can down the road. I predict 80% will become 90% which will become booster shoot #1.
Opening up will need to happen at some point, but apart from NSW and maybe Victoria who have lost control of the spread, I don't see the other states doing anything but kick the can down the road. I predict 80% will become 90% which will become booster shoot #1.
That's good for Australia. I'm definitely expressing a US-centric observation here where I'm hoping we can avoid polarizing this.
> I'm already starting to see polarizing politics on the fringes start to turn endemic into a dirty word instead of the likely reality.
When you say all this, do you mean to say endemic means benign? Or do you mean to say out world is a fair bit worse than it was, but that’s the reality.
Endemic is consistent with “fairly harmful”. Malaria, Dengue, tuburculosis, HIV are all endemic diseases. Time has not made them milder either.
I’m asking as a genuine question because the people arguing for endemicity seem to often conflate it with “mild, like a cold”, but that isn’t what the words means.
I think “our world is worse now but very unlikely to eradicate” is probably true, but I’d like to get a sense of what people mean by endemicity.
When you say all this, do you mean to say endemic means benign? Or do you mean to say out world is a fair bit worse than it was, but that’s the reality.
Endemic is consistent with “fairly harmful”. Malaria, Dengue, tuburculosis, HIV are all endemic diseases. Time has not made them milder either.
I’m asking as a genuine question because the people arguing for endemicity seem to often conflate it with “mild, like a cold”, but that isn’t what the words means.
I think “our world is worse now but very unlikely to eradicate” is probably true, but I’d like to get a sense of what people mean by endemicity.
Time has rendered them less harmful because we have better tools to deal with them. Malaria can be defeated with money (hence it is mostly a poor persons problem), HIV is no longer a death sentence, we have decent treatment for Tuberculosis and it is no longer the problem for Europe it once was.
Probably the same could happen to covid, assuming that the we could stop seeing testing treatments for covid as a political issue and strictly keep it as a discussion of science.
Probably the same could happen to covid, assuming that the we could stop seeing testing treatments for covid as a political issue and strictly keep it as a discussion of science.
Basically trying discredit people who communicate in any way the possibility that covid-19 will be endemic.
Yes, but what do you or those people mean by “it will become endemic”. If Malaria became endemic in every country that would be a catastrophe. There’s nothing gentle about the word.
The common cold is endemic and so is dengue. So: are you describing a scenario that is:
1. Business as usual (once we get enough immunity medium/long run)
2. A small bit worse than 2019
3. Quite a bit worse than 2019
4. Substantially worse than 2019
?
My point is the word endemic doesn’t mean anything other than “disease is present”. But people say it as if the word includes severity. When people say that I take them to indicate belief in scenario 1, or possibly scenario 2.
I think it probably will be endemic but we’re minimum scenario 3. I don’t think that is what endemicity proponents believe however.
The common cold is endemic and so is dengue. So: are you describing a scenario that is:
1. Business as usual (once we get enough immunity medium/long run)
2. A small bit worse than 2019
3. Quite a bit worse than 2019
4. Substantially worse than 2019
?
My point is the word endemic doesn’t mean anything other than “disease is present”. But people say it as if the word includes severity. When people say that I take them to indicate belief in scenario 1, or possibly scenario 2.
I think it probably will be endemic but we’re minimum scenario 3. I don’t think that is what endemicity proponents believe however.
> Yes, but what do you or those people mean by “it will become endemic”.
It sounds like you're tone policing people based not on what basic mathematics says, but what you want the world to be like.
Eradicating covid is impossible, ergo it will become endemic.
What that looks like depends on what the next mutations of the virus look like. I don't have a crystal ball to guess that.
It sounds like you're tone policing people based not on what basic mathematics says, but what you want the world to be like.
Eradicating covid is impossible, ergo it will become endemic.
What that looks like depends on what the next mutations of the virus look like. I don't have a crystal ball to guess that.
[deleted]
>I think it probably will be endemic but we’re minimum scenario 3
I think the variables are:
1. Vaccine that prevents infection/transmission at a significantly more substantial rate
2. Significant waning of vaccine effectiveness per new variants
3. Unexpected increase (or decrease) in virulence of new strains.
4. Significant improvements in treatment (including medications)
These are, of course, unknowns. But, holding these constant, I believe we can calculate with fair accuracy how bad it will be as a direct function of the percentage of the population that's vaccinated.
I think the variables are:
1. Vaccine that prevents infection/transmission at a significantly more substantial rate
2. Significant waning of vaccine effectiveness per new variants
3. Unexpected increase (or decrease) in virulence of new strains.
4. Significant improvements in treatment (including medications)
These are, of course, unknowns. But, holding these constant, I believe we can calculate with fair accuracy how bad it will be as a direct function of the percentage of the population that's vaccinated.
Thanks! I’m personally hopeful on point 1. Nasal vaccines seem to offer a fair bit of potential for mucosal immunity which could go further in blunting both breakthroughs and transmission.
> Endemic
Endemic's basic and technical meaning is just that it's persistently present in the community, with no connotation on severity, and ancestor comment was using it in that force.
Vaccinated people overwhelmingly don't experience severe symptoms when they get COVID. I expect that new vaccines will soon be developed as well that can better target these variants. The biggest losers are those who cannot get vaccinated for legit medical reasons.
Endemic's basic and technical meaning is just that it's persistently present in the community, with no connotation on severity, and ancestor comment was using it in that force.
Vaccinated people overwhelmingly don't experience severe symptoms when they get COVID. I expect that new vaccines will soon be developed as well that can better target these variants. The biggest losers are those who cannot get vaccinated for legit medical reasons.
This is the point where not teaching people how to multiply bites us in the ass.
Without the vaccine you have a small number of cases and a large portion being severe enough to end up in hospital.
With the vaccine you a have large number of cases and a small portion being severe enough to end up in hospital.
You can end up with a collapsing health system even if everyone is vaccinated if the number of people who get sick despite the vaccine is large enough, where large means more than 5 in 100,000.
Without the vaccine you have a small number of cases and a large portion being severe enough to end up in hospital.
With the vaccine you a have large number of cases and a small portion being severe enough to end up in hospital.
You can end up with a collapsing health system even if everyone is vaccinated if the number of people who get sick despite the vaccine is large enough, where large means more than 5 in 100,000.
This is the point where speaking before you think bites you in the ass.
> Without the vaccine you have a small number of cases and a large portion being severe enough to end up in hospital.
Without the vaccine you have an even larger number of cases (than with the vaccine) and a large portion being severe enough to end up in hospital.
Vaccination blunts both symptoms and transmission (I didn't mention the latter in my initial comment).
> Without the vaccine you have a small number of cases and a large portion being severe enough to end up in hospital.
Without the vaccine you have an even larger number of cases (than with the vaccine) and a large portion being severe enough to end up in hospital.
Vaccination blunts both symptoms and transmission (I didn't mention the latter in my initial comment).
Wouldn't it be best to contract the disease under vaccine protection? Basically instead of wearing a mask you should kiss the next stranger you meet on the street?
We can't eradicate it, but he can coral it, make it less deadly.
Not sure where your 2 year statistic from. In 2020 about 6% of US population caught it, since then another 6% of so have caught it. It will take like 10 years to hit that 99% mark.
According to CDC estimates, it's 20% of US population up to late July 2021. And that's before Delta, which everyone agrees is significantly more infectious than Wild/Alpha. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but as a parent with school kids I see no way to avoid covid in the medium term.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#national-lab
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#national-lab
I don't know where you're getting these numbers. They seem way on the low end. If you're going by CDC tracked cases (seems like 12% there, 40m cumulative cases/328m pop=12%?) to infer the total number of people infected then you're making a huge error. I'd also point out that the CDC said earlier this year that it would not track asymptomatic/minor cases among the vaccinated (bad decision IMHO).
I also think extrapolating from those numbers to 10 years doesn't make sense given the multiple variables involved.
Here's a Nature published study that says probably at least double what you suggest: https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...
I also think extrapolating from those numbers to 10 years doesn't make sense given the multiple variables involved.
Here's a Nature published study that says probably at least double what you suggest: https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...
Such decisions involving comparing benefits and costs do not belong to scientists.
I don't disagree, but they certainly do not belong to politicians.
Under-rated comment (I'm banned from modding). Technical experts can be trusted for information about cause and effect. They have no expertise about people, of compromise, of other goals people have, etc. This is a leadership task, ideally a coming from a good politician, limited by a good constitution. We seem to pretend that scientific statements about causality are the same thing as government policy instruction. They are not, technocracy serves nobody.
Yep, and we’re taking them back, cheers.
This optimists in this article were routinely wrong in the past. Why trust their optimism now?
> “I truly, truly think we are in the endgame,” said Monica Gandhi, an infectious-disease specialist and professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco. “The cases will start plummeting in mid-to-late September and by mid-October, we will be in a manageable place, where the virus is a concern for health professionals, but not really for the general public.”
Monica Ghandi has been an eternal optimist and routinely wrong.
Here she is in february arguing that india had herd immunity from prior infection and cross reactive immunity. Right before devastating delta wave: https://twitter.com/monicagandhi9/status/1361856248275079170...
Here she is in may agreeing many us areas were at herd immunity. This also proved wrong: https://twitter.com/monicagandhi9/status/1389808375437824000
She admits in the article she was wrong, but about people, not the virus. But she was very wrong about the virus.
Jay Bhattacharya was one of the three people behind the Great Barrington Declaration. Their ideas won, but it’s far from obvious they were right. Instead of elimination, they argued for living with the virus. This currently is causing oxygen shortages in Florida, and renewed restrictions as countries experience rising waves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration
He writes:
> that’s the endpoint of the epidemic because we really can’t do better than that
Multiple countries have eliminated the virus. In fact, virtually every country that aimed at it succeeded at this goal. They had better economic outcomes and more normalcy. Bhattacharya wants to persuade that because this would be hard in the short term it is literally impossible.
His barrington declaration also failed at its goals: countries that tried it had both worse economic outcomes and also worse health outcomes.
> “I truly, truly think we are in the endgame,” said Monica Gandhi, an infectious-disease specialist and professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco. “The cases will start plummeting in mid-to-late September and by mid-October, we will be in a manageable place, where the virus is a concern for health professionals, but not really for the general public.”
Monica Ghandi has been an eternal optimist and routinely wrong.
Here she is in february arguing that india had herd immunity from prior infection and cross reactive immunity. Right before devastating delta wave: https://twitter.com/monicagandhi9/status/1361856248275079170...
Here she is in may agreeing many us areas were at herd immunity. This also proved wrong: https://twitter.com/monicagandhi9/status/1389808375437824000
She admits in the article she was wrong, but about people, not the virus. But she was very wrong about the virus.
Jay Bhattacharya was one of the three people behind the Great Barrington Declaration. Their ideas won, but it’s far from obvious they were right. Instead of elimination, they argued for living with the virus. This currently is causing oxygen shortages in Florida, and renewed restrictions as countries experience rising waves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration
He writes:
> that’s the endpoint of the epidemic because we really can’t do better than that
Multiple countries have eliminated the virus. In fact, virtually every country that aimed at it succeeded at this goal. They had better economic outcomes and more normalcy. Bhattacharya wants to persuade that because this would be hard in the short term it is literally impossible.
His barrington declaration also failed at its goals: countries that tried it had both worse economic outcomes and also worse health outcomes.
The only countries that have consistently managed to keep COVID at bay are China, Taiwan and New Zealand. All the rest of the former COVID Zeros, including Australia, Vietnam and Singapore, have succumbed to Delta, and it's a matter of time until the three holdouts do so too.
Thanks for the perspective on the interviewees. Overall seems like a really terrible article trying to present a "balance" of perspectives and not once considering there's truth to be had.
Another Ghandi quote:
> You yourself are completely protected against the delta variant, and you should go and enjoy your summer. It’s been a hard time, and people should have their summer. Delta variant, delta shmariant.
From May. This proved completely false. Efficacy is a relative risk reduction, not an absolute. 95% efficacy against severe disease means 1/20 will still have severe results.
“Completely protected” was patently false. The vaccines are great but that doesn’t warrant lying to boost them.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/06/delta-variant-covid-vac...
> You yourself are completely protected against the delta variant, and you should go and enjoy your summer. It’s been a hard time, and people should have their summer. Delta variant, delta shmariant.
From May. This proved completely false. Efficacy is a relative risk reduction, not an absolute. 95% efficacy against severe disease means 1/20 will still have severe results.
“Completely protected” was patently false. The vaccines are great but that doesn’t warrant lying to boost them.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/06/delta-variant-covid-vac...
This video of Monica should be saved
https://twitter.com/ibrake4ants/status/1415701882178314248
https://twitter.com/ibrake4ants/status/1415701882178314248
Thanks. For anyone who’d rather not watch a video: it’s a short clip of Monica Ghandi at a June 15th mask/ribbon cutting ceremony, jumping with excitement as happy days are here again plays.
The horror!
Edit: Covid is a miserable disease, but it seems that some of us want to abandon the joy of living because, in the big scheme, slightly more people die than usual. The price of being alive is death, and it's well worth it.
Edit: Covid is a miserable disease, but it seems that some of us want to abandon the joy of living because, in the big scheme, slightly more people die than usual. The price of being alive is death, and it's well worth it.
The point is that they were wrong, not that they were happy.
They reversed course and deleted the video. Masks have returned. The video was like Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” photo op in 2003 to declare the end of the Iraq war. He was happy too, but wrong.
They reversed course and deleted the video. Masks have returned. The video was like Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” photo op in 2003 to declare the end of the Iraq war. He was happy too, but wrong.
The point it that they were hopeful. Piling on them, even if wrong, is distasteful.
Hold it. Those aren’t just regular people being happy. They’re leaders in what is equivalent to a wartime situation. When they’re wrong, people die.
Yuck. Not sure who you imagine Monica Gandhi is, other than a (non-tenured?) medicine prof at UCSF and a minor Twitter influencer. Without more context, the video could as well be the inauguration of the corner icecream shop.
Frankly, I have little interest in quibbling with those that have made 'cumulative deaths with covid per million' the ultimate measure of human worth and achievement. Have a great day.
Frankly, I have little interest in quibbling with those that have made 'cumulative deaths with covid per million' the ultimate measure of human worth and achievement. Have a great day.
I don't know about anyone else, but I get "mission accomplished" vibes from that video.
Which ones? South Korea, Vietnam, China and Australia all come to mind, they are all facing Delta waves now.
South Korea never aimed at elimination, important distinction. They aimed to keep circulation low.
Australia’s NSW also did not aim to eliminate. Other australian states do, and have their borders closed to NSW. Complicated story down there. Victoria
China has beaten the delta wave, down to 26 cases a day from 100. I expect they’ll hit zero. New Zealand on the same track, as is Taiwan.
The Atlantic region of Canada was another example.
Vietname I’ll admit has now failed. Not sure if they changed policies or simply couldn’t do it now with Delta.
Then there are some caribbean islands. And that’s about the full list of countries worldwide that did try for zero. Every other country aimed for mitigation.
Australia’s NSW also did not aim to eliminate. Other australian states do, and have their borders closed to NSW. Complicated story down there. Victoria
China has beaten the delta wave, down to 26 cases a day from 100. I expect they’ll hit zero. New Zealand on the same track, as is Taiwan.
The Atlantic region of Canada was another example.
Vietname I’ll admit has now failed. Not sure if they changed policies or simply couldn’t do it now with Delta.
Then there are some caribbean islands. And that’s about the full list of countries worldwide that did try for zero. Every other country aimed for mitigation.
I think you're reversing cause and effect there. The reason NSW and now Victoria in Australia are no longer aiming to eliminate Covid is because their efforts to do so simply did not work once the Delta variant hit and could not be made to work. Similarly, Vietnam couldn't do it either - they went so far as completely stopping people living in the most affected city from leaving their homes even to buy food, despite not being able to put in place any working way of delivering food to all 9 million people living there, because lesser measures hadn't worked, and that also didn't work.
>Australia’s NSW also did not aim to eliminate. Other australian states do, and have their borders closed to NSW. Complicated story down there. Victoria
Victoria has had 6 or 7 waves of Covid (depends how you count it) and failed only at the last one.
This came at the cost of human rights violations, police brutality, the largest non-wartime increase in government debt, a tripling of teen suicides, night time curfew and a cumulative 220 days of lockdown with no end in sight.
At this point euthanising everyone over 70 could be a viable policy with less long term harm than continuing with the current policies.
Victoria has had 6 or 7 waves of Covid (depends how you count it) and failed only at the last one.
This came at the cost of human rights violations, police brutality, the largest non-wartime increase in government debt, a tripling of teen suicides, night time curfew and a cumulative 220 days of lockdown with no end in sight.
At this point euthanising everyone over 70 could be a viable policy with less long term harm than continuing with the current policies.
> Multiple countries have eliminated the virus. In fact, virtually every country that aimed at it succeeded at this goal.
Which countries have eliminated the virus? Aren't you playing out the exact same kind of baseless optimism you accuse Monica Gandhi of?
Which countries have eliminated the virus? Aren't you playing out the exact same kind of baseless optimism you accuse Monica Gandhi of?
I didn’t say it would be easy for many countries to eliminate. My point is it is possible, whereas the person I am criticizing says it is impossible to do better than a vaccine alone. That’s clearly false as there are living, breathing counterexamples. Hard does not equal impossible.
New Zealand, Atlantic Canada, Taiwan, most of Australia (NSW doesn’t have elimination as a goal), some caribbean islands, China
Many of those places have outbreaks, but they’re beaten them or have beaten them.
New Zealand, Atlantic Canada, Taiwan, most of Australia (NSW doesn’t have elimination as a goal), some caribbean islands, China
Many of those places have outbreaks, but they’re beaten them or have beaten them.
In Australia, NSW and Victoria are locked down. Other states, including my own, at the sign of sometimes a single case, lock down. And the status quo comes with minimal international movement (need approval and expensive quarantine) and restricted movement between states. Not sure how practical or palatable that would be in Europe, the Americas, etc.
How much time have you sepnt locked down in total since the pademic started? Here in the UK it's been about 6 months, and I'm interested to compare the two strategies.
Probably less than a fortnight in total? I'm in South Australia. We had a six day lockdown in Nov 2020 that was lifted after 3-4 days.
There was a week-long lockdown in July coming straight after school holidays, so it was like getting a bonus week.
There have been many changes for things like wineries and restaurants, and limits on home gatherings at times, but I assume that's pretty standard worldwide.
Currently with risk of delta arriving from interstate, I wear a mask entering a public space, but that's about it. We're comparably isolated though compared to the rest of the world, and have strict policies for international travel (quarantine on your return that costs thousands of dollars).
There are strong restrictions back in early 2020, but I think we'd taken our kids out of school voluntarily, and I don't know if there was ever a full lockdown.
There was a week-long lockdown in July coming straight after school holidays, so it was like getting a bonus week.
There have been many changes for things like wineries and restaurants, and limits on home gatherings at times, but I assume that's pretty standard worldwide.
Currently with risk of delta arriving from interstate, I wear a mask entering a public space, but that's about it. We're comparably isolated though compared to the rest of the world, and have strict policies for international travel (quarantine on your return that costs thousands of dollars).
There are strong restrictions back in early 2020, but I think we'd taken our kids out of school voluntarily, and I don't know if there was ever a full lockdown.
In Victoria it's been 220 days so far and will hit 300 before the the goals set by the state government for ending the current lockdown are reached.
How severe is it? Montreal had more days under lockdown in 2020/21, and basically no days with zero virus circulating.
There was the initial lockdown of 60-80 days or so, then a lockdown from october-may, including curfew from january-may.
We’re on track for needing restrictions again this winter.
There was the initial lockdown of 60-80 days or so, then a lockdown from october-may, including curfew from january-may.
We’re on track for needing restrictions again this winter.
Off topic, but it always amazes me how often I see Gandhi misspelled as Ghandi. I'm not American, so I am curious if they always teach this wrong spelling in schools? Check the other replies here. OP literally quoted the right spelling but still misspelled it later.
'gh' is somewhat common in American English. ghost, ghetto, aghast. 'dh' is unheard of.
I thought about it, and in my case I think it’s because the pronunciation is unintuitive. You often hear people saying “Gandhi” like “Band”, which is wrong I think.
To write how you pronounce Gandhi you normally have words like “Khan” or “Ghana” etc. at least with the words I’m familiar with.
So it makes a switch I have to constantly manually remember. Possible I have the pronunciation wrong of course.
To write how you pronounce Gandhi you normally have words like “Khan” or “Ghana” etc. at least with the words I’m familiar with.
So it makes a switch I have to constantly manually remember. Possible I have the pronunciation wrong of course.
I think it's very simple. America has learned to live with Covid and this is the new normal: 300,000+ deaths per year, dramatically lower life expectancy, and a drag on the consumer economy.
Subsaharan Africa learned to live with malaria by eating the human and economic costs of a forever epidemic. We can too!
Subsaharan Africa learned to live with malaria by eating the human and economic costs of a forever epidemic. We can too!
the flu cuases a certain annual death toll as well and has for a long time. Once the initial lack of partial or even full immunity to COVID diminishes in the U.S and elsewhere, it will become part of the regular background of manageable infectious diseases, and this is what people will adapt to, fairly well I think. Your extrapolating the large existing death toll forward over the years is misguided. Aside from all this, what alternative would you prefer? Perpetual rolling lockdowns and endless streams of prohibitions until some highly ambigious future time?
Measles is more infectious than Covid, less fatal than Covid, and (outside of pockets of anti-vaccination activists) has been largely vaccinated out of existence.
The big difference is that measles vaccine has an efficacy of ~100%. [1]
From the start of the pandemic, health experts and the media did lots of what I can only call expectation management and said that any vaccine with over 50% efficacy would be good, more than 60% or 70% would be absolutely marvellous. I think because this was the first time people were tuning in to news about vaccine efficacy, it has skewed people's perception and many think all vaccines are 65-85% effective. In reality, while flu vaccine is like that, the vaccines commonly used for more serious diseases such as measles are close to 100% effective. And this efficacy is not just against death or serious disease, but against catching the disease at all or passing it on.
Vaccine efficacy against transmission greatly affects the percentage of the population that need to be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity. With low enough efficacy and high enough R value, herd immunity is impossible even if 100% of the population is vaccinated. And some variants of COVID may have high enough R value for this.
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications...
From the start of the pandemic, health experts and the media did lots of what I can only call expectation management and said that any vaccine with over 50% efficacy would be good, more than 60% or 70% would be absolutely marvellous. I think because this was the first time people were tuning in to news about vaccine efficacy, it has skewed people's perception and many think all vaccines are 65-85% effective. In reality, while flu vaccine is like that, the vaccines commonly used for more serious diseases such as measles are close to 100% effective. And this efficacy is not just against death or serious disease, but against catching the disease at all or passing it on.
Vaccine efficacy against transmission greatly affects the percentage of the population that need to be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity. With low enough efficacy and high enough R value, herd immunity is impossible even if 100% of the population is vaccinated. And some variants of COVID may have high enough R value for this.
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications...
Despite this, vaccination against COVID coupled with acquired immunity through infection (partial or complete for a certain period of time) will almost certainly do what it has always done throughout history for most diseases, which is reduce the general deadliness across subsequent reinfections. Yes there are some exceptions caused by mutations but those may or may not happen at who knows which time. Global policy absolutely should not repress a vast amount of normal social activity based on such unlikely what-ifs. Even if the current vaccines remain much like the flu vaccine (only partly effective) COVID itself will almost certainly settle into a pattern that's similar to that of the flu, with a certain low-level death toll that becomes part of the annual mortality landscape. Even to begin with, this was never close to a truly lethal disease like smallpox or the plague.
More fundamentally, these questions and the policy around them should not be the domain of abstract science to decide for social rules and laws. Other considerations that affect all of us, economic, freedom-related, emotional and social have to be considered. Scientists can easily get carried along by narrow policy advocacy based on their science, without considering external factors. As another comment here mentioned, that's a dangerous mentality for legal decision making.
More fundamentally, these questions and the policy around them should not be the domain of abstract science to decide for social rules and laws. Other considerations that affect all of us, economic, freedom-related, emotional and social have to be considered. Scientists can easily get carried along by narrow policy advocacy based on their science, without considering external factors. As another comment here mentioned, that's a dangerous mentality for legal decision making.
Measles doesn't have 'safe harbours' in so many other animals. It's a human-only virus. Coronaviruses infect many other animals. Merely vaccinating all the humans is tough (who's going to be doing it in all of the world's failed states?), now try vaccinating all the deer/minks/cats/dogs/bats.
That one disease has almost been eradicated doesn't mean that Covid can be eradicated. Covid may be much more similar to the flu than to Measles.
Measles spent have a nonhuman reservoir making it possible to eradicate it, even without a 100% effective vaccine.
Shit. Where did chicken pox go? As children we were sent to chicken pox parties so that we would get them young and not as an adult. I haven’t heard of a case of chicken pox in forever. Oh, wait. There’s a vaccine now.
And yet flu is still here.
Different viruses respond differently to vaccines.
It's like asking where's the dodo gone when trying to eradicate the rat.
Different viruses respond differently to vaccines.
It's like asking where's the dodo gone when trying to eradicate the rat.
>what alternative would you prefer? Perpetual rolling lockdowns and endless streams of prohibitions...
Only about half of US adults are vaccinated. Parents are literally fighting with and attempting to "arrest" school officials who are trying to keep kids safe with commonsense measures. Then, there's the whole family of theories on the "gov't is trying to kill us with 5G and take away our freedom" continuum, some of which motivates the former behavior and has them preferring anything but science-backed treatments (bleach, animal de-wormer, etc).
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Many of the same people who resist efforts to get the virus under control are the ones decrying lockdowns and prohibitions.
So, perhaps one answer to your question of preferable alternatives is in there somewhere. That is, I don't see how we can ignore this outlandish disinformation pipeline that motivates counterproductive behavior and mistrust of the most basic things required for a functioning society, then just throw our hands up and say, "well, some people are just going to die. What choice do we have?"
Only about half of US adults are vaccinated. Parents are literally fighting with and attempting to "arrest" school officials who are trying to keep kids safe with commonsense measures. Then, there's the whole family of theories on the "gov't is trying to kill us with 5G and take away our freedom" continuum, some of which motivates the former behavior and has them preferring anything but science-backed treatments (bleach, animal de-wormer, etc).
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Many of the same people who resist efforts to get the virus under control are the ones decrying lockdowns and prohibitions.
So, perhaps one answer to your question of preferable alternatives is in there somewhere. That is, I don't see how we can ignore this outlandish disinformation pipeline that motivates counterproductive behavior and mistrust of the most basic things required for a functioning society, then just throw our hands up and say, "well, some people are just going to die. What choice do we have?"
It's grotesque to lump together people with reasoned concerns about lockdowns, forced vaccines and other measures with the most extreme anti-vac conspiracy types who go on about 5G and microchips. This kind of smug disdain for millions of individual considerations is a kind of elitism that not only lacks sympathy for others but also has no business making binding legal decisions for whole populations.
As for this idea of controlling "disinformation pipeline that motivates counterproductive behavior". What I hear is nearly Orwellian terminology there... It's based on very tenuously sustained affirmations about an information problem that magically only started being a problem under specific recent political circumstances and also tries to undermine some very important parts of how the free societies we've built over centuries work.
As for this idea of controlling "disinformation pipeline that motivates counterproductive behavior". What I hear is nearly Orwellian terminology there... It's based on very tenuously sustained affirmations about an information problem that magically only started being a problem under specific recent political circumstances and also tries to undermine some very important parts of how the free societies we've built over centuries work.
You changed the subject by dramatically accusing me of "grotesque" behavior that I didn't engage in, pivoted to a suggestion that disinformation is not a real problem, then strongly implied that the claims about disinformation are themselves part of a conspiracy to undermine our freedom.
That is incredible.
But, straw men aside, I'd still appreciate a reply to the core question, because I'm genuinely interested in understanding the base POV at work here...
That is, there's an entire swath of people who resist even the most basic efforts to control the virus. And, these people also tend to be the very same who decry lockdowns and other "prohibitions" as an intrusion on their freedoms.
So, exactly what responsibility do they have here? And, what exactly do you believe governments are justified in doing to protect the public health?
That is incredible.
But, straw men aside, I'd still appreciate a reply to the core question, because I'm genuinely interested in understanding the base POV at work here...
That is, there's an entire swath of people who resist even the most basic efforts to control the virus. And, these people also tend to be the very same who decry lockdowns and other "prohibitions" as an intrusion on their freedoms.
So, exactly what responsibility do they have here? And, what exactly do you believe governments are justified in doing to protect the public health?
>It's grotesque to lump together people with reasoned concerns
I didn't lump "those people together", which is evidenced by the transitional sentence that began, "Then, there's the whole family of theories...".
"Then" is used here, as in "additionally". So, no reasonable people were "smugly disdained" in the production of that comment.
Secondly, I did indeed state that some of the egregious behavior I described is directly linked to this massive peddling of the idea that the government's efforts to fight the pandemic are really efforts to curb freedoms and/or harm them in some way. And to further clarify, those ideas do exist in degrees, up to and including the insane conspiracy theories at the extreme end.
But, let's be clear: the very idea that what the gov't is doing to control the pandemic is really intended to harm people or confiscate their freedoms is itself a conspiracy theory. And, if it motivates effectively the same behavior, then it functions in the same manner, irrespective of what its adherents believe about 5G or vaccine microchips.
So, I do think some who don't go as far as believing the extreme stuff can still be demoralized by disinfo and cultivate a distrust of gov't as a result, in much the same way as ads affect us all, even when we don't think they do.
>As for this idea of controlling "disinformation pipeline that motivates counterproductive behavior". What I hear is nearly Orwellian terminology there
I never wrote "controlling". That was your word. But, what I did state was that it's a problem when disinformation motivates behavior at scale, and that it's a threat to a functioning society.
>very tenuously sustained affirmations about an information problem
Some polls show up to 56% of Republicans believe that a theory that involves Dems eating babies and running a global pedophile ring is all or partly true. The theory involves a secret person who provides them with clues.
That's 25% of the population. It's become a cult and a growing mass psychosis. So, I'm not understanding why you think the idea of addressing problems like that is "Orwellian", but the problems themselves are of little concern. I find this mass psychosis chilling beyond whatever comes after Orwellian.
>that magically only started being a problem under specific recent political circumstances and also tries to undermine...free societies...
Magically? I'm sorry my friend, but that reads like a conspiracy theory. The plain read is that we had a president who trafficked in lies and disinfo, was buttressed by elements who did the same, and benefitted from it. If the "magic" that you're alluding to finds no culpability there, then it's magic indeed.
I didn't lump "those people together", which is evidenced by the transitional sentence that began, "Then, there's the whole family of theories...".
"Then" is used here, as in "additionally". So, no reasonable people were "smugly disdained" in the production of that comment.
Secondly, I did indeed state that some of the egregious behavior I described is directly linked to this massive peddling of the idea that the government's efforts to fight the pandemic are really efforts to curb freedoms and/or harm them in some way. And to further clarify, those ideas do exist in degrees, up to and including the insane conspiracy theories at the extreme end.
But, let's be clear: the very idea that what the gov't is doing to control the pandemic is really intended to harm people or confiscate their freedoms is itself a conspiracy theory. And, if it motivates effectively the same behavior, then it functions in the same manner, irrespective of what its adherents believe about 5G or vaccine microchips.
So, I do think some who don't go as far as believing the extreme stuff can still be demoralized by disinfo and cultivate a distrust of gov't as a result, in much the same way as ads affect us all, even when we don't think they do.
>As for this idea of controlling "disinformation pipeline that motivates counterproductive behavior". What I hear is nearly Orwellian terminology there
I never wrote "controlling". That was your word. But, what I did state was that it's a problem when disinformation motivates behavior at scale, and that it's a threat to a functioning society.
>very tenuously sustained affirmations about an information problem
Some polls show up to 56% of Republicans believe that a theory that involves Dems eating babies and running a global pedophile ring is all or partly true. The theory involves a secret person who provides them with clues.
That's 25% of the population. It's become a cult and a growing mass psychosis. So, I'm not understanding why you think the idea of addressing problems like that is "Orwellian", but the problems themselves are of little concern. I find this mass psychosis chilling beyond whatever comes after Orwellian.
>that magically only started being a problem under specific recent political circumstances and also tries to undermine...free societies...
Magically? I'm sorry my friend, but that reads like a conspiracy theory. The plain read is that we had a president who trafficked in lies and disinfo, was buttressed by elements who did the same, and benefitted from it. If the "magic" that you're alluding to finds no culpability there, then it's magic indeed.
I’m with you, but I have even less confidence that we can do anything about the disinformation pipeline. Tech companies have attempted to disrupt it by adding notices to potential disinfo, like how Instagram puts an overlay on any story that contains anything that mentions COVID-19. YouTube has started putting little info boxes under videos about things like “the great reset.” Does this stop anyone from getting sucked in? Go browse /pol/ and you’ll eventually see this stuff discussed, and among the deluded, Google putting an info box like that on conspiracy content is even more evidence that it must be true, because Google is in on it.
My sister is a nurse in the COVID ward. The other day she said they had 10 people on vent, 9 of them hadn’t been vaccinated, and that’s normal. Georgia is like 40% vaccinated even though you can walk into any Walgreens and get it. I haven’t really thought through the ethics of it, but I’m frustrated enough to think that if you’re an adult and you deny vaccines until you get COVID, we shouldn’t waste ER resources on you. It’s like we need to create a parallel society for the religious freedom anti-vaxers.
My sister is a nurse in the COVID ward. The other day she said they had 10 people on vent, 9 of them hadn’t been vaccinated, and that’s normal. Georgia is like 40% vaccinated even though you can walk into any Walgreens and get it. I haven’t really thought through the ethics of it, but I’m frustrated enough to think that if you’re an adult and you deny vaccines until you get COVID, we shouldn’t waste ER resources on you. It’s like we need to create a parallel society for the religious freedom anti-vaxers.
>I have even less confidence that we can do anything about the disinformation
>Google putting an info box like that on conspiracy content is even more evidence that it must be true, because Google is in on it.
Yeah, it's disheartening to say the least. I know someone who was sucked in and her thought processes have completely changed. These ideas are like living parasites: fiercely self-protective to the point of impenetrability. The ideas become fused with their identities, so criticizing the theories is attacking the person and the world becomes binary: you're either in or out. And, if you're out, well then you're part of the conspiracy (or duped by it). It's very much like what you read about cult-conditioning.
So, I've seen the logic: If Google instead removed it altogether, someone would screenshot it and make the claim that "Google tried to hide it". If Google just disallowed it in the first place or banned accounts, then that becomes evidence of a bigger conspiracy and, additionally, the freedom of speech arguments enter (as if there are no exceptions).
So, I'm not sure that it's winnable in our current social media formats. Too many motivated bad actors with troll-farms and bots; and too many fertile minds who are growing more and more agitated, and whose worldviews and identities now rely on the disinfo.
So, we've got a problem with both supply and demand.
>Google putting an info box like that on conspiracy content is even more evidence that it must be true, because Google is in on it.
Yeah, it's disheartening to say the least. I know someone who was sucked in and her thought processes have completely changed. These ideas are like living parasites: fiercely self-protective to the point of impenetrability. The ideas become fused with their identities, so criticizing the theories is attacking the person and the world becomes binary: you're either in or out. And, if you're out, well then you're part of the conspiracy (or duped by it). It's very much like what you read about cult-conditioning.
So, I've seen the logic: If Google instead removed it altogether, someone would screenshot it and make the claim that "Google tried to hide it". If Google just disallowed it in the first place or banned accounts, then that becomes evidence of a bigger conspiracy and, additionally, the freedom of speech arguments enter (as if there are no exceptions).
So, I'm not sure that it's winnable in our current social media formats. Too many motivated bad actors with troll-farms and bots; and too many fertile minds who are growing more and more agitated, and whose worldviews and identities now rely on the disinfo.
So, we've got a problem with both supply and demand.
I don't know what return to normalcy anyone is expecting given pollution and climate change. If normal for Americans means polluting and emitting greenhouse gases, we'll accelerate tremendous suffering, including ourselves. If we want to avoid that suffering, we can change our lifestyles (which could increase health, longevity, stability, and more since we waste so much, despite our culture telling us it would cause deprivation and sacrifice).
Either way, no return to normalcy, though if we choose to reduce polluting we would improve our lives.
Either way, no return to normalcy, though if we choose to reduce polluting we would improve our lives.
What is the "endgame", quantitatively?
Who defines what is the "endgame"?
That's kind of the point of the article. We used to think "endgame" meant eliminating COVID, now it's become pretty clear that's not going to happen and the best we can do is get to state where we can live with it.
In Manhattan numerous restaurants constructed "outdoor dining" areas, but since eating outside in 20F weather kind of sucks (I can attest from personal experience), many are fully enclosed and have heating and A/C. They are literally indoor dining except located on the street and not built to code, but we all pretend that this is making a difference.
Everyone knows that children in schools are a major vector for disease. Pre-covid it was always parents with school-aged kids bringing in colds and flu. Everyone knows that testing is largely performed only on people showing symptoms and children do not show severe COVID symptoms, but parents got tired of having their kids at home so we got a round of articles claiming children don't spread COVID and reopened schools while everything else was shut down.
I could go on with many more examples but we all know them. The response is a joke. The lockdown largely hasn't affected the elite and wherever it has we get COVID theater and special exceptions, but it's also become political and part of the identity for a certain highly influential strata of society so we keep moving the goalposts with no plan.