COVID-19 Megathread 6: Return of the Omicron

[GeorgiaModerate]

Chicago schools are said to be mandating masks for everyone whether vaccinated or not.

How do they expect to enforce this?

If you're not wearing a mask you get sent home?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Chicago schools are said to be mandating masks for everyone whether vaccinated or not.

How do they expect to enforce this?

If you're not wearing a mask you get sent home?

But they're getting rid of remote "learning."

[DaleCooper]

Chicago schools are said to be mandating masks for everyone whether vaccinated or not.

How do they expect to enforce this?

If you're not wearing a mask you get sent home?

But they're getting rid of remote "learning."

I'm assuming they'll just force them to wear masks in much the same way they'd be forced to remain in their seats or go to class on time. Sending them home isn't unprecedented because schools are able to send students or staff home if they have head lice or contagious conditions like chickenpox, but in those cases the students clearly are unwell and contagious and not capable of safely learning. In this case, there's a presumption of "guilt" (or rather, infection) regardless of evidence. 

[Never Made it to Graceland]

ShockedPikachuFace.com

https://www.thedailybeast.com/missouris-covid-surge-started-in-tourist-town-of-branson

[Horus]

Chicago schools are said to be mandating masks for everyone whether vaccinated or not.

How do they expect to enforce this?

If you're not wearing a mask you get sent home?

But they're getting rid of remote "learning."

I'm assuming they'll just force them to wear masks in much the same way they'd be forced to remain in their seats or go to class on time. Sending them home isn't unprecedented because schools are able to send students or staff home if they have head lice or contagious conditions like chickenpox, but in those cases the students clearly are unwell and contagious and not capable of safely learning. In this case, there's a presumption of "guilt" (or rather, infection) regardless of evidence. 

The generation after Gen Z will be lifelong Republicans because of this.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Chicago schools are said to be mandating masks for everyone whether vaccinated or not.

How do they expect to enforce this?

If you're not wearing a mask you get sent home?

But they're getting rid of remote "learning."

I'm assuming they'll just force them to wear masks in much the same way they'd be forced to remain in their seats or go to class on time. Sending them home isn't unprecedented because schools are able to send students or staff home if they have head lice or contagious conditions like chickenpox, but in those cases the students clearly are unwell and contagious and not capable of safely learning. In this case, there's a presumption of "guilt" (or rather, infection) regardless of evidence. 

The generation after Gen Z will be lifelong Republicans because of this.

The Democrats not coming out against this was yet another missed opportunity.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I compiled another little spreadsheet on my home computer. This one tries to compute the current immunity for the 50 states and D.C., based on the number of cases and vaccinations so far.

Highest is New Jersey with 81.58%. Lowest is Alaska with 48.65%. There's 8 states where it's over the 70% magic number that everyone keeps talking about. Most of those states do seem to have fewer new cases per capita right now than other states.

[Hammy]

Chicago schools are said to be mandating masks for everyone whether vaccinated or not.

How do they expect to enforce this?

If you're not wearing a mask you get sent home?

But they're getting rid of remote "learning."

I'm assuming they'll just force them to wear masks in much the same way they'd be forced to remain in their seats or go to class on time. Sending them home isn't unprecedented because schools are able to send students or staff home if they have head lice or contagious conditions like chickenpox, but in those cases the students clearly are unwell and contagious and not capable of safely learning. In this case, there's a presumption of "guilt" (or rather, infection) regardless of evidence. 

The generation after Gen Z will be lifelong Republicans because of this.

The Democrats not coming out against this was yet another missed opportunity.

No, Democrats are stupid for refusing to back vaccine mandates.

[TheReckoning]

Why was MATTROSE94 banned for saying something that became a mainstream position a few days later?

[Hammy]

Why was MATTROSE94 banned for saying something that became a mainstream position a few days later?

Because he spent the last year trolling and spamming the boards with pure contrarianism to whatever was being said on a given day. His posts did not represent any genuine viewpoint.

[TheReckoning]

Why was MATTROSE94 banned for saying something that became a mainstream position a few days later?

Because he spent the last year trolling and spamming the boards with pure contrarianism to whatever was being said on a given day. His posts did not represent any genuine viewpoint.

Does the Democratic establishment not count?

[DaleCooper]

Chicago schools are said to be mandating masks for everyone whether vaccinated or not.

How do they expect to enforce this?

If you're not wearing a mask you get sent home?

But they're getting rid of remote "learning."

I'm assuming they'll just force them to wear masks in much the same way they'd be forced to remain in their seats or go to class on time. Sending them home isn't unprecedented because schools are able to send students or staff home if they have head lice or contagious conditions like chickenpox, but in those cases the students clearly are unwell and contagious and not capable of safely learning. In this case, there's a presumption of "guilt" (or rather, infection) regardless of evidence. 

The generation after Gen Z will be lifelong Republicans because of this.

This is one of the cases where I'm a lot more concerned about the social implications than the electoral implications. Anti-social behavior is already a huge problem among younger people and I worry that this will make things a lot worse. Not being able to interact with people face to face is depressing and destructive, and I'd imagine it's especially so for young and developing minds.

[emailking]

67,000 cases today.

[philly09]

67,000 cases today.

Over 13,000 cases from Florida alone. Isn't DeSantis grand?

[Hammy]

[edited to avoid double posting]

Why was MATTROSE94 banned for saying something that became a mainstream position a few days later?

Because he spent the last year trolling and spamming the boards with pure contrarianism to whatever was being said on a given day. His posts did not represent any genuine viewpoint.

Does the Democratic establishment not count?

The Democratic Establishment didn't flipflop on a day to day basis. MATTROSE would say literally the opposite of whatever the general consensus on the forum was on any given day. If the general consensus changed, he'd simply switch to whatever the opposite of that was. Thus his posts

Chicago schools are said to be mandating masks for everyone whether vaccinated or not.

How do they expect to enforce this?

If you're not wearing a mask you get sent home?

But they're getting rid of remote "learning."

I'm assuming they'll just force them to wear masks in much the same way they'd be forced to remain in their seats or go to class on time. Sending them home isn't unprecedented because schools are able to send students or staff home if they have head lice or contagious conditions like chickenpox, but in those cases the students clearly are unwell and contagious and not capable of safely learning. In this case, there's a presumption of "guilt" (or rather, infection) regardless of evidence.  

The generation after Gen Z will be lifelong Republicans because of this.

This is one of the cases where I'm a lot more concerned about the social implications than the electoral implications. Anti-social behavior is already a huge problem among younger people and I worry that this will make things a lot worse. Not being able to interact with people face to face is depressing and destructive, and I'd imagine it's especially so for young and developing minds.

This has been a concern of mine since the start of all this, and honestly I don't envy parents who are trying to bring their children up in this environment. There's a very delicate balance here between trying to reduce deaths and adverse outcomes with COVID itself without having long term detrimental mental and emotional impacts resulting from the mitigation efforts, something children will be far more susceptible to than adults. And it feels like there's really no good answer that's able to take both of these into account.

[DaleCooper]

I just want to vent that pretty much all of the liberal "pro-science" media is devoting wall to wall coverage to the potential for the vaccines being ineffective longterm. They're desperate for an endless pandemic and I hate them for it. I'm struggling to get some important people in my life to get the vaccine and they're convinced that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections, and it's because of bloodthirsty 24-hour news networks and fear-mongering rags like the NYT.

[jimrtex]

It sounds to me like they just made this life expectancy calculation based on the 2020 data and nothing else.  In other words, they are assuming that 2020 represents the new normal going forward, and that covid will be the 3rd leading cause of death in the US for the foreseeable future.  Which is just unbelievably stupid.

Life expectancy is calculated as the average length of life for a hypothetical cohort of people assumed to be exposed, from birth through death, to the mortality rates observed for one particular period of time (in this case the year 2020.)  Higher total mortality rates will always decrease life expectancy when it is calculated this way. A population that has more total death has lower life expectancy.         

Remember that life expectancy is a function of observed deaths, not the survivorship or age of the living (i.e., we can safely assume that everyone will die at some point, lol.) 

Even if we assume COVID didn't change mortality rates for the cohort of people younger than age 80, it would still lower overall life expectancy because more 85 or 90-year olds would be dying.  The change in mortality would mean we'd expect fewer 30-year olds to live to age 90 (and all subsequent ages, too) which decreases the total population life expectancy.  This should seem intuitive once you remember life expectancy is an average.  If we engaged in gerocide Children of Men-style and murdered everyone on their 90th birthday life expectancy would go down because we'd be "moving up" all deaths that would have happened at age 91, 92, 93, etc. 

If covid only changes the mortality rate for people over 80, it should only have any effect on the life expectancy of 30-year olds if covid is still a raging pandemic 50 years from now.  And that appears to be what this study is assuming.  

If you think this is a reasonable assumption, then I suppose the “everyone needs to wear masks everywhere forever” policy is right on the mark.

You say life expectancy is an average, and obviously this is true.  But the big question is “an average of what?”.   To answer this, we need to ask what range of data represents the best reflection of what we think the future will look like.  Is 2020 the best reflection of the future, or will some wider lens give us a more reasonable estimate?  I would suggest that 2020 is -not- a representative year, and we’ll get a much better prediction by, for instance, averaging the last several years.

The report we were given is somewhat like saying “Life expectancy in New York City fell 40 years on September 11, 2001”.  And indeed, if you assume, based on data from that day, that 3000 NYC residents will die every day in terrorist attacks going forward, this might be a reasonable claim.  But the assumption is obviously ridiculous, and makes the conclusion worthless from a practical standpoint.

"We've always done it this way. These tables have been calculated back to 1900. It provides a way to see long term trends changes in mortality."

If you were you an actuary for an insurance company would you use this data to calculate more generous annuity and pension payments?

"Are you kidding? It would bankrupt the company! We are Public Health Scientists! Besides we said the results are provisional."

Anyhow these appendixes illustrate the calculation.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr015-tables-508.pdf

If you look at Table 1:

Column 1, q is the probability of dying in a given interval. It might be easier to understand by throwing away the last few digits and converting to a percentage,

For example for 55-60 0.041406 means 4.14% of 55 YO will die before 60.

Column 3, d, number dying in interval is calculated by multiplying column 2, l (number living at start of interval) by q.

Column 2, l, is then updated by subtracting the number dying in the interval from the number living at the start of the interval. Thus this column shows the number left from our original 100,000 persons.

Column 4, L, person-years lived in interval is roughly calculated by multiplying the number living at the beginning of the interval by the years in the interval (usually five) There is a slight downward adjustment for those who die during the interval. Probably a bit over 2.5 years.

Column 5, T, person-years remaining, is calculated by summing column 4 from bottom to top.

Column 6, e, life expectancy, is calculated by dividing column 5 T, by column 2, l, number living.

You can reduce e, by increasing q just a tad, particularly at older ages. But as you note, this implies that the persons in the cohort will experience the same deaths from Covid, year after year.

Table 15 shows the change in life expectancy.

[jimrtex]

It sounds to me like they just made this life expectancy calculation based on the 2020 data and nothing else.  In other words, they are assuming that 2020 represents the new normal going forward, and that covid will be the 3rd leading cause of death in the US for the foreseeable future.  Which is just unbelievably stupid.

Life expectancy is calculated as the average length of life for a hypothetical cohort of people assumed to be exposed, from birth through death, to the mortality rates observed for one particular period of time (in this case the year 2020.)  Higher total mortality rates will always decrease life expectancy when it is calculated this way. A population that has more total death has lower life expectancy.         

Remember that life expectancy is a function of observed deaths, not the survivorship or age of the living (i.e., we can safely assume that everyone will die at some point, lol.) 

Even if we assume COVID didn't change mortality rates for the cohort of people younger than age 80, it would still lower overall life expectancy because more 85 or 90-year olds would be dying.  The change in mortality would mean we'd expect fewer 30-year olds to live to age 90 (and all subsequent ages, too) which decreases the total population life expectancy.  This should seem intuitive once you remember life expectancy is an average.  If we engaged in gerocide Children of Men-style and murdered everyone on their 90th birthday life expectancy would go down because we'd be "moving up" all deaths that would have happened at age 91, 92, 93, etc. 

If covid only changes the mortality rate for people over 80, it should only have any effect on the life expectancy of 30-year olds if covid is still a raging pandemic 50 years from now.  And that appears to be what this study is assuming. 

If you think this is a reasonable assumption, then I suppose the “everyone needs to wear masks everywhere forever” policy is right on the mark.

You say life expectancy is an average, and obviously this is true.  But the big question is “an average of what?”.   To answer this, we need to ask what range of data represents the best reflection of what we think the future will look like.  Is 2020 the best reflection of the future, or will some wider lens give us a more reasonable estimate?  I would suggest that 2020 is -not- a representative year, and we’ll get a much better prediction by, for instance, averaging the last several years.

The report we were given is somewhat like saying “Life expectancy in New York City fell 40 years on September 11, 2001”.  And indeed, if you assume, based on data from that day, that 3000 NYC residents will die every day in terrorist attacks going forward, this might be a reasonable claim.  But the assumption is obviously ridiculous, and makes the conclusion worthless from a practical standpoint.

Lol, this study is not "assuming"...this is how life expectancy is calculated as a basic statistical measure

You seem to think life expectancy is a prediction about the future.  In reality, it is a measure of the present, based on the current total mortality curve for the entire population.

Surely you understand why we cannot predict when people will die 30 or 40 years from now?  lol 

"life expectancy" is a projection (an estimate for the future based on the current or the past). The calculation is based on the assumption that the age-specific death rate for 2020 will continue indefinitely (for the next 80+ years for newborns).

You are correct, that "life expectancy" does not measure expectations about life.

[jimrtex]

Here's the CDC report:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/VSRR015-508.pdf

Nothing jumps out at me as an error. It seems that's just how it's calculated. I don't think there's an issue with reporting it. You've given the caveats. Covid deaths will likely decline so life expectancy will likely go back up.

This is unrelated to covid, but I never realized that Hispanics have a significantly higher life expectancy than white people across the board.  Prior to 2020, Hispanics lived an average of 3 years longer than whites, which is a pretty huge difference when you think about it.  I wonder why that is.

How Does Cause of Death Contribute to the Hispanic Mortality Advantage in the United States?

Click on Full Text PDF in upper right corner which provides a breakdown based on cause of death.

But the abstract pretty much matches your question: (i.e. an uneducated guess would be that Hispanics would have life expectancy similar to blacks)

These are quite surprising. For example age-specific death rates for age 25-44.

Age-specific death rates (PDF)

[politicallefty]

I just want to vent that pretty much all of the liberal "pro-science" media is devoting wall to wall coverage to the potential for the vaccines being ineffective longterm. They're desperate for an endless pandemic and I hate them for it. I'm struggling to get some important people in my life to get the vaccine and they're convinced that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections, and it's because of bloodthirsty 24-hour news networks and fear-mongering rags like the NYT.

I think the most serious concern is indeed that the vaccines become less effective or outright ineffective. That will be accomplished by a large segment of the population remaining unvaccinated and allowing the virus to run rampant. I say this as someone that got the second dose nearly three months ago but continues to mask-up in most indoor public places. I've said this before, but the more the virus spreads the more opportunities it has to mutate. This has always been a race against the virus and we're losing ground for the first time since the vaccine roll-out began.

These vaccines, particularly the mRNA ones, are still highly effective. There has been some loss of efficacy against the Delta variant, but still extraordinarily effective at preventing hospitalization or death. The problem is that we let up on our other measures far too soon. The grocery stores I go to don't even have the one-way aisles anymore (which I actually quite liked anyway). But as I said before, this is all a result of the CDC saying the pandemic was basically over in mid-May. Absent vaccine passports, we needed to maintain mask mandates and some form of basic social distancing until certain levels of vaccine uptake were reached. We still have large segments of the population that cannot get the vaccine, whether or not they want it (the largest groups being children under 12).

As for continuing to mask-up when vaccinated, I feel this article sums up my feelings pretty well.

[Horus]

I just want to vent that pretty much all of the liberal "pro-science" media is devoting wall to wall coverage to the potential for the vaccines being ineffective longterm. They're desperate for an endless pandemic and I hate them for it. I'm struggling to get some important people in my life to get the vaccine and they're convinced that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections, and it's because of bloodthirsty 24-hour news networks and fear-mongering rags like the NYT.

I feel your pain. One of my closest friends is wavering on getting his second dose of Pfizer and the cable news he watches every evening (usually CNN or our local NBC) isn't helping.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

It's pretty bad when the Democratic establishment has the same views as an obvious online troll.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Have any of these so-called "experts" spent even 5 minutes in a school in their lives?

In fact, have they even spent 5 minutes with another human being?

[Crumpets]

Updated map of counties that have fully vaccinated 70+% of all eligible residents.

[pbrower2a]

You never know what viruses are mutating in the bodies of people to refuse to do even the easiest thing to prevent the spread and contraction of COVID-19.