COVID-19 Megathread 6: Return of the Omicron

[DabbingSanta]

Luckily, I think Michigan is leveling off a little bit, and New Jersey clearly is. I know Texas is doing better though.

I'm surprised the U.S. overall isn't doing much better, since the vaccines are rolling out.

It appears Israel really dropped off at around 50% fully vaccinated.  The U.S. still has a little way to go, but the trends are going in the right direction.  Also note that many places that were hit hard over the winter have already reached some form of "herd immunity". 

When you compare the economic and social devastation lockdowns have caused in places like New York, Michigan, and California, I don't think there's any reasonable justification for it.  The lockdowns may have helped saved the lives of some reclusive elderly people who are now vaccinated, but younger people who have no immunity to the virus are now getting hit hard with variants, and sometimes dying as a result.  It was an experiment and it failed miserably.

[DabbingSanta]

I should also point out that the lockdowns were originally sold as a measure to prevent ICUs from being overwhelmed with patients.  Remember "two weeks to flatten the curve"?  Here in Ontario we are in our third lockdown.  Toronto has been in a lockdown since the end of November, and their ICUs are still over capacity.  At least in the States there is a glimmer of hope with many states ending mandates and restrictions and letting nature take its course.

[emailking]

Michigan, a state that has seen unprecedented and unconstitutional restrictions implemented in response to the coronavirus, is seeing a record surge.  Yesterday, the state recorded over 8000 cases.

Texas, a state which lifted their remaining restrictions a month ago, is near an all time low in cases.  They are nearly 3x the population of Michigan, but they only recorded 2500 cases yesterday.

It is clear what works and what doesn't.  If you still support lockdowns and mask mandates at this point, there is no point having a reasonable conversation.  If you only selectively support "freedom" and democracy when it benefits your side, you are part of the problem.  It is time to reopen America now, and fully, before it is too late.

If you can articulate a reason for me either why a lockdown causes more cases or why not having a lockdown reduces cases I'll consider it. Otherwise, I see no reason to assume a positive correlation there. And I don't care if you think that's reasonable or not lol.

[pbrower2a]

Michigan, a state that has seen unprecedented and unconstitutional restrictions implemented in response to the coronavirus, is seeing a record surge.  Yesterday, the state recorded over 8000 cases.

Texas, a state which lifted their remaining restrictions a month ago, is near an all time low in cases.  They are nearly 3x the population of Michigan, but they only recorded 2500 cases yesterday.

It is clear what works and what doesn't.  If you still support lockdowns and mask mandates at this point, there is no point having a reasonable conversation.  If you only selectively support "freedom" and democracy when it benefits your side, you are part of the problem.  It is time to reopen America now, and fully, before it is too late.

When it is a matter of life and death, then perhaps freedom and democracy are worthy of some compromise. I am obliged to wear a seatbelt in a car and I am precluded from driving while drunk. As for democracy -- every lynch mob of which I have ever known has made its decisions on the basis of a majority vote. Even if I have gotten my second inoculation three weeks ago I still wear a mask in public.

Michigan was hit early and hard, and took hard measures early -- with good results after the first hit. Note well that many Michiganders (so-called "sunbirds") have just returned from such places as Arizona, Florida, and Texas which have had at the best weak measures against COVID-19. 

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The only reason lockdowns don’t work is because callous, selfish people are choosing to break them in large enough percentages. Perhaps that is reason enough not to bother with the lockdowns at all, but if we’re going to say they don’t work, I think it’s worth pointing out why. The idea itself is not fruitless.

I will admit, though, that I go back and forth on my feelings around the health measures and sometimes struggle to crystallize my internal thoughts or even hold a consistent opinion. On the one hand, I am feeling like it’s true that the mortality rate is, overall, very low, and it kind of pisses me off to think of the ways our response has ruined me over the last year (I’m absolutely living in a spiral of depression, exhaustion, and self-destructive choices), especially when I stop and realize it’s very possible I’d get this thing and have no symptoms at all. The lockdowns were originally marketed as a way to prevent non-COVID deaths and deaths from severe but treatable COVID because we’d be keeping hospitals from overflowing so the doctors could still do their jobs. It seemed, at first, like there was an understanding and acceptance that this virus would kill people. We would let nature run its course—in essence, we’d “let” the virus spread—but do it in a way that would not claim people who should otherwise have been able to recover from it. The goalposts did move.

We can talk about the merits of that movement, but it’s no longer about the hospitals and it’s now about spread in general. I absolutely believe we should all be taking reasonable precautions like masking, trying to stay distanced, and washing our hands, but I don’t think everything should shut down when many people are really suffering as a result of these measures, despite the fact that the vast majority of people are not going to die from COVID. Maybe the people who are more likely to die should be the ones staying home. I get that spread in the community still poses a higher risk to them, but we are reaching the point where—I can’t believe I’m going to say this—“it is what it is.” People are losing their livelihoods.

That said, the reason I am not prepared to say I’m “anti-lockdown” or any of that is because there are so many proud and stupid people who are just making ridiculously terrible choices, and I don’t want to be thrown in with them either. Going to a restaurant with six people all from different households is a hugely dumb thing to do while others are making sacrifices. Lifting mask mandates is ridiculous when wearing a mask is such a simple way to add a layer of protection. Having full stadiums of sports fans spits in the face of the realities many people are facing in this pandemic.

So I guess where I stand is this: Full lockdowns and the shuttering of businesses are not fair and probably not even going to accomplish much. We need to stop handwringing and fussing about the pandemic. This doesn’t mean we stop doing the really basic things we can do to make a small difference. We all know what those things are, and we can all identify what would be a ridiculous choice and what wouldn’t. But if you’re not willing to do those easy things, I’m out of respect for you. The conversation changes slightly when we’re talking about fully vaccinated folks, but here in Canada we’re so embarrassingly far from that discussion that it’s not worth visiting. Do your part, weigh what you really need to do against what you can sacrifice, and consider your risk. If everyone had consistently been taking a moment to be even a little considerate while making choices in this pandemic, it wouldn’t have been so bad.

This turned into a rant. I’m just sick of this f-cking COVID bullish-t.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I’ve always been fine with the mask mandates but opposed to lockdowns except in very short term, targeted cases.  We should never have implemented lockdowns preemptively in places where there was no surge in cases. 

It’s not that lockdowns don’t prevent infections in the short term.  It is that they are enormously costly and realistically impossible to maintain in a way that will prevent infections in the long term.  This has been more or less proven by whaf happened in Europe.

This is in contrast with a mask mandate, which is merely an inconvenience and more sustainable for months.  And of course, this also contrasts with a vaccine mandate, which absolutely eradicates infections in the long term is only a slight inconvenience for a day or two. 

Also, we need to get rid of mask mandates for vaccinated people once everyone has reasonable access to the vaccine.   Even though it is just an inconvenience, it is ridiculous to force responsible people to endure an inconvenience with almost no health benefit just to put on a good show for the benefit of wacko anti-vaxxers.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1381324384867127303

Sadly, some people seem to be incapable of embracing this combination.

[Inmate Trump]

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1381324384867127303

Sadly, some people seem to be incapable of embracing this combination.

Agree. I have been gradually getting myself more comfortable going out but I always wear a mask indoors or when I’m around people.

[Holmes]

Michigan, a state that has seen unprecedented and unconstitutional restrictions implemented in response to the coronavirus, is seeing a record surge.  Yesterday, the state recorded over 8000 cases.

Texas, a state which lifted their remaining restrictions a month ago, is near an all time low in cases.  They are nearly 3x the population of Michigan, but they only recorded 2500 cases yesterday.

It is clear what works and what doesn't.  If you still support lockdowns and mask mandates at this point, there is no point having a reasonable conversation.  If you only selectively support "freedom" and democracy when it benefits your side, you are part of the problem.  It is time to reopen America now, and fully, before it is too late.

Zaybay literally clapped back the last time you tried to pull this cherry picking sh**t and yet here you are again, showing your ass.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Headline like this are so misleading:

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-health-watch/246-infected-3-dead-covid-19-michigan-despite-being-vaccinated

The story reports that 246 people in Michigan who have been fully vaccinated test postitive for covid in the past three months.

Nevermind that during this timespan, something like 300,000 people in Michigan have tested positive overall.  So fully vaccinated people account for 18% of Michigan’s population but less than 0.1% of it’s cases.  Using this data, the vaccine isn’t 95% effective, it’s 99.5% effective.

Obviously, there are going to be a lot of timing and selection issues that make this calculation very inexact.  But it still seems like this headline it truly burying the lead that the vaccines actually seems to be much more effective than we previously believed from the trials.

[Dr. Arch]

The updated numbers for COVID-19 in the U.S. are in for 4/11 per: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

I'm keeping track of these updates daily and updating at the end of the day, whenever all states finish reporting for that day.

ΔW Change: Comparisons of Weekly Day-to-day Growth or Decline of COVID-19 Spread/Deaths.

• IE: Comparing the numbers to the same day of last week, are we flattening the curve enough?

Σ Increase: A day's contribution to overall percentage growth of COVID-19 cases/deaths.

• IE:What's the overall change in the total?

Brackets []: These represent the total change for the day, including backlogged reports, if any.

• These numbers are inflated relative to the actual reports for the day, so they are not used to calculate the comparative percentage shifts.

Older Numbers (Hidden in spoiler mode to make the post more compact)

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

<Last Numbers for 3/26-3/28 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 3/29-4/4 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 4/5-4/11 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 4/12-4/18 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 4/19-4/25 in this post>
<Last Numbers for 4/26-5/2 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 5/3-5/9 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 5/10-5/16 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 5/17-5/23 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 5/24-5/30 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 5/31-6/6 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 6/7-6/13 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 6/14-6/20 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 6/21-6/27 in this Post>
<Last Numbers for 6/28-7/4 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 7/5-7/11 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 7/12-7/18 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 7/19-7/25 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 7/26-8/1 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 8/2-8/8 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 8/9-8/15 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 8/16-8/22 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 8/23-8/29 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 8/30-9/5 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 9/6-9/12 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 9/13-9/19 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 9/20-9/26 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 9/27-10/3 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 10/4-10/10 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 10/11-10/17 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 10/18-10/24 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 10/25-10/31 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 11/1-11/7 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 11/8-11/14 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 11/15-11/21 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 11/22-11/28 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 11/29-12/5 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 12/6-12/12 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 12/13-12/19 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 12/20-12/26 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 12/27-1/2 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 1/3-1/9 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 1/10-1/16 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 1/17-1/23 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 1/24-1/30 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 1/31-2/6 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 2/7-2/13 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 2/14-2/20 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 2/21-2/27 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 2/28-3/6 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 3/7-3-13 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 3/14-3-20 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 3/21-3/27 in this Post>
<Last Numbers from 3/28-4/3 in this Post>

4/4 (Holiday): <Sunday>

• Cases: 31,420,331 (+38,126 | ΔW Change: ↓3.47% | Σ Increase: ↑0.12%)
• Deaths: 568,777 (+278 | ΔW Change: ↓38.90% | Σ Increase: ↑0.05%)

4/5: <M>

• Cases: 31,490,563 (+50,329 [+70,232] | ΔW Change: ↓15.71% | Σ Increase: ↑0.22%)
• Deaths: 569,197 (+420 | ΔW Change: ↓34.27% | Σ Increase: ↑0.07%)

4/6: <T>

• Cases: 31,560,438 (+62,283 [+69,875] | ΔW Change: ↓1.69% | Σ Increase: ↑0.22%)
• Deaths: 570,260 (+906 [+1,063] | ΔW Change: ↓2.79% | Σ Increase: ↑0.19%)

4/7: <W>

• Cases: 31,637,243 (+76,805 | ΔW Change: ↑9.91% | Σ Increase: ↑0.24%)
• Deaths: 572,849 (+873 [+2,589] | ΔW Change: ↓21.91% | Σ Increase: ↑0.45%)

4/8: <Þ>

• Cases: 31,717,404 (+75,183 [+80,161] | ΔW Change: ↓3.97% | Σ Increase: ↑0.25%)
• Deaths: 573,856 (+872 [+1,007] | ΔW Change: ↓8.40% | Σ Increase: ↑0.18%)

4/9: <F>

• Cases: 31,802,772 (+85,368 | ΔW Change: ↑21.98% | Σ Increase: ↑0.27%)
• Deaths: 574,840 (+984 | ΔW Change: ↓1.50% | Σ Increase: ↑0.17%)

4/10 (Yesterday): <S>

• Cases: 31,869,980 (+67,208 | ΔW Change: ↓0.60% | Σ Increase: ↑0.21%)
• Deaths: 575,593 (+753 | ΔW Change: ↓5.04% | Σ Increase: ↑0.13%)

4/11 (Today-Last Sunday Holiday): <Sunday>

• Cases: 31,918,591 (+48,611 | ΔW Change: ↑27.50% | Σ Increase: ↑0.15%)
• Deaths: 575,829 (+293 | ΔW Change: ↑5.40% | Σ Increase: ↑0.04%)

[Zaybay]

Michigan, a state that has seen unprecedented and unconstitutional restrictions implemented in response to the coronavirus, is seeing a record surge.  Yesterday, the state recorded over 8000 cases.

Texas, a state which lifted their remaining restrictions a month ago, is near an all time low in cases.  They are nearly 3x the population of Michigan, but they only recorded 2500 cases yesterday.

It is clear what works and what doesn't.  If you still support lockdowns and mask mandates at this point, there is no point having a reasonable conversation.  If you only selectively support "freedom" and democracy when it benefits your side, you are part of the problem.  It is time to reopen America now, and fully, before it is too late.

You have forgotten California, the largest state in the union and home to over almost 40 million Americans, has only seen 3000 cases yesterday to Texas' 2750 cases.

Clearly, the conclusion to draw here is what works is having Governors who have 6-letter last names. I'm sorry Michigan, shouldn't have elected 7-letter Whitmer.

[DabbingSanta]

Michigan, a state that has seen unprecedented and unconstitutional restrictions implemented in response to the coronavirus, is seeing a record surge.  Yesterday, the state recorded over 8000 cases.

Texas, a state which lifted their remaining restrictions a month ago, is near an all time low in cases.  They are nearly 3x the population of Michigan, but they only recorded 2500 cases yesterday.

It is clear what works and what doesn't.  If you still support lockdowns and mask mandates at this point, there is no point having a reasonable conversation.  If you only selectively support "freedom" and democracy when it benefits your side, you are part of the problem.  It is time to reopen America now, and fully, before it is too late.

You have forgotten California, the largest state in the union and home to over almost 40 million Americans, has only seen 3000 cases yesterday to Texas' 2750 cases.

Clearly, the conclusion to draw here is what works is having Governors who have 6-letter last names. I'm sorry Michigan, shouldn't have elected 7-letter Whitmer.

California had 40,000 cases per day during their peak in December and January.  Quite possible that the virus has simply run out of people to infect there.  No proof that lockdowns work, so why destroy your country?

[Zaybay]

Michigan, a state that has seen unprecedented and unconstitutional restrictions implemented in response to the coronavirus, is seeing a record surge.  Yesterday, the state recorded over 8000 cases.

Texas, a state which lifted their remaining restrictions a month ago, is near an all time low in cases.  They are nearly 3x the population of Michigan, but they only recorded 2500 cases yesterday.

It is clear what works and what doesn't.  If you still support lockdowns and mask mandates at this point, there is no point having a reasonable conversation.  If you only selectively support "freedom" and democracy when it benefits your side, you are part of the problem.  It is time to reopen America now, and fully, before it is too late.

You have forgotten California, the largest state in the union and home to over almost 40 million Americans, has only seen 3000 cases yesterday to Texas' 2750 cases.

Clearly, the conclusion to draw here is what works is having Governors who have 6-letter last names. I'm sorry Michigan, shouldn't have elected 7-letter Whitmer.

California had 40,000 cases per day during their peak in December and January.  Quite possible that the virus has simply run out of people to infect there.  No proof that lockdowns work, so why destroy your country?

Oh, so now you bring up the information that would destroy your own hypothesis. Newsflash, Texas was also suffering from a similar high peak back in January and February, averaging around 26,000 cases a day, similar to CA's peak per capita. Michigan's peak, meanwhile, was only around 8,000 in November, which per its population was rather low, along with being rather late compared to the other peaks that occurred early this year. But of course, this information isn't important because it doesn't support your line of reasoning...until it is important when California is brought up.

Look, we have a multitude of evidence on the effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates, from scientific papers and real-life country evidence, to just basic logic. If you get COVID from the air, wearing something that catches particles from the air when you breathe works. And if people aren't meeting other people because lockdown, then the virus can't spread. These aren't radical concepts this is something that a child can figure out.

If you want to try to disprove hundreds of scientific journals, real-life, and basic logic, perhaps you should use something stronger than "State A had X cases today, while State B had Y cases today, therefore everyone else is wrong, checkmate".

[DabbingSanta]

Michigan, a state that has seen unprecedented and unconstitutional restrictions implemented in response to the coronavirus, is seeing a record surge.  Yesterday, the state recorded over 8000 cases.

Texas, a state which lifted their remaining restrictions a month ago, is near an all time low in cases.  They are nearly 3x the population of Michigan, but they only recorded 2500 cases yesterday.

It is clear what works and what doesn't.  If you still support lockdowns and mask mandates at this point, there is no point having a reasonable conversation.  If you only selectively support "freedom" and democracy when it benefits your side, you are part of the problem.  It is time to reopen America now, and fully, before it is too late.

You have forgotten California, the largest state in the union and home to over almost 40 million Americans, has only seen 3000 cases yesterday to Texas' 2750 cases.

Clearly, the conclusion to draw here is what works is having Governors who have 6-letter last names. I'm sorry Michigan, shouldn't have elected 7-letter Whitmer.

California had 40,000 cases per day during their peak in December and January.  Quite possible that the virus has simply run out of people to infect there.  No proof that lockdowns work, so why destroy your country?

Oh, so now you bring up the information that would destroy your own hypothesis. Newsflash, Texas was also suffering from a similar high peak back in January and February, averaging around 26,000 cases a day, similar to CA's peak per capita. Michigan's peak, meanwhile, was only around 8,000 in November, which per its population was rather low, along with being rather late compared to the other peaks that occurred early this year. But of course, this information isn't important because it doesn't support your line of reasoning...until it is important when California is brought up.

Look, we have a multitude of evidence on the effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates, from scientific papers and real-life country evidence, to just basic logic. If you get COVID from the air, wearing something that catches particles from the air when you breathe works. And if people aren't meeting other people because lockdown, then the virus can't spread. These aren't radical concepts this is something that a child can figure out.

If you want to try to disprove hundreds of scientific journals, real-life, and basic logic, perhaps you should use something stronger than "State A had X cases today, while State B had Y cases today, therefore everyone else is wrong, checkmate".

Let's be honest, nobody is going to be convinced that the other side is right, so what's the point.  Even if the data did show lockdowns worked, I would still be opposed to them because I value personal freedom.  The reality is the pro lockdown folks do not value individual freedom and ultimately want to implement communism.  Let's stop using "science" to defend bizarre authoritarian fantasies.

[Edu]

"implement communism"

lol

[philly09]

Michigan didn't report their use count today, so numbers are artificially low. 55,000 would probably be it with MI.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Australia's Department of Health has made a significant medical breakthrough in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

I know you guys think that because Australia has virtually no COVID-19 virus, we are not able to research the application of the vaccine in terms of the prevention of the virus. But this article proves we are at the pinnacle of medical research:

https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/is-it-true/is-it-true-can-covid-19-vaccines-connect-me-to-the-internet

"Can COVID-19 vaccines connect me to the internet?
COVID-19 vaccines do not – and cannot – connect you to the internet."

Damn, so much NWO Bill Gates conspiracies and they can't evne make a chip that can connect you to the internet? Big disappointment

Apparently Elon said you could get Zune through the vaccines.

Hoping the vaccine improves my reception as my download speeds are pitiful

[Not Me, Us]

Michigan, a state that has seen unprecedented and unconstitutional restrictions implemented in response to the coronavirus, is seeing a record surge.  Yesterday, the state recorded over 8000 cases.

Texas, a state which lifted their remaining restrictions a month ago, is near an all time low in cases.  They are nearly 3x the population of Michigan, but they only recorded 2500 cases yesterday.

It is clear what works and what doesn't.  If you still support lockdowns and mask mandates at this point, there is no point having a reasonable conversation.  If you only selectively support "freedom" and democracy when it benefits your side, you are part of the problem.  It is time to reopen America now, and fully, before it is too late.

You have forgotten California, the largest state in the union and home to over almost 40 million Americans, has only seen 3000 cases yesterday to Texas' 2750 cases.

Clearly, the conclusion to draw here is what works is having Governors who have 6-letter last names. I'm sorry Michigan, shouldn't have elected 7-letter Whitmer.

California had 40,000 cases per day during their peak in December and January.  Quite possible that the virus has simply run out of people to infect there.  No proof that lockdowns work, so why destroy your country?

Oh, so now you bring up the information that would destroy your own hypothesis. Newsflash, Texas was also suffering from a similar high peak back in January and February, averaging around 26,000 cases a day, similar to CA's peak per capita. Michigan's peak, meanwhile, was only around 8,000 in November, which per its population was rather low, along with being rather late compared to the other peaks that occurred early this year. But of course, this information isn't important because it doesn't support your line of reasoning...until it is important when California is brought up.

Look, we have a multitude of evidence on the effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates, from scientific papers and real-life country evidence, to just basic logic. If you get COVID from the air, wearing something that catches particles from the air when you breathe works. And if people aren't meeting other people because lockdown, then the virus can't spread. These aren't radical concepts this is something that a child can figure out.

If you want to try to disprove hundreds of scientific journals, real-life, and basic logic, perhaps you should use something stronger than "State A had X cases today, while State B had Y cases today, therefore everyone else is wrong, checkmate".

Let's be honest, nobody is going to be convinced that the other side is right, so what's the point.  Even if the data did show lockdowns worked, I would still be opposed to them because I value personal freedom.  The reality is the pro lockdown folks do not value individual freedom and ultimately want to implement communism.  Let's stop using "science" to defend bizarre authoritarian fantasies.

Based.

[pbrower2a]

The only reason lockdowns don’t work is because callous, selfish people are choosing to break them in large enough percentages. Perhaps that is reason enough not to bother with the lockdowns at all, but if we’re going to say they don’t work, I think it’s worth pointing out why. The idea itself is not fruitless.

Don't forget that some callous, selfish people encourage people to break the lockdowns, exploiting very short-term desires. Many people are unable to subordinate short term gratification even to long-term survival, and some people seek profits from that.

And, yes, there were people stupid enough to not wear masks when masks might have prevented the spread of the infection. Donald Trump had his rallies... masks optional. Trump was quite willing to accommodate human recklessness and folly. Much of the time the recklessness and folly that people think that they are enjoying is an illusion. When the danger is real and people disregard such, then tragedy happens.      

I will admit, though, that I go back and forth on my feelings around the health measures and sometimes struggle to crystallize my internal thoughts or even hold a consistent opinion. On the one hand, I am feeling like it’s true that the mortality rate is, overall, very low, and it kind of pisses me off to think of the ways our response has ruined me over the last year (I’m absolutely living in a spiral of depression, exhaustion, and self-destructive choices), especially when I stop and realize it’s very possible I’d get this thing and have no symptoms at all. The lockdowns were originally marketed as a way to prevent non-COVID deaths and deaths from severe but treatable COVID because we’d be keeping hospitals from overflowing so the doctors could still do their jobs. It seemed, at first, like there was an understanding and acceptance that this virus would kill people. We would let nature run its course—in essence, we’d “let” the virus spread—but do it in a way that would not claim people who should otherwise have been able to recover from it. The goalposts did move.

In the early months, the fatality rate was rather high -- higher than that of rattlesnake bites. Add to this, COVID-19 causes organ damage. I was not going to give up fifteen years of a potentially good remainder of my life for one binge of some pleasure usually harmless but then dangerous. Maybe that is because I have recently gone through some miserable times with the concentration of much grief and loss -- and an introduction to the degrading qualities of poverty in a plutocracy that sees anyone having a hard time as expendable.  

We can talk about the merits of that movement, but it’s no longer about the hospitals and it’s now about spread in general. I absolutely believe we should all be taking reasonable precautions like masking, trying to stay distanced, and washing our hands, but I don’t think everything should shut down when many people are really suffering as a result of these measures, despite the fact that the vast majority of people are not going to die from COVID. Maybe the people who are more likely to die should be the ones staying home. I get that spread in the community still poses a higher risk to them, but we are reaching the point where—I can’t believe I’m going to say this—“it is what it is.” People are losing their livelihoods.

Much of what we consider relaxation of the restrictions comes as people start to find that some of the restrictions are pointless or can be made unnecessary with some clever measures. Finding new ways to do things is very much a part of the American way of life. I am satisfied that things will go back to normal.

That said, the reason I am not prepared to say I’m “anti-lockdown” or any of that is because there are so many proud and stupid people who are just making ridiculously terrible choices, and I don’t want to be thrown in with them either. Going to a restaurant with six people all from different households is a hugely dumb thing to do while others are making sacrifices. Lifting mask mandates is ridiculous when wearing a mask is such a simple way to add a layer of protection. Having full stadiums of sports fans spits in the face of the realities many people are facing in this pandemic.

It's the stupid stuff that gets people hurt or killed. "Hurt" includes diabetes and organ damage. I look at a mask as a way to get a chance to do things that I would not otherwise do, like go to a library.

So I guess where I stand is this: Full lockdowns and the shuttering of businesses are not fair and probably not even going to accomplish much. We need to stop handwringing and fussing about the pandemic. This doesn’t mean we stop doing the really basic things we can do to make a small difference. We all know what those things are, and we can all identify what would be a ridiculous choice and what wouldn’t. But if you’re not willing to do those easy things, I’m out of respect for you. The conversation changes slightly when we’re talking about fully vaccinated folks, but here in Canada we’re so embarrassingly far from that discussion that it’s not worth visiting. Do your part, weigh what you really need to do against what you can sacrifice, and consider your risk. If everyone had consistently been taking a moment to be even a little considerate while making choices in this pandemic, it wouldn’t have been so bad.

This turned into a rant. I’m just sick of this f-cking COVID bullish-t.

I have gotten my two inoculations, but just to be safe and to encourage others, I still wear a mask. I keep a certificate to that effect, and I keep a photo of that card on my camera and cell phone.

I regret that America has so many people who, for whatever perverse belief, think (as if that were the operative word) that they are somehow charmed. "No little virus can kill me" said some AIDS denialists about forty years ago. Some of them got AIDS and died. I remember people disputing the highly-available, undeniable evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, and many who denied that evidence kept smoking... and dying earlier than they might otherwise have.

When Pope Francis can order all Catholic Churches worldwide to close to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (the Catholic Church has some fine scientists in its employ)... I take notice. When the movie studios cut their productions in progress because movie houses would become charnel houses, I take notice. When the highly-profitable major league sports teams abort seasons, I take notice.

The real bullsh-t is the denial that COVID-19 is dangerous and (as the B-117 variant) even more contagious.  

We have some thoroughly awful politicians in America, people who exploit superstition, bigotry, and overt falsehood for political advantage. Donald Trump, one of the worst in American history, got elected once... and he still got 74 million votes despite a horrific disgrace as President even before the Putsch of January 6.    

[emailking]

Let's be honest, nobody is going to be convinced that the other side is right, so what's the point.

You could potentially convince me if you can explain to me how lockdowns cause cases or lack of lockdowns reduce cases, which is what you seem to be implying. You ignored my post though. :shrugs:

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

"A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/health/coronavirus-vaccine-walensky.html

Can Vaccinated People Spread the Virus? We Don’t Know, Scientists Say.

NyT article has a really click-bate title. The article was about Dr. Walensky's phrase that could be misinterpreted as that vaccinated people cannot 100% transmit virus (no one suggesting 100% efficacy).

The agency was responding in part to criticism from scientists who noted that current research was far from sufficient to claim that vaccinated people cannot spread the virus.

The data suggest that “it’s much harder for vaccinated people to get infected, but don’t think for one second that they cannot get infected,” said Paul Duprex, director of the Center for Vaccine Research at the University of Pittsburgh.

In a television interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Dr. Walensky referred to data published by the C.D.C. showing that one dose of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 80 percent effective at preventing infection, and two doses were 90 percent effective.
That certainly suggested that transmission from vaccinated people might be unlikely, but Dr. Walensky’s comments hinted that protection was complete. “Our data from the C.D.C. today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick,” she said. “And that it’s not just in the clinical trials, it’s also in real-world data.”

[...]

“If Dr. Walensky had said most vaccinated people do not carry virus, we would not be having this discussion,” said John Moore, a virologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

“What we know is the vaccines are very substantially effective against infection — there’s more and more data on that — but nothing is 100 percent,” he added. “It is an important public health message that needs to be gotten right.”

"If Dr. Walensky had said most vaccinated people do not carry virus, we would not be having this discussion"

So most [of those who otherwise would carry virus) (~90%?) don't carry. And those who still get infected are less contagious (because more often asymptomatic).


Further, the CDC article states following

Population attitudes and behaviors towards vaccination and prevention measures

In surveys conducted since vaccination started in December 2020, approximately two-thirds of U.S. adults stated that they were at least somewhat likely to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (or had received one already).84-86 This suggests that continued efforts are needed to strengthen vaccine confidence and uptake, including addressing common concerns around COVID-19 vaccines (such as vaccine side effects, the speed of vaccine development, and mistrust of government), improving health equity by removing barriers to vaccine access, and using evidence-based approaches to improving uptake such as providing incentives for vaccination.85, 87 Leading reasons cited by U.S. adults for intending to be vaccinated include being able to return to more normal life, feeling safe around other people, and resuming activities like going to work or school.2, 88 Although it remains unknown which of these incentives would achieve the greatest increases in vaccination, information about activities that fully vaccinated people can safely undertake must be communicated in a clear and unambiguous fashion. Maintaining a requirement to continue all prevention measures after vaccination may disincentivize vaccine uptake. In a survey from January 2021, one in five people reported being less likely to get vaccinated if they heard that they will need to continue to wear a mask and practice social distancing even after getting vaccinated.2

A Harris Pollpdf iconexternal icon survey of U.S. adults, conducted in collaboration with CDC (March 12-14, 2021) following the initial release of CDC guidance for fully vaccinated people, suggests that most (83%) adults are aware of the new guidance and approximately half say they understand and plan to follow CDC’s guidance.89 Among unvaccinated respondents, almost half are motivated to get vaccinated by CDC’s efforts to roll back some mitigation measures for fully vaccinated people, stating that they’d be more likely to get vaccinated knowing that fully vaccinated people could now resume small private gatherings with other fully vaccinated people (47%) or with unvaccinated family and friends of the same household (40%), and would no longer need to get tested or quarantine following a known exposure to COVID-19 (42%).89 Additional stepped-down measures could further motivate vaccination, with nearly half saying they would be more likely to get vaccinated if they could also resume domestic travel without the need for testing or quarantine (47%), visit indoor spaces and businesses without a mask (48%), and return to their office or campus (41%).89

In summary, relaxing certain prevention measures for fully vaccinated people may be a powerful motivator for vaccination, and thus should be an important goal of the U.S. vaccination program.

So Fauci's decision to make such statement seems to me even more strange.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Let's be honest, nobody is going to be convinced that the other side is right, so what's the point.

You could potentially convince me if you can explain to me how lockdowns cause cases or lack of lockdowns reduce cases, which is what you seem to be implying. You ignored my post though. :shrugs:

Let's put it this way. Long, national/state lockdowns (as against to shorter, targeted lockdowns) are probably much less important in the long run than we previously thought. Meanwhile the drawbacks - economical and mental on adults, and educational and mental on kids - of such lockdowns are probably even more devastating that we thought.

[GeorgiaModerate]

As mentioned previously, I had the second Pfizer shot last week and am waiting out the two-week period until maximum immunity is reached, after which I plan to resume most of my normal pre-pandemic activities.  Thinking about this led me to a possibly counterintuitive insight: once people have reached maximum immunity, they need to get out and resume social activities – in order to help slow the spread of the pandemic.

Why do I say this?  Consider that the population is essentially divided into two groups (with somewhat fuzzy boundaries): those who take the pandemic more seriously, and those who don’t.  The first group is more likely to have been staying home, practicing social distancing, masking, and getting vaccinated as soon as possible.  The second group is less likely to do all of those things.  The result is that most concentrations of people tend to be composed largely of the second group, who are much more likely to be either already infected or susceptible to infection.  This is probably why there are still case hot spots despite the high rate of vaccination occurring.  Those who aren’t vaccinated are still more likely to go out and be in contact with others – others who also aren’t vaccinated.  With more contagious variants becoming predominant, they’re running through these groups like wildfire.

But if more fully immune people go out and socialize, it dilutes the susceptibility of such groups.  They function similarly to control rods in a nuclear reactor, which slow the rate of nuclear fission by absorbing neutrons.  To illustrate this, here are some (completely made up) numbers as a rough example: in a community of 10,000 people, let’s say there are 70% who take the virus seriously and 30% who don’t.  Let’s say that 90% of the serious group stays home as much as possible – even after being vaccinated – while the other 30% don’t stay home any more than they normally have.  This yields a pool of 3700 people in social gatherings (10% of the 7000 serious ones plus all of the 3000 others), of which 3000 are infected or susceptible while 700 aren’t.  This means that 3000/3700 (81%) of the people in this group are infected or susceptible, which is fertile ground for highly contagious virus strains.

Now suppose more of the serious people start socializing again once they’ve reached immunity.   Not all of them will, but if even half of them start doing so, it makes a huge difference.  Then the pool of socializing people is much larger (6500 – half of the 7K serious ones plus all of the other 3K) and the infected/susceptible portion is down to 3000/6500 (46%), which makes it harder for the virus to spread.  This only gets better as we increase the fraction of the immune population that gets out; if it rises to 80%, then the socializing pool is 8600 people, of which only 35% (3000/8600) are at risk.

Thoughts?

[Matty]

This is worrying

The NYP is reporting that a 52 year old man is in the icu with covid19 35 DAYS after getting the JJ vaccine


Johnson and Johnson trial studies didn’t have a SINGLE person hospitalized with covid after 28 days

Looks like the JJ study was wrong or faulty

https://t.co/8oiG7sIC5U?amp=1