COVID-19 Megathread 6: Return of the Omicron

[Calthrina950]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

I am curious to know how the situation would have turned out if our leadership had taken the same approach to the pandemic that the Scandinavian countries did, with fewer restrictions and more encouragement of social interaction.

I think your talking about Sweden which took a laissez faire approach and ended up with a death rate 5 or 6 times higher than Finland and Norway who were much stricter.  The Swedish equivalent of Fauci actually got sh**tcanned over it.

This much is true, but I don't believe that even the strictest responses to this would have been worth the costs-namely, the economic dislocations and the erosion of civil liberties.

[Tintrlvr]

Actually I think they were unconstitutional, but I have a hard time swallowing that they didn't flatten the death curve at all.

If the argument is that most the benefit came from the voluntary locking down, then it doesn't make sense that the forced lockdowns were a problem.

If the argument is that people staying home and business closing didn't affect the death rate at all, then I don't understand how I haven't gotten a cold in 2 years or how 2 strains of the Flu are probably extinct.

The study notes how the social and economic costs associated with the lockdowns were not worth in the reduction in mortality rates, and that such reduction was of a very trifling or minimal nature. In other words, the lockdowns did little to stem the natural course of the virus.

I do think it's totally fair to say that the lockdowns came far too late to matter and that by the time people were hunkering down in mid-late March COVID was already everywhere.

More significantly, maybe, it's clear from China's example that you could completely stomp out original COVID and even Alpha and Delta (but maybe not Omicron), but you can only do that if you are willing to implement and, maybe more significantly, enforce much more severe lockdowns than places like the US or Western Europe ever tried. Australia had some success in that vein and clearly did save many lives with its strategy of harsh, repeated lockdowns until mass vaccination. The policies implemented by the US and Western Europe that were fleeting, largely suggestions and only loosely enforced were fairly clearly, looking retrospectively, never going to accomplish much in terms of infection reduction despite being nearly as economically damaging as truly serious lockdowns.

Still, it doesn't feel like we could have known this a priori. Australia and China (among others) show us that there was a lockdown approach that would have worked, so it's not the case that lockdowns generally can't work. The lesson perhaps is that you need to commit, one way or another; there was no reasonable halfway where you could both avoid mass death and severe economic consequences, and, by trying to find middle ground, the US and Western Europe ended up with both.

An Austarlian style or Chinese style lockdown probably wouldn't have passed constitutional muster, would have greatly intensified political polarization, and possibly exacerbated the riots and other violence we saw during the summer of 2020. I think it would have also had more severe consequences, psychologically and morally, for Americans, and I'm not convinced that such policies would have "worked", per se. Even with imposing since rigorous lockdown policies, those two countries were not able to escape the pandemic. Not even New Zealand, which has sealed itself off from the world for most of the last two years, has been able to escape it. Coronavirus has invaded every country at this point.

This isn't responding to my point; I said they avoided most deaths. And they have. But, even if you're going to focus on cases, Australia barely had any cases before vaccination and reopening. I'm not a forever-lockdowns person and basically think thematically Australia got it right to care a lot until vaccines became available and then stop caring once vaccination was widespread (in contrast to the US and parts of Western Europe that didn't care enough early on and maybe care too much now).

And, yes, maybe Chinese or Australian-style lockdowns would have been challenged in courts, or would have been unsuccessful due to public resistance. On the other hand, their success in Australia, where they were orchestrated by a competent central government, clearly shows that the totally failed response in the West wasn't an inevitable cultural result. But we didn't have the leadership (particularly Trump) who was willing to implement those policies.

In the end, we can debate whether Australian-style lockdowns and total international travel bans would have been worth it. They would have saved a lot of lives, but they also would have caused somewhat more economic hardships than we actually experienced, at least early on, and maybe a lot more economic hardships than would have resulted from just shrugging our collective shoulders. And it's okay to debate which would have been the better plan. But you have to be honest with yourself on what you'd be trading off: It's simply not the case that the only alternatives were US/Western Europe-style policies or doing nothing, and the Australian model was at least quite successful in one sense that it spared many lives.

And it's true that the United States didn't have the most extensive or vigorous lockdown, but the restrictions that were imposed did not yield the benefits that were promised. And in the long term, is it worth it for governments to pursue the same failed strategies in response to future crises? I would hope that they would modify their approach, taking into consideration the consequences of what has happened.

That was the whole point of my point, and I agree that the weak and limited restrictions in the US didn't deliver the results promised. I think that's okay; especially in March-May 2020, we were still learning, and policy mistakes are completely understandable and forgiveable. It's not clear at all that alternative policy approach of shoulder-shrugging would have delivered better results (depending on how you define "better"); what is clear is that the alternative policy approach of serious lockdowns would have delivered better results, defined narrowly as fewer deaths (see discussion above).

I do agree that we should do things differently than we (in the US) did if the exact same scenario happens in the future. However, the exact same scenario won't happen in the future, so that's pretty meaningless.  Even if the next crisis is another novel respiratory disease, it will likely present in ways where weaker or strong policies, or totally different policies, or even the same policies, might be appropriate. There are theoretical respiratory diseases where some US states, or some European countries, actually did perfectly calibrate their responses to address the crisis. We can't know just from our experience with COVID-19.

And I agree with you that for COVID, the time for lockdown policies is almost certainly past, reserving judgment of course for when the next variant comes out that totally ignores vaccination (not only for case spread but also for severity). But no one is really proposing anything resembling the early 2020 policies again for COVID anyway so this is basically a moot point.

[Hammy]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

Hard to take seriously an article on public health from somebody whose focus is on law and economics.  As others have pointed out, actual health data from countries that had little to no restrictions early on had significantly worse outcomes, and there's a better case to be made about the impact on mental and financial well-being that they caused.

But a paper by an economics professor on the impacts the lockdowns (which impacted the economy) had on viral mortality is no more credible than publishing a paper tying vaccines to autism in order to smear your competitor.

[DINGO Joe]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

I am curious to know how the situation would have turned out if our leadership had taken the same approach to the pandemic that the Scandinavian countries did, with fewer restrictions and more encouragement of social interaction.

I think your talking about Sweden which took a laissez faire approach and ended up with a death rate 5 or 6 times higher than Finland and Norway who were much stricter.  The Swedish equivalent of Fauci actually got sh**tcanned over it.

This much is true, but I don't believe that even the strictest responses to this would have been worth the costs-namely, the economic dislocations and the erosion of civil liberties.

Dead people seem to cause quite a bit of economic dislocation and in the US at least the death rates the first couple months of the pandemic seem almost quaint to what has followed.

[Calthrina950]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

I am curious to know how the situation would have turned out if our leadership had taken the same approach to the pandemic that the Scandinavian countries did, with fewer restrictions and more encouragement of social interaction.

I think your talking about Sweden which took a laissez faire approach and ended up with a death rate 5 or 6 times higher than Finland and Norway who were much stricter.  The Swedish equivalent of Fauci actually got sh**tcanned over it.

This much is true, but I don't believe that even the strictest responses to this would have been worth the costs-namely, the economic dislocations and the erosion of civil liberties.

Dead people seem to cause quite a bit of economic dislocation and in the US at least the death rates the first couple months of the pandemic seem almost quaint to what has followed.

You are saying, then, that you disagree with the article's conclusions? And that the lockdown policies which were pursued were worth it?

[MATTROSE94]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

I am curious to know how the situation would have turned out if our leadership had taken the same approach to the pandemic that the Scandinavian countries did, with fewer restrictions and more encouragement of social interaction.

Not sure how it would have turned out. Another interesting thing to speculate is if the original COVID strain was either Delta or Omicron. If it was Omicron, I would have been less supportive of restrictions at the beginning, but if it was Delta, then I probably would have supported Chinese style lockdowns in the US.

[Pericles]

The study isn't even peer-reviewed, it is nonsense that goes against easily observable experiences from different countries and common sense.

[DINGO Joe]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

I am curious to know how the situation would have turned out if our leadership had taken the same approach to the pandemic that the Scandinavian countries did, with fewer restrictions and more encouragement of social interaction.

I think your talking about Sweden which took a laissez faire approach and ended up with a death rate 5 or 6 times higher than Finland and Norway who were much stricter.  The Swedish equivalent of Fauci actually got sh**tcanned over it.

This much is true, but I don't believe that even the strictest responses to this would have been worth the costs-namely, the economic dislocations and the erosion of civil liberties.

Dead people seem to cause quite a bit of economic dislocation and in the US at least the death rates the first couple months of the pandemic seem almost quaint to what has followed.

You are saying, then, that you disagree with the article's conclusions? And that the lockdown policies which were pursued were worth it?

Well, I'm not terribly familiar with the timing of the  lockdowns in Europe and the distribution of deaths across the countries.  All I can do is look at the death graphs (those roller coaster rides of surges and declines of deaths in each county.  In the US, the lockdowns clearly limited the impact of the first wave of the pandemic to several urban areas in the US and overall made it the weakest of the waves in the US.  Subsequent waves in the US have been worse and wider spread.  In fact, the most annoying thing about the current wave is that the previous Delta wave never subsided before the Omicron wave   We're on the 6th straight month over over 1000/day.  The original (lock down) wave lasted two months, last winter was 4 months (with the highest peak).  The original lockdowns were disruptive but very impactful in US.  All you have to do is look at a death graph to figure that out.  Europe had a lousy winter 20-21 like the US, but Western Europe at least doesn't look as pathetic as the US graph does over the last six months.

[Raccoon]

sigh... all the money we spent to battle covid-19.... we could have used to battle climate change. That will cause far more deaths and economic displacements than Covid-19 ever could.

[Raccoon]

Let's face it! The only reason Democrats are pushing covid restrictions at this point.. its obvious.

They want Florida very bad and think pushing covid restrictions in their states will make people move to Florida, Texas, etc.. and flip them blue. It will literally be the most counter productive plot ever.

[Roll Roons]

https://deadline.com/2022/02/l-a-mayor-garcetti-says-he-held-his-breath-for-maskless-photo-with-magic-johnson-1234925457/

Garcetti says he "held his breath" while taking a maskless photo. How f**king dumb do these elitist Democrats think we are?

[doc gerritcole]

https://deadline.com/2022/02/l-a-mayor-garcetti-says-he-held-his-breath-for-maskless-photo-with-magic-johnson-1234925457/

Garcetti says he "held his breath" while taking a maskless photo. How f**king dumb do these elitist Democrats think we are?

stfu bigot! do you not see the sacrifices the elites are making on our behalf??? Hold your breath for 2 weeks in repentance to save grandma

[You are responsible]

Let's face it! The only reason Democrats are pushing covid restrictions at this point.. its obvious.

They want Florida very bad and think pushing covid restrictions in their states will make people move to Florida, Texas, etc.. and flip them blue. It will literally be the most counter productive plot ever.

You're deranged.

[Calthrina950]

https://deadline.com/2022/02/l-a-mayor-garcetti-says-he-held-his-breath-for-maskless-photo-with-magic-johnson-1234925457/

Garcetti says he "held his breath" while taking a maskless photo. How f**king dumb do these elitist Democrats think we are?

They seem to think we are very much gullible. And many people are, unfortunately. Coronavirus restrictions and policy have truly become a partisan issue and closely affiliated with one's political identity. Los Angeles, in particular, was one of the earliest jurisdictions to reimpose a mask mandate when the Delta variant emerged, and they haven't let up. And they've gone all in on vaccine mandates and on restrictive measures at schools.

[Zohranism is OUR future]

Let's face it! The only reason Democrats are pushing covid restrictions at this point.. its obvious.

They want Florida very bad and think pushing covid restrictions in their states will make people move to Florida, Texas, etc.. and flip them blue. It will literally be the most counter productive plot ever.

You're deranged.

It’s honestly a sign of mental illness, and it’s sad that the Republicants on here are encouraging the downward spiral of others on the forum to advance their own agendas. Such is how they operate.

[compucomp]

Why people are catching Omicron more than once

If you caught Omicron during the December surge you might now be feeling somewhat invincible – especially if you have two or more vaccines under your belt.

In theory, your immune defences should now be at a high point, warding off further infections with ease.

But there’s bad news. Although already having had the virus and jabs will boost your immunity, scientists say you can catch the variant more than once.

“It's very clear that the risk of reinfection with Omicron following another variant infection is higher than with any other variant,” Dr Gerald Barry, Assistant Professor of virology at UCD, told Buzz. “Data from the UK recently said that over the Christmas and New Year the risk of reinfection with Omicron was 16 times higher than the previous six months.”

The article goes on to say that the new subvariant BA.2 makes this worse and that people have caught Omicron (BA.1) and then BA.2 weeks later. It does not provide statistics on how protective recent Omicron infection is against re-infection, however it notes that cases are on the rise in Denmark and UK again.

People in this thread are declaring the pandemic over again, and it looks quite possible they'll end up looking like fools again. Hopefully this phenomenon remains uncommon, but if re-infection is this much of a threat it's quite possible 400K COVID deaths per year and peak hospitalizations of 150K-200K will become normal. Even if all of society chose to willfully ignore COVID and pretend it's 2019, things still won't go back to totally normal because many new hospitals will need to be built to accommodate peak demand, vaccine and treatments need to be mass produced perpetually in the billions, medical personnel will have to be paid more to keep them in their jobs, etc, resulting in a substantial increase in medical costs for everyone.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

Johns Hopkins Study: Covid Lockdowns saved 0.2% of Lives at Enormous Economic and Social Costs in US/Europe.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

'While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted,' researchers wrote. 'In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.'

I said it in May 2020, when it wasn't socially acceptable, but now I'll say it again: worst public policy decision in decades.

A couple thoughts after reading.

Johns Hopkins is a research university that encompasses a large number of schools and other facilities. The publisher of this study is the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, which operates under the Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, which includes the Johns Hopkins Hospital and Applied Physics Laboratory, among others that may be more familiar to the general public.

I am not personally familiar with the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, but I note that their "about" page includes "Related Links" to the Cato Institute, which is never an encouraging sign.


As noted in the paper, their standard for comparison is Sweden, which, while it did not engage in "lockdowns", did strongly encourage (and get) a significant response from the public (arguably with better actual compliance in nations with formal but sketchily-enforced lockdowns like much of the US), the effectiveness of which is still being debated.

The review also includes a single study from New Zealand, (and none from Taiwan, a rather glaring omission) which is read as concluding there was no effect from the New Zealand government's actions, which flies in the face of well-documented reality.

For anyone who wishes to review similar work from a medical perspective, I found (but have not yet read):

Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions against COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis (Nov 2021)

Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis (Oct 2021)

Systematic review of empirical studies comparing the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 (Sept 2021)

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why people are catching Omicron more than once

If you caught Omicron during the December surge you might now be feeling somewhat invincible – especially if you have two or more vaccines under your belt.

In theory, your immune defences should now be at a high point, warding off further infections with ease.

But there’s bad news. Although already having had the virus and jabs will boost your immunity, scientists say you can catch the variant more than once.

“It's very clear that the risk of reinfection with Omicron following another variant infection is higher than with any other variant,” Dr Gerald Barry, Assistant Professor of virology at UCD, told Buzz. “Data from the UK recently said that over the Christmas and New Year the risk of reinfection with Omicron was 16 times higher than the previous six months.”

The article goes on to say that the new subvariant BA.2 makes this worse and that people have caught Omicron (BA.1) and then BA.2 weeks later. It does not provide statistics on how protective recent Omicron infection is against re-infection, however it notes that cases are on the rise in Denmark and UK again.

People in this thread are declaring the pandemic over again, and it looks quite possible they'll end up looking like fools again. Hopefully this phenomenon remains uncommon, but if re-infection is this much of a threat it's quite possible 400K COVID deaths per year and peak hospitalizations of 150K-200K will become normal. Even if all of society chose to willfully ignore COVID and pretend it's 2019, things still won't go back to totally normal because many new hospitals will need to be built to accommodate peak demand, vaccine and treatments need to be mass produced perpetually in the billions, medical personnel will have to be paid more to keep them in their jobs, etc, resulting in a substantial increase in medical costs for everyone.

1.) What is this website?  I’ve never heard of it.
2.) This article mostly relies on quoting notorious “Covid-Zero” fanatics.

Do you have a better source for these claims?

[Zohranism is OUR future]

I think it was the Washington Post which argued this, but it seems levels of social trust have a very high correlation with how countries did in handling Covid. This would definitely make some sense, as it’s one thing to try and legislate from the office, but if the regular Del Tacos of your country aren’t following the law or the spirit of it…well you can’t do much about it barring some insanely authoritarian response (which would result in huge consequences if social trust isn’t high enough anyways)

[Roll Roons]

Why people are catching Omicron more than once

If you caught Omicron during the December surge you might now be feeling somewhat invincible – especially if you have two or more vaccines under your belt.

In theory, your immune defences should now be at a high point, warding off further infections with ease.

But there’s bad news. Although already having had the virus and jabs will boost your immunity, scientists say you can catch the variant more than once.

“It's very clear that the risk of reinfection with Omicron following another variant infection is higher than with any other variant,” Dr Gerald Barry, Assistant Professor of virology at UCD, told Buzz. “Data from the UK recently said that over the Christmas and New Year the risk of reinfection with Omicron was 16 times higher than the previous six months.”

The article goes on to say that the new subvariant BA.2 makes this worse and that people have caught Omicron (BA.1) and then BA.2 weeks later. It does not provide statistics on how protective recent Omicron infection is against re-infection, however it notes that cases are on the rise in Denmark and UK again.

People in this thread are declaring the pandemic over again, and it looks quite possible they'll end up looking like fools again. Hopefully this phenomenon remains uncommon, but if re-infection is this much of a threat it's quite possible 400K COVID deaths per year and peak hospitalizations of 150K-200K will become normal. Even if all of society chose to willfully ignore COVID and pretend it's 2019, things still won't go back to totally normal because many new hospitals will need to be built to accommodate peak demand, vaccine and treatments need to be mass produced perpetually in the billions, medical personnel will have to be paid more to keep them in their jobs, etc, resulting in a substantial increase in medical costs for everyone.

1.) What is this website?  I’ve never heard of it.
2.) This article mostly relies on quoting notorious “Covid-Zero” fanatics.

Do you have a better source for these claims?

Compucomp wants the pandemic to continue forever so he'll find some article from some random website that uses fearmonger-in-chief Eric Dingleberry as its main source.

[compucomp]

Why people are catching Omicron more than once

If you caught Omicron during the December surge you might now be feeling somewhat invincible – especially if you have two or more vaccines under your belt.

In theory, your immune defences should now be at a high point, warding off further infections with ease.

But there’s bad news. Although already having had the virus and jabs will boost your immunity, scientists say you can catch the variant more than once.

“It's very clear that the risk of reinfection with Omicron following another variant infection is higher than with any other variant,” Dr Gerald Barry, Assistant Professor of virology at UCD, told Buzz. “Data from the UK recently said that over the Christmas and New Year the risk of reinfection with Omicron was 16 times higher than the previous six months.”

The article goes on to say that the new subvariant BA.2 makes this worse and that people have caught Omicron (BA.1) and then BA.2 weeks later. It does not provide statistics on how protective recent Omicron infection is against re-infection, however it notes that cases are on the rise in Denmark and UK again.

People in this thread are declaring the pandemic over again, and it looks quite possible they'll end up looking like fools again. Hopefully this phenomenon remains uncommon, but if re-infection is this much of a threat it's quite possible 400K COVID deaths per year and peak hospitalizations of 150K-200K will become normal. Even if all of society chose to willfully ignore COVID and pretend it's 2019, things still won't go back to totally normal because many new hospitals will need to be built to accommodate peak demand, vaccine and treatments need to be mass produced perpetually in the billions, medical personnel will have to be paid more to keep them in their jobs, etc, resulting in a substantial increase in medical costs for everyone.

1.) What is this website?  I’ve never heard of it.
2.) This article mostly relies on quoting notorious “Covid-Zero” fanatics.

Do you have a better source for these claims?

Compucomp wants the pandemic to continue forever so he'll find some article from some random website that uses fearmonger-in-chief Eric Dingleberry as its main source.

Whether I want the pandemic to continue forever is irrelevant. The virus will do what it does and that decides whether the pandemic continues or not.

Apparently the web site is owned by the Irish Daily Star which is a tabloid. So it is fair to question the credibility of the report. They are probably overplaying a few known instance of Omicron-BA.2 instances but it is reasonable that waning immunity and reinfection means that COVID will drop to seasonal-flu like "endemic" levels but instead come back in force every 6-12 months in waves and cause hospitalizations and deaths far in excess of the seasonal flu. If you're really intent on forcing society to pretend that COVID doesn't exist you'd better get on setting up government funds and other investments in the medical infrastructure to accommodate the permanently increased demand, and then be prepared to pay the new taxes and other increased medical costs. But wait, you're Republicans, this is not what you do, you'll sit on your hands, wait for Biden and Democrats to do it instead, and then blame them for it.

[Wrong about 2024 Ghost]

Posting this essay from last May, because it's good and still relevant:
Novelty Means Severity: The Key To the Pandemic

If nobody has adaptive immune protection, a virus spreads faster. Even a few immune individuals in a population can meaningfully slow the rate of virus spread, since they are less likely to become infectious and infect others. If there are enough immune individuals, the virus may not be able to spread at all. This is the logic of population immunity and herd immunity. It is important. We talk about it a lot.

If nobody has adaptive immune protection, a virus causes severe disease in more of the people it infects. This is also important. We don't talk about it enough.

Unless we eradicate SARS-CoV-2—possible but not likely, especially in the short term—just about everyone is going to encounter the virus sooner or later. But those who have adaptive immunity from infection or vaccination may not get sick at all. Even if they do, they will be less likely to get very sick or die.

Now that we have safe, effective vaccines, we can give people immunity without causing dangerous disease. That puts us into a global race against the virus. The more people who see the vaccine before they see SARS-CoV-2, the fewer severe cases, long-term health problems, and deaths. Faster worldwide rollout will save lives. It really is that simple.

[Crumpets]

For some good news, here's an updated map of the 14-day trend in case numbers by state. 10% increments starting at zero (so, 30% = 1-9% growth/decrease, 40% = 10-19% growth/decrease, etc.).

[compucomp]

Since posters here seem to be supporting the Canadian "trucker protest", have a look at yet more extremists taking part:



So in this protest, I've now seen flags of
-Nazi Germany
-CSA
-Three Percenters
-QAnon

These are the folks you are siding with now? Are they "very fine people" like Trump used to say? Have you gone crazy? Have COVID restrictions warped your minds to the point that you'll accept any ally in your fight against them?

[Zohranism is OUR future]

For some good news, here's an updated map of the 14-day trend in case numbers by state. 10% increments starting at zero (so, 30% = 1-9% growth/decrease, 40% = 10-19% growth/decrease, etc.).

Actually Maine is very unique in some ways. I was looking at the data and it appears it may have been only very recently that omicron wrestled control in Maine. Truly fascinating.