|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
|
|
On November 17 2020 03:59 BisuDagger wrote:
Does anyone trust a vaccine that comes out? I've always followed the software rule, "Never trust a 1.0". That being said, I'd like to hear thoughts on the following.
Even if we assume the vaccine is safe for me:
1. Should high risk and elderly take the vaccine first?
2. Should we focus on giving it to people in high population areas like NYC?
3. You can still catch the Flu weeks after taking the vaccine if it hasn't had time to build an immune response. Are we concerned that people who get the vaccine will walk around recklessly as if it's not their problem anymore? Should they still be expected to follow pandemic protocols?
4. Lastly, does anyone believe this should be a mandatory vaccine?
From the German wikipedia on Sars-Cov-1 (great source yeah..but the quoted article seemed ok) the experimental vaccine tested on rodents caused an autoimmune reaction in the lungs when exposed to the live virus. Ultimately no human viable vaccine was developed for that one.
I don't think a rushed S-Cov2-vaccine would be very alluring. I'd rather stay entombed for a year than putting an alphatest into my body. But it's too early to say what kind of thing will be cooked up.
Forced medical procedures are a big no-no in my book. And I'm a bit paranoid after reading the simian virus 40 story (novel virus in contaminated vaccines, but it happened in medical stone age).
That said, I'd rather have a Covid-19 sandwich and yolo through the disease than the vaccination, if given the choice 
|
On November 17 2020 03:59 BisuDagger wrote:
Does anyone trust a vaccine that comes out? I've always followed the software rule, "Never trust a 1.0". That being said, I'd like to hear thoughts on the following.
Even if we assume the vaccine is safe for me:
1. Should high risk and elderly take the vaccine first?
2. Should we focus on giving it to people in high population areas like NYC?
3. You can still catch the Flu weeks after taking the vaccine if it hasn't had time to build an immune response. Are we concerned that people who get the vaccine will walk around recklessly as if it's not their problem anymore? Should they still be expected to follow pandemic protocols?
4. Lastly, does anyone believe this should be a mandatory vaccine?
It's definitely fair to be skeptical of a vaccine that's brand new. And it certainly should be prioritized by need and risk factor first. I know that I don't expect to get it until year-end at the earliest.
Although to be honest, in a situation like this, there is absolutely some desperation to roll it out ahead of proven safety. As long as the cure is better than the disease, which I suspect it is, you have to do what you can to get the plague under control under relaxed, albeit still diligent, conditions.
|
On November 17 2020 03:59 BisuDagger wrote:
Does anyone trust a vaccine that comes out? I've always followed the software rule, "Never trust a 1.0". That being said, I'd like to hear thoughts on the following.
Even if we assume the vaccine is safe for me:
1. Should high risk and elderly take the vaccine first?
2. Should we focus on giving it to people in high population areas like NYC?
3. You can still catch the Flu weeks after taking the vaccine if it hasn't had time to build an immune response. Are we concerned that people who get the vaccine will walk around recklessly as if it's not their problem anymore? Should they still be expected to follow pandemic protocols?
4. Lastly, does anyone believe this should be a mandatory vaccine? If trusted health and safety organisations say it is safe I see no reason to not trust the vaccine.
These organisations are not stupid and know the risks and dangers involved.
And if software was as well tested as a vaccine going through all the safety checks we would have a whole lot less bugs.
1) yes, it will be in short supply at the start so those most in danger should get it first.
2) Kinda? Its a pure logic sense you would say yes, because a high population area is more at risk of a big infection wave then rural nowhere but after vulnerable people (healthcare workers and high risk groups) it becomes less viable to defend such methods and you don't want to feed into a 'city people are more valuable then rural people' narrative. Especially in the US.
3) for the most part I would say yes, until enough % of the population has been vaccinated to get a herd immunity effect but I am no expert on what the real dangers are so I would leave it to the experts.
4) Mandatory is always a problem and created a lot of friction. As with all other vaccinations mandatory should not be necessary so long as enough people voluntarily take it to reach herd immunity thresholds.
I think this would be a uniquely US problem because the President(Trump) has been feeding into this narrative.
|
On November 17 2020 03:59 BisuDagger wrote:
Does anyone trust a vaccine that comes out? I've always followed the software rule, "Never trust a 1.0". That being said, I'd like to hear thoughts on the following.
Even if we assume the vaccine is safe for me:
1. Should high risk and elderly take the vaccine first?
2. Should we focus on giving it to people in high population areas like NYC?
3. You can still catch the Flu weeks after taking the vaccine if it hasn't had time to build an immune response. Are we concerned that people who get the vaccine will walk around recklessly as if it's not their problem anymore? Should they still be expected to follow pandemic protocols?
4. Lastly, does anyone believe this should be a mandatory vaccine?
1. Healthcare first, then elderly, then try to distribute to people with high interaction levels with others where social distancing is difficult such as teachers, then everyone else.
2. Ideally you'd distribute it in areas of highest spread first, not necessarily highest population IMO. You can expect social distancing measures to drop drastically immediately following the start of innoculation, even if the vaccine doesn't reach full effectiveness for a few weeks.
3. Unless you do something like wristbands to show innoculation for second dose, I expect pandemic protocols, until enough doses have been administered to give a reasonable chance of herd immunity in a given population. Behaviour will drastically change quickly though. I'm expecting to celebrate with friends within weeks of everyone getting the first jab, because a month before the second dose is a pretty long time after this long.
4. It has to be mandatory, or functionally mandatory. If your kids must be vaccinated to go to school, or your job requires a vaccination by a certain date to work, it's pretty much mandatory. The only remaining categories are old people at which point it's really just the responsibility of the younger people who visit them to have vaccinated.
|
On November 17 2020 03:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three. My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns. It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street. On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 23:37 wimpwimpwimp wrote:On November 16 2020 21:43 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 21:13 Incomplete..ReV wrote:
My wife caught corona at work (teacher) the week before last. She had a bit of a runny nose and sneezed a bit more than normal, plus feeling a bit like a normal cold, but that was the extent of it. The symptoms lasted about 4 days and she was as good as well again when she got the results from the lab. Our son (11 months) caught it as well, but only had a very mild fever for one day.
And then last week (Wednesday) I started getting symptoms as well. Runny nose at first, and then when I lost my sense of taste and smell on Thursday there was no doubt at all what I had. Got the reply from the lab yesterday.
Now I'm stuck in isolation after having essentially been in isolation already! Fortunately, my wife and son won't have to be quarantined because of me since they've already had it, so that's a plus ^_^
Guess it's as good as time as any to have it over with (assuming I keep getting better the way I am) since then we're good to go for Christmas!
It's a bit odd to think though that we are potentially (and most likely) immune. At least for a time. But we are also potentially at risk for getting a much worse round if it if we get it again. Potentially immune, potentially at risk - guess the best thing is to remain safe as always and hope for the best!
Isolation really sucks ass, especially when living in an apartment without the chance to go outside. Still, better than the health system going under, so I'll do it willingly and all that. But goodness but it sucks! By definition when the symptoms recede (making you immune-for yourself) and maybe a doctor can confirm your viral load isn't sufficient to infect others, why isn't there a legislation in place anywhere that would allow you to move freely as an immune person? This is really something that should have been implemented a long time ago. Oh yeah did a quick googling on this: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19WHO says no. They did that in April. F*ck knows what they've been up to in the last months but it's just mind boggling that they can't figure out this reinfection story, or maybe they don't want to (yeah tinfoil hat territory). Of the references in their article all but two are from Chinese studies. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the possiblity of reinfections. I remember reading about a Russian scientiest purposefully trying to and succeeding in getting reinfected - and getting a much more severe illness the second time. Here's a paper describing a research project which examined immunity to the four other common coronaviruses over a 35 year period. It found reinfection was common after 12 months: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1.pdf Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source. It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it. Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people. By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three. Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves. Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange. It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment. It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times. For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption. I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us. It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care. Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. I'm baffled by people still asking these questions after we have multiple examples of what happens when we don't restrict. A bunch of people, including many nurses and doctors have their lives cut short or forever changed. And most of the people I see out protesting about it are not those that have lost jobs and a struggling to feed their children, but they are the people who don't like to wear a mask and not be able to do what they want when they want it. Basically the inconvenience of it all is what is frustrating them. As for the mental health equation, are you taking into account all the front line workers (and not just health care but teachers and so on as well) that are dealing with all the death, sickness, fear and so on? As proven by many countries where people actually follow the heath recommendations, lockdowns are not needed. But if you have a selfish and irresponsible populace they are. And sadly the people who do follow the rules are the ones getting fucked, not those that won't follow the rules and then are forced too, those people are the real problem. But like in most situations in life people are creating their own problems and blaming others while playing victim. I'm getting so tired of people acting like a fitted piece cloth over their mouth and nose is so awful. What entitled spoiled fucking brats. Anyone who can't handle it is a major wuss and those willing to put other people lives at risk because of it are super selfish. And before someone goes into the OH MY RIGHTS GOV CAN"T TELL ME WHAT TO COVER, can you go naked out? Do women have to cover their breasts? Do I need to cover my Penis? I'd be a lot more comfortable naked, but I can't for mostly a lot stupider reasons than saving people lives by slowing the spread of a fatal for many virus. I wish we could pick a Island and send all the people who are mad about social distancing and masks to go live at. Then the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with all the repercussions by all those not willing the slightest amount of self sacrifice. Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 03:45 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:39 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three. My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns. It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street. On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 23:37 wimpwimpwimp wrote:On November 16 2020 21:43 Vivax wrote:[quote] By definition when the symptoms recede (making you immune-for yourself) and maybe a doctor can confirm your viral load isn't sufficient to infect others, why isn't there a legislation in place anywhere that would allow you to move freely as an immune person? This is really something that should have been implemented a long time ago. Oh yeah did a quick googling on this: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19WHO says no. They did that in April. F*ck knows what they've been up to in the last months but it's just mind boggling that they can't figure out this reinfection story, or maybe they don't want to (yeah tinfoil hat territory). Of the references in their article all but two are from Chinese studies. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the possiblity of reinfections. I remember reading about a Russian scientiest purposefully trying to and succeeding in getting reinfected - and getting a much more severe illness the second time. Here's a paper describing a research project which examined immunity to the four other common coronaviruses over a 35 year period. It found reinfection was common after 12 months: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1.pdf Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source. It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it. Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people. By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three. Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves. Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange. It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment. It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times. For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption. I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us. It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care. Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. A) Smoking isn't contagious B) We already restrict smoking Yeah it's a bad comparison sort of but I can't get past noticing the hypocrisy by people in charge in keeping that giant trap in place several decades after figuring out it kills people and shapes their brain towards being an addict in general. Also my country has like 40% smokers. And the reason there is not more rules, and those that are there took so long to get there was not health professionals it was smokers and cigarette companies. Much like now if people had listened to health professionals it would be a lot better. And places where they do are doing a lot better.
Everyone had their lives changed yes. But, and I apologise in advance for saying this, you argue like every newspaper of the last months with anecdotes of selfish stupid people and health workers making great sacrifices (Almost forgot, in the local hospitals covid didn't increase the work load, it DECREASED it) without trying to look at the other side of the medal, and I'd be careful not to assume a stance of hardcore sycophantic conformism when discussing alternative approaches.
Shifting the blame to people first of all is a pure guess as to what is causing the transmission rate to rise.
In the case of a disease like this that often is hardly noticeable by even infected persons contrary to a flu with a typical symptom complex you don't necessarily need to test to recognize, if you want to prove exponential growth, maybe all you need to do is increase testing exponentially.
The tests are mostly just a picture of the past, but they are often used as an argument instead of the more relevant occupied ICUs and deaths.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/cumulative-cases
In the above site I can't really figure out why the Italian linear curve of deaths starts going up when the lockdowns restart but during the summer when restrictions were loosened it managed to remain flat...
|
On November 17 2020 03:59 BisuDagger wrote:
Does anyone trust a vaccine that comes out? I've always followed the software rule, "Never trust a 1.0". That being said, I'd like to hear thoughts on the following.
Even if we assume the vaccine is safe for me:
1. Should high risk and elderly take the vaccine first?
2. Should we focus on giving it to people in high population areas like NYC?
3. You can still catch the Flu weeks after taking the vaccine if it hasn't had time to build an immune response. Are we concerned that people who get the vaccine will walk around recklessly as if it's not their problem anymore? Should they still be expected to follow pandemic protocols?
4. Lastly, does anyone believe this should be a mandatory vaccine?
Bold: If it's gone through proper testing (not whatever Russia did), yes.
I don't know the answers to any of the first 3, but 4. is a pretty clear yes IMO. Once it's widely available, no vaccine, no being part of the general public. Seems like the only way to get out of this pandemic state with minimal damage to life and economy.
|
On November 17 2020 04:23 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 03:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three. My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns. It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street. On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 23:37 wimpwimpwimp wrote:On November 16 2020 21:43 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 21:13 Incomplete..ReV wrote:
My wife caught corona at work (teacher) the week before last. She had a bit of a runny nose and sneezed a bit more than normal, plus feeling a bit like a normal cold, but that was the extent of it. The symptoms lasted about 4 days and she was as good as well again when she got the results from the lab. Our son (11 months) caught it as well, but only had a very mild fever for one day.
And then last week (Wednesday) I started getting symptoms as well. Runny nose at first, and then when I lost my sense of taste and smell on Thursday there was no doubt at all what I had. Got the reply from the lab yesterday.
Now I'm stuck in isolation after having essentially been in isolation already! Fortunately, my wife and son won't have to be quarantined because of me since they've already had it, so that's a plus ^_^
Guess it's as good as time as any to have it over with (assuming I keep getting better the way I am) since then we're good to go for Christmas!
It's a bit odd to think though that we are potentially (and most likely) immune. At least for a time. But we are also potentially at risk for getting a much worse round if it if we get it again. Potentially immune, potentially at risk - guess the best thing is to remain safe as always and hope for the best!
Isolation really sucks ass, especially when living in an apartment without the chance to go outside. Still, better than the health system going under, so I'll do it willingly and all that. But goodness but it sucks! By definition when the symptoms recede (making you immune-for yourself) and maybe a doctor can confirm your viral load isn't sufficient to infect others, why isn't there a legislation in place anywhere that would allow you to move freely as an immune person? This is really something that should have been implemented a long time ago. Oh yeah did a quick googling on this: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19WHO says no. They did that in April. F*ck knows what they've been up to in the last months but it's just mind boggling that they can't figure out this reinfection story, or maybe they don't want to (yeah tinfoil hat territory). Of the references in their article all but two are from Chinese studies. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the possiblity of reinfections. I remember reading about a Russian scientiest purposefully trying to and succeeding in getting reinfected - and getting a much more severe illness the second time. Here's a paper describing a research project which examined immunity to the four other common coronaviruses over a 35 year period. It found reinfection was common after 12 months: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1.pdf Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source. It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it. Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people. By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three. Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves. Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange. It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment. It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times. For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption. I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us. It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care. Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. I'm baffled by people still asking these questions after we have multiple examples of what happens when we don't restrict. A bunch of people, including many nurses and doctors have their lives cut short or forever changed. And most of the people I see out protesting about it are not those that have lost jobs and a struggling to feed their children, but they are the people who don't like to wear a mask and not be able to do what they want when they want it. Basically the inconvenience of it all is what is frustrating them. As for the mental health equation, are you taking into account all the front line workers (and not just health care but teachers and so on as well) that are dealing with all the death, sickness, fear and so on? As proven by many countries where people actually follow the heath recommendations, lockdowns are not needed. But if you have a selfish and irresponsible populace they are. And sadly the people who do follow the rules are the ones getting fucked, not those that won't follow the rules and then are forced too, those people are the real problem. But like in most situations in life people are creating their own problems and blaming others while playing victim. I'm getting so tired of people acting like a fitted piece cloth over their mouth and nose is so awful. What entitled spoiled fucking brats. Anyone who can't handle it is a major wuss and those willing to put other people lives at risk because of it are super selfish. And before someone goes into the OH MY RIGHTS GOV CAN"T TELL ME WHAT TO COVER, can you go naked out? Do women have to cover their breasts? Do I need to cover my Penis? I'd be a lot more comfortable naked, but I can't for mostly a lot stupider reasons than saving people lives by slowing the spread of a fatal for many virus. I wish we could pick a Island and send all the people who are mad about social distancing and masks to go live at. Then the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with all the repercussions by all those not willing the slightest amount of self sacrifice. On November 17 2020 03:45 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:39 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three. My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns. It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street. On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 23:37 wimpwimpwimp wrote:[quote] There's plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the possiblity of reinfections. I remember reading about a Russian scientiest purposefully trying to and succeeding in getting reinfected - and getting a much more severe illness the second time. Here's a paper describing a research project which examined immunity to the four other common coronaviruses over a 35 year period. It found reinfection was common after 12 months: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1.pdf Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source. It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it. Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people. By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three. Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves. Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange. It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment. It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times. For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption. I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us. It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care. Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. A) Smoking isn't contagious B) We already restrict smoking Yeah it's a bad comparison sort of but I can't get past noticing the hypocrisy by people in charge in keeping that giant trap in place several decades after figuring out it kills people and shapes their brain towards being an addict in general. Also my country has like 40% smokers. And the reason there is not more rules, and those that are there took so long to get there was not health professionals it was smokers and cigarette companies. Much like now if people had listened to health professionals it would be a lot better. And places where they do are doing a lot better. Everyone had their lives changed yes. But, and I apologise in advance for saying this, you argue like every newspaper of the last months with anecdotes of selfish stupid people and health workers making great sacrifices (Almost forgot, in the local hospitals covid didn't increase the work load, it DECREASED it) without trying to look at the other side of the medal, and I'd be careful not to assume a stance of hardcore sycophantic conformism when discussing alternative approaches. Shifting the blame to people first of all is a pure guess as to what is causing the transmission rate to rise. In the case of a disease like this that often is hardly noticeable by even infected persons contrary to a flu with a typical symptom complex you don't necessarily need to test to recognize, if you want to prove exponential growth, maybe all you need to do is increase testing exponentially. The tests are mostly just a picture of the past, but they are often used as an argument instead of the more relevant occupied ICUs and deaths. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/cumulative-casesIn the above site I can't really figure out why the Italian linear curve of deaths starts going up when the lockdowns restart but during the summer when restrictions were loosened it managed to remain flat...
Just going to share this again:
http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/PublishingImages/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/case-counts-press-statements/covid19_lha_cumulative_20201031.png
Look at Richmond, look at Surrey.
Richmond has a population of ~220k. Surrey is at ~520k.
Per capita, cases are 4x worse in Surrey than Richmond. Same restrictions throughout the greater vancouver area. Anecdotally density is about the same in the core areas of both municipalities.
If people don't fucking follow the restrictions, you get far higher spread. The blame is absolutely on people not distancing, wearing masks, engaging in high risk activities, etc. Regionally, the Indian population is driving the exponential growth that we see in GV. The asian (CN/KR/JP etc.) population is doing a far better job of managing spread and consequent caseload.
|
|
|
On November 17 2020 04:35 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 04:23 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three. My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns. It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street. On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:On November 16 2020 23:37 wimpwimpwimp wrote:On November 16 2020 21:43 Vivax wrote:[quote] By definition when the symptoms recede (making you immune-for yourself) and maybe a doctor can confirm your viral load isn't sufficient to infect others, why isn't there a legislation in place anywhere that would allow you to move freely as an immune person? This is really something that should have been implemented a long time ago. Oh yeah did a quick googling on this: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19WHO says no. They did that in April. F*ck knows what they've been up to in the last months but it's just mind boggling that they can't figure out this reinfection story, or maybe they don't want to (yeah tinfoil hat territory). Of the references in their article all but two are from Chinese studies. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the possiblity of reinfections. I remember reading about a Russian scientiest purposefully trying to and succeeding in getting reinfected - and getting a much more severe illness the second time. Here's a paper describing a research project which examined immunity to the four other common coronaviruses over a 35 year period. It found reinfection was common after 12 months: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1083-1.pdf Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source. It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it. Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people. By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three. Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves. Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange. It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment. It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times. For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption. I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us. It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care. Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. I'm baffled by people still asking these questions after we have multiple examples of what happens when we don't restrict. A bunch of people, including many nurses and doctors have their lives cut short or forever changed. And most of the people I see out protesting about it are not those that have lost jobs and a struggling to feed their children, but they are the people who don't like to wear a mask and not be able to do what they want when they want it. Basically the inconvenience of it all is what is frustrating them. As for the mental health equation, are you taking into account all the front line workers (and not just health care but teachers and so on as well) that are dealing with all the death, sickness, fear and so on? As proven by many countries where people actually follow the heath recommendations, lockdowns are not needed. But if you have a selfish and irresponsible populace they are. And sadly the people who do follow the rules are the ones getting fucked, not those that won't follow the rules and then are forced too, those people are the real problem. But like in most situations in life people are creating their own problems and blaming others while playing victim. I'm getting so tired of people acting like a fitted piece cloth over their mouth and nose is so awful. What entitled spoiled fucking brats. Anyone who can't handle it is a major wuss and those willing to put other people lives at risk because of it are super selfish. And before someone goes into the OH MY RIGHTS GOV CAN"T TELL ME WHAT TO COVER, can you go naked out? Do women have to cover their breasts? Do I need to cover my Penis? I'd be a lot more comfortable naked, but I can't for mostly a lot stupider reasons than saving people lives by slowing the spread of a fatal for many virus. I wish we could pick a Island and send all the people who are mad about social distancing and masks to go live at. Then the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with all the repercussions by all those not willing the slightest amount of self sacrifice. On November 17 2020 03:45 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:39 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three. My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns. It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street. On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:
[quote]
Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source.
It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it.
Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people.
By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three. Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves. Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange. It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment. It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times. For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption. I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us. It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care. Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. A) Smoking isn't contagious B) We already restrict smoking Yeah it's a bad comparison sort of but I can't get past noticing the hypocrisy by people in charge in keeping that giant trap in place several decades after figuring out it kills people and shapes their brain towards being an addict in general. Also my country has like 40% smokers. And the reason there is not more rules, and those that are there took so long to get there was not health professionals it was smokers and cigarette companies. Much like now if people had listened to health professionals it would be a lot better. And places where they do are doing a lot better. Everyone had their lives changed yes. But, and I apologise in advance for saying this, you argue like every newspaper of the last months with anecdotes of selfish stupid people and health workers making great sacrifices (Almost forgot, in the local hospitals covid didn't increase the work load, it DECREASED it) without trying to look at the other side of the medal, and I'd be careful not to assume a stance of hardcore sycophantic conformism when discussing alternative approaches. Shifting the blame to people first of all is a pure guess as to what is causing the transmission rate to rise. In the case of a disease like this that often is hardly noticeable by even infected persons contrary to a flu with a typical symptom complex you don't necessarily need to test to recognize, if you want to prove exponential growth, maybe all you need to do is increase testing exponentially. The tests are mostly just a picture of the past, but they are often used as an argument instead of the more relevant occupied ICUs and deaths. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/cumulative-casesIn the above site I can't really figure out why the Italian linear curve of deaths starts going up when the lockdowns restart but during the summer when restrictions were loosened it managed to remain flat... Just going to share this again: http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/PublishingImages/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/case-counts-press-statements/covid19_lha_cumulative_20201031.pngLook at Richmond, look at Surrey. Richmond has a population of ~220k. Surrey is at ~520k. Per capita, cases are 4x worse in Surrey than Richmond. Same restrictions throughout the greater vancouver area. Anecdotally density is about the same in the core areas of both municipalities. If people don't fucking follow the restrictions, you get far higher spread. The blame is absolutely on people not distancing, wearing masks, engaging in high risk activities, etc. Regionally, the Indian population is driving the exponential growth that we see in GV. The asian (CN/KR/JP etc.) population is doing a far better job of managing spread and consequent caseload.
Under which condition do people get to take a test in these regions?
If they go get tested on their own because of discomfort, that means those numbers reflect the numbers of symptomatic people, not the number of infected. Many will probably try to avoid being tested because they don't want to be bothered. We don't even know for sure when the virus started spreading.
How do you want to assess the effectiveness of the measures if you don't know the number of infected but just the number of symptomatic persons?
Our chancellor announced mass testing already and it's been mandatory for a while, so the picture here should be clearer, but it also looks like the infection is spreading when in theory, everyone not tested negative might be positive.
In that sense, I expect the usual sensationalism in the news to say something along the lines of "CASES IN AUSTRIA EXPLODING, NEW MEASURES etc." when the mass testing kicks in. Politics will keep beating a dead horse in two ways (as in, preaching the usual AND trying to mend what's already irreparably broken) to look like they're doing something, because that's what they have to do to get elected.
|
|
|
On November 17 2020 03:59 BisuDagger wrote:
Does anyone trust a vaccine that comes out? I've always followed the software rule, "Never trust a 1.0". That being said, I'd like to hear thoughts on the following.
Even if we assume the vaccine is safe for me:
1. Should high risk and elderly take the vaccine first?
2. Should we focus on giving it to people in high population areas like NYC?
3. You can still catch the Flu weeks after taking the vaccine if it hasn't had time to build an immune response. Are we concerned that people who get the vaccine will walk around recklessly as if it's not their problem anymore? Should they still be expected to follow pandemic protocols?
4. Lastly, does anyone believe this should be a mandatory vaccine?
Common vaccines usually imply inoculating a weakened or otherwise modified virus.
These two Covid vaccines are from a new technology that is using messenger RNA to directly have the body produce the antigens and proteins that are the marker of the virus on which T-cells will attach. They also do not need to enter the cell nucleus to be produced by the body.
So all in all, I'd expect the side effects to be milder (that's me talking out of my ass), so my trust level increases a bit compared to a regular, "new" vaccine.
|
On November 17 2020 04:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 04:35 Lmui wrote:On November 17 2020 04:23 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:On November 17 2020 01:16 KwarK wrote:
In an apocalyptic situation toilet paper would be good for bartering but neither demand nor supply have changed so it's really just shortages caused by hoarding that are used to justify hoarding. But once you know that people are panic buying it makes sense to panic buy yourself before there is none left, even though there's enough for everyone. Still, it'll give some phd candidate in human economics or game theory something to write about in a year or three. My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns. It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street. On November 17 2020 01:21 Vivax wrote:
[quote]
Okay so evidence suggests after getting covid-19 in particular (assuming immunity lasts as long as for other coronavirus types) you might have 12 months of immunity and don't need to be locked in. The Russian scientist is at best a rumor without source.
It should be rather easy for an organization like the WHO to figure it out through animal experimentation (and you can really find out a lot by knocking out genes to alter the effect nowadays), but instead we get nothing for half a year and they just seem content to have provided reasons for lockdowns. I don't see why I should be restricted based on hearsay if I already had it.
Instead we get bombarded with vaccine news as if at least 98% weren't able to build immunity naturally. Getting flu shots was rather niche already but it was the main cause for pneumonias in elderly people.
By definition, if you could be reinfected within a short time spam (days to weeks to months), you wouldn't even be able to fight the first infection off in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three. Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves. Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange. It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment. It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times. For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption. I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us. It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care. Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. I'm baffled by people still asking these questions after we have multiple examples of what happens when we don't restrict. A bunch of people, including many nurses and doctors have their lives cut short or forever changed. And most of the people I see out protesting about it are not those that have lost jobs and a struggling to feed their children, but they are the people who don't like to wear a mask and not be able to do what they want when they want it. Basically the inconvenience of it all is what is frustrating them. As for the mental health equation, are you taking into account all the front line workers (and not just health care but teachers and so on as well) that are dealing with all the death, sickness, fear and so on? As proven by many countries where people actually follow the heath recommendations, lockdowns are not needed. But if you have a selfish and irresponsible populace they are. And sadly the people who do follow the rules are the ones getting fucked, not those that won't follow the rules and then are forced too, those people are the real problem. But like in most situations in life people are creating their own problems and blaming others while playing victim. I'm getting so tired of people acting like a fitted piece cloth over their mouth and nose is so awful. What entitled spoiled fucking brats. Anyone who can't handle it is a major wuss and those willing to put other people lives at risk because of it are super selfish. And before someone goes into the OH MY RIGHTS GOV CAN"T TELL ME WHAT TO COVER, can you go naked out? Do women have to cover their breasts? Do I need to cover my Penis? I'd be a lot more comfortable naked, but I can't for mostly a lot stupider reasons than saving people lives by slowing the spread of a fatal for many virus. I wish we could pick a Island and send all the people who are mad about social distancing and masks to go live at. Then the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with all the repercussions by all those not willing the slightest amount of self sacrifice. On November 17 2020 03:45 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:39 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:
[quote]
Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange.
It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment.
It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times.
For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption.
I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us.
It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care. Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. A) Smoking isn't contagious B) We already restrict smoking Yeah it's a bad comparison sort of but I can't get past noticing the hypocrisy by people in charge in keeping that giant trap in place several decades after figuring out it kills people and shapes their brain towards being an addict in general. Also my country has like 40% smokers. And the reason there is not more rules, and those that are there took so long to get there was not health professionals it was smokers and cigarette companies. Much like now if people had listened to health professionals it would be a lot better. And places where they do are doing a lot better. Everyone had their lives changed yes. But, and I apologise in advance for saying this, you argue like every newspaper of the last months with anecdotes of selfish stupid people and health workers making great sacrifices (Almost forgot, in the local hospitals covid didn't increase the work load, it DECREASED it) without trying to look at the other side of the medal, and I'd be careful not to assume a stance of hardcore sycophantic conformism when discussing alternative approaches. Shifting the blame to people first of all is a pure guess as to what is causing the transmission rate to rise. In the case of a disease like this that often is hardly noticeable by even infected persons contrary to a flu with a typical symptom complex you don't necessarily need to test to recognize, if you want to prove exponential growth, maybe all you need to do is increase testing exponentially. The tests are mostly just a picture of the past, but they are often used as an argument instead of the more relevant occupied ICUs and deaths. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/cumulative-casesIn the above site I can't really figure out why the Italian linear curve of deaths starts going up when the lockdowns restart but during the summer when restrictions were loosened it managed to remain flat... Just going to share this again: http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/PublishingImages/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/case-counts-press-statements/covid19_lha_cumulative_20201031.pngLook at Richmond, look at Surrey. Richmond has a population of ~220k. Surrey is at ~520k. Per capita, cases are 4x worse in Surrey than Richmond. Same restrictions throughout the greater vancouver area. Anecdotally density is about the same in the core areas of both municipalities. If people don't fucking follow the restrictions, you get far higher spread. The blame is absolutely on people not distancing, wearing masks, engaging in high risk activities, etc. Regionally, the Indian population is driving the exponential growth that we see in GV. The asian (CN/KR/JP etc.) population is doing a far better job of managing spread and consequent caseload. Under which condition do people get to take a test in these regions? If they go get tested on their own because of discomfort, that means those numbers reflect the numbers of symptomatic people, not the number of infected. Many will probably try to avoid being tested because they don't want to be bothered. We don't even know for sure when the virus started spreading. How do you want to assess the effectiveness of the measures if you don't know the number of infected but just the number of symptomatic persons? Our chancellor announced mass testing already and it's been mandatory for a while, so the picture here should be clearer, but it also looks like the infection is spreading when in theory, everyone not tested negative might be positive. In that sense, I expect the usual sensationalism in the news to say something along the lines of "CASES IN AUSTRIA EXPLODING, NEW MEASURES etc." when the mass testing kicks in. Politics will keep beating a dead horse in two ways (as in, preaching the usual AND trying to mend what's already irreparably broken) to look like they're doing something, because that's what they have to do to get elected. doctors are not politicians that is why it makes sense to listen to them instead of the of the politicians, and do not trust the politicians who disagree with the doctors.
That's the other issue. It isn't doctors deciding the measures here, or anywhere, for all I know. Would be hard anyway because it's a novel issue and there isn't really a gold standard approach so opinions will differ between doctors.
It's intransparent who's suggesting these measures. My guess would be the WHO, but then every politician is supposed to take responsibility for what they implement on behest of (the WHO?), so they won't say in public where the expertise came from.
|
|
|
On November 17 2020 05:04 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 04:56 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 04:35 Lmui wrote:On November 17 2020 04:23 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns.
It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street.
[quote]
Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three.
Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves. Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange. It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment. It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times. For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption. I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us. It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care. Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. I'm baffled by people still asking these questions after we have multiple examples of what happens when we don't restrict. A bunch of people, including many nurses and doctors have their lives cut short or forever changed. And most of the people I see out protesting about it are not those that have lost jobs and a struggling to feed their children, but they are the people who don't like to wear a mask and not be able to do what they want when they want it. Basically the inconvenience of it all is what is frustrating them. As for the mental health equation, are you taking into account all the front line workers (and not just health care but teachers and so on as well) that are dealing with all the death, sickness, fear and so on? As proven by many countries where people actually follow the heath recommendations, lockdowns are not needed. But if you have a selfish and irresponsible populace they are. And sadly the people who do follow the rules are the ones getting fucked, not those that won't follow the rules and then are forced too, those people are the real problem. But like in most situations in life people are creating their own problems and blaming others while playing victim. I'm getting so tired of people acting like a fitted piece cloth over their mouth and nose is so awful. What entitled spoiled fucking brats. Anyone who can't handle it is a major wuss and those willing to put other people lives at risk because of it are super selfish. And before someone goes into the OH MY RIGHTS GOV CAN"T TELL ME WHAT TO COVER, can you go naked out? Do women have to cover their breasts? Do I need to cover my Penis? I'd be a lot more comfortable naked, but I can't for mostly a lot stupider reasons than saving people lives by slowing the spread of a fatal for many virus. I wish we could pick a Island and send all the people who are mad about social distancing and masks to go live at. Then the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with all the repercussions by all those not willing the slightest amount of self sacrifice. On November 17 2020 03:45 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:39 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care.
Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. A) Smoking isn't contagious B) We already restrict smoking Yeah it's a bad comparison sort of but I can't get past noticing the hypocrisy by people in charge in keeping that giant trap in place several decades after figuring out it kills people and shapes their brain towards being an addict in general. Also my country has like 40% smokers. And the reason there is not more rules, and those that are there took so long to get there was not health professionals it was smokers and cigarette companies. Much like now if people had listened to health professionals it would be a lot better. And places where they do are doing a lot better. Everyone had their lives changed yes. But, and I apologise in advance for saying this, you argue like every newspaper of the last months with anecdotes of selfish stupid people and health workers making great sacrifices (Almost forgot, in the local hospitals covid didn't increase the work load, it DECREASED it) without trying to look at the other side of the medal, and I'd be careful not to assume a stance of hardcore sycophantic conformism when discussing alternative approaches. Shifting the blame to people first of all is a pure guess as to what is causing the transmission rate to rise. In the case of a disease like this that often is hardly noticeable by even infected persons contrary to a flu with a typical symptom complex you don't necessarily need to test to recognize, if you want to prove exponential growth, maybe all you need to do is increase testing exponentially. The tests are mostly just a picture of the past, but they are often used as an argument instead of the more relevant occupied ICUs and deaths. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/cumulative-casesIn the above site I can't really figure out why the Italian linear curve of deaths starts going up when the lockdowns restart but during the summer when restrictions were loosened it managed to remain flat... Just going to share this again: http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/PublishingImages/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/case-counts-press-statements/covid19_lha_cumulative_20201031.pngLook at Richmond, look at Surrey. Richmond has a population of ~220k. Surrey is at ~520k. Per capita, cases are 4x worse in Surrey than Richmond. Same restrictions throughout the greater vancouver area. Anecdotally density is about the same in the core areas of both municipalities. If people don't fucking follow the restrictions, you get far higher spread. The blame is absolutely on people not distancing, wearing masks, engaging in high risk activities, etc. Regionally, the Indian population is driving the exponential growth that we see in GV. The asian (CN/KR/JP etc.) population is doing a far better job of managing spread and consequent caseload. Under which condition do people get to take a test in these regions? If they go get tested on their own because of discomfort, that means those numbers reflect the numbers of symptomatic people, not the number of infected. Many will probably try to avoid being tested because they don't want to be bothered. We don't even know for sure when the virus started spreading. How do you want to assess the effectiveness of the measures if you don't know the number of infected but just the number of symptomatic persons? Our chancellor announced mass testing already and it's been mandatory for a while, so the picture here should be clearer, but it also looks like the infection is spreading when in theory, everyone not tested negative might be positive. In that sense, I expect the usual sensationalism in the news to say something along the lines of "CASES IN AUSTRIA EXPLODING, NEW MEASURES etc." when the mass testing kicks in. Politics will keep beating a dead horse in two ways (as in, preaching the usual AND trying to mend what's already irreparably broken) to look like they're doing something, because that's what they have to do to get elected. doctors are not politicians that is why it makes sense to listen to them instead of the of the politicians, and do not trust the politicians who disagree with the doctors. That's the other issue. It isn't doctors deciding the measures here, or anywhere, for all I know. Would be hard anyway because it's a novel issue and there isn't really a gold standard approach so opinions will differ between doctors. It's intransparent who's suggesting these measures. My guess would be the WHO, but then every politician is supposed to take responsibility for what they implement on behest of (the WHO?), so they won't say in public where the expertise came from.
Anyone in BC who has symptoms, or exposure can get tested. We have higher testing availability than demand, so anyone who might have covid is encouraged to get tested for it.
There's also a large existing body of knowledge between SARS and the various swine flu's that have educated our approach to mitigation of diseases.
The doctor calling the shots in BC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_Henry
Her qualifications:
In September 2001, Henry joined the Toronto Public Health as an associate medical officer of health, where she led the Emergency Services Unit and the Communicable Disease Liaison Unit. In this capacity she was operational lead of the response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 outbreaks in Toronto.[9][16]
From 2005 to 2007, Henry worked as a physician epidemiologist at the BC Centre for Disease Control. From 2007 to 2014, she was the medical director of Public Health Emergency Management while also working as medical director of Communicable Disease Prevention and Control starting in 2011.[9]
In December 2013, Henry was made interim provincial executive medical director of BC Centre for Disease Control.[9][18] She was made Deputy Provincial Health Officer in August 2014, a position she held for three years.[9][19] She helped to lead British Columbia through a catastrophic wildfire season, which impacted the air quality, as well as advising the Government of Canada on the Influenza A virus subtype H7N9 epidemic.[20]
In February 2018, Henry was appointed as the Provincial Health Officer for British Columbia at the British Columbia Ministry of Health, the first woman to hold the role.[9][20] She chairs the pandemic influenza task group.
I fully trust her competence, even if I disagree with some of the approaches. She is far more qualified than your average doctor to handle a pandemic.
It's like calling an astronaut a scientist. Yes, they are scientists, but in most cases, they are far more specialized, and exceptional, even amongst scientists.
|
Okay thanks for clarifying.
The John Hopkins graphs are interesting, Spain even managed to resurrect 1000 peeps in May.
|
|
|
On November 17 2020 05:04 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2020 04:56 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 04:35 Lmui wrote:On November 17 2020 04:23 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:On November 17 2020 03:14 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
My understanding is that the TP shortages were pretty hugely catalyzed by supply chain issues post-closing of non-essential businesses. It's not like your neighborhood grocery store can call up the toilet paper wholesalers that stock the local office buildings. In that sense, it's at least (partly) rational to stock up again if you believe there's incoming widespread lockdowns.
It was much worse for perishable products, where the supply chain's failures resulted in just massive amounts of dumping of milk/eggs/etc. Again, the grocery store can't buy from the wholesalers that stock your office building cafeteria or the pub down the street.
[quote]
Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a good animal model yet for everything we need to do studies like this. My understanding is that when it comes to COVID-19 animal models you can have one of immunogenicity, transmission, and symptom severity. You can't really get even two out of three, let alone three out of three.
Heck to even get close to immunogenicity, you have to do so much genetic modification of the creatures that it's simply absurd to put much stock in the results translating to humans or the animals themselves. Aside from the knockout (rather used for studying the effect of oncogens and suppressors now that I think of it), varying degrees of immunosuppression in the animal of choice should be simple to arrange. It should be a priority since it's probably the most important information when it comes to defining the measures of containment. It doesn't inspire awe when you get subjected to measures based on a rumor that a single strain can infect you multiple times. For Sars-Cov-1 (the less infectious but more severe precursor type) it was shown that three patients had an immune response 9 years after the infection, whereas an experimental vaccine on mice provided just 18 weeks of immunity. How should it be different for this one, Sars-Cov-2? It's a backwards assumption. I have no issue at all when occupied ICU beds are the metric though, even then though the lockdown should happen regionally, and be lifted by the same metric. That was the original concern sold to us. It's nonsense to aim at having healthy, young individuals avoid exposure, or restrict individuals that already went through it. That's just deliberately prolonging the epidemic. it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care. Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. I'm baffled by people still asking these questions after we have multiple examples of what happens when we don't restrict. A bunch of people, including many nurses and doctors have their lives cut short or forever changed. And most of the people I see out protesting about it are not those that have lost jobs and a struggling to feed their children, but they are the people who don't like to wear a mask and not be able to do what they want when they want it. Basically the inconvenience of it all is what is frustrating them. As for the mental health equation, are you taking into account all the front line workers (and not just health care but teachers and so on as well) that are dealing with all the death, sickness, fear and so on? As proven by many countries where people actually follow the heath recommendations, lockdowns are not needed. But if you have a selfish and irresponsible populace they are. And sadly the people who do follow the rules are the ones getting fucked, not those that won't follow the rules and then are forced too, those people are the real problem. But like in most situations in life people are creating their own problems and blaming others while playing victim. I'm getting so tired of people acting like a fitted piece cloth over their mouth and nose is so awful. What entitled spoiled fucking brats. Anyone who can't handle it is a major wuss and those willing to put other people lives at risk because of it are super selfish. And before someone goes into the OH MY RIGHTS GOV CAN"T TELL ME WHAT TO COVER, can you go naked out? Do women have to cover their breasts? Do I need to cover my Penis? I'd be a lot more comfortable naked, but I can't for mostly a lot stupider reasons than saving people lives by slowing the spread of a fatal for many virus. I wish we could pick a Island and send all the people who are mad about social distancing and masks to go live at. Then the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with all the repercussions by all those not willing the slightest amount of self sacrifice. On November 17 2020 03:45 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:39 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2020 03:38 Vivax wrote:On November 17 2020 03:22 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
it is not nonsense, those young people have lots of people they can transmit it too, also long COVID. Not every decision is based on what is best for each individual, it is what is best for society and the systems like health care.
Okay but what about those that went through it? Assuming they don't get it and they don't transmit it, which is the more probable case, what's the societal value in restricting them? Sure, swine flu was less severe ("just" 300k deaths) , but there were no restrictions in place and it basically went away by itself, because that's how we deal with these respiratory diseases since forever. Are you able to assess the long term consequences of stopping people from earning their keep or mantain mental wellbeing? Or the imo inevitable shift to more radical political parties? In two years tops more people will have died from smoking than during the entire covid pandemic I wager, but I'm told the restrictions are in place to save lives. Do smokers choose to smoke? Initially they do. Then they don't. A) Smoking isn't contagious B) We already restrict smoking Yeah it's a bad comparison sort of but I can't get past noticing the hypocrisy by people in charge in keeping that giant trap in place several decades after figuring out it kills people and shapes their brain towards being an addict in general. Also my country has like 40% smokers. And the reason there is not more rules, and those that are there took so long to get there was not health professionals it was smokers and cigarette companies. Much like now if people had listened to health professionals it would be a lot better. And places where they do are doing a lot better. Everyone had their lives changed yes. But, and I apologise in advance for saying this, you argue like every newspaper of the last months with anecdotes of selfish stupid people and health workers making great sacrifices (Almost forgot, in the local hospitals covid didn't increase the work load, it DECREASED it) without trying to look at the other side of the medal, and I'd be careful not to assume a stance of hardcore sycophantic conformism when discussing alternative approaches. Shifting the blame to people first of all is a pure guess as to what is causing the transmission rate to rise. In the case of a disease like this that often is hardly noticeable by even infected persons contrary to a flu with a typical symptom complex you don't necessarily need to test to recognize, if you want to prove exponential growth, maybe all you need to do is increase testing exponentially. The tests are mostly just a picture of the past, but they are often used as an argument instead of the more relevant occupied ICUs and deaths. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/cumulative-casesIn the above site I can't really figure out why the Italian linear curve of deaths starts going up when the lockdowns restart but during the summer when restrictions were loosened it managed to remain flat... Just going to share this again: http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/PublishingImages/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/case-counts-press-statements/covid19_lha_cumulative_20201031.pngLook at Richmond, look at Surrey. Richmond has a population of ~220k. Surrey is at ~520k. Per capita, cases are 4x worse in Surrey than Richmond. Same restrictions throughout the greater vancouver area. Anecdotally density is about the same in the core areas of both municipalities. If people don't fucking follow the restrictions, you get far higher spread. The blame is absolutely on people not distancing, wearing masks, engaging in high risk activities, etc. Regionally, the Indian population is driving the exponential growth that we see in GV. The asian (CN/KR/JP etc.) population is doing a far better job of managing spread and consequent caseload. Under which condition do people get to take a test in these regions? If they go get tested on their own because of discomfort, that means those numbers reflect the numbers of symptomatic people, not the number of infected. Many will probably try to avoid being tested because they don't want to be bothered. We don't even know for sure when the virus started spreading. How do you want to assess the effectiveness of the measures if you don't know the number of infected but just the number of symptomatic persons? Our chancellor announced mass testing already and it's been mandatory for a while, so the picture here should be clearer, but it also looks like the infection is spreading when in theory, everyone not tested negative might be positive. In that sense, I expect the usual sensationalism in the news to say something along the lines of "CASES IN AUSTRIA EXPLODING, NEW MEASURES etc." when the mass testing kicks in. Politics will keep beating a dead horse in two ways (as in, preaching the usual AND trying to mend what's already irreparably broken) to look like they're doing something, because that's what they have to do to get elected. doctors are not politicians that is why it makes sense to listen to them instead of the of the politicians, and do not trust the politicians who disagree with the doctors. That's the other issue. It isn't doctors deciding the measures here, or anywhere, for all I know. Would be hard anyway because it's a novel issue and there isn't really a gold standard approach so opinions will differ between doctors. It's intransparent who's suggesting these measures. My guess would be the WHO, but then every politician is supposed to take responsibility for what they implement on behest of (the WHO?), so they won't say in public where the expertise came from. This depends per country and if its not transparent for yours then that is your politicians fault.
The most common I think is a group of doctors/other experts who advise the politicians on what would be best. And that makes sense since there are more factors to consider then purely what would be best from a healthcare perspective.
|
Bit dated now, but they did a survey of some scientists around the world to ask basically if their governments were acting on the science they all claimed to be listening to.
A survey by Frontiers, a Swiss publisher of scientific journals, asked some 25,000 researchers in May and June whether lawmakers in their country had used scientific advice to inform their covid-19 strategy.
![[image loading]](https://www.economist.com/img/b/1000/884/90/sites/default/files/20201107_WOC147_0.png)
www.economist.com
|
Great work, China!
Remarkable how bad the US is doing on that metric, though. Not surprised since the US dropped the ball in every way imaginable, but still noteworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
