EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 298
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On December 02 2020 09:53 JimmiC wrote: Making a lot of bold and innacurate claims. What places are using lock downs as the first measure? If your talking lockdowns it means people are not following the restrictions. This is what WHO and all the experts are saying, and doing. Second show me this flood of experts who think Hawaii should open for tourists for the economy? This is a clear case of you being inconvenienced by a rule, that you and people like you are the reason it is corrected. Why should the people of Hawaii suffer? Why should their businesses have to close? They are doing the smart thing and not chasing a few short term dollars for a bunch of really high long term costs. I'm really struggling at understanding your post. To summarize the discussion regarding Hawaii: Hawaii was locked down to tourists and they are now open to tourists (since Oct 15) who get a negative COVID test within 72 hours of their flight. Multiple people in this thread have said that's a mistake and Hawaii should remain locked down to tourists. Considering that Hawaii is pretty much at the bottom of cases per capita and deaths per capita of any state it would be hard to argue that a tourism lockdown is not a primary preventative measure. You finish your post by saying They (meaning Hawaii) are doing the smart thing. They are the ones that chose to re-open their to tourists. Is re-opening to tourists the smart thing? Because that would mean you are in agreement with me and disagreement with the posters on the previous page. Otherwise shouldn't you be saying Hawaii is doing the dumb thing by reopening to tourists? Very confusing so please clarify. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On November 11 2020 14:47 BlackJack wrote: Things are getting pretty bad in Reno, NV. I worked at one of the hospitals there last year. They converted some of their parking garage into a field hospital back in April but I don't think they ever had to use it. Sounds like they are planning on redeploying it in the coming days. Nevadans are kind of annoyed because the Governor is urging everyone to stay home but at the same time welcoming Californians that want to come over to gamble and dine in the casinos. Funny enough this parking garage medical unit I talked about weeks ago is in the news today after Trump retweeted a COVIDIOT calling it fake. The COVIDIOT was referencing a photo of an ICU doctor that took a selfie in the garage and it showed all the beds folded up and equipment still covered in plastic. https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/reno-doctor-refutes-trumps-claim-that-photo-of-covid-medical-unit-was-fake-2198568/ The doctor actually admits the photo was taken before the unit even opened. It's also not a unit for ICU patients so that doctor probably wouldn't even be working in that unit outside of a code. Really a dumb idea to go out of your way to put on all your PPE and go take selfies in a hospital unit that wasn't even in use and then use that photo with a caption of treating dying COVID patients. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On December 02 2020 11:43 JimmiC wrote: You seem to be missing the part of the original discussion that upset you. When Hawaii changed their rules to make sure their people were safe. If you refer to your first post, and I assume your experience the rest will likely connect. You seem to be missing the obvious reason for changing the rule, people were obviously not waiting and putting Hawians at risk. You think the Governor does not money for his state? Of course he does, just not at the risk of infecting his people and having longer more severe measures. It is strange that instead of the obvious you come up with the completely logically incongruent reasoning that he wants less tourists or can't even move to the why he changed the rules. I don't know why you inferred that I was upset with the Governor of Hawaii for changing the policy. I even opened that original post with "covid-19 ruined my trip" not "hawaii government ruined my trip." It's especially confusing that you inferred I was upset with their policy change when you read my post not long after: On December 01 2020 04:30 BlackJack wrote: The policy makers in Hawaii are surely looking at every facet of this pandemic and trying to make the best decisions for their state and the fact that the governor just changed the travel policy on the eve of my trip shows they are willing to adjust their policies as new information comes in which is a good sign. I said the governor changing the policy was a good sign. Not sure if you know many people that would be upset by something and then immediately call that same thing good news but I'm not one of them. But at least we now both agree that Hawaii is doing the smart thing by reopening to tourists. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
I strongly recommend reading the comments. https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ | ||
|
Slydie
1929 Posts
British regulator, the MHRA, says the jab, which offers up to 95% protection against Covid-19 illness, is safe for rollout next week. Immunisations could start within days for those who need it the most, such as elderly people in care homes. The UK has already ordered 40m doses - enough to vaccinate 20m people. Around 10m doses should be available soon, with the first 800,000 arriving in the UK in the coming days. It is the fastest ever vaccine to go from concept to reality, taking only 10 months to follow the same developmental steps that normally span a decade. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55145696 Edit: BBC reported the story. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On December 01 2020 23:47 Magic Powers wrote: To those who say they don't care about the impact of the coronavirus restrictions on the economy, please read the following links. "David Beasley, Executive Director of WFP, said that the socio-economic impact of the pandemic is more devastating than the disease itself." https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/11/1077272 "COVID-19 could double the number of people experiencing food insecurity globally" "According to the Household Pulse survey, the number of parents with children younger than five who reported that their children weren’t eating enough is at a historic high." "The UN World Food Programme has warned that an additional 130 million people could face acute food insecurity by the end of 2020, because of income and remittance losses. This is in addition to the 135 million people who were already acutely food insecure before the crisis" https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/covid-19-food-insecurity-crisis/ It's not an either-or situation, it's a balance act between maintaining low levels of infections and keeping the economy running. Both needs to be weighed against the other, as both problems have similar potential for harm. We don't always know exactly which one is more important in all cases because we're not clairvoyant, but we can say that if we ignore the economic impact then far too many people will face a hunger crisis. And no, rich western countries are not safe from those consequences either. The report comments on the economic impacts of the pandemic as a whole, not purely on the impact of economic restrictions. Food security is a major aspect of the report in your first link and the impacts on food security during the pandemic are not solely attributable to travel and business operation restrictions. The second article you link points to the rise in food costs as having to do with increased stockpiling by both nations and individuals--something that's going to occur in the setting of a global pandemic irrespective of restrictions on travel and business operations. People were hoarding canned foods and TP long before any mask mandates or lockdowns started happening. And while travel restrictions account for some of the loss of mobility during the pandemic, the report also outlines numerous other reasons for reduced mobility that are not strictly a matter of infection control policy (e.g. "In the midst of the pandemic, migrants increasingly find themselves exposed to xenophobia, discrimination and stigmatization due to the proliferation of misconceptions that migrants are carriers and spreaders of the virus."). Trying to spin this purely as "the impact of coronavirus restrictions on the economy" is a very selective reading on your part. Neither of your links makes that distinction. Many of the economic effects outlined in the sources you linked cannot strictly be attributed to infection control measures alone and are at least partially attributable to secondary effects of the pandemic itself rather than public policy responses to it. Saying that the pandemic has had massive negative impacts on the economy is undeniable. Saying that those economic effects may outstrip the mortality of the pandemic is reasonable. Saying that those negative impacts would be avoided by implementing looser infection control measures is highly questionable. You are inferring that a tradeoff exists between "better infection control" and "better economic outcomes" when no such tradeoff has actually been demonstrated. Many of the reasons the economy is suffering during the pandemic do not simply go away when you loosen restrictions on travel and business operations, and economic recovery is at least partially dependent on establishing adequate infection control. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7036 Posts
I can totally see the "saving life" aspect here of starting to vaccinate elderly and respective caretakers but I can also totally understand an economic point of view to get it going asap and elderly don't really help that. Not in question is hospital staff | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28736 Posts
On December 02 2020 09:49 JimmiC wrote: Your missing my point, it is unproven that these restrictions are bad for the economy. So you are right that bad economy can cost death. Just no one here who thinks restrictions are all bad has proven that they are worse for the economy than doing nothing. It is not the restrictions stopping me from shopping and going to restaurants and shopping. It is the people not taking the precautions that is. And where I live over 50% of the people are like me. That numbers ranges from 40%-70% so no restrictions at all and the economy suffers. Not to mention sick days, super expensive, healthcare super expensive so on. It is flawed logic that people think you are choosing between health and the economy it is not that simple because restrictions are not the only factor, or even the major factor to whats hurting the economy, that would be the pandemic. Hawaii is keeping tourists out because it is better for their economy to have the people stay healthy and confident so they keep it going than some tourist dollars. Fight the virus you improve the economy. Fight the restrictions (don't wear masks, gather socially and so on) you feed the virus and fuck your economy. I agree economy is important, I'm just pointing out how overly simplistic and incredibly flawed this economy vs health argument is. It is not some balance where you pull from to hurt the other and vice versa. I'm not missing any points. I'm not making any arguments regarding what measures are too much and what measures are not regarding hawaii, I'm just disagreeing with your apparent principled position of 'every measure to combat the virus is worth it', and more than anything, I'm having a hard time seeing why Blackjack's position is seemingly so incomprehensible. (It seems that way at least, because otherwise I assume there would be less mischaracterization of it.) To give a more specific example, In Norway right now, schools are running as normally (although if any students are given a covid diagnosis, their class ends up being quarantined). I think that's reasonable, because shutting down schools (with current level of spread) imo hurts society more than the amount of spread originating from schools being open hurts society. Further, I don't think it's far fetched or particularly cynical or 'So you're willing to condemn a bunch of people to horrible outcomes, because you think it might be better for the economy' (that's a literal you-quote from the previous page) to think that maybe quarantining everyone who enters Hawaii might hurt their society more (through reducing tourism to ~0-ish, for a state really dependent on tourism) than requiring negative covid tests to avoid that quarantine does. Basically, I replied because I don't understand why you have to extrapolate the arguments of the people you are discussing with into something nefarious. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11722 Posts
On December 02 2020 18:02 Harris1st wrote: As much as I agree with most of what JimmiC said on the last two pages, where do you guys stand on vaccinating order? I can totally see the "saving life" aspect here of starting to vaccinate elderly and respective caretakers but I can also totally understand an economic point of view to get it going asap and elderly don't really help that. Not in question is hospital staff I am not even certain if vaccinating the elderly first would be the best for saving lives. The main goal should be to reduce the spread of the pandemic, because that saves the most lives. My ideal order would probably be: Doctors, nurses etc... first. Because if too many of those get sick, our already stressed systems get overwhelmed, and then deaths really go through the roof. Next high-contact necessary workers (And maybe employees in elderly care). Stuff like supermarket workers, police, teachers and anyone else who needs to be in contact with many people daily because they have a job which needs to be done. Then probably religious people, because you apparently cannot stop them from being idiots and congragating en masse in enclosed spaces. Then risk groups, and finally the rest of the population. Basically, vaccinate in the order that minimizes the spread and potential effects of the pandemic as quickly as possible. | ||
|
Slydie
1929 Posts
On December 02 2020 18:51 Simberto wrote: I am not even certain if vaccinating the elderly first would be the best for saving lives. The main goal should be to reduce the spread of the pandemic, because that saves the most lives. My ideal order would probably be: Doctors, nurses etc... first. Because if too many of those get sick, our already stressed systems get overwhelmed, and then deaths really go through the roof. Next high-contact necessary workers (And maybe employees in elderly care). Stuff like supermarket workers, police, teachers and anyone else who needs to be in contact with many people daily because they have a job which needs to be done. Then probably religious people, because you apparently cannot stop them from being idiots and congragating en masse in enclosed spaces. Then risk groups, and finally the rest of the population. Basically, vaccinate in the order that minimizes the spread and potential effects of the pandemic as quickly as possible. I am not sure if it is possible to give vaccines to potential superspreaders first, and if you do, there would have to be very solid research about who those would be. Bartenders etc. which are known to have caused them are typically already hit by other measures, as should religious events. Supermarkets are not common superspreaders afaik. One surprisingly effective strategy if limiting the spread is the goal could be to start off with large households. Limiting the spread in other ways inside homes is virtually impossible with shared meals, bathrooms and bedrooms, and around half of the households is typically infected once the virus gets inside. I am also critical about starting with the elderly. Maybe there is also an argument that trying a new and untested vaccine on older people is better considering the risk. Personally, I would go something like this: -Healthcare workers working with infected patients. -Workers at elderly homes. -People under 70 with underlying conditions. -Other healthcare workers. -People over 70. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On December 02 2020 18:02 Harris1st wrote: As much as I agree with most of what JimmiC said on the last two pages, where do you guys stand on vaccinating order? I can totally see the "saving life" aspect here of starting to vaccinate elderly and respective caretakers but I can also totally understand an economic point of view to get it going asap and elderly don't really help that. Not in question is hospital staff Below medical staff (I'd include things like dentists in here, as they are in an extremely high risk profession) I'd probably probably prioritize as follows. General workforce is the lowest priority simply because it's too broad. Everybody always thinks their industry is the most important. Far too much work for too little gain to do super specific things. 1. LTC staff. The elderly inside, as much as it sucks, should be at the back of the line as vaccines will be a precious commodity for a while still, and they might not always work. Just gotta limit risk vectors. For every elderly person in a LTC, there are dozens who aren't, and they also bear some responsibility for keeping themselves safe. Can have functionally the same effect while using a fraction the vaccines. 2. Critical infrastructure - For things like water treatment plants, power plants etc, IIRC we have teams which rotate in for like 1 month shifts, where they would live on-site after isolating for 2 weeks beforehand because they cannot afford to have everybody on the team out due to illness. High impact for relatively low doses. 3. Vaccinating children will come much later as trials begin with adults for ethical reasons. Therefore I'm going to put teachers here, because they have to deal with dozens of potential disease vectors for hours every day, and go through the same areas as hundreds of them. I know my area has had some issues with finding substitutes from time to time if too many teachers are off sick, which can happen if there's an outbreak among the staff. This cascades into workforce issues as people now have to take time off to handle the kids. This is also where I think people should start to be able to pay to bypass the line. There's going to be backroom deals regardless, might as well cash in on it and pay it back to government coffers. Probably start the price at like 50k, dropping like 5k every week or something. Many governments are running in the red at the moment, but people or companies who are willing to pay for it, can pay for it and jump the queue. Can pick up a hefty chunk of change this way. 4. Vaccination through pharmacies. People coming to pick up a qualifying prescription(dangerous preexisting condition, age) can get a vaccine at the same time. 5. General availability. Not sure how to do this part. Probably half the remainder will fit into this area. It's not perfect, and I know that the ones giving the vaccine will undoubtedly jump the line to protect their families/loved ones or for profit on the side. There's literally not going to be a way to stop it (I would give my dose to one of my parents before me for example, and I'm sure a lot of other people would do something similar). | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7036 Posts
On December 02 2020 19:20 Amui wrote: This is also where I think people should start to be able to pay to bypass the line. There's going to be backroom deals regardless, might as well cash in on it and pay it back to government coffers. Probably start the price at like 50k, dropping like 5k every week or something. Many governments are running in the red at the moment, but people or companies who are willing to pay for it, can pay for it and jump the queue. Can pick up a hefty chunk of change this way. I don't think there is a legal way for a government to do this. Maybe if the producing firm sold this directly and the government put a hefty tax on it? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17203 Posts
i think widespread, freely available antigen tests are a great way to slow the spread until a vaccine arrives. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/nov-28-quick-tests-for-covid-rat-hides-poison-in-its-fur-neuroscientists-see-how-we-see-colour-and-more-1.5817870/could-quick-covid-antigen-tests-break-the-back-of-the-pandemic-1.5817885 Health Canada has yet to approve any at-home rapid antigen tests, so in the meantime, Mina said health authorities should do everything they can to reduce barriers to testing and use existing rapid antigen tests in places where case numbers are the worst or access to testing is the lowest. "Whereas these antigen tests, by looking for the active infection, are more like a security guard instead of a detective. They are only concerned with what's happening now. Is there a crime being committed or a problem happening right now? And if so, then they flag it as positive." At this point I'd say Canada kinda sorta has the right idea.. However, the execution is sloppy and they'll prolly end up fucking it into the ground. This is a tough problem that requires excellent operational execution. Unfortunately, I don't think the Canadian government and Health Canada are up to the task. According to my mom and grandma .. 1 who currently runs a medical lab and another who ran a lab for 25 years... PCR testing is the gold standard, but properly developed antigen testing is a very solid 2nd option. On December 03 2020 00:58 JimmiC wrote: People need to blame the correct source of the problem which is not the restrictions imposed by government but all the people out their breaking all the rules we know work to stop and slow the spread (and of course the virus itself, but almost half Americans still don't believe it is real or "that bad"). It is not complicated or hard to do these. It is inconvenient. My life and millions upon millions of peoples lives have been impacted (or ended) extremely negatively forever because people can't be bothered. At the beginning this was less true but now we have more than enough info to know what to do and that it is. i think it is more than just minor inconvenience that is going on. small businesses are getting annihilated. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/retailers-ask-ontario-government-to-lift-covid-19-restrictions-they-say-aren-t-working-1.5213040 "that bad" is ill defined. if you tighten up that comment a discussion about how severe the lockdown restrictions should be... is possible. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On December 02 2020 19:18 Slydie wrote: I am not sure if it is possible to give vaccines to potential superspreaders first, and if you do, there would have to be very solid research about who those would be. Bartenders etc. which are known to have caused them are typically already hit by other measures, as should religious events. Supermarkets are not common superspreaders afaik. There was just an article in Wired about this exact subject. Pretty interesting to read the arguments as I'd never thought beyond "elderly after first responders since their mortality is high". One way someone came up with to identify potential superspreaders is to have everyone list one acquaintance they have. Then a person's name who comes up often is marked as an individual with many contacts. Anyway here's the article if anyone's intersted. https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-vaccine-super-spreaders/ | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On December 02 2020 19:51 Harris1st wrote: I don't think there is a legal way for a government to do this. Maybe if the producing firm sold this directly and the government put a hefty tax on it? Yeah that would probably be the best way. People are going to jump the queue and some will get injected with saline or whatever from questionable sources anyways. Might as well have an official distribution channel of sorts. While I'm sure politicians and celebrities and large sports teams and so on will have no issues at all sourcing vaccines ahead of time(despite questionable importance), the average rich person won't have quite the same level of access. | ||
| ||
