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 March 02 2021 18:38 evilfatsh1t wrote: immediate preventing further deaths is priority number 1 i think. slowing and stopping the spread is no.2
If you read the study, the best way to achieve #1 is really #2.
Going by potential superspreaders first also has the notable benefit that you can also open society quicker, with all the attached advantages.
In general, I have the impression that we humas are often emotional rather than rational in how we are dealing with this virus. If something feels moraly right, we assume it is also effective, but this is not always the case.
I have never heard about mass outbreaks in stores, but in bars, it happens all the time everywhere. Stores are not primarily social settings, there is usually no eating, drinking or alcohol involved, there is more space to move around and you stay in one place much less time. Bars and restaurants are WAY more dangerous, period.
I dont think we know why some people are super spreaders and others are not. Do we? I didnt think we could select super spreaders and give them the vaccine. I see in the article it indicates people who are out and about but we know everyone does not spread the virus just because they are active. Seems like its not a great strategy.
On March 02 2021 18:38 evilfatsh1t wrote: immediate preventing further deaths is priority number 1 i think. slowing and stopping the spread is no.2
If you read the study, the best way to achieve #1 is really #2.
Going by potential superspreaders first also has the notable benefit that you can also open society quicker, with all the attached advantages.
In general, I have the impression that we humas are often emotional rather than rational in how we are dealing with this virus. If something feels moraly right, we assume it is also effective, but this is not always the case.
I have never heard about mass outbreaks in stores, but in bars, it happens all the time everywhere. Stores are not primarily social settings, there is usually no eating, drinking or alcohol involved, there is more space to move around and you stay in one place much less time. Bars and restaurants are WAY more dangerous, period.
I dont think we know why some people are super spreaders and others are not. Do we? I didnt think we could select super spreaders and give them the vaccine. I see in the article it indicates people who are out and about but we know everyone does not spread the virus just because they are active. Seems like its not a great strategy.
If we could figure out who are superspreaders before they spread anything our whole approach would be different. But so far we just know that something like 80% of infections are spread by 20% of infected, or even more extreme.
"Everyone older than X" is just so much easier, practical, and everyone understands it. It's a no brainer what the strategy today is.
On March 02 2021 18:38 evilfatsh1t wrote: immediate preventing further deaths is priority number 1 i think. slowing and stopping the spread is no.2
If you read the study, the best way to achieve #1 is really #2.
Going by potential superspreaders first also has the notable benefit that you can also open society quicker, with all the attached advantages.
In general, I have the impression that we humas are often emotional rather than rational in how we are dealing with this virus. If something feels moraly right, we assume it is also effective, but this is not always the case.
I have never heard about mass outbreaks in stores, but in bars, it happens all the time everywhere. Stores are not primarily social settings, there is usually no eating, drinking or alcohol involved, there is more space to move around and you stay in one place much less time. Bars and restaurants are WAY more dangerous, period.
You'd think that identifying superspreaders would be easy, but it's not. Copied this from the slide deck in the BC stream yesterday:
Despite all the protective measures, Long Term care/seniors living facilities have been the source of something like 70% of all deaths in BC. It's extremely difficult to stop spread within a home, and proving nearly impossible to stop from getting in, despite a no non-essential visitors policy that's been in place for nearly a year.
Vaccinating these populations minimizes the spread, as well as consequent deaths in these facilities. Yes, you aren't stopping the virus as a whole, but it drops deaths dramatically.
We've gone from dozens of seniors living facilities with outbreaks to single digits in my province over the last two months. It's a dramatic change.
"AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas is lifting a COVID-19 mask mandate that was imposed last summer but has only been lightly enforced.
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s announcement Tuesday makes Texas the largest state to do away with a face covering order. The new rule takes effect next Wednesday, March 10.
Abbott also said that businesses in the state will be able to open at 100% capacity starting next Wednesday."
On March 02 2021 18:38 evilfatsh1t wrote: immediate preventing further deaths is priority number 1 i think. slowing and stopping the spread is no.2
If you read the study, the best way to achieve #1 is really #2.
Going by potential superspreaders first also has the notable benefit that you can also open society quicker, with all the attached advantages.
In general, I have the impression that we humas are often emotional rather than rational in how we are dealing with this virus. If something feels moraly right, we assume it is also effective, but this is not always the case.
I have never heard about mass outbreaks in stores, but in bars, it happens all the time everywhere. Stores are not primarily social settings, there is usually no eating, drinking or alcohol involved, there is more space to move around and you stay in one place much less time. Bars and restaurants are WAY more dangerous, period.
I dont think we know why some people are super spreaders and others are not. Do we? I didnt think we could select super spreaders and give them the vaccine. I see in the article it indicates people who are out and about but we know everyone does not spread the virus just because they are active. Seems like its not a great strategy.
I said from the start that determining who are more likely to be superspreaders is not easy, but should not be impossible. The most important factors are the number of close contacts and travel. There should be data out there to at least pin down some professions. What is certain is that elderly who are locked in their residents are absolutely NOT superspreaders, but their nurses and relatives might be.
A real life example. At my workplace, there is a very high persentage of foreigners. We also had a fairly high amount of positive tests, but afaik, not a single one of them was from a foreigner. A coincidence? I think not. The explaination is probably very simple: If you are from another country, you almost certainly have a much smaller social network, and with travel heavily restricted so you can't meet friends and family elsewhere, it becomes even smaller.
Freelancers, are on the other end of the spectrum, being very likely to see a lot of people up close in a short time.
"AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas is lifting a COVID-19 mask mandate that was imposed last summer but has only been lightly enforced.
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s announcement Tuesday makes Texas the largest state to do away with a face covering order. The new rule takes effect next Wednesday, March 10.
Abbott also said that businesses in the state will be able to open at 100% capacity starting next Wednesday."
Good on TX for opening back up. The vaccine rollout has been pretty good. I was thinking we could be back to some semblance of a normal life by summer but maybe that could be even sooner.
Seems crazy early to me, especially coming off a horrific crisis with their power and water. Feels more like the governor is trying anything to shift opinion away from his state's chronic mishandling of other issues than making any informed decision.
Texas is one of the least vaccinated states and Herd Immunity takes, at the most optimistic possible estimate, 40%. Texas is at 11.6%. It's fucking insane. Especially since he didn't do a gradual lifting... he lifted all measures at once. Things are likely to explode in two weeks, tbh. (If they don't, I'm putting that down to the populace/corporations in texas continuing their own safety measures... which was the main thing anti-maskers have ignored. That a lot of the economic damage is going to continue regardless of government decisions).
By NYT's estimate of current vaccine trends, 50% nationwide is June 22nd. That's about the earliest I think we should be aiming for a full re-open (and that's playing it risky : the safer call is 70% in late August). These are partial and not double dosage numbers, which makes this early reopening even grimmer.
On March 02 2021 18:38 evilfatsh1t wrote: immediate preventing further deaths is priority number 1 i think. slowing and stopping the spread is no.2
If you read the study, the best way to achieve #1 is really #2.
Going by potential superspreaders first also has the notable benefit that you can also open society quicker, with all the attached advantages.
In general, I have the impression that we humas are often emotional rather than rational in how we are dealing with this virus. If something feels moraly right, we assume it is also effective, but this is not always the case.
I have never heard about mass outbreaks in stores, but in bars, it happens all the time everywhere. Stores are not primarily social settings, there is usually no eating, drinking or alcohol involved, there is more space to move around and you stay in one place much less time. Bars and restaurants are WAY more dangerous, period.
I dont think we know why some people are super spreaders and others are not. Do we? I didnt think we could select super spreaders and give them the vaccine. I see in the article it indicates people who are out and about but we know everyone does not spread the virus just because they are active. Seems like its not a great strategy.
I said from the start that determining who are more likely to be superspreaders is not easy, but should not be impossible. The most important factors are the number of close contacts and travel. There should be data out there to at least pin down some professions. What is certain is that elderly who are locked in their residents are absolutely NOT superspreaders, but their nurses and relatives might be.
A real life example. At my workplace, there is a very high persentage of foreigners. We also had a fairly high amount of positive tests, but afaik, not a single one of them was from a foreigner. A coincidence? I think not. The explaination is probably very simple: If you are from another country, you almost certainly have a much smaller social network, and with travel heavily restricted so you can't meet friends and family elsewhere, it becomes even smaller.
Freelancers, are on the other end of the spectrum, being very likely to see a lot of people up close in a short time.
Issue with this is that you're going to incentivize people to engage in super spreader behaviors.
On March 03 2021 07:42 Nevuk wrote: Seems crazy early to me, especially coming off a horrific crisis with their power and water. Feels more like the governor is trying anything to shift opinion away from his state's chronic mishandling of other issues than making any informed decision.
Texas is one of the least vaccinated states and Herd Immunity takes, at the most optimistic possible estimate, 40%. Texas is at 11.6%. It's fucking insane. Especially since he didn't do a gradual lifting... he lifted all measures at once. Things are likely to explode in two weeks, tbh. (If they don't, I'm putting that down to the populace/corporations in texas continuing their own safety measures... which was the main thing anti-maskers have ignored. That a lot of the economic damage is going to continue regardless of government decisions).
By NYT's estimate of current vaccine trends, 50% nationwide is June 22nd. That's about the earliest I think we should be aiming for a full re-open (and that's playing it risky : the safer call is 70% in late August). These are partial and not double dosage numbers, which makes this early reopening even grimmer.
On March 02 2021 18:38 evilfatsh1t wrote: immediate preventing further deaths is priority number 1 i think. slowing and stopping the spread is no.2
If you read the study, the best way to achieve #1 is really #2.
Going by potential superspreaders first also has the notable benefit that you can also open society quicker, with all the attached advantages.
In general, I have the impression that we humas are often emotional rather than rational in how we are dealing with this virus. If something feels moraly right, we assume it is also effective, but this is not always the case.
I have never heard about mass outbreaks in stores, but in bars, it happens all the time everywhere. Stores are not primarily social settings, there is usually no eating, drinking or alcohol involved, there is more space to move around and you stay in one place much less time. Bars and restaurants are WAY more dangerous, period.
I dont think we know why some people are super spreaders and others are not. Do we? I didnt think we could select super spreaders and give them the vaccine. I see in the article it indicates people who are out and about but we know everyone does not spread the virus just because they are active. Seems like its not a great strategy.
I said from the start that determining who are more likely to be superspreaders is not easy, but should not be impossible. The most important factors are the number of close contacts and travel. There should be data out there to at least pin down some professions. What is certain is that elderly who are locked in their residents are absolutely NOT superspreaders, but their nurses and relatives might be.
A real life example. At my workplace, there is a very high persentage of foreigners. We also had a fairly high amount of positive tests, but afaik, not a single one of them was from a foreigner. A coincidence? I think not. The explaination is probably very simple: If you are from another country, you almost certainly have a much smaller social network, and with travel heavily restricted so you can't meet friends and family elsewhere, it becomes even smaller.
Freelancers, are on the other end of the spectrum, being very likely to see a lot of people up close in a short time.
Issue with this is that you're going to incentivize people to engage in super spreader behaviors.
Imo the more important question isn't whether we will have herd immunity, it's whether the hospitals will get overrun. 10-20% vaccinated could make all the difference in the world if it's mostly the 65+ year olds that get the sickest from COVID-19. We're vaccinating well over 1MM people a day now and I think that's expected to get even higher. It's also worth mentioning that flu season is basically over now which I would guess is unheard of this early in the year. When you add up all the mitigating factors against COVID-19, i.e. millions vaccinated + millions already infected + social distancing - no flu this year, it's plausible that the impact of COVID-19 going forward could just be as bad as a bad flu season.
To me full reopening right now is pretty much the best way to show public health and medical experts have virtually no real power. I doubt they were even called about this choice. These decisions are purely political ones. And not particularly well-considered political ones, either.
There's this deep, craving need for it to be "over" as soon as anything trends down. "We've won." "It's okay now." "Go back to normal." All sweet sweet nothings in our ears.
At least the deaths won't be as bad when we see more infections.
In 6-8 weeks we will know more. It seems odd to go to 100% back to normal at this point but maybe this will be the time when the experts are wrong.
The experts will get crucified if they recommend reopening too early and face zero consequence if they recommend reopening later than "safely" possible. Anyone can see how that can lead to bias. My home state is Florida. Experts warned against the crowded beaches last spring, they warned against the state reopening too early last May, they warned against the reopening of the schools, they warned against the reopening of the theme parks, they warned against the reopening of the bars/clubs, they warned against the superbowl parties. Meanwhile Florida did all of those things and never descended into chaos and now their schmuckface governor has one of the highest approval ratings.
In 6-8 weeks we will know more. It seems odd to go to 100% back to normal at this point but maybe this will be the time when the experts are wrong.
The experts will get crucified if they recommend reopening too early and face zero consequence if they recommend reopening later than "safely" possible. Anyone can see how that can lead to bias. My home state is Florida. Experts warned against the crowded beaches last spring, they warned against the state reopening too early last May, they warned against the reopening of the schools, they warned against the reopening of the theme parks, they warned against the reopening of the bars/clubs, they warned against the superbowl parties. Meanwhile Florida did all of those things and never descended into chaos and now their schmuckface governor has one of the highest approval ratings.
The reason they'll be crucified is because they'd be recommending taking 0 precautions with a baseline detected case load thousands of times higher than what states were seeing last March. It's bad public health based on all available evidence. Their goal isn't "stop us from descending into chaos" it's "prevent death and illness in the community." Like the hundreds of Floridians who died every day during the summer starting about eight weeks after the May reopening...funny how that works.
All or none reopening is a terrible way to try to deal with COVID. "Our numbers are steady so let's reopen" is a terrible way to deal with COVID.
If I'm understanding the report correctly, as of yesterday: About 25.5M second doses have been administered (meaning 25.5M Americans are fully vaccinated); About 51M first doses have been administered (including the 25.5 first doses that the fully-vaccinated people received), which comes out to around 77M total doses (including all first doses + all second doses).
Assuming that everyone / almost everyone gets their second dose on time, within the next 3-4 weeks / by the end of March, I suppose it's safe to project that the "fully vaccinated" count will be around that 51M mark, since all of those people who have had a first dose (by the beginning of March) will finally have had their second dose? Perhaps it'll be a little higher, to include new patients who get their first dose over the next few days, and get their second dose right before March ends? Maybe around 60M fully vaccinated, by the end of March? Of course, new vaccines coming out can increase the count too!
(And then, of course, by the end of March, the "first dose" count will be significantly higher, as it will include all of the new Americans who have received their first dose over the next few weeks.)
In 6-8 weeks we will know more. It seems odd to go to 100% back to normal at this point but maybe this will be the time when the experts are wrong.
The experts will get crucified if they recommend reopening too early and face zero consequence if they recommend reopening later than "safely" possible. Anyone can see how that can lead to bias. My home state is Florida. Experts warned against the crowded beaches last spring, they warned against the state reopening too early last May, they warned against the reopening of the schools, they warned against the reopening of the theme parks, they warned against the reopening of the bars/clubs, they warned against the superbowl parties. Meanwhile Florida did all of those things and never descended into chaos and now their schmuckface governor has one of the highest approval ratings.
The reason they'll be crucified is because they'd be recommending taking 0 precautions with a baseline detected case load thousands of times higher than what states were seeing last March. It's bad public health based on all available evidence. Their goal isn't "stop us from descending into chaos" it's "prevent death and illness in the community." Like the hundreds of Floridians who died every day during the summer starting about eight weeks after the May reopening...funny how that works.
All or none reopening is a terrible way to try to deal with COVID. "Our numbers are steady so let's reopen" is a terrible way to deal with COVID.
Another way to think about it is how fast the vaccine can outpace covid spread. Texas has ~7k cases a day - assuming some are uncaught, call it pessimistically 10k. They're administering around 150-200k doses a day, so roughly 15-20x (7.5-10x double dose) the covid rate.
The full reopening is dumb, but in places where baseline cases are low, this could work.... you're essentially trying to race a virus.
In 6-8 weeks we will know more. It seems odd to go to 100% back to normal at this point but maybe this will be the time when the experts are wrong.
The experts will get crucified if they recommend reopening too early and face zero consequence if they recommend reopening later than "safely" possible. Anyone can see how that can lead to bias. My home state is Florida. Experts warned against the crowded beaches last spring, they warned against the state reopening too early last May, they warned against the reopening of the schools, they warned against the reopening of the theme parks, they warned against the reopening of the bars/clubs, they warned against the superbowl parties. Meanwhile Florida did all of those things and never descended into chaos and now their schmuckface governor has one of the highest approval ratings.
The reason they'll be crucified is because they'd be recommending taking 0 precautions with a baseline detected case load thousands of times higher than what states were seeing last March. It's bad public health based on all available evidence. Their goal isn't "stop us from descending into chaos" it's "prevent death and illness in the community." Like the hundreds of Floridians who died every day during the summer starting about eight weeks after the May reopening...funny how that works.
All or none reopening is a terrible way to try to deal with COVID. "Our numbers are steady so let's reopen" is a terrible way to deal with COVID.
Another way to think about it is how fast the vaccine can outpace covid spread. Texas has ~7k cases a day - assuming some are uncaught, call it pessimistically 10k. They're administering around 150-200k doses a day, so roughly 15-20x (7.5-10x double dose) the covid rate.
The full reopening is dumb, but in places where baseline cases are low, this could work.... you're essentially trying to race a virus.
I certainly don't think reopening everything is wise, but for the common good, I actually love that some areas are brave/stupid enough to go try it out first so we know what to expect. There are a lot of unknowns, and there is a chance Texas has enough immunity and vaccines to not overload their hospitals, which should be the main goal. If thousands die every week, hospitals fill up and another very harsh lockdown is needed, then we know when not to open up.
Also, I don't think the situation will be quite like pre-corona anyway. At least some parts of the population will change their behavior, even if they are not forced to.
In 6-8 weeks we will know more. It seems odd to go to 100% back to normal at this point but maybe this will be the time when the experts are wrong.
The experts will get crucified if they recommend reopening too early and face zero consequence if they recommend reopening later than "safely" possible. Anyone can see how that can lead to bias. My home state is Florida. Experts warned against the crowded beaches last spring, they warned against the state reopening too early last May, they warned against the reopening of the schools, they warned against the reopening of the theme parks, they warned against the reopening of the bars/clubs, they warned against the superbowl parties. Meanwhile Florida did all of those things and never descended into chaos and now their schmuckface governor has one of the highest approval ratings.
The reason they'll be crucified is because they'd be recommending taking 0 precautions with a baseline detected case load thousands of times higher than what states were seeing last March. It's bad public health based on all available evidence. Their goal isn't "stop us from descending into chaos" it's "prevent death and illness in the community." Like the hundreds of Floridians who died every day during the summer starting about eight weeks after the May reopening...funny how that works.
All or none reopening is a terrible way to try to deal with COVID. "Our numbers are steady so let's reopen" is a terrible way to deal with COVID.
Right. The goal of the public health experts is to prevent as much death and illness in the community as possible. Any amount of reopening is going to inherently lead to more death and illness. So it behooves any public health expert to take the position advising against reopening. My point is that the preferred goal should not be to prevent as much death and illness as possible but to open as much as possible without the hospitals being overrun.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/n5Mki5M.png)
