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 July 25 2021 23:21 Magic Powers wrote: In NL, it appears that the government has failed the people. Rutte calls it an "error in judgement". That honestly doesn't even begin to describe it, my own words would be a lot harsher.
"In hindsight, the Netherlands' "special moment" was reconsidered by Rutte as "an error in judgement," which forced the Dutch Prime Minister to apologize to the nation for lifting restrictions too soon – and to reimpose some of the lifted restrictions."
At least he did apologize though, and for the right reason. That's a very necessary step because it means moving forward there can be no hiding behind excuses. Recently they've reimposed some restrictions and as a result we see the infection rate drop again.
The article continues:
"The government is relying again on COVID-19 restrictions to slow the surge in infections. Work-from-home guidelines have been reintroduced, together with restrictions on bars, restaurant and nightclubs. There is hope from the signs that the number of cases has stopped increasing, and has decreased in recent days.
"I think this was a very short peak that really is the consequence of the lifting of the measures we had in place," said Welkers. "You really see now in practice it proves that the measures that we had were effective. And as soon as you lift them, we see an immediate increase in cases. You can't get any better practical proof that those measures work.""
There's no way the NL government didn't have easy access to irrefutable proof of that long before the most recent wave. If I'm able to research this on my own, then they're able to call a team of researchers to show them evidence. So by all means they should've known that this would happen.
_______________
In other news: the "Texas miracle" has also been shown to be nothing more than a delayed wave. Exactly as many people had predicted, but their concerns went ignored with people saying it's mass vaccination working as intended. Well, that clearly didn't work out.
May I ask on what date the measures were put back in place and as a result cases dropped?
I am asking since UK cases have been going down significantly since a few days, maybe indicating a "natural" end of the Delta-wave. Though, the lifting of all measures in the UK was only one week ago, so it could just be that cases will just surge in one weeks time. But if they don't, that would be extremely interesting.
Are you talking about the Netherlands? we opened up 26th June, closed back down on 10th July and new cases peaked on the 16th.
On July 25 2021 23:21 Magic Powers wrote: In NL, it appears that the government has failed the people. Rutte calls it an "error in judgement". That honestly doesn't even begin to describe it, my own words would be a lot harsher.
"In hindsight, the Netherlands' "special moment" was reconsidered by Rutte as "an error in judgement," which forced the Dutch Prime Minister to apologize to the nation for lifting restrictions too soon – and to reimpose some of the lifted restrictions."
At least he did apologize though, and for the right reason. That's a very necessary step because it means moving forward there can be no hiding behind excuses. Recently they've reimposed some restrictions and as a result we see the infection rate drop again.
The article continues:
"The government is relying again on COVID-19 restrictions to slow the surge in infections. Work-from-home guidelines have been reintroduced, together with restrictions on bars, restaurant and nightclubs. There is hope from the signs that the number of cases has stopped increasing, and has decreased in recent days.
"I think this was a very short peak that really is the consequence of the lifting of the measures we had in place," said Welkers. "You really see now in practice it proves that the measures that we had were effective. And as soon as you lift them, we see an immediate increase in cases. You can't get any better practical proof that those measures work.""
There's no way the NL government didn't have easy access to irrefutable proof of that long before the most recent wave. If I'm able to research this on my own, then they're able to call a team of researchers to show them evidence. So by all means they should've known that this would happen.
_______________
In other news: the "Texas miracle" has also been shown to be nothing more than a delayed wave. Exactly as many people had predicted, but their concerns went ignored with people saying it's mass vaccination working as intended. Well, that clearly didn't work out.
May I ask on what date the measures were put back in place and as a result cases dropped?
I am asking since UK cases have been going down significantly since a few days, maybe indicating a "natural" end of the Delta-wave. Though, the lifting of all measures in the UK was only one week ago, so it could just be that cases will just surge in one weeks time. But if they don't, that would be extremely interesting.
Well I guess the NL situation was answered by Gorsameth.
In regards to the UK, I'm honestly too confused by the latest updates, even moreso since not a single set of rules applies to all of the UK (England reopened over a week ago I think, but I believe Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland did not). This makes the timeline rather complicated and it obfuscates the overall data. As you say it's possible that new cases could go up again in the coming weeks. We'll have to wait and see.
On July 25 2021 23:21 Magic Powers wrote: In NL, it appears that the government has failed the people. Rutte calls it an "error in judgement". That honestly doesn't even begin to describe it, my own words would be a lot harsher.
"In hindsight, the Netherlands' "special moment" was reconsidered by Rutte as "an error in judgement," which forced the Dutch Prime Minister to apologize to the nation for lifting restrictions too soon – and to reimpose some of the lifted restrictions."
At least he did apologize though, and for the right reason. That's a very necessary step because it means moving forward there can be no hiding behind excuses. Recently they've reimposed some restrictions and as a result we see the infection rate drop again.
The article continues:
"The government is relying again on COVID-19 restrictions to slow the surge in infections. Work-from-home guidelines have been reintroduced, together with restrictions on bars, restaurant and nightclubs. There is hope from the signs that the number of cases has stopped increasing, and has decreased in recent days.
"I think this was a very short peak that really is the consequence of the lifting of the measures we had in place," said Welkers. "You really see now in practice it proves that the measures that we had were effective. And as soon as you lift them, we see an immediate increase in cases. You can't get any better practical proof that those measures work.""
There's no way the NL government didn't have easy access to irrefutable proof of that long before the most recent wave. If I'm able to research this on my own, then they're able to call a team of researchers to show them evidence. So by all means they should've known that this would happen.
_______________
In other news: the "Texas miracle" has also been shown to be nothing more than a delayed wave. Exactly as many people had predicted, but their concerns went ignored with people saying it's mass vaccination working as intended. Well, that clearly didn't work out.
May I ask on what date the measures were put back in place and as a result cases dropped?
I am asking since UK cases have been going down significantly since a few days, maybe indicating a "natural" end of the Delta-wave. Though, the lifting of all measures in the UK was only one week ago, so it could just be that cases will just surge in one weeks time. But if they don't, that would be extremely interesting.
Well I guess the NL situation was answered by Gorsameth.
In regards to the UK, I'm honestly too confused by the latest updates, even moreso since not a single set of rules applies to all of the UK (England reopened over a week ago I think, but I believe Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland did not). This makes the timeline rather complicated and it obfuscates the overall data. As you say it's possible that new cases could go up again in the coming weeks. We'll have to wait and see.
I wonder if some governments (federal or provincial) are deliberately implementing different policies for different places (i.e. A/B testing). After all, it's a classic scientific methodology for research rigour. Even if the practice may be ethically questionable.
On July 25 2021 23:51 Gorsameth wrote: The problem in the Netherlands is that the youth wasn't vaccinated yet. So while numbers were way down and everything was under controlled as soon as restrictions were lifted the youth started partying and mass covid infections took place despite entry into clubs needing a recent negative covid test. Things like a 600 person disco having 1/3 of the patrons infected afterwards.
In hindsight yes its obvious that opening up was a mistake but I don't think it was an unreasonable position to assume that the requirements of a negative test would help keep numbers down and not cause the massive peak that we instead got.
Catalunya did something similar. I think it was part naivete, and part desperately wanting to look like everything is normal and Covid is beaten for the tourists. Needles to say, that backfired spectacularly, as it did in other regions of Spain that lifted pretty much all restrictions on nightlife.
On July 25 2021 23:21 Magic Powers wrote: In NL, it appears that the government has failed the people. Rutte calls it an "error in judgement". That honestly doesn't even begin to describe it, my own words would be a lot harsher.
"In hindsight, the Netherlands' "special moment" was reconsidered by Rutte as "an error in judgement," which forced the Dutch Prime Minister to apologize to the nation for lifting restrictions too soon – and to reimpose some of the lifted restrictions."
At least he did apologize though, and for the right reason. That's a very necessary step because it means moving forward there can be no hiding behind excuses. Recently they've reimposed some restrictions and as a result we see the infection rate drop again.
The article continues:
"The government is relying again on COVID-19 restrictions to slow the surge in infections. Work-from-home guidelines have been reintroduced, together with restrictions on bars, restaurant and nightclubs. There is hope from the signs that the number of cases has stopped increasing, and has decreased in recent days.
"I think this was a very short peak that really is the consequence of the lifting of the measures we had in place," said Welkers. "You really see now in practice it proves that the measures that we had were effective. And as soon as you lift them, we see an immediate increase in cases. You can't get any better practical proof that those measures work.""
There's no way the NL government didn't have easy access to irrefutable proof of that long before the most recent wave. If I'm able to research this on my own, then they're able to call a team of researchers to show them evidence. So by all means they should've known that this would happen.
_______________
In other news: the "Texas miracle" has also been shown to be nothing more than a delayed wave. Exactly as many people had predicted, but their concerns went ignored with people saying it's mass vaccination working as intended. Well, that clearly didn't work out.
May I ask on what date the measures were put back in place and as a result cases dropped?
I am asking since UK cases have been going down significantly since a few days, maybe indicating a "natural" end of the Delta-wave. Though, the lifting of all measures in the UK was only one week ago, so it could just be that cases will just surge in one weeks time. But if they don't, that would be extremely interesting.
Well I guess the NL situation was answered by Gorsameth.
In regards to the UK, I'm honestly too confused by the latest updates, even moreso since not a single set of rules applies to all of the UK (England reopened over a week ago I think, but I believe Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland did not). This makes the timeline rather complicated and it obfuscates the overall data. As you say it's possible that new cases could go up again in the coming weeks. We'll have to wait and see.
Yeah the UK is really strange right now, maybe the "ping-demic" (NHS app telling everyone to self isolate) has been helping? Looks encouraging, but I don't want to get my hopes up.
On July 22 2021 08:08 Magic Powers wrote: Findings from 2021, June 25th on the efficacy of face masks under various conditions.
"Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission"
The following abstracts are in regards to common mask-wearing by the general population. The bold parts are the most relevant findings for those short on time.
"We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread."
"In this work, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. On the basis of direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the virus abundance in most environments is sufficiently low for masks to be effective in reducing airborne transmission."
The following infographic shows how it works in the abstract. A key factor in why masks work or don't work is the "virus-richness" of the environment. To put it simply there's a threshold of present virus particles up until which various common masks are effective, and anything beyond overwhelms the protection (note that it takes only a small load of virions to infect a host). This is why masking up (below FFP3) becomes most effective with social distancing. So please understand that a critical component to ending the pandemic is to reduce face-to-face interactions to a necessary minimum, even when other measures are taken (like masks, vaccines, other hygiene, etc.) In my understanding, limiting the duration of each interaction is also important (to minimize the cumulative chance of infection from an infected individual).
Furthermore, the switch to FFP2 masks is most likely a good choice, as they provide a lot stronger protection than other commonly sold masks (although those are also effective, so in case you don't have an FFP2 mask, please put on an alternative).
There is almost no difference between surgical masks and FFP2. They are definitely not worth the cost of billions.
Effective ventilation and social distancing will reduce ambient virus concentrations and increase the effectiveness of face masks in containing the virus transmission.
Oh my god, ventilation?! But I am just a non-vaccer and mask hater - what do I know?
People really love to judge others without knowing anything about someone. Shame on many posters in this thread.
Ok, so "quantative models" is what you call good research on mask efficiency? You better hope both people, air and virus behave like in those "models", then!
My main argument is that people just DO NOT use them correctly, and this even goes for medical professionals.
Good research on both masks and distancing is extremely difficult to do, but "models" seem like a waste of time to me, as you easily change uncertain parameters to get any result you want.
On July 22 2021 08:08 Magic Powers wrote: Findings from 2021, June 25th on the efficacy of face masks under various conditions.
"Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission"
The following abstracts are in regards to common mask-wearing by the general population. The bold parts are the most relevant findings for those short on time.
"We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread."
"In this work, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. On the basis of direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the virus abundance in most environments is sufficiently low for masks to be effective in reducing airborne transmission."
The following infographic shows how it works in the abstract. A key factor in why masks work or don't work is the "virus-richness" of the environment. To put it simply there's a threshold of present virus particles up until which various common masks are effective, and anything beyond overwhelms the protection (note that it takes only a small load of virions to infect a host). This is why masking up (below FFP3) becomes most effective with social distancing. So please understand that a critical component to ending the pandemic is to reduce face-to-face interactions to a necessary minimum, even when other measures are taken (like masks, vaccines, other hygiene, etc.) In my understanding, limiting the duration of each interaction is also important (to minimize the cumulative chance of infection from an infected individual).
Furthermore, the switch to FFP2 masks is most likely a good choice, as they provide a lot stronger protection than other commonly sold masks (although those are also effective, so in case you don't have an FFP2 mask, please put on an alternative).
There is almost no difference between surgical masks and FFP2. They are definitely not worth the cost of billions.
Effective ventilation and social distancing will reduce ambient virus concentrations and increase the effectiveness of face masks in containing the virus transmission.
Oh my god, ventilation?! But I am just a non-vaccer and mask hater - what do I know?
People really love to judge others without knowing anything about someone. Shame on many posters in this thread.
Ok, so "quantative models" is what you call good research on mask efficiency? You better hope both people, air and virus behave like in those "models", then!
My main argument is that people just DO NOT use them correctly, and this even goes for medical professionals.
Good research on both masks and distancing is extremely difficult to do, but "models" seem like a waste of time to me, as you easily change uncertain parameters to get any result you want.
Models don't need to be 100% correct to be useful. You are painting a silly picture of what it takes for models to be useful.
Also, the downside of masks is really miniscule. I honestly find the strange battle about wearing masks utterly absurd.
Even if masks only have minor positive effects, they also only have minor negative effects. Wearing a mask is annoying. Yes, that is true. But that is all.
On July 27 2021 03:32 Simberto wrote: Also, the downside of masks is really miniscule. I honestly find the strange battle about wearing masks utterly absurd.
Even if masks only have minor positive effects, they also only have minor negative effects. Wearing a mask is annoying. Yes, that is true. But that is all.
And since we already know there was an enormous decrease in deaths from flu during masks, it feels stupid to go back. Personally I think masks totally make sense forever in these places:
I remember basically at the start of Covid, I was at the office and I could hear our secretary cough and sneeze even at my desk! I told her to go home, but she basically said "it is not Covid, I called the hotline! and who would do my work??" ... Maybe just take a sickday if you are sick would be an improvement...
Aside from that: Anyone wants to know, how a festival runs during "these times"? Just got back from a weekend of Open Air Live music! Remember those things?
On July 27 2021 03:32 Simberto wrote: Also, the downside of masks is really miniscule. I honestly find the strange battle about wearing masks utterly absurd.
Even if masks only have minor positive effects, they also only have minor negative effects. Wearing a mask is annoying. Yes, that is true. But that is all.
And since we already know there was an enormous decrease in deaths from flu during masks, it feels stupid to go back. Personally I think masks totally make sense forever in these places:
- Medical anything - Public transit
Why do you hate freedom so much?
Haven’t seen my brother in 18 months and our night to the bar was completely ruined by the completely unreasonable rules of wearing a mask when walking around going to the bathroom. It’s fucking outrageous, how am I meant to give random women a ‘charming’ smile when I have to wear a mask for 4.5 minutes of a 3 hour stay?
Absolutely ruined. I was surprised really, I thought having to wear a mask for the entirety of the pandemic at work with no bother whatsoever would have prepared me but alas.
On July 25 2021 23:21 Magic Powers wrote: In NL, it appears that the government has failed the people. Rutte calls it an "error in judgement". That honestly doesn't even begin to describe it, my own words would be a lot harsher.
"In hindsight, the Netherlands' "special moment" was reconsidered by Rutte as "an error in judgement," which forced the Dutch Prime Minister to apologize to the nation for lifting restrictions too soon – and to reimpose some of the lifted restrictions."
At least he did apologize though, and for the right reason. That's a very necessary step because it means moving forward there can be no hiding behind excuses. Recently they've reimposed some restrictions and as a result we see the infection rate drop again.
The article continues:
"The government is relying again on COVID-19 restrictions to slow the surge in infections. Work-from-home guidelines have been reintroduced, together with restrictions on bars, restaurant and nightclubs. There is hope from the signs that the number of cases has stopped increasing, and has decreased in recent days.
"I think this was a very short peak that really is the consequence of the lifting of the measures we had in place," said Welkers. "You really see now in practice it proves that the measures that we had were effective. And as soon as you lift them, we see an immediate increase in cases. You can't get any better practical proof that those measures work.""
There's no way the NL government didn't have easy access to irrefutable proof of that long before the most recent wave. If I'm able to research this on my own, then they're able to call a team of researchers to show them evidence. So by all means they should've known that this would happen.
_______________
In other news: the "Texas miracle" has also been shown to be nothing more than a delayed wave. Exactly as many people had predicted, but their concerns went ignored with people saying it's mass vaccination working as intended. Well, that clearly didn't work out.
May I ask on what date the measures were put back in place and as a result cases dropped?
I am asking since UK cases have been going down significantly since a few days, maybe indicating a "natural" end of the Delta-wave. Though, the lifting of all measures in the UK was only one week ago, so it could just be that cases will just surge in one weeks time. But if they don't, that would be extremely interesting.
Are you talking about the Netherlands? we opened up 26th June, closed back down on 10th July and new cases peaked on the 16th.
Yeah, I meant Netherlands. Thank you. I would probably expect for cases to rise longer than up to 16th if the closing was the primary cause. But that is obviously just a guess.
I have been proven wrong so many times with my opinions within the last 1 1/2 years, it is hard to be confident in anything I think related to COVID.
On July 22 2021 08:08 Magic Powers wrote: Findings from 2021, June 25th on the efficacy of face masks under various conditions.
"Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission"
The following abstracts are in regards to common mask-wearing by the general population. The bold parts are the most relevant findings for those short on time.
"We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread."
"In this work, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. On the basis of direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the virus abundance in most environments is sufficiently low for masks to be effective in reducing airborne transmission."
The following infographic shows how it works in the abstract. A key factor in why masks work or don't work is the "virus-richness" of the environment. To put it simply there's a threshold of present virus particles up until which various common masks are effective, and anything beyond overwhelms the protection (note that it takes only a small load of virions to infect a host). This is why masking up (below FFP3) becomes most effective with social distancing. So please understand that a critical component to ending the pandemic is to reduce face-to-face interactions to a necessary minimum, even when other measures are taken (like masks, vaccines, other hygiene, etc.) In my understanding, limiting the duration of each interaction is also important (to minimize the cumulative chance of infection from an infected individual).
Furthermore, the switch to FFP2 masks is most likely a good choice, as they provide a lot stronger protection than other commonly sold masks (although those are also effective, so in case you don't have an FFP2 mask, please put on an alternative).
There is almost no difference between surgical masks and FFP2. They are definitely not worth the cost of billions.
Effective ventilation and social distancing will reduce ambient virus concentrations and increase the effectiveness of face masks in containing the virus transmission.
Oh my god, ventilation?! But I am just a non-vaccer and mask hater - what do I know?
People really love to judge others without knowing anything about someone. Shame on many posters in this thread.
Ok, so "quantative models" is what you call good research on mask efficiency? You better hope both people, air and virus behave like in those "models", then!
My main argument is that people just DO NOT use them correctly, and this even goes for medical professionals.
Good research on both masks and distancing is extremely difficult to do, but "models" seem like a waste of time to me, as you easily change uncertain parameters to get any result you want.
Models don't need to be 100% correct to be useful. You are painting a silly picture of what it takes for models to be useful.
I also doubt that some/most population studies are even capable of determining how proper the mask usage is. So improper mask usage probably is not even controlled for in most of these studies and yet most of them still show that masks are very effective regardless.
On July 22 2021 08:08 Magic Powers wrote: Findings from 2021, June 25th on the efficacy of face masks under various conditions.
"Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission"
The following abstracts are in regards to common mask-wearing by the general population. The bold parts are the most relevant findings for those short on time.
"We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread."
"In this work, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. On the basis of direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the virus abundance in most environments is sufficiently low for masks to be effective in reducing airborne transmission."
The following infographic shows how it works in the abstract. A key factor in why masks work or don't work is the "virus-richness" of the environment. To put it simply there's a threshold of present virus particles up until which various common masks are effective, and anything beyond overwhelms the protection (note that it takes only a small load of virions to infect a host). This is why masking up (below FFP3) becomes most effective with social distancing. So please understand that a critical component to ending the pandemic is to reduce face-to-face interactions to a necessary minimum, even when other measures are taken (like masks, vaccines, other hygiene, etc.) In my understanding, limiting the duration of each interaction is also important (to minimize the cumulative chance of infection from an infected individual).
Furthermore, the switch to FFP2 masks is most likely a good choice, as they provide a lot stronger protection than other commonly sold masks (although those are also effective, so in case you don't have an FFP2 mask, please put on an alternative).
There is almost no difference between surgical masks and FFP2. They are definitely not worth the cost of billions.
Effective ventilation and social distancing will reduce ambient virus concentrations and increase the effectiveness of face masks in containing the virus transmission.
Oh my god, ventilation?! But I am just a non-vaccer and mask hater - what do I know?
People really love to judge others without knowing anything about someone. Shame on many posters in this thread.
Ok, so "quantative models" is what you call good research on mask efficiency? You better hope both people, air and virus behave like in those "models", then!
My main argument is that people just DO NOT use them correctly, and this even goes for medical professionals.
Good research on both masks and distancing is extremely difficult to do, but "models" seem like a waste of time to me, as you easily change uncertain parameters to get any result you want.
Models don't need to be 100% correct to be useful. You are painting a silly picture of what it takes for models to be useful.
I also doubt that some/most population studies are even capable of determining how proper the mask usage is. So improper mask usage probably is not even controlled for in most of these studies and yet most of them still show that masks are very effective regardless.
I had a discussion with someone about masks once and they said "so, what, I could just throw a towel over my face and it would help?" and I said "Yes, that is what I am saying"
It was like the person couldn't even fathom the idea.
Well, we've taken a lot of public health measures off given that vaccines are widely deployed in BC. We have a number of provincial regions with different vaccine uptake. Essentially you can go about normal life, with minor restrictions on nightlife and recommended masking in public areas.
In VCH (my area), we have ~85% of eligible people having been vaccinated with at least one dose. We're seeing a small creep upwards in cases, but it's been steady in the mid-10s per day for the last month+ despite a lifting of measures.
In the Interior, they've got ~74% vaccination rate of eligible people and their cases have skyrocketed from ~15 a day on Jul. 6 to 95 today over three weeks.
It's looking like 85% of 12+ (~75% of population) with light measures in public spaces (masks recommended and generally voluntarily followed) can slow Delta, and avoid a surge in cases. In between there's Fraser health with ~81% of 12+ and they've seen a small increase, from 15 up to 30s. A small increase, but not unmanageable.
Taken from press conf. video here:
Looks like we're getting to the end of the mass-vaccination clinics over the next two weeks as the bulk of the required second doses are administered, so the focus is going to switch to smaller neighbourhood/regional clinics to try and get better uptake from the hesitant/lazy. The only other way to do it would be to let it burn out like UK's doing, which is a less attractive option in my books as it affects those that can't protect themselves against covid.
EPT![[image loading]](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/372/6549/1439/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1)
![[image loading]](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/372/6549/1439/F4.large.jpg)
