EPTCoronavirus and You - Page 575
| 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
| ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
There's really little point just accumulating raw numbers of infections and hospitalisations. Lockdowns are really hard to justify in this post-vaccination era. Unvaccinated people are just a lost cause. My feeling is that the highest risk factor of serious COVID complications is pre-existing comorbidities. Vaccination helps, but wanes faster or offers less protection to vulnerable people compared to other regular folks. If this is the case, governments owe a duty to take special care over these vulnerable folks. The greatest tragedy is not the deaths of unvaccinated people, but vaccinated people lulled with a false sense of security. It's probably not a great messaging and may stoke anti-vaxxism even more, but health authorities should be brave to say "Some of you are in grave danger even being vaccinated, so please take precautionary measures". Also, practically, it's much easier to protect the vulnerable minority rather than compel the majority to protect the vulnerable minority. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On January 23 2022 21:27 RKC wrote: Health authorities should really be analysing data on COVID deaths and hospitalisations, and identify high-risk people. Then take targeted measures to protect these people. There's really little point just accumulating raw numbers of infections and hospitalisations. Lockdowns are really hard to justify in this post-vaccination era. Unvaccinated people are just a lost cause. My feeling is that the highest risk factor of serious COVID complications is pre-existing comorbidities. Vaccination helps, but wanes faster or offers less protection to vulnerable people compared to other regular folks. If this is the case, governments owe a duty to take special care over these vulnerable folks. The greatest tragedy is not the deaths of unvaccinated people, but vaccinated people lulled with a false sense of security. It's probably not a great messaging and may stoke anti-vaxxism even more, but health authorities should be brave to say "Some of you are in grave danger even being vaccinated, so please take precautionary measures". Also, practically, it's much easier to protect the vulnerable minority rather than compel the majority to protect the vulnerable minority. At this point, those vulnerable folks were just as much in danger every normal flu season, and no special precautions were taken. After having had information about how dangerous this virus is blasted at us for so long, realizing that it isn't a big deal anymore is quite difficult. Slowly, governments seem to realize that giving all COVID positives a week off work no matter their condition is both incredibly expensive and silly. After my family got boosters, my desire to even get tested is very close to 0. Oh, and around here, they oblige face masks at all times on short, hilly public races. The heartrates in these can reach 90% and above of max. The runners can't oblige and pull the masks down, as they get dizzy and could faint due to the lack of oxygen. I can't believe not more people have the balls to speak up against this mask-obsessed madness, which is completely contrary of WHO recommendations. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
The full details are rather sketchy. But whilst the player may seem unreasonable, playing with a mask for 5-6 hours can be rather uncomfortable (physical stamina can be a factor in competitive chess). I'm also left perplexed by the organisers' ultimatum. Why not mandate all players in the hall to also wear masks if safety was the factor (especially the player's opponent who would be sitting across the board)? Why not postpone the match to a rest day? Why not allow the player to play in an isolated room and the moves get communicated remotely (switch to online mode)? Not sure what 'principle' the player was defending. But chess players are well-known to question the irrationality and absurdity of tournament rules. Also, the player ain't another Djokovic - he's fully vaxxed and wear masks at other times. He's just against wearing a mask while playing over the board. He's not the only one who strongly feels this way, as other chess players have voiced their support. Just something worth sharing, I thought. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13815 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15466 Posts
On January 24 2022 00:37 RKC wrote: There's this recent drama in the chess world. Player choose to forfeit a match rather than wear a mask out of 'principle'. Close contact tested positive, but player tested negative in a rapid test (PCR test result can't be out in time of match). Organiser insisted he wear a mask to continue playing. Player's point is that the tournament rules specifically permit players to not wear mask over the board. The full details are rather sketchy. But whilst the player may seem unreasonable, playing with a mask for 5-6 hours can be rather uncomfortable (physical stamina can be a factor in competitive chess). I'm also left perplexed by the organisers' ultimatum. Why not mandate all players in the hall to also wear masks if safety was the factor (especially the player's opponent who would be sitting across the board)? Why not postpone the match to a rest day? Why not allow the player to play in an isolated room and the moves get communicated remotely (switch to online mode)? Not sure what 'principle' the player was defending. But chess players are well-known to question the irrationality and absurdity of tournament rules. Also, the player ain't another Djokovic - he's fully vaxxed and wear masks at other times. He's just against wearing a mask while playing over the board. He's not the only one who strongly feels this way, as other chess players have voiced their support. Just something worth sharing, I thought. Forgive my ignorance but what is the reason to even have a chess match in person? During covid why not just make all of them "online" but they are in separate rooms or something in the same venue? | ||
Spazer
Canada8029 Posts
On January 24 2022 08:55 Mohdoo wrote: Forgive my ignorance but what is the reason to even have a chess match in person? During covid why not just make all of them "online" but they are in separate rooms or something in the same venue? Playing in separate rooms is impractical when using real pieces. Relaying the moves is possible but cumbersome, and the timer (which is central to chess) gets all messed up. So playing on a computer is the only choice when using separate rooms. And at that point, why even be in the venue? Just have them play from home (which has been done before). There is also a difference between using real pieces and playing online. Board vision is better online, though it might not matter that much to GMs. Time scrambles change a lot. You can premove in online chess, using almost no time in the process. This is far more difficult over the board since you have to physically move the piece and hit the clock. It's kind of a different skillset. Lag/computer/connection issues also becomes a factor, and everyone tends to hate any rulings on the matter. Chess also has a long history, and the vast majority of important games are played over the board. It's just seen as more prestigious. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
There's also the higher risk of cheating (especially by using computer engines) in online chess*. I believe many online chess competitions require an arbiter to be physically present at each player's home - another additional logistical burden. * Of course, cheating is possible in live competitions as well. There's an infamous toiletgate drama a while back... | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10338 Posts
On January 23 2022 23:18 Slydie wrote: At this point, those vulnerable folks were just as much in danger every normal flu season, and no special precautions were taken. After having had information about how dangerous this virus is blasted at us for so long, realizing that it isn't a big deal anymore is quite difficult. Slowly, governments seem to realize that giving all COVID positives a week off work no matter their condition is both incredibly expensive and silly. After my family got boosters, my desire to even get tested is very close to 0. Oh, and around here, they oblige face masks at all times on short, hilly public races. The heartrates in these can reach 90% and above of max. The runners can't oblige and pull the masks down, as they get dizzy and could faint due to the lack of oxygen. I can't believe not more people have the balls to speak up against this mask-obsessed madness, which is completely contrary of WHO recommendations. That's honestly sad that they are making runners wear masks. The sad part is we knew relatively early on that COVID doesn't spread well outdoors. It also doesn't spread well from surfaces. The amount of bullshit "hygiene theater" as the CDC calls it that carried on for so long is frankly quite pathetic. Good data is useless if you suck at applying it to policies. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm#contribAff | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21508 Posts
How do people not get this. Naturally immunity is not a solution to Covid, its letting the virus do its thing and praying your one of the lucky ones that doesn't suffer long term effects. There are 2 possible states prior to getting infected, vaccinated or unvaccinated. Vaccinated has significantly better odds of suffering no serious effects. The logical choice is to get vaccinated. Naturally immunity doesn't enter the equations because that requires you to roll the dice in the first place. And even after getting infected and getting lucky with no serious effects your still better off getting vaccinated + previous infection then just a previous infection. So you should still get vaccinated. Literally nothing changes in the equation whether or not you have natural immunity. The only difference is whether or not you were dumb enough to blindly gamble on not ending up in the hospital or getting long Covid and the media should not be encouraging people to play Russian Roulette. | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
It turns out i've played your "Russian Roulette" 3 times already, at first during the initial wave of covid (at least it was easy to notice due to loss of sense of smell/taste) with Delta last Oct and Omi just a week ago. And telling you that with Delta and Omi I had even less symptoms (it was accidentally confirmed via PCR/antibodies tests which were made for other reasons). Antibodies test was positive, with immune cell level ~15 times exceeding the norm So I did my quarantine 3 times and that's all, not much medications, only high dosage of Vitamin D + K2/ vitamin complex and some nasal oil drops simply for moisturizing purposes. Literally zero data based evidence on why someone who was previously exposesd to Covid should go and get his vaccine, pointless But for those who wasn't yet exposed - it's better to get a shot, no argument at this point P.S. Personally I've noticed one interesting thing with covid, might even call it a symptom, but in a good way - the usage of garlic, lemon, lime, onion and ginger went up in our kitchen, as if the body tells you what it needs | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/A6lDB2E.png) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/vVTHx8O.png) | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10338 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10338 Posts
The question you're asking is should we coerce people into getting vaccinated if they've had previous COVID infection. Different countries have answered it differently. Some have allowed for previous infection to qualify for their vaccine passport system. In the US you get no credit for previous infection. I think it's reasonable to conclude that it's a matter of bureaucracy. It's just easier to have an across-the-board "everyone get vaxxed" policy then it is to try to confirm who did or didn't have COVID. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
On January 25 2022 09:22 JimmiC wrote: This one from your source https://www.news-medical.net/amp/news/20220104/Efficacy-of-antibodies-induced-by-natural-infection-vaccination-or-both-against-SARS-CoV-2-Omicron-and-Beta-variants.aspx https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/prior-covid-infection-more-protective-than-vaccination-during-delta-surge-us-2022-01-19/ https://www.oregonlive.com/coronavirus/2021/12/covid-19-infection-after-vaccine-gives-super-immunity-study-indicates.html Okay, fair point with Omicron, but it's about booster not about the vaccine isn't it? And secondly - my case is very different anyway, i was infected at least 3 times before the vaccination, not after. It's better to wait until "additional future recommendations for vaccine doses" are done. Cause I'm also concerned about the Pritzer guy and what he told during the public podcast on the vaccine topics. Sure, there is a chance he's just not a good speaker, but still...you need only so much doubts On January 25 2022 09:01 BlackJack wrote: It's kind of old news, mate. We've known for a while that previous COVID infection provides pretty good protection from subsequent COVID infection and better protection than just being vaccinated without previous infection. The question you're asking is should we coerce people into getting vaccinated if they've had previous COVID infection. Different countries have answered it differently. Some have allowed for previous infection to qualify for their vaccine passport system. In the US you get no credit for previous infection. I think it's reasonable to conclude that it's a matter of bureaucracy. It's just easier to have an across-the-board "everyone get vaxxed" policy then it is to try to confirm who did or didn't have COVID. This policy is something hard to accept, I understand that this is the easiest path, but it also does not look like the best either. Here in Ukraine we got the same narrative - everyone should get a shot. A huge overkill. And it seems like in general we're underestimating the power of the natural immune system IF it performs well enough. Looks like a bit of ingnorance to me. To be frank it's still hard to imagine that such a developed and scientifically saturated country as the US has no recognition of this natural defense mechanism that developed for millions of years. Could be a a matter of bureaucracy - sure, that looks very possible, at least this is something possible to correct over time if approached properly | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24390 Posts
To take say, a welfare system. Most people would, in an ideal world, not want people taking advantage of the system, but offering provision for people with even very short term problems that need help, etc. It is just easier to administer in a more crude way than verify any individual applicants circumstances properly, because the cost to doing so would require a huge ramping up in administrative costs and hours. You’ll get people fraudulently claiming and living off the government dime, and some in genuine need falling through cracks, because a perfect system would cost too much. Moving forwards perhaps tweaks can be made, but as it stands there’s the big problem of verifying who’s actually got Covid. If it’s self-reporting well, that’s absolutely ripe for abuse by those who just want their immunity pass. If medical practitioners have to verify that adds to the strain on medical services, and I mean ideally you don’t want especially symptomatic Covid sufferers outside of their own environments. Then there’s past infections. Even if the system is changed there’s no way to retroactively verify those after a certain point Id imagine. These aren’t intractable problems and could be eventually incorporated moving forwards, but that’s the main obstacle for me looking at it now. Finally regardless it still is of benefit to get vaccinated in basically every way, I would assume they don’t wish to give out messaging that would counteract that. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
