The Djoker: Nole or Novax?

[alai]

https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/07/novak-djokovic-the-tennis-superstar-the-anti-vaxxer-the-nationalist

"Discuss."

I'll confess to feeling slightly conflicted between a self-serving woo-spouting drongo (to culturally appropriate a term), and a government with alarmingly authoritarian tendencies on the populist-nationalist "secure our borders! (and human rights be darned)" tendencies.  Isn't a shame they can't both lose?  I feel confident you lot will eradicate all nuance or mixed feelings, though!

[TheDrake]

HI! I'm a rich privileged ahole who play tennis real good. My lawyers apparently suck, or I'm trying to cheat the system. Double fault. Get the jab, or show easily that it is medically inadvisable, or just stay the F out of Australia.

[rightleft22]

Most of the anti vaxxers I know are also Rule of Law defenders as in the Law is the Law that is when they agree with the law... so maybe not really

[Fenring]

Most of the anti vaxxers I know are also Rule of Law defenders as in the Law is the Law that is when they agree with the law... so maybe not really

From his public statements, he's not so much an anti-vaxxer as a narcissistic lunatic. He believes something to the effect that "the human body is built to resist infection", as in, he is mighty and it cannot harm him. It's not so much a political belief as a belief in his own godhood.

[TheDrake]

Yeah, the "I trust my immune system" crowd is littering graveyards with their foolish carcasses. Go ahead and take some Zinc, but that still doesn't get you into Australia.

Funny how they don't trust their fabulous bodies to fight off any effects of the vaccination.

[alai]

From his public statements, he's not so much an anti-vaxxer as a narcissistic lunatic.

I'm not really hearing the difference.  Two grate things that go grate together, at the very least.

He believes something to the effect that "the human body is built to resist infection", as in, he is mighty and it cannot harm him. It's not so much a political belief as a belief in his own godhood.

Again, this is pretty standard fare.  An entry-level covid-anti-vax talking point is to bang on about how vaccination "discards" natural immunity (which doesn't make a lick of sense), and to compare the "efficacy" of the immune system (measured as 100%-the IFR) vs the "efficacy" of the vaccines (measured as the improvement in infection, hospitalisation, intensive care, or death rates), as if those were like for like.  "Immune system 99.99999% effective, vaccines 50% effective, therefore you'd be crazy to get vaccinated!"

This is to be slightly unfair by association to ND, as he's been relatively quiet on the basis for opposition to his personally being vaccinated, leaving us to infer from his other nutty "West Coast Wellness via Eastern European nationalism" beliefs.

[rightleft22]

Most of the anti vaxxers I know are also Rule of Law defenders as in the Law is the Law that is when they agree with the law... so maybe not really

From his public statements, he's not so much an anti-vaxxer as a narcissistic lunatic. He believes something to the effect that "the human body is built to resist infection", as in, he is mighty and it cannot harm him. It's not so much a political belief as a belief in his own godhood.

The anit-vaxxers I know tend to fall into two groups. Those that object because well government and freedom and those that are all organic, holistic... Both groups have distrust in common, government, science, and or corporations can't be trusted. Their is also, I think, a perspective that the individual needs outweighs any notation of the social contract as in avoiding paying to much attention to how thier actions might impact others  Kind of like that driver so confident in thier superior ability races along the highway never noticing the damage they cause behind them.  The rules of the road are to keep those of lessor ability safe not for those of superior ability...

 I'm talking about some of the most compassionate caring people I know that at the same time don't realize they are leaning into this 'godhood' belief that they will be fine and so will cause no problem for others.

[alai]

Funny how they don't trust their fabulous bodies to fight off any effects of the vaccination.

Apparently zinc supplements, Pfizer-manufactured vitamin D, and catching covid-19 are all "natural", and thus on the good side of the house, whereas the vaccines aren't.  Don't ask me how that works, I don't make the rules, I just report them!

Get the jab, or show easily that it is medically inadvisable, [...]

He seems to have missed the latter by that much!  Recent infection does seem to be a basis in Australian federal immigration law.  OK, don't quote me: there seems to have been some back-and-forth between the State of Victoria and the feds on that.  But by way of how he's framed that bare fact, he's inhaled a vast amount of helium to reduce his overall credibility:

• He's initially neither jabbed nor recently infected;
• then he applies for a visa requiring one or the other;
• then the medical-exemption deadline expires;
• then he gets infected -- supposedly -- and tests positive;
• then immediately afterwards he makes a whole slew of undistanced and unmasked public appearances;
• then "his staff" fill in the border paperwork incorrectly "inadvertently".

Had he arranged his pox-party in October (say), and subsequently actually followed the local procedures in each of the various jurisdictions he was jetting through (medical isolation, truthful declarations on all paperwork, etc), in theory his no-vax plan might have worked.  Except of course for the "godlike" power of the Australian minister (as the Guardian put it) to whimsically deport anyone they like, because that's what racist voters really like.  So maybe not.

If we want to cast Nasturtiums at some Australians, we might look at the Victorian government and the Open organisers for seemingly bending some procedures in Đoković's favour, and then having that rebound in their faces.  Or the national government, by having a notionally hard line, falling asleep at the switch entirely while all this unfolded, and then starting awake to take dramatic action at the very last moment.

[alai]

The anit-vaxxers I know tend to fall into two groups. Those that object because well government and freedom and those that are all organic, holistic... Both groups have distrust in common, government, science, and or corporations can't be trusted.

That's not necessarily two distinct groups.  I realize that in in demographic-targeting terms they seem that way -- TV dinners and Fox News vs avocado toast and instagram -- though look at the organic-only QAnon Shaman.  Takes all sorts to ruin the world.  But the thinking is fundamentally similar in several ways.  How do you get from "medical science says it's in your personal interest to take this" from "it's not in my interest to take this"?  It's some combination of "global government conspiracy lying to us", "science is fake anyway" and "that might be true for tubby old sick genetically weak Dorito-eaters, but I'm the exception somehow because reasons".

Their is also, I think, a perspective that the individual needs outweighs any notation of the social contract as in avoiding paying to much attention to how thier actions might impact others

If you only get as far as "but I won't get sick" part, then in a sense this becomes moot.  Sprinkle on a mixture of "magical thinking", "not thinking ahead", and "not thinking at all" to the "thinking only of oneself", and there we are.

[rightleft22]

That's not necessarily two distinct groups

My grouping is based on my conversations which politically tend towards Far right and Far left arguments . But your right when you go far enough right and far enough left you meet in the middle and the arguments are the same, even if approached differently.  Freedom = doing what I want and distrust of science and goverment.

[alai]

The standard "horseshoe" tends to be an authoritarian one.  Look at the Chinese "Communist" Party:  extreme state enforcement of an oligarchy running things on hardline nationalist lines, with some pretty merciless capitalism.

But yeah, I suppose there's a left-anarchist/right-libertarian horseshoe of sorts, albeit sketchier due to lack of large-scale examples of either in a sufficiently "pure" form of their adherents.  But when they're just throwing out crap about how governments are trying to microchip you, and so on, no need to get hung up on things like extensive property rights, yadda.

[ScottF]

Yeah, the "I trust my immune system" crowd is littering graveyards with their foolish carcasses. Go ahead and take some Zinc, but that still doesn't get you into Australia.

Funny how they don't trust their fabulous bodies to fight off any effects of the vaccination.

Hogwash. "I trust my immune system" now most likely encompasses hundreds of millions of people (knowingly or not), the VAST majority whose immune systems have proved highly worthy of that trust. Unless you simply don't believe in IFR data?

Is the person with multiple comorbidities (e.g. ~4, the average number for people who tend to be truly at risk from covid) who says "I trust my immune system" an idiot? Yes. If that's what you meant, then we agree those are likely your "littering graveyards" people.

Should a world-class athlete with zero comorbidities have the hubris to trust his immune system? Apparently not, according to Pfizer punch card fans. Or are we back to the "it's not about you, it's about grandma" once again? Update: grandma's on booster #4 and likely to get it from the vax'd people all around her anyway.

[TheDeamon]

Most of the anti vaxxers I know are also Rule of Law defenders as in the Law is the Law that is when they agree with the law... so maybe not really

I didn't realize you were taking talking points from the Chinese Communist Party. They're really big on the idea of Ruling by LawRule of Law lately.

Except that isn't the premise that the United States abides by. There is that whole "consent of the governed" aspect of it, where immoral laws are immoral laws, and as such shouldn't be obeyed.

Yes, "the Law is the Law" but only so far as it is considered to be a just and moral one.

[rightleft22]

Most of the anti vaxxers I know are also Rule of Law defenders as in the Law is the Law that is when they agree with the law... so maybe not really

I didn't realize you were taking talking points from the Chinese Communist Party. They're really big on the idea of Ruling by LawRule of Law lately.

Except that isn't the premise that the United States abides by. There is that whole "consent of the governed" aspect of it, where immoral laws are immoral laws, and as such shouldn't be obeyed.

Yes, "the Law is the Law" but only so far as it is considered to be a just and moral one.

That's not how its being debated.
The same person in one moment will argue the 'Law is the Law and in the next that the Law is not the Law when they find the law in question doesn't suit their agenda.

One might hope that Immoral laws are addressed via a process within the law. I don't see that happening when the minor gets to overrule the majority via the process.

I obey only the laws I agree with  can't see how that might end badly...

[Fenring]

"I trust my immune system" now most likely encompasses hundreds of millions of people (knowingly or not), the VAST majority whose immune systems have proved highly worthy of that trust. Unless you simply don't believe in IFR data?

Yeah but this is a shifting goalpost issue. Someone says "I trust my immune system and don't need a vaccine", and to them it probably means they either won't get sick, or maybe if they do they'll get over it. But there is an enormous gulf between "I won't get it" and "it won't kill me". In fact in a kind of inhuman and statistical way, we don't actually care if it kills them or not, what we care about is whether they are going to be plaguebearers and give it to others, especially the infirm. And the devil of the thing is you're contagious prior to symptoms, so you won't know if you're infecting others whether or not your immune system is in fact good. The enormous gulf is what separates the "I'll be fine and don't care about anything else" self-centered attitude from the "I won't harm anyone else" idea. People who 'trust' their immune system are either lying about or else don't understand the difference between these. Anyone who thinks they won't harm anyone else is delusional, because if you are near Omicron you are getting it. There is no maybe. And you are infecting anyone near you when you have it. Whether it kills you or not...who cares. It's past the point where it matters at that point.

So people who think their immune system is invulnerable to viruses, are suffering from a bona fide delusion, the likes of which history may have never seen. It's certainly not a traditional outlook that old-timers can't shake. Back in the day I think people understood that everone gets all kinds of plagues. In Shakespeare's time there were, I think, 5-6 major plagues going around London at all times (of which The Plague was just one). I imagine back then people understood sometimes your number is just up. They got out of town in summer time when it was flaring. Sometimes you can't do anything about it. With Omicron I think we're getting near the 'we can't do anything about it' point in terms of everyone getting it, but as many have mentioned the vaccines mitigate damage and infectiousness. Now for those who are well aware that they will infect others, but feel confident that at least they won't die, well let's just say I don't have much sympathy for that way of looking at it. I assume this latter type isn't the sort you're kind of defending?

[Grant]

I didn't realize you were taking talking points from the Chinese Communist Party. They're really big on the idea of Ruling by LawRule of Law lately.

Except that isn't the premise that the United States abides by. There is that whole "consent of the governed" aspect of it, where immoral laws are immoral laws, and as such shouldn't be obeyed.

Yes, "the Law is the Law" but only so far as it is considered to be a just and moral one.

Wut? 

I mean, who gets to decide which laws are immoral?  To what degree?  Careful where you tread.  "The consent of the governed" is easily conflated. 

[NobleHunter]

And in this particular case he consented by showing up in the country and seeking legal recognition of his presence.

[TheDeamon]

And in this particular case he consented by showing up in the country and seeking legal recognition of his presence.

This particular case (Djokovic) is not:

Most of the anti vaxxers I know are also Rule of Law defenders as in the Law is the Law that is when they agree with the law... so maybe not really

Unless you're suggesting rightleft personally knows Djokovic? 

[NobleHunter]

Topic drift (-.-)

[alai]

Unless you simply don't believe in IFR data?

Is the person with multiple comorbidities (e.g. ~4, the average number for people who tend to be truly at risk from covid) who says "I trust my immune system" an idiot?

What's the IFR threshold for "truly at risk"?  Because you keep saying -- logically and statistically hand-waving, and very standard-talking-pointish -- things like this, without any meaningful quantification, much less quantification.  Offhand I'd say there's been quite a few "not truly at risk" covid deaths these past two years, if we take that to mean all those with three or fewer co-morbidities.  Though I confess I don't have the exact number to hand, and given the obvious bait and switch here, amn't going to waste too much time trying to get a decent estimate on spec.

Should a world-class athlete with zero comorbidities have the hubris to trust his immune system?

I probably would bet on his immune system in this case, as he's evidently is going for the "annual reinfection" tactic, rather than the "annual booster" one.  Close enough for jazz, or maybe even better, depending which studies on that you're inclined to trust more.

Given his world-class bank account, and as I just pointed out, he could have shown even greater such confidence, gone full Del Bigtree (or indeed in the manner of Boris Johnson's reported "inject me live on TV with covid" plan), taken a little more care not to flout the various laws and documentation standards laws of several countries he's recently been a non-resident visitor to, and been good to go.  That part's entirely up to him.  Or that he just can't get the staff these days, apparently.

Want to personally experience the joys of Salmonella enterica?  Your body, your choice.  Want to be Typhoid Mary?  Check local public health laws for details on that.  Want to model that behaviour for others?  Don't be shocked if the commentary on that involves some pushback.

[ScottF]

"I trust my immune system" now most likely encompasses hundreds of millions of people (knowingly or not), the VAST majority whose immune systems have proved highly worthy of that trust. Unless you simply don't believe in IFR data?

So people who think their immune system is invulnerable to viruses, are suffering from a bona fide delusion, the likes of which history may have never seen.

I've never met one of these people, do they actually exist in any numbers? I agree there's a huge difference between "I'm invulnerable" and "I'll probably handle it just fine".

[ScottF]

"I trust my immune system" now most likely encompasses hundreds of millions of people (knowingly or not), the VAST majority whose immune systems have proved highly worthy of that trust. Unless you simply don't believe in IFR data?

With Omicron I think we're getting near the 'we can't do anything about it' point in terms of everyone getting it, but as many have mentioned the vaccines mitigate damage and infectiousness.

It's a coronavirus just like the cold, which most adults get 2-5 times per year on average. Except it's much more virulent so yeah - we're all getting it. The idea someone can dodge the omicron flavour indefinitely is silly.

Damage mitigation (I assume you mean illness severity?) appears to be bearing out conclusively in the data. I remain skeptical about any evidence around infectiousness.

Even if it was conclusively proven that there were not significant differences in transmissibility between vax'd and unvax'd, I suspect many would continue to insist on mandates.

[Fenring]

I've never met one of these people, do they actually exist in any numbers? I agree there's a huge difference between "I'm invulnerable" and "I'll probably handle it just fine".

Most people aren't as overtly maniacal as Djoker, thinking they can literally athletic away the virus. Instead they think the mushy 'I'll probably handle it' thing which is in fact a mushy non-thought, just an empty phrase. Because 'I'll handle it' is a phrase devoid of any actual context: does it mean you and you alone will handle it and to hell with anyone else who is weak, or does it mean you'll be able to prevent infecting others? I doubt most people break it down in this way to figure out what they mean by it. It's probably often something a little more commonplace, like just not wanting to have to deal with the situation, rather than being a calculated decision. But obviously while that's a position it's not an argument. But what I was getting at in my last post is that for someone who doesn't want to deal with it and just wants to be left alone, they are implicitly either certain they are individually powerful enough to withstand the puny virus, or else just don't really care enough to bother trying to protect others. There is really no third option. And hey, I'm totally against making stupid rules that don't help just as a public show of doing something. I'm also sympathetic to the idea of just relaxing if you actually know there's nothing more you can do. But if there is something more you can do and don't do it...how much do you care, really? Even if the vaccine only maybe helps yourself and others, that's not worth it? It's not a major procedure. I would agree that the false dilemma between mass vaccination and lockdowns doesn't help the situation. You can end up with a sort of Stockholme Syndrome where out of fear of more government 'reprisals' you'll do anything and make anyone else do anything to make it stop. Just do what they say and maybe they'll leave us alone. And I do think that's happening. But that's a separate issue from the fact that this virus is representing a major problem for business, families, and life in general.

Anyhow, the offender in this thread is guilty not so much of thoughtcrime as of literal crime. The issue is that he lied to the Australian immigration authorities in multiple ways, and he's quite possibly lucky to only be deported for it. Australia has had very serious immigration policies since the start of this thing. Americans should sympathize: if you mess around with customs and immigration in the U.S. at all, which possibly includes simply wearing sunglasses at a land border crossing or having long hair, they can deny you entry permanently, no court intervention needed. Lying to them about immigration matters that pertain to any sort of national security or health policy could land you in a cell immediately. So this guy not only thought he was above catching the virus, but also thought he was above the law in Australia.

[alai]

It's a coronavirus just like the cold, which most adults get 2-5 times per year on average.

One could stare in quantifiers and connective to make this true, but as stated it's rather vague, misleading, and frankly Bigtree-adjacent.  Most colds aren't caused by coronaviruses.  Several coronavirus species (four IIRC, out of hundreds of "cold virus" species, much less strains, varieties, etc, from multiple different families, some of them wildly unrelated) do, a couple cause much more serious disease, and many infect hosts other than humans.

Damage mitigation (I assume you mean illness severity?) appears to be bearing out conclusively in the data. I remain skeptical about any evidence around infectiousness.

Even if it was conclusively proven that there were not significant differences in transmissibility between vax'd and unvax'd, I suspect many would continue to insist on mandates.

Evidence looks pretty strong to me.  It varies by vaccine, dosing regime, and of course by variant (we're still using using "wild type" vaccines, while the of-concerns are over halfway through the Greek alphabet) etc, but it's too large an effect with too small error bars to just 'I feel skeptical' it away.

What certainly seems to be true is that it won't be possible to vaccinate to "zero covid" population immunity.  Probably isn't possible to immunity-from-infection there either.  It's more a matter of what the glide path to "seasonal" and "endemic" looks like.

There would of course possibly be arguments for "mandates" (of some sort, the term clearly covers a lot of ground from near-compulsion to mild restrictions and incentives) in some circumstances even if there were no such benefit on transmission.  Specifically if it were likely to make the difference between healthcare systems able to cope, and not.  Now of course what "coping" looks like may also be susceptible to subjective redefinition in some quarters.  Insufficient health-insurance coverage considered as a co-morbidity...

[Fenring]

Specifically if it were likely to make the difference between healthcare systems able to cope, and not.  Now of course what "coping" looks like may also be susceptible to subjective redefinition in some quarters.

Actually this I disagree with. I think it's been one of the greatest scandals of the whole covid period, tbh. The claim made over and over is that hospitals will be overwhelmed, we need lockdowns to stem the tide (but not prevent anything), not enough hospital beds, etc. This is an area where China makes the U.S. just look plain stupid. I doubt it's even been calculated how much (a) government money, and (b) private sector monies have been expended coping with this whole situation. Having a lockdown probably costs the economy billions, right? That's probably a lowball figure. Maybe it's tens or hundreds of billions nation-wide. The government spends tons of money on all sorts of things in response, right? Well hypothetically if they had spent it all on, say, hospital beds (or new hospital units outright like China did) instead of on lockdowns things would be very different. It's not even 100% clear to me that public austerity measures did that much. I feel like the virus runs its course either way. So the 'trying to prevent it getting us' mentality has probably cost way more than just slamming down cash for hospitals and care works straight-up. Not that there is any one-stop solution, but I find the whole 'not enough hospital beds' argument really pathetic.

[alai]

Instead they think the mushy 'I'll probably handle it' thing which is in fact a mushy non-thought, just an empty phrase. Because 'I'll handle it' is a phrase devoid of any actual context: does it mean you and you alone will handle it and to hell with anyone else who is weak, or does it mean you'll be able to prevent infecting others?

"Probably" is also a very weak threshold.  You have to be pretty "co-morbid" to have an IFR of worse than 50%, much less wherever that usefully vague dodge-phrase "truly at risk" might be intended to suggest.  (10%?  1%?  0.1%?  0.01%?)

Of course, it's also closer to how people actually intuit risk.  There's not fine-tuneable levels of concern exactly in line with risk, especially in relating it to other risks.  Hence in a way people do tend to round off to linguistic hedges like "truly concerned", "I'll be fine", and so on. What's a little sinister is when people purport to make those determinations for others, and turn them into narratives and talking points.  Don't worry unless your face is full of Doritos right now, and so on.  You wouldn't want to admit to such weakness, right?  So go out and breathe on a stranger and lick a co-worker.

I would agree that the false dilemma between mass vaccination and lockdowns doesn't help the situation.

Sure, it's less of a dichotomy, and more of a fuzzy trilemma.  Vaccination, non-pharma public health interventions, and amount of disease.  Pick your preferred value of any two, and the virus will happily -- nay, insistently -- determine the third for you.

The issue is that he lied to the Australian immigration authorities in multiple ways, and he's quite possibly lucky to only be deported for it. Australia has had very serious immigration policies since the start of this thing.

I think his actual alleged possible crimes have mostly been elsewhere, but I wouldn't neglect the possibility that "staff inadvertently ticked the wrong box" might get you semi-permanently marooned on a tropical dependency either.  But bear in mind that "only deported" also involves an automatic three-year ban on entry.

It might be worthwhile explicitly distinguishing the two Antipodes on immigration.  New Zealand went from having fairly unremarkable immigration policies, to having an eye-wateringly strict 'zero covid' ones.  Whereas Australia went from having a notoriously strict (and pretty rule-by-decree, as far as ministerial powers go) regime on 'keep out all the poor brown people' lines, to slightly pandemic retheming it.  Much more effective than Trump's vaguely similar wheeze, but not all that different in conception.

So this guy not only thought he was above catching the virus, but also thought he was above the law in Australia.

And in Spain, and in Serbia...

[TheDrake]

Ordered my 4 tests from covidtests.gov. Soon to get my free N95 masks when those come up. Here's hoping conservatives don't order them just to burn them.

I'm wondering if cherry will think Biden has redeemed himself from his error on vaccinated mask elimination now that he's making millions of quality masks available. Or if a non-binding advisory statement that lasted a couple of months is still bad enough to outweigh all the policies and actions since then?

[alai]

Actually this I disagree with. I think it's been one of the greatest scandals of the whole covid period, tbh. The claim made over and over is that hospitals will be overwhelmed, we need lockdowns to stem the tide (but not prevent anything), not enough hospital beds, etc.

Note I said "if"!  Not that this was likely to happen at present, or hopefully not in the foreseeable future, touch wood, or anything about to what degree it's happened to date.

This is an area where China makes the U.S. just look plain stupid. I doubt it's even been calculated how much (a) government money, and (b) private sector monies have been expended coping with this whole situation. Having a lockdown probably costs the economy billions, right?

Bear in mind that China had one heck of a lockdown.  One with actual literal locks in some cases, come to that.  Their particular solution was led by a draconian version of that, with the capacity-extension decidedly secondary to that, and a rather mediocre vaccine programme bringing up the rear.

The trouble with "more hospitals" approach is that it's pretty hard to do, other than in a command economy, and a pandemic in geometric growth is apt to swat it rapidly aside.  You have to build and staff the extra beds one at a time, but if your cases are doubling every few days, arbitrarily large amounts can be soaked up very rapidly.  Hence the whole "flattening the curve" narrative.

I feel like the virus runs its course either way. So the 'trying to prevent it getting us' mentality has probably cost way more than just slamming down cash for hospitals and care works straight-up.

This was the UK government's (alleged though subsequently denied) approach;  "cocoon the vulnerable", and get to herd immunity quickly by letting it rip through the rest of the population.  The maths on that didn't work out in practice, so there was a rapid change of plan, followed by an even more rapid denial that any of that ever happened. Though critics of OMG SOCIALISED MEDICINE will want to point out that the UK doesn't have a great level of spare capacity, so the USA was better off in that (and maybe a couple of other ways).  But again, geometric growth:  if it's entirely controlled, it could overwhelm any feasible amount of capacity.

So sure, it will run its course either way, and if you only got asymptomatic, mild or moderate disease, it makes no real difference to you if you get it sooner rather than later.  But if a huge number of people all need ICU care or hospitalisation at the same time, and that exceeds capacity, then their outcomes are necessarily going to be worsened.  Not to mention the displacement of other healthcare in the process.

Conversely of course, there can be cases where you'd like the disease to "run hot" for the same reason.  If it's become largely winter-seasonal (no, hold my beer, says Florida, "seasonal" means four spikes per year!) then if you don't have effective vaccines, or you can't get people to take 'em, then from a long-term public health point of view you'd actually like to have more disease in the summer, so there's higher levels of acquired immunity come the peak.  So ObDjoker, things like the Adria Tour super-spreader event could in theory be good things!

[Fenring]

Actually this I disagree with. I think it's been one of the greatest scandals of the whole covid period, tbh. The claim made over and over is that hospitals will be overwhelmed, we need lockdowns to stem the tide (but not prevent anything), not enough hospital beds, etc.

Note I said "if"!  Not that this was likely to happen at present, or hopefully not in the foreseeable future, touch wood, or anything about to what degree it's happened to date.

Yes but the "if" is an unnecessary hedge word, because in reality this *was* the argument made. So it doesn't matter whether in fact the medical services would have been overwhelmed, much of the public policy in the active do-something regions were based on alleviating the influx of patients. It's immaterial at that point whether or not it would have happened as they said, my point is that whether or not it would have been borne out in reality it wasn't IMO the correct choice either way. The "lock everyone down" approach in the attempt to halt the virus (which has since proved to be impossible regardless of what some people say) has multiple weak points, which include among others that (a) everyone suffers for sure to prevent some people suffering maybe, and (b) tacit threats against the sick on the grounds that they're taking away resources from everyone else, when in fact those resources could have been expanded with cash on the nail, which was spent anyone but just on other things. It's only hard to do if there is a lack of political will do do grand things. If that's so then it's a strike against the political system. In extremis a government needs to be flexible and adaptable.

Bear in mind that China had one heck of a lockdown.  One with actual literal locks in some cases, come to that.  Their particular solution was led by a draconian version of that, with the capacity-extension decidedly secondary to that, and a rather mediocre vaccine programme bringing up the rear.

The trouble with "more hospitals" approach is that it's pretty hard to do, other than in a command economy, and a pandemic in geometric growth is apt to swat it rapidly aside.  You have to build and staff the extra beds one at a time, but if your cases are doubling every few days, arbitrarily large amounts can be soaked up very rapidly.  Hence the whole "flattening the curve" narrative.

China had other problems beyond being the nexus of the initial spread, which includes among other things a much greater income disparity and rich-poor population spread. So it's apples to oranges if you want to compare directly. I mentioned them only because their political system at minimum affords them the option in the first place to just make a decision to do something expansive and get it done quickly. I would personally call bureaucracy (in the spirit of Frank Herbert) to be a significant danger to an ability to govern well. Heaven forbid the government should do something that would cause people to exclaim "wow! that's great what they're doing, they're really getting things done." Ironically the 'do-something' solutions based in lapses of logic don't arouse much inspiration that the government is doing something useful, mainly because they're not useful. It's sort of funny how that works out.

[TheDrake]

And it was pretty clear that we've been on a trajectory of running out of hospital beds and have run out of beds. Elective procedures have been cancelled, patients have been stacked up in hallways. And that's with lockdown measures. That's with all of the measures we've taken.

Yes, I suppose we could have taken over a bunch of buildings and converted them to hospitals. Or set up field hospitals like they did in 1918. Convalesce in the great outdoors! It has also been very regional, so while some hospitals built out emergency wings that got used, there's the footage people like to throw around about the ones that got built and stayed empty. OHO! People say, every time we build excess capacity it never fills up, therefore we never needed them! So building a bunch of hospitals and then not needing some of them would have stoked the "covid isn't real" crowd with furious anger - not that they wouldn't have found something else to piss them off.

Building more hospital capacity would have been an even bigger political nonstarter, can anybody really picture Trump and the Republican Senate passing a hospital infrastructure bill? And as alai points out, there's no clear way to staff them when there are already staffing shortages. Nothing short term, anyway.

[alai]

Yes but the "if" is an unnecessary hedge word, because in reality this *was* the argument made.

It really isn't.  It's not a hedge, it's the very essence of the proposition I made.  My point is that "A contingently implies B".  You're saying "but not A".  You're also drifting us well off hypothetical vaccine mandates for hypothetical vaccines that don't affect infection and transmission rates, and back onto rehashing non-pharma measures designed to address a potential (and at times and places pretty much actual -- remember Northern Italy and New York in early 2020?) similar situations.

It's immaterial at that point whether or not it would have happened as they said, my point is that whether or not it would have been borne out in reality it wasn't IMO the correct choice either way.

It's very material.  If you have more severe and critical cases in need of hospitalisation than you can hospitalise, things very quickly start to look very grim indeed.  Especially if you're on the one hand trying to massively expand the capacity of healthcare, while putting all the healthcare workers you're conjuring up to do this in a terrible psychological and ethical position.  Hard to put the effect of that into strictly economic terms, though those would hardly have been great either.

So it's apples to oranges if you want to compare directly.

You're making my point for me.  China wasn't the West with more hospital beds, thus it's a very poor argument in favour of 'you could have fixed the problem with more hospital beds'.

[TheDeamon]

Specifically if it were likely to make the difference between healthcare systems able to cope, and not.  Now of course what "coping" looks like may also be susceptible to subjective redefinition in some quarters.

Actually this I disagree with. I think it's been one of the greatest scandals of the whole covid period, tbh. The claim made over and over is that hospitals will be overwhelmed, we need lockdowns to stem the tide (but not prevent anything), not enough hospital beds, etc. This is an area where China makes the U.S. just look plain stupid. I doubt it's even been calculated how much (a) government money, and (b) private sector monies have been expended coping with this whole situation. Having a lockdown probably costs the economy billions, right? That's probably a lowball figure. Maybe it's tens or hundreds of billions nation-wide. The government spends tons of money on all sorts of things in response, right? Well hypothetically if they had spent it all on, say, hospital beds (or new hospital units outright like China did) instead of on lockdowns things would be very different. It's not even 100% clear to me that public austerity measures did that much. I feel like the virus runs its course either way. So the 'trying to prevent it getting us' mentality has probably cost way more than just slamming down cash for hospitals and care works straight-up. Not that there is any one-stop solution, but I find the whole 'not enough hospital beds' argument really pathetic.

"Funny thing" about this is that despite China having built all that capacity, they're still carrying out the most draconic and extensive Covid19 lockdowns of any nation on the planet that we're able to get any information on. And even they are having problems with omicron. (I guess their "superior covid19 vaccine" (sinovac) isn't all its cracked up to be)

On the American front, we probably could build the beds and ICU units. But if you've been paying attention to the news lately, the larger limiting factor the US is contending with is we don't have the trained personnel to staff those new ICU units.

[rightleft22]

In my area at the start of 2020 thier were 100 ICU beds, by 2021 200 beds were 'available'.
At the peek of Delta 168 of those beds were in use. (People in the ICU with corvid + due to corvid.) 
It has taken months to bring the number of those in the ICU down - Currently at 68 (and climbing again  
Add the number of people in hospital not in the ICU but with corvid and due to corvid... and one can imagine how stressed the system got and is in.

The nurses I know in the high impacted areas were/are exhausted.

[alai]

"Funny thing" about this is that despite China having built all that capacity, they're still carrying out the most draconic and extensive Covid19 lockdowns of any nation on the planet that we're able to get any information on.

Actually it's been very off-again/on-again.  They'd pretty much "zero covid'd" the entire country -- yes, it is possible, you just either have to be 2,000km from everywhere else (*waves to Hobbiton in the distance!*) or an authoritarian police state.  But obviously then you still have a relatively immune-naive population, that's susceptible to re-importation of infection from elsewhere.  Think "China sent us the virus!" political slogans play well to nationalist sentiment in America and elsewhere?  Think how often the Chinese government have been able to reuse it since!  ("Yet another Covid outbreak caused by foolish foreigners and their weak and incompetent governments.  And finally...")

(I guess their "superior covid19 vaccine" (sinovac) isn't all its cracked up to be)

It certainly isn't.  Brazil had early access to it, and Bolsonaro mocked it as "the 50/50 vaccine".  Not that I'm in the habit of approvingly quoting Captain Covid on such matters, but he wasn't entirely wrong there.  And as repeatedly noted, it's exceptionally hard to get to enough population immunity by vaccination alone to actually be a complete brake on transmission.  As in, if you get three doses of the most effective ones into 90% of the population that'd do it...  until the next variant, or for several months until antibody levels drop.

On the American front, we probably could build the beds and ICU units. But if you've been paying attention to the news lately, the larger limiting factor the US is contending with is we don't have the trained personnel to staff those new ICU units.

This is the larger limiting factor everywhere.  If you need to be mechanically ventilated, that's obviously an extremely labour-intensive task to keep body and Neoplatonic soul together in that state, and it might be needed for a sustained period of time.  Skilled staff for that aren't in ready supply, and people aren't keen to pay (all of) them top dollar.  Hence a lot of immigration policies worldwide read a lot like, "We don't want none of you filthy for-- ooo, trained doctors and nurses?  Yes please, come on in!"

Demand was high even before this pandemic, and putting high demands on them is also apt to increase stress, workplace illness, and general burnout...

[alai]

I see the BBC is reporting "fresh doubts have emerged" about the timing of his positive covid test.  I don't know why they're "fresh" as such:  still seems to be that the serial numbers are out of chronological whack, which was reported a while ago.  I'm not sure quite why that'd argue for it being fake (granting the obvious suspicion of him having a motivation so to do).  Likewise I'm not clear if it makes any more -- or less -- sense of any of the subsequent events.

[Fenring]

Right, breaking news: his positive test was reported in by Nadal.