coronavirus

[alai]

If 73.6 percent of people are obese or overweight, having 78 percent of them die is within statistical norm, or pretty close.  Nothing out of the ordinary there.

Perfect. Obesity can’t be considered causal if the majority are obese. This will be heartening news to 73.6 percent of everyone.  I’d like a large shake and fries with that.

It's unlikely to be a plausible candidate to be strongly causal, if there's not even evidence of strong correlation.  Were you not in any way struck by the similarity of the two 70-odd-% statistics?  It may still be statistically significant, that's down to sample sizes, any possible sampling biases, and indeed the provenance and reliability of the data, of course.

I think it's been widely reported obesity is a risk factor.  Mind you, another risk factor is people engaging in woolly thinking and reckless behaviour on the basis of 'othering' the danger of the disease.  "Oh, it's only people older/in less-developed countries/from different ethnic groups/fatter than me that're getting hospitalised, I'll be grand."  I think Del Bigtree's narrative is that living in a Doritos-free household is pretty much a guarantee of full covid recovery, insofar as I understood it...

[alai]

Now for people who just won't get the Covid vaccine because it's still only emergency use authorized, what about a flu shot?

I'm seeing conflicting stories about it but I bet there are millions of people who just won't get the Covid vaccine but have no problem with getting a flu vaccine.

Here are a couple of stories with one saying no and one saying yes with regards to the flu shot protecting against Covid.

I'd be very wary of a campaign explicitly advertising it as an "alt-covid shot".  For people than want to opt out of the 5G killswitch, the dangerously experimental gene therapy, etc.

• The research isn't very conclusive;  could be sampling bias or false correlation effect.
• The effect, if true, is pretty modest.  Get your covid-ish shot, 17% effective against dying of covid!

[li]There's messaging confusion possible here.  "I told you it was just the 'flu, see!"
[/li][/list]

But certainly a flu-shot campaign seems very prudent.

• If there's a winter covid surge, it would be a huge pressure on health services to have a simultaneous double seasonal virus threat.
• Influenza might rebound with a vengeance -- immunity declines over time, so there will be a two-year naive population for it to work on.
• Vaccine uptake might need a nudge, through a combination of vaccine misinformation, and "flu has gone away forever" complacency setting in.

On the other hand, such campaigns might have a contrarian effect.  "Bill Gates is trying to microchip us with a different shot now!"

[msquared]

When Gates has already micro chipped you with your phone.

[alai]

[...] even though it's true that leprosy is less contagious than the common cold when the common cold is super contagious that's hardly comforting. The same thing applies with Covid. The vaccinated are less contagious than the unvaccinated but since the unvaccinated are super duper contagious that's small comfort and the vaccinated being less so is not something to really brag about or bet public safety on.

I was immediately compelled to comment on the first sentence here that while the cold is fairly contagious (r = 2 or so), covid "wild type" is (was?) moreso -- r = 3-4.  But you've pretty much covered that with "super duper contagious"!  Though the variants have been successively even moreso, so we might need yet more reduplicative intensifiers for alpha, beta, and especially for delta...

And sadly the vaccines are likely "only" -- churlish to say that, given that they're a miracle of medical science -- somewhere in the ballpark of 50-70% effective against retransmission.  So if delta's r-number if 6-7, then even in a hypothetically 100% vaccinated population, that's still somewhere between "super contagious" and "super duper contagious".  So other public-health measures still needed at that point.  Masks, social distancing, etc.

Obviously the hope is that between additional 'curing' of the inoculation effect, boosters, variant-tailored shots, and immunity from wild infection and exposure, that creeps up to 80-90%.  At which point, pandemic over -- fingers crossed.

[alai]

Except you are wrong.  Many younger people are dying from this disease. Teenagers, young adults, early 30's people with families.

Statistically, young and healthy people are not at risk. Period. Full stop. Show me macro numbers that suggest "many" young healthy people who get Covid are dying and I'll reconsider.

Unless you're trying to be clever by using the word "younger"?

But m^2 expressly said what they meant by "younger", so I don't see why that's "trying to be clever".  Well, at least not in any pejorative sense, beyond kindly using their brain for the sake of clarity for all.  You've said neither what you mean by "young" nor by "many".  Statistically... that's not statistics at all.  If you were planning on waiting until after we dig out 18-39 mortality figures for your perusal, and then telling us "I specifically meant the relative incidence in 14yo's as compared to flu, the international gold standard for 'no risk whatsoever'", I think that'd be more aptly described as "trying to be clever".

So can we skip that part, and could you make your claim in a meaningfully quantifiable way, please?

[TheDrake]

Even if zero "younger healthy people" ever died, it is still morally repugnant for them to be indifferent to the death they spread to people not in their privileged category.

Statistically not that many people die in traffic accidents, but we still fine people for reckless driving. Not because they will injure themselves, but because they will injure the people around them.

[alai]

Even if zero "younger healthy people" ever died, it is still morally repugnant for them to be indifferent to the death they spread to people not in their privileged category.

Statistically not that many people die in traffic accidents, but we still fine people for reckless driving. Not because they will injure themselves, but because they will injure the people around them.

Yes, I suppose "not that many" as we're using "annual flu deaths" as the "no risk" floor!  If needed we can bump that up progressively until we get to cardiovascular disease...

The difference being the cases being, there's no known -- or medically likely -- side-effects from refraining from reckless driving.  With vaccines (and drugs, and treatment options, and so on), they have to pass through two gates:  the utilitarian one (I can hear the booing and hissing already) of whether there's a contribution to the common good by doing this, and the medical ethics one, which requires it provides some net benefit to the individual being treated.  Hence the abundance of caution of them even being approved for younger age groups, never mind deployed.

But there surely is an "ask what you can do for your country" angle here, yes.  Or for your species, come to that.

[TheDrake]

The net benefit angle is hard to be zero. Even if all it does is prevent the individual from being sick in bed for a couple of days. I could get cheeky and say it also prevents the mental trauma of realizing you killed grandma by hugging her on Thanksgiving.

We don't really question the ethics of a Measles shot, even though exposure is relatively remote. Measles also has similar mortality for kids in a developed country with medical care.

[TheDrake]

Meanwhile almost every house republican bucked against a mask rule for their workplace.

[Wayward Son]

And for once, I think cherry agrees wholehearted with Nancy Pelosi. 

Kevin McCarthy tweeted, "Make no mistake—the threat of bringing masks back is not a decision based on science, but a decision conjured up by liberal government officials who want to continue to live in a perpetual pandemic state."

Pelosi's response, when asked about it:  "He's such a moron." 

She just tells it like it is. Right, cherry?

[Wayward Son]

If 73.6 percent of people are obese or overweight, having 78 percent of them die is within statistical norm, or pretty close.  Nothing out of the ordinary there.

Perfect. Obesity can’t be considered causal if the majority are obese. This will be heartening news to 73.6 percent of everyone.  I’d like a large shake and fries with that.

Although it has been covered better by others, here is what I say I meant.

When the sample has such a large percentage of those in the category, you can't really draw a strong correlation from the results.

I mean, let's say 75 percent of the population was black, and 75 percent of those who died from the Corona virus were black, no one could say that being black meant you were more likely to die from the virus.  It would actually indicate that you had just as good a chance as anyone else, since that is precisely the percentage of blacks you would expect to succumb if race had absolutely no effect.

Same thing here.  If 73.6 percent were overweight or obese, and 78 percent died from the virus, that would not even be 5 percent more than expected (73.6 percent).  Add in other factors (poor, underinsured, suffering from diabetes, etc.) and that could easily negate the extra 5 percent.

So I wanted to see if the study had factored for that, or if it was some dumb politician that just looked at it and said, "Look!  78 percent of obese people died from Covid-19!  It must be going after obese people!" 

I'm sure being obese doesn't help, but it may not be as big a factor as, say, being pregnant.

[LetterRip]

Obesity is not associated with increased mortality according to a meta analysis of risk factors published in Nature,

Obesity is not associated with increased COVID-19-associated mortality. Random effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the likelihood of death in obese vs non-obese COVID-19 patients

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-86694-1

[TheDrake]

Heck if we can just convince the obese people to get vaccinated we'd be set though.

[msquared]

Hey this fat guy is vaxxed.

[TheDrake]

Hey this fat guy is vaxxed.

This fat guy is too! Now we just gotta get the fat guys in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri where cases are ballooning. Maybe they could walk to the clinic and get a little exercise...

[cherrypoptart]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cdc-mask-decision-stunning-findings-cape-cod-beach/story?id=79148102

"Before Provincetown, health officials had been operating under the assumption that it was extraordinarily rare for a vaccinated person to become infected with the virus. And if they did, they probably wouldn't end up passing it on to others, such as children too young to qualify for the vaccine or people who were medically vulnerable.

The idea that vaccines halt transmission of the virus was largely behind the CDC's decision in May suggesting vaccinated people could safely go without their masks indoors and in crowds, even if others were unvaccinated.

But that assumption had been based on studies of earlier versions of the virus. Delta was known for its "hyper-transmissibility," or as one former White House adviser put it "COVID on steroids."

"What has changed is the virus," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert and Biden's chief medical adviser.

When a vaccinated person gets infected with delta -- called a "breakthrough infection" -- "the level of virus in their nasopharynx is about 1,000 times higher than with the alpha variant," Fauci said in an interview Wednesday with MSNBC."

-----------------------------------------------------

So the Pollyannas at the CDC and the White House just succeeded in spreading the delta variant far and wide across America with their premature unmasking which even some random schlub on the internet from a mile away could see was a huge disaster in the making. And these are vaccinated spreading it amongst themselves too and then taking it back to their children and other unvaccinated (and vaccinated too for that matter) people in their households and giving them the virus as well because the CDC assured them that they wouldn't spread it if they'd been vaccinated.

Not wearing masks at the beginning was stupid but maybe people could feign ignorance because we haven't seen a virus like this in a hundred years but to do it right when we were starting to turn the corner after knowing how dangerous the virus is and seeing the delta variant catch fire around the world was a level of stupid that goes way beyond simple ignorance.

"Kevin McCarthy tweeted, "Make no mistake—the threat of bringing masks back is not a decision based on science, but a decision conjured up by liberal government officials who want to continue to live in a perpetual pandemic state."

"Pelosi's response, when asked about it:  "He's such a moron." 

She just tells it like it is. Right, cherry?"

------------------------------------------------

Pelosi is right on masks. She should have been sounding the alarm earlier though about there not being enough information to say it was safe for the vaccinated to go unmasked yet. But both sides are wrong in different ways.

Half of the country doesn't want masks or vaccines and the other half doesn't want to secure the border.

https://news.yahoo.com/ag-urges-texas-governor-rescind-223227558.html

"Abbott claimed the decision, announced on Wednesday, is aimed at preventing the spread of the coronavirus, but the governor has made no move to mandate masks amid the new surge in cases."

So conservatives want to secure the border to fight the virus but say no to masks and vaccines while Democrats want to say yes to vaccines and were too wishy-washy on masks for all until just now when reality smacked them upside the head and for the entirety of the pandemic demand we keep the border spread wide open with no variant being turned away because that's racist. In other words, both sides are up for fighting the virus but in kind of the same way, with half their brains tied behind their backs. Maybe I'm one of the relative few who think we should be fighting this pandemic with every weapon in our arsenal. Instead we have fifth columns on both fronts helping the virus spread one way or another.

[TheDrake]

Are you calling for every border to be closed? Canada? International travel from the EU, Japan, Brazil? Or is that just a vehicle for you to stop travel from central and South America, which on its own wouldn't move the needle?

[cherrypoptart]

I mean y'all keep saying it wouldn't move the needle if we stopped hundreds of thousands of people from just crossing the Southern border at will but that sounds a lot like the Pollyanish views just recently from the White House and the CDC about how it's safe for the vaccinated to take off their masks. It's just assumptions without any common sense behind them. But yeah, I think what we're getting in terms of contribution to the pandemic from the Southern border is contributing more than legal international travel. That's just common sense. The conditions the people coming in here illegally are traveling in are perfect stewing pots for the virus to spread and once they get here apparently they go into a Whataburger knowing they are infected, don't wear masks, and cough and sneeze everywhere without covering their mouths.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/07/29/sister-norma-pimentel-catholic-charities-rio-grande-valley-covid-whataburger-migrant-family/

"Isolated or not, it was the COVID positive status of the family, and their alleged “disregard to other people’s health,” that led to the police department of the small town along the Rio Grande and Mexican border issuing a public health announcement. On July 26 the police department shared details of the incident. They said a concerned citizen at the restaurant waved down an officer. The citizen told him about the family “coughing and sneezing without covering their mouths and not wearing face masks.” Whataburger management also told the officer that they wanted the group to leave as well due to “their disregard to other people’s health.”

In addition to telling the officer that Border Patrol had released them days prior due to their coronavirus status, the family said a charity group had paid for their room at the nearby Texas Inn Hotel. The officer followed up on that information, finding out that Catholic Charities of The Rio Grande Valley had booked all the rooms in the hotel to house undocumented immigrants detained by Border Patrol. He said he saw a group of 20 to 30 people staying at the hotel who were “out and about.” Most of them weren’t wearing masks either, according to the officer."

-----------------------------------------

And these are people who were processed by our government. There are plenty more who never have any contact with an American government official at all.

The border should be secured anyway just as a matter of course. Leaving it open like this and encouraging illegal mass migrations is not only not listening to the science, it's insane.

I never bought it when we were told it was safe for the vaccinated to take off their masks in crowds and I don't buy it that letting millions of people cross our Southern border with an unknown number never even getting stopped for so much as a how do you do hasn't moved the needle and isn't moving the needle now.

There are also the optics. Leaving the border open and inviting mass migration during a pandemic tells conservatives that Democrats don't really take the pandemic seriously so they figure it's all nonsense and I can't blame them really. Democrats aren't taking it seriously when the border is left open like it is and we're talking about mass amnesty that we know encourages mass migration to take advantage of it and the next one everyone knows is coming down the line after this one.

Now for legal international travel, the science says that it should be very limited and when people come in they need to undergo a quarantine and testing just like New Zealand and Australia are doing. We basically just gave up on that which means we gave up on the science and anyone can see that our government, both sides of it on the travel front, isn't taking the pandemic seriously enough and despite their protestations to the contrary is not listening to the science.

And if we want to talk about economics, what are the economics of letting in more dangerous variants like delta? If it wasn't for delta it actually might be safe for the vaccinated to take off their masks in crowds and we wouldn't have gotten the massive spike we just got. Maybe. But delta definitely just set us back big time. And what about the next variant that comes along? We're just rolling the red carpet out for it.

[TheDrake]

Anecdotes anecdotes anecdotes. Show me anything that suggests even one percent of infections have anything to do with illegal crossing. Show me that illegal crossing is any more dangerous than legal travelers, and while you acknowledge that we probably should close international travel in general, that's never your message.

Do you really think that Hotspot states like Arkansas are being fueled by migration?

[cherrypoptart]

There is no way to show anything and there is no proof because our federal government is not only not interested in finding and showing it but even if they did know they'd hide the data for political reasons. The same goes for most of the media. But the principal in science is clear. During a pandemic like this travel restrictions are standard protocol. It may have nothing to do with outbreaks and community transmission in Arkansas or Cape Cod but to think the effect of not just travel but uncontrolled mass migration is insignificant is just wishful thinking.

[cherrypoptart]

As for it being more or less dangerous that's not the issue. It never is. It misses the point entirely just like with crime. It doesn't matter if illegals commit more crimes or kill more people because of drunk driving than Americans do. They don't. But it's not a contest. Every crime committed or death caused or virus spread by illegals is too much because they never should have been allowed here in the first place without proper vetting for criminal records in the case of crime and with health checks along with treatment and quarantining if appropriate in the case of contagious diseases. The Democrat policy of acceptable losses while encouraging illegal activity is unacceptable.

And asylum seekers are a totally different issue. At least there's contact there and a process.

[Crunch]

Anecdotes anecdotes anecdotes. Show me anything that suggests even one percent of infections have anything to do with illegal crossing. Show me that illegal crossing is any more dangerous than legal travelers, and while you acknowledge that we probably should close international travel in general, that's never your message.

Do you really think that Hotspot states like Arkansas are being fueled by migration?

Do you really think shipping people infected with COVID all over the nation does not fuel the spread? Let's apply a little common sense here.

[TheDrake]

Sen. Marco Rubio mocked Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on Thursday for wearing a mask and face shield upon arriving in the Philippines.

"Our @SecDef is vaccinated," Rubio wrote in a tweet alongside a video that showed Austin deplaning. "But he arrives in the Philippines wearing a mask AND a face shield."

"Embarrassing COVID theatre," he continued.

The Philippines requires anyone in public places to wear a mask and a face shield, according to the US Embassy in the Philippines. Some of the people Austin is greeted by in the video are wearing masks and face shields as well.

[Wayward Son]

At least you can be thankful, cherry, that the Republican morons aren't completely in charge now.

Meanwhile, the alternative to the cautious Biden approach is to do nothing. Well, actually, it's to actively resist any and all efforts to control the pandemic. And most members of the Republican party appear to still be committed to that approach. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), for example, appeared on Fox to decree: "I think the Democrats love to instill fear in the hearts of Americans. And I think Americans are really sick of this. They're over it. They're not gonna comply, and you shouldn't comply with any more lockdowns, with any more mandates, none of it." Crenshaw and many of his colleagues also marched through the Capitol building yesterday to protest mask mandates. Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) announced that any of his underlings who plays a role in creating or enforcing mask mandates is at risk of being terminated. Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) signed into law a bill that prohibits vaccine mandates. Republicans in many other states are trying to get similar laws through their state legislatures.

Better half-hearted measures than encouraging, and maybe enforcing, exactly the wrong thing, right?

[cherrypoptart]

Maybe there would be room for a compromise. Democrats go along with securing the border and scrap their plans for amnesty if Republicans go along with masks. Of course, neither will do either and we'll continue to enjoy the worst of all worlds.

If we had secure borders we could be mask free like New Zealand. Trump tried but was called a racist. There's plenty of blame to go around for everyone as every part of our government gathers round America in their typical circular firing squad all weapons pointing toward the middle ground of common sense.

[cherrypoptart]

"Our @SecDef is vaccinated," Rubio wrote in a tweet alongside a video that showed Austin deplaning. "But he arrives in the Philippines wearing a mask AND a face shield."

I guess Rubio didn't get the memo of the vaccines not being particularly effective at stopping the spread of the delta variant.

Of course the CDC pushed people not being likely to spread covid, in fact it being extraordinarily rare, if they were vaccinated even though it was way too early to tell if that was actually true or not, so it's understandable that many are still operating under false assumptions because of the dangerous covid misinformation campaign promulgated by Biden and his CDC until just now about the vaccinated not needing masks anymore.

[LetterRip]

So IgM/IgG antibodies - which are the primary antibody created by vaccines - dwell in the blood.  Other types of antibodies have other targets - IgE in the nose, and IgA in the mucus.  The Delta seems to preferentially stay in the nose, and thus avoids the protection provided by vaccines.  So the vaccine still protects the individual from serious symptoms and death if the virus begins to spread, but it isn't as effective at preventing vaccinated from being carriers since the full immune response isn't triggered as early as with other variants.

I'm curious if an aerosolized vaccine could trigger IgE and IgA antibodies.

[msquared]

Any research on people who have had Covid and been vaxxed as to their defense against re infection from Delta?

[Crunch]

“We can halt the chain of transmission,” Walensky told “CBS This Morning” on Wednesday. “We can do something if we unify together, if we get people vaccinated who are not yet vaccinated, if we mask in the interim, we can halt this in just a matter of a couple of weeks.”

AYFKM? Two weeks to slow the spread again? We're really supposed to believe that bs? Those of you buying this are going through some kind of combination of Stockholm Syndrome and Battered Woman Syndrome. Of course, there are a few of you that got the chubs going just thinking about the power ...

Here's the reality, any institution that uses bribery, coercion, propaganda, and censorship as tactics to force you into desired behaviors, is not focused on public health. It is focused on profit and power. I see you guys, running around with your pseudoscientific horse*censored*, trying to make the case and when it doesn't work on reasonable, intelligent, people you want to use force. It's questionable that this was ever truly about public health but it's now purely about power and money.

[rightleft22]

“We can halt the chain of transmission,” Walensky told “CBS This Morning” on Wednesday. “We can do something if we unify together, if we get people vaccinated who are not yet vaccinated, if we mask in the interim, we can halt this in just a matter of a couple of weeks.”

AYFKM? Two weeks to slow the spread again? We're really supposed to believe that bs? Those of you buying this are going through some kind of combination of Stockholm Syndrome and Battered Woman Syndrome. Of course, there are a few of you that got the chubs going just thinking about the power ...

Here's the reality, any institution that uses bribery, coercion, propaganda, and censorship as tactics to force you into desired behaviors, is not focused on public health. It is focused on profit and power. I see you guys, running around with your pseudoscientific horse*censored*, trying to make the case and when it doesn't work on reasonable, intelligent, people you want to use force. It's questionable that this was ever truly about public health but it's now purely about power and money.

Assuming you believe in the effectiveness of the vaccine and that it is for the common good of everyone to be vaccinated... How would you go about trying to influence people to 'do the right thing' as you see it?
What qualifies as 'Force'?

I remember when wearing a set belt became law. I hated it especially when I got ticketed for not doing so. Or anti smoking laws. Before the laws their were attempts at influencing. When it comes to our own good or the greater good what methods are acceptable?

[ScottF]

Even if zero "younger healthy people" ever died, it is still morally repugnant for them to be indifferent to the death they spread to people not in their privileged category.

Here we agree - it's morally repugnant to be indifferent to death. I believe it's also morally repugnant to force small children to wear masks and distance themselves from each other when the science does not indicate they are significant vectors of this virus's spread. I believe it's morally repugnant to be indifferent tomassive increases in depression, drug overdoses, and suicides due to ineffective policies that appear to have had no material effect. I'm going to assume the folks here are not morally indifferent to those things, they're just ok with it as long as it's for the greater good.

Statistically not that many people die in traffic accidents, but we still fine people for reckless driving. Not because they will injure themselves, but because they will injure the people around them.

I've tried to stop using analogies altogether as I've found they aren't useful for persuasion purposes.

We're not going to be able to vax, mask or distance our way out of this, and it's not simply because of non-compliance.

Everyone will eventually need to get exposed to Covid, just like the flu. Vaccinations and natural immunity will protect the vast majority of people from severe illness, just like the flu. New mutations will happen no matter what but will be less dangerous than the original.

If the above terrifies or angers you, even after seeing how relatively few people get seriously ill after getting Covid, it's going to be a rough ride. The internet, social media and the New Narcissism have morphed a relatively minor pandemic into a bell that can't be unrung.

[Fenring]

I remember when wearing a set belt became law. I hated it especially when I got ticketed for not doing so. Or anti smoking laws. Before the laws their were attempts at influencing. When it comes to our own good or the greater good what methods are acceptable?

I heard someone make this very argument the other day (about seatbelts vs vaccines). But there is a very big difference, I think, between a mechanical procedure and a medical procedure, that you should have to undergo. But maybe more to the point, other issues come into play with seatbelts, for example insurance policies and insurance law, as well as civil or even criminal implications. For example, let's say I do something wrong (clearly wrong, or even illegal) as I drive me car, and I hit someone. If they are wearing a seatbelt, my error or stupidity causes damage, maybe some injury. It's a civil matter with money on the line, and maybe the seatbelt lessens the monies involved (hence why insurance companies would lobby for such a law). But now with no seatbelt, my exact same action results in the other person's death, which has far graver consequences to me. The argument on its face could be that it's unjust for me to face a more severe consequence depending on whether the other person was taking a safety precaution or not. So a law to enforce seatbelts would alleviate many of these issues, to say nothing of perhaps just being an act of fiat by the state to reduce injuries from accidents.

In the case of covid-19, we are (so far) not facing situations where you are suing someone for walking into a grocery store and spreading the disease. There are no doubt many reasons why such a lawsuit would be difficult to pursue (if it's even legal at all), but to make an equivalence the situation would have to be one where someone else failing to vaccinate has negative legal implications for the sick person entering the premises. So far, as far as I know, there are none. So unlike seatbelts, you are not making someone else into a killer rather than just a rear-ender by choosing not to take the safety precaution.

They there may be some overlap if all you're talking about is the state mandating by law that you have to protect yourself from harm in specific ways; but there's not that much overlap in other areas that are affected by seatbelts, for instance. And again, it's not putting a strap over your chest, it's taking a needle and changing your biochemical responses. Is that much different than forcing people to accept a chip insert so that the government can track your whereabouts at all times for your own protection? It might objectively increase your level of safety, but does that mean it's the right thing to do?

[rightleft22]

I wasn't trying to equate the two issues as being equal.

It was thinking the response to such issues are similar. Maybe smoking would be a better example. Lots of push back on that one infringing on personal freedoms, government interference and manipulation and all that. It got quite ugly

Interesting the time it took for the rights of the minority to smoke wherever they wanted eventually getting trumped by the rights of the majority not to have the breath in the stuff. Smokers still get to smoke they just have to respect the rights of others that don't want to be around it.

I'm ok with people not getting vaccinated or wearing a mask, as a minority, they need to respect the rights of the majority. How that looks I don't know. 


The only thing I know is that a Democracy means no one gets to be 100% happy about everything. 
   

[yossarian22c]

Everyone will eventually need to get exposed to Covid, just like the flu. Vaccinations and natural immunity will protect the vast majority of people from severe illness, just like the flu. New mutations will happen no matter what but will be less dangerous than the original.

Why do you think mutations will be less dangerous than the original? That isn't the case with the Delta variant. It just seems to be easier to transmit and possibly more dangerous than the original.

[Fenring]

Everyone will eventually need to get exposed to Covid, just like the flu. Vaccinations and natural immunity will protect the vast majority of people from severe illness, just like the flu. New mutations will happen no matter what but will be less dangerous than the original.

Why do you think mutations will be less dangerous than the original? That isn't the case with the Delta variant. It just seems to be easier to transmit and possibly more dangerous than the original.

This point seems to be contentious. First of all, if it's true then it adds credence to the lab-leak theory, since natural pathogens don't normally increase in both virulence and threat potential. Putting this point aside, I was watching some senate committee videos where Senator Paul quotes some material suggesting that Delta may be more virulent but less dangerous. At this point in time I would not be prepared to say this is a settled matter.

[Wayward Son]

If the above terrifies or angers you, even after seeing how relatively few people get seriously ill after getting Covid, it's going to be a rough ride.

"Relatively few?"  Relative to what?  World War II? 

Remember how moron Conservatives told us, back at the beginning, that Covid-19 wasn't worse than the flu?  How 61,000 people died from the flu in 2017-2018, and Covid hadn't been that bad yet, so what's the big deal?

600,000+ deaths.  More than 10 years worth of influenza deaths (since 2017-2018 was an exceptional year).  All in just a bit over a year.  And with much of the nation using precautions that limited flu deaths to 450 so far this season, way below average. 

Back in February, Covid-19 was the leading cause of death in the U.S.  It's still #7, even after all those vaccinations.  It's mainly the unvaccinated that are keeping it that high, and pushing it higher.

So what does "relatively few" mean when more people were dying of Covid-19 than of heart diseases, cancer, accidents, stroke, respiratory disease, Alzheimer, and diabetes?  And that's with trying to keep the disease from spreading.  How much greater would it be if we let everyone get it, especially at the same time?  Don't you remember the freezer trucks parked behind hospitals just to hold the dead?

Numbers of dead don't really terrify me.  When numbers get to be that big, you can't really grasp them.  They're not real.  What terrifies me is the thought of someone I know who may die from this disease.  My wife, my kid, my brother, his family, my friends.  That one of them might die from this just because some people think we shouldn't worry about this disease, that only a few people die from it, that it isn't that big a deal.  That it could have been prevented.

That's the difference between the other leading causes of death and Covid-19.  Those other leading causes are really hard to prevent.  Stopping smoking won't stop cancer; a lot of non-smokers get it.  Getting people to exercise more and watch their weight is extremely difficult, but we are trying that, too.  So why should we give up and stop trying to prevent Covid-19 deaths when all that is mainly required is to get vaccinated, wear a mask and keep your distance?  It is so easy to do if we Americans would all just do it.

"Relatively few" compared to what?  Covid-19 deaths beat the casualties from WWII months ago.

[cherrypoptart]

If this instant results do it yourself mouthwash test works out it seems like that could be a game changer.

https://www.studyfinds.org/mouthwash-tests-covid/

"Among a group of 80 individuals, 26 tested positive for COVID-19 via swab testing. When that same group used a mouthwash test, the exact same 26 individuals tested positive as well. Importantly, both the nasal and mouthwash tests were of the polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) variety. Researchers say these tests are highly sensitive and capable of producing a result in real-time...

... “This sampling procedure can be conducted safely in a general practitioner’s office without extra protective equipment for physicians’ staff, as the patients themselves perform the sampling,” Dr. Hauck explains. “We usually sent the patients with the gargle solution and sampling container outside.”

All medical staff have to do is watch the patient from a window to ensure they gargle the solution and spit it back into a cup correctly.

“We need not expose trained personnel to the danger of taking samples from so many potentially infected people,” Dr. Hauck adds.

-------------------------------------------------

After that people who knew they were infected would just have to act responsibly and not go to Whataburger maskless sneezing and coughing all over the place without even covering their mouths.

Then you just get into the same kinds of problems as the nasal swab but at least the testing would be so much easier. We're making progress.

Hypothetically, if everyone knew if they were infected or not could that end the pandemic?

It didn't say how expensive it was but let's say it's cheap. You have your bottle of covid detecting mouthwash at home and every morning you check yourself and if it's positive you stay home or at least away from people until you get two days in a row negative. No need for masks anymore because everyone knows if they are infected or not.

I know better than to get my hopes up because too many people wouldn't do the right thing with one excuse or another and the accuracy remains to be seen especially with new variants but something like this could still make a big difference.

And besides relying on integrity, people could just be checked outside offices and schools and even malls or concerts and such just like with the fever checking gun. It would definitely be great for family gatherings and weddings where no one would want to infect their own loved ones. Hopefully it pans out.

[Ouija Nightmare]

If this instant results do it yourself mouthwash test works out it seems like that could be a game changer.

https://www.studyfinds.org/mouthwash-tests-covid/

"Among a group of 80 individuals, 26 tested positive for COVID-19 via swab testing. When that same group used a mouthwash test, the exact same 26 individuals tested positive as well. Importantly, both the nasal and mouthwash tests were of the polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) variety. Researchers say these tests are highly sensitive and capable of producing a result in real-time...

... “This sampling procedure can be conducted safely in a general practitioner’s office without extra protective equipment for physicians’ staff, as the patients themselves perform the sampling,” Dr. Hauck explains. “We usually sent the patients with the gargle solution and sampling container outside.”

All medical staff have to do is watch the patient from a window to ensure they gargle the solution and spit it back into a cup correctly.

“We need not expose trained personnel to the danger of taking samples from so many potentially infected people,” Dr. Hauck adds.

-------------------------------------------------

After that people who knew they were infected would just have to act responsibly and not go to Whataburger maskless sneezing and coughing all over the place without even covering their mouths.

Then you just get into the same kinds of problems as the nasal swab but at least the testing would be so much easier. We're making progress.

Hypothetically, if everyone knew if they were infected or not could that end the pandemic?

It didn't say how expensive it was but let's say it's cheap. You have your bottle of covid detecting mouthwash at home and every morning you check yourself and if it's positive you stay home or at least away from people until you get two days in a row negative. No need for masks anymore because everyone knows if they are infected or not.

I know better than to get my hopes up because too many people wouldn't do the right thing with one excuse or another and the accuracy remains to be seen especially with new variants but something like this could still make a big difference.

And besides relying on integrity, people could just be checked outside offices and schools and even malls or concerts and such just like with the fever checking gun. It would definitely be great for family gatherings and weddings where no one would want to infect their own loved ones. Hopefully it pans out.

With nearly half the country is still claiming the virus is a hoax or at most an over dramatize cold … good luck with that.

[edgmatt]

Even if zero "younger healthy people" ever died, it is still morally repugnant for them to be indifferent to the death they spread to people not in their privileged category.

This needs to be addressed.  This is so ridiculous, so wrong and utterly disgusting.

Let them be ignorant of it.  They have zero control over it, and low comprehension of it.  Why in Gods name would you burden children with such a thing?  *That* is repugnant.

- "the death they spread".   Again, what a horrible, repugnant thing to say.  It's a virus.  People spread it just by being alive.  We all have been doing it for thousands of years.  The way you say this here makes it seem as if the children are guilty of something that no one ought feel guilty for.  What the heck is wrong with you?  What would make you think it'd be ok to put that sort of guilt on anyone, let alone a child?

- "privileged category"  What kind of college prep, twisted Liberal nonsense is this?  Thank God that children seem to be unaffected by this.  What sort of mentality is it to scorn them for that "privilege"?  I can't even believe someone human typed that sentence.

Statistically not that many people die in traffic accidents, but we still fine people for reckless driving. Not because they will injure themselves, but because they will injure the people around them.

What a ridiculous analogy.  Giving someone a fine for reckless driving doesn't make them take a risk.  Getting the shot does have a risk (however small).

Morally repugnant is pressuring someone or forcing someone to take a risk for themselves so that someone else's risk is lower.

Putting that pressure on a child who can't even fully comprehend either the risk to themselves or the risk to someone else is beyond "morally repugnant".  That's pure Evil.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

[cherrypoptart]

https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/let-it-rip-f9c

"Which suggests another reason for getting this over with more quickly: the longer a virus hangs out in a population, the more able it is to mutate and evolve. Quickening this process can reduce that possibility."

So Sullivan says this and I have to doubt the logic here.

My understanding is it doesn't matter how long the virus hangs around but how many people it infects.

If the virus hangs around for three more years but infects only half the number of people it infects compared to if we get as many people infected as possible as quickly as possible to reach herd immunity as soon as possible then the longer time period with less people getting infected would seem to provide less chance of mutation.

People miss the point here. If the point is to get back to normal as soon as possible then trying to get herd immunity as soon as possible by letting people get infected may end up being counter-productive if the virus mutates into something more transmissible and more dangerous and not mitigated by the vaccines. It's the classic case of trying to rush something ending up making it take even longer.

Walensky gets it here:

https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-covid-19-could-few-mutations-away-from-evading-vaccines-2021-7?r=US&IR=T

"The coronavirus is "just a few mutations potentially away" from evading current COVID-19 vaccines, the CDC said.

Coronavirus cases have been surging in the US, fueled by the highly transmissible Delta variant.

The more transmission, the more opportunity for the virus to replicate and gain dangerous mutations."

It reminds me of a time I was at the airport with my kids and they're already both over 18. I get to the tram station and I'm just waiting there. It's nice to have a little breather. We're just standing there for several minutes. So one is in a hurry and he asks me with an edge, "Can we go?" I couldn't help but laugh and that made him confused and a little angry. I sighed a little and tried to be patient and just asked if he knew what's going on. Really, he didn't. He just wanted to go, go, go. I clued him in that we're waiting for the tram because that's the only way to get to the ride services area unless he wants to just go and walk along those tracks out there a mile or more dodging trams coming at us. And then in a few minutes when we're riding the tram I said see, you wouldn't want to walk all this way now would you? Humbled. And hopefully a little bit enlightened.

That's how too many people seem to be regarding Covid. Just like with my kid at the airport who has no clue what's going on, I can only shake my head sadly at all the people like Sullivan and many conservatives on masks and vaccines as well as Democrats on the border who just don't seem to get the big picture and what's really happening.

That's where our focus should be, minimizing the chances the virus has to mutate into something so much worse, and very few people seem to have their eye on the ball.

Throwing off the masks doesn't do that and encouraging mass migrations doesn't do that either.

People can't seem to imagine that this virus can get worse. It shouldn't even take a good imagination either as we just saw that happen with delta. And that's the flaw in the strategy of doing little to nothing further and just letting the virus tear through the population and that includes the vaccinated too. That's the flaw in the argument that it's not that bad for the vast majority of people so we got the vaccines now and we have better treatments so don't worry, be happy. That only holds water as long as the virus doesn't mutate into something else. And when the virus mutates a billion to a trillion times in each person it infects each time it infects them, that's not a good bet to make, not a good gamble on which to risk everything.

If the response is that all viruses mutate so what's the big deal well all I can say is this virus is very different from all of the others. It seems like it got a jump start right out of the gate. It started off more transmissible and more dangerous so where it can go from that springboard could end up being a nightmare that makes what we've been through so far seem like just a daydream.

[LetterRip]

Cherry,

when the author said 'hang around' he meant the susceptible population.  Once you reach herd immunity a virus can self extinguish and thus is no longer hanging around.  So faster herd immunity means it doesn't hang around as long.

[LetterRip]

edgmatt,

you might work on reading comprehension - younger people has been define as 18 to late 30's.  Ie younger adults not children.

Also there is no known risk  to the mRNA vaccines with 100's of millions having been vaccinated with them.

[LetterRip]

This point seems to be contentious. First of all, if it's true then it adds credence to the lab-leak theory, since natural pathogens don't normally increase in both virulence and threat potential.

Mutations are random!  ALL viruses evolve in all directions simultaneously - faster spreading and slower spreading, less deadly and more deadly.  Then those variants compete for hosts.  On average faster spreading variants 'win'. Deadlier variants only matter to the degree the host can spread them.  If they are incapacitating early on and thus greatly reduce spread they will be selected against. If they don't incapacitate and kill till after significant spread then there is no selective pressure against being more deadly.

So no this has nothing to do with the moronic lab theory.

[cherrypoptart]

LetterRip

"when the author said 'hang around' he meant the susceptible population.  Once you reach herd immunity a virus can self extinguish and thus is no longer hanging around.  So faster herd immunity means it doesn't hang around as long."

He also said it would make the virus less able to mutate. Does herd immunity really do that? He's saying throw off the masks and go back to normal now to get to herd immunity so the virus will go away sooner and it'll mutate less. I'm still saying I'm not seeing how it works like that.

Let's say we have 100 million people. We get to herd immunity faster by letting 90 million of them get infected and let's say that takes a year. If the virus doesn't mutate unexpectedly and dangerously then we're fine. But you just gave it 90 million human bodies worth of chances to mutate so it has more opportunity.

If you keep masking and social distancing in place then maybe only 30 million of those people get infected in that same year so there are many less chances for the virus to mutate, 60 million bodies less than in the race to herd immunity.

So maybe herd immunity takes three years or five years but racing to it didn't give the virus less chance to mutate.

And there's another variable. Let's say you're taking masking and social distancing precautions along with vaccinations. Now if the virus does mutate dangerously there's a better chance that it dies out before it spreads. Racing to herd immunity reduces that chance dramatically. Dangerous mutations have the welcome wagon rolled out for them and are allowed to build on each other.

[LetterRip]

He also said it would make the virus less able to mutate. Does herd immunity really do that?

Yes.  If you have 0 people infected - you get 0 mutations.   For each infected person you get more mutations.  Of course as I said it is only the mutants that someone else is exposed to in a manner that can cause infection that matter.  Usually it takes a minimum of about 3000 virons to cause an infection.  But you can get a much larger dose, especially in a shared environment (I'd be surprised if a transmission of millions isn't common).

He's saying throw off the masks and go back to normal now to get to herd immunity so the virus will go away sooner and it'll mutate less.

If that is what he said - then he is dumb.  Maskless for unvaccinated people means that you get the same total infections and same mutations but you achieve all of it drastically faster (well actually about the speed that many red states are currently doing since the majority of unvaccinated are going maskless and not taking any measures to reduce spread).  So the potential for a new mutant that can bypass the vaccine/natural immunity or that is more deadly arrives quicker.

You want herd immunity via vaccination.  You almost certainly will never achieve herd immunity via natural spread, there will be selective pressure for mutations that evade existing antibodies - both vaccine induced and naturally occuring.  What will likely end up happening is successive waves of infection - similar to annual influenza.

[Fenring]

So no this has nothing to do with the moronic lab theory.

You seem awfully certain about this. What will you say to me going forward if it is (a) proven conclusively the Wuhan lab was doing gain of function research on this exact type of virus, and (b) if it merely becomes a high probability even though it cannot ultimately be proven (due to secrecy)? I'm putting you on record on this one, acknowledging full well you might of course be entirely correct that the lab theory is false. But what you are on record about is saying that it's moronic. That is what I'll hold you to.

[TheDrake]

Whether it started in a lab or not, gain of function or not, doesn't make the resulting virus more likely to mutate in the wild, particularly in a specific way. That's the dumb part.

[LetterRip]

So no this has nothing to do with the moronic lab theory.

You seem awfully certain about this.

Yep.

What will you say to me going forward if it is (a) proven conclusively the Wuhan lab was doing gain of function research on this exact type of virus, and (b) if it merely becomes a high probability even though it cannot ultimately be proven (due to secrecy)? I'm putting you on record on this one, acknowledging full well you might of course be entirely correct that the lab theory is false. But what you are on record about is saying that it's moronic. That is what I'll hold you to.

Even if it were proved conclusively that it escaped from a lab - your inference was severely lacking in logic.  As I said - viruses mutate to become more virulent and more deadly all the time, so you can't at all draw any conclusions that it came from a lab if a more deadly variant emerges.  There is zero reason to infer a 'lab hypothesis'.  We haven't had any evidence at all that supports a lab hypothesis, so thinking it came from a lab is entirely unwarranted, but it is especially unwarranted based on your reasoning.  As TheDrake says,

Whether it started in a lab or not, gain of function or not, doesn't make the resulting virus more likely to mutate in the wild, particularly in a specific way. That's the dumb part.

[Fenring]

LR,

I didn't say the reason I stated allows us to conclude that it escaped from a lab, only that it adds to it. How much it adds, was not really the point. But as you were referring to the moronic lab theory, rather than my moronic lab theory, I assume you were referring to the theory that's been floating around. We'll wait and see.

[TheDeamon]

An Alabama doctor has to tell her patients the way it is.

“And the one question that I always ask them is, did you make an appointment with your primary care doctor and ask them for their opinion on whether or not you should receive the vaccine? And so far, nobody has answered yes to that question.”

I know a few people who had a "yes" answer from their primary care provider on not getting vaccinated, at least for now. Of course, they also have auto-immune issues so there is a reason for them to be cautious.