|
gay picnic defence posted:FWIW Vietnam never had a lockdown so it is certainly possible to manage the pandemic without draconian measures, or a massive expenditure of resources. Maybe government competence needs to be discussed along with ICU beds, medication and money as resources countries had available to deploy. Vietnam didn't have a lockdown but they do have mandatory military quarantine camps, which many Western countries publicly rejected as an option: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-idUSKBN21D0ZU Breaking quarantine is punishable with up to 12 years of prison (and enforced). "sharing false, distorted information about the COVID-19 epidemic situation that causes a negative public impact" is also subject to criminal charges. They also have one of the top 10 largest armies in the world, both total and per capita, which helps as far as resources. Starks fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Jan 11, 2021 |
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
I think its time. Brimg forth the legendary FEMA camps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 03:46
|
|
|
Starks posted:I don't understand why everyone thinks I'm talking about tourists. The vast majority of imports arrive in Australia by sea. They had a rule that cargo ships cannot dock if they have been to another country in the last 14 days. That is a huge advantage compared to a place like Canada where we had tens of thousands of trucks coming in every day from the States to deliver essential goods. That doesn't mean Canada didn't gently caress up its pandemic response, but it certainly means it's harder and more costly to achieve the same results. Canada has (rightly) closed its border to the US for non-essential travel; I'm talking more about Europe, which has indeed been open slather for tourists from the beginning because northern Europeans apparently have a god-given right to lie on a beach in Spain every summer. Australia and New Zealand obviously have some advantages to containment/elimination. Those advantages are outweighed by having governments, like any other successful jurisdiction, that took appropriate action. That is the reason Canada is doing better than the US and that is the reason the Atlantic bubble is doing better than the rest of Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 05:36
|
|
|
Also the better your trading partners/high travel countries are doing the easier it is to do better. If your border with a whole bunch of countries doing well then there's less chance of getting it from them, and also more incentive to do better, as suddenly you might find yourself locked out from them. If everyone around you is doing garbage, then their high likely hood of infection crossing over and also there's less likely to be restrictions with them just as everyone's doing equally bad. This isn't universal true, but it seems to be the general rule.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 05:52
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Canada has (rightly) closed its border to the US for non-essential travel; I'm talking more about Europe, which has indeed been open slather for tourists from the beginning because northern Europeans apparently have a god-given right to lie on a beach in Spain every summer. The Atlantic Bubble, as someone living in it, had been coasting on luck. It doesn't actually exist, currently, because COVID outbreaks a couple of months ago led to the provinces withdrawing from the bubble. New Brunswick is currently seeing a big spike in cases as a result of Christmas, and no doubt it's going to spike again as a result of New Year's. The government puts the blame on people who failed to self-isolate while traveling into the province, as well as continuing to go to gatherings and work while concealing their symptoms. They also noted that people have been dishonest or uncooperative with contact tracing. While the government's not wrong to point fingers in that respect, they put no measures into place to prevent unnecessary travel into the province and they left it up to the population's discretion as to how to gather safely for the holidays. It's a toss-up whether they actually monitored anyone for compliance with self-isolation until now, and they seemingly also don't seem to be pressing charges against people who willfully break the rules. We could easily be doing as poorly as other parts of Canada. I'm also going to note here that the government of New Brunswick is sitting back while landlords and property management companies moving into the region jack up the rates for renting tenants to unaffordable levels. We have nothing in law that prohibits a landlord from increasing the rent by however much they want, and now people are being priced out of their apartments by increases as high as 62% while the government literally says this is not happening on a mass scale and that they're not going to step in. Nothing like unrestricted rental inflation in the middle of a pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 11:12
|
|
|
I think, at the very least, it's an open question as to whether the 'right things' as done in NZ and Australia would have had the same results. I think we can be safe in saying that curfew and martial law could probably have nipped things in the bud more or less a la China, but getting a handle on community transmission was a task on a totally different scale in Europe. From where I'm standing there is an element of it being akin to closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Somewhere like NZ had only a handful of confirmed vectors so Test & Trace actually had a chance to work at first flush. Pick any Western European nation you like, and the reality is that while all eyes were on Wuhan and Asia, scores of cases were coming in via Spain/Italy without even realising it. If people want to rag on Europe, it's probably better to ask what the gently caress was going on post July where caseloads steadily increased for months with almost zero restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 12:52
|
|
|
Here in Ontario, cases were steadily decreasing up to the end of August, when two things happened. 1) restrictions were lifted in some of the heaviest areas (e.g. Indoor dining was allowed again); and 2) schools reopened in the first week of September. I have, for the most part, felt like the government was always taking this seriously, and I'm genuinely curious about how our response differed from Australia, who managed to get it fully under control.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Australia and New Zealand obviously have some advantages to containment/elimination. Those advantages are outweighed by having governments, like any other successful jurisdiction, that took appropriate action. The Australian federal government was pretty useless and we were lucky that the state governments took it seriously from the start, and in the current political climate that was clearly the best way to go about it. To be honest I think that the massive bushfires we went through right before the pandemic were a big factor in that, Scummo hosed up the federal response to those and got rightfully raked over the coals for months and months and he knew if he tried to control the country's pandemic response and hosed that up as well the party would have dumped him That didn't stop him from constantly nagging the Victorian premier to roll back the lockdown restrictions early but thankfully Dan ignored him for the most part and held the line. E: New Zealand also had a bunch of right wing politicians constantly agitating to roll back the restrictions and open back up https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/30/jacinda-ardern-decries-dangerous-calls-to-reopen-new-zealand-borders-coronavirus Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jan 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
Sadly I doubt she'll be the first. https://twitter.com/RepBonnie/status/1348686673085931520?s=20 For any non-US folks not 100% familiar with the recent failed coup here, congressfolks were confined to a small room for a while as the Trumpist mob outside searched for Democrats to lynch. Many Republican congressfolk refused to wear masks despite the extremely high risk of transmission under the circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
Zugzwang posted:For any non-US folks not 100% familiar with the recent failed coup here, congressfolks were confined to a small room for a while as the Trumpist mob outside searched for Democrats to lynch. Many Republican congressfolk refused to wear masks despite the extremely high risk of transmission under the circumstances. Here's video of some of them refusing the offered masks https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1348691600172601346
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Here's video of some of them refusing the offered masks 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1348739932165181443 Good luck to the vet techs who draw the short straw and have to hook up a gorilla to a ventilator 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
Zugzwang posted:Sadly I doubt she'll be the first. Aren’t they all vaccinated now? If AOC got her jab I imagine most of the older people went first. I imagine a lot of their staff is still at risk though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Starks posted:Aren’t they all vaccinated now? If AOC got her jab I imagine most of the older people went first. don't you need two doses several weeks apart for max (and even then still not full) protection?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
Starks posted:Aren’t they all vaccinated now? If AOC got her jab I imagine most of the older people went first. Maximum efficacy only kicks in two weeks after the second jab, plus the vaccines aren't 100% guaranteed to stop infections, plus they don't have any data on whether they help prevent further transmission.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Maximum efficacy only kicks in two weeks after the second jab, plus the vaccines aren't 100% guaranteed to stop infections, plus they don't have any data on whether they help prevent further transmission. 65% lol welcome to hellworld
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Biden, the President-Elect, just got his second jab. I doubt all the congressfolk have.Delta-Wye posted:65% lol welcome to hellworld
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Maximum efficacy only kicks in two weeks after the second jab, plus the vaccines aren't 100% guaranteed to stop infections, plus they don't have any data on whether they help prevent further transmission. Well, looks like we have a decent trial of what happens when 60+ people a few weeks out from their first jab are exposed to the virus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Just wanted to give an update on pfizer dose 2 for anyone that cares to know the info. Most of our department felt crappy the next day and was fine. Myself and 2 others spiked fevers with aches the following day, and from Saturday to today I still have swollen and sore cervical and axillary lymph nodes on the side that got tgellhe shot, plus muscle fatigue in large muscle groups. I saw employee health who documented it but said such symptoms are pretty drat normal for the 2nd dose from what they've shared throughout the chicagoland area, and should subside by day 7. The good news is that I know the shot was effective in provoking a strong rear end immune response.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Just wanted to give an update on pfizer dose 2 for anyone that cares to know the info. Thanks for sharing again. Hope you start to feel better soon. Also you're avatar makes me smile every time I see it, which is pretty helpful the past 10-12 months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Just wanted to give an update on pfizer dose 2 for anyone that cares to know the info. I mentioned this post on facebook and a guy I kinda know, said that if you go out and buy the newest version of microsoft 365, the swelling will go down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
Zugzwang posted:65% prevention of transmission? Oi. That's not nothing but it's still sucktastic for anyone who can't get vaccinated for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
Scarodactyl posted:From limited data, 65% effective at not getting it even a little bit with moderna's. As to whether vaccinated people who get asymptomatic cases can spread it and how well, we don't know. It's expected the viral load would be much lower, so spread wouls be shorter and less potent, but we really don't know and it is very hard to test that. I would really appreciate if you could find some information to this effect, because all I can find is an older animal study w/ the AZ vaccine and nothing from the big mRNA companies that are being deployed in the US. And, in monkey trials, that claim seems to be incorrect: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.093195v1.full.pdf quote:103 Viral gRNA was detected in nose swabs from all animals and no difference in viral load in nose swabs was found on any days between vaccinated and control animals (Figure 3c).
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
I am probably overstating it by even calling it limited data but it's all we have so far. I am pretty sure these are the comments the 65% figure is in reference to: https://www.reuters.com/article/hea...n-idUSFWN2IV07D The animal trials are interesting but also not necessarily applicable because their disease progression is seriously different (much faster among other things) so I am not as concerned by those figures. We'll see how it works out in reality though, and whether different platforms work better than others on that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Just wanted to give an update on pfizer dose 2 for anyone that cares to know the info. How did dose 1 compare?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
Scarodactyl posted:From limited data, 65% effective at not getting it even a little bit with moderna's. As to whether vaccinated people who get asymptomatic cases can spread it and how well, we don't know. It's expected the viral load would be much lower, so spread wouls be shorter and less potent, but we really don't know and it is very hard to test that. I thought it was 95% at not getting it? Isn't that what they've been touting for months now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
immunity vs sterilizing immunity
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
Yeah 95% effective at not getting any symptoms at all, and those remaining 5% who do seem to get milder ones from what we can tell (but data on that so far is limited by the whole 95% thing). We'll likely get a better picture in the coming months. What we know looks pretty good but it's also very limited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:I thought it was 95% at not getting it? Isn't that what they've been touting for months now? It's 95% effective against getting symptoms: CDC posted:Interim findings from this clinical trial, using data from participants with a median of 2 months of follow-up, indicate that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was 95.0% effective (95% confidence interval = 90.3%–97.6%) in preventing symptomatic laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in persons without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the Pfizer trials there were 170 people who developed symptoms and were diagnosed with coronavirus. 162 were from the placebo group and only 8 were from the vax group, therefore the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is rated at 95% efficacy against symptoms. They don't know how many people caught it but were asymptomatic
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
I can't remember but I think at my next pfizer appointment they're going to draw blood. One thing they can do with that is look for antibodies to other covid proteins than the spike to see if my immune system had a meaningful interaction with a covid infection, which could be an indication of asymptomatic infection. Iirc moderna was planning to try that so I hope Pfizer is as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
Are there any good sites/links for tracking vaccine rollout? All I've seen lately is the clusterfuck headlines and now I'm wondering if my wife and I will be able to get a vaccine this year at all, much less the inital Sept. estimate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 02:10
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Are there any good sites/links for tracking vaccine rollout? All I've seen lately is the clusterfuck headlines and now I'm wondering if my wife and I will be able to get a vaccine this year at all, much less the inital Sept. estimate. Check your state health department if you're in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 02:13
|
|
|
Scarodactyl posted:I am probably overstating it by even calling it limited data but it's all we have so far. I am pretty sure these are the comments the 65% figure is in reference to: All those caveats strike me as reasonable, but the only data we have doesn't feel like positive indicators and I'm starting to suspect that is on purpose so that people will get confused like this: D-Pad posted:I thought it was 95% at not getting it? Isn't that what they've been touting for months now? I think the line is being done on purpose. Fauci says "the covid vaccine is 95% effective" (exact quote, this interview seemed damning in the "95% effective to prevent disease" context because it was explicitly about getting herd immunity) without caveats or further details. "Which vaccine? 95% effective at what exactly?" is left up as an exercise for the reader in the hopes they will go back to work and make number go up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 02:46
|
|
|
I got my first dose of the Pfizer vaccine a week ago tomorrow, I had some moderate headache and chills in the hours afterward and in the evening developed mild dizziness and nausea, but thankfully that had gone away by the time I woke up the next morning. My shoulder/arm felt sore and kind of heavy like it would after a tetanus shot and it’s still a bit tender if I press on the area. I’m a little nervous about the second dose after hearing people have had worse side effects with that one, so we’ll see in two weeks I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I think the line is being done on purpose. Fauci says "the covid vaccine is 95% effective" (exact quote, this interview seemed damning in the "95% effective to prevent disease" context because it was explicitly about getting herd immunity) without caveats or further details. "Which vaccine? 95% effective at what exactly?" is left up as an exercise for the reader in the hopes they will go back to work and make number go up. More importantly the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and moderna) are 100% effective at preventing severe covid in initial trials. robotheist posted:I got my first dose of the Pfizer vaccine a week ago tomorrow, I had some moderate headache and chills in the hours afterward and in the evening developed mild dizziness and nausea, but thankfully that had gone away by the time I woke up the next morning. My shoulder/arm felt sore and kind of heavy like it would after a tetanus shot and it’s still a bit tender if I press on the area. I’m a little nervous about the second dose after hearing people have had worse side effects with that one, so we’ll see in two weeks I guess. I got my second dose of Pfizer on Friday and had an immediate return of arm soreness and fatigue that was gone at 24 hours, I had a bit of a headache as well but wasn’t sure if that was just dehydration from a run the night before. Two people I work with had fever and rigors for <24 hours but that’s the worse I’ve heard of and almost everyone around me has been vaccinated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
hydrocarbonenema posted:More importantly the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and moderna) are 100% effective at preventing severe covid in initial trials. I'm concerned once the deathrate drops enough, we'll all just start ignoring it even more than we already are. The only reason why people care are the case and death numbers are big, and if the death numbers were low noone would bother testing and then the whole thing is over. ish. I liken it to HIV and AIDS. It feels kind of disingenuous to give people a vaccine that makes people 95% immune to AIDS and told them "go rawdog wild, you're immune!" but only gave them 65% cover from contracting HIV. If you drive ~20x the number of infections through this policy, it's not only disingenuous but also pretty ineffectual. I'm not sure if I understand what the world looks like with a ~65% reduction in transmission and fully opened up (big events, no masks) - Ro would still be well above 1 in an immune naive population. Mathematically I wouldn't expect covid to be <1 until we've driven a lot more infections to hit herd immunity which is probably impossible w/ reinfection being possible. Even what looks like a generous few years of acquired immunity would keep it from happening. Hard to really imagine a situation where things don't get better, especially in situations where vaccinations become a class issue - the virus bounces around the population but only kills prisoners, destitute people, or others. We have a lot to learn, but I certainly hope we won't be in a situation where we need regular boosters either from waning immunity or losing efficacy to viral variation or something because I can't imagine that being done fairly anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 04:25
|
|
|
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/12/27/sotu-fauci-full.cnn CNN of course parks this in the "politics" section because CNN, but around 5:20 Fauci says something to this effect regarding the number of people we need to vaccinate to get to herd immunity: It was based on calculations, and pure extrapolations, from measles. measles is about 98% effective vaccine, the covid19 vaccine is about 94-95% percent. when you get below 90% of the population vaccinated with measles, you start seeing a breakthrough against the herd immunity. people starting to get infected like we saw in the upper new york state and in new york city with the orthodox jewish group when we had a measles outbreak. so i made a calculation that covid19 sars-cov2 is not as nearly as transmissible as measles. measles is the most transmissible infection you can imagine. so i would imagine that you would need something a little less than the 90%, thats where i got to the 85. I think we have to be honest and humble, nobody knows for sure. I think 70 to 80% for herd immunity for covid19 is a reasonable estimate. in fact, most of my epidemiology colleagues agree with me. TWiV says this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XPInyUqp9I&t=1136s As near as I can tell, Fauci's claims only make sense if you also make the claim there were no asymptomatic infections in their study which sounds pretty unlikely, and appears to be flat out wrong in the case of the Moderna data. The person doing the CNN interview doesn't have any idea of what's going on to ask intelligent questions, so we all suffer. EDIT: Also, that number is only true the the mRNA vaccine, which is not currently nor will probably ever be the dominant covid19 vaccine afaict. I spend a lot of time with academics and researchers and one video sounds like an educated person, and it's not fauci. He sounds like he has trumpo brain worms in that clip, and I think he's spreading easily-misunderstood information purposefully. Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jan 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 04:46
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I'm concerned once the deathrate drops enough, we'll all just start ignoring it even more than we already are. The only reason why people care are the case and death numbers are big, and if the death numbers were low noone would bother testing and then the whole thing is over. ish. I liken it to HIV and AIDS. It feels kind of disingenuous to give people a vaccine that makes people 95% immune to AIDS and told them "go rawdog wild, you're immune!" but only gave them 65% cover from contracting HIV. If you drive ~20x the number of infections through this policy, it's not only disingenuous but also pretty ineffectual. While I agree that there will be a big divide in who's vaccinated or not based on class, I also predict it will be a regional thing as well. Like I could totally see red states still being in covid hell for much longer than other states with high rates of vaccine avoidance. While other more sensible states will be relatively opened up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 04:51
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I spend a lot of time with academics and researchers and one video sounds like an educated person, and it's not fauci. He sounds like he has trumpo brain worms in that clip, and I think he's spreading easily-misunderstood information purposefully. So is Fauci bad now and should be ignored?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Gotta understand that, while it might seem to us like Coronavirus is The Only Virus, to epidemiologists it's a blip. There are currently like 4 pandemics worldwide, each of them being barely thwarted at destroying all civilization. There's more coming down the pipe, no question. Maybe tomorrow, maybe next year, maybe in 50 years. The problem is that these diseases never go away. They just stop being a total road block to life due to intervention. HIV/AIDS, for example, is still ongoing but is mostly handled with interventive treatment, public health programs, etc. MERS, Ebola, they're not completely eradicated. In the right circumstances and with a similar lack of intervention they, too, could be in the news. Coronavirus would have never been a problem with proper intervention. The disease isn't really that special, it's just that it hit when our governments were the loving stupidest. To that end, epidemiologists are also primarily math people in my experience. They seem to assume that everyone is just aimlessly milling about in a really big field touching random things and licking random surfaces. I mean, in a way, we are I guess. But to epidemiologists a lot of predictions are shockingly accurate until they're not because of a missed detail which is fixed for future modeling but it's unfair to think they should have the perfect understanding without more research/data which is hard to do. I mean, how could they predict that wearing masks would be a political issue, even inside the Congress?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2021 06:39
|
|
