COVID-19: People on the internet are judging me for going outside. It used to be the reverse.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > COVID-19: People on the internet are judging me for going outside. It used to be the reverse.

«‹›414 »

Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed.
Black Beauty	2	1.06%
A Talking Pony!?!	4	2.13%
Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor	117	62.23%
War Horse	11	5.85%
Mr. Hands	54	28.72%
Total:	188 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Gio: Jun 20, 2005

James Garfield posted:

When the CDC changed guidelines to say vaccinated people could be indoors without a mask, it didn't even change how many people wore masks.

Just for clarity sake, you�re basing this off a single poll from mid-May 2021 that contradicts the lived experiences of�most everyone who here that has posted about the marked shift in mask usage after Masks Off May.

# ? Mar 4, 2022 04:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 20:27

James Garfield: May 5, 2012; Am I a manipulative abuser in real life, or do I just roleplay one on the Internet for fun? You decide!

Gio posted:

Just for clarity sake, you�re basing this off a single poll from mid-May 2021 that contradicts the lived experiences of�most everyone who here that has posted about the marked shift in mask usage after Masks Off May.

please reread the plot, that is not a single poll. I'm also not sure why you would value anecdotes on an internet forum over even one poll?

# ? Mar 4, 2022 04:57

the holy poopacy: May 16, 2009; hey! check this out; Fun Shoe

fwiw my lived experience mirrors the polling :shrug:

people gradually started dropping the masks a few weeks before the CDC guidance changed and they continually gradually dropping them over the course of the next several weeks. it feels more like the CDC was gauging public sentiment rather than changing it.

# ? Mar 4, 2022 05:11

Gio: Jun 20, 2005

James Garfield posted:

please reread the plot, that is not a single poll. I'm also not sure why you would value anecdotes on an internet forum over even one poll?

I trust what I saw with my own eyes over opinion polling.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Mar 4, 2022 05:23

Stickman: Feb 1, 2004

James Garfield posted:

When the CDC changed guidelines to say vaccinated people could be indoors without a mask, it didn't even change how many people wore masks.

https://mobile.twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1395032169832189959

A lot of Americans died in fall 2021 because of a more contagious variant.

This is not really the evidence you think it is. Guidance changes were never going to have an immediate, obvious effect on mask polling (which is itself going to lag more than masking itself due to acceptability bias). Instead, it's part of the larger network of messaging, interventions, state / local / company policies that all feedback into masking adherence and attitudes. What's important is the overall trajectory - mask wearing was flagging prior to guidance and instead of working on messaging and interventions to improve mask-wearing, the CDC let themselves be wagged by political pressure and public opinion.

Mask wearing almost certainly would have continued to decline had the CDC not issued their ill-advised unmasking guidance. It probably would not have declined as fast or as far. It also likely would have declined (for a while at least) if they had worked hard to improve masking, but again, likely not as much and they might have even had enough momentum to turn it around. Of course the polling doesn't give us any insight into these counterfactuals, because of course we don't have data on the trajectories of these alternative interventions.

This misinterpretation of data is just part of the larger trend of seeing public health interventions as black or white - either intervention X worked in obvious ways or the whole concept of invention X is useless. It's been used to argue against distancing, lockdowns, masking, vaccine mandates, etc, and it's extremely frustrating when the ultimate goal should be to improve our interventions, not use any flaw as an excuse to ditch the whole thing.

# ? Mar 4, 2022 07:44

emgeejay: Dec 8, 2007

freebooter posted:

Pandemic must really be winding down if we're now arguing about graph colouring

actually, it really seems like the kind of thing we should have nailed down, as a society, in the first couple months

# ? Mar 4, 2022 08:19

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Discendo Vox posted:

Or, and here's a crazy idea, they have an evidence base supporting a change in policy. Which we'll be able to see on Friday, if the article that the Republican strategist you're uncritically endorsing screenshotted without linking is correct.

I've been very curious to see the evidence the CDC is using to justify the recent change in guidance and especially in no longer recommending vaccinated people mask indoors in designated low risk areas. I don't agree with the new guidance but definitely not an expert and would like to understand the CDC's evidence base. However the closest I've found online is the transcript of last Friday's (Feb 25) telebriefing, where the updated community risk level system and associated recommendations for masks etc were introduced but no references to specific research or projections justifying the updated guidance are included. I've made a good faith search without success of the CDC's website and twitter account for any kind of document summarizing the evidence in support of these new recommendation, and would appreciate if anyone could link it if it's available.

# ? Mar 4, 2022 22:07

fosborb: Dec 15, 2006; Chronic Good Poster

James Garfield posted:

When the CDC changed guidelines to say vaccinated people could be indoors without a mask, it didn't even change how many people wore masks.

https://mobile.twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1395032169832189959

A lot of Americans died in fall 2021 because of a more contagious variant.

Slightly more up to date polling

masking trends from Feb 2021 to last Monday

the date of the CDC announcement:

# ? Mar 4, 2022 22:21

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

freebooter posted:

Pandemic must really be winding down if we're now arguing about graph colouring

It's still going strong, but a lot of folks traded their armchair epidemiology PhDs for ones in Foreign Relations/Eastern Euro Studies/Military Tactics because it's a shinier ball.

# ? Mar 4, 2022 23:25

Tiny Timbs: Sep 6, 2008

Nocturtle posted:

I've been very curious to see the evidence the CDC is using to justify the recent change in guidance and especially in no longer recommending vaccinated people mask indoors in designated low risk areas. I don't agree with the new guidance but definitely not an expert and would like to understand the CDC's evidence base. However the closest I've found online is the transcript of last Friday's (Feb 25) telebriefing, where the updated community risk level system and associated recommendations for masks etc were introduced but no references to specific research or projections justifying the updated guidance are included. I've made a good faith search without success of the CDC's website and twitter account for any kind of document summarizing the evidence in support of these new recommendation, and would appreciate if anyone could link it if it's available.

There is no new evidence and the CDC never said they had any. They simply changed the guidance.

# ? Mar 4, 2022 23:33

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Jaxyon posted:

It's still going strong, but a lot of folks traded their armchair epidemiology PhDs for ones in Foreign Relations/Eastern Euro Studies/Military Tactics because it's a shinier ball.

While this is true I think we're also just at a point now where most people's lives are no longer being affected by it. There isn't much to talk about when the subsidance of the Omicron wave means hospitals are no longer under pressure, bars and restaurants are no longer shut half the time because of people having to self-isolate, and deaths are disproportionately among the unvaccinated. Enjoy this moment of calm before a new variant emerges in the coming months.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 00:10

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Tiny Timbs posted:

There is no new evidence and the CDC never said they had any. They simply changed the guidance.

The original poster suggested there was an evidentiary basis for the recent change in guidance and that the CDC might share it. Given the significance of the change that seemed plausible to me.

The CDC documents it's other guidance, for example here's the list of CDC guidance documents. Esp relevant is the most recent guidance documents on operating child care settings and schools which both recommend universal indoor masking, supported by the evidence summarized on this page regarding the usage of masks to control the spread of SARs-COV-2 indoors, with primary references included.

It seems like this most recent guidance change deserves an equivalent level of documentation. As mentioned I looked and couldn't find any, but asked here in case I missed it.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 03:17

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Nocturtle posted:

The original poster suggested there was an evidentiary basis for the recent change in guidance and that the CDC might share it. Given the significance of the change that seemed plausible to me.

No. I said that there was an evidence basis for the change referred to in the screenshot of an unlinked article by a Republican strategist that was dumped in the thread; that change would be the community thresholds from the teleconference you linked. The entire discussion in the thread was after it was already in effect, which I should've realized from the date on the original misleading tweet. It was never, ever a guideline change; Gio just made that up. CDC changed the calculus inputs and thresholds for community levels. In particular, they raised the raw case report threshold for the different levels and they're now considering hospital capacity because such a large proportion of cases aren't severe.

As Nocturtle already linked, here's the press conference where they discuss the changes, the rationale, refer to their sources, and answer specific methodology questions.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 03:50

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Discendo Vox posted:

No. I said that there was an evidence basis for the change referred to in the screenshot of an unlinked article by a Republican strategist that was dumped in the thread; that change would be the community thresholds from the teleconference you linked. The entire discussion in the thread was after it was already in effect, which I should've realized from the date on the original misleading tweet. It was never, ever a guideline change; Gio just made that up. CDC changed the calculus inputs and thresholds for community levels. In particular, they raised the raw case report threshold for the different levels and they're now considering hospital capacity because such a large proportion of cases aren't severe.

As Nocturtle already linked, here's the press conference where they discuss the changes, the rationale, refer to their sources, and answer specific methodology questions.

Thank you for the explanation. Didn't think that CDC press conference would be the primary reference for understanding the rationale of these updated recommendation but looks like I was wrong.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 04:59

susan b buffering: Nov 14, 2016

Lol if a press conference is the only source of their reasoning.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 05:57

Stickman: Feb 1, 2004

Phew, thank goodness they're less severe or Omicron might be on track to kill 125k+ Americans immediately following a Delta wave that killed 250k. At least that's only like half (in less than half the time)!

# ? Mar 5, 2022 10:55

virtualboyCOLOR: Dec 22, 2004

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/04/us/trucker-convoy-protest-washington-dc/index.html posted:

Convoy groups led by American truckers are making their way toward the nation's capital to demand an end to all Covid-19 mandates and restrictions.

The protesters, with members coming from at least three individual convoy groups, are expected to arrive in Washington, DC, throughout the upcoming weekend.

�

With Covid-19 mandates already dropping around the country in line with falling infection numbers, demonstrators are still showing up with demands.

�

There is one common demand coming from the participating convoys: end Covid-19 mandates, including mask and vaccine requirements.

What is the purpose of this? Biden has already demanded businesses drop all mandates and force Americans back to work regardless of what the American people actually want. The anti vax and r/nonewnormal people won thanks to the conservative's blood brother: liberals.

This just seems like they want to either take a victory lap or enjoy the attention.

Regardless we are setting ourselves up for a disastrous new variant to sweep like delta did. Hong Kong is popping like crazy and it�s only a matter of time before that variant or something similar hits us. It�s going to be frustrating seeing all the usual downplaying of the variant before the �how could we have known� articles.

virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Mar 5, 2022

# ? Mar 5, 2022 16:17

Barry Foster: Dec 24, 2007; What is going wrong with that one (face is longer than it should be)

it's just more culture war bullshit

# ? Mar 5, 2022 16:18

Tiny Timbs: Sep 6, 2008

But there isn�t a new variant in Hong Kong. They�re just experiencing what omicron does to an insanely dense population after years of zero Covid.

Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Mar 5, 2022

# ? Mar 5, 2022 16:22

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

What is the purpose of this? Biden has already demanded businesses drop all mandates and force Americans back to work regardless of what the American people actually want. The anti vax and r/nonewnormal people won thanks to the conservative's blood brother: liberals.

This just seems like they want to either take a victory lap or enjoy the attention.

Regardless we are setting ourselves up for a disastrous new variant to sweep like delta did. Hong Kong is popping like crazy and it�s only a matter of time before that variant or something similar hits us. It�s going to be frustrating seeing all the usual downplaying of the variant before the �how could we have known� articles.

It�s a demonstration of strength. It�s like the �free speech� stuff from 2015-2018.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 16:34

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Discendo Vox posted:

As Nocturtle already linked, here's the press conference where they discuss the changes, the rationale, refer to their sources, and answer specific methodology questions.

For reference I went through the the transcript of the CDC press conference. There were no references to primary, refereed research sources supporting the recent changes. Please let me know if I missed something.

There several other problems with the evidence presented in the CDC teleconference supporting these updated metrics. I'm listing them here in case others are interested or can comment:

1) There are descriptions of analyses performed by the CDC to evaluate the appropriateness of their updated metrics, but these analyses haven't been presented or documented anywhere as far as I can tell. For example:

quote:

We at CDC will continue to follow the science and epidemiology to make public health recommendations and guidance based on the data. Our new framework was rigorously evaluated both with current data and retrospectively during the Alpha, Delta and Omicron waves and these new metrics have demonstrated predictive capacity for weeks into the future. We will continue to evaluate how well they perform in our communities.

The CDC already performed this rigorous evaluation and determined they have predictive capacity, so they should document the analysis and make it available to the public. This is relevant documentation, as it underpins their stated goal of minimizing severe disease.

2) A key assumption underlying these updated metrics is that the CDC is now mainly concerned with minimizing healthcare "strain" and severe disease rates, but the rationale for this assumption isn't provided.

The primacy of this assumption is explicitly mentioned at several points, for example:

quote:

Dr. Massetti:

Great. Thanks so much, Dr. Walensky. So as Dr. Walensky noted, we were really focused on measures of healthcare strain and severe disease. And so we conducted an extensive review of all data systems that are reported to CDC and often available on our website on COVID data tracker. We reviewed all data sources and really assess them against several criteria, including do they measure severe disease or healthcare strain?

However whether this is a reasonable assumption and public health goal was explicitly questioned:

quote:

Julie Steenhuysen:

Thanks for taking my call. So I�m interested in knowing, like how does the CDC arrive at the conclusion that hospitalization and capacity were the key issues that, you know, we need to focus on now and preventing transmission is less important and, won�t this be challenging, to get compliance if there�s another variant that comes along, that is more virulent than the one we have now.

A:... And I think that that�s a really important message that we�re trying to get across here. What we do know about the current moment, um, with we saw certainly a severity a decreased severity associated with, we had many, many more cases than we had hospitalizations, as we saw than we saw with alpha or Delta. And in that backdrop, we also had much more population immunity by vaccination boosting and, and prior infection. And so many, many of our infections did not result in severe disease. It did not result in, increased hospital capacity. And it was in that context that we made this pivot.

This does not explain exactly why hospitalization should be the primary focus instead of for example minimizing community infection rates. The only explanation was that "many, many" cases were not severe, which is an observation but not a justification.

3) An obvious issue with these updated metrics is they do not account for all potential impacts of non-severe COVID infections, especially long term impacts. In particular I was hoping the CDC had evaluated the potential long-term impacts and determined that they were not significant when developing these new metrics. This exact issue was raised during this conference:

quote:

Catherine Roberts:

Thanks for taking my question. I�m wondering, um, to what extent, if at all, um, does this new metric account for people who may have been seriously, um, disabled or sort of long term sick due to like long COVID, but who�ve never actually been hospitalized with acute COVID, is that factored into this at all?

Walensky: Um, so CDC has many different cohort studies to examine long COVID. We know that this is critically important. The NIH two is examining long COVID, and we are doing this through collaborations with states on survey data, long-term, prospective cohort data, um, and, and, uh, um, hospitalization and, and, uh, data from hospitals as well. So we are looking into this for sure. And, and we know much work in what many studies need to be done for long COVID specifically, but in terms of hospital capacity today to forecast what would happen six weeks from now, um, in our, in our COVID 19 community levels, the, that is not accounted for.

Long term impacts are explicitly not accounted for in these updated metrics with no specific research referenced justifying this omission, only that "they are looking into this for sure". This is an important choice that deserves at least some explanation with reference to scientific research. I personally am not able to evaluate the relevant research, that's the CDC's job.

Unrelated I note that Dr. Walensky said "um" eight times during this conference according to the transcript, and six of those times were when answering this question wrt potential long term COVID impacts and how the updated CDC metrics don't account for them.

4) One big issue for me personally is that the CDC is no longer recommending universal masking in schools, which means I'll likely get infected every time my school-aged children do via their classrooms. An explanation for this change was requested during the conference:

quote:

Cheyenne Haslett:

Hi, thank you for taking my question. Dr. Walensky can you explain the decision to include schools in the loosening of the mask recommendations? And as a follow up, on public transportation, do you expect that recommendation for masks to expire on March 18th or be extended?

Dr. Walensky:

Um, so maybe I�ll take the first, the second question first and then pass the school question to Dr. Massetti. The COVID 19 community levels are intended for communities, they�re not intended for our travel quarters, as you note, those expire in the middle of March, and we will be revisiting that in the weeks ahead. And then maybe Dr. Massetti, do you want to take the school question?

Dr. Massetti:

Yes. Thank you, Dr. Walensky. So, we�ve been reviewing the data on COVID illness in children for two years of a pandemic. And we have seen that although children can get infected and can get sick with COVID, they�re more likely to have asymptomatic or mild infections. So fortunately we know that when schools implement layered prevention strategies, that they can prevent SARS COV-2 two transmission or transmission of the virus that causes COVID 19 in schools. And we know that also because children are relatively at lower risk from severe illness that schools can be safe places for children. And so for that reason, we�re recommending that schools use the same guidance that we are recommending in general community settings, which is that we are recommending people wear a mask in high levels of COVID 19. But that, the medium level that the recommendation is primarily based on whether somebody wants to talk to their healthcare provider about whether they�re high risk.

The determination here is the risk of pediatric COVID infections don't justify the use of masks in schools because pediatric cases tend not to be severe. This should be defended taking into account the costs and benefits of masking vs not in schools, not just stated as given. In addition absolutely no consideration was given that parents will likely get infected at higher rates than the general population under the recommendations associated with these new metrics. The new recommendations apparently only considered the health of children.

Overall, the evidence provided in this press conference was not adequate. The CDC should rigorously document their guidance and supporting evidence, and a press conference should not be main and apparently sole reference for presenting updated recommendations. At least link a slide deck.

Nocturtle fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Mar 5, 2022

# ? Mar 5, 2022 22:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

You couldn't even tell what it was when it was announced. You keep saying it's a guidance when it's not. it's changing the thresholds on their existing community classification system. They are referring to several of their existing datasets, like the hospital reporting system, to incorporate actual capacity effects. The reason for the change was that many positive cases of infection are not leading to hospitalization. Overall hospital capacity is explicitly factored into the new calculus, which by its nature includes any hospitalization from the effects of covid.

# ? Mar 5, 2022 23:05

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

gently caress I haven't put a mask on in like 3 weeks

# ? Mar 6, 2022 00:46

Nocturtle: Mar 17, 2007

Discendo Vox posted:

You couldn't even tell what it was when it was announced. You keep saying it's a guidance when it's not. it's changing the thresholds on their existing community classification system. They are referring to several of their existing datasets, like the hospital reporting system, to incorporate actual capacity effects. The reason for the change was that many positive cases of infection are not leading to hospitalization. Overall hospital capacity is explicitly factored into the new calculus, which by its nature includes any hospitalization from the effects of covid.

Thank you for the response. I understand your points better.

To be clear I was aware when the CDC teleconference took place. There's only one person in this discussion that was confused about dates. It's not relevant or important.

# ? Mar 6, 2022 01:14

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

fosborb posted:

the date of the CDC announcement:

The increased rate of unmasking is indeed correlated with the CDC announcement. It's also pretty well-correlated with lower case numbers. (7 day average on May 13: 35k, June 20th: 12k.) Judging from those peaks and valleys, it looks like about 20% of the population swore off masks forever, and the rest are either reacting to the number of cases or still regularly masking.

# ? Mar 6, 2022 03:25

droll: Jan 9, 2020; by Azathoth

Tiny Timbs posted:

But there isn�t a new variant in Hong Kong. They�re just experiencing what omicron does to an insanely dense population after years of zero Covid.

It isn't a new variant? Well that's a relief. Last I checked world data a few days ago their 2-dose vaccinated was somewhere around 60%. Could that also be having an impact?

# ? Mar 6, 2022 03:36

Charles 2 of Spain: Nov 7, 2017

It's more that their elderly vaccination rate is horrendous.

# ? Mar 6, 2022 03:40

Fabricated: Apr 9, 2007; Living the Dream

droll posted:

It isn't a new variant? Well that's a relief. Last I checked world data a few days ago their 2-dose vaccinated was somewhere around 60%. Could that also be having an impact?

No, it's just BA.2. The reason Hong Kong is a mess is that they mostly used Sinovac (which doesn't really work well sadly) and that the vaccination rate of their elderly and vulnerable populations is comparatively very, very low.

# ? Mar 6, 2022 19:31

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Compare and contrast cases and deaths in Hong Kong vs New Zealand, which is also finally getting hit but has a very comprehensive vaccination rate:

Hong Kong is what happens if you cling doggedly to a COVID-zero policy without doing enough to stick-and-carrot the populace into getting vaccinated.

# ? Mar 6, 2022 23:37

Judakel: Jul 29, 2004; Can't post for 9 years!

freebooter posted:

Compare and contrast cases and deaths in Hong Kong vs New Zealand, which is also finally getting hit but has a very comprehensive vaccination rate:

Hong Kong is what happens if you cling doggedly to a COVID-zero policy without doing enough to stick-and-carrot the populace into getting vaccinated.

Plenty of people are vaccinated on the mainland. Seems like more of a difference in personal ideology. Your comment seems poorly thought out.

# ? Mar 7, 2022 03:23

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

The mainland is not experiencing an uncontrolled Omicron outbreak (yet)

# ? Mar 7, 2022 03:29

Fork of Unknown Origins: Oct 21, 2005; Gotta Herd On?

I wonder if any of the CDC�s decision had to do with how abysmal people have been at using masks correctly. Particularly in schools. I wonder how transmission rates would�ve been in schools had the administrations chased down people showing nose with the same vigor they do girls showing shoulder. Funny priorities�

My informal grocery store experience is that one week post-CDC change most people were still wearing them. Now it�s less than 20%. And I�m in a light blue part of California.

# ? Mar 7, 2022 03:30

Judakel: Jul 29, 2004; Can't post for 9 years!

freebooter posted:

The mainland is not experiencing an uncontrolled Omicron outbreak (yet)

Precisely. So, again, covid zero policies have nothing to do with whether people have a sense of prioritizing others' well-being and their own and get vaccinated.

# ? Mar 7, 2022 03:33

droll: Jan 9, 2020; by Azathoth

freebooter posted:

The mainland is not experiencing an uncontrolled Omicron outbreak (yet)

Any day now!

# ? Mar 7, 2022 09:47

Barudak: May 7, 2007

Shenzhen is having a climb at the moment (up to 120 cases a day now) but its at the moment seemingly entirely confined to like a singular building complex that is mega locked the gently caress down and I hope holds.

# ? Mar 7, 2022 10:08

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

And then Ukraine happened, as another said.

Denmark - 6 March 2022

Table 1. Actual and Reported Denmark COVID Cases reported per day

pre:

	Actual	Reported	New	Total
Date	Cases	Cases	Reinf.	Hosp.	Hosp.	ICU		Vent		Dead
==============================================================================================
Mar 06	   ---	10,827	  526	  245	1,556	37 (+2)		126(-3)		38
Mar 05	 8,883	
Mar 04	13,329	
Mar 03	15,763	
Mar 02	17,336
Mar 01	18,286	
Feb 28	21,473	
Feb 27	16,858	
Feb 26	13,850	
Feb 25	16.592	
Feb 24	20,597	
Feb 23	23,393	29,040	1,567	  369	1,721	36 (+2)		12 (+0)		47
Feb 22	27,358	30,480	1,707	  473	1,759	34(-10)		12 (-5)		34
Feb 21	33,163	28,883	1,477	  397	1,717	44 (+4)		17 (-1)		29
Feb 20	29,683	25,690	1,381	  241	1,587	40 (+3)		18 (+0)		34
Feb 19	24,928	33,304	1,837	  399	1,546	37 (+4)		18 (-1)		28
Feb 18	26,741	38,086	1,615	  459	1,615	33 (+2)		19 (+5)		43
Feb 17	34,062	40,600	2,158	  480	1,604	31 (+0)		14 (+0)		44
Feb 16	36,055	42,948	2,407	  459	1,498	31 (+0)		14 (+1)		24
Feb 15	42,006	42,978	2,200	  464	1,523	31 (+6)		13 (+2)		30
Feb 14	45,208	29,474	1,461	  333	1,465	25 (+0)		11 (+3)		41
Feb 13	35,589	38,323	2,039	  314	1,356	25 (-5)		 8 (-1)		30
Feb 12	32,624	44,350	2,259	  427	1,316	30 (-2)		 9 (+0)		37
Feb 11	38,889	48,170	2,968	  421	1,379	32 (-1)		 9 (+1)		24
Feb 10	45,111	53,747	3,205	  415	1,354	33 (-1)		12 (+1)		29
Feb 09	50,253	55,120	3,262	  451	1,332	34 (-5)		11 (-4)		21
Feb 08	55,575	49,798	2,759	  419	1,315	39 (+8)		15 (+3)		18
Feb 07	57,350	34,849	1,836	  314	1,294	31 (-3)		12 (+0)		28
Feb 06	42,234	36,512	1,841	  307	1,203	34 (+3)		12 (+0)		18
Feb 05	33,604	39,190	2,061	  370	1,138	31 (-2)		12 (-1)		35
Feb 04	37,192	40.179	2,241	  376	1,156	33 (+6)		13 (+1)		17
Feb 03	39,792	44,225	2,513	  365	1,116	27 (+1)		12 (-4)		21
Feb 02	40,476	55,001	2,992	  343	1,092	26 (-2)		16 (+2)		20
Feb 01	46,118	45,366	2,515	  337	1,070	28 (-4)		14 (-1)		15
Jan 31	56,397	29,084	1,478	  255	1,028	32 (+1)		15 (+0)		17
Jan 30	34,881	36,196	2,055	  231	  948	31 (-4)		15 (-4)		21
Jan 29	29,907	41,083	2,332	  271	  922	35 (+2)		19 (+0)		17
Jan 28	38,122	53,655	3,263	  305	  967	33 (-4)		19 (-3)		26
Jan 27	39,067	51,033	3,119	  318	  955	37 (-3)		22 (-3)		18
Jan 26	41,695	46,747	3,028	  298	  938	40 (-4)		25 (-3)		14
Jan 25	48,640	43,734	2,856	  318	  918	44 (+1)		28 (-1)		14
Jan 24	53,663	40,348	2,501	  242	  894	43 (+1)		29 (+2)		13
Jan 23	38,017	42,018	2,755	  215	  813	42 (-3)		27 (-1)		12
Jan 22	34,713	36,120	2,285	  220	  781	45 (+1)		28 (-1)		25
Jan 21	37,409	46,831	3,160	  244	  813	44 (-5)		29 (+1)		21
Jan 20	37,420	40,626	2,639	  232	  825	49 (-1)		28 (-2)		15
Jan 19	37,595	38,759	2,285	  248	  821	50 (+1)		30 (+1)		16
Jan 18	40,303	33,493	2,002	  264	  810	49 (-3)		29 (-8)		14
Jan 17	41,486	28,780	1,815	  203	  802	52 (-7)		37 (-4)		11
Jan 16	28,179	26,169	1,614	  159	  734	59 (+0)		41 (+1)		16 
Jan 15	25,188	25,034	1,644	  202	  711	59 (-1)		40 (+4)		16
Jan 14	25,883	23,614	1,519	  215	  757	60 (-4)		36 (-2)		15
Jan 13	23,776	25,751	1,822	  194	  755	64 (-9)		38 (-8)		20
Jan 12	22,575	24,343	1,614	  215	  751	73 (+0)		46 (+0)		25
Jan 11	22,656	22,936	1,459	  181	  754	73 (-1)		46 (-1)		14
Jan 10	23,244	14,414	  941	  156	  777	74 (-3)		47 (-3)		 9 
Jan 09	16,330	19,248	1,327	  126	  723	77 (-1) 	50 (-2) 	14 
Jan 08	13,573	12,588	  984	  161	  730	78 (+0) 	52 (-1) 	28 
Jan 07	14,434	18,261	1,482	  186	  755	78 (-4) 	53 (+4) 	10  
Jan 06	15,417	25,995	2,027	  161	  756	82 (+2) 	47 (-2) 	11  
Jan 05	17,577	28,283	2,083	  204	  784	80 (+3) 	49 (+2) 	15
Jan 04	23,698	23,372	1,701	  229	  792	77 (+4) 	47 (+1) 	15
Jan 03*	25,617	 8,801	  532	  169	  770	73 (-3) 	46 (-4) 	 5
Jan 02  19,906 	 7,550	  404	  163	  709	76 (+3) 	50 (+1) 	15
Jan 01   8,631	20,885	1,049	  139	  647	73 (+0) 	49 (+0) 	 5
Dec 31   9,728	17,605	1,090	  177	  641	73 (-2) 	49 (-1) 	11
Dec 30  19,927	21,403	1,123	  178	  665	75 (-2) 	50 (-2) 	 9
Dec 29  17,245	23,228	1,205	  173	  675	77 (+6) 	52 (+2) 	16
Dec 28  21,955	13,000	  670	  177	  666	71 (+1) 	50 (+4) 	14
Dec 27  22,616	16,164	  639	  115	  608	70 (-1) 	46 (-2) 	 7
Dec 26  10,965	14,844	  644	  123	  579	71 (-2) 	43 (+1) 	13
Dec 25   7,853	10,027	  463	   86	  522	73 (-1) 	44 (+5) 	10
Dec 24   7,054	11,229	  527	  134	  509	74 (+2) 	39 (+1) 	14
Dec 23  12,605	12,487	  613	  158	  541	72 (+6) 	38 (+1)		15
Dec 22  11,591	13,386	  531	  126	  524	66 (-1) 	37 (+2)		14 
Dec 21  13,011	13,558	  501	  121	  526	67 (+1) 	35 (+2)		17
Dec 20  13,288	10,082	  ---	   85	  581	66 (+3) 	33 (-2)		 8
Dec 19  10,231 	 8,212
Dec 18  10,049 	 8,594
Dec 17  10.614	11,194
Dec 16  10,171 	 9,999
Dec 15  10,775 	 8,773	  ---	   96	  508	66 (+0)		43 (-3)		 9
Dec 13  10,294 	 7,799	  ---	   61	  480	64 (-1)		42 (+0)		 9
Dec 12   6,986 	 5,989	  ---	   82	  468	65 (+5)		42 (+6)	 	 9
Dec 08   6,560 	 6,629	  ---	   72	  461	66 (-1)		38 (-1)		 7
Dec 01   4,464 	 5,120	  ---	   88	  439	35 (+1)		35 (+1)		14

Table 2: ICU Bed Usage, Weekly (reported every 2 weeks)

pre:

Date      		Bed Availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31 January  	313 ICU beds, 27 COVID, 75 available
24 January  	322 ICU beds, 38 COVID, 72 available
17 January  	328 ICU beds, 54 COVID, 66 available
10 January  	331 ICU beds, 72 COVID, 29 available
03 January  	331 ICU beds, 76 COVID, 32 available
27 December	316 ICU beds, 71 COVID, 62 available 
20 December 	317 ICU beds, 60 COVID, 59 available
13 December 	319 ICU beds, 64 COVID, 39 available
06 December 	310 ICU beds, 67 COVID, 10 available <-- squeaky bum time here
29 November	318 ICU beds, 61 COVID, 25 available

Sourcea:
https://www.rkkp.dk/kvalitetsdatabaser/databaser/dansk-intensiv-database/resultater/
https://covid19.ssi.dk/overvagningsdata/download-fil-med-overvaagningdata
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/242ec2acc014456295189631586f1d26
https://covid19.ssi.dk/virusvarianter/delta-pcr

Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Mar 7, 2022

# ? Mar 7, 2022 10:45

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Judakel posted:

Precisely. So, again, covid zero policies have nothing to do with whether people have a sense of prioritizing others' well-being and their own and get vaccinated.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making here. 70% of Hong Kongers over the age of 80 are unvaccinated. That has sadly predictable results when a COVID wave occurs.

# ? Mar 7, 2022 12:08

Rust Martialis: May 8, 2007; At night, Bavovnyatko quietly comes to the occupiers’ bases, depots, airfields, oil refineries and other places full of flammable items and starts playing with fire there

freebooter posted:

I'm not sure what point you think you're making here. 70% of Hong Kongers over the age of 80 are unvaccinated. That has sadly predictable results when a COVID wave occurs.

Oh my god. Is that hard numbers? It's going to be harrowing.

# ? Mar 7, 2022 13:40

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

I actually naively thought their covid-zero policy included actually getting people vaccinated in case of a wave. Because that would be really sensible.

# ? Mar 7, 2022 13:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 20:27

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

dwarf74 posted:

I actually naively thought their covid-zero policy included actually getting people vaccinated in case of a wave. Because that would be really sensible.

If that article is reliable, then it actually worked out the opposite: since covid-zero meant there was very little chance of catching COVID, everyone dragged their feet on vaccination because they were concerned about the side effects of jabs. Without an imminent risk of COVID, vaccination wasn't seen as a pressing issue, and people all over the system sat on their hands nitpicking about vaccine safety and waiting to see how things went.

quote:

Care worker Lau had tried in vain to get her elderly father�s residential home to vaccinate him against Covid-19 as soon as possible even before Hong Kong�s fifth and deadliest wave of coronavirus cases struck.

But the care home did not arrange the Covid-19 shots in time and now Lau�s father, who is in his 90s, has caught the disease and is battling for his life after being admitted to hospital two weeks ago.

�Back then we kept asking them to let my father take the vaccine. But at the start of the vaccination scheme, there were many worries about the elderly dying when they got jabbed, so many homes were hesitant for them to take the vaccine,� Lau, 54, said.

�Of course I regret this, I wanted my father to get vaccinated earlier so he wouldn�t die. But now it is too late.�

...

Grace Li Fai, chairwoman of the Elderly Services Association, said many people were only just beginning to worry about aged family members dying of Covid-19 as more fatalities among the older generation were reported daily.

Previously they were mostly apprehensive about the vaccines, she said.

�Many families are now requesting to get their elderly family members vaccinated,� Li said. �But now homes for the elderly have been hit so hard, how do we arrange for doctors to help? They may not be available at this moment.�

Lau, the care worker, said her bosses had been asking her to resume duties at another home for the elderly she worked at, even though she is infected.

�My boss tried to threaten me by saying that if I don�t go to work, he will hire someone else. I think it�s very unfair on me,� said Lau, who has a fever and sore throat.

She insisted on staying home and got an isolation order from authorities.

�This is risky for the elderly, as a boss they should prioritise the well-being of their residents first. But instead, they just ask infected staff to continue working,� she added.

One thing that should definitely come in the wake of the COVID pandemic (but won't) is a reckoning with how society handles elder caregiving, with nursing homes in particular having shown deeply irresponsible conduct all over the world.

Per another article, though, it's not just nursing homes and other caretakers that are the issue. It seems like the system in general didn't have a clear message on vaccine safety for vulnerable elderly folks, and many of the same issues with COVID programs in other countries cropped up there as well.

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3166840/coronavirus-hong-kong-alone-afraid-and

quote:

Hongkonger Sit Pui-yu, 72, is staunchly against taking a Covid-19 vaccine, even if his refusal means he will no longer be able to dine out or shop for food in wet markets.

Sit, who is single and lives alone in a public housing flat in Wong Tai Sin, said his decision was due to his lack of confidence in the government.

�The government has never truly taken consideration of the elderly in every single measure and policy it has carried out since the start of the pandemic,� he said.

Sit pointed to the mandatory use of the official �Leave Home Safe� Covid-19 risk-exposure app in restaurants and said he was only able to use the program after receiving a donated smartphone and being taught how to use it. He was also bothered by a new vaccine pass scheme, which will bar the unvaccinated from entering most public premises from February 24.

�I have lost trust in the government, so I have no confidence in its vaccination programme,� he said.

Sit is not alone. Despite repeated urgent appeals by authorities and medical experts for the elderly to take a vaccine amid a record surge in infections, many elderly Hongkongers are resisting due to their concerns about the safety of the shots or lack of trust in the government, as well as opposition by concerned family members.

The elderly have the lowest vaccination rate in the city, except for children aged five to 11 years, who were only allowed to receive jabs starting from last month.

According to official statistics as of Friday, about 67 per cent of people aged 60 and above had received a first dose, compared with nearly 90 per cent of residents aged 20 to 59. But the inoculation rate fell to 53 per cent for residents aged 70 and above, and further plunged to 36 per cent for those aged 80 and above.

Given such poor take-up rates, the government was making it a priority to further encourage the elderly to take shots, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said last week.

William Chui Chun-ming, president of the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Hong Kong, noted that older residents were especially vulnerable to the coronavirus, especially the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which could lead to severe complications after infection. Carriers aged 80 and above had the highest death rate, he said, adding: �Vaccination can prevent them from suffering severe complications or even death.�

Chui stressed that the elderly could be inoculated, including those with chronic disease as long as their condition was stable, and urged them to take the step, especially those living in care homes or alone.

Ivan Lin Wai-kiu, a community organiser with the Society for Community Organisation (SoCO), said about half of the impoverished elderly he worked with had been vaccinated, while the rest still harboured doubts about the safety of the jabs or suffered from medical conditions that made them unfit for the shots.

Lin pointed out that some elderly with chronic conditions had to wait months for an appointment with a specialist at a public hospital to confirm whether they were suitable to receive a shot, while others were frustrated when even their own doctors were unable to give them a definitive answer on whether they should go ahead.

One 72-year-old resident, who did not want to be identified, said she finally decided to get a jab last month but was turned away by the staff members giving the doses because she had skipped taking aspirin for her heart disease for a while.

She said they asked her to go back and consult her doctor, who had never given her a clear answer about whether she was fit for vaccination, and her next hospital visit was not until next month.

Unvaccinated, she was so worried about catching the virus she dared not leave her public housing flat unless absolutely necessary and now faced the possibility of being unable to enter wet markets or supermarkets once use of the vaccine pass became widespread.

�I�m so frustrated and don�t know what to do,� she said.

Walter Cheung Shu-wai, a managing director of a communication agency, said his 94-year-old mother, who has high blood pressure, received her first dose of the German-made BioNTech vaccine last Thursday and there were no side effects.

�Our family had been thinking about it for more than half a year. We see that the epidemic is getting more and more serious since the fifth wave of infections, and it would be risky if my mother gets infected,� Cheung said.

�It was not an easy decision. I�m thankful that she looks completely fine after the vaccination.�

The news that religious establishments would be covered under the vaccine pass scheme prompted Cheung�s mother to get inoculated as she used to go to church every week.

�The doctor also advised my mother to get vaccinated. I have some reservations, but I guess we all need to calculate the risk,� Cheung said, adding that his mother had already decided she would receive the second dose.

The government�s announcement on Tuesday that it would implement the vaccine pass has sparked a rush of inoculations. More than 37,000 residents took their first shot on Wednesday, up by about 40 per cent from roughly 27,000 a day earlier.

Meanwhile, care homes for the elderly have also stepped up vaccination drives for residents, after more than 20 facilities reported infections during the fifth wave.

Kenneth Chan Chi-yuk, chairman of the Elderly Services Association of Hong Kong, said that since the end of last month, care homes had been inviting government medical teams, as well as private doctors, to evaluate the medical condition of residents and vaccinate them if they were deemed suitable and they agreed to be vaccinated without the need of consent from their families.

The tighter social-distancing rules and the worsening wave of infections has pushed up the vaccination rate among care home residents from 20 to 30 per cent to about 50 per cent. But some continued to hold out, including residents who had been discouraged by family members concerned about the health of their loved ones or who were opposed in principle to the official vaccination programme.

Chan said the homes respected their residents� decisions, but added: �The vaccination rate remains too low. We must race against time to get elderly residents vaccinated.�

The limited capacity of outreach teams going into the homes meant some residents were forced to wait until March or even April to get a shot. Chan urged authorities and private groups to step up the vaccination drive.

Sze Lai-shan, SoCO�s deputy director, also pointed to the so-called hidden elderly, or older residents who were isolated and poorly informed. The Social Welfare Department and elderly health centres should check on these residents through home visits or phone calls and follow up after they were vaccinated to provide assistance if they developed side effects or complications, Lai said.

�Some are hesitant because they fear they will be left helpless if anything goes wrong,� she said.

# ? Mar 7, 2022 16:39

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > COVID-19: People on the internet are judging me for going outside. It used to be the reverse.

«‹›414 »