Jump to content
IGNORED

General COVID-19 Topic


iacas

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
1 minute ago, David in FL said:

Well, it’s awfully nice of the government to “allow” us to gather at a  BBQ in our own homes and take a vacation.  :doh:

I didn't see anything in that article about government regulation, it seemed much more about risk assessment and anticipating changes to CDC guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

4 hours ago, saevel25 said:

A pandemic is obviously the perfect time for a strong centralized government to operate versus times of prosperity when you don't want the government holding things down. Governments should be a state of fluctuation as to adapt to the needs of the country. 

This is a fantastic point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Well, it’s awfully nice of the government to “allow” us to gather at a  BBQ in our own homes and take a vacation.  :doh:

The fact that THIS is what you “took” from the article, with the accompanying :doh:, is illustrative.

4 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I didn't see anything in that article about government regulation, it seemed much more about risk assessment and anticipating changes to CDC guidance.

Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

28 minutes ago, iacas said:
original.jpg

Parents should bet on vacations with their kids this summer.

 

Quote

Children are not at high risk for COVID-19. We’ve known since early in the pandemic that they are much less likely to fall ill, especially seriously ill. Although scientists don’t quite understand why, kids seem to be naturally protected. As a result, you can think of your son or daughter as an already vaccinated grandparent.

Quote

 

Now think about your child. The CDC has published some risk assessments by age. For comparison’s sake, I’ll phrase the findings the way I would the results of a vaccine trial: Being a child aged 5 to 17 is 99.9 percent protective against the risk of death and 98 percent protective against hospitalization. For children 0 to 4, these numbers are 99.9 percent (death) and 96 percent (hospitalization).  

The central goal of vaccination is preventing serious illness and death. From this standpoint, being a child is a really great vaccine. Your unvaccinated first grader appears to have about as much protection from serious illness as a vaccinated grandmother.

 

This article makes a strong case that children and teens should be allowed to live a totally normal life. Once the at-risk population has had the opportunity to get a vaccine, there should be no restrictions on kids. Getting them back to a totally normal life should be top priority. 

It inadvertently makes the case that kids really don't need the vaccine, saying they already have vaccine level protection (though vaccination could reduce their chances of transmitting it). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
1 minute ago, Braivo said:

This article makes a strong case that children and teens should be allowed to live a totally normal life.

I read the article, and posted it here, so I’m likely not saying this quite as black/white as you may read it, so try to take it in the way it’s intended: there’s a pretty big gap between “totally normal life” and “take a vacation this summer.”

And I’d agree, generally… once we get to herd level immunity, and virtually all eligible adults are vaccinated, let kids be pretty darn normal.

But we’ve gotta get to the bold part first.

We’re nearly there. Let’s not Leon Lett it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
6 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Once the at-risk population has had the opportunity to get a vaccine, there should be no restrictions on kids.

This is nothing different than what I said in an earlier post.  If data supports a return to normal, then we should return to normal.  The article does indicate that expectations for positive data are reasonable, that un-vaccinated children are unlikely (is less likely a better term? to be carriers, so once a high percentage of adults are vaccinated, a return to normal should be warranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

(edited)
14 minutes ago, iacas said:

And I’d agree, generally… once we get to herd level immunity, and virtually all eligible adults are vaccinated, let kids be pretty darn normal.

I think we are pretty close on agreement on all of this. 

Here's my concern: there's a pretty big gap between "all eligible adults are vaccinated" and "all eligible adults have an opportunity to get vaccinated."

In that gap lies how this summer plays out. Biden says all adults should have a vaccine opportunity by May 1. So let's give til July 4 for two full doses and immunity. Now let's say we are 20-30% short of herd immunity because people refuse the vaccine (polling shows around that many will refuse). Do we wait for them to get on board before returning to "normal"? 

Edited by Braivo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
9 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Do we wait for them to get on board before returning to "normal"? 

Yes.

You want to return to normal, do your part to get vaccinated.

Otherwise, we’re still in the grey area. The more people get vaccinated, the “safer” things become, and thus the more “normal” things can get back to being.

We vaccinated a few people in December. Couldn’t return to normal then (especially with people traveling for holidays, winter weather in much of the U.S., etc.). If we were all 100% vaccinated, normal. We’re in between those now, and “normalcy” ratings change based on where we are on that scale.

If enough people choose not to get vaccinated, we can’t scientifically justify a fully normal return to life.

People who are coming up with bullshit reasons not to get the vaccine should educate themselves on the science, understand that like they say about voting, “every vote matters” and “every vaccination matters,” and do their part.

Otherwise, it’s kinda like someone not paying taxes on the justification that their $10k or whatever won’t make a difference to the nation, or even to their state or town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

If enough people choose not to get vaccinated, we can’t scientifically justify a fully normal return to life.

I ask this sincerely: why can't we return to full normal once everyone has had an opportunity to get a vaccine? The only vulnerable people at that point would be those who refused. That's their risk, correct? Why do we have to delay "normal" for them? You and I get a vaccine, we are protected, we can't infect anyone, we can't get sick, why not normal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

6 hours ago, Braivo said:

What is the trade-off for being 1.68% better than another state? Completely collapsing your local economy for 1.68% difference? Is it worth it? 

Again, you have to look at both sides of the equation. Looking strictly at virus numbers and ignoring the other impacts is too narrowly focused. 

Right. People can decide their own risk tolerance. If they want to stay home until a vaccine, their choice! 

I want to point out a few thoughts.

1) A person may not always have the choice to stay home.  They may be high risk but at the same time have mouths to feed, mortgage to pay, business to run.

2) All humans have a need for social interaction and the lack can, and does, cause mental duress.  

Is it really that bad to wear a mask that it is justified to put another person's life at risk?  We are in the US and freedom of choice is a fundamental right however I feel that with rights come responsibility.  That means at times I may need to suffer a minor inconvenience to minimize more sever harm to someone else.

In regards to economic distress, if more were to take reasonable precautions then the extreme lockdowns may not be necessary and that could help minimize the economic impact.  I do not agree with all of the restrictions that were in place and feel some things could have been handled better.  In Michigan there are many that are hurting economically however our economy is also doing well, just like Florida.  There are segments of the population that are hurting more then others and there are geographic areas hurt more than others and I do not mean to minimize the impact on those who have been hurt.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
17 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I ask this sincerely: why can't we return to full normal once everyone has had an opportunity to get a vaccine?

Let me ask you this: do you understand these things:

  • Vaccines are not 100% effective.
  • More unvaccinated people will let strains continue to develop, which may lead to further decreases in the efficacy of vaccines.

Beyond that, I get what you’re saying about those people assuming their own risk… but that’s not entirely accurate.

95% isn’t 100%, and 70% definitely isn’t 100%.


Not for nothing, but we might find that people “mask up” in winters here in the northern states from now on. It’s pretty common in Asian countries, and the reductions in flu infections, etc. has been a “good” side effect here as well. I could see myself wearing a mask, not 100% of the time, but when I’m running errands in the winter of 2021-22. I could also see going to a restaurant pretty normally, playing golf pretty normally, etc. And even when running errands, perhaps taking my mask off to greet a friend or something, but in otherwise keeping it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

17 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I ask this sincerely: why can't we return to full normal once everyone has had an opportunity to get a vaccine? The only vulnerable people at that point would be those who refused. That's their risk, correct? Why do we have to delay "normal" for them? You and I get a vaccine, we are protected, we can't infect anyone, we can't get sick, why not normal?

I do agree partially with what you said but not 100%.  First, it is not yet known that being vaccinated prevents you from spreading it. Second, the vaccine is estimated @ 95% efficacy (JNJ is under 75%) so even with vaccination one could get COVID.  The good news is that there is evidence getting COVID after the vaccine may be much less sever.  Those that choose not to get the vaccine may be the reason the virus does not get fully under control.  With Smallpox the vaccine helped eradicate it and there has been no naturally occurring cases since 1977 (source below).  Just think how good it would be for the economy and our future generations if we could do the same with COVID?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

(edited)
11 minutes ago, iacas said:

95% isn’t 100%, and 70% definitely isn’t 100%.

Right, but 95% on top of a virus that was mild for 95%+ of people. The numbers start to get really small really fast. In other words, case numbers might still stay elevated, but severity (number of people hospitalized, etc) will reach a number we can live with. And this is assuming we can eradicate this thing completely, when perhaps it'll become more like the seasonal flu, something we just have to live with, where we get a new vaccine each year to protect against variation. 

Edit: The vaccine trials show they basically prevent death 100% of the time. At which point this becomes an illness like any other. We can live with it if it's not deadly. 

Edited by Braivo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Let me ask you this: do you understand these things:

  • Vaccines are not 100% effective.
  • More unvaccinated people will let strains continue to develop, which may lead to further decreases in the efficacy of vaccines.

Beyond that, I get what you’re saying about those people assuming their own risk… but that’s not entirely accurate.

95% isn’t 100%, and 70% definitely isn’t 100%.

Given that, acknowledging that new strains will likely develop and realizing that we will never reach 100% vaccinated, in your opinion, what would you ultimately consider to be the criteria to reopen fully?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
11 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Right, but 95% on top of a virus that was mild for 95%+ of people. The numbers start to get really small really fast. In other words, case numbers might still stay elevated, but severity (number of people hospitalized, etc) will reach a number we can live with. And this is assuming we can eradicate this thing completely, when perhaps it'll become more like the seasonal flu, something we just have to live with, where we get a new vaccine each year to protect against variation. 

Edit: The vaccine trials show they basically prevent death 100% of the time. At which point this becomes an illness like any other. We can live with it if it's not deadly. 

I can do the math. I realize 95% of 95% is pretty freaking low. So trust me, I’m not as far apart from you as I think it may seem (if not to you, then possibly to others). You’ll recall early on I was one of the people asking for data, talking about the economic cost vs. the life/health cost, etc.

I’ll only add right now that we still don’t know the long-term effects of COVID.

7 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Given that, acknowledging that new strains will likely develop and realizing that we will never reach 100% vaccinated, in your opinion, what would you ultimately consider to be the criteria to reopen fully?  

Like I’ve said, @David in FL, it’s all on a sliding scale, with science as the guideline.

We’re close. Let’s not Leon Lett it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Braivo and David in FL... out of curiosity, and nosiness, do the two of you intend to get vaccinated when the vaccine is offered to you young pups?

It’s already been offered to me.  No.

 

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Like I’ve said, @David in FL, it’s all on a sliding scale, with science as the guideline.

We’re close. Let’s not Leon Lett it now.

I honestly don’t know what that means.  
 

If you can’t identify what the threshold is, how can you tell that “we’re close“?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
28 minutes ago, David in FL said:

It’s already been offered to me.  No.

There’s the surprise of the century. Today being Opposite Day and all.

28 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I honestly don’t know what that means.

If you can’t identify what the threshold is, how can you tell that “we’re close“?

Then you’re not paying attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...