15 ms·

> We should be reacting rationally to rates of hospitalization and deaths -- and right now, those are barely changed in NYC, No. No. No. No. No. Why is this s

> We should be reacting rationally to rates of hospitalization and deaths -- and right now, those are barely changed in NYC, No. No. No. No. No. Why is this so hard for people to understand? A virus doesn't just enter your body, and quietly go away. In MANY cases, it can have a lasting effect on your underlying health and wellness. This isn't a point of question, it's a known FACT that is all too often left out of the discussion entirely. I am vaccinated. I have friends who are vaccinated, and have still gotten COVID. One of them still doesn't have their sense of taste and smell back, after nearly 3 weeks post symptoms. They describe being brain fog, and tiredness that they didn't have before, as well as an "itch" in their lungs when exercising that they didn't have before. There's absolutely no reason to say things like "hysterical fixation on cases". Bringing cases down means LESS LIVES LOST and less HEALTH lost.

desine 5y ago
If the ultimate goal is saving lives, how much of your daily life are you willing to sacrifice for public health? Willing to forego car ownership? End two day shipping speeds for non essential purchases?
- rubicon33 5y ago
  I don't think the ultimate goal should be saving lives. It should be avoiding the spread of COVID. Saving lives would just be a side effect of lower COVID cases (and vaccination). I'm all for re-opening businesses and promoting vaccinations. We have to get back to living our lives. I'm just tired of the idea people seem to have that it's entirely about lives.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Since SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic in the worldwide human population plus some animal species it's impossible to avoid the spread. We can slow the spread to a limited extent but eventually all of us will be exposed.
    - polynomial 5y ago
      Hmm, this is a very serious hypothesis. While not disputing it as a viable hypothesis, do we have good models that support this conclusion? Also, how do these (SEIR?) models distinguish E=100 from E being an aggregate of different variants, delta etc? Finally, what is the relationship between E=100 and R0? I wouldn't expect it to be fixed (model independent) but rather a given model will assert some relationship between E and R0. Sorry if this is a lot of questions, I do think it's valuable to address this with actual models and supporting data.
    - _ph_ 5y ago
      Maybe it is - if so, not fighting it consequently in many regions of the world certainly helped with that. But slowing the spread is still of essential importance. We do have vaccinations, which greatly reduce the risk of getting infected and especially the risk of severe consequences. Still, the very vulnerable groups of our society are carrying a considerable risk even when vaccinated. That alone should mandate to keep infection count low. And the more we vaccinate and have other limiting means in place - like wearing masks in indoor public places where it is possible - the lower the infection count is. That directly saves quite a few lives and a lot of health, but most of it, it buys us time. Yes, probably everyone gets exposed to the virus in the future, but we can decide how quickly. Every month later means we might get vaccines which protect close to perfection, that we find better medication or at least better understand what Covid-19 is all causing and can treat better. Also, with any additional infection the risk of another significant mutation increases. Even with current vaccines, with a high enough vaccination rate any outbreaks should be much smaller and more localized. This does make a difference. Mandatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2448/ https://xkcd.com/2448/
- bichiliad 5y ago
  Yes, totally — we are only as healthy and as happy as the least of our neighbors. If I had to forgo two day shipping or driving in order to bring down traffic crashes, improve air quality, etc. that seems like a totally fair trade-off. The alternative doesn't look all that good.
timr 5y ago
Thank you for providing an excellent example of the fear-based reasoning surrounding "cases". I understand that you are scared, but is incorrect to imply that my opinion comes from a lack of understanding of what you're talking about. > Why is this so hard for people to understand? I understand your argument, but I disagree with you, based on a long education in this area, a deep understanding of the data, and personal experience. > A virus doesn't just enter your body, and quietly go away. Some do not. This one does. > In MANY cases, it can have a lasting effect on your underlying health and wellness. In some, rare cases, we see examples of post-viral syndromes. We have seen these for many different viruses. > I am vaccinated. I have friends who are vaccinated, and have still gotten COVID. One of them still doesn't have their sense of taste and smell back, after nearly 3 weeks post symptoms. Again, lingering symptoms following an illness are not unknown. Every time I get a head cold, I typically develop a cough that lasts > 3 weeks. By ~all current evidentiary standards for "long covid", I have had "long cold". Similarly, my grandmother lost her sense of smell to a head cold when I was a child. She never got it back, entirely. Sad, but not something that we took extraordinary societal interventions to prevent. > They describe being brain fog, and tiredness that they didn't have before, as well as an "itch" in their lungs when exercising that they didn't have before. Neither of these are objectively defined. I have an "itch" in my lungs, right now (probably allergies). I have never had Covid. When I don't sleep well (which is often, thanks to the state of our society), I have trouble focusing. Is that "brain fog"? Point being: some people are going to have after-effects from infection. That's unfortunate, but it's not unknown, and the virus isn't going away. If the choice is to completely up-end our society to prevent people from ever getting sick again, then I'm strongly opposed.
- sergiomattei 5y ago
  > I understand your argument, but I disagree with you, based on a long edudcation, and a deep understanding of the data. Where's the data? I didn't see a single source listed, just anecdotes from you and your family.
  - timr 5y ago
    Where's the data in the OP's comment? Remarkable how fear and speculation has a lower evidentiary standard, isn't it?
trhway 5y ago
>I am vaccinated. I have friends who are vaccinated, and have still gotten COVID. vaccinated people get covid and spread it like unvaccinated[1]. Then what is the point of vaccination mandate? I really don't understand. Add to that that since May CDC stopped counting breakthrough cases which don't result in hospitalizations. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-study-shows-74percent-of-people-infected-in-massachusetts-covid-outbreak-were-fully-vaccinated.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-study-shows-74percent-of... "About three-fourths of people infected in a Massachusetts Covid-19 outbreak were fully vaccinated, according to new data published Friday by the CDC. The new data, published in the U.S. agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, also found that fully vaccinated people who get infected carry as much of the virus in their nose as unvaccinated people. "
- thrwwmbkpr 5y ago
  Potentially related - "How major media outlets screwed up the vaccine ‘breakthrough’ story" [1]. Outlines media mis-interpretation of an unfinished, internal CDC presentation last week (roughly lines up with your July 30 story). [1] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/cdc_date_media_coverage_vaccination.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/cdc_date_media_coverage_... I found that while reading daily news from AllSides[2], as recommended in a recent HN thread. I really like it so far. [2] https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
  - trhway 5y ago
    Your link is multipage propaganda spin full of media distrust FUD without data, and deja vu - White House tweets blaming the media for wrong coverage of hard CDC data. Whereis if you compare the CNBC link i posted with the official CDC report linked below you'll find no screwed up nor mis-interpretation on the part of CNBC (though CNBC didn't mention the 69% vaccination coverage and obvious correlation with the observed 74% share of infections). And the CDC report is crystal clear: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm "During July 2021, 469 cases of COVID-19 associated with multiple summer events and large public gatherings in a town in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, were identified among Massachusetts residents; vaccination coverage among eligible Massachusetts residents was 69%. Approximately three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons"
shaicoleman 5y ago
> One of them still doesn't have their sense of taste and smell back, after nearly 3 weeks post symptoms. They describe being brain fog, and tiredness that they didn't have before, as well as an "itch" in their lungs when exercising that they didn't have before. They'd might want to look into the I-RECOVER Protocol for treating Long COVID: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-recover-protocol/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-recover... https://youtu.be/ZCYM2HW2Ayw?t=321 https://youtu.be/ZCYM2HW2Ayw?t=321 Also there's emerging data suggesting Long COVID symptoms are being triggered by the reactivation of the Epstein Barr Virus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8233978/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8233978/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAmH7IpUpbI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAmH7IpUpbI
- swader999 5y ago
  That long covid protocol worked for me. Horse paste ivermectin because you can't get a prescription for human kind where I live. Then followed up by prednisone to remove lung inflammation that persisted after ivermectin. I had all the long covid symptoms and it was brutal for three months.
throwawayswede 5y ago
> No. No. No. No. No. This kind of attitude turns people away from wanting to engage with you, even if your idea has merit. > There's absolutely no reason to say things like "hysterical fixation on cases". Bringing cases down means LESS LIVES LOST and less HEALTH lost. It's naive to think that some people want more lives lost. That's the goal of everyone. In the same way, you're asking people to understand your perspective, try to keep an open mind, and understand the perspective of others. Even if you're correct, the only way to help is to understand the root of why some people are hesitant. I'm obviously pro vaccines (in general) and are vaccinated for covid, but I'm also pro informed decision making, which from my perspective is very lacking (in some contexts) and very simplistic (summarized into TikTok-style videos and "cute" guitar songs) in others. There is of course valuable information out there but it's very difficult to find and is mostly lost in the ocean of influencer-driven media, turning science into MTV style top 10 countdowns. I happen to very rarely watch TV or news related to Covid from any source other than Sweden's official organizations, and I'm very happy with their information. I also noticed that it's very different in cadence from what I usually read people trying to say anywhere [1] (contrary to generic Swedish media for example, which follows the American example mostly). I believe this is one of the main reasons we have 40% fully vaccinated and ~60% with at least one shot). And there's no noticeable animosity or friction between vaccinated or unvaccinated people. There are also very few masks going around (mostly older people and 1 out of 100 young people I see). From what I understand, scientists doing the research are working very hard on this, and they are still not 100% clear on all the details. It's naive to dismiss side-effects no matter how rare they are, and even more dangerous to dismiss fears of people. When you say "everyone must get vaccinated whether they understand or not" you're not aiding those people who are hesitant (regardless of why). Just the other day I watched a supercut of different "officials" some saying people can "top-off" with a second jab from another kind of vaccine while others saying that it's extremely wrong to do so. Similar to how the whole mask thing changed over time (and even now again with the new variants). This is all to say that difference of opinion and understanding is not only expected, but it's inevitable. You can't eliminate it, you can only face it and discuss it openly. 1: https://www.1177.se/Stockholm/sjukdomar--besvar/lungor-och-luftvagar/inflammation-och-infektion-ilungor-och-luftror/om-covid-19--coronavirus/om-vaccin-mot-covid-19/vaccination-mot-covid-19/ https://www.1177.se/Stockholm/sjukdomar--besvar/lungor-och-l...

desine 5y ago

If the ultimate goal is saving lives, how much of your daily life are you willing to sacrifice for public health? Willing to forego car ownership? End two day shipping speeds for non essential purchases?

rubicon33 5y ago
I don't think the ultimate goal should be saving lives. It should be avoiding the spread of COVID. Saving lives would just be a side effect of lower COVID cases (and vaccination). I'm all for re-opening businesses and promoting vaccinations. We have to get back to living our lives. I'm just tired of the idea people seem to have that it's entirely about lives.
- nradov 5y ago
  Since SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic in the worldwide human population plus some animal species it's impossible to avoid the spread. We can slow the spread to a limited extent but eventually all of us will be exposed.
  - polynomial 5y ago
    Hmm, this is a very serious hypothesis. While not disputing it as a viable hypothesis, do we have good models that support this conclusion? Also, how do these (SEIR?) models distinguish E=100 from E being an aggregate of different variants, delta etc? Finally, what is the relationship between E=100 and R0? I wouldn't expect it to be fixed (model independent) but rather a given model will assert some relationship between E and R0. Sorry if this is a lot of questions, I do think it's valuable to address this with actual models and supporting data.
  - _ph_ 5y ago
    Maybe it is - if so, not fighting it consequently in many regions of the world certainly helped with that. But slowing the spread is still of essential importance. We do have vaccinations, which greatly reduce the risk of getting infected and especially the risk of severe consequences. Still, the very vulnerable groups of our society are carrying a considerable risk even when vaccinated. That alone should mandate to keep infection count low. And the more we vaccinate and have other limiting means in place - like wearing masks in indoor public places where it is possible - the lower the infection count is. That directly saves quite a few lives and a lot of health, but most of it, it buys us time. Yes, probably everyone gets exposed to the virus in the future, but we can decide how quickly. Every month later means we might get vaccines which protect close to perfection, that we find better medication or at least better understand what Covid-19 is all causing and can treat better. Also, with any additional infection the risk of another significant mutation increases. Even with current vaccines, with a high enough vaccination rate any outbreaks should be much smaller and more localized. This does make a difference. Mandatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2448/ https://xkcd.com/2448/
bichiliad 5y ago
Yes, totally — we are only as healthy and as happy as the least of our neighbors. If I had to forgo two day shipping or driving in order to bring down traffic crashes, improve air quality, etc. that seems like a totally fair trade-off. The alternative doesn't look all that good.

timr 5y ago

Thank you for providing an excellent example of the fear-based reasoning surrounding "cases". I understand that you are scared, but is incorrect to imply that my opinion comes from a lack of understanding of what you're talking about. > Why is this so hard for people to understand? I understand your argument, but I disagree with you, based on a long education in this area, a deep understanding of the data, and personal experience. > A virus doesn't just enter your body, and quietly go away. Some do not. This one does. > In MANY cases, it can have a lasting effect on your underlying health and wellness. In some, rare cases, we see examples of post-viral syndromes. We have seen these for many different viruses. > I am vaccinated. I have friends who are vaccinated, and have still gotten COVID. One of them still doesn't have their sense of taste and smell back, after nearly 3 weeks post symptoms. Again, lingering symptoms following an illness are not unknown. Every time I get a head cold, I typically develop a cough that lasts > 3 weeks. By ~all current evidentiary standards for "long covid", I have had "long cold". Similarly, my grandmother lost her sense of smell to a head cold when I was a child. She never got it back, entirely. Sad, but not something that we took extraordinary societal interventions to prevent. > They describe being brain fog, and tiredness that they didn't have before, as well as an "itch" in their lungs when exercising that they didn't have before. Neither of these are objectively defined. I have an "itch" in my lungs, right now (probably allergies). I have never had Covid. When I don't sleep well (which is often, thanks to the state of our society), I have trouble focusing. Is that "brain fog"? Point being: some people are going to have after-effects from infection. That's unfortunate, but it's not unknown, and the virus isn't going away. If the choice is to completely up-end our society to prevent people from ever getting sick again, then I'm strongly opposed.

sergiomattei 5y ago
> I understand your argument, but I disagree with you, based on a long edudcation, and a deep understanding of the data. Where's the data? I didn't see a single source listed, just anecdotes from you and your family.
- timr 5y ago
  Where's the data in the OP's comment? Remarkable how fear and speculation has a lower evidentiary standard, isn't it?

trhway 5y ago

>I am vaccinated. I have friends who are vaccinated, and have still gotten COVID. vaccinated people get covid and spread it like unvaccinated[1]. Then what is the point of vaccination mandate? I really don't understand. Add to that that since May CDC stopped counting breakthrough cases which don't result in hospitalizations. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-study-shows-74percent-of-people-infected-in-massachusetts-covid-outbreak-were-fully-vaccinated.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-study-shows-74percent-of... "About three-fourths of people infected in a Massachusetts Covid-19 outbreak were fully vaccinated, according to new data published Friday by the CDC. The new data, published in the U.S. agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, also found that fully vaccinated people who get infected carry as much of the virus in their nose as unvaccinated people. "

thrwwmbkpr 5y ago
Potentially related - "How major media outlets screwed up the vaccine ‘breakthrough’ story" [1]. Outlines media mis-interpretation of an unfinished, internal CDC presentation last week (roughly lines up with your July 30 story). [1] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/cdc_date_media_coverage_vaccination.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/cdc_date_media_coverage_... I found that while reading daily news from AllSides[2], as recommended in a recent HN thread. I really like it so far. [2] https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
- trhway 5y ago
  Your link is multipage propaganda spin full of media distrust FUD without data, and deja vu - White House tweets blaming the media for wrong coverage of hard CDC data. Whereis if you compare the CNBC link i posted with the official CDC report linked below you'll find no screwed up nor mis-interpretation on the part of CNBC (though CNBC didn't mention the 69% vaccination coverage and obvious correlation with the observed 74% share of infections). And the CDC report is crystal clear: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm "During July 2021, 469 cases of COVID-19 associated with multiple summer events and large public gatherings in a town in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, were identified among Massachusetts residents; vaccination coverage among eligible Massachusetts residents was 69%. Approximately three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons"

shaicoleman 5y ago

> One of them still doesn't have their sense of taste and smell back, after nearly 3 weeks post symptoms. They describe being brain fog, and tiredness that they didn't have before, as well as an "itch" in their lungs when exercising that they didn't have before. They'd might want to look into the I-RECOVER Protocol for treating Long COVID: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-recover-protocol/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-recover... https://youtu.be/ZCYM2HW2Ayw?t=321 https://youtu.be/ZCYM2HW2Ayw?t=321 Also there's emerging data suggesting Long COVID symptoms are being triggered by the reactivation of the Epstein Barr Virus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8233978/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8233978/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAmH7IpUpbI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAmH7IpUpbI

swader999 5y ago
That long covid protocol worked for me. Horse paste ivermectin because you can't get a prescription for human kind where I live. Then followed up by prednisone to remove lung inflammation that persisted after ivermectin. I had all the long covid symptoms and it was brutal for three months.

throwawayswede 5y ago

> No. No. No. No. No. This kind of attitude turns people away from wanting to engage with you, even if your idea has merit. > There's absolutely no reason to say things like "hysterical fixation on cases". Bringing cases down means LESS LIVES LOST and less HEALTH lost. It's naive to think that some people want more lives lost. That's the goal of everyone. In the same way, you're asking people to understand your perspective, try to keep an open mind, and understand the perspective of others. Even if you're correct, the only way to help is to understand the root of why some people are hesitant. I'm obviously pro vaccines (in general) and are vaccinated for covid, but I'm also pro informed decision making, which from my perspective is very lacking (in some contexts) and very simplistic (summarized into TikTok-style videos and "cute" guitar songs) in others. There is of course valuable information out there but it's very difficult to find and is mostly lost in the ocean of influencer-driven media, turning science into MTV style top 10 countdowns. I happen to very rarely watch TV or news related to Covid from any source other than Sweden's official organizations, and I'm very happy with their information. I also noticed that it's very different in cadence from what I usually read people trying to say anywhere [1] (contrary to generic Swedish media for example, which follows the American example mostly). I believe this is one of the main reasons we have 40% fully vaccinated and ~60% with at least one shot). And there's no noticeable animosity or friction between vaccinated or unvaccinated people. There are also very few masks going around (mostly older people and 1 out of 100 young people I see). From what I understand, scientists doing the research are working very hard on this, and they are still not 100% clear on all the details. It's naive to dismiss side-effects no matter how rare they are, and even more dangerous to dismiss fears of people. When you say "everyone must get vaccinated whether they understand or not" you're not aiding those people who are hesitant (regardless of why). Just the other day I watched a supercut of different "officials" some saying people can "top-off" with a second jab from another kind of vaccine while others saying that it's extremely wrong to do so. Similar to how the whole mask thing changed over time (and even now again with the new variants). This is all to say that difference of opinion and understanding is not only expected, but it's inevitable. You can't eliminate it, you can only face it and discuss it openly. 1: https://www.1177.se/Stockholm/sjukdomar--besvar/lungor-och-luftvagar/inflammation-och-infektion-ilungor-och-luftror/om-covid-19--coronavirus/om-vaccin-mot-covid-19/vaccination-mot-covid-19/ https://www.1177.se/Stockholm/sjukdomar--besvar/lungor-och-l...