4 ms·

The main problem is that the U.S. federal government in particular has been pretending for a while that we can get to zero COVID, then blaming the unvaccinated

by sreque 5y ago

The main problem is that the U.S. federal government in particular has been pretending for a while that we can get to zero COVID, then blaming the unvaccinated when it doesn't happen. First, they said we need 50% vaccination to achieve, herd immunity. Then 60%. Then 70%. Then 80%. When things don't work out, they vilify and blame the unvaccinated. In reality, unvaccinated with natural immunity are likely more protected against the virus than the vaccinated. Israel's vaccination rates are among the highest in the world, and they've suffered the same delta outbreak as everyone else. Further, Israel has the most accurate and comprehensive data to date, and their numbers clearly show the naturally-immunized outperforming the vaccinated during their delta wave. They've since resorted to giving 3rd booster shots to the most vulnerable to compensate. https://arieh.substack.com/p/inside-israels-delta-outbreak-part https://arieh.substack.com/p/inside-israels-delta-outbreak-p... https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/israel-delivers-booster-shots-vaccine-people-60-79163582 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/israel-delivers-boos... The real issue is that COVID is likely going to become endemic, and at some point the world needs to face this and move on. Unfortunately, our politicians have been lying to us and using COVID as a tool to gain political power for so long, that they are unwilling to admit they were wrong and to steer us in the right direction. The best we can do is elect these people out.

tomrod 5y ago
Please share some scientific citations showing natural immunity gives better protection than vaccines. This runs counter to what I'm hearing from my virologist sources.
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  There is no scientific consensus that naturally acquired immunity gives better protection than vaccines. Two facts that are trending toward consensus in the scientific literature: A) Naturally infected individuals who recover will acquire robust and durable immunity [1][2] B) Natural infection induces an immune response that is mostly similar but slightly different than the immune response induced by vaccination. The primary differences can be summarized as: naturally infected individuals have nucleocapsid protein antibodies whereas vaccinated individuals do not, and vaccinated individuals have an immune response highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD. [3][4][5] In summary many people hypothesize that natural infection is better because it induces a broader and more balance antibody response, but the literature has not established consensus that this is necessarily "better" in terms of health outcomes for individuals. [1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf [2] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2 https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... [3] Rapid induction of antigen-specific CD4+ T cells is associated with coordinated humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3 https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3 [4] Distinct SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses Elicited by Natural Infection and mRNA Vaccination https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4 [5] Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/
  - ak217 5y ago
    > In summary many people hypothesize that natural infection is better because it induces a broader and more balance antibody response, but the literature has not established consensus that this is necessarily "better" in terms of health outcomes for individuals. Great summary - I have seen no evidence that natural immunity is better. The opposite could be true. A nucelocapsid-specific immune response cannot be used to kill live virus (the nucleocapsid is not accessible for binding on the surface of a live virus). This means natural immunity will result in an intense off-target immune response (in addition to an intense on-target one for the spike). That off-target response elevates the chances of collateral tissue damage (cytokine storm).
- kriskrunch 5y ago
  Here are a couple of preprint studies that show naturally acquired immunity provides protection. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33948610/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33948610/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33907755/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33907755/ Meanwhile the CDC published this study showing the opposite: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm... I can understand why people are confused. There appears to be two camps, one that believes that science can defeat this disease, and in the other camp people that believe we need to learn to adjust to our new reality. I don't understand how a man made vaccine can provide better protection to the virus better than my body after recovering, but I'm not specialist. Aren't the pharmaceutical companies financially incentivized to provide minimal protection, and annual booster shots? Why would they make something better? As long as fear navigates our course, we won't see an end to this.
  - sreque 5y ago
    It really depends on the virus. For some viruses, the vaccines are far more effective and less risky and have helped eliminate or mostly eliminate the virus entirely. For other viruses, vaccines are far less effective. The Israel data is clearly showing natural immunity doing better for COVID, and every other peer-reviewed study I have seen shows natural immunity doing "at least" as well as vaccinated immunity.
  - yyyk 5y ago
    >There appears to be two camps, one that believes that science can defeat this disease, and in the other camp people that believe we need to learn to adjust to our new reality. Vaccines are part of our adjustment. There's one camp which tries to adjust, and another which places hands in their ears. >I don't understand how a man made vaccine can provide better protection to the virus better than my body after recovering, but I'm not specialist. The same way an antibiotic could cure certain diseases much better than your own body. Besides, you're much more likely to survive the vaccine than the disease. >Aren't the pharmaceutical companies financially incentivized to provide minimal protection, and annual booster shots? Why would they make something better? Efficiency isn't something pharmaceutical companies could just decide in advance. If they try to make something inefficient, there's a good chance it won't be effective at all, and they'll lose all the money invested in R&D. And ultimately, less effective vaccines will be crowded out of the market, we already see this in some countries with AZ and J&J.
tunesmith 5y ago
That first paragraph really isn't fair because R0 has changed. So of course scientific opinion has changed. That's not same thing as pretending and then vilifying. Your second paragraph is eliding a lousy "therefore" - obviously, the cost of shooting for natural immunity versus vaccination is that you have to experience the actual disease and all its risks. Survivorship bias.
- rajin444 5y ago
  Scientists are allowed and should be allowed to say "the data changed, so our recommendation changed". Politicians and health leaders have a responsibility to interpret the data and develop communications and policies that build trust and inform the public. It's a failure on the part of the latter when they make promises to the public that they know are not guaranteed. They have made definitive statements that are wrong too many times in the past year and a half. That is a massive failure. The average joe has nowhere near the time nor expertise required to interpret the scientific data out there, so trust is everything for them. At some point, you run out of the good will required to say "ok, I'll trust you again". Maintaining trust is a leader's most important job.
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
You were (legitimately) attacking my numbers elsewhere but here you are posting completely inaccurate information. Israel is nowhere close to "90%" vaccinated. Haaretz from 4 days ago reports them at 78%: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-vaccine-data-how-many-have-already-been-inoculated-for-covid-1.9626604 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-vaccine-data-how-... Given the vaccine is not approved for people under 12, there's no way it could be 90%, as 28% of their population is 0-14 years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Age_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Age_str...
- sreque 5y ago
  I misremembered. It was 90% of people over 50 that were vaccinated. It's in the article I linked. But I don't think that discredits my main point, that increased vaccination rates aren't going to eliminate the virus entirely and that natural immunity is actually doing better.
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    Here in Canada "natural immunity" would only cover maybe 4-5% of the population. Official testing numbers of total cases in Ontario since the pandemic began put it at 3.7% here (though it's likely a bit higher because of bad testing during first wave.) Maybe in some US states where the disease was horribly mismanaged that number is much higher, but it's a) not reliably counted b) badly researched. Knowing whether someone is "naturally immune" is a big roll of the dice, whereas we know for sure when someone is vaccinated. And to get to a high "natural" immunity rate requires unnecessary death and suffering. But yes, half of the 18-29 year olds here seem to be rolling the dice and playing this "natural immunity" game; which is why they are now the vast majority of hospital admissions for this disease.
    - sreque 5y ago
      What's wrong with your 18-29 year-olds making that choice? Freedom means freedom to make sub-ideal choices or even bad choices, including choices that affect others negatively. Really almost every choice we make affects others in some capacity, for good or bad. Do you want to outlaw all choices you deem bad? The state of COVID is such that if you are an adult you can get vaccinated and you are safe enough, no matter what decisions others make. If you are not an adult then the risks to you are so low that you are safe anyways. The 2009 swine flu killed 3 times as many children in 9 months as COVID has killed in 18 months: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2009/12/cdc-sharply-raises-h1n1-case-estimates-kids-hit-hard https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2009/12/cdc-shar.... Yet This flu did not require masking, lockdowns, forced vaccinations, or any shutting down of schools. If you are immunocompromised, or otherwise vulnerable even with the vaccine, then it is up to you to take extra precautions, like wearing an N95 in public or avoiding crowded areas. COVID simply isn't deadly enough to warrant the curbing of freedom that is being done or the vilification of those not making choices we think they should. Get vaccinated if you want to and move on with your life. Stop forcing people to get vaccinated, especially those who've already been infected. And finally, get the government out of the business of mandates of any kind. They aren't needed. People have the tools already to protect themselves how they see fit.
tshaddox 5y ago
Personally I think the real problem with COVID is that it is a disease which kills many people and harms many more, not that some people supposedly vilify unvaccinated people.
- kriskrunch 5y ago
  Why not fight heart disease with this voracity, since it kills more people?
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    What fight, and what voracity?
  - bonzini 5y ago
    There's not a single heart disease, and a lot of cardiovascular issues are caused by bad habits rather than infectious pathogens.
    - kriskrunch 5y ago
      That's the reasoning used to vilify unvaccinated people, which is my point. Cheers
sfink 5y ago
Your numbers are wrong (see other responses for why.) The herd immunity figure (1) legitimately changed with the variants, and (2) is always going to be a shot in the dark so personally I don't find much point in paying attention to government figures anyway. Government is providing figures to achieve an outcome; it's fundamentally a policy tool. If you want the science, listen to scientists. The delta variant is currently overwhelming a large number of hospitals, and it wouldn't have done so with higher vaccination rates. Whether or not you view that statement as vilifying unvaccinated people is beside the point. If it is going to become endemic, and there are very good arguments that it will, then I agree that we'll need to move on. But "moving on" != "ignoring". Flushing the existing vaccines down the toilet and letting the cards fall as they may is not a winning strategy, yet that's exactly what 40% of the US population is presently choosing. "Moving on" means treating it like chickenpox or at least the flu. Not like meteor strikes.
- sreque 5y ago
  I misremembered the numbers but if you click to the linked analysis the numbers are correct there. As to the delta variant overwhelming hospitals, that's partially because hospitals are firing nurses that won't get vaccinated. The lack of beds is primarily a staffing problem and hospitals are shooting themselves in the foot. I've also heard they have been underpaying nurses and some are just quitting or switching to better-paying contract work. Second, the media and even some hospital administration officials are blatantly deceiving people on actual hospital status: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/08/06/fact-checking-4-claims-about-covid-19-in-florida-spike/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/08/06/fact-checking-4-claim... There's a whole section there debunking the claims, for instance, that hospitals in Florida are overwhelmed. I don't think anyone thinks that "moving on" means forgetting, but I do think it does entail having the government get out of the business of mandating lockdowns, masks, or vaccines. The problem lies in the fact that the media were too successful in scaring people to death about COVID. It makes handling the virus in a sane way impossible without negative political fallout.
  - sfink 5y ago
    I know some doctors in affected areas. The hospitals were overwhelmed before any unvaccinated firings happened. The staff are incredibly exhausted, angry, and demoralized. Many went through this before with the first big wave, and not only are they back to insane hours and filling body bags, but now they have to deal with the awareness that it's unnecessary and avoidable. If you'd like to confirm, dig up some medical staff on Twitter. "MedTwitter" is a thing. (But don't search based on keywords like "vaccine", because you will find what you seek. It'll be massively biased in a pro-vaccine direction. Find the medical professionals first, then see what they're saying.) I think the question of whether to allow unvaccinated staff is a tricky one. I don't think it should be decided because some people are pissed off at vaccine resisters, and I haven't seen any strong evidence that it is. (I haven't looked, either.) Unvaccinated staff put their patients and coworkers at risk if they work, or if they don't work. Someone has to do the math. Similarly for government intervention. It really bothers me when the government mandates anything. But I think of it like this: Let's say I'm in a community that is fond of keeping tigers as pets. 5% of the population dies every year from wild tiger attacks. Many community members insist on letting their tigers be off-leash, calling it a fundamental part of their identity as tiger owners. Off-leash tigers kill 50% of the (remaining) human population each year. I don't like leashing my tiger. But over half the people I know are dead. I would gather the community together and say, sorry guys, but we're going to have to agree to keep our kitties on leashes, no matter how friendly we think they are. And we're going to have to back up that agreement with expulsion, imprisonment, or taking tigers away. It sucks, but the risk is too high. 55% annual death rate is insanely high, but it makes the point that there is a number at which community (aka government) mandates are the right thing to do. We can argue at where the number ought to be, but not whether or not there is a number. Right now, there are a lot of people dying, and a lot of "dry wood" that the virus is burning through. I think it's time to wet some of that fuel, whether it wants to get wet or not. (And even though we know some of that wet wood is still gonna burn.)

by sreque 5y ago

tomrod 5y ago

Please share some scientific citations showing natural immunity gives better protection than vaccines. This runs counter to what I'm hearing from my virologist sources.

criticaltinker 5y ago
There is no scientific consensus that naturally acquired immunity gives better protection than vaccines. Two facts that are trending toward consensus in the scientific literature: A) Naturally infected individuals who recover will acquire robust and durable immunity [1][2] B) Natural infection induces an immune response that is mostly similar but slightly different than the immune response induced by vaccination. The primary differences can be summarized as: naturally infected individuals have nucleocapsid protein antibodies whereas vaccinated individuals do not, and vaccinated individuals have an immune response highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD. [3][4][5] In summary many people hypothesize that natural infection is better because it induces a broader and more balance antibody response, but the literature has not established consensus that this is necessarily "better" in terms of health outcomes for individuals. [1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf [2] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2 https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... [3] Rapid induction of antigen-specific CD4+ T cells is associated with coordinated humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3 https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3 [4] Distinct SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses Elicited by Natural Infection and mRNA Vaccination https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4 [5] Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/
- ak217 5y ago
  > In summary many people hypothesize that natural infection is better because it induces a broader and more balance antibody response, but the literature has not established consensus that this is necessarily "better" in terms of health outcomes for individuals. Great summary - I have seen no evidence that natural immunity is better. The opposite could be true. A nucelocapsid-specific immune response cannot be used to kill live virus (the nucleocapsid is not accessible for binding on the surface of a live virus). This means natural immunity will result in an intense off-target immune response (in addition to an intense on-target one for the spike). That off-target response elevates the chances of collateral tissue damage (cytokine storm).
kriskrunch 5y ago
Here are a couple of preprint studies that show naturally acquired immunity provides protection. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33948610/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33948610/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33907755/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33907755/ Meanwhile the CDC published this study showing the opposite: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm... I can understand why people are confused. There appears to be two camps, one that believes that science can defeat this disease, and in the other camp people that believe we need to learn to adjust to our new reality. I don't understand how a man made vaccine can provide better protection to the virus better than my body after recovering, but I'm not specialist. Aren't the pharmaceutical companies financially incentivized to provide minimal protection, and annual booster shots? Why would they make something better? As long as fear navigates our course, we won't see an end to this.
- sreque 5y ago
  It really depends on the virus. For some viruses, the vaccines are far more effective and less risky and have helped eliminate or mostly eliminate the virus entirely. For other viruses, vaccines are far less effective. The Israel data is clearly showing natural immunity doing better for COVID, and every other peer-reviewed study I have seen shows natural immunity doing "at least" as well as vaccinated immunity.
- yyyk 5y ago
  >There appears to be two camps, one that believes that science can defeat this disease, and in the other camp people that believe we need to learn to adjust to our new reality. Vaccines are part of our adjustment. There's one camp which tries to adjust, and another which places hands in their ears. >I don't understand how a man made vaccine can provide better protection to the virus better than my body after recovering, but I'm not specialist. The same way an antibiotic could cure certain diseases much better than your own body. Besides, you're much more likely to survive the vaccine than the disease. >Aren't the pharmaceutical companies financially incentivized to provide minimal protection, and annual booster shots? Why would they make something better? Efficiency isn't something pharmaceutical companies could just decide in advance. If they try to make something inefficient, there's a good chance it won't be effective at all, and they'll lose all the money invested in R&D. And ultimately, less effective vaccines will be crowded out of the market, we already see this in some countries with AZ and J&J.

tunesmith 5y ago

That first paragraph really isn't fair because R0 has changed. So of course scientific opinion has changed. That's not same thing as pretending and then vilifying. Your second paragraph is eliding a lousy "therefore" - obviously, the cost of shooting for natural immunity versus vaccination is that you have to experience the actual disease and all its risks. Survivorship bias.

rajin444 5y ago
Scientists are allowed and should be allowed to say "the data changed, so our recommendation changed". Politicians and health leaders have a responsibility to interpret the data and develop communications and policies that build trust and inform the public. It's a failure on the part of the latter when they make promises to the public that they know are not guaranteed. They have made definitive statements that are wrong too many times in the past year and a half. That is a massive failure. The average joe has nowhere near the time nor expertise required to interpret the scientific data out there, so trust is everything for them. At some point, you run out of the good will required to say "ok, I'll trust you again". Maintaining trust is a leader's most important job.

cmrdporcupine 5y ago

You were (legitimately) attacking my numbers elsewhere but here you are posting completely inaccurate information. Israel is nowhere close to "90%" vaccinated. Haaretz from 4 days ago reports them at 78%: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-vaccine-data-how-many-have-already-been-inoculated-for-covid-1.9626604 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-vaccine-data-how-... Given the vaccine is not approved for people under 12, there's no way it could be 90%, as 28% of their population is 0-14 years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Age_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Age_str...

sreque 5y ago
I misremembered. It was 90% of people over 50 that were vaccinated. It's in the article I linked. But I don't think that discredits my main point, that increased vaccination rates aren't going to eliminate the virus entirely and that natural immunity is actually doing better.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Here in Canada "natural immunity" would only cover maybe 4-5% of the population. Official testing numbers of total cases in Ontario since the pandemic began put it at 3.7% here (though it's likely a bit higher because of bad testing during first wave.) Maybe in some US states where the disease was horribly mismanaged that number is much higher, but it's a) not reliably counted b) badly researched. Knowing whether someone is "naturally immune" is a big roll of the dice, whereas we know for sure when someone is vaccinated. And to get to a high "natural" immunity rate requires unnecessary death and suffering. But yes, half of the 18-29 year olds here seem to be rolling the dice and playing this "natural immunity" game; which is why they are now the vast majority of hospital admissions for this disease.
  - sreque 5y ago
    What's wrong with your 18-29 year-olds making that choice? Freedom means freedom to make sub-ideal choices or even bad choices, including choices that affect others negatively. Really almost every choice we make affects others in some capacity, for good or bad. Do you want to outlaw all choices you deem bad? The state of COVID is such that if you are an adult you can get vaccinated and you are safe enough, no matter what decisions others make. If you are not an adult then the risks to you are so low that you are safe anyways. The 2009 swine flu killed 3 times as many children in 9 months as COVID has killed in 18 months: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2009/12/cdc-sharply-raises-h1n1-case-estimates-kids-hit-hard https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2009/12/cdc-shar.... Yet This flu did not require masking, lockdowns, forced vaccinations, or any shutting down of schools. If you are immunocompromised, or otherwise vulnerable even with the vaccine, then it is up to you to take extra precautions, like wearing an N95 in public or avoiding crowded areas. COVID simply isn't deadly enough to warrant the curbing of freedom that is being done or the vilification of those not making choices we think they should. Get vaccinated if you want to and move on with your life. Stop forcing people to get vaccinated, especially those who've already been infected. And finally, get the government out of the business of mandates of any kind. They aren't needed. People have the tools already to protect themselves how they see fit.

tshaddox 5y ago

Personally I think the real problem with COVID is that it is a disease which kills many people and harms many more, not that some people supposedly vilify unvaccinated people.

kriskrunch 5y ago
Why not fight heart disease with this voracity, since it kills more people?
- tshaddox 5y ago
  What fight, and what voracity?
- bonzini 5y ago
  There's not a single heart disease, and a lot of cardiovascular issues are caused by bad habits rather than infectious pathogens.
  - kriskrunch 5y ago
    That's the reasoning used to vilify unvaccinated people, which is my point. Cheers

sfink 5y ago

Your numbers are wrong (see other responses for why.) The herd immunity figure (1) legitimately changed with the variants, and (2) is always going to be a shot in the dark so personally I don't find much point in paying attention to government figures anyway. Government is providing figures to achieve an outcome; it's fundamentally a policy tool. If you want the science, listen to scientists. The delta variant is currently overwhelming a large number of hospitals, and it wouldn't have done so with higher vaccination rates. Whether or not you view that statement as vilifying unvaccinated people is beside the point. If it is going to become endemic, and there are very good arguments that it will, then I agree that we'll need to move on. But "moving on" != "ignoring". Flushing the existing vaccines down the toilet and letting the cards fall as they may is not a winning strategy, yet that's exactly what 40% of the US population is presently choosing. "Moving on" means treating it like chickenpox or at least the flu. Not like meteor strikes.

sreque 5y ago
I misremembered the numbers but if you click to the linked analysis the numbers are correct there. As to the delta variant overwhelming hospitals, that's partially because hospitals are firing nurses that won't get vaccinated. The lack of beds is primarily a staffing problem and hospitals are shooting themselves in the foot. I've also heard they have been underpaying nurses and some are just quitting or switching to better-paying contract work. Second, the media and even some hospital administration officials are blatantly deceiving people on actual hospital status: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/08/06/fact-checking-4-claims-about-covid-19-in-florida-spike/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/08/06/fact-checking-4-claim... There's a whole section there debunking the claims, for instance, that hospitals in Florida are overwhelmed. I don't think anyone thinks that "moving on" means forgetting, but I do think it does entail having the government get out of the business of mandating lockdowns, masks, or vaccines. The problem lies in the fact that the media were too successful in scaring people to death about COVID. It makes handling the virus in a sane way impossible without negative political fallout.
- sfink 5y ago
  I know some doctors in affected areas. The hospitals were overwhelmed before any unvaccinated firings happened. The staff are incredibly exhausted, angry, and demoralized. Many went through this before with the first big wave, and not only are they back to insane hours and filling body bags, but now they have to deal with the awareness that it's unnecessary and avoidable. If you'd like to confirm, dig up some medical staff on Twitter. "MedTwitter" is a thing. (But don't search based on keywords like "vaccine", because you will find what you seek. It'll be massively biased in a pro-vaccine direction. Find the medical professionals first, then see what they're saying.) I think the question of whether to allow unvaccinated staff is a tricky one. I don't think it should be decided because some people are pissed off at vaccine resisters, and I haven't seen any strong evidence that it is. (I haven't looked, either.) Unvaccinated staff put their patients and coworkers at risk if they work, or if they don't work. Someone has to do the math. Similarly for government intervention. It really bothers me when the government mandates anything. But I think of it like this: Let's say I'm in a community that is fond of keeping tigers as pets. 5% of the population dies every year from wild tiger attacks. Many community members insist on letting their tigers be off-leash, calling it a fundamental part of their identity as tiger owners. Off-leash tigers kill 50% of the (remaining) human population each year. I don't like leashing my tiger. But over half the people I know are dead. I would gather the community together and say, sorry guys, but we're going to have to agree to keep our kitties on leashes, no matter how friendly we think they are. And we're going to have to back up that agreement with expulsion, imprisonment, or taking tigers away. It sucks, but the risk is too high. 55% annual death rate is insanely high, but it makes the point that there is a number at which community (aka government) mandates are the right thing to do. We can argue at where the number ought to be, but not whether or not there is a number. Right now, there are a lot of people dying, and a lot of "dry wood" that the virus is burning through. I think it's time to wet some of that fuel, whether it wants to get wet or not. (And even though we know some of that wet wood is still gonna burn.)