33 ms·

There is lots of competition for the top of the stupidity list. NYC locking down all summer and then 'opening up' in September seemed top of the list to me. It

There is lots of competition for the top of the stupidity list. NYC locking down all summer and then 'opening up' in September seemed top of the list to me. It's not that I thought they should have stayed locked down the entire time, its that they should have opened in the summer so they could lock down in the winter if they really needed it. But seriously though, locking down in the summer to only open up in flu season, really? Or maybe the whole 'if we just lock down for two weeks, this will be over' tops the list of stupidity. or the fact people still want to lock down despite how epically they have failed. Germany masked, distanced, and locked down better than anyone could expect, and here they are sitting with 4 million cases, 100k dead and are still in the pandemic. They don't even share a porous border with Mexico/South America. To no fault of their own, they are hardest hit by the pandemic, and the US sharing a border with them the way it is meant no rosy outcome was in our future. Or how about how everyone was anti mask in the beginning, including the CDC, WHO, and my very liberal coworkers. When I said it would be advisable to wear a mask when in crowded places March, 2020 - I was heckled for not following the science. Or what about the fact we are 2 years into this and we still haven't built a significant amount of hospitals? if we had to lock down because of lack of hospital beds, well we better f'ing demand they have enough hospital beds, like real soon. This is why the lockdowns should have came at a price, you want to lock down then we need a metric that you are trying to achieve by the lockdown, we need timely updates on your progress to that metric, and we need an action plan such that this will never happen again (such as building more hosptials - hey, how about just opening the thousands we shut down in the last 5 years to make hospitals more profitable!). my views on that were called 'myopic'. so we gave them lockdowns without restrictions, and nothing was done. here we are in the same situation, odd. As far as making the vaccines political, well they don't have to be. some research has shown that they don't do very well at stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? just say do it for yourself if you want to, politics removed. edit: just to be clear - I am not anti vax, I am vaccinated and I recommend to everyone to do the same. There is unrefutably evidence the vaccine prevents sever cases.

throwawayzz007 5y ago
Hospital bed / ICU capacity is really just Hollywood accounting. They can prepare for surges and make more meds. There are federal and local incentives that get handed out to hospitals that are at or near capacity. So they’re always at or near capacity.
gowld 5y ago
Blaming the US Southern border for coronavirus spread is a racist and Republican (anti-immigration excuse-making) trope.
- russdpale 5y ago
  Those types of contents are becoming more and more common on this forum. Doesn't seem like mods care.
- autokad 5y ago
  I'm not blaming the southern border, I am pointing out a fact that has implications on how we manage our expectations, and what actions to mitigate the corona virus that will work better than others given our situation. if you think facts should be suppressed then you hardly believe in science. its sad that russdpale thinks this comment should be removed by moderators. I also didn't state this is the only reason, nor that the solution should be stopping the border crossings. In fact, I am arguing for increased capacity to handle the corona virus long term. short term measures like trying to lock down borders is going to have little meaning in the long run, and hurt a lot of people.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wootangflan 5y ago
  The problem is mosaic and pretending one of the myriad factors is marker of a hatemongerer is itself hatemongering.
- xdennis 5y ago
  > racist and Republican Are both of those insults?
- kansface 5y ago
  A quick search shows ~20% of immigrants being deported testing positive (up to 25%). There are something like 200K immigrants currently encountered by border patrol per month. Naively that's 50K people coming to the US each month with covid who are poor (probably can't self quarantine), live in dense, multi generational households and exist outside of the law. Realistically, we'd expect that ICE (deportation) contributes to the spread. At any rate, I don't see how illegal immigration could be qualified other than a significant vector in the spread of covid.
werm82 5y ago
> some research has shown that they don't do very well at stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? Do you have a link/links to where you read that vaccines don't do well at stopping the spread? Everything I've read is that vaccines, while not 100% effective at stopping the vaccinated person from infecting someone else, significantly lower the risk of spreading the virus[0]. That risk drops dramatically when both parties involved are vaccinated. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythings..., see Effectiveness --> What we know
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Yeah, GP has a couple of interesting ideas mixed in there (NY lockdown policy and building hospital capacity) but the rest are bog standard anti-mask, anti-vax talking points. Masks help, vaccines help -- it's all about pushing R below 1, and a measure doesn't have to be 100% effective (or anywhere near that) to push. Lockdowns do flatten the curve, and while we might have built new hospitals in a parallel universe, in this one we really don't want to saturate the beds (again). I was pleasantly surprised by the "flatten the curve" narrative -- usually the telephone game ensures that this kind of nuance gets buried under simpler, incorrect versions like "if we just lock down for two weeks, this will be over," but this time around I was pleased to see "flatten the curve" start strong and keep its legs. CDC's initial mask take was wrong, but evidence changed their minds, and that's a good sign. GP, if you want to harp on this, tell me: if I were to dig through your post history would I find a bunch of poorly aged posts about a silent first wave?
  - autokad 5y ago
    I am not anti vax, I am vaccinated and I recommend to everyone to do the same. However, relying on this vaccine as a long term solution is a very bad idea. Also you are stating I am anti mask when I stated how I recommended mask usage. Do you not read or do you just force your expectations on people? Sure, go ahead and dig through my history. not sure what you mean by 'a silent first wave'.
    - 5y ago
pacomerh 5y ago
> some research has shown that they don't do very well at stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? So why are they calling this the pandemic of the unvaccinated? - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/21/how-unvaccinated-pandemic-threaten-everyones-health/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/21/how-unvac... - https://www.healthline.com/health-news/risks-of-the-delta-variant-for-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-people https://www.healthline.com/health-news/risks-of-the-delta-va... - https://abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinated-covid-19/story?id=78845627 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinat... and the list goes on and on. I have personally seen unvaccinated family members get sicker...plus countless of people mentioning the same.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- chillwaves 5y ago
  My theory is that the vaccines are not stopping transmission, just reducing the effects -- enough that people don't even know they are carriers. Then we re-opened everything and vaccinated (and others) stopped wearing masks. So in effect, coronavirus is spreading as if there were no masking or social distancing since those have ended. And by and large it is the unvaccinated who are paying the price. I might be wrong, but at least my explanation is plausible.
tialaramex 5y ago
> Or maybe the whole 'if we just lock down for two weeks, this will be over' tops the list of stupidity New Zealand had 26 deaths in over a year of the pandemic. Not 26 per 100k population. Not 26 per day. Twenty six people full stop. Because in fact "We go hard and we go early" works. Right now they are locked down (since last week) because they had one case in their community, but of course it isn't ever one case and they knew that, since that lockdown began there are now over 100 patients linked to that single infection. Under a lockdown the people who are surprised to discover that they're infected are (mostly) bored at home, not out infecting yet more people. I think there's a fair chance they'll beat it again, and exit that lockdown as they did earlier ones. Because elimination strategy works.
- hcurtiss 5y ago
  Yes. For small island countries like New Zealand it works "great." This was never an option for countries like the US, or even most of Europe. Much less so for countries like India. But we'll see how it goes. If New Zealand and Australia persist in this notion that they're going to stay locked down until the virus goes away, particularly with its endemicity now inevitable, I think you will soon find vast swaths of those countries in open, violent revolt.
  - abraae 5y ago
    I live in NZ and can assure you from the front lines of the revolt that we don't think we're going to stay locked down until the virus goes away. The game has always been to play it by ear. That's been a great call so far, we've lived normal lives for the last year while incredible scientific advances have delivered vaccines. This is a long game, and we've done well in the first quarter. I hope the politicians continue making good calls as the game goes on. Don't assume that because we locked down hard that that will always be the path forward. That's your straw man talking.
    - chinathrow 5y ago
      I wish you well. What I feel is a real problem in the makes is that you eventually have to open up again but with not enough folks vaccinated. And suddenly, you are in a situation many other countries have right now.
gremloni 5y ago
This comment is every right wing talking point about the epidemic with a marked attempt to come across casually.
dstaley 5y ago
> Or what about the fact we are 2 years into this and we still haven't built a significant amount of hospitals? If I understand correctly, there isn't a lack of literal beds/space; it's a lack of personnel. Basically hospitals are unable to staff themselves at the levels needed to accomodate being basically 100% full. This is compounded by the fact that hospitals are struggling to retain healthcare workers, who are burnt out, and the fact that healthcare isn't something that someone can easily switch to.
- amatecha 5y ago
  Unfortunately, there is absolutely a lack of beds. Someone I know was in emergency last week (totally unrelated to pandemic) and had to wait an entire day before actually being properly admitted to a ward because there were no beds available for them. So they layed in an emergency room "booth"[0] for close to 24 hours, until a bed became available. There are lots of news articles about the lack of beds/capacity all over the place [1][2][3] [0] I don't know the right word for it, but a small room usually used for short-term (<few hours) evaluation of a patient before passing them along to the next phase, like admitting to a ward or sending them home or etc. [1] https://vancouversun.com/news/covid-19-kelowna-general-hospital-swamped-some-surgeries-being-rescheduled https://vancouversun.com/news/covid-19-kelowna-general-hospi... [2] https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/oregon-emergency-rooms-backed-up/283-df49a066-b701-4c95-aaf8-f1e7c20897bc https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/oregon-e... [3] https://richmond.com/news/national/with-no-beds-hospitals-ship-patients-to-far-off-cities/article_3740dbac-a1d2-5e97-8b05-79a7883026bc.html https://richmond.com/news/national/with-no-beds-hospitals-sh...
  - Negitivefrags 5y ago
    When you are told there is a lack of beds, it really doesn't have to mean a lack of physical beds. A bed that isn't staffed with a nurse is no more useful then laying in your bed at home.
    - amatecha 5y ago
      Yeah, people keep responding to this, so I'll reply.. Yeah, the beds are literally full, at least in the hospital I was in. People on beds in the hallways and stuff. It's not a staffing shortage or anything like that.
monkeynotes 5y ago
> better f'ing demand they have enough hospital beds I am pretty sure people not getting sick in the first place is the priority, rather than making enough infrastructural medical capacity for something that is preventable. It's not like you can just magic up more doctors either. > you want to lock down then we need a metric that you are trying to achieve by the lockdow Well, this is obviously the vaccine > Germany masked, distanced, and locked down better than anyone could expect, and here they are sitting with 4 million cases, 100k dead and are still in the pandemic. They don't even share a porous border with Mexico/South America Are you saying you advise lockdowns (especially in winter) and then saying lockdowns are ineffective?
johnnyanmac 5y ago
>Or what about the fact we are 2 years into this and we still haven't built a significant amount of hospitals? I don't think 2 years is enough to just "build new hostipal", let alone staff them, supply them to hospital standards, and start taking business. It's not land that's short, it's talent.
- orthoxerox 5y ago
  > I don't think 2 years is enough to just "build new hostipal", let alone staff them It totally is enough time to build one. Staffing is more problematic, but if it was a state-run hospital you could've converted a lot of national guardsmen into nurses in the meanwhile. You don't need a lot of talent to handle most Covid cases, just people able to follow the protocol.
  - johnnyanmac 5y ago
    Maybe it depends on the area. I know California has famously strict building codes, so I'd be impressed to see a hospital made up to code in 2 years (unless the government threw the entire checkbook at it of course.)
  - hilbertseries 5y ago
    > You don't need a lot of talent to handle most Covid cases, just people able to follow the protocol. Does this have any basis in facts? My understanding is keeping a covid patient alive in the ICU is incredibly demanding.
    - orthoxerox 5y ago
      It is, but you don't need ICU for most hospitalizations. My dad had a cytokine storm, and the doc looked at the health ministry Covid protocol that said "inject IL-6 inhibitor and keep the patient prone and on supplementary oxygen" and did exactly that. You don't need full-grown doctors to do that.
- ojbyrne 5y ago
  There were numerous temporary hospitals (i.e tents) last summer. Presumably they were staffed.
mirroregami 5y ago
Only time CDC and WHO were anti-mask were when there were shortages. Save the masks for the healthcare workers, essentially.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  But they burned huge amounts of their social trust capital in doing so, because they didn't just say "there are shortages, please stop hoarding masks", they outright lied about the efficacy of masks and perpetuated the lie for months. If people have no idea what to believe, it's because the government led a catastrophically inept response.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    No. The CDC said AT THE TIME that they didn't recommend everyone wearing masks because hospitals were facing shortages. They have always been open about their reasoning and data. Quit repeating this terrible lie.
    - malkuth23 5y ago
      That is not quite true. The CDC listed several reasons not to wear masks. They definitely mention a shortage of masks and retaining supply for medical personnel, but at the same time they also said they were unnecessary and unhelpful for anyone not working directly around symptomatic sick people. Also, most people do not differentiate the CDC from the Surgeon General. This is a quote from the LA Times quoting Jerome Adams: “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” he wrote in a tweet that was later deleted. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!” This is a good article about the changing position on masks: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cdc-mask-guidance-during-covid-19-pandemic https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd... Here are a few other sources I found with a quick google search: https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2020-03/cdc-an-about-face-on-face-masks/ https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2020-03/c... https://www.marketwatch.com/story/surgeon-general-wants-you-to-stop-buying-masks-to-protect-yourself-from-coronavirus-they-are-not-effective-2020-03-01?mod=article_inline https://www.marketwatch.com/story/surgeon-general-wants-you-... marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30
lrem 5y ago
Care to share your source on "don't do very well at stopping spread"? When I searched arxiv, it seemed to be 4-10x reduction in viral loads.
fruityrudy 5y ago
> don’t do very well at stopping spread It‘s probabilities. The vaccinated kid who dies after getting infected because of transmission via unvaccinated. Although interestingly, not everyone gets the annual flu shot. So maybe this will turn out to be the same.
tunesmith 5y ago
Every tool in the quiver is about reducing Rt below 1. If it's above 1, cases double every few days. If it's far about 1, it's hardly any days, if it's just above 1, it's more days. But either way, the cases are still doubling at some rate, not just spreading but growing. So every single tool in the quiver is about reducing Rt below 1. A lockdown will give you a few points. Vaccines will give you more. Masks give you more. Social distancing give you more. None of them get you all the way there. Some are more temporary than others, so have to be implemented at the right times. So... > they don't do very well at stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? The do help limit spread. Going from "they don't stop spread entirely" to "why force people to get vaccinated?" is like saying "body armor doesn't prevent being killed, so soldiers shouldn't wear them". Plus, there's the aspect of it being contagious - vaccines make it less contagious overall. Vaccines reduce Rt. > we still haven't built a significant amount of hospitals? The goal was never to permanently increase supply of hospitals, it was to reduce the demand for them, by putting measures into place to reduce Rt. > anti-mask at the beginning During that time, scientists thought that COVID was chiefly droplet-transmitted, so the emphasis was on distance, washing hands, hand sanitizer, etc. In an environment where people were already hoarding toilet paper, then if it had been true that droplets were the only source of transmission, masks were overkill, wouldn't do a lot to reduce Rt, and also had the risk of limiting supply to people who needed them. After it became clear that it was also aerosol-transmitted, the scientific recommendations changed, because then it was clear that masks would help reduce Rt. As for Germany... Delta has a higher Rt than the Wuhan strain. Their lockdowns were effective.
richardw 5y ago
On the curve, hospital beds are basically flat compared to a covid spike. There is no rational amount of beds that is enough, because bed estimates are always a guess: wrong and wasteful because too many and then suddenly too few. And then you need doctors and nurses. And the disease spikes in one area and then another. Do you ship beds around? Easier to take personal responsibility than depend on the government or whoever is meant to parachute in all the beds and doctors to save us from our own misunderstanding of exponential growth curves.
- pas 5y ago
  You ship patients around to big hospitals. Personal responsibility is fundamental, that's what makes the collective measures work efficiently. But there are simply things that are near impossible to do personally. Are you going to build a personal ICU for your family just in case? Are you going to train as an ICU nurse, a respiratory disease specialist, and are you also building a personal protective equipment factory for yourself too? Of course not. Though we need a bit of both. Depending on cheap just-in-time shit from China is great when you are dealing with a local flu outbreak in the local preschool, but not great in a pandemic. And the efficient solution is that everyone stocks up a few at home, and collectively we stock up a few billion in the country and then distribute it when and where needed instead of everyone trying to stock up thousands at home. (And so on for other aspects of protective measures.)
Johnny555 5y ago
Or how about how everyone was anti mask in the beginning, including the CDC, WHO, and my very liberal coworkers. When I said it would be advisable to wear a mask when in crowded places March, 2020 - I was heckled for not following the science. Hindsight is always 20/20, early on the virus was not believed to be airborne, only spread through relatively large droplets from coughing/sneezing which you'd likely only encounter in close contact with an actively ill person. Plus, Fauci had the responsibility to preserve masks for those that would be exposed directly to infected people - the medical workers and first responders. The first lockdown in the USA was mid-march, and the mask guidance had already changed by the beginning of April as we understood more about how the disease spread. Early guidance (and news coverage) also recommended sanitizing surfaces to prevent the spread of the disease, but surface contact was later found to be a less significant mode of transmission. As far as making the vaccines political, well they don't have to be. some research has shown that they don't do very well at stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? just say do it for yourself if you want to, politics removed. People with serious diseases are being turned away from hospitals or asked to reschedule appointments/visits because hospitals are overwhelmed with COVID patients (and healthcare workers are being pushed to the limit). Vaccines are a public health decision, not a personal decision.
- account42 5y ago
  > Hindsight is always 20/20, early on the virus was not believed to be airborne, only spread through relatively large droplets from coughing/sneezing which you'd likely only encounter in close contact with an actively ill person. This isn't about hindsight. Coronaviruses are not an unknown and airborne spread should have been assumed unless ruled out. And it was assumed by many: Taiwan immediately mobilized their military to ramp up mask production, even before the WHO admitted there was a problem. > Plus, Fauci had the responsibility to preserve masks for those that would be exposed directly to infected people - the medical workers and first responders. Then he and other leaders should have communicated that. Treating people like dumb idiots that you need to lie to to get what you want results in those people mistrusting your future recommendations, e.g. to get vaccinated.
  - 5y ago
vmception 5y ago
ICU capacity should be the only metric for any mitigation measure. Building greater capacity and staffing should be the focus. The lack of capacity has been the justification for lockdowns since after summer 2020, and likely will be in some areas in the future. Its about periodic and seasonal things that occur while COVID is also taking up some bandwidth, not about whether it stops the spread at all. The messaging has been lackluster and hyperbolic and conflicting the whole time and will continue to be. Sorry about your experience, its not worthwhile to stay frustrated on crowd reactions, this is a fast moving scenario and consensus will never be reached on the various overlapping chapters.
- tunesmith 5y ago
  If you're going to pick one metric, if the exponential growth of the disease has any chance of overwhelming hospitals, then regional Rt > 1 should be the only metric for any mitigation measure. If you're okay with Rt > 1 until hospitals are close to overwhelmed, then it means you were okay with allowing a doubling rate for a dangerous disease. It makes no sense. If you're destined to put mitigation measures in place eventually, why not just do them sooner and save a lot of suffering?
  - vmception 5y ago
    > If you're okay with Rt > 1 until hospitals are close to overwhelmed, then it means you were okay with allowing a doubling rate for a dangerous disease.... If you're destined to put mitigation measures in place eventually, why not just do them sooner and save a lot of suffering? correct, it makes sense because now people have a choice about whether the prevalence of the disease will land them in the hospital. the mere prevalence is not the issue. the subset of people that don't have a choice had the same issue before COVID existed, aka: the same distribution of immunocompromised people always existed. this makes the calculus simply that it is back to business as usual, until ICU capacity is nearing full, that is. Since ICU capacity isn't only due to COVID cases, but due to all emergencies and injuries, then society as a whole needs to slow down to reduce the likelihood of emergency incidents, while also expanding ICU capacity to avoid future disruptions. The core of my supposition is that developed nations are not developed if emergency services are unavailable, and that governing system can prioritize reacting to that.
lenkite 5y ago
There currently isn't enough staffing to man the current hospitals forget about any newly created ones. What I am upset about is why there was no plan to fast-track induction and graduation of nurses/paramedics/physicians with a minimum employment guarantee of 5 years by the govt so that folks are incentivised for a medical career.
account42 5y ago
> Germany masked, distanced, and locked down better than anyone could expect There was never anything even remotely close to a total lockdown here. Too afraid that telling people not to got to work might hurt the economy. What Germany got "right" was mostly things done long before the pandemic, e.g. investment in a large number of hospitable beds, as well as public health insurance and flexible sick days guaranteed by law so sick people can actually afford to stay at home. > They don't even share a porous border with Mexico/South America. LOL the US border is mostly ocean and the part that is through land is much more controlled than the "borders" in the EU. > Or how about how everyone was anti mask in the beginning, including the CDC, WHO, and my very liberal coworkers. When I said it would be advisable to wear a mask when in crowded places March, 2020 - I was heckled for not following the science. Yeah, that was one of the biggest atrocities of the pandemic. Not only is it immorral to give false medical advice, this has also been responsible for more people (rightfully) mistrusting later recommendations. There should be leaders stepping down over this. > As far as making the vaccines political, well they don't have to be. some research has shown that they don't do very well at stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? just say do it for yourself if you want to, politics removed. I agree, forcing people to get vaccinated (and that includes excessive restrictions to those not vaccinated) is not the way to go.
Tainnor 5y ago
> Germany masked, distanced, and locked down better than anyone could expect, and here they are sitting with 4 million cases, 100k dead and are still in the pandemic. There was never going to be an "easy" way to combat this pandemic, and experts have been quite clear about this from the beginning. A really successful strategy would have required a careful combination of several types of interventions, close monitoring of the situation as well as fast and effective adjustments to policies, and probably also a certain dose of luck. Germany did a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong (though in certain instances, people might reasonably disagree about which is which), and Germany was also a bit lucky that we had many hospital beds and a social structure that is maybe a bit less conducive to infections (fewer inter-generational households). I think that Germany did well enough to avoid the worst effects of the pandemic (hospitals never got to the situation where they were fully overwhelmed, although it seemed close a few times) due to somehow people getting their shit together at the last minute every time, but I'm certain that a strategy with fewer deaths and less economic damage would have been possible. The main problem that I see in Germany is that the government (or governments, if we include the regional ones) never had a real plan on what to do. Such a plan doesn't need to be inflexible, it can react to different situations and new scientific evidence, but it still should have been possible to establish some basic principles instead of stumbling through this pandemic almost blindly. As an effect, we went into (more or less restrictive) lockdowns several times that prevented the worst, but a combination of other measures could have had a better impact: going into stricter, but shorter, lockdowns instead of months of weird "semi-lockdowns" with tons of exceptions (a lot of time was wasted especially last Summer), finding better solutions for schools and universities (such as better tools for remote teaching, and air filters), buying vaccines earlier, forcing employers to allow people to work from home (this was done eventually, but much too late — this was basically only because the industry lobbied hard enough, while at the same time, restaurants and museums had to close down completely), allowing certain lower-risk activities during the lockdown (such as outside terraces for restaurants), etc. I'm not saying that all of these things would have worked, but we certainly could have tried more (or, in certain cases, earlier).

throwawayzz007 5y ago

Hospital bed / ICU capacity is really just Hollywood accounting. They can prepare for surges and make more meds. There are federal and local incentives that get handed out to hospitals that are at or near capacity. So they’re always at or near capacity.

gowld 5y ago

Blaming the US Southern border for coronavirus spread is a racist and Republican (anti-immigration excuse-making) trope.

russdpale 5y ago
Those types of contents are becoming more and more common on this forum. Doesn't seem like mods care.
autokad 5y ago
I'm not blaming the southern border, I am pointing out a fact that has implications on how we manage our expectations, and what actions to mitigate the corona virus that will work better than others given our situation. if you think facts should be suppressed then you hardly believe in science. its sad that russdpale thinks this comment should be removed by moderators. I also didn't state this is the only reason, nor that the solution should be stopping the border crossings. In fact, I am arguing for increased capacity to handle the corona virus long term. short term measures like trying to lock down borders is going to have little meaning in the long run, and hurt a lot of people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wootangflan 5y ago
The problem is mosaic and pretending one of the myriad factors is marker of a hatemongerer is itself hatemongering.
xdennis 5y ago
> racist and Republican Are both of those insults?
kansface 5y ago
A quick search shows ~20% of immigrants being deported testing positive (up to 25%). There are something like 200K immigrants currently encountered by border patrol per month. Naively that's 50K people coming to the US each month with covid who are poor (probably can't self quarantine), live in dense, multi generational households and exist outside of the law. Realistically, we'd expect that ICE (deportation) contributes to the spread. At any rate, I don't see how illegal immigration could be qualified other than a significant vector in the spread of covid.

werm82 5y ago

> some research has shown that they don't do very well at stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? Do you have a link/links to where you read that vaccines don't do well at stopping the spread? Everything I've read is that vaccines, while not 100% effective at stopping the vaccinated person from infecting someone else, significantly lower the risk of spreading the virus[0]. That risk drops dramatically when both parties involved are vaccinated. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythings..., see Effectiveness --> What we know

jjoonathan 5y ago
Yeah, GP has a couple of interesting ideas mixed in there (NY lockdown policy and building hospital capacity) but the rest are bog standard anti-mask, anti-vax talking points. Masks help, vaccines help -- it's all about pushing R below 1, and a measure doesn't have to be 100% effective (or anywhere near that) to push. Lockdowns do flatten the curve, and while we might have built new hospitals in a parallel universe, in this one we really don't want to saturate the beds (again). I was pleasantly surprised by the "flatten the curve" narrative -- usually the telephone game ensures that this kind of nuance gets buried under simpler, incorrect versions like "if we just lock down for two weeks, this will be over," but this time around I was pleased to see "flatten the curve" start strong and keep its legs. CDC's initial mask take was wrong, but evidence changed their minds, and that's a good sign. GP, if you want to harp on this, tell me: if I were to dig through your post history would I find a bunch of poorly aged posts about a silent first wave?
- autokad 5y ago
  I am not anti vax, I am vaccinated and I recommend to everyone to do the same. However, relying on this vaccine as a long term solution is a very bad idea. Also you are stating I am anti mask when I stated how I recommended mask usage. Do you not read or do you just force your expectations on people? Sure, go ahead and dig through my history. not sure what you mean by 'a silent first wave'.
  - 5y ago

pacomerh 5y ago

> some research has shown that they don't do very well at stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? So why are they calling this the pandemic of the unvaccinated? - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/21/how-unvaccinated-pandemic-threaten-everyones-health/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/21/how-unvac... - https://www.healthline.com/health-news/risks-of-the-delta-variant-for-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-people https://www.healthline.com/health-news/risks-of-the-delta-va... - https://abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinated-covid-19/story?id=78845627 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinat... and the list goes on and on. I have personally seen unvaccinated family members get sicker...plus countless of people mentioning the same.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chillwaves 5y ago
My theory is that the vaccines are not stopping transmission, just reducing the effects -- enough that people don't even know they are carriers. Then we re-opened everything and vaccinated (and others) stopped wearing masks. So in effect, coronavirus is spreading as if there were no masking or social distancing since those have ended. And by and large it is the unvaccinated who are paying the price. I might be wrong, but at least my explanation is plausible.

tialaramex 5y ago

> Or maybe the whole 'if we just lock down for two weeks, this will be over' tops the list of stupidity New Zealand had 26 deaths in over a year of the pandemic. Not 26 per 100k population. Not 26 per day. Twenty six people full stop. Because in fact "We go hard and we go early" works. Right now they are locked down (since last week) because they had one case in their community, but of course it isn't ever one case and they knew that, since that lockdown began there are now over 100 patients linked to that single infection. Under a lockdown the people who are surprised to discover that they're infected are (mostly) bored at home, not out infecting yet more people. I think there's a fair chance they'll beat it again, and exit that lockdown as they did earlier ones. Because elimination strategy works.

hcurtiss 5y ago
Yes. For small island countries like New Zealand it works "great." This was never an option for countries like the US, or even most of Europe. Much less so for countries like India. But we'll see how it goes. If New Zealand and Australia persist in this notion that they're going to stay locked down until the virus goes away, particularly with its endemicity now inevitable, I think you will soon find vast swaths of those countries in open, violent revolt.
- abraae 5y ago
  I live in NZ and can assure you from the front lines of the revolt that we don't think we're going to stay locked down until the virus goes away. The game has always been to play it by ear. That's been a great call so far, we've lived normal lives for the last year while incredible scientific advances have delivered vaccines. This is a long game, and we've done well in the first quarter. I hope the politicians continue making good calls as the game goes on. Don't assume that because we locked down hard that that will always be the path forward. That's your straw man talking.
  - chinathrow 5y ago
    I wish you well. What I feel is a real problem in the makes is that you eventually have to open up again but with not enough folks vaccinated. And suddenly, you are in a situation many other countries have right now.

gremloni 5y ago

This comment is every right wing talking point about the epidemic with a marked attempt to come across casually.

dstaley 5y ago

> Or what about the fact we are 2 years into this and we still haven't built a significant amount of hospitals? If I understand correctly, there isn't a lack of literal beds/space; it's a lack of personnel. Basically hospitals are unable to staff themselves at the levels needed to accomodate being basically 100% full. This is compounded by the fact that hospitals are struggling to retain healthcare workers, who are burnt out, and the fact that healthcare isn't something that someone can easily switch to.

amatecha 5y ago
Unfortunately, there is absolutely a lack of beds. Someone I know was in emergency last week (totally unrelated to pandemic) and had to wait an entire day before actually being properly admitted to a ward because there were no beds available for them. So they layed in an emergency room "booth"[0] for close to 24 hours, until a bed became available. There are lots of news articles about the lack of beds/capacity all over the place [1][2][3] [0] I don't know the right word for it, but a small room usually used for short-term (<few hours) evaluation of a patient before passing them along to the next phase, like admitting to a ward or sending them home or etc. [1] https://vancouversun.com/news/covid-19-kelowna-general-hospital-swamped-some-surgeries-being-rescheduled https://vancouversun.com/news/covid-19-kelowna-general-hospi... [2] https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/oregon-emergency-rooms-backed-up/283-df49a066-b701-4c95-aaf8-f1e7c20897bc https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/oregon-e... [3] https://richmond.com/news/national/with-no-beds-hospitals-ship-patients-to-far-off-cities/article_3740dbac-a1d2-5e97-8b05-79a7883026bc.html https://richmond.com/news/national/with-no-beds-hospitals-sh...
- Negitivefrags 5y ago
  When you are told there is a lack of beds, it really doesn't have to mean a lack of physical beds. A bed that isn't staffed with a nurse is no more useful then laying in your bed at home.
  - amatecha 5y ago
    Yeah, people keep responding to this, so I'll reply.. Yeah, the beds are literally full, at least in the hospital I was in. People on beds in the hallways and stuff. It's not a staffing shortage or anything like that.

monkeynotes 5y ago

> better f'ing demand they have enough hospital beds I am pretty sure people not getting sick in the first place is the priority, rather than making enough infrastructural medical capacity for something that is preventable. It's not like you can just magic up more doctors either. > you want to lock down then we need a metric that you are trying to achieve by the lockdow Well, this is obviously the vaccine > Germany masked, distanced, and locked down better than anyone could expect, and here they are sitting with 4 million cases, 100k dead and are still in the pandemic. They don't even share a porous border with Mexico/South America Are you saying you advise lockdowns (especially in winter) and then saying lockdowns are ineffective?

johnnyanmac 5y ago

>Or what about the fact we are 2 years into this and we still haven't built a significant amount of hospitals? I don't think 2 years is enough to just "build new hostipal", let alone staff them, supply them to hospital standards, and start taking business. It's not land that's short, it's talent.

orthoxerox 5y ago
> I don't think 2 years is enough to just "build new hostipal", let alone staff them It totally is enough time to build one. Staffing is more problematic, but if it was a state-run hospital you could've converted a lot of national guardsmen into nurses in the meanwhile. You don't need a lot of talent to handle most Covid cases, just people able to follow the protocol.
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  Maybe it depends on the area. I know California has famously strict building codes, so I'd be impressed to see a hospital made up to code in 2 years (unless the government threw the entire checkbook at it of course.)
- hilbertseries 5y ago
  > You don't need a lot of talent to handle most Covid cases, just people able to follow the protocol. Does this have any basis in facts? My understanding is keeping a covid patient alive in the ICU is incredibly demanding.
  - orthoxerox 5y ago
    It is, but you don't need ICU for most hospitalizations. My dad had a cytokine storm, and the doc looked at the health ministry Covid protocol that said "inject IL-6 inhibitor and keep the patient prone and on supplementary oxygen" and did exactly that. You don't need full-grown doctors to do that.
ojbyrne 5y ago
There were numerous temporary hospitals (i.e tents) last summer. Presumably they were staffed.

mirroregami 5y ago

Only time CDC and WHO were anti-mask were when there were shortages. Save the masks for the healthcare workers, essentially.

nerdponx 5y ago
But they burned huge amounts of their social trust capital in doing so, because they didn't just say "there are shortages, please stop hoarding masks", they outright lied about the efficacy of masks and perpetuated the lie for months. If people have no idea what to believe, it's because the government led a catastrophically inept response.
- mike00632 5y ago
  No. The CDC said AT THE TIME that they didn't recommend everyone wearing masks because hospitals were facing shortages. They have always been open about their reasoning and data. Quit repeating this terrible lie.
  - malkuth23 5y ago
    That is not quite true. The CDC listed several reasons not to wear masks. They definitely mention a shortage of masks and retaining supply for medical personnel, but at the same time they also said they were unnecessary and unhelpful for anyone not working directly around symptomatic sick people. Also, most people do not differentiate the CDC from the Surgeon General. This is a quote from the LA Times quoting Jerome Adams: “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS!” he wrote in a tweet that was later deleted. “They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!” This is a good article about the changing position on masks: https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cdc-mask-guidance-during-covid-19-pandemic https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd... Here are a few other sources I found with a quick google search: https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2020-03/cdc-an-about-face-on-face-masks/ https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2020-03/c... https://www.marketwatch.com/story/surgeon-general-wants-you-to-stop-buying-masks-to-protect-yourself-from-coronavirus-they-are-not-effective-2020-03-01?mod=article_inline https://www.marketwatch.com/story/surgeon-general-wants-you-... marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30

lrem 5y ago

Care to share your source on "don't do very well at stopping spread"? When I searched arxiv, it seemed to be 4-10x reduction in viral loads.

fruityrudy 5y ago

> don’t do very well at stopping spread It‘s probabilities. The vaccinated kid who dies after getting infected because of transmission via unvaccinated. Although interestingly, not everyone gets the annual flu shot. So maybe this will turn out to be the same.

tunesmith 5y ago

Every tool in the quiver is about reducing Rt below 1. If it's above 1, cases double every few days. If it's far about 1, it's hardly any days, if it's just above 1, it's more days. But either way, the cases are still doubling at some rate, not just spreading but growing. So every single tool in the quiver is about reducing Rt below 1. A lockdown will give you a few points. Vaccines will give you more. Masks give you more. Social distancing give you more. None of them get you all the way there. Some are more temporary than others, so have to be implemented at the right times. So... > they don't do very well at stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? The do help limit spread. Going from "they don't stop spread entirely" to "why force people to get vaccinated?" is like saying "body armor doesn't prevent being killed, so soldiers shouldn't wear them". Plus, there's the aspect of it being contagious - vaccines make it less contagious overall. Vaccines reduce Rt. > we still haven't built a significant amount of hospitals? The goal was never to permanently increase supply of hospitals, it was to reduce the demand for them, by putting measures into place to reduce Rt. > anti-mask at the beginning During that time, scientists thought that COVID was chiefly droplet-transmitted, so the emphasis was on distance, washing hands, hand sanitizer, etc. In an environment where people were already hoarding toilet paper, then if it had been true that droplets were the only source of transmission, masks were overkill, wouldn't do a lot to reduce Rt, and also had the risk of limiting supply to people who needed them. After it became clear that it was also aerosol-transmitted, the scientific recommendations changed, because then it was clear that masks would help reduce Rt. As for Germany... Delta has a higher Rt than the Wuhan strain. Their lockdowns were effective.

richardw 5y ago

On the curve, hospital beds are basically flat compared to a covid spike. There is no rational amount of beds that is enough, because bed estimates are always a guess: wrong and wasteful because too many and then suddenly too few. And then you need doctors and nurses. And the disease spikes in one area and then another. Do you ship beds around? Easier to take personal responsibility than depend on the government or whoever is meant to parachute in all the beds and doctors to save us from our own misunderstanding of exponential growth curves.

pas 5y ago
You ship patients around to big hospitals. Personal responsibility is fundamental, that's what makes the collective measures work efficiently. But there are simply things that are near impossible to do personally. Are you going to build a personal ICU for your family just in case? Are you going to train as an ICU nurse, a respiratory disease specialist, and are you also building a personal protective equipment factory for yourself too? Of course not. Though we need a bit of both. Depending on cheap just-in-time shit from China is great when you are dealing with a local flu outbreak in the local preschool, but not great in a pandemic. And the efficient solution is that everyone stocks up a few at home, and collectively we stock up a few billion in the country and then distribute it when and where needed instead of everyone trying to stock up thousands at home. (And so on for other aspects of protective measures.)

Johnny555 5y ago

Or how about how everyone was anti mask in the beginning, including the CDC, WHO, and my very liberal coworkers. When I said it would be advisable to wear a mask when in crowded places March, 2020 - I was heckled for not following the science. Hindsight is always 20/20, early on the virus was not believed to be airborne, only spread through relatively large droplets from coughing/sneezing which you'd likely only encounter in close contact with an actively ill person. Plus, Fauci had the responsibility to preserve masks for those that would be exposed directly to infected people - the medical workers and first responders. The first lockdown in the USA was mid-march, and the mask guidance had already changed by the beginning of April as we understood more about how the disease spread. Early guidance (and news coverage) also recommended sanitizing surfaces to prevent the spread of the disease, but surface contact was later found to be a less significant mode of transmission. As far as making the vaccines political, well they don't have to be. some research has shown that they don't do very well at stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? just say do it for yourself if you want to, politics removed. People with serious diseases are being turned away from hospitals or asked to reschedule appointments/visits because hospitals are overwhelmed with COVID patients (and healthcare workers are being pushed to the limit). Vaccines are a public health decision, not a personal decision.

account42 5y ago
> Hindsight is always 20/20, early on the virus was not believed to be airborne, only spread through relatively large droplets from coughing/sneezing which you'd likely only encounter in close contact with an actively ill person. This isn't about hindsight. Coronaviruses are not an unknown and airborne spread should have been assumed unless ruled out. And it was assumed by many: Taiwan immediately mobilized their military to ramp up mask production, even before the WHO admitted there was a problem. > Plus, Fauci had the responsibility to preserve masks for those that would be exposed directly to infected people - the medical workers and first responders. Then he and other leaders should have communicated that. Treating people like dumb idiots that you need to lie to to get what you want results in those people mistrusting your future recommendations, e.g. to get vaccinated.
- 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

ICU capacity should be the only metric for any mitigation measure. Building greater capacity and staffing should be the focus. The lack of capacity has been the justification for lockdowns since after summer 2020, and likely will be in some areas in the future. Its about periodic and seasonal things that occur while COVID is also taking up some bandwidth, not about whether it stops the spread at all. The messaging has been lackluster and hyperbolic and conflicting the whole time and will continue to be. Sorry about your experience, its not worthwhile to stay frustrated on crowd reactions, this is a fast moving scenario and consensus will never be reached on the various overlapping chapters.

tunesmith 5y ago
If you're going to pick one metric, if the exponential growth of the disease has any chance of overwhelming hospitals, then regional Rt > 1 should be the only metric for any mitigation measure. If you're okay with Rt > 1 until hospitals are close to overwhelmed, then it means you were okay with allowing a doubling rate for a dangerous disease. It makes no sense. If you're destined to put mitigation measures in place eventually, why not just do them sooner and save a lot of suffering?
- vmception 5y ago
  > If you're okay with Rt > 1 until hospitals are close to overwhelmed, then it means you were okay with allowing a doubling rate for a dangerous disease.... If you're destined to put mitigation measures in place eventually, why not just do them sooner and save a lot of suffering? correct, it makes sense because now people have a choice about whether the prevalence of the disease will land them in the hospital. the mere prevalence is not the issue. the subset of people that don't have a choice had the same issue before COVID existed, aka: the same distribution of immunocompromised people always existed. this makes the calculus simply that it is back to business as usual, until ICU capacity is nearing full, that is. Since ICU capacity isn't only due to COVID cases, but due to all emergencies and injuries, then society as a whole needs to slow down to reduce the likelihood of emergency incidents, while also expanding ICU capacity to avoid future disruptions. The core of my supposition is that developed nations are not developed if emergency services are unavailable, and that governing system can prioritize reacting to that.

lenkite 5y ago

There currently isn't enough staffing to man the current hospitals forget about any newly created ones. What I am upset about is why there was no plan to fast-track induction and graduation of nurses/paramedics/physicians with a minimum employment guarantee of 5 years by the govt so that folks are incentivised for a medical career.

account42 5y ago

> Germany masked, distanced, and locked down better than anyone could expect There was never anything even remotely close to a total lockdown here. Too afraid that telling people not to got to work might hurt the economy. What Germany got "right" was mostly things done long before the pandemic, e.g. investment in a large number of hospitable beds, as well as public health insurance and flexible sick days guaranteed by law so sick people can actually afford to stay at home. > They don't even share a porous border with Mexico/South America. LOL the US border is mostly ocean and the part that is through land is much more controlled than the "borders" in the EU. > Or how about how everyone was anti mask in the beginning, including the CDC, WHO, and my very liberal coworkers. When I said it would be advisable to wear a mask when in crowded places March, 2020 - I was heckled for not following the science. Yeah, that was one of the biggest atrocities of the pandemic. Not only is it immorral to give false medical advice, this has also been responsible for more people (rightfully) mistrusting later recommendations. There should be leaders stepping down over this. > As far as making the vaccines political, well they don't have to be. some research has shown that they don't do very well at stopping spread, so why all the fuss to force people to get vaccinated? just say do it for yourself if you want to, politics removed. I agree, forcing people to get vaccinated (and that includes excessive restrictions to those not vaccinated) is not the way to go.

Tainnor 5y ago

> Germany masked, distanced, and locked down better than anyone could expect, and here they are sitting with 4 million cases, 100k dead and are still in the pandemic. There was never going to be an "easy" way to combat this pandemic, and experts have been quite clear about this from the beginning. A really successful strategy would have required a careful combination of several types of interventions, close monitoring of the situation as well as fast and effective adjustments to policies, and probably also a certain dose of luck. Germany did a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong (though in certain instances, people might reasonably disagree about which is which), and Germany was also a bit lucky that we had many hospital beds and a social structure that is maybe a bit less conducive to infections (fewer inter-generational households). I think that Germany did well enough to avoid the worst effects of the pandemic (hospitals never got to the situation where they were fully overwhelmed, although it seemed close a few times) due to somehow people getting their shit together at the last minute every time, but I'm certain that a strategy with fewer deaths and less economic damage would have been possible. The main problem that I see in Germany is that the government (or governments, if we include the regional ones) never had a real plan on what to do. Such a plan doesn't need to be inflexible, it can react to different situations and new scientific evidence, but it still should have been possible to establish some basic principles instead of stumbling through this pandemic almost blindly. As an effect, we went into (more or less restrictive) lockdowns several times that prevented the worst, but a combination of other measures could have had a better impact: going into stricter, but shorter, lockdowns instead of months of weird "semi-lockdowns" with tons of exceptions (a lot of time was wasted especially last Summer), finding better solutions for schools and universities (such as better tools for remote teaching, and air filters), buying vaccines earlier, forcing employers to allow people to work from home (this was done eventually, but much too late — this was basically only because the industry lobbied hard enough, while at the same time, restaurants and museums had to close down completely), allowing certain lower-risk activities during the lockdown (such as outside terraces for restaurants), etc. I'm not saying that all of these things would have worked, but we certainly could have tried more (or, in certain cases, earlier).