9 ms·

If they can show that the product helps to save lifes and at some point get back to a normalcy, and especially if there’s no other significantly better product

by eCa 5y ago

If they can show that the product helps to save lifes and at some point get back to a normalcy, and especially if there’s no other significantly better product available, I really don’t have an issue with that.

mwint 5y ago
At this point, does anyone believe we’ll get back to normalcy? What’s the path?
- giarc 5y ago
  Vaccination. Why it doesn't seem to be working is that not everyone is getting vaccinated and there are pockets where the numbers are even lower. EVERY single study shows the likelihood of hospitalization and death is much higher in unvaccinated individuals, why is this hard to understand?
  - mwint 5y ago
    Let’s suppose we won’t hit 100% vaccination rates, for whatever reason. Are we doing this lockdown thing forever, then?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - pfg 5y ago
      We'll have to do it as long as there's a risk that the healthcare system would get overloaded to a degree that significantly affects the population as a whole, due to delayed treatment of things like cancer or ICU beds not being available in the event of a medical emergency. Beyond that, a lockdown is not the only non-pharmaceutical intervention that's available to us. It's just that many governments have failed to use other tools at the right time and in a way that's actually effective, often only implementing them right before the peak of a wave when it's way too late.
    - giarc 5y ago
      No, most definitely not. Vaccinated individuals are hospitalized less, are intubated less, die less, quite simply, they use up our healthcare system less. Lockdowns are in essence a way of preserving that limited resource (hospital beds). Where I live, in Alberta, we had a really bad 4th wave in September/October. Prior to that we were at ~75% vaccination rate in those over 18. The wave almost killed our healthcare system and it was primarily unvaccinated individuals using the beds. Had we been at 100% vaccination rate, we most definitely wouldn't have been in the same position.
  - Covzire 5y ago
    Because people keep flagging every HN post that dares to challenge the "scientific consensus", proving that said 'consensus' is not scientific at all.
  - liopleurodon 5y ago
    lmfao. the gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine doesn't work and governments don't like to give up power. Look up the recent statistics. It's the vaccinated that are filling up the hospitals, not the unvaccinated. Why is this hard to understand?
- logicchains 5y ago
  Some places are already completely back to normalcy, like many red states. Normalcy comes from accepting the virus and going back to life as normal; there's not a single place that's achieved normalcy by bringing covid rates down to zero.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    It's not really normalcy if one still has to be concerned about catching covid and/or passing it on to vulnerable relatives though.
    - mwint 5y ago
      You don’t have to be concerned. Another commenter brought up that the death rate per 100k is in the range of 1.1 (vaccinated) to ~5 (unvaccinated). Car accidents are >10/100k/yr.
      - nicoburns 5y ago
        I don't think an average is very useful here. For example, that figure is going to be much higher amongst elderly people. And many people are in contact with people who are vulnerable for other reasons (e.g. I have a relative going through chemotherapy). Incidence of long covid is also much higher than that of death. Some people may not be able to afford time off work if they catch covid, etc, etc.
      - bertr4nd 5y ago
        5/100k deaths among unvaccinated can’t possibly be right, can it? There have been 790k Covid deaths so far in the US out of a population of 330 million, which is over 200/100k.
        throwawayboise 5y ago
        Rates will change as the weakest die off. We may already be though the worst of it.
        5y ago
- boringg 5y ago
  Time, science and public awareness. Same thing has happened on all other pandemics. Pandemics peaks, ebbs and flows then life resumes. Just expand your time horizon.
- tazjin 5y ago
  Plenty of places are pretty much normal. If you want normalcy, you need to go to it - it won't come to you at this point.
- liopleurodon 5y ago
  New Zealand wants everyone to take a covid vaccine every 6 months. Oregon wants to make mask mandates permanent. Thousands of vaccine injured. How many athletes are dying from the vax? Lots and it's on camera. The way back to normalcy is to take back our freedom and end the covid tyranny. Then we hold the participants responsible with Nuremberg 2.0 trials. Not just politicians, but Bill Gates, Fauci, drug companies, doctors, nurses, Big Tech, Big Media, etc. I don't know how we'll ever be able to trust the medical profession ever again after this
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- altacc 5y ago
  Personally I think the path is countries which have a high vaccination level need to stop implementing restrictions whilst making mitigations such as increasing healthcare capacity (which they should have done 18 months ago but many didn't), paying for rapid testing, enabling PTO for people who think they are sick, sensible mask mandates, etc... These countries need to lead the way to accepting we've waited for vaccines & prophylactics so that we have tools to use to combat this but there is now a heightened risk that we have to live with and make reasonable mitigations against.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bufferoverflow 5y ago
    None of what you described is a path to normalcy. We've been doing it for over a year. Look at Australia, they have concentration camps. Vaccines don't really stop the spread of the virus, neither do they stop you from getting infected, they just reduce the symptoms and the odds of death. Which is still great, but it's not stopping the virus. We need next level meds, real vaccines.
    - ricardobeat 5y ago
      > Vaccines don't really stop the spread of the virus Technically correct, they don't stop the spread, but they significantly reduce it. It's kinda logical, isn't it? The virus must win over your antibodies to replicate. Currently breakthrough infections happen 1-2% of the time in the vaccinated, so even if there are 10x as many asymptomatic, unreported cases, the protective effect is still huge. This is really important to keep R < 1, which effectively means "stopping the virus". Eventually. In addition, the 90% reduced chance of hospitalisation is of great help to the healthcare system.
  - rocqua 5y ago
    Making mitigations is difficult. Increasing healthcare capacity is not a short term project. Especially with staffing because the training pipeline is quite long. Besides, restrictions have an exponential effect (by reducing the R value) whilst mitigations only have a linear effect. That makes it hard to replace one with the other. Instead I think earlier, less stringent, restrictions to start damping the wave early, combined with as much mitigation as possible are probably the right solution. Every wave, its a new game of 'flatten the curve'. And really that is what we need.
- ericb 5y ago
  Normal will be "new" in ways, which is always true, really. If you look at the broad scale of human history, though, there have been hundreds of epidemics, and we got past them. I suspect there's an end to be had via broad-based immunity to the most transmissive mutations evolution's random walk can come up with before it hits a local maxima. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
- pyjarrett 5y ago
  My state in the US has already been back to near 2018 normalcy for probably close to a year. The biggest change is that it's now faux pas to cough or sneeze in public, so people stay home when they're sick, so I can't remember the last time I heard a sneeze or cough in a store. Most schools are in-person, and temperature checks on entry. Some didn't require masks during class last year though that policy was reverted due to Delta, and local public schools are now maskless. Doctor's offices and government buildings are some of the only places requiring masks and the few companies with mask signs have about half their employees violating their own policy. However, masks can be only be recommended and not required for entry and the majority of people (probably 3:1 at least) don't wear them. Most people have accepted COVID is here permanently. We're at ~50% vaccination and most vaccinated people I know says they won't get a booster because "it was supposed to make things go back to normal the first time." Apathy is set in hard, and control of the message is outside the hands of the government and media here. Delta scared people a bunch, but after about a month, most people reverted back to not caring. I don't know anyone who is talking about Omicron, so I think every additional event just numbs more people.
Flankk 5y ago
save lifes Not doing your side any favors here.
throwawayboise 5y ago
We've been at this coming up on two years. Masks, lockdowns, vaccines, and the rest of it. Variants are still popping up and spreading all over the place. When do we admit that none of this is really working. Or do we just do this forever?
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  I don't really care about having a vaccine every 6 months but the masks are very restrictive IMO. That can't be forever. There needs to be an actual solution. I know it's not there now but I mean in the long run.

by eCa 5y ago

mwint 5y ago

At this point, does anyone believe we’ll get back to normalcy? What’s the path?

giarc 5y ago
Vaccination. Why it doesn't seem to be working is that not everyone is getting vaccinated and there are pockets where the numbers are even lower. EVERY single study shows the likelihood of hospitalization and death is much higher in unvaccinated individuals, why is this hard to understand?
- mwint 5y ago
  Let’s suppose we won’t hit 100% vaccination rates, for whatever reason. Are we doing this lockdown thing forever, then?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - pfg 5y ago
    We'll have to do it as long as there's a risk that the healthcare system would get overloaded to a degree that significantly affects the population as a whole, due to delayed treatment of things like cancer or ICU beds not being available in the event of a medical emergency. Beyond that, a lockdown is not the only non-pharmaceutical intervention that's available to us. It's just that many governments have failed to use other tools at the right time and in a way that's actually effective, often only implementing them right before the peak of a wave when it's way too late.
  - giarc 5y ago
    No, most definitely not. Vaccinated individuals are hospitalized less, are intubated less, die less, quite simply, they use up our healthcare system less. Lockdowns are in essence a way of preserving that limited resource (hospital beds). Where I live, in Alberta, we had a really bad 4th wave in September/October. Prior to that we were at ~75% vaccination rate in those over 18. The wave almost killed our healthcare system and it was primarily unvaccinated individuals using the beds. Had we been at 100% vaccination rate, we most definitely wouldn't have been in the same position.
- Covzire 5y ago
  Because people keep flagging every HN post that dares to challenge the "scientific consensus", proving that said 'consensus' is not scientific at all.
- liopleurodon 5y ago
  lmfao. the gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine doesn't work and governments don't like to give up power. Look up the recent statistics. It's the vaccinated that are filling up the hospitals, not the unvaccinated. Why is this hard to understand?
logicchains 5y ago
Some places are already completely back to normalcy, like many red states. Normalcy comes from accepting the virus and going back to life as normal; there's not a single place that's achieved normalcy by bringing covid rates down to zero.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  It's not really normalcy if one still has to be concerned about catching covid and/or passing it on to vulnerable relatives though.
  - mwint 5y ago
    You don’t have to be concerned. Another commenter brought up that the death rate per 100k is in the range of 1.1 (vaccinated) to ~5 (unvaccinated). Car accidents are >10/100k/yr.
    - nicoburns 5y ago
      I don't think an average is very useful here. For example, that figure is going to be much higher amongst elderly people. And many people are in contact with people who are vulnerable for other reasons (e.g. I have a relative going through chemotherapy). Incidence of long covid is also much higher than that of death. Some people may not be able to afford time off work if they catch covid, etc, etc.
    - bertr4nd 5y ago
      5/100k deaths among unvaccinated can’t possibly be right, can it? There have been 790k Covid deaths so far in the US out of a population of 330 million, which is over 200/100k.
      - throwawayboise 5y ago
        Rates will change as the weakest die off. We may already be though the worst of it.
      - 5y ago
boringg 5y ago
Time, science and public awareness. Same thing has happened on all other pandemics. Pandemics peaks, ebbs and flows then life resumes. Just expand your time horizon.
tazjin 5y ago
Plenty of places are pretty much normal. If you want normalcy, you need to go to it - it won't come to you at this point.
liopleurodon 5y ago
New Zealand wants everyone to take a covid vaccine every 6 months. Oregon wants to make mask mandates permanent. Thousands of vaccine injured. How many athletes are dying from the vax? Lots and it's on camera. The way back to normalcy is to take back our freedom and end the covid tyranny. Then we hold the participants responsible with Nuremberg 2.0 trials. Not just politicians, but Bill Gates, Fauci, drug companies, doctors, nurses, Big Tech, Big Media, etc. I don't know how we'll ever be able to trust the medical profession ever again after this
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
altacc 5y ago
Personally I think the path is countries which have a high vaccination level need to stop implementing restrictions whilst making mitigations such as increasing healthcare capacity (which they should have done 18 months ago but many didn't), paying for rapid testing, enabling PTO for people who think they are sick, sensible mask mandates, etc... These countries need to lead the way to accepting we've waited for vaccines & prophylactics so that we have tools to use to combat this but there is now a heightened risk that we have to live with and make reasonable mitigations against.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bufferoverflow 5y ago
  None of what you described is a path to normalcy. We've been doing it for over a year. Look at Australia, they have concentration camps. Vaccines don't really stop the spread of the virus, neither do they stop you from getting infected, they just reduce the symptoms and the odds of death. Which is still great, but it's not stopping the virus. We need next level meds, real vaccines.
  - ricardobeat 5y ago
    > Vaccines don't really stop the spread of the virus Technically correct, they don't stop the spread, but they significantly reduce it. It's kinda logical, isn't it? The virus must win over your antibodies to replicate. Currently breakthrough infections happen 1-2% of the time in the vaccinated, so even if there are 10x as many asymptomatic, unreported cases, the protective effect is still huge. This is really important to keep R < 1, which effectively means "stopping the virus". Eventually. In addition, the 90% reduced chance of hospitalisation is of great help to the healthcare system.
- rocqua 5y ago
  Making mitigations is difficult. Increasing healthcare capacity is not a short term project. Especially with staffing because the training pipeline is quite long. Besides, restrictions have an exponential effect (by reducing the R value) whilst mitigations only have a linear effect. That makes it hard to replace one with the other. Instead I think earlier, less stringent, restrictions to start damping the wave early, combined with as much mitigation as possible are probably the right solution. Every wave, its a new game of 'flatten the curve'. And really that is what we need.
ericb 5y ago
Normal will be "new" in ways, which is always true, really. If you look at the broad scale of human history, though, there have been hundreds of epidemics, and we got past them. I suspect there's an end to be had via broad-based immunity to the most transmissive mutations evolution's random walk can come up with before it hits a local maxima. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
pyjarrett 5y ago
My state in the US has already been back to near 2018 normalcy for probably close to a year. The biggest change is that it's now faux pas to cough or sneeze in public, so people stay home when they're sick, so I can't remember the last time I heard a sneeze or cough in a store. Most schools are in-person, and temperature checks on entry. Some didn't require masks during class last year though that policy was reverted due to Delta, and local public schools are now maskless. Doctor's offices and government buildings are some of the only places requiring masks and the few companies with mask signs have about half their employees violating their own policy. However, masks can be only be recommended and not required for entry and the majority of people (probably 3:1 at least) don't wear them. Most people have accepted COVID is here permanently. We're at ~50% vaccination and most vaccinated people I know says they won't get a booster because "it was supposed to make things go back to normal the first time." Apathy is set in hard, and control of the message is outside the hands of the government and media here. Delta scared people a bunch, but after about a month, most people reverted back to not caring. I don't know anyone who is talking about Omicron, so I think every additional event just numbs more people.

Flankk 5y ago

save lifes Not doing your side any favors here.

throwawayboise 5y ago

We've been at this coming up on two years. Masks, lockdowns, vaccines, and the rest of it. Variants are still popping up and spreading all over the place. When do we admit that none of this is really working. Or do we just do this forever?

GekkePrutser 5y ago
I don't really care about having a vaccine every 6 months but the masks are very restrictive IMO. That can't be forever. There needs to be an actual solution. I know it's not there now but I mean in the long run.