COVID-19

[taxi1]

Who cares if the CDC said it? The point they’re making is that the vaccine was advertised to be over 90% effective.

The points is that back in September we were ready to declare success with a vaccine that was 50% effective. Fingers crossed we'd see 75%. Instead, it turned out to be 94% effective against the original Mark 1 Mod 0 virus. Woohoo! And that wasn't an "advertisement, that was the result of a clinical trial.

It remains better than 50% against the latest variants, which is remarkable, but of course isn't still 90%. Are people too stupid to understand a vaccine designed for the original virus might not be as good against the new one, but can still be as effective as originally hoped?

 

[Mirage]

No, we failed pretty miserably. Yes on the lockdowns (although lesson learned for the next one, close the international air travel), but the testing was a humongous monumental failure. Our first tests were crappy, and we had all of this bureaucracy that got in the way of creating ones that worked. Then we lifted the lockdowns before we had control or knowledge of what the virus was doing. Flying blind. The mask supply chain wasn't ready either. If we had had the same access to KN95s and better that we have now...

We never gave ourselves a fighting chance to wrestle this thing into control. I worry that we won't learn the lessons offered.

So you would do the same things we did, just harder and for longer, is that right? You'd lock down completely for the indefinite amount of time it would take to get vaccines, tests and effective masks for the entire population? Except for the people working to make these things, to feed us, in grocery stores, in hospitals, in the trucking industry, in the military, in the govt, etc etc (who are spreading the virus around the country and in from foreign countries we rely on for supplies).

What's your analysis of the cost side of the equation, in terms of years of schooling lost, jobs lost, marriages broken, financial futures destroyed, homelessness caused, debt incurred, etc.?

 

[taxi1]

So you would do the same things we did, just harder and for longer, is that right? You'd lock down completely for the indefinite amount of time

NO

The reason why we had interminable lockdowns is because we never got control of it. Once you have control, you open back up while using contact tracing to put out fires. Localized lockdowns if it starts to run away.

Doing it right would have meant less restrictions, not more.

 

[Mirage]

NO

The reason why we had interminable lockdowns is because we never got control of it. Once you have control, you open back up while using contact tracing to put out fires. Localized lockdowns if it starts to run away.

Doing it right would have meant less restrictions, not more.

How do you get control if you are not an island that locks down before it arrives and you don't even have tests available for widespread testing? Hell, the next virus in the scenario were discussing might evolve here and be widespread before we ever even have a chance to control it. Trump and his team also fantasized about how we were just going to get it under control and get back to normal. It's not that easy in the USA. So, what's your plan then? Lock down harder and for longer? Same questions apply.. what's the cost of that in your analysis?

 

[taxi1]

How do you get control if you are not an island that locks down before it arrives and you don't even have tests available for widespread testing?

Australia, for example, repeatedly had breakouts and internal transmission. At that point they are on equal footing with us. Their response is what was different. Same South Korea and lots of the Asian countries. They've dealt with this repeatedly and have learned from experience what works.

When we have a no-kidding 1% or higher Casualty Fatality Rate, or when it is our kids instead of our parents that are dying, I guarantee we will get it under control. The result of not doing so will be bodies piled up outside the hospitals and in the streets.

Trump and his team also fantasized about how we were just going to get it under control and get back to normal.

If you go back to May 2020 when we relaxed the controls, we still didn't have testing at anywhere near what we needed in order to not fly blind. You can look at the case rate plot from the post above to see that the case rate was still too high. We didn't see it to the finish.

It's not that easy in the USA.

On that I agree 100%

But its more how we roll as a society thing than any inherent property of our borders, science, etc. We were considered to be the most prepared country for a pandemic, prior to the pandemic.

So, what's your plan then? Lock down harder and for longer?

Smarter and shorter would be better.

 

[wink]

Sigh

So I asked for clarification if Trump was on the record as anti vaccine. I get a larger argument that maybe his other comments and behaviors inspired vaccine distrust among followers. OK. I get that. Although I would not be surprised if delay in him taking it was out of caution for the President by others. No one will admit that for obvious reasons. But I am left with no evidence of an outward anti vaccine position by Trump. That is what I was curious to know. Don't know why the sigh. His vaccine position as President obviously wasn't clear.

 

[Brett327]

So I asked for clarification if Trump was on the record as anti vaccine. I get a larger argument that maybe his other comments and behaviors inspired vaccine distrust among followers. OK. I get that. Although I would not be surprised if delay in him taking it was out of caution for the President by others. No one will admit that for obvious reasons. But I am left with no evidence of an outward anti vaccine position by Trump. That is what I was curious to know. Don't know why the sigh. His vaccine position as President obviously wasn't clear.

If it isn’t self evident to you, then I’m not going to waste time chronicling it for you here. If you don’t see his influence over the broader anti-vax sentiment in this country, then I’m unable to help you.

 

[taxi1]

His vaccine position as President obviously wasn't clear.

Yeah, he missed a number of opportunities to forcefully support.

 

[wink]

If it isn’t self evident to you, then I’m not going to waste time chronicling it for you here. If you don’t see his influence over the broader anti-vax sentiment in this country, then I’m unable to help you.

Yeah, he missed a number of opportunities to forcefully support.

All you had to do was answer the question I posted. It was a pretty much yes no. I don't need proof from either of you. This is the new kinder gentler COVID thread, remember? No need for you to explain anything. Lord knows I would not have been surprise if he did. But I hadn't heard it. Either he made explicate anti vaccination comments or he didn't. I truly thought I had missed that. So. I will put you guys down as 'NO" he didn't make any explicate anti vaccine comments, but his lack or explicate full throated promotion and his wacky approach to "alternative" treatments discredited him with serious people that somehow need a presidential endorsement and distracted the impressionable from the value of the vaccine. Good'nuff.

 

[taxi1]

All you had to do was answer the question I posted. It was a pretty much yes no. I don't need proof from either of you.

I was agreeing with you

 

[Mirage]

Australia, for example, repeatedly had breakouts and internal transmission. At that point they are on equal footing with us. Their response is what was different. Same South Korea and lots of the Asian countries. They've dealt with this repeatedly and have learned from experience what works.

Without replaying the whole argument over how you cannot compare Australia (an island) and SK (a virtual island) to America, none of this has any bearing on the scenario you created and are addressing, which is the potential next variant of COVID that we likely won't discover until it's too late to lock down because thousands of people have it all over the country. Not to mention many of those people won't go get tested, so we won't even know where to lock down until it's too late.

But I'll stop pressing you on it. The lessons I believe the pandemic thus far should have taught us will never align with yours, unfortunately.

 

[taxi1]

But I'll stop pressing you on it. The lessons I believe the pandemic thus far should have taught us will never align with yours, unfortunately.

You are really asking what the policy be if you know in advance that 40% or so of the people are going to ignore masks, social distancing and other NPIs and not get a vaccine when it is available. It will be each person for themselves.

I don't know the answer to that question.

 

[Mirage]

You are really asking what the policy be if you know in advance that 40% or so of the people are going to ignore masks, social distancing and other NPIs and not get a vaccine when it is available. It will be each person for themselves.

I don't know the answer to that question.

Yes, I think all policy, even in hypothetical world, should be based in reality. Does no good otherwise.

Not to get too far off topic, but that's the problem with many liberal ideas.. they ignore reality and look good only on paper (ie, communism, universal basic income, all drugs are legal, etc).

 

[taxi1]

Yes, I think all policy, even in hypothetical world, should be based in reality. Does no good otherwise.

After more thought, since this is not a complete hypothetical...

- massive distribution of KN95 and N95 masks for people who want to wear them. They are good enough to protect people even if they are surrounded by non-masked, with some reasonable additional precautions
- massive testing, especially via air sampling and waste streams, so we know the "Pandemic Weather", where it is surging. This doesn't depend on individuals getting tested. But also that testing too. Testing should be too easy.
- If the vaccines remain reasonably effective, like the current ones against Omicron and Delta, then a campaign to get boosted up with a 4th shot. If not, then Warp Speed II needs to happen to get a new vax. This will take time because it requires new trials, 6 months or so.
- Public messaging better. Have signs on highways, public alerts, etc., so people can make their own risk decisions

The big problem is the health system. With a significant proportion of the population not using NPIs and boosters, the already weakened health system will be crushed. Curious for your ideas on that.

 

[sevenhelmet]

After more thought, since this is not a complete hypothetical...

- massive distribution of KN95 and N95 masks for people who want to wear them. They are good enough to protect people even if they are surrounded by non-masked, with some reasonable additional precautions
- massive testing, especially via air sampling and waste streams, so we know the "Pandemic Weather", where it is surging. This doesn't depend on individuals getting tested. But also that testing too. Testing should be too easy.
- If the vaccines remain reasonably effective, like the current ones against Omicron and Delta, then a campaign to get boosted up with a 4th shot. If not, then Warp Speed II needs to happen to get a new vax. This will take time because it requires new trials, 6 months or so.
- Public messaging better. Have signs on highways, public alerts, etc., so people can make their own risk decisions

The big problem is the health system. With a significant proportion of the population not using NPIs and boosters, the already weakened health system will be crushed. Curious for your ideas on that.

I'm with you on some of that, but not the 4th booster. It boosts antibodies, but not ones that are effective against the current variants. Lots of main stream articles seem to corroborate that. Those doses could also be used to vaccinate people who have had zero shots so far.

With regard to a novel pandemic situation, stochastic testing methods and defined entry/exit criteria for local and regional lockdowns (vs. the whole nation all at once) are definitely more thoughtful and intelligent measures than the overreactive fuckery of early 2020. They would have had the added potential benefit of not inducing as much panic and later resistance to lockdowns. Also just maybe, there wouldn't have been a "need" for as much stimulus to keep the economy from completely crumpling.

Back to where we are now, I think we should have started an updated vaccine 6 months ago. If they could have 2-3 updates in development, staggered quarterly or so, and going through trials, we could actually keep pace and have a more effective shot and booster. That's where I thought this was all going with the mRNA tech, but for reasons I don't understand, it hasn't.