OT: COVID 19 - Continued

[Jaded-Fan]

And to further the point that I was making.

Fauci: Coronavirus won't be a pandemic for 'a lot longer' thanks to vaccines

"Certainly it's not going to be pandemic for a lot longer because I believe the vaccines are going to turn that around," Fauci said at an event hosted by the think tank Chatham House.
Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, said that while the virus will likely cease raging across the globe as it is now, it could circulate quietly below the surface, at least in certain areas.

"Putting it to rest doesn't mean eradicating it," he said. "I doubt we're going to eradicate this, I think we need to plan that this is something we may need to maintain control over chronically, it may be something that becomes endemic that we have to just be careful about."

 

[Andy99]

The need for a national lockdown after Biden’s inauguration is too difficult to predict rn...that’s two months away...we actually need a national lockdown now, but we know it won’t happen...but people being paid not to work for 4-6 weeks is not the same thing as saying they’re unemployed...it’s more like a paid family leave absence or maternity/paternity leave...I don’t really see the major “fatality” risk with that or that it can be compared to actual job loss or unemployment ... unless companies are allowed to take that opportunity to fire people, and I’m pretty sure any paid lockdown would be accomplished with job protection measures

 

[Sideline]

The need for a national lockdown after Biden’s inauguration is too difficult to predict rn...that’s two months away...we actually need a national lockdown now, but we know it won’t happen...but people being paid not to work for 4-6 weeks is not the same thing as saying they’re unemployed...it’s more like a paid family leave absence or maternity/paternity leave...I don’t really see the major “fatality” risk with that or that it can be compared to actual job loss or unemployment ... unless companies are allowed to take that opportunity to fire people, and I’m pretty sure any paid lockdown would be accomplished with job protection measures

The challenge in that scenario is that fixed costs don't stop. Businesses have rent, utilities, property taxes, and income tax prepayments to name a few. I don't think anyone is crying if McDonald's or Pep Boys head office eats a loss, but the local franchisees or auto repair shops aren't in the same position.

These shutdowns hammer small business owners. Most of these men and women are not wealthy millionaire types. This cycle of opening and closing is going to hollow out main streets all over the country more than Wal-Mart or Amazon ever did.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

The challenge in that scenario is that fixed costs don't stop. Businesses have rent, utilities, property taxes, and income tax prepayments to name a few. I don't think anyone is crying if McDonald's or Pep Boys head office eats a loss, but the local franchisees or auto repair shops aren't in the same position.

These shutdowns hammer small business owners. Most of these men and women are not wealthy millionaire types. This cycle of opening and closing is going to hollow out main streets all over the country more than Wal-Mart or Amazon ever did.

It'd be cool if they (and the employees affected) could get financial help. Ya know, from the government.

 

[Sideline]

It'd be cool if they (and the employees affected) could get financial help. Ya know, from the government.

I don't disagree. We're skating close to politics here though so probably best to leave it there.

 

[Tom Hanks]

It'd be cool if they (and the employees affected) could get financial help. Ya know, from the government.

Yeah it has to happen in some capacity (government assistance) for harsher lockdowns. Makes a bad situation more bearable and it’s about lives and health of people.

I did have a chuckle at this though. Well more than a chuckle.

 

[NMK11]

I debated posting it for that reason. The idea of closing down the entire country for six weeks is the debate. Not who said it. Other than the likelihood of it happening because of who.

I get that it is difficult to divide out our knee jerk reactions to the who that is saying things in this day and age.

That said, that a national shutdown for a month and a half is being debated is worth sharing.

I don't think that my saying that the idea goes too far given a vaccine already likely deeply into distribution in January is political though. Simply debating the actual idea.

This is because we've all gotten in the mind frame that personal attacks and beliefs is what constitutes politics. You're commenting on a prominent political figure and disagreeing with his policies based on your opinions. That's literally politics.

Like I said, I don't personally have a problem with the content. I maintain that it's silky to try to divorce a global event from the response to it which involves politics among other things. This just sort of harkens back to getting warned if you say something "left" or "right" but if your politics are "middle" then it's fine. There's just existed a sort of double standard in this thread for a while.

 

[Andy99]

The challenge in that scenario is that fixed costs don't stop. Businesses have rent, utilities, property taxes, and income tax prepayments to name a few. I don't think anyone is crying if McDonald's or Pep Boys head office eats a loss, but the local franchisees or auto repair shops aren't in the same position.

These shutdowns hammer small business owners. Most of these men and women are not wealthy millionaire types. This cycle of opening and closing is going to hollow out main streets all over the country more than Wal-Mart or Amazon ever did.

a lot of businesses have already shut, and some permanently...those who can’t pay costs will do what they’ve been doing, along with individuals: either bear the costs, shut down temporarily themselves during any lockdown and then reopen, or get grants or other federal funding (just like people) to remain open...

 

[Andy99]

It'd be cool if they (and the employees affected) could get financial help. Ya know, from the government.

many of them do...whether it’s enough for business or people themselves is up for debate

 

[Jaded-Fan]

This is because we've all gotten in the mind frame that personal attacks and beliefs is what constitutes politics. You're commenting on a prominent political figure and disagreeing with his policies based on your opinions. That's literally politics.

Like I said, I don't personally have a problem with the content. I maintain that it's silky to try to divorce a global event from the response to it which involves politics among other things. This just sort of harkens back to getting warned if you say something "left" or "right" but if your politics are "middle" then it's fine. There's just existed a sort of double standard in this thread for a while.

A fine line, admittedly.

But I still don't think this idea is political. Explain how.

And you can separate the idea from the person. That is the point. Rational minds should be able to anyways.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Since it's not looking like I'll be heading back to Planet Fitness anytime soon, I was looking into how to cancel my membership. And of course you can't cancel by email, internet form, or phone call. You have to go in person or send a letter:

"You can fill out a cancellation form at the front desk of your home club, or send a letter (preferably via certified mail) to your club requesting cancellation. Memberships can't, unfortunately, be cancelled by email or phone."

This is horseshit.

 

[Tom Hanks]

 

[NMK11]

A fine line, admittedly.

But I still don't think this idea is political. Explain how.

And you can separate the idea from the person. That is the point. Rational minds should be able to anyways.

I did explain why I think it's politics:

You're commenting on a prominent political figure and disagreeing with his policies based on your opinions. That's literally politics.

If you don't think that's politics, that's on you, but commenting on policies with your opinion is politics. Full stop.

And if you're separating the idea from the person in your post, why is it that other posts throughout this thread haven't been given that same attitude? I've been accused of politics and warned when I've said things about policies of Trump without attacking the person directly, as have others on all "sides" of the response. Please explain to me why your post is different.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I did explain why I think it's politics:



If you don't think that's politics, that's on you, but commenting on policies with your opinion is politics. Full stop.

And if you're separating the idea from the person in your post, why is it that other posts throughout this thread haven't been given that same attitude? I've been accused of politics and warned when I've said things about policies of Trump without attacking the person directly, as have others on all "sides" of the response. Please explain to me why your post is different.

So you can't debate whether a month and a half shutdown AFTER the likely vaccination of 30 million to 100 million of the most vulnerable people makes sense?

I don't care who proposes it, nor am I attacking anyone. I am simply, and only, debating an idea.

 

[Al Smith]

Since it's not looking like I'll be heading back to Planet Fitness anytime soon, I was looking into how to cancel my membership. And of course you can't cancel by email, internet form, or phone call. You have to go in person or send a letter:

"You can fill out a cancellation form at the front desk of your home club, or send a letter (preferably via certified mail) to your club requesting cancellation. Memberships can't, unfortunately, be cancelled by email or phone."

This is horseshit.

I’ve gone to PF a few times in the past two weeks since the time changed. First times since COVID really kicked in. It’s way less crowded and the folks who work there are trying to keep it clean. Still, it’s hard to see how COVID wouldn’t thrive in that environment. But I’m pretty obsessive about workouts so I’ll probably continue to go and sanitize as best I can.

 

[ColePens]

This is always going to hover that line of politics because some policies ride that line as well. However please continue to refrain from political talk.

That being said the 2 discussions are 1000000000% valid and can be discussed:
1) Lock down vs. no lock down
2) Open vs closed schools


I think I could lay out a list of pros/cons for each of these that would be absurdly long. So that discussion can EASILY be held with respect to one another. As always - if this topic is something you cannot manage with patience and control - you must leave the thread. I respect why it may be hard to deal with as many of us could lose a loved one at this time. I respect that.

 

[Fogel]

I find it extremely unlikely that by January that the US would have 30-100M people vaccinated considering many of the proposed vaccines are 2 doses with a 3 week spread between them (assuming Pfizer for the spread). I understand states supposedly have plans, but plans also need money and all states are hurting fiscally so even the best distribution plans might get hung up on actually paying for the distribution and I think that some of the money already spent only covers some of the logistics (I'm hoping I'm wrong and that the entire supply chain has already been prepaid or has funding earmarked). Also, from the latest numbers of cases and hospitalization and humans doing human things, doctors are going to be swamped from probable post Thanksgiving, post Christmas spikes and post NYE spikes.

I really also need to caution that the initial read was 90% efficacy and that was better than expected and exciting to see, but that was just that, an initial read. It is likely that the efficacy of the vaccine will not end up at that level. Also, the initial read tells us nothing about 1) whether or not the cases being prevented are mild or severe (a vaccine that does the first but not the second is much less useful), 2) long term safety effects that can't be found in shorter studies (severe but rarer conditions usually take a longer time like years to show up) and 3) how effective it is in the most vulnerable populations such as elderly, those with preexisting conditions and minorities versus healthy people to just name a few of the questions that are still outstanding.

Lastly, and I have touched on this previously, an EUA has its own complications. Ethically, other vaccine candidates would probably tell their study patients that they received a placebo and that there was a vaccine available. A portion of those people would opt to get vaccinated and it would ruin a lot of data since the control group will have potentially changed drastically mid study. It might rush the first candidate to use, but it harms all the control groups including its own study.

TLDR: Please temper expectations on the initial read, promising for now but devil in details. An EUA is not a magic bullet since that causes other complications.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I find it extremely unlikely that by January that the US would have 30-100M people vaccinated considering many of the proposed vaccines are 2 doses with a 3 week spread between them (assuming Pfizer for the spread). I understand states supposedly have plans, but plans also need money and all states are hurting fiscally so even the best distribution plans might get hung up on actually paying for the distribution and I think that some of the money already spent only covers some of the logistics (I'm hoping I'm wrong and that the entire supply chain has already been prepaid or has funding earmarked). Also, from the latest numbers of cases and hospitalization and humans doing human things, doctors are going to be swamped from probable post Thanksgiving, post Christmas spikes and post NYE spikes.

I really also need to caution that the initial read was 90% efficacy and that was better than expected and exciting to see, but that was just that, an initial read. It is likely that the efficacy of the vaccine will not end up at that level. Also, the initial read tells us nothing about 1) whether or not the cases being prevented are mild or severe (a vaccine that does the first but not the second is much less useful), 2) long term safety effects that can't be found in shorter studies (severe but rarer conditions usually take a longer time like years to show up) and 3) how effective it is in the most vulnerable populations such as elderly, those with preexisting conditions and minorities versus healthy people to just name a few of the questions that are still outstanding.

Lastly, and I have touched on this previously, an EUA has its own complications. Ethically, other vaccine candidates would probably tell their study patients that they received a placebo and that there was a vaccine available. A portion of those people would opt to get vaccinated and it would ruin a lot of data since the control group will have potentially changed drastically mid study. It might rush the first candidate to use, but it harms all the control groups including its own study.

TLDR: Please temper expectations on the initial read, promising for now but devil in details. An EUA is not a magic bullet since that causes other complications.

"Certainly it's not going to be pandemic for a lot longer because I believe the vaccines are going to turn that around," Fauci said at an event hosted by the think tank Chatham House.
Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, said that while the virus will likely cease raging across the globe as it is now, it could circulate quietly below the surface, at least in certain areas.

"Putting it to rest doesn't mean eradicating it," he said. "I doubt we're going to eradicate this, I think we need to plan that this is something we may need to maintain control over chronically, it may be something that becomes endemic that we have to just be careful about."

The first vaccinations, assuming approval around Thanksgiving, would be early December. The swearing in of the new president is that third week of January. So we are talking early December to the last week or January/first week of February.

Not unreasonable, assuming no set backs in approval.

 

[ColePens]

I personally hate when people quote Fauci. His back and forth is epic. It's not like the guy even gives himself room to wiggle, either. He goes hard on opinion based on current evidence. He has some real zingers that look reall bad.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I personally hate when people quote Fauci. His back and forth is epic. It's not like the guy even gives himself room to wiggle, either. He goes hard on opinion based on current evidence. He has some real zingers that look reall bad.

I always strongly qualify my quotes.

IF things go as most think that they are going, then the time line works to be well on the well to putting a huge dent in the death rate by the time a new president begins his term. Or early February if saying that last thing is verboten. So it is relevant as to whether we would even need a lockdown at that point.

 

[Tom Hanks]

This is always going to hover that line of politics because some policies ride that line as well. However please continue to refrain from political talk.

That being said the 2 discussions are 1000000000% valid and can be discussed:
1) Lock down vs. no lock down
2) Open vs closed schools


I think I could lay out a list of pros/cons for each of these that would be absurdly long. So that discussion can EASILY be held with respect to one another. As always - if this topic is something you cannot manage with patience and control - you must leave the thread. I respect why it may be hard to deal with as many of us could lose a loved one at this time. I respect that.

The ignore thread function is a great tool and I’ve done that many a time in the COVID threads earlier in the piece. Even just for thread topics I’m not interested in just to clean up my screen a bit.

The Covid thread is a lot milder now. I still have some big disagreements with partial posts of some posters even some I really like. But it is a message board so I don’t attack and try to just present my views reasonably (sometimes with some jokes thrown in).

Im definitely on the pro lockdown side but their is a spectrum to lockdown vs stay open. That’s why politician talk is so polarizing. The far left or far right views tend to take over the discussion.

Back to COVID, yeah I’m in favour of lockdown but how much depends on each circumstances of the areas. Whether that’s broken up into just state or cities and regional areas within the state.

What goes into deciding how far you go is case numbers (7-14 day averages), Rt value, deaths, ICU numbers, what assistance etc.

In Australia employer’s were given government subsidies to retain workers (plus a bunch of other stuff especially for small business) and if not people were getting $750 a week until the case numbers dropped then the assistance started to ease of as things opened up and went back to regular unemployment benefits. Canada similar too (not sure about the US). It was a sliding scale to reopening.

I liked Melbourne’s approach. They were clear and had pdf’s on the web about what would happen and when. For example once the 14 day average got below 100 then XXXX would happen, below 50 etc, below 25 etc then 5-10. They are at zero now but it has to stay that way for a whole month before COVID “normal” starts. They still have to wear masks in public but everything is open just with person limits into public and private indoor spaces but currently it wouldn’t change people’s lives too much from pre COVID.

Meanwhile in Canada they’ve taken the general approach of living with it until vaccines. That doesn’t work though.

 

[NMK11]

So you can't debate whether a month and a half shutdown AFTER the likely vaccination of 30 million to 100 million of the most vulnerable people makes sense?

I don't care who proposes it, nor am I attacking anyone. I am simply, and only, debating an idea.

Holy deflection, batman.

Example A: Someone posts something Trump or some governor says or does and debates the issue without attacking the person. It's considered political and posts are removed and warnings put up.
Example B: Someone posts something Biden says or does and debates the issue without attacking the person. That's acceptable.

I'd love to debate the issue, although it wouldn't be much of a debate between us because I full heartedly agree with you. A shut down that long after vaccines come out should hopefully be unnecessary.

I like your posts, I always read and consider the things you put up because it's a lot of good information. But, as I said before which you ignored, mods have had issues with other posts and people for posting things politicians say and disagreeing with what they said. I don't now how else to put it, so I'll just stop there.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Holy deflection, batman.

Example A: Someone posts something Trump or some governor says or does and debates the issue without attacking the person. It's considered political and posts are removed and warnings put up.
Example B: Someone posts something Biden says or does and debates the issue without attacking the person. That's acceptable.

I'd love to debate the issue, although it wouldn't be much of a debate between us because I full heartedly agree with you. A shut down that long after vaccines come out should hopefully be unnecessary.

I like your posts, I always read and consider the things you put up because it's a lot of good information. But, as I said before which you ignored, mods have had issues with other posts and people for posting things politicians say and disagreeing with what they said. I don't now how else to put it, so I'll just stop there.

I would have to see actual examples to comment or make an opinion. I don't think that who says something matters.

I think that a good test is to limit yourself to actions, or potential actions.

Ask yourself if you remove who did something, or proposed something, can you have a debate over that action and keep whoever proposed it completely out.

It is a technique that therapists use with couples. Never say 'she is driving us into bankruptcy buying silly stuff like shoes" Say, "we have some budget issues, can we work together to see where we can save?"

 

[Honour Over Glory]

On the flip side will they survive with half hearted solutions to COVID. I feel like it’s more a slow death to the economy. A month or two of strong restrictions then ease out of them and you could see the economy pick right back up (it’s happened in some parts of the world).

I’m seeing reports around the world of hospitals on the brink and COVID getting out of control. While not enough is being done to slow this. You can’t just live with COVID. Vaccines great and all but still long enough away in terms of how COVID spreads. So many people are dying everyday and some it was preventable.

My Mum had COVID and I was scared shitless about her health because of her age. There were long time journalists writing stories complaining about restrictions to save people who’d die in a few months anyway. You can say that about palliative patients but many of these people probably would have lived 5, 10, 15 or even more.

What’s an extra 5, 10, 15+ years worth to you? Never mind the early studies on the long term effects for those that have recovered.

Mate I had it and it was brutal and I can't imagine the toll it would take on someone older. I mean the businesses have all of these benefits with the government to make it or if they can't survive a months closure then they likely wouldn't last in a few months anyway and while that sucks, in the long run it is what it is to bend the curve.

Gov and business owners need to "nut it out."

 

[Pens1566]

I always strongly qualify my quotes.

IF things go as most think that they are going, then the time line works to be well on the well to putting a huge dent in the death rate by the time a new president begins his term. Or early February if saying that last thing is verboten. So it is relevant as to whether we would even need a lockdown at that point.

There's just no way to make that statement. Infection precedes hospitalization by ~2 weeks, deaths trail hospitalization by ~2 weeks. So, in order to do that you'd have to vaccinate enough individuals by xmas. You're going to see SOME vaccinations by then, but the # is going to start with a trickle. And it's not just dependent on manufacturing. Distribution issues exist, and selection of the first recipients. Local hospital still not counting on any doses this calendar year, and they're capable of on site storage now which most facilities aren't. There is a severe lack of logistics/planning between the manufacturing and point of care delivery.

All the timelines I've seen suggest end of Q2 2021 is when you'll start to see general population benefits.