D&D and the rising pandemic

[GreyLord]

15/18 have had Covid. More outside the office as well idk the numbers.

My city did have a very high rate as it's a student city and once it broke out they still party etc.

Big reason we tend to avoid town it's full of students from the University.

I've got an event coming up I've booked for 12 6/12 have had it recently, everyone's triple vaxxed, wears masks and it's booked for a quiet night.

Haven't been to a concert, game, con or anything in a stadium since March 2020 and no D&D since August when Covid got out.

Ah, that makes more sense.

Good luck with the event coming up.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ah, that makes more sense.

Good luck with the event coming up.

Well if anyone gets Covind us exposed to any of the others gonna cancel it. Happy birthday right?

 

[CapnZapp]

Managing risk is reasonable, but @CapnZapp isn't wrong that for a lot of people, "managing risk" has turned into "act like everything is safe and keep pushing my luck until I get sick." That's how my brother caught Covid, one unrestricted social event too many.

Total isolation may be impractical, but far too few folks are managing risk, and far more are ignoring risk. And that's what keeps Covid going, and going, and going...

Thank you. You are a voice of reason.

I really hoped this thread would be a beacon of light in a sea of stupid darkness, safe from selfish and shortsighted views disguised as "managing risk" and "assuming responsibility", yet here we are, having to speak basic fundamentals as if they aren't utterly self-evident.

Each of you are free to decide to visit cons or pick your own veggies, just don't fool yourself into believing you've "managed risk" or taken a rational action.

You're exposing yourself (and thus others) to needless risk, that's what.

Don't we all, I hear you ask? Of course we do!

The difference is whether you accept you're taking an reckless action or whether you delude yourself into thinking you're probably safe and get mad for getting called out on your decision process.

Why is this important? Because it's a HUGE difference between treating, say a summer party, as an EXCEPTION that isn't automatically repeated, or treating it as variously your "right" after having endured a pandemic, or "now it's over", or some other thinly disguised excuse for abandoning rational thought because you just can't be arsed to bother no more.

If you really would like hand-picked vegs, do drive to the mall and get them. The difference is whether you gave yourself a treat once, or whether you've told yourself it's a "managed risk" to return to "normal".

And if I tell you you likely WILL get Covid sooner or later if you persist in exposing yourself, and that the risk of you, or someone you love, or a random acquaintance, will suffer serious consequences because of your needless exposure, what is your reaction?

Hint: getting mad at ME is entirely the wrong approach.

 

[Umbran]

I'm just making an observation and going on what scientists have been saying about coronaviruses here.

"Scientists" is non-specific. Which scientists?

We can say that covid-19 deaths are down, no question. But "lethality" is not a function of just the virus. It is a combination of the virus and several other factors.

For instance - at this point, somewhere between 60% and 75% of the US has been infected with some covid-19 variant. Most of the rest got vaccinated. The number of people in the US who are neither vaccinated, nor have had the disease, is very small - small enough to not be able to sample. Drop in lethality of the disease may not be so much a function of the disease as it is a function of there being widespread resistance. (Johns Hopkins University: "The reduced severity of Omicron could also be attributed in part to increased vaccination coverage and recovery immunity")

In addition to growing human resistance, we now have effective antiviral drugs against covid-19, reduced case numbers have moved hospitals back from the brink of overloading, and doctors now have far more experience managing the disease than earlier in the pandemic. When we then look at mortality rates, it is incredibly difficult to untangle these effects. Attributing this solely to the virus being less deadly is... well, in science, this might be called "naïve", meaning it is a simplistic take on the situation.

Edit to add: Indeed, coronaviruses have been causing something like 20% of common colds for decades (likely centuries if not millennia). The fact that we now have deadly covid-19 rather puts to bed the idea that virus development dependably trends towards lowered lethality - if that were the case, covid-19 wouldn't have happened at all!

 

[Mirtek]

Thank you. You are a voice of reason.

I really hoped this thread would be a beacon of light in a sea of stupid darkness, safe from selfish and shortsighted views disguised as "managing risk" and "assuming responsibility", yet here we are, having to speak basic fundamentals as if they aren't utterly self-evident.

Each of you are free to decide to visit cons or pick your own veggies, just don't fool yourself into believing you've "managed risk" or taken a rational action.

You're exposing yourself (and thus others) to needless risk, that's what.

Don't we all, I hear you ask? Of course we do!

The difference is whether you accept you're taking an reckless action or whether you delude yourself into thinking you're probably safe and get mad for getting called out on your decision process.

Why is this important? Because it's a HUGE difference between treating, say a summer party, as an EXCEPTION that isn't automatically repeated, or treating it as variously your "right" after having endured a pandemic, or "now it's over", or some other thinly disguised excuse for abandoning rational thought because you just can't be arsed to bother no more.

If you really would like hand-picked vegs, do drive to the mall and get them. The difference is whether you gave yourself a treat once, or whether you've told yourself it's a "managed risk" to return to "normal".

And if I tell you you likely WILL get Covid sooner or later if you persist in exposing yourself, and that the risk of you, or someone you love, or a random acquaintance, will suffer serious consequences because of your needless exposure, what is your reaction?

Hint: getting mad at ME is entirely the wrong approach.

And what's your plan? Live your current way until when? 2025? 2030? Henceforth forever?

In Germany we statistically had more grandparents just pass away during each of the single years people were told to avoid getting together for christmas and eastern (although in year 2 more people probably just ignored it) than total covid fatalies during the whole pandemic.

People who gave up celebrating christmas or eastern with their families "just one year" to hopefully once again safely do so next year. Except next year would have just the same, except that there never came a next year for them to catch up

 

[Cadence]

And what's your plan? Live your current way until when? 2025? 2030? Henceforth forever?

In Germany we statistically had more grandparents just pass away during each of the single years people were told to avoid getting together for christmas and eastern (although in year 2 more people probably just ignored it) than total covid fatalies during the whole pandemic.

People who gave up celebrating christmas or eastern with their families "just one year" to hopefully once again safely do so next year. Except next year would have just the same, except that there never came a next year for them to catch up

It feels like there's a range of settings to pick....

(One end) Hit a big Christmas concert, don't mask anywhere while shopping in packed stores, refuse to test, go to the party, and then hit New Years,

(One of many options in the middle) When getting together for Christmas the group masks/minimize contacts for the week in advance (even more strict if it isn't flagged green locally), all take a covid test before coming and stay home if symptoms just arrived, and not plan on having a big New Years bash the following week.*

(Another end) Live isolated from everyone for the indeterminant future, even when vaccinated and things are flagged green by the local health organizaton.

... and that at least thinking about the setting chosen is good. And that both of the extremes are more than slightly sub-optimal.


*Debate what to do if one part of the family doesn't play along well. Recognize that the rest is all vaxxed and going stir-crazy. Make a slightly less optimal decision in the name of family harmony, and pray that no one gets really ill, and try to not spitfully pray that if someone does that it's the ones that asked for it.

 

[Zardnaar]

"Scientists" is non-specific. Which scientists?

We can say that covid-19 deaths are down, no question. But "lethality" is not a function of just the virus. It is a combination of the virus and several other factors.

For instance - at this point, somewhere between 60% and 75% of the US has been infected with some covid-19 variant. Most of the rest got vaccinated. The number of people in the US who are neither vaccinated, nor have had the disease, is very small - small enough to not be able to sample. Drop in lethality of the disease may not be so much a function of the disease as it is a function of there being widespread resistance. (Johns Hopkins University: "The reduced severity of Omicron could also be attributed in part to increased vaccination coverage and recovery immunity")

In addition to growing human resistance, we now have effective antiviral drugs against covid-19, reduced case numbers have moved hospitals back from the brink of overloading, and doctors now have far more experience managing the disease than earlier in the pandemic. When we then look at mortality rates, it is incredibly difficult to untangle these effects. Attributing this solely to the virus being less deadly is... well, in science, this might be called "naïve", meaning it is a simplistic take on the situation.

Edit to add: Indeed, coronaviruses have been causing something like 20% of common colds for decades (likely centuries if not millennia). The fact that we now have deadly covid-19 rather puts to bed the idea that virus development dependably trends towards lowered lethality - if that were the case, covid-19 wouldn't have happened at all!

It's a new varuebtvthough presumably jumping species and omicron us less lethal. Think our death toll is lower than normal flu.

Masking is near universal along with the healthcare.

I use death toll because reported numbers not so accurate now and we don't know long term effects yet.

And a lack of better options lockdowns are out the window people stopped complying.

 

[JEB]

Thank you. You are a voice of reason.

I really hoped this thread would be a beacon of light in a sea of stupid darkness, safe from selfish and shortsighted views disguised as "managing risk" and "assuming responsibility", yet here we are, having to speak basic fundamentals as if they aren't utterly self-evident.

Each of you are free to decide to visit cons or pick your own veggies, just don't fool yourself into believing you've "managed risk" or taken a rational action.

You're exposing yourself (and thus others) to needless risk, that's what.

Don't we all, I hear you ask? Of course we do!

The difference is whether you accept you're taking an reckless action or whether you delude yourself into thinking you're probably safe and get mad for getting called out on your decision process.

Why is this important? Because it's a HUGE difference between treating, say a summer party, as an EXCEPTION that isn't automatically repeated, or treating it as variously your "right" after having endured a pandemic, or "now it's over", or some other thinly disguised excuse for abandoning rational thought because you just can't be arsed to bother no more.

If you really would like hand-picked vegs, do drive to the mall and get them. The difference is whether you gave yourself a treat once, or whether you've told yourself it's a "managed risk" to return to "normal".

And if I tell you you likely WILL get Covid sooner or later if you persist in exposing yourself, and that the risk of you, or someone you love, or a random acquaintance, will suffer serious consequences because of your needless exposure, what is your reaction?

Hint: getting mad at ME is entirely the wrong approach.

In the interest of clarity...

I do agree that many people are rationalizing risks they shouldn't be taking (to themselves and others) as Covid numbers remain high and vaccinations become less effective. Until one or ideally both of those factors changes (numbers go way down, we get upgraded vaccines), I would advise against going to any large gathering of strangers, or going anywhere outside your home without a (good) mask.

On the other hand, I don't think total isolation is necessary. For example, simply going out to the store isn't reckless, since you can manage that risk in a variety of ways: go during off-peak hours, wear a good mask, keep your distance from unmasked folks, wash up good when you get home, etc. I also think private social events can be a managed risk, as long as mitigations are in place like @Cadence suggests. (Although right now, I think I'd limit such events to outdoors only, and even then I'd omit certain friends and family that have proven themselves too much of a risk to the rest of the crowd. Omicron is just too damn transmissible, and I have vulnerable people to protect.)

 

[CapnZapp]

It feels like there's a range of settings to pick....

(One end) Hit a big Christmas concert, don't mask anywhere while shopping in packed stores, refuse to test, go to the party, and then hit New Years,

(One of many options in the middle) When getting together for Christmas the group masks/minimize contacts for the week in advance (even more strict if it isn't flagged green locally), all take a covid test before coming and stay home if symptoms just arrived, and not plan on having a big New Years bash the following week.*

(Another end) Live isolated from everyone for the indeterminant future, even when vaccinated and things are flagged green by the local health organizaton.

... and that at least thinking about the setting chosen is good. And that both of the extremes are more than slightly sub-optimal.


*Debate what to do if one part of the family doesn't play along well. Recognize that the rest is all vaxxed and going stir-crazy. Make a slightly less optimal decision in the name of family harmony, and pray that no one gets really ill, and try to not spitfully pray that if someone does that it's the ones that asked for it.

Thank you for trying not to juxtapose "so you want me to abstain from things I wanna do, you must want me to totally isolate" which is the relativism that's so common.

Nobody expects you to totally isolate. I'm not telling anyone to totally isolate just because I tell them their trips expose them to greater risk than they want to admit.

So let me rewrite your three options there just to illustrate. Not putting words in your mouths here, this is just what I consider more constructive:

(One end) Going indoors with a lot of strangers. Visiting malls, airports, riding packed trains and such. Basically, saying "F U" to the virus, but the virus won't care. The only person getting shafted here will be you. And your relatives.

(Another end) Visiting a close circle of friends and family. Yes, they can transmit covid too, but the number of people you meet make a huge difference, and half a dozen up to a dozen people is not the same thing as being in close proximity to dozens if not hundreds of strangers. Shopping in person in exceptional cases. Not frequently or regularly, but not never either. Yes, you take a risk each time you go indoors where there's a lot of people, but if you take that risk once a month you're far less likely to catch covid than if you take that risk three times a week. So, have food and groceries delivered to you, but don't skip a nice quiet restaurant for your wedding anniversary, say. Just skip the "usual friday outing" you were accustomed to from before the pandemic.

Note there's no middle ground here. That's because all these scenarios with extremes at the ends are really only designed to justify you picking the middle option. That looks reasonable, but that's a fallacy.

 

[Horwath]

Covids gonna keep going regardless.

Most likely it will mutate into something else less dangerous.

it will keep going until we find a vaccine that will eliminate it, like smallpox.

or if that does not happen, we will probably get boosters every year, tailored to eventual variations of the virus and treating it as a flu virus.