D&D and the rising pandemic

[CapnZapp]

Not useless at all.

While vaccine hesitancy is a thing, it’s mostly confined to a minority of the populations of nations with a pretty good supply of vaccines.

The REAL problem lies in those nations that have low vaccination rates mainly because they can’t get vaccines. Unless and until those nations get their vaccination rates up where the front-runners are now, C19 mutations will continue to erupt from their populations. While most mutations won’t be any more dangerous than the current crop (and most will be LESS so), a “superbug” could emerge at any time.

IOW, the pandemic won’t really end until we’re ahead of C19 on ALL fronts.

So, as a practical matter, ensuring those less developed nations get sufficient amounts of vaccines- including the ability to manufacture them in their own regions- is the proper course of action.

Looking further into the future, it’s probably in our long-term best interests as a species to continue to fund and even expand research into emergent pathogens in less developed nations.

This post is written as if I argued against any of your very logical arguments...

Was I saying we should not give less developed countries vaccines, for instance? No.

I was saying that a warning needs to come with a practical course (or change) of action. Just worrying about the current state of affairs is not news.

Yes, a superbug can erupt. No, we probably can't defeat covid much faster than we're already doing, and politicians are very very good at just straight up ignoring theoretical threats. People are just going to ignore "cry wolf" type of warnings.

It's like with climate warnings. Do they work? Immeasurably slowly compared to how heat domes and 50 degree Celsius summers get people's attention. Warnings that basically only exist so "we could say told you so" only frustrate me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Warnings don’t just serve to say “I told you so!” Some people actually take them to heart. And the more that do, the better off we are.

 

[CapnZapp]

Because it was an argument against your points. With very significant numbers of vaccinated people coming down with the Delta variant, you can't just say, "Well, just let those who aren't vaccinated deal with it. They had the choice and refused." Those unvaccinated people will be giving Covid to a significant number of people who did the right thing and got the vaccine.

Good luck shutting down society indefinitely then. You come across as surreally out of touch if you sincerely believe people will keep isolating or use masks.

French scientists recently predicted we would need 95% vaccination rates to defeat Delta. The US will never reach those levels, unless you get Republican leaders to agree to mandatory vaccinations - either "voluntarily" or involuntarily when you're thrown in prison.

I'm not claiming the moral high ground here. I'm just saying that humanity will be split into two parts - those that vaccinate (and keep vaccinating for the indeterminate future) and those that don't.

I further predict that the factor that reduces the latter group will not primarily be information campaigns (or free lottery tickets!). Instead it will be death and hospitalization. If all your loved ones die horribly you'd at least think it challenges your vaccine hesitancy, but that's probably just wishful thinking.

But I guess I should get back to my point:

I do not believe society will wait for the vaccine hesitators to change their mind before dropping restrictions. Because that will mean permanent restrictions.

 

[CapnZapp]

Let us be clear about something - you say 90K cases. 21K were partially vaxxed, and 7K were fully vaxxed.

That comes to a vaccine that was about 75% protective when partial, and 93% effective when fully vaccinated. Back of the envelope, that's right about where we'd expect.

And to repeat something ad nauseam:

Unless I'm mistaken this report (like so many others) keep discussing "get sick" as opposed to "be well".

But I care much much more about the statistics about death and hospitalization.

A number like "93% effective" (or 88% etc) might be interesting to immunologists, but I care about the number that tells me if the vaccine will keep me out of the ICU. For the life of me I can't understand why the news are so obsessed with the way less interesting number...

 

[CapnZapp]

You can get hit by a car when interacting with the street anytime, but that doesn't make no difference between using a crosswalk and looking both ways and walking across the middle with your eyes close. The fact a lot of people have lost the thread on this doesn't make ignoring the consequences of the unvaccinated any less stupid.

Nobody is arguing with you on that point.

It's just that there are some mightily unrealistic hopes for how people are going to react. People are -apparently- stupid, ignorant and selfish. The number of conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers will remain higher than needed for the virus to keep circulating.

I wish I could add "unless your country is enlightened enough" but I've lost hope even my own country belongs to that club...

It is extremely obvious total lockdowns (the kind where police drags you away if you violate curfews) are the only thing that works against COVID. The frustration in seeing politicians drag their feet time and time again, and only impose ineffectual restrictions way past the time they would have been truly effective has made for an excruciating year and a half. Observing seemingly intellectual friends downplay and dismiss the pandemic. Basically seeing society taking EVERY CHANCE to act as if the pandemic didn't exist.

Basically, the only regimes equipped to actually defeat COVID are the truly authoritarian ones. I'm all for democracy, but apparently that means your freedom to infect and kill others is a sacred liberty...

 

[Zardnaar]

Jacindas an authoritarian!!

Crap I voted for her twice. Damn commie authortarian.

 

[Maxperson]

Good luck shutting down society indefinitely then. You come across as surreally out of touch if you sincerely believe people will keep isolating or use masks.

French scientists recently predicted we would need 95% vaccination rates to defeat Delta. The US will never reach those levels, unless you get Republican leaders to agree to mandatory vaccinations - either "voluntarily" or involuntarily when you're thrown in prison.

Herd immunity happens at less than 95%. Right now about 91% of Americans are vaccinated against Measles, which is more contagious than even Delta Covid, and we still have herd immunity against it. Occasionally a small outbreak happens among the fools that didn't get it. One panel of French scientists warning "that as many as 95% of people might need to be vaccinated" doesn't mean a whole lot on its own. I'll wait to see what other scientists say.

 

[CapnZapp]

Herd immunity happens at less than 95%. Right now about 91% of Americans are vaccinated against Measles, which is more contagious than even Delta Covid, and we still have herd immunity against it. Occasionally a small outbreak happens among the fools that didn't get it. One panel of French scientists warning "that as many as 95% of people might need to be vaccinated" doesn't mean a whole lot on its own. I'll wait to see what other scientists say.

I'm no doctor, so please don't get fixated on any specific number.

Besides, you missed the point. The number doesn't matter. What matters is if it is higher than the percentage of people that can be persuaded to vaccinate.

So whatever the actual percentage is, is very likely much higher than the percentage we can attain, at least in countries with actively destructive political leaders.

And to be clear: that specifically means to not get fixated on any given number.

In some countries the hope of reaching this number actually lives. But not in enough countries to matter, or in the really big countries.

USA is the main obstacle here. Despite having every resource and opportunity, the US will very likely fail.

Of course if you believe the number is lower than the number of anti-vaxxers, Republicans, conspiracy theorists, and what not, then you are welcome to argue that. I honestly envy you and wish I could hope I was wrong and you were right.

 

[Mirtek]

but apparently that means your freedom to infect and kill others is a sacred liberty...

Or seeing it the other round: the risk of getting an infect that may kill you is just part of the price of freedom.

The Bundestagspräsident (president of the parliament ) said the following in an interview:

" Aber wenn ich höre, alles andere habe vor dem Schutz von Leben zurückzutreten, dann muss ich sagen: Das ist in dieser Absolutheit nicht richtig. Grundrechte beschränken sich gegenseitig. Wenn es überhaupt einen absoluten Wert in unserem Grundgesetz gibt, dann ist das die Würde des Menschen. Die ist unantastbar. Aber sie schließt nicht aus, dass wir sterben müssen."

"But when I hear that everything else has to step back before the protection of life, then I have to say: This is not correct as such an absolute. Fundamental rights are restricting each other. If there is any absolute value at all in our constiturion, then its the human dignity. It's inviolable. But it does not mean that we won't die".


I am not allowed to punch you in the face. But that doesn't mean I have to walk with my arms tied to my side lest the swing of my arms while walking somehow accidentally hits you.

There's a point when me harming you is due to such an indirect cause as that you have to bear me being me being allowed to do it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Basically, the only regimes equipped to actually defeat COVID are the truly authoritarian ones. I'm all for democracy, but apparently that means your freedom to infect and kill others is a sacred liberty...

Even they aren't; the difference is that the flaws there involve inability to acknowledge error.