S/o Sick Shaming

[regentrude]

33 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

But now I am protected from hospitalization to a crazy high degree and protected from death by covid to an higher degree than even that. So I am pretty much back to a pre-covid level of general living life risk even if I encounter it. My goal after vaccination was never to avoid encountering it. My goal was to get vaccinated so that I could encounter it without adding to the burden of healthcare providers. And I don't like getting sick either, but that's probably inevitable.

Are people going for vaccination and never encountering covid? I didn't realize that.

For me, hospitalization and death aren't the only things I want to avoid. I am very concerned about Long Covid. So yes, I am trying not to get infected at all. I can't do anything about having to work and teach in person,  but I am trying to largely eliminate the risks that are in my control. It makes me sad, but Long Covid scares the crap out of me.

Dd has a friend who had to drop out of her PhD program because of the cognitive effects of long covid. I don't want it.

[BronzeTurtle]

8 minutes ago, KSera said:

Before Delta, when people had stopped masking due to being vaccinated, it was fairly common to have someone tell me they were vaccinated to put me at ease about them not wearing a mask. Like, if someone came to the door, they might say, "I'm vaccinated, would you like me to wear a mask?" Or if I went to a neighbor's house to ask something with a mask on, the neighbor might say, "I'm vaccinated, if you'd rather not wear a mask." That kind of thing. I heard it a lot.

Wow, that is really off my radar. I wouldn't think to disclose that information to someone I don't know and I don't know that anyone disclosed it to me. I will ask people if me wearing a mask makes them more comfortable if I see them wearing one, but it wouldn't occur to me to tell them about my own medical decisions and I really don't want to be in their business either. That makes me uncomfortable thinking about it actually. Since I'm vaccinated it doesn't bother me if someone else isn't, except in the sense that I don't think they should be risking the burden on our health systems. I haven't decided what the government should do about them. But I'm just some random person I don't expect them to tell me stuff that's between them and their doctor.

[Matryoshka]

15 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

I think we're looking at different things entirely. I'm not looking at an article, it's a tracker where you can put in all sorts of parameters.

I do think that 70% or 76% respectively with some protection is pretty good, honestly, given the sheer amount of people we're talking about here. 

Can you explain where children are getting hit hard? I was just looking at the UK data and don't see what you're saying relative to case numbers that younger are getting hit hard. There are more people getting it total, but the actual percentage of young people with severe disease seems to be the same as in previous waves of covid.

No, we're looking at the same thing. The chart you pasted is in the article, the same one you linked. I just read the headers.  If you're going to look at charts, you have to read the key.

Here's the same chart you posted with the all-important headers telling you what you're looking at. Florida is at the bottom of the screenshot, same cart, same numbers. 

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by Matryoshka

[BronzeTurtle]

4 minutes ago, regentrude said:

For me, hospitalization and death aren't the only things I want to avoid. I am very concerned about Long Covid. So yes, I am trying not to get infected at all. I can't do anything about having to work and teach in person,  but I am trying to largely eliminate the risks that are in my control. It makes me sad, but Long Covid scares the crap out of me.

Dd has a friend who had to drop out of her PhD program because of the cognitive effects of long covid. I don't want it.

But since it's endemic how are you planning to avoid it for the rest of your life? 

I don't know how I could avoid getting infected or encountering the germ at all and since I'm in my 40s I can't imagine the stress of trying to stay away from a particular germ for the rest of my life. To me that level of scrupulosity would be similar to having something like long covid. It would be like dealing with OCD for a lifetime instead of long covid, if that makes sense. The anxiety would overwhelm because there's no way I can avoid a respiratory virus like this one without dropping out of public life. I mean I could but it would vastly alter my life in the same way of trying to avoid the flu or strep or other cold virus. Even if everyone in the world got the vaccine (which isn't possible), there are still animal reservoirs of this virus and my understanding is that it is now with us forever because of that alone. Even if 85 or 90% of people around me got vaccinated we'd probably still have covid season like flu season I think. At least this is the conclusion I came to long before there was a vaccine. 

I got vaccinated actually to alleviate that kind of anxiety I was having. If I thought I had an equal chance of long covid with the vaccine I would be a mess. Sorry to get personal about it here.

[BronzeTurtle]

1 minute ago, Matryoshka said:

No, we're looking at tge same thing. The chart you pasted is in the article, the same one you linked. I just read the headers.  If you're going to look at charts, you have to read the key.

Here's the chart with the all-important headers telling you what you're looking at. Florida is at the bottom of the screenshot, same cart, same numbers. 

 

Yep, that's it. So comparing FL to NY, one dose, they aren't that far apart. That was my only point. I'm not sure how it got to this where I agree, yes, that is the number. 🤣

[BronzeTurtle]

Umm I got really sucked in here! I didn't mean to get this far into a conversation. I have to go feed everyone dinner and I likely don't have time to keep talking about covid on the internet although you all have provoked some interesting thoughts.

[regentrude]

26 minutes ago, KSera said:

Before Delta, when people had stopped masking due to being vaccinated, it was fairly common to have someone tell me they were vaccinated to put me at ease about them not wearing a mask. Like, if someone came to the door, they might say, "I'm vaccinated, would you like me to wear a mask?" Or if I went to a neighbor's house to ask something with a mask on, the neighbor might say, "I'm vaccinated, if you'd rather not wear a mask." That kind of thing. I heard it a lot.

That has been my experience as well. Disclosing one's vaccination status has become a common courtesy, not just among personal friends, but I also encountered that at small music and poetry events.

[Matryoshka]

17 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Yep, that's it. So comparing FL to NY, one dose, they aren't that far apart. That was my only point. I'm not sure how it got to this where I agree, yes, that is the number. 🤣

😅 Yeah NY's number is lower than I'd expect,  but that's likely due to the rural parts of the state.  I'd bet NYC is much higher. 

Although... it does say NY's fully vaxxed adult population is a full 10% higher than FL. That's actually not that small a difference. 

Edited August 10, 2021 by Matryoshka

[catz]

2 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

But since it's endemic how are you planning to avoid it for the rest of your life? 
 

There's a difference between  trying to avoid infection now and waiting forever.  Now it is maybe a time for some of us to thoughtfully pause while we wait for more people to get vaccinated including kids, to drive infection levels back down to reasonable numbers (I was starting to step back out earlier summer), to see if boosters might be worthwhile (many vaccines require more than TWO doses for good coverage) and not to have health care overwhelmed. 

[KSera]

28 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Wow, that is really off my radar. I wouldn't think to disclose that information to someone I don't know and I don't know that anyone disclosed it to me. I will ask people if me wearing a mask makes them more comfortable if I see them wearing one, but it wouldn't occur to me to tell them about my own medical decisions and I really don't want to be in their business either. That makes me uncomfortable thinking about it actually. Since I'm vaccinated it doesn't bother me if someone else isn't, except in the sense that I don't think they should be risking the burden on our health systems. I haven't decided what the government should do about them. But I'm just some random person I don't expect them to tell me stuff that's between them and their doctor.

Huh. That's interesting. It doesn't feel like a personal medical thing to me, and I guess to those that I encounter. There are personal things I wouldn't share, but this isn't one of them. This just seems like a courtesy, like regentrude said it was in her area. I have unvaccinated kids, so it's particularly relevant to me. But I also am not ready to just decide to take a chance with long covid. I'd like more info about that and have hope we will  have a way to mitigate that risk, whether that be a booster or something else. That would be worth it to me to prevent lifelong symptoms

[ktgrok]

48 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Are you the poster who had someone in their house travel to a different state recently on a plane? That's a pretty normal life thing to do. Not judging, but just to say that I guess we have different versions of normal so it's hard to compare. Normal is such a subjective word. If I had children or adults in my sphere that I was worried about for covid in particular I don't know that I could do planes right now for people in my household. But being vaccinated I would not be worried about my own health so planes would in theory not bother me, although I didn't like the germy re-breathed air feel before covid so maybe my tolerance is low to begin with. (also, apologies if I'm confusing you with someone else on the forum!)

In my area the healthcare system is not overburdened right now, my household is vaccinated and low-risk, and everyone who wants a shot in my community can get one same day, no appointment. Of course I owuld be staying home if I was feeling unwell or if my risk of getting severely ill was higher than with normal illnesses. For kids, when I look at the data in the UK and their wave that's just peaked I don't see a higher percentage of kids being hospitalized because of covid than last year. It seems like maybe less than with alpha but hard to tell. It does seem like rsv is a big concern for kids in my community and NICU or PICU strain. But again, of course I'm going to stay home when unwell.

yes, and I'd rather he not have gone. But, it was a trip he'd postponed for a year, and he rescheduled after being vaccinated, before we found out Delta was causing more breakthrough cases. He purposely planned it to be hiking and other outdoor activities, in a state with the lowest case rates in the country, at a private Air B &B in a climate they could air it out with open windows when they got there, staying with other fully vaccinated people. He's 22 - he turned 21 during the pandemic so no party, no going out to a bar with friends, nothing. So this year, this was his birthday celebration. I didn't love the risk, but at the time he bought the tickets vaccines were incredibly effective against even asymptomatic infection. And the kid works masked every day for 8-10 hours, limited his social contact for over a year, still hasn't been going out to bars or clubs like 21 yr olds do, got vaccinated the minute he could, all to be as safe as possible. And planned the safest trip possible to meet up somewhere as safe as possible with friends he hadn't seen in many years. Without a pandemic they would have gone to a big city, done indoor stuff, but they did this to be safe. It just sucked that Delta changed the parameters after he had his ticket. 

So not really "back to normal" as normal would have been NYC instead of an isolated cabin, bars instead of hiking, etc. Not making sure that everyone he was staying with was fully vaccinated. Not wearing a KF94 mask on the plane and in the airports - even while sleeping on the airport floor when he got stuck. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

33 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

But since it's endemic how are you planning to avoid it for the rest of your life? 

I don't know how I could avoid getting infected or encountering the germ at all and since I'm in my 40s I can't imagine the stress of trying to stay away from a particular germ for the rest of my life. To me that level of scrupulosity would be similar to having something like long covid. It would be like dealing with OCD for a lifetime instead of long covid, if that makes sense. The anxiety would overwhelm because there's no way I can avoid a respiratory virus like this one without dropping out of public life. I mean I could but it would vastly alter my life in the same way of trying to avoid the flu or strep or other cold virus. Even if everyone in the world got the vaccine (which isn't possible), there are still animal reservoirs of this virus and my understanding is that it is now with us forever because of that alone. Even if 85 or 90% of people around me got vaccinated we'd probably still have covid season like flu season I think. At least this is the conclusion I came to long before there was a vaccine. 

I got vaccinated actually to alleviate that kind of anxiety I was having. If I thought I had an equal chance of long covid with the vaccine I would be a mess. Sorry to get personal about it here.

Here is my personal take. I am making decisions on mitigation etc in the moment. At this moment I am happy to have my two doses of a vaccine. I am living my life “normally” but in a mask when in indoor public spaces. I do eat out on occasion and am unmasked in an indoor situation for about an hour max per week. (Living dangerously!  But relying in my vaccine for that one hour).  But since my life is quite home centered,    other than church (masked), stores (masked) and medical appointments (masked) I feel like my vaccine plus mask is a reasonable mitigation decision. 
 

I can’t tell you what I will do in the future. If the virus becomes more deadly then I will lockdown more, I guess. If it gets less deadly then I will loosen up. But I see the “are you going to do this forever” question as strange when talking about an ever changing situation. 
 

Oh and if I get Covid despite mitigation efforts, well that was always a risk, right?  Because no mitigation effort is 100%. 

[frogger]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I am actually not worried so much about “the masses”, if by that you mean lower income workers. I mean, I am worried about their health, but people working in those communities have found that local community outreach with support from local community leaders does more good than journalistic messaging and statistics. 
 

I am more worried by those, who at least on paper, have been educated but choose to inject politics into a health crisis and listen to only that information that goes along with their biases instead of really listening to health experts. No playing epidemiologist or statistician needed. 

I see a huge wealth and educational divide in vaccination rates. It is much larger than the political divide. The people who are falling for the political garbage are in general less educated and easier to manipulate.

[BronzeTurtle]

7 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Here is my personal take. I am making decisions on mitigation etc in the moment. At this moment I am happy to have my two doses of a vaccine. I am living my life “normally” but in a mask when in indoor public spaces. I do eat out on occasion and am unmasked in an indoor situation for about an hour max per week. (Living dangerously!  But relying in my vaccine for that one hour).  But since my life is quite home centered,    other than church (masked), stores (masked) and medical appointments (masked) I feel like my vaccine plus mask is a reasonable mitigation decision. 
 

I can’t tell you what I will do in the future. If the virus becomes more deadly then I will lockdown more, I guess. If it gets less deadly then I will loosen up. But I see the “are you going to do this forever” question as strange when talking about an ever changing situation. 
 

Oh and if I get Covid despite mitigation efforts, well that was always a risk, right?  Because no mitigation effort is 100%. 

@Jean in Newcastle I definitely feel like the times you've replied to me we are not talking about the same things. 🙂  I was replying to someone else who specifically said they were trying not to get infected at all. As in avoid the virus itself 100%. So it's a different thing than what you're talking about here for yourself. It wasn't "are you going to do this forever" so much as how someone would avoid covid forever. To me it would be like trying to avoid getting sick at all during cold and flu season, which would be nice but I don't know how I would do it without, for me, being very scrupulous and asking others in my household to be just as scrupulous. To speak personally again, the idea alone would bring me to a sort of despair. It would have to be what I prioritized the rest of my life around if I was trying not to get it at all (as the PP said she was trying to do). The idea of avoiding one specific germ is overwhelming to me. I gather it is not the same kind of overwhelming for the person I was replying to. If I was trying to do avoid a specific virus entirely I couldn't do most of the things you listed above even with the vaccine. I am so thankful for the vaccine honestly. But I really wasn't trying to speak to any of your personal choices at all. Hopefully this makes more sense.

Your last sentence is exactly what would make tip me over the edge into a full blown panic if I were trying to avoid getting it at all because you're exactly right. 

 

[TravelingChris]

23 hours ago, KSera said:

That was one of several issues in that post I was going to respond to, but I decided to let it go. This is standard procedure in a trial when the evidence is starkly clear the intervention either saves too many people to deny the control group the treatment or if the intervention harms too many people for it to be ethical to keep giving it. Both are ethically important to adhere to. If keeping someone in the control group is causing astronomically higher illness and death rates, it would be plainly wrong to not allow them the treatment that would save them from that. And as mentioned before, at this point in the trial process, it is common for full authorization to proceed while long-term safety data continues to be collected. That’s how it works.

I was too tired to do a similar post,  Thank you for your response,

[TravelingChris]

4 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

 

True about the vaccination rate in FL not being that high. 
 

But our local news was just quoting the very good local health department as saying that a 90% vaccination rate is really what’s needed. And before someone cries about being lied to, I always knew that this was most likely. And anyone with college level science should have known that. They just set a lower (70%) goal because it was more likely  to get compliance. 

I knew that the70% number was not right.  One of many lies that have bitten us back in mistrust of govt. (don't use masks, etc)

[TravelingChris]

9 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Delta did not show up in the US until March of this year.  (It was in India prior to that and no, there was not widespread vaccination there).  Even in March, while there was some vaccination, it was still not available to most adults under age 60.  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/health/delta-variant-covid.html

And most of the country did not have Delta in March.  It was rare in March.  It is became the dominant strain I think in the US in late June to sometime in July, I believe.

[Sneezyone]

38 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I knew that the70% number was not right.  One of many lies that have bitten us back in mistrust of govt. (don't use masks, etc)

For the love of Pete, it wasn't a lie, it was a goal--a modest and achievable one that some states chose not to pursue. We can all see where that got them. One state's Governor has even gone so far as to a do a public mea culpa tour on national TV. It's big of him to do that and might help at the pearly gates, who knows, but it also came/comes too late to save needlessly lost lives. Disease is not political. We need more Kay Ivey moments.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

@Jean in Newcastle I definitely feel like the times you've replied to me we are not talking about the same things. 🙂  I was replying to someone else who specifically said they were trying not to get infected at all. As in avoid the virus itself 100%. So it's a different thing than what you're talking about here for yourself. It wasn't "are you going to do this forever" so much as how someone would avoid covid forever. To me it would be like trying to avoid getting sick at all during cold and flu season, which would be nice but I don't know how I would do it without, for me, being very scrupulous and asking others in my household to be just as scrupulous. To speak personally again, the idea alone would bring me to a sort of despair. It would have to be what I prioritized the rest of my life around if I was trying not to get it at all (as the PP said she was trying to do). The idea of avoiding one specific germ is overwhelming to me. I gather it is not the same kind of overwhelming for the person I was replying to. If I was trying to do avoid a specific virus entirely I couldn't do most of the things you listed above even with the vaccine. I am so thankful for the vaccine honestly. But I really wasn't trying to speak to any of your personal choices at all. Hopefully this makes more sense.

Your last sentence is exactly what would make tip me over the edge into a full blown panic if I were trying to avoid getting it at all because you're exactly right. 

 

I think perhaps you see debate where I just see conversation?
 

 I am actually immunocompromised, on immune therapy, have been chronically ill for 30 plus years. I am actually have a much worse chance of s good outcome than Regentrude. But I believe despite her words that she and I have similar mitigation efforts and philosophy. (She can tell me if that’s not correct). 
 

ETA:  I have had 30 plus years of what essentially is identical to Long Covid. I have clawed my way to being as functional as I am. I don’t want to go backwards. So yes, like Regentrude I don’t want Long Covid. 

Edited August 10, 2021 by Jean in Newcastle

[KSera]

53 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

And most of the country did not have Delta in March.  It was rare in March.  It is became the dominant strain I think in the US in late June to sometime in July, I believe.

Yes. Delta was only 1% of cases sequenced in the US in May.

[Sneezyone]

22 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I think perhaps you see debate where I just see conversation?
 

 I am actually immunocompromised, on immune therapy, have been chronically ill for 30 plus years. I am actually have a much worse chance of s good outcome than Regentrude. But I believe despite her words that she and I have similar mitigation efforts and philosophy. (She can tell me if that’s not correct). 
 

ETA:  I have had 30 plus years of what essentially is identical to Long Covid. I have clawed my way to being as functional as I am. I don’t want to go backwards. So yes, like Regentrude I don’t want Long Covid. 

Yeah, my Dad has been living with the equivalent of long COVID for 30 years. He's tired. He's had a wonderful life and just wants to be able to spend time with friends and family. I wish we lived in a world where we could make the trip to see him without fear but the sheer selfishness and blindness of others makes that impossible. So, we're flying out there to see him with the knowledge that it could well be the last time. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't more than a little bitter about that.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

7 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

This will always be a problem so long as hospitals and healthcare remain for profit only. Having extra capacity is something only government can/will do with collective public funding.

Other countries' experiences don't support this.

[SKL]

It's interesting that Florida's adult population's vax rate is about the same as the overall nation's rate.  From the way the news has been reported, you'd think it was far less than average.

As for the one vs. two shots, I'd love to know the efficacy against Delta with 1 shot vs. 2, and also compared to J&J.  I've always wondered why "fully vaccinated" with J&J is treated as superior to one jab of an mRNA vax which conveys more protection than the J&J.

I think they should report this information separately for the different kinds of vaccines.

[KSera]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

As for the one vs. two shots, I'd love to know the efficacy against Delta with 1 shot vs. 2,

It’s been published by various countries. 

[Laura Corin]

@TCBthank you for your work.

[Jean in Newcastle]

21 minutes ago, SKL said:

It's interesting that Florida's adult population's vax rate is about the same as the overall nation's rate.  From the way the news has been reported, you'd think it was far less than average.

As for the one vs. two shots, I'd love to know the efficacy against Delta with 1 shot vs. 2, and also compared to J&J.  I've always wondered why "fully vaccinated" with J&J is treated as superior to one jab of an mRNA vax which conveys more protection than the J&J.

I think they should report this information separately for the different kinds of vaccines.

The J & J is not considered superior to one jab of an mRNA vax. 

[regentrude]

7 hours ago, BronzeTurtle said:

But since it's endemic how are you planning to avoid it for the rest of your life? 

I don't know how I could avoid getting infected or encountering the germ at all and since I'm in my 40s I can't imagine the stress of trying to stay away from a particular germ for the rest of my life. ... Even if everyone in the world got the vaccine (which isn't possible), there are still animal reservoirs of this virus and my understanding is that it is now with us forever because of that alone. Even if 85 or 90% of people around me got vaccinated we'd probably still have covid season like flu season I think. 

I am not talking about "the rest of my life". I am talking about right now, when the community infection rates locally are extremely high so that attending any kind of public indoor event is high risk. I will still teach in person on a college campus, wearing a mask. I still see individual vaccinated friends, preferably outside. But I won't do some things that were part of my "normal": sing in choir, perform at open mic inside a restaurant, take a transatlantic flight, host poetry events in the local pub with many people crammed into a tight space. 
My goal is to not get sick, but of course I am aware that it is never possible to achieve zero risk. So, I choose to eliminate activities that I consider particularly high risk. If I get it, despite that, then so be it.

I expect several things to happen in the future. This wave will pass, and the risk of infection during community activities will lower significantly. There may be boosters/annual shots, like for the flu. There will be scientific understanding how the virus behaves. There may be more effective treatments. All of this will inform my choices for future behavior.

ETA: Of course risk assessment is a highly personal decision. Another person's comfort level may be different, their "normal" may include fewer activities that bring them in close contact with strangers, they may live in a community with much lower infection risk.

Edited August 10, 2021 by regentrude

[regentrude]

5 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

 But I believe despite her words that she and I have similar mitigation efforts and philosophy. (She can tell me if that’s not correct). 

Yes, I think we actually see this in a similar way.

Quote

I am living my life “normally” but in a mask when in indoor public spaces. I do eat out on occasion and am unmasked in an indoor situation for about an hour max per week.

This, I think, is key when we talk about going back to "normal": realizing that "normal" looks different for different people. My "normal" involved music performances, poetry readings, parties, overseas travel - lots of activities that involve close contact with many people in indoor spaces - plus a job that puts me in rooms with 140 strangers.
 

[regentrude]

A general thought about risk assessment and mitigation (apropos the discussion with @BronzeTurtle
Making choices to mitigate Covid risk is not that much different from mitigating risk in other areas: you take measures to reduce the risk of the things you do, and you choose not to do certain things. 
I hike and rock climb. I carry a map and essentials, let somebody know where I go, but I won't do a long remote backcountry hike on my own. For technical climbs, we use a rope. If the external conditions are bad (snow, unstable weather), we may choose not to do a climb that we would happily do under better weather conditions. 
These actions reduce the chance of accidents. They don't eliminate them completely. Just like in every other area of life.

 

[Sneezyone]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

Other countries' experiences don't support this.

I don't live in other countries. I live in the US where max. profitability means just in time services/staffing.

Edited August 10, 2021 by Sneezyone

[frogger]

35 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I don't live in other countries. I live in the US where max. profitability means just in time services/staffing.

And hospitals have to compete to get gov't permission to add on. States also restrict the number of doctors and don't allow those licenced in other states to practice in their state. Governments from all levels of government have a hand in restricting the supply of medical care available to citizens in the name of saving money. You are absolutely correct that restricting these supplies is totally detrimental and also raise prices.  Restricting supply at every level increases what we pay and decreases quality because consumers have no choices. There is no competition to produce the best. 

If there is one place that proves basic economic theory correct, it is the health care system. The government has been working hard to decrease supplies to "save money" which is the most nonsensical thing one can possibly do. But that is what beaurocrats do, nonsensical things. They are not held accountable because the average voter can not know or keep up with the convoluted rules and systems that are created and how they fit into the current mess. The average voter also never studies how things work. They pick an ideology and run with it. 

Edited August 10, 2021 by frogger

[Sneezyone]

49 minutes ago, frogger said:

And hospitals have to compete to get gov't permission to add on. States also restrict the number of doctors and don't allow those licenced in other states to practice in their state. Governments from all levels of government have a hand in restricting the supply of medical care available to citizens in the name of saving money. You are absolutely correct that restricting these supplies is totally detrimental and also raise prices.  Restricting supply at every level increases what we pay and decreases quality because consumers have no choices. There is no competition to produce the best. 

If there is one place that proves basic economic theory correct, it is the health care system. The government has been working hard to decrease supplies to "save money" which is the most nonsensical thing one can possibly do. But that is what beaurocrats do, nonsensical things. They are not held accountable because the average voter can not know or keep up with the convoluted rules and systems that are created and how they fit into the current mess. The average voter also never studies how things work. They pick an ideology and run with it. 

The issues with the supply of physicians and nurses is more about lobbies advocating/erecting high barriers to entry to protect their incomes. Government made these laws in response to requests from the (vocal) governed. The same issue exists in the legal profession, hair care profession, etc. It's not just a government thing, it's a people/lobbyist thing. Entities/people get into a business and then use the levers of government to restrict competition and protect their profits. The profit motive distorts the availability of common good services like healthcare and legal aid and any other number of things (like broadband).

Edited August 10, 2021 by Sneezyone

[historically accurate]

I don't see extra space ever happening in hospitals. It's not profitable. If a hospital needs to turn a profit, they're not going to do it. If the government does it, can you imagine the news footage of empty hospital wards if some politician wants to get elected and uses the "wasteful spending" of extra ICU space - "The taxpayers' dollars are being wasted in this hospital in Podunk, State. Look at all of these empty beds. Each one of these beds cost YOU $xx,xxx per year." The public forgets quickly; by 10 years out from Covid, either CNN or Fox would be airing nightly shows about the wasteful spending of the Medical Companies (depending on whomever wished to use it to his advantage). 

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, historically accurate said:

I don't see extra space ever happening in hospitals. It's not profitable. If a hospital needs to turn a profit, they're not going to do it. If the government does it, can you imagine the news footage of empty hospital wards if some politician wants to get elected and uses the "wasteful spending" of extra ICU space - "The taxpayers' dollars are being wasted in this hospital in Podunk, State. Look at all of these empty beds. Each one of these beds cost YOU $xx,xxx per year." The public forgets quickly; by 10 years out from Covid, either CNN or Fox would be airing nightly shows about the wasteful spending of the Medical Companies (depending on whomever wished to use it to his advantage). 

This too, for sure. The only entity with the funds to maintain dead space/reserves is the government and no one wants to fund that waste so...yeah. Not gonna happen.

[ktgrok]

9 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

I knew that the70% number was not right.  One of many lies that have bitten us back in mistrust of govt. (don't use masks, etc)

If you are still talking about Florida, as others explained, we do NOT NOT NOT have 70% of the population vaccinated - not even with just one shot. 70% was one shot for over 18 years old. Which is NOT the same thing as 70% of the population, given that there are plenty of under 18s around to contract the virus. 

Also 70% was an initial goal. Not a promise. 

[kokotg]

Probably someone has made this point already somewhere, but the percent vaccinated needed for herd immunity will be higher with a more transmissible strain. That's just the math. The 70% figure, in addition to always being an estimate, was thrown out there before Delta was dominant in the US. 

[Hyacinth]

Is it true that viruses become weaker as they mutate, or is that one of those “it depends” kind of statements? 

[TravelingChris]

15 minutes ago, Hyacinth said:

Is it true that viruses become weaker as they mutate, or is that one of those “it depends” kind of statements? 

I bet this is one of those we have no idea statements. That is because most viruses have been around for a very long time and we have only had good data for maybe 50 years or so.  I mean TB has been around at least as long as the pyramids were built and it is not at all a benign virus.  

So definitely it depends.  Most of the time the viruses that infect and kill the host very quickly preventing much infection do get less infected.  Things like COVID, including Delta, are not very deadly -- the great majority of people do not die. (nothing to do with how serious I think this disease is).  There is no evolutionary reason right now to get less virulent.

[KSera]

18 minutes ago, Hyacinth said:

Is it true that viruses become weaker as they mutate, or is that one of those “it depends” kind of statements? 

Yes, it’s one of those. They frequently do, and it makes logical sense that it would work to their advantage to do so, but since they’re not sentient, it doesn’t always work out that way. With something highly transmissible, and a massive population to work through, it doesn’t need to get less virulent to continue to succeed. And sometimes those more dangerous mutations just happen H1N1 was a more virulent strain of flu. Ebola mutated to create a more dangerous strain. Same with West Nile. 

[Corraleno]

 

7 hours ago, SKL said:

As for the one vs. two shots, I'd love to know the efficacy against Delta with 1 shot vs. 2, and also compared to J&J.  I've always wondered why "fully vaccinated" with J&J is treated as superior to one jab of an mRNA vax which conveys more protection than the J&J.

I think they should report this information separately for the different kinds of vaccines.

Some of the studies done when the original strain was circulating indicated quite high efficacy for one shot of an mRNA vaccine, but that does not seem to be the case with Delta. A Canadian study found that efficacy against Delta 14 or more days after one dose of Pfizer was only 56%, vs 87% 7 days after the second shot. Another study from Public Health England found one shot of Pfizer was only 36% effective against Delta, rising to 88% two weeks after the second shot. I haven't seen any studies on J&J efficacy, since few countries are using it, and even in the US very few people got it compared to the numbers who got mRNA vaccines. The PHE study found that one shot of AZ was 30% effective, slightly lower than Pfizer's one-shot efficacy, but I don't know if that's comparable to one shot of J&J.

[frogger]

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

The issues with the supply of physicians and nurses is more about lobbies advocating/erecting high barriers to entry to protect their incomes. Government made these laws in response to requests from the (vocal) governed. The same issue exists in the legal profession, hair care profession, etc. It's not just a government thing, it's a people/lobbyist thing. Entities/people get into a business and then use the levers of government to restrict competition and protect their profits. The profit motive distorts the availability of common good services like healthcare and legal aid and any other number of things (like broadband).

That is absolutely true. That is exactly WHY governments do that but to the masses they say, "We are keeping costs down" and nobody holds them accountable. 

Profit motives in transparent and competitive environments are a whole different ballgame. 

 

ETA- The American people should be demanding a change to restriction in supply from both the education end of things to the number of beds any hospital has. It would be good for us in regular years and even more important in pandemic years.

Edited August 10, 2021 by frogger

[BronzeTurtle]

13 hours ago, ktgrok said:

yes, and I'd rather he not have gone. But, it was a trip he'd postponed for a year, and he rescheduled after being vaccinated, before we found out Delta was causing more breakthrough cases. He purposely planned it to be hiking and other outdoor activities, in a state with the lowest case rates in the country, at a private Air B &B in a climate they could air it out with open windows when they got there, staying with other fully vaccinated people. He's 22 - he turned 21 during the pandemic so no party, no going out to a bar with friends, nothing. So this year, this was his birthday celebration. I didn't love the risk, but at the time he bought the tickets vaccines were incredibly effective against even asymptomatic infection. And the kid works masked every day for 8-10 hours, limited his social contact for over a year, still hasn't been going out to bars or clubs like 21 yr olds do, got vaccinated the minute he could, all to be as safe as possible. And planned the safest trip possible to meet up somewhere as safe as possible with friends he hadn't seen in many years. Without a pandemic they would have gone to a big city, done indoor stuff, but they did this to be safe. It just sucked that Delta changed the parameters after he had his ticket. 

So not really "back to normal" as normal would have been NYC instead of an isolated cabin, bars instead of hiking, etc. Not making sure that everyone he was staying with was fully vaccinated. Not wearing a KF94 mask on the plane and in the airports - even while sleeping on the airport floor when he got stuck. 

Just wanted to say that I didn't ask so you might feel compelled to explain. Just to say that we all have differing levels of what's safe or what might cause spread  and we all have to make decisions individually that are hard calls based on what we think we need to do to get by. I wanted to just make it clear that I have no judgement and no explanation necessary!! I do know a lot of people doing things with this sort of relative view of what's safe compared to what they might otherwise be doing that is less safe and I think that's a perfectly fine way to evaluate things. 🙂 I myself am probably doing a lot of things that people here would think is too much risk based on their tolerance for exposure to covid. Hard to say what's right and wrong.

[BronzeTurtle]

6 hours ago, regentrude said:

I am not talking about "the rest of my life". I am talking about right now, when the community infection rates locally are extremely high so that attending any kind of public indoor event is high risk. I will still teach in person on a college campus, wearing a mask. I still see individual vaccinated friends, preferably outside. But I won't do some things that were part of my "normal": sing in choir, perform at open mic inside a restaurant, take a transatlantic flight, host poetry events in the local pub with many people crammed into a tight space. 
My goal is to not get sick, but of course I am aware that it is never possible to achieve zero risk. So, I choose to eliminate activities that I consider particularly high risk. If I get it, despite that, then so be it.

I expect several things to happen in the future. This wave will pass, and the risk of infection during community activities will lower significantly. There may be boosters/annual shots, like for the flu. There will be scientific understanding how the virus behaves. There may be more effective treatments. All of this will inform my choices for future behavior.

ETA: Of course risk assessment is a highly personal decision. Another person's comfort level may be different, their "normal" may include fewer activities that bring them in close contact with strangers, they may live in a community with much lower infection risk.

Apologies! I took what you said literally in the post I quoted. When you said, "I'm trying not to get infected at all," I took that much differently than above. I didn't think you just meant you were trying not to get infected when infection rates are high in your community or until some other milestone. But I do understand. I was trying not to get infected at all until I was vaccinated.

And wow, yeah, risk assessment sure is a funny thing. You encounter far more people in your daily life than I do living my normal life post-vaccination and I'm not trying to avoid covid so it's probably hard to have some of these conversations without misreading. In theory, your risk of spreading it would be much higher than mine and I am not worried about contracting the virus in any way. That gives me something to ponder for sure. But I do think  the vaccines work, so I don't think I'd have a problem doing any of what you're doing, in theory.

[Bootsie]

6 hours ago, regentrude said:

A general thought about risk assessment and mitigation (apropos the discussion with @BronzeTurtle
Making choices to mitigate Covid risk is not that much different from mitigating risk in other areas: you take measures to reduce the risk of the things you do, and you choose not to do certain things. 
I hike and rock climb. I carry a map and essentials, let somebody know where I go, but I won't do a long remote backcountry hike on my own. For technical climbs, we use a rope. If the external conditions are bad (snow, unstable weather), we may choose not to do a climb that we would happily do under better weather conditions. 
These actions reduce the chance of accidents. They don't eliminate them completely. Just like in every other area of life.

 

And we all have different levels of risk aversion when it comes to mitigating and accepting particular risks.  Personally, climbing would never be anything that the benefits were worth the risks (even with steps to mitigate them) to me., but then again, I grew up where everything is flat and even the stairs in a two story house seem high to me 🙂

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Just wanted to say that I didn't ask so you might feel compelled to explain. Just to say that we all have differing levels of what's safe or what might cause spread  and we all have to make decisions individually that are hard calls based on what we think we need to do to get by. I wanted to just make it clear that I have no judgement and no explanation necessary!! I do know a lot of people doing things with this sort of relative view of what's safe compared to what they might otherwise be doing that is less safe and I think that's a perfectly fine way to evaluate things. 🙂 I myself am probably doing a lot of things that people here would think is too much risk based on their tolerance for exposure to covid. Hard to say what's right and wrong.

No worries, just trying to explain that he made the plans and bought the ticket before Delta, and that even then it was not "back to normal" as he would have preferred a different kind of trip entirely - to a major city, indoor activities, clubs, etc. So although it was not staying home, it wasn't "back to normal" if that makes sense. 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

No worries, just trying to explain that he made the plans and bought the ticket before Delta, and that even then it was not "back to normal" as he would have preferred a different kind of trip entirely - to a major city, indoor activities, clubs, etc. So although it was not staying home, it wasn't "back to normal" if that makes sense. 

Did you ever find out how / where he caught Covid?

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

Did you ever find out how / where he caught Covid?

Nope. No one he was with - and they were sleeping in the same room all together most of the time (crashing on couches/floor after playing video games for hours, lol), eating together, sharing bathrooms - got it. All tested negative, no one has symptoms, etc. (all vaccinated)

No one at work got it. 

No one here got it - but he spent almost no time with us from getting home until testing positive  and isolating- less than 24 hours and almost all of it in his room or a few hours at his work. He literally came home, ate in his room watching tv, showered, napped, went to work, came home, ate in his room, went to bed. 

He didn't even eat anything while in the airport overnight, so didn't unmask while in there, wearing a K94 mask that fit well. I'm thinking he was exposed while on the trip - he thinks arcade as most likley - and then the stress and lack of sleep from being stuck in the airport all night likely lowered his immune system enough he actually came down with it. Other guys fought it off. Or? Who knows.