Coronavirus (Covid-19) informational thread

[eatrains]

Well, the current CDC recommendations are to refrain from school sports, band, choir, and yelling on campus. Perhaps they might want to revisit this guidance in light of the data, since kids do not fall into this high risk category. (meanwhile, turning a blind eye to 100K screaming fans in an NFL stadium) Perhaps, they might not have closed down schools last year, which almost everyone (including health experts) now agrees was a huge mistake.

I am not so frightened of twitter posts to dismiss the possibility that we might learn something from this data. As we move from a pandemic to an endemic that we will be living with for years, we are probably going to have to go to a more tiered risk based approach with this disease. Again, I reject the idea that there is nothing to be learned. That our current health care policies are infallible. That merely discussing it or questioning it is an affront and disrespectful to the health care establishment.

The benefit of closing schools isn't keeping kids from dying, it's keeping kids from spreading it to each other and then to other, more at-risk people.

What sort of risk approach? Prevent the unvaccinated from getting hospital care to make sure there's room for regular needs?

 

[Mainsail]

The benefit of closing schools isn't keeping kids from dying, it's keeping kids from spreading it to each other and then to other, more at-risk people.

What sort of risk approach? Prevent the unvaccinated from getting hospital care to make sure there's room for regular needs?

Yes, I am familiar with the arguments for closing schools, and it was a gigantic failure. Lost academic year. Kids still congregated outside of school. Kids were actually safer in school. Almost every expert agrees it was a mistake, which is the reason we no longer are doing it. We can learn from the data.

What is a risk based approach? How about a program of surveillance with early detection and early treatment (there are promising treatments out there but not enough medicine) for elderly people with more than 4 comorbidity? How about a campaign targeted at boosting those most vulnerable? These things can help, but at the end of the day old people with lots of chronic illness are going to die more rapidly than the rest of the population.

What does not help? Ridiculous guidance prohibiting band, choir, sports and yelling on a campus full of low risk students. The good news is just about nobody is following it. But, it reflects a disconnect between HC policy makers and the real world. Data about who is really at risk can help these officials get more focused on those most vulnerable. That's a good thing.

You and I have been going around for a while, so maybe we will never agree. So, I am bowing out now. Not to dismiss your opinion. I just think we have reach a point of diminishing returns.

 

[poorcody]

Best summary of where we are at the moment that I've run across:

Where do we stand with Omicron?

The data, the math, the patterns, and the exit

erictopol.substack.com

Author: Eric Topol

 

[JamesMike]

I see Denmark will end COVID restrictions next week, it will be interesting how that turns out.

 

[Mainsail]

I see Denmark will end COVID restrictions next week, it will be interesting how that turns out.

Yes, they have a very high percentage of the population fully vaccinated, so they are probably betting on natural immunity from the Omicron wave plus high vaccination rate.

 

[poorcody]

Novax Djkcovid?

Fortune favors the vaccinated.

 

[bradl]

Fortune favors the vaccinated.

Welp... Novak's waxing about COVID cost him (temporarily) a place in history. Seeing that he was tied with Roger Federer and Raphael Nadal as the most winningest male tennis players in history, his beef with being unvaccinated and trying to skirt COVID restrictions in Australia cost him the chance to move past Nadal and Federer and cement him as the greatest. All of them were on 20 major titles. Since he went on about being unvaccinated and violated restrictions in Melbourne, he got sent home and had to withdraw from the tournament...

Nadal won the men's Australian Open today, putting him ahead of Federer and Djokovic for the time being. Seeing that Nadal and Federer or no more than a year or two away from retiring, that title is Djokovic's for the taking, if he can calm down and put his head back into the game.

BL.

 

[Mainsail]

So, today I enjoyed watching two great football games. Last week, was even better with four terrific games. Hundreds of thousands of cheering fans. What a spectacle. Here is the thing; if we are truly in a pandemic, how are scenes like this possible? Honestly, how can this be happening during a pandemic?

For example, how can California institute all kinds of restrictions on restaurants, schools, businesses, public spaces, and clubs to slow the spread, but allow a 100K screaming people to cram into a stadium for the NFC championship game?

I am not saying which restrictions are right and which restrictions are wrong? I am just saying that if you can pack 100K people into a stadium, just about everything should be on the table. "We follow the science" mantra doesn't seem credible when what I see defies logic. So, I honestly don't understand the criteria that is being used to establish what is acceptable and what is not acceptable or too risky. Again, for me, it's a credibility thing.

 

[44267547]

We’re finally to a point here where cases are significantly dropping on a weekly basis, and we’ve reached our third straight week in a decline, however; our hospital occupancy still remains high with limited capacity. But in fairness, that’s also partially I think due to other known illnesses, where hospitals are generally busy this time of year.

The only other negative point I can think of, is our vaccination rates haven’t increased, they’ve just completely plateaued. I’d say I’d have to agree with a local epidemiologist in our area, where people are just ‘numb’ to all the directives, where they mentally blocked out what they need to do -versus- what they should do. If anything, it forces them in the direction of ‘I’ll do what I think is best’ type mentality, which is the end result of over-saturation from the media, the workplace, influences from local people, etc.

In a lot of regards, I feel like we’re the only ones that make tactical decisions that we’re not interested participating in large group situations, where some of our other friends disagree. It’s all coming down to personal choice at this point, there is no more ‘mass following’ of what’s the right thing to do.

 

[bradl]

So, today I enjoyed watching two great football games. Last week, was even better with four terrific games. Hundreds of thousands of cheering fans. What a spectacle. Here is the thing; if we are truly in a pandemic, how are scenes like this possible? Honestly, how can this be happening during a pandemic?

For example, how can California institute all kinds of restrictions on restaurants, schools, businesses, public spaces, and clubs to slow the spread, but allow a 100K screaming people to cram into a stadium for the NFC championship game?

I am not saying which restrictions are right and which restrictions are wrong? I am just saying that if you can pack 100K people into a stadium, just about everything should be on the table. "We follow the science" mantra doesn't seem credible when what I see defies logic. So, I honestly don't understand the criteria that is being used to establish what is acceptable and what is not acceptable or too risky. Again, for me, it's a credibility thing.

Good question all around, and here is why all of the political conversations that have been trumped up over the past two years has made the US lax in our fight against this.

Let’s take Australia for an example. In the AFL (Aussie rules football) one of their venues, the Melbourne Cricket Ground, has over 100,000 seats. So when that city and state looks at their data, they can decide to open up a percentage of the seats based on the data they have for vaccinations and infections. For one match because how good their numbers looked, they opened up 75% of their seats. On another occasion, it got bad that they had no more than 20% of their seats open.. numbers subsequently got worse that they had their next match with no crowds, then flew the teams out of Melbourne so they would avoid the impending lockdown that eventually came.

Could Kansas City or Los Angeles say the same or do the same? If this were in, say, Houston, Dallas, Tampa, or Miami, could they do the same?

That may be where some places are getting it right while we are getting it wrong. But how to get the pols to revisit the data without any political slant will be an even bigger problem than combating the virus at this point.

BL.

 

[Mainsail]

Two excellent podcasts from The Daily:

We Need to Talk About Covid, Part 1

Podcast Episode · The Daily · 01/26/2022 · Subscribers Only · 27m

podcasts.apple.com

We Need to Talk About Covid, Part 2: A Conversation with Dr. Fauci

Podcast Episode · The Daily · 01/31/2022 · Subscribers Only · 35m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[chown33]

So, today I enjoyed watching two great football games. Last week, was even better with four terrific games. Hundreds of thousands of cheering fans. What a spectacle. Here is the thing; if we are truly in a pandemic, how are scenes like this possible? Honestly, how can this be happening during a pandemic?

For example, how can California institute all kinds of restrictions on restaurants, schools, businesses, public spaces, and clubs to slow the spread, but allow a 100K screaming people to cram into a stadium for the NFC championship game?

I am not saying which restrictions are right and which restrictions are wrong? I am just saying that if you can pack 100K people into a stadium, just about everything should be on the table. "We follow the science" mantra doesn't seem credible when what I see defies logic. So, I honestly don't understand the criteria that is being used to establish what is acceptable and what is not acceptable or too risky. Again, for me, it's a credibility thing.

I don't watch football, so forgive what may seem like silly questions:
Were the football stadiums outdoors, or were they completely covered, making them effectively indoor stadiums?

Were the stadiums operating at full capacity, or at reduced capacity?

Did the stadiums really have 100K people, or is that hyperbole?

Were there any personal restrictions for the fans, such as masks or proof of vaccination, or was it unrestricted?


Looking at your list of venues, one commonality I see between "restaurants, schools, businesses, and clubs" is that they're all indoors. The remaining item in your list, "public spaces", may or may not be indoors; you'd have to be more specific. For example, do public parks and beaches in California have the same restrictions as public buildings in California?

Covid-19 transmission risks are significantly different for indoor vs. outdoor venues. Even indoors, building and ventilation design affects risk. Here's a brief article, with links:

Coronavirus FAQ: What's the risk of catching omicron outdoors?

text.npr.org

 

[BoxerGT2.5]

The benefit of closing schools isn't keeping kids from dying, it's keeping kids from spreading it to each other and then to other, more at-risk people.

What sort of risk approach? Prevent the unvaccinated from getting hospital care to make sure there's room for regular needs?

There is also a cost to children, mentally, by repeatedly telling them they are vectors of disease that would be responsible for killing grandma if they're in school. Which is essentially what you are saying. The OVERWHELMING number of people who have died from COVID are unvaccinated, over the age of 65, fat, and with other comorbidities. To have an approach to public health that treats a 10yr old the same as an obese 60yr old, from an "at-risk" perspective, is asinine.

 

[BoxerGT2.5]

I don't watch football, so forgive what may seem like silly questions:
Were the football stadiums outdoors, or were they completely covered, making them effectively indoor stadiums?

Were the stadiums operating at full capacity, or at reduced capacity?

Did the stadiums really have 100K people, or is that hyperbole?

Were there any personal restrictions for the fans, such as masks or proof of vaccination, or was it unrestricted?


Looking at your list of venues, one commonality I see between "restaurants, schools, businesses, and clubs" is that they're all indoors. The remaining item in your list, "public spaces", may or may not be indoors; you'd have to be more specific. For example, do public parks and beaches in California have the same restrictions as public buildings in California?

Covid-19 transmission risks are significantly different for indoor vs. outdoor venues. Even indoors, building and ventilation design affects risk. Here's a brief article, with links:

Coronavirus FAQ: What's the risk of catching omicron outdoors?

text.npr.org

Of the teams playing in the playoffs, only the Rams and the Cowboys have a stadium that can be opened or closed. Every other stadium hosting a game is outdoors.

 

[Mainsail]

I don't watch football, so forgive what may seem like silly questions:
Were the football stadiums outdoors, or were they completely covered, making them effectively indoor stadiums?

Were the stadiums operating at full capacity, or at reduced capacity?

Did the stadiums really have 100K people, or is that hyperbole?

Were there any personal restrictions for the fans, such as masks or proof of vaccination, or was it unrestricted?


Looking at your list of venues, one commonality I see between "restaurants, schools, businesses, and clubs" is that they're all indoors. The remaining item in your list, "public spaces", may or may not be indoors; you'd have to be more specific. For example, do public parks and beaches in California have the same restrictions as public buildings in California?

Covid-19 transmission risks are significantly different for indoor vs. outdoor venues. Even indoors, building and ventilation design affects risk. Here's a brief article, with links:

Coronavirus FAQ: What's the risk of catching omicron outdoors?

text.npr.org

While it is true that outdoors is better than indoors, COVID can still be transmitted outdoors. Remember the famous Rose Garden super spreader event? Children are required to wear masks outdoors at school on the playground, so yes, our experts tell us that it can be transmitted outdoors or at least, they have regulations and guidelines that suggest it.

Please look at how packed these stadiums are with people. There is no way to logically reconcile this practice with other government guidelines and requirements. Let's face it. Government officials have decided where they want to fall on their sword and where they will turn a blind eye. There are rich and powerful people that wanted those stadiums full of paying fans. There are influential politicians (on both sides of the isle) that know that closing or restricting spectators would be the political third rail. Please don't tell me they are just following the science. Again, my point is one of credibility. How do health officials admonish people to practice social distancing and wear masks to slow the spread when a huge portion of America can tune into these games and see stadiums full of maskless fans screaming at the top of their lungs within inches of one another? How do you convince the public that there is a deadly pandemic while images of gigantic public sporting events broadcast around the country? There is no way this can be a "best practice" for a pandemic. So, are we really in a pandemic or something else? This is just not logical and not credible.

BTW - The main issue is how densely packed the stadiums are rather than if the maximum capacity is 60k, 80K or 100K. Normal seating capacity for the Ram's stadium is 70K expandable to 100K. That does not include support staff, vendors and the like. College stadiums can be even more densely packed with similar capacity.

 

[poorcody]

Were there any personal restrictions for the fans, such as masks or proof of vaccination, or was it unrestricted?

The California game required attendees to show proof of vaccination or a negative test. I believe the Kansas City game did not. Both were typical of their respective state's approach to COVID I think it would be fair to say.

 

[poorcody]

While it is true that outdoors is better than indoors, COVID can still be transmitted outdoors. Remember the famous Rose Garden super spreader event? Children are required to wear masks outdoors at school on the playground, so yes, our experts tell us that it can be transmitted outdoors or at least, they have regulations and guidelines that suggest it.

Actually there has been very little evidence of any significant outdoor transmission from what I've seen. The Rose Garden event started outdoors and moved indoors.

 

[Mainsail]

Actually there has been very little evidence of any significant outdoor transmission from what I've seen. The Rose Garden event started outdoors and moved indoors.

So, why are students required to wear masks on playgrounds? Why do CDC guidelines discourage high school sporting events like football? My local high school required baseball players to wear masks during the game last year.

 

[Mainsail]

The California game required attendees to show proof of vaccination or a negative test. I believe the Kansas City game did not. Both were typical of their respective state's approach to COVID I think it would be fair to say.

When it comes to spreading the illness, proof of vaccination and tests mean very little. My daughter attended a party of fully vaccinated grad students that are tested weekly by her college. 18 out of 22 got infected. She tested negative 4 times before a PCR showed her positive. Now, because of vaccinations, everyone got over the illness quickly with relatively mild symptoms. They were also all in their 20s. But, they were contagious and could spread to others.

No way a stadium full of screaming fans is consistent with a "slow the spread" policy to reduce hospitalizations. No way. My point is that this chips away at the credibility of our government officials and sends a muddled message about the seriousness of the pandemic.

Take it from the nation's expert:
is-it-safe-to-attend-sports-games-during-covid-pandemic-fauci-advice.html

 

[poorcody]

So, why are students required to wear masks on playgrounds? Why do CDC guidelines discourage high school sporting events like football? My local high school required baseball players to wear masks during the game last year.

Probably for the same reason I would in such circumstances: it's a low-burden, potentially high-reward calculation.

We're dealing with novel circumstances everyday (new variants, waning immunity, limited data) -- better safe than sorry, especially for something so easy to do.

 

[poorcody]

No way a stadium full of screaming fans is consistent with a "slow the spread" policy to reduce hospitalizations. No way. My point is that this chips away at the credibility of our government officials and sends a muddled message about the seriousness of the pandemic.

I agree which is why I still wouldn't allow any spectators, but obviously there is a lot of pressure to do it.

You keep blaming the "government officials" for muddled policies and messages. The problem is it's really complicated. There are competing agencies setting different rules across states, counties, cities, and towns with different politics (just look at the difference between the two playoff games). There are complex laws limiting what they can and can't do. It is infinitely complicated trying to balance direct life/death risks with economic consequences. The science requires data which is hard to produce and constantly in flux for novel variants and circumstances.

And if the science says one thing but your voters want something else (e.g. "Trump won the election"), what do you think they are going to do? Everything is turned into a political football now so things like "odds are" and "statistically speaking" get turned into binary "ah ha!"'s for each tail-case of the bell curve.

Take it from the nation's expert:
is-it-safe-to-attend-sports-games-during-covid-pandemic-fauci-advice.html

Sounds smart to me... I wouldn't be going to a football game today.

 

[Mainsail]

Probably for the same reason I would in such circumstances: it's a low-burden, potentially high-reward calculation.

We're dealing with novel circumstances everyday (new variants, waning immunity, limited data) -- better safe than sorry, especially for something so easy to do.

Given the incredibly low risk to children, I see it as a high burden low-reward calculation. It certainly makes no sense to promulgate this guidance and then allow a stadium down the street to fill up with screaming fans. I think it has more to do with who can be pushed around and who has power. Which is different than “we just follow the science”.

 

[poorcody]

I think it has more to do with who can be pushed around and who has power. Which is different than “we just follow the science”.

I think it's about who cares about themselves and who cares about everybody. The same science points to different approaches based on where you fall there. I think it's also a significant demarcation line of our polarization as well.

 

[BoxerGT2.5]

I think it's about who cares about themselves and who cares about everybody. The same science points to different approaches based on where you fall there. I think it's also a significant demarcation line of our polarization as well.

At this point it's evident the vaccines protect you, it is becoming less and less about preventing transmission. While there's a real disdain in the US towards the unvaccinated, Omicron didn't emerge from the unvaccinated US population.

Why hasn't there been more pressure on the Pharma companies to put aside shareholder motivations and say screw the patents, we're going to try to get the as much of the world vaccinated at we can for the greater good? If that means sharing the technology on how to manufacturer the COVID vaccination, so be it. I'm not sure I've heard any new outlet grill the CEO of Pfizer or Moderna on this. Why? Because if you haven't noticed, all their shows are "Brought to you by Pfizer". Instead, we have places in South and Central America banking on Cuba of all places to help bail them out.

In the midst of a public pandemic we've managed to make this 100% about power and money.

 

[eatrains]

There is also a cost to children, mentally, by repeatedly telling them they are vectors of disease that would be responsible for killing grandma if they're in school. Which is essentially what you are saying. The OVERWHELMING number of people who have died from COVID are unvaccinated, over the age of 65, fat, and with other comorbidities. To have an approach to public health that treats a 10yr old the same as an obese 60yr old, from an "at-risk" perspective, is asinine.

Sure, if you're willing to block the unvaccinated from hospitals. Keep them home until they get better or don't, keep hospitals free from being overrun and staff from being burnt out. If you're not, the risk from a collapsed healthcare system affects everyone.