Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

18.7 Million Americans Vaccinated

covidvaxcount.live

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 456 posts

Re: 18.7 Million Americans Vaccinated

#441

Post by loveistheanswer »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #439
nradov wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even before coronavirus, going to a concert, contracting influenza and passing it around could have killed someone. Influenza kills thousands every year, asymptomatic transmission is common, and the vaccine is only partially effective. COVID-19 is significantly more deadly but that's just a difference in degree; the same fundamentals still applied. So by your logic apparently concerts shouldn't have ever been permitt…

Corona is substantially more deadly, and long term effects can be permanent, it’s also in addition to the flu. By your logic we should just let corona run it’s course? You’re willing to let others die just so you can see a concert?

Do you think we should let group gatherings happen during flu season?

If not, how much more deadly (be precise) would the flu need to be before we should ban group socialization?

Trying to figure out if you're thinking in terms of a logical metric based risk analysis, or just emotion and terror of death.

Re: 18.7 Million Americans Vaccinated

#442

Post by Rexxar »

loveistheanswer wrote: post #441
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corona is substantially more deadly, and long term effects can be permanent, it’s also in addition to the flu. By your logic we should just let corona run it’s course? You’re willing to let others die just so you can see a concert?

Do you think we should let group gatherings happen during flu season? If not, how much more deadly (be precise) would the flu need to be before we should ban group socialization? Trying to figure out if you're thinking in terms of a logical metric based risk analysis, or just emotion and terror of death.

We can all ask ourself : How many time I would accept to be confined now to live one more day/week/month/year at the end of my life. Now we can use this ratio and apply it to our current choice to calibrate how much we stay confined.

Re: 18.7 Million Americans Vaccinated

#443

Post by Kim_Bruning »

Izkata wrote: post #440
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continuing on from my other reply on country scale, we can actually drill down to Illinois and take a look: https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-IE&gl=IE&ceid=IE%3... You can see that restrictions did have clear effects in first and second wave. By June, restrictions had beaten back the virus almost far enough. You can also see the effect of strong restrictions at the end of November (up to "Tier 3" by Nov 20) :…

You continue to ignore the extra hospital capacity that is my entire point for here, but I'll just add - the cases started dropping Nov 16, days before the new restrictions went into place. If it was the new restrictions having an effect, they shouldn't have started dropping until somewhere around Dec 5.

I think it's safe to assume that they were probably at "Tier 2" prior to Nov 20?

Due to the way that Covid is stealthy, you don't see the effects of policy measures for 14 days or more. It's not very surprising that policy measures would lag behind the curves.

And I don't really see a problem with the extra hospital beds. This particular pandemic is really hard to manage. If someone accidentally prepares more hospital beds than they need, that's perfectly fine by me. That's a much better plan than not having enough.

Unless you think that protecting citizens from harm (foreign or domestic) is not a duty of the government, I guess they're doing as good a job as they can, given the circumstances. It's not pretty, but then again it can't be.

Re: 18.7 Million Americans Vaccinated

#444

Post by Kim_Bruning »

Izkata wrote: post #440
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continuing on from my other reply on country scale, we can actually drill down to Illinois and take a look: https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-IE&gl=IE&ceid=IE%3... You can see that restrictions did have clear effects in first and second wave. By June, restrictions had beaten back the virus almost far enough. You can also see the effect of strong restrictions at the end of November (up to "Tier 3" by Nov 20) :…

You continue to ignore the extra hospital capacity that is my entire point for here, but I'll just add - the cases started dropping Nov 16, days before the new restrictions went into place. If it was the new restrictions having an effect, they shouldn't have started dropping until somewhere around Dec 5.

Additionally, before you ask:

You might argue in this case they could have theoretically backed down restrictions to a lower level, once they saw that the lower level was already having an effect.

But in leadership, it's often good to stay a given course, if it is at all helpful. In this case, it is, You get back down to lower infection numbers faster, thus allowing people more freedoms again sooner.

Re: 18.7 Million Americans Vaccinated

#445

Post by Kim_Bruning »

Izkata wrote: post #440
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continuing on from my other reply on country scale, we can actually drill down to Illinois and take a look: https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-IE&gl=IE&ceid=IE%3... You can see that restrictions did have clear effects in first and second wave. By June, restrictions had beaten back the virus almost far enough. You can also see the effect of strong restrictions at the end of November (up to "Tier 3" by Nov 20) :…

You continue to ignore the extra hospital capacity that is my entire point for here, but I'll just add - the cases started dropping Nov 16, days before the new restrictions went into place. If it was the new restrictions having an effect, they shouldn't have started dropping until somewhere around Dec 5.

Wait, just to be sure. I just realized ... Would your idea have been to allow the extra hospital capacity to be filled up?

Eh, probably not.

You'd know that some people who are hospitalized also die.

Also; knowing the difficulty of trying to deal with an exponential curve, how would you be sure to cut off at just the right time, before people start dying in the streets?

Ok, no, that can't be it. I don't think people are monsters, so you're unlikely to be one :-) .

Re: 18.7 Million Americans Vaccinated

#446

Post by Izkata »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #445
Izkata wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You continue to ignore the extra hospital capacity that is my entire point for here, but I'll just add - the cases started dropping Nov 16, days before the new restrictions went into place. If it was the new restrictions having an effect, they shouldn't have started dropping until somewhere around Dec 5.

Wait, just to be sure. I just realized ... Would your idea have been to allow the extra hospital capacity to be filled up? Eh, probably not. You'd know that some people who are hospitalized also die. Also; knowing the difficulty of trying to deal with an exponential curve, how would you be sure to cut off at just the right time, before people start dying in the streets? Ok, no, that can't be it. I don't think people…

> Would your idea have been to allow the extra hospital capacity to be filled up?

Not completely filled, but yes, this is exactly what I've been saying. If we had allowed the extra capacity to get used, instead of getting rid of it, the lockdowns wouldn't have had to be as strict. Less strict lockdowns means less economic problems, which means we could sustain them longer.

Which gets right back to my original point: As it is now, people have ended up with more pressing concerns than the virus and so care less and less about following the lockdowns.

Also another quick aside, back on that original point - "two weeks to slow the spread"? Lockdowns were sold to us specifically on slowing the spread while we increased capacity, to deal with the increase in patients. There was always an understanding that as long as we don't go past that capacity, no extra lives would be saved, they'd just be spread over a longer period. That's why the original slogan was "two weeks" - it was what we needed to build the extra capacity, then we could stop the lockdowns as long as we kept masks/social distancing.

Re: 18.7 Million Americans Vaccinated

#447

Post by Kim_Bruning »

Izkata wrote: post #446
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, just to be sure. I just realized ... Would your idea have been to allow the extra hospital capacity to be filled up? Eh, probably not. You'd know that some people who are hospitalized also die. Also; knowing the difficulty of trying to deal with an exponential curve, how would you be sure to cut off at just the right time, before people start dying in the streets? Ok, no, that can't be it. I don't think people…

> Would your idea have been to allow the extra hospital capacity to be filled up? Not completely filled, but yes, this is exactly what I've been saying. If we had allowed the extra capacity to get used, instead of getting rid of it, the lockdowns wouldn't have had to be as strict. Less strict lockdowns means less economic problems, which means we could sustain them longer. Which gets right back to my original point:…

I don't know what you were sold, of course. But surely you agree that deliberately making/letting people get sick is obviously evil.

What could possibly be a more pressing concern than people's health?

Indeed in many countries the original restrictions were lifted or ameliorated after the first wave. However -just looking at the numbers- obviously something went terribly wrong in the United States overall, and authorities were not able to keep their promise.

This sucks terribly. It doesn't magically make it safe to not have restrictions, of course.

Re: 18.7 Million Americans Vaccinated

#448

Post by loveistheanswer »

Rexxar wrote: post #442
loveistheanswer wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think we should let group gatherings happen during flu season? If not, how much more deadly (be precise) would the flu need to be before we should ban group socialization? Trying to figure out if you're thinking in terms of a logical metric based risk analysis, or just emotion and terror of death.

We can all ask ourself : How many time I would accept to be confined now to live one more day/week/month/year at the end of my life. Now we can use this ratio and apply it to our current choice to calibrate how much we stay confined.

Isn't it better to live life fully when we are young and healthy, than to hide inside our homes in hopes for an extremely small chance that we might have a little extra time when we are old and decrepit?

Seems like this ratio would vary greatly among such demographics.

Re: 18.7 Million Americans Vaccinated

#449

Post by pertymcpert »

hirsin wrote: post #414
pertymcpert wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm calling bullshit on this. Source?

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2025179?query=fea... https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-suggests-reco...

The first source just measured declining antibodies, but the real picture about immunity is more complex than that. The second doesn't say what you think it says.

Re: 18.7 Million Americans Vaccinated

#450

Post by Izkata »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #447
Izkata wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would your idea have been to allow the extra hospital capacity to be filled up? Not completely filled, but yes, this is exactly what I've been saying. If we had allowed the extra capacity to get used, instead of getting rid of it, the lockdowns wouldn't have had to be as strict. Less strict lockdowns means less economic problems, which means we could sustain them longer. Which gets right back to my original point:…

I don't know what you were sold, of course. But surely you agree that deliberately making/letting people get sick is obviously evil. What could possibly be a more pressing concern than people's health? Indeed in many countries the original restrictions were lifted or ameliorated after the first wave. However -just looking at the numbers- obviously something went terribly wrong in the United States overall, and author…

> What could possibly be a more pressing concern than people's health?

"Health" is far more encompassing than "don't get the virus". I'm also talking mental health and security (food and shelter), both of which have been badly affected by the lockdowns and lost jobs from the lockdowns.

> obviously something went terribly wrong in the United States overall

There's (at least) two things going on here, neither of which has to do with the response:

* The US is big. Half the country has a different climate than the other half, and all evidence is that SARS-CoV-2 is heavily seasonal. What you're seeing in the country graph is as it recedes in one set of states, it grows in another set. Check out the curves for southern states like Florida, Mississipi, or Arizona - their first wave doesn't start until the summer, after first wave in the northern states like Illinois have already ended. Add them together and you get the consistently high rates for the whole country.

* Too-high-cycle PCR positives without symptoms being counted as a "case". The WHO just changed their recommendations last week because PCR testing has been being misused (as people have complained about since at least last summer) to take into account the false positives and symptoms; if these new recommendations are actually followed, expect the case rate to plummet pretty rapidly (though perhaps not sharply as different states may adopt it at different times).

Post reply on HN