261–270 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I found bizarre about NZ's approach. Their goals was 0 _cases_ in the entire country. It's a great accomplishment but perhaps unnecessary.
The big advantage of getting to zero is that after the initial severe lockdown life gets mostly back to normal.
And normal only in the sense that many people don't care that much if very few people are allowed to enter the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree. I can't find the right information but I suspect that the headline figures from the different vaccine trials may be generated by somewhat different counting methodologies. I think that some of the trials counted from day 1 of the vaccination, and some of them from day 15 - but I am hoping that someone has the actual information!
The vaccines have also been delivered in slightly different contexts that may relate to risk of hospitalisation. Pfizer, for example, often administered in hospitals due to the freezer requirement. You could imagine the risk of hospitalisation of an 80 year old who frequents hospitals and one who doesn’t is different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, indeed, the various studies (and yours is a typical example) show mainly an older demographic reporting symptoms stretching into months, and include the observation that it was mainly (even if not exclusively) a severe course of the disease that preceded lingering symptoms. But a lot of the attitudes that restrictions must be kept in place to prevent "long COVID" are held by younger people who are very afraid of…
I struggle to see how you reached that interpretation of the paper.
Intracranial haemorrhage is 3-4x more likely in hospitalized patients; ~5x higher in those with encephalopathy. For stroke, 2-3x for both. For first mood disorder, 1.5x/2x more likely.
They don't break down the cross-tabs by age (as they should), but given the patterns here, I would expect to see a strong correlation.
The sicker you are, the sicker you are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the figures from Israel show you are at increased risk of infection for the first week after the vaccine is administered. Presumably because people are already starting to change their behaviour.
It could also be because people got contaminated IN vaccination centers when coming for their first vaccine dose. Told from a doctor working in Israel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the "but not limited to" is the important part
It doesn’t matter if these longer-term symptoms affect some number of people outside that older, frailer risk group. There are always statistical outliers. If the amount of younger, stronger people affected by these symptoms is small, then that weakens the case for maintaining restrictions after vaccination of the most at-risk groups. This issue seems to be important to you personally and to others whose concerns may…
This is the claim I'm disputing. I don't see evidence that this is so rare. In fact everything I can find suggests otherwise.
To be clear, I hate this.
Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022. Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-…
After an acute terrorism threat ends, it's hard to get power back from the military and the police.
In this case, it will be hard to take back power and the narrative from the public health establishment.
While they perform a crucial role in our society, they will tend to value safety over freedom and quality of life to an extent that would be crippling if we let them continue to set the agenda after the acute phase of the crisis has passed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> can still overburden health care systems But they haven’t. The prevailing opinion I’m seeing on HN recently is that the US didn’t do a “real” lockdown which is why there are still so many cases. They opine that Americans largely didn’t “comply” with the government orders rendering any potential positive effects from lockdowns moot. If you take that at face value, then shouldn’t we have had an overwhelmed medical sy…
This is a worldwide pandemic, not restricted to the borders of the US. People in countries around the world complied with quarantine, but their healthcare systems were still under real pressure. If they were not overwhelmed, it was a close run thing only prevented by social distancing. Hospitals cancelled and delayed medical procedures around the world due to this: Italy, Spain, the UK, etc. While the worst case scen…
My comment was geared towards America because I’m an American talking on a forum operated by an American company.
Italy can lock down to their heart’s content- that’s their prerogative.
Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? The line I've heard repeatedly is we're waiting for "total" herd immunity, as in ensuring almost all of a population is potentially protected from the virus. Frequently quoting fall / end of 2021, potentially into 2022. Shouldn't the only benchmark be those with medium-to-…
It's generally a political challenge for a free society to get the power and the megaphones back from the people they were given to during a crisis. After an acute terrorism threat ends, it's hard to get power back from the military and the police. In this case, it will be hard to take back power and the narrative from the public health establishment. While they perform a crucial role in our society, they will tend t…
Sitting in California where county sheriffs basically comprehensively vetoed the public health establishment throughout the crisis, I don't see that likely to be a real problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He got censored. What do you call censorship when you don't trust the censor? Entropy? Noise?
Definitely censorship, and not moderating someone making unfounded, uncited, and crudely insulting allegations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's a year old now, isn't it? And the negative impact of the virus consists of both mortality and virality.
Data still shows the same. IFR is comparable to mild flu. 98% of people show no to mild symptoms. Virus is overhyped.