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

Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

heraldscotland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 361 posts

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#281

Post by GloriousKoji »

dragonwriter wrote: post #202
MR4D wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Group 1C is pretty much "everyone". To take directly from the CDC [0], "Other essential workers, such as people who work in transportation and logistics, food service, housing construction and finance, information technology, communications, energy, law, media, public safety, and public health." Doesn't that cover pretty much everyone on HN ? [0] - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommend... -----…

> Group 1C is pretty much "everyone". No, it's not. It's “essential workers”, which isn't everyone in the listed sectors but people in the listed sectors whose work cannot effectively be done remotely; approximately, the people that were exempted and allowed to work on site during the strongest lockdowns, where they occurred at all. > Doesn't that cover pretty much everyone on HN ? Probably not; lots of people on HN…

I disagree, "everyone" isn't too much of a hyperbole. The system is gamed and most of the "essential workers" aren't essential in the sense their work could be done fully remote. I work for a large corporation and we were all deemed essential workers. The employees shifts in office are rotated so that it's not a full capacity at any given time. I know a handful of other corporations doing the same thing.

Outside of big corporate tech, I also know a bunch of people working 100% remote but already got vaccinated because they are an employee of pharmaceutical/medical company and qualify as health care workers.

We can be pedantic on how a 1C essential worker isn't everyone but it is a huge percentage. Maybe my sample of people I know in the Bay Area is too small but at least half of my friends can classify as 1C.

Edit: I found some slides from the CDC which totals the 1C estimate as 129M people. So my small local observation isn't that far off from what the CDC expects. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#282

Post by swayvil »

InitialLastName wrote: post #275
swayvil wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing as how he got censored, we don't know that.

They got flagged by users. We can still see what they wrote, see that it effectively willfully provided negative value to the conversation, and move on without it having to be a global conspiracy.

Your faith in the moderators, and your willingness to swallow what's wagged in your face, is greater than mine.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#283

Post by NovaJehovah »

dragonwriter wrote: post #276
NovaJehovah wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That didn't stop thousands of businesses from being closed. But regardless, the narrative is just as important. After some threshold of vaccine distribution, people need to be convinced that it's ok to return to normal life, and that they don't need to cower in fear in their homes or wear masks for years and years just because we haven't completely eliminated covid. There's a cost to all of this.

> After some threshold of vaccine distribution, people need to be convinced that it's ok to return to normal life, and that they don't need to cower in fear in their homes or wear masks for years and years. No one has suggested people should cower in fear, and people seem pretty happy going about without masks, or with masks worn in an openly defiant manner (under the chin, off of one ear, etc.) in public places with…

All the "long covid" stuff is essentially fear mongering. There's no science behind it.

The implication is that everyone should be terrified, stay home as much as possible, and wear masks as long as there's any chance of catching covid. Even after being vaccinated.

Sure, people flout the restrictions, and they are met with social disapproval for doing so.

The worst thing is the hugely negative psychological effect this is all having on children. It shouldn't be taken lightly.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#284

Post by siquick »

jgalt212 wrote: post #157
garmaine wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With both travel restrictions and lockdown, It takes about 6 weeks to get to (effectively) zero new cases. Not forever.

Yes, but you're still stuck with a population who remains very susceptible to the diseases. Lockdowns, as I'm sure Australia will discover, are not a complete solution to the problem.

We're pretty happy here in Australia with how few of our friends and family have been affected by COVID. Life is practically back to normal and has been this way in Sydney for a while. Vaccination roll-out started this week.

You'd be hard pushed to find a single person who would trade our state's response with pretty much any other countries response.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#285

Post by mynegation »

dragontamer wrote: post #129
aclimatt wrote: post #108

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-…

> Since we're on the topic, shouldn't this (hospital admissions) be the almost singular criterion to influence public policy / restrictive measures? Given the high correlation between COVID# cases (or %Positive) and hospitalizations, why not just use COVID# and "gain" 2 weeks of information? Hospitalizations are weeks delayed from COVID# or %Positive spikes. Its a slow moving disease: taking 5 to 14 days before peopl…

> Given the high correlation between COVID# cases (or %Positive) and hospitalizations, why not just use COVID# and "gain" 2 weeks of information?

Because it is not given and - if given - is not reassuringly close to 1. Correlation is positive, alright. But if you calculate hospitalization as percentage of cases, even adjusting for a lag, it is far from constant. Eg in Canada this ratio was 6x time higher in the first wave than in the second. It strongly depends on testing policies and hospital admission criteria.

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#286

Post by InitialLastName »

swayvil wrote: post #282
InitialLastName wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They got flagged by users. We can still see what they wrote, see that it effectively willfully provided negative value to the conversation, and move on without it having to be a global conspiracy.

Your faith in the moderators, and your willingness to swallow what's wagged in your face, is greater than mine.

Not sure what you're alleging here. Is the suggestion that they're editing contrarian comments to be offensive so people flag/downvote them? Frankly, that seems like an ass-backwards way to go about suppressing dissent.

To be clear, if that commenter had been commenting in good faith, in detail, with actual citations and without profanity, or not using an account created expressly to make that comment, I think they'd have a fine chance to be visible (or at least not flagged).

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#287

Post by dev1n »

standardUser wrote: post #190
dev1n wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. People (extraordinarily healthy people) are suffering pulmonary embolisms (and thus hospitalized) weeks after they have been cleared from the virus. There is a very, very, very long tail to this disease outside of the initial 2 - 4 weeks of being sick.

Small percentages of people suffer complications from many different types of illnesses. At a certain point, human beings simply have to live with a small chance of a bad outcome from ailments that are normally mild.

This isn't some small percentage of people this is 3 - 8% [1] of people hospitalized! Despite not finding data for people not hospitalized many report suffering from and being hospitalized for failures of the pulmonary, endocrine, and digestive system.

Sometimes people have strokes from sneezing.

See I can make generalizing statements about bullshit too.

[1]: https://annalsofintensivecare.springeropen.com/articles/10.1...

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#288

Post by dev1n »

aantix wrote: post #175
dev1n wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. People (extraordinarily healthy people) are suffering pulmonary embolisms (and thus hospitalized) weeks after they have been cleared from the virus. There is a very, very, very long tail to this disease outside of the initial 2 - 4 weeks of being sick.

>People (extraordinarily healthy people) are suffering pulmonary embolism What are the numbers?

Do you only care about people if an event is statistically significant?

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#289

Post by choward »

laurencerowe wrote: post #260
Solvitieg wrote: post #253

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.

Not really. They still have outbreaks and do lockdowns. I wouldn't call that "mostly back to normal". https://apnews.com/article/new-zealand-coronavirus-pandemic-...

Re: Covid vaccination linked to 'substantial reduction' in hospital admissions

#290

Post by ghaff »

ravenstine wrote: post #274
ghaff wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of people are not fine with any of those things for an extended period. In fact, in the US, once late spring/summer roll around people are going to be out and about.

Really? That's what people said back when it was proposed that we shut everything down for a few weeks to "flatten the curve". Now look how long we've gone. I'd say Americans have very well tolerated this new way of life and could do so in perpetuity. I wouldn't count the protests and riots last summer since they were politically motivated.

In spite of lots of grumbling and non-compliance in some regions, people have adapted to things they said weren't really conceivable last year. Yes, people have (generally) accepted extended temporary restrictions. That said, essentially no one is accepting this as a permanent condition and as people are vaccinated, I have a high level of confidence that people are not going to accept continued restrictions. You are, of course, welcome to do whatever works for you.

People certainly didn't permanently hide out before there were vaccinations against diseases like cholera.

Post reply on HN