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

301–310 of 361 posts

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

#301

Post by orra »

NovaJehovah wrote: post #283
dragonwriter wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

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

That's not true. Studies are showing large fractions, say 10-25% of COVID patients are suffering symptoms after a month.

COVID infections have demonstrably damaged pretty much every organ in the body.

That's very different from the initial assumption, whence all policy, that COVID is like the flu, and passes in two weeks if it doesn't kill you.

> Even after being vaccinated.

However, these vaccines are stupidly effective. Once enough people are vaccinated, COVID will die out in the community, just like measles. You're right that we can't fear COVID forever.

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

#302

Post by ravenstine »

ghaff wrote: post #290
ravenstine wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I kindly disagree. Although I think we'd see next to no resistance if we were told "this is the new normal, deal with it", in reality we'll all be told "by this time next year" in order to keep people hooked on the hopium and ensure the new paradigm.

For the record, I'm not in support of the prevailing COVID containment strategies. Believe me, I'd love to see politicians face some actual backlash over what's been happening.

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

#303

Post by orra »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #164
wpietri wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you haven't been following what's going on with "Long Covid". But even among people who aren't hospitalized, there's lasting harm: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91270 I know somebody who's had this. Despite never being hospitalized, after getting sick they had to take a long medical leave from work in hopes of getting their strength back. That's worlds away from "sick for a few days…

I have been following "long COVID" reports. Firstly, much of the mass media coverage is misleading, often intentionally so in pursuit of clicks and advertising revenue. A lot of the people claiming to have debilitating "long COVID" were never actually tested positive for COVID in the first place. They are the broadly the same demographic that, before COVID, were claiming to have "chronic Lyme" or whatever. Certainly…

> A lot of the people claiming to have debilitating "long COVID" were never actually tested positive for COVID in the first place.

Worth keeping in mind it was impossible to get a COVID test for a large fraction of the first wave.

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

#304

Post by vorpalhex »

dev1n wrote: post #288
aantix wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

For public health choices? Yes! 1 in a million events should not be optimized for.

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

#305

Post by runako »

choward wrote: post #293
smileysteve wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was so hospitals don't get overrun. That's clearly not happening right now in most places Citation needed. Up to 3 weeks ago, California, the Southeast were in field hospital territory. Anecdotally, Alabama hospitals have been in overflow since July. Georgia re-established a field hospital in January at their conference center [1] hospitalizations only stopped dropping beginning at the end of January [1] https://ww…

That's why I said "in most places". And that article is from December. https://www.covid-georgia.com/today-in-georgia/hospitalizati...

The link you sent doesn't have these numbers, but many metro Atlanta hospital systems are still diverting patients from their emergency rooms (because they are full). There is currently an operational field hospital being run at the convention center. The field hospital was still operational as low the weekend.

You can see ER status by hospital here: https://georgiarcc.org . Flip through the counties where most people live and you'll see a lot of full ERs.

You should choose another region to support your argument, it's not going so well here in Georgia right now.

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

#306

Post by statstutor »

Solvitieg wrote: post #253
choward wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree completely. The only reason they used for shutting everything down at first was so hospitals don't get overrun. That's clearly not happening right now in most places. Also, it's not uncommon for the flu to cause hospitals to exceed capacity and we don't shut down for that.

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.

On an island nation with an 80%+ urban population, your choice is either to aim for 0 cases, or to expect unbounded cases and new more virulent mutations (for the whole world to deal with the consequences).

This was predictable in advance, and with hindsight I still would prefer 0 cases.

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

#307

Post by umvi »

orra wrote: post #298
umvi wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You may, and indeed we have, shut it down if a large part of the population were at risk of hospitalization or death I wouldn't really call 1% of the population "a large part" of it. It's just, our healthcare capacity relative to the size of the overall population is miniscule. So even a disease that threatens .1% of the population with death and 1% with hospitalization is enough to overwhelm the healthcare system.…

> So even a disease that threatens .1% of the population with death The IFR for COVID is likely ten times that, at least in societies with decent numbers of older people. > Almost nobody notices or remembers blips of abnormally high "excess deaths" for a particular year This isn't a bad flu season in a 5 year cycle. The excess deaths caused by COVID last year are not just 'abnormally high'. They're more like once in…

> The IFR for COVID is likely ten times that, at least in societies with decent numbers of older people.

Right I purposely picked a disease less deadly than covid that could still overwhelm the healthcare system

> This isn't a bad flu season in a 5 year cycle. The excess deaths caused by COVID last year are not just 'abnormally high'. They're more like once in a lifetime abnormally high.

Right, and I still maintain that those excess deaths will be largely forgotten within the next few years or so by the majority of the populace. 500k excess deaths in 2020 followed by several years with fewer than normal deaths (since an abnormal amount of old people that otherwise would have died weren't around to die). Great Depression 2.0 on the other hand is something that wouldn't be forgotten for a lifetime for the people that live through it.

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

#308

Post by ghaff »

ravenstine wrote: post #302
ghaff wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I kindly disagree. Although I think we'd see next to no resistance if we were told "this is the new normal, deal with it", in reality we'll all be told "by this time next year" in order to keep people hooked on the hopium and ensure the new paradigm. For the record, I'm not in support of the prevailing COVID containment strategies. Believe me, I'd love to see politicians face some actual backlash over what's been hap…

I dunno. Based on the traffic around where I live, I'm probably more conservative than most but come widespread vaccination, I'll vote against any politician who tries to keep things locked down and I (and most others) are already casual around things like outdoor masks that are essentially theater. And that's not even considering all the business and other economic constituencies which are frankly more important to the politicians. For example, many organizations will not tolerate physical events being shutdown indefinitely.

Absent vaccines it would have been more complicated. But, at some point, countries say that they've done what they can and things are as they are.

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

#309

Post by _ph_ »

mynegation wrote: post #285
dragontamer wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Sure, over the whole run of the pandemic the case count has to be adjusted for changes in the testing regime. But in many countries the testing has been reasonably constant for many months, so the case count is a good indicator of the state of things.

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

#310

Post by peterburkimsher »

orra wrote: post #294
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.

It's pretty contagious, to be fair. Still, I think you're right when you say perhaps unnecessary: some countries have successfully suppressed COVID without eliminating it. That said, it's some but not many countries. I'm a bit ambivalent. Regardless, it certainly wasn't necessary for NZ to close their border to asylum seekers.

Edit: [removed]
Post reply on HN