171–180 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some NFL stadiums host 100k people. Would you go to a game if you knew 243 people were going to be randomly executed at it?
Would you attend the game if it were 11 people? Because that's what you do every time you drive. 11 crash fatalities per 100,000 people. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...
Getting infected with COVID does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would suspect that most people who are were already vulnerable have already passed or built immunity if the virus is equally dangerous, resulting in a lower than equal death rate despite equivalent risk. Although... Can we never, not even once, be a little optimistic? To me, the news that we may be replacing COVID with a less severe strain is some of the best news of the year. COVID clearly isn't going away at this…
Wanting something to be true does not make it true. Even if it turns up to actually be true , the fact that so many people want it to be true is an excellent reason to be cautious in how you look at things here, because that is causing a lot of people to say things that haven’t been proven to be true. The evidence so far looks like cause to be cautiously optimistic, but when the people giving out that evidence say “i…
Indeed. And wanting something to be false does not make it false. People on both sides of this debate are far too eager to run with their preferred opinion and accuse anyone who disagrees of "misinformation".
"I don't like this paper, and I see arguments against it, therefore it is dangerous and wrong."
It's petty behavior.
The title is misleading. It is possible that Omicron is just as severe and that the effect in the study is because a large percentage of the population had some immunity from a previous infection or vaccine. > South Africa has a quite high seroprevalence of prior infection, particularly after delta, and in some parts of South Africa up to 80 percent of people were exposed to previous infection. We don’t think it’s a…
I would suspect that most people who are were already vulnerable have already passed or built immunity if the virus is equally dangerous, resulting in a lower than equal death rate despite equivalent risk. Although... Can we never, not even once, be a little optimistic? To me, the news that we may be replacing COVID with a less severe strain is some of the best news of the year. COVID clearly isn't going away at this…
"Most Omicron cases in US have been mild but most were vaccinated" from CDC reported on by CNN and MSNBC
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/health/omicron-cases-us-cdc/i...
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-report-omicro...
There may be more but that was a quick Google search. You said "politicians and news hosts decided to completely ignore her description about it." but that's incorrect
Earlier quoted context omitted.
243 deaths per 100,000 in the U.S. ( https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality ). The death distributions are very clear. If you're healthy, betting that you would be OK is a very reasonable bet.
Some NFL stadiums host 100k people. Would you go to a game if you knew 243 people were going to be randomly executed at it?
> Would you go to a game if you knew 243 people were going to be randomly executed at it?
Covid-19 deaths are not randomly distributed. We've known this for nearly two years now.
Way too many comments and articles that try and keep the fear train running full steam.
A mild strain of covid that is contagious, leads to natural immunity and doesn’t require a vaccine is an absolute win win for the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't all viruses become more mild over time? Even Ebola gets much less lethal towards the end of an outbreak as it evolves to preserve its habitat. Small pox is a possible counter ecample it seems like it was pretty lethal for millennia.
There's no guarantee a virus gets more lethal. Viruses select for survival and less lethality is _one_ strategy (though a fairly good one).
So a more lethal virus during a pandemic must also be more transmissible, as it's actively competing for the same susceptible hosts with other circulating strains. If another strain gets there first, chances are it's going to prime that host's immune system sufficiently to prevent reinfection.
Which means it needs not just more lethal mutations, but also more transmissible ones. The probability of all of those coinciding seems low, as the former are more likely to arise in immunocompromised hosts, and the latter in circulation among dense populations, no?
The title is misleading. It is possible that Omicron is just as severe and that the effect in the study is because a large percentage of the population had some immunity from a previous infection or vaccine. > South Africa has a quite high seroprevalence of prior infection, particularly after delta, and in some parts of South Africa up to 80 percent of people were exposed to previous infection. We don’t think it’s a…
Plus, this combination could be a lot WORSE for the hospital capacity situation.
Even if the virulence/severity is only a fraction, the severe consequences will still grow exponentially, just further to the right on the curve.
Meanwhile, the curve will grow a lot faster to the top of the graph because the greater exponential growth among both the unvaxed and the vaccinated.
So, higher percentage of severe cases and lower transmisability would be less bad — fewer sever cases and much greater trensmissability is almost the worst case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally, statistically yes, but not always. Most of the people that died in the Spanish Flu epidemic died in the second wave, a year after the first. A couple of years after that and less dangerous variants came to dominate but there was huge devastation before that came about.
>but not always Nonetheless, in your example it did. At extreme cost, though that was already understood when you said Spanish Flu.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it means more lockdowns and more restrictions, more government powers; absolutely normalize COVID. We have given up enough.
Just because our economy cannot withstand further lockdowns and restrictions doesn't mean that the normalization of COVID is any more excusable. It just means we failed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the world wasn't so fat and it was 50 years ago, COVID probably would have been nothing, or the Hong Kong Flu.
The Spanish Flu was over a hundred years ago and hit the world the same way Covid did even though there was no McDonald's or obesity epidemic back then.
We should have prioritized health and Vitamin D in April 2020. At that time it was clear it was mainly affecting overweight people. Of course even almost 2 years later people still don't think that as a whole. They say comorbidities. Just say it like it is... it's mostly fat people. The news and society won't say that.