Covid 19/Coronavirus

bostjan

MicroMetal
Contributor
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
20,550
Reaction score
11,975
Location
St. Johnsbury, VT USA
I don't think it will. A lot of these changes strike me as things we should have been doing already - like not going into work if you're sick. There's an unfortunate bit to that though, where I've heard of lots of places that did shift back to just showing up to work every day unless you're literally incapable or dead, and of course that's going to be the entry level, the poorly paid, the overworked, etc. crowd that bears the brunt of that. I've been legitimately annoyed with public spaces that have stopped putting up sanitizer at entrances - like 'rona or not, it was just a good and considerate idea.

I kinda wish his name was actually Schmoe. President Schmoe.
Yeah, on paper, it sounds great. Until you have the minimum crew manning the nuclear reactor and one of them has the sniffles. Then your choice is between increasing the risk of getting everyone sick, and then there being a meltdown, or trying to run with less crew than necessary, and there being a meltdown. Neither option ends up looking good for you if things go the wrong way.

Maybe that's what we learned during lockdown. "Only strictly necessary employees" generally meant just about everyone. Whether you were responsible for keeping the water running or keeping the power on, or responsible for stocking the vending machines at the power plant so the employees keeping the power on could have snacks, or whatever, it all eventually seemed to distill out to everyone's job being necessary at some level.

After seeing how heavily Bush Jr. leaned into the identity of being just a regular average dude, and how well it worked out for him, despite being one of the most wealthy and privileged businessmen, I'd tend to think anyone with a legal name of Joe Schmoe would automatically get +5 bonus points running for US president.
 

TedEH

Cromulent
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
10,610
Reaction score
8,565
Location
Gatineau, Quebec
manning the nuclear reactor and one of them has the sniffles
I hoping to be reasonably clear in my post that I'm talking about people like retail or service workers. Like if you sell wedding dresses on weekends, pick up shifts pumping gas, make overpriced coffess, or you're the guy who stares down the self-checkout-machine-users at walmart so that nobody steals things, then you shouldn't be forced to work when you're going to risk your customers and coworkers health.

Plenty of call centers have shifted back away from WFH despite now having the infrastructure for it, and it makes no sense to force that crowd into a building full of small cubicles. I've worked in centers like that, they're a great place to be if you actively want to get sick from other people.
 

wheresthefbomb

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
3,756
Reaction score
5,870
Location
Fairbanks, AK
I hoping to be reasonably clear in my post that I'm talking about people like retail or service workers. Like if you sell wedding dresses on weekends, pick up shifts pumping gas, make overpriced coffess, or you're the guy who stares down the self-checkout-machine-users at walmart so that nobody steals things, then you shouldn't be forced to work when you're going to risk your customers and coworkers health.

Some of the management at the hotel I worked at this summer was actively engaged in guilting people to come to work if they weren't "too sick." If you dropped the "rona symptoms" line they'd back off but they were happy to try and make you come in with rona symptoms so long as they could pretend not to know. A lot of the employees were seasonal, living in the hotel, and they told me about managers coming and knocking on their doors when they were sick to hassle them.

I totally caught covid working there.

It's the norm in those industries as you say, and if we're "back to normal" that's part of it. One of many reasons I'm trying to claw my way out of the service industry.
 

mbardu

SS.org Regular
Joined
May 21, 2013
Messages
3,696
Reaction score
3,334
Location
California
Yeah, on paper, it sounds great. Until you have the minimum crew manning the nuclear reactor and one of them has the sniffles. Then your choice is between increasing the risk of getting everyone sick, and then there being a meltdown, or trying to run with less crew than necessary, and there being a meltdown. Neither option ends up looking good for you if things go the wrong way.

Maybe that's what we learned during lockdown. "Only strictly necessary employees" generally meant just about everyone. Whether you were responsible for keeping the water running or keeping the power on, or responsible for stocking the vending machines at the power plant so the employees keeping the power on could have snacks, or whatever, it all eventually seemed to distill out to everyone's job being necessary at some level.

After seeing how heavily Bush Jr. leaned into the identity of being just a regular average dude, and how well it worked out for him, despite being one of the most wealthy and privileged businessmen, I'd tend to think anyone with a legal name of Joe Schmoe would automatically get +5 bonus points running for US president.

Well maybe we should have contingencies or some buffers in place so that one crew being sick does not automatically leads to the meltdown of a reactor.
Otherwise, one bad fish at the power plant cafeteria and we're in a bit of a pickle :lol:
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
13,122
Reaction score
21,916
Location
Tokyo
Sucks when you think you're going to get 5G and you just get cancer.
 

Flappydoodle

SS.org Regular
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
2,123
I'm sure he was being ironic. I'm not sure why Biden is declaring the pandemic over. By definition, a pandemic is over when the new infection rate drops back to the same level it was pre-pandemic. Obviously, this cannot apply to a new disease anyway, so, all anyone can say to anyone who declares the pandemic "over" is "uueeagh?" (Home Improvement grunt of confusion).

Covid-19 is going to be with us forever now. We've been quick to declare ourselves "post peak" since around this time in 2020, but, as long as there is a significant amount of transmission across the globe, I'm not sure how any overly optimistic statements are going to age, seeing as how no one can predict the future, and it'll be totally random if a new variant just happens to hit the recipe for a new wave or not.

I know Biden is parroting what CDC and WHO people are saying, but he's bad at paraphrasing things, and those two organizations have a piss poor record of saying anything accurate about covid anyway.
I think there's the scientific definition, and there's the common understanding of the word in the general public. This has been a problem in general throughout the whole Covid situation.

I think "pandemic" to the general public basically means it is an emergency which is currently disrupting your way of life and/or endangering you.

For example, there are other pandemics and epidemics happening but people generally don't care. For example, HIV is still considered as a pandemic, but it basically doesn't affect your life on a daily basis.
 

Flappydoodle

SS.org Regular
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
2,123
There's an unfortunate bit to that though, where I've heard of lots of places that did shift back to just showing up to work every day unless you're literally incapable or dead, and of course that's going to be the entry level, the poorly paid, the overworked, etc. crowd that bears the brunt of that. I've been legitimately annoyed with public spaces that have stopped putting up sanitizer at entrances - like 'rona or not, it was just a good and considerate idea.
I am very curious whether there will be longer-lasting effects from this pandemic. Obviously, in general, disease prevention is a good thing. Having separate pipes for our poop and drinking water is massively beneficial.

However - constantly sterilising ourselves, hand washing, wearing masks, avoiding colds and flu etc... I am honestly curious how that will affect people longer term. Maybe nothing will happen, but I do also see possible ways in which dramatically altering our exposure to bacteria and viruses (which are mostly harmless) and even allergens (like pollen, dust, hair etc) could have long-term consequences.

As an extreme example, if you take a litter of mice and you birth them by C-section, then raise them with filtered air, irradiated food etc, they will be "germ free" mice. Their immune system goes without "training" by exposure to common pathogens and other harmless microorganisms. Those mice have terrible immune systems, can't fight off pathogens, recover worse from surgery and injuries, and are even much more prone to allergies. You can do the same with other animals, such as chickens, to the same effect. So clearly our childhood exposure to basic germs is super important.

For example, the mysterious cases of hepatitis and liver failure of children was found to be adenovirus. Turns out that it's a very normal and boring adenovirus 41 which basically all of us have. Normally we're exposed to it and your body is like "ok, this is fine, I'll just kinda bank this one in the memory for later". However, due to lockdowns/masks/etc millions of children didn't get exposure to this pathogen, and when lockdowns ended and they did get exposed, they had a very different immune response. Luckily it's very, very rare, but it's just one example which has come to light.
 

spudmunkey

SS.org Regular
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
7,402
Reaction score
12,363
Location
Near San Francisco
According to Mayo Clinic:
  • Epidemic
    An increase — often sudden — in the number of cases of a disease above what is normally expected in that population in a specific area.

  • Pandemic
    An epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents and affects many people.

  • Endemic
    The amount of a particular disease that is usually present in a community. It's also called a baseline.

Over the past two years, COVID-19 has been classified as a pandemic due to its widespread effects. So what would moving to a stage where COVID-19 is endemic mean? Dr. O'Horo says that when COVID-19 becomes endemic, it will be present at a certain level in a population at certain times of the year or year-round.

"You expect a certain level of background activity. One of the best examples I can give of an endemic … is our seasonal flu activity, where, as the activity increases during the winter, there's a certain expected level of increase that we see — that we accept as just part of normal variation."

So the "the pandemic is over" lauguege is because we know we couldn't possibly eliminate it fully at this point, so now we're assuming it'll be with us forever in some form as it's become "endemic". We've been averaging about 3,000 per week since for about 5 months now, the longest plateau. So multiply that by 52 weeks, and we're about 150k deaths for the year, while a really bad flu season is about 50k. To many, the costs to society as a whole to reduce it lower than that would be too high. Not just financial, but mental health of children, suicide, drug deaths went up 30% in 2020, suicides went up 10%, etc,

But...that 3,000 deaths/week has been over the summer. When this sort of disease isn't particularly potent. It's not until the fall/winter where we see the up-tick in flu cases/deaths. Right now, we're running double the daily COVID deaths of the same time last year, and then we started hitting nearly 4,000 deaths per *day* in January/Feb.

Currently, I'm undergoing a medical treatment that is often given to leukemia patients (no, my specific condition isn't cancer, but this drug has multiple uses), and one of the side effects is that it destroys your immune system. And another one of my medications means that I also can't get the flu or COVID booster shot. So a bit of a double-whammy. So, my girlfriend (who I live with) is now flu-vax'd for the first time, and now COVID boosted (again), and will be taking over some more of the shopping trips, so I can avoid being around people so much since a cold could send me to the ICU.
 

StevenC

Javier Strat 7 2024
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
7,824
Reaction score
9,477
Location
Northern Ireland
As a lifelong promoter of vaccines who is the rare, unfortunate exception, articles like this are broadly fearmongering.

As a side note, this article is incredibly badly researched because it mentions my rare, unfortunate exception and gets the numbers badly wrong. Imagine using an 18 month old article as your source for deaths on a 19 month old disease.
 

TedEH

Cromulent
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
10,610
Reaction score
8,565
Location
Gatineau, Quebec
I am very curious whether there will be longer-lasting effects from this pandemic.
I know it's not what you meant, but there very much have been already - in terms of people's lives and attitudes etc.

constantly sterilising ourselves, hand washing, wearing masks, avoiding colds and flu etc... I am honestly curious how that will affect people longer term.
I really doubt it. It's not like the general public has become the very image of sterility and cleanliness - but I'm talking things that are basic hygiene, or just covers some very common public/shared/gross spaces. Putting hand sanitizer in public places will neither stop people from being gross in other places, nor suddenly make us weak and fragile.

I tried to quickly google the story about kids suddenly getting hepatitis, and the best I can find is under 200 cases reported (worldwide), and no mention of it being linked to lockdowns. There was one alarmist headline that looked like it might have drawn some link, but it was behind a paywall. And this is keeping in mind that over the last two years, people have been deliberately scrounging for ways to nitpick the worlds handling of covid. That's such an insanely minuscule fluke of a side-effect to conclude that it means washing your hands might be bad for public health outcomes.
 

spudmunkey

SS.org Regular
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
7,402
Reaction score
12,363
Location
Near San Francisco
I am very curious whether there will be longer-lasting effects from this pandemic. Obviously, in general, disease prevention is a good thing. Having separate pipes for our poop and drinking water is massively beneficial.
I know it's not what you mean, but...



And also:


and...
 

Adieu

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
3,762
Reaction score
3,151
Location
California
I tried to quickly google the story about kids suddenly getting hepatitis, and the best I can find is under 200 cases reported (worldwide), and no mention of it being linked to lockdowns. There was one alarmist headline that looked like it might have drawn some link, but it was behind a paywall. And this is keeping in mind that over the last two years, people have been deliberately scrounging for ways to nitpick the worlds handling of covid. That's such an insanely minuscule fluke of a side-effect to conclude that it means washing your hands might be bad for public health outcomes.

I'm sorry, but 200 kids worldwide with hepatitis during a lockdown is INCEST.

Go check daddy/stepdaddy.

End of story.
 

StevenC

Javier Strat 7 2024
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
7,824
Reaction score
9,477
Location
Northern Ireland
I really doubt it. It's not like the general public has become the very image of sterility and cleanliness - but I'm talking things that are basic hygiene, or just covers some very common public/shared/gross spaces. Putting hand sanitizer in public places will neither stop people from being gross in other places, nor suddenly make us weak and fragile.
I got an alarming number of compliments about my hygiene practices throughout the pandemic, but only because people noticed my prepandemic practices. One friend said I was "right all along" because I wash my hands when I get home from being out.
 

Flappydoodle

SS.org Regular
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
2,123
As a lifelong promoter of vaccines who is the rare, unfortunate exception, articles like this are broadly fearmongering.

As a side note, this article is incredibly badly researched because it mentions my rare, unfortunate exception and gets the numbers badly wrong. Imagine using an 18 month old article as your source for deaths on a 19 month old disease.

I don't think there's fearmongering. It's an article of general interest, and the Atlantic readership is mostly the educated, academic (and yes liberal elitist types). It says:

"Michel still has to watch out for a recurrence. And as a longtime immunologist and medical innovator, he’s still considering the question of whether a vaccine that is saving tens of millions of lives each year might have put his own in jeopardy. He remains adamant that COVID-19 vaccines are necessary and useful for the vast majority of people. But he wants the discussion about vaccines to be transparent."

That's a very fair statement, isn't it? The vaccines have overall done an amazing job at preventing deaths throughout the pandemic - especially in the elderly. Death rates absolutely plummeted, and that's undeniable. It's estimated that Covid vaccines saved 20 million lives so far.

But - they sure as hell aren't perfect. They aren't even "good" vaccines really, in the grand scheme of things. They only last a few months. They barely prevent infections or transmissions. They're also relatively expensive and the shipping/logistics is far from optimal. If we weren't in a pandemic, a new treatment with that sort of effectiveness probably wouldn't have been approved. And the risks *were* glossed over, if we're honest. Myocarditis was downplayed, yet AZ blood clots were demonised. That was 100% political.

A major problem is that, even in the scientific research world, any sort of "criticism" of the vaccines gets you labelled as anti-vax and everything you say is discounted. So I think Michel publishing a case study and just opening up that discussion is a very fair and valid thing to do. He is still 100% pro vaccine. He even supports the same Covid vaccine which maybe made his cancer relapse.
I tried to quickly google the story about kids suddenly getting hepatitis, and the best I can find is under 200 cases reported (worldwide), and no mention of it being linked to lockdowns. There was one alarmist headline that looked like it might have drawn some link, but it was behind a paywall. And this is keeping in mind that over the last two years, people have been deliberately scrounging for ways to nitpick the worlds handling of covid. That's such an insanely minuscule fluke of a side-effect to conclude that it means washing your hands might be bad for public health outcomes.

Really? You're not very good at Google then :p Or google is actively removing things from your search results? I got a bunch of legit medical journals and reputable news (like Nature, Science, etc)

WHO made an announcement about it: https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2022-DON376

More than 500 worldwide in May https://www.science.org/content/art...tals-hepatitis-coronavirus-adenovirus-or-both Across UK, USA, Israel and many others.


Putting hand sanitizer in public places will neither stop people from being gross in other places, nor suddenly make us weak and fragile.
Then it's largely just theater and doesn't actually do anything. Plastic covers over the buttons on elevators - its there *any* evidence it works or prevents anything? It sure as hell does nothing much for Covid since it's an airborne pathogen. *Maybe* at a stretch those things would help with fecal-oral transmission and you'd get less tummy bugs from touching things and putting your fingers in your mouth.

I know it's not what you mean, but...



And also:


and...


I'm not sure your purpose of this post. You interpreted my post as somehow downplaying the pandemic? I don't get it.
 

TedEH

Cromulent
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
10,610
Reaction score
8,565
Location
Gatineau, Quebec
Or google is actively removing things from your search results?
It's well known at this point that google doesn't return the same results for everyone, but yes, I did see the WHO one - which both points at < 200 cases, and admits that theories behind the cause aren't well supported right now. Same with the second article. My point stands that it's a small number of cases on the grand scale, and that the link isn't well supported.

Then it's largely just theater and doesn't actually do anything.
Dude, just wash your hands. You don't need to be a rocket surgeon to know that washing your hands is a good idea. It's as simple as that.

Plastic covers over the buttons on elevators
I've never seen or heard of anyone doing this. I'll re-iterate: I was talking about it being a good idea to have sanitizer available at the entrance to public spaces like cafes or box stores. That's it. Maybe 200-500 worldwide will have some weird knock-on effect that they don't pick up some very specific immunities, but that needs to be compared against how many things people didn't get sick with as a result of having some basic hygiene. Or you could compare it to, I dunno, the tons of people who died during the pandemic. Just because some people have decided that the "pandemic is over" or we've reached some new equilibrium / normal, doesn't mean the goal isn't still to not get sick. I mean, I went for two years barely getting a cold - it was fantastic - and I'm sure a lot of people's general health outcomes improved. Where's the data on how many sicknesses people have successfully avoided? I'm sure more than 500 cases of anything have been prevented as a result of really basic measures like hand sanitizer at store entrances.
 
Last edited:

StevenC

Javier Strat 7 2024
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
7,824
Reaction score
9,477
Location
Northern Ireland
I don't think there's fearmongering. It's an article of general interest, and the Atlantic readership is mostly the educated, academic (and yes liberal elitist types). It says:

"Michel still has to watch out for a recurrence. And as a longtime immunologist and medical innovator, he’s still considering the question of whether a vaccine that is saving tens of millions of lives each year might have put his own in jeopardy. He remains adamant that COVID-19 vaccines are necessary and useful for the vast majority of people. But he wants the discussion about vaccines to be transparent."

That's a very fair statement, isn't it? The vaccines have overall done an amazing job at preventing deaths throughout the pandemic - especially in the elderly. Death rates absolutely plummeted, and that's undeniable. It's estimated that Covid vaccines saved 20 million lives so far.

But - they sure as hell aren't perfect. They aren't even "good" vaccines really, in the grand scheme of things. They only last a few months. They barely prevent infections or transmissions. They're also relatively expensive and the shipping/logistics is far from optimal. If we weren't in a pandemic, a new treatment with that sort of effectiveness probably wouldn't have been approved. And the risks *were* glossed over, if we're honest. Myocarditis was downplayed, yet AZ blood clots were demonised. That was 100% political.

A major problem is that, even in the scientific research world, any sort of "criticism" of the vaccines gets you labelled as anti-vax and everything you say is discounted. So I think Michel publishing a case study and just opening up that discussion is a very fair and valid thing to do. He is still 100% pro vaccine. He even supports the same Covid vaccine which maybe made his cancer relapse.


Really? You're not very good at Google then :p Or google is actively removing things from your search results? I got a bunch of legit medical journals and reputable news (like Nature, Science, etc)

WHO made an announcement about it: https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2022-DON376

More than 500 worldwide in May https://www.science.org/content/art...tals-hepatitis-coronavirus-adenovirus-or-both Across UK, USA, Israel and many others.



Then it's largely just theater and doesn't actually do anything. Plastic covers over the buttons on elevators - its there *any* evidence it works or prevents anything? It sure as hell does nothing much for Covid since it's an airborne pathogen. *Maybe* at a stretch those things would help with fecal-oral transmission and you'd get less tummy bugs from touching things and putting your fingers in your mouth.



I'm not sure your purpose of this post. You interpreted my post as somehow downplaying the pandemic? I don't get it.
Any publication is susceptible to clickbait opeds.

"Man Speculates Baselessly About Vaccine Side Effect" doesn't generate clicks and is a much more honest title.
 


Top