Coronavirus All-Purpose Thread: The Second Wave

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I wonder if it makes sense to put those who have had covid at the bottom of the vaccination list? Is there enough evidence these people would have a really low chance of reinfection? I know it's only about 40 000 in Alberta. I suspect a good chunk of those are healthcare workers, who should be at the top of the list, but maybe it makes sense to bump them down?

Heard on Global news yesterday they believe the recovered only get six months or so of immunity. So highly complex question as some people will be "running out" of immunity by the time a vaccine hits even in small quantities. So the "standard" plan is still probably the best route to follow, keep it simple as it

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

One might have thought so, but it seems not.
There is less need for lockdown if true.

It think it's true for a large portion of the population; you could see it in March where restaurants basically cleared out worldwide before there were really any restrictions, and throughout the pandemic, population mobility has risen and fallen in concert with infection rates across different places with disparate government restrictions.

Unfortunately, the threshold for economic harm is a lot different than for keeping the virus spreading at a rapid rate. If 40% of customers stay away due to virus fears, virtually no businesses can survive in the long term. But 60% still showing up is plenty to keep the infection rates growing. That's why half measures are often the worst of both worlds. You get the economic pain of a large drop in business, without really doing a whole lot to stem the spread. Western governments seem intent on trying to walk the tightrope between economic pain and widespread infections, but without actually investing in proper solutions and making the hard choices, it's been an abject failure in most places.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

COVID is not a "one and done" virus. Some people can catch it again. Everyone's level of immunity is different, there is no hard and fast standard.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...s-quickly-some

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2020...ch-covid-twice

I know that, but it seems to be rare? If it is, would it not make sense to initially defer those already infected lower down the list so other vulnerable people can get in on the first round?

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Locke

Here is the problem....we cant seem to figure out where this is all stemming from. We had decent success stemming the tide of cases when everything was closed and now that we're on the brink we may have to go back to that well.

We're a few weeks too late to this, so whatever we do....its going to suck. But we cant let 'Good' be the victim of 'Perfect.'

Just pointing out that closing schools would also hurt a lot of people. I get the impression that a lot of people think that would be an "easy" fix. It's only "easy" for families that can afford to have one parent not work.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I wonder if it makes sense to put those who have had covid at the bottom of the vaccination list? Is there enough evidence these people would have a really low chance of reinfection? I know it's only about 40 000 in Alberta. I suspect a good chunk of those are healthcare workers, who should be at the top of the list, but maybe it makes sense to bump them down?

At this point, it's only about 1% of the population that have had confirmed infections, so probably not enough people to really warrant that. And almost 1/5th of the cases have been among children, which drives that down even further. I don't think anyone is even testing these vaccines widely on children, so immunizing them could be a long way off, even if supply constraints aren't an issue.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

How's that not qualified? Because he also worked for a party you don't like? That just comes across as petty criticism.



And you don't agree that the guy who's job it is to look out for his members is doing that? Look, if it comes down to picking between keeping business open, or keeping our medical system in tact by not allowing doctors and nurses to fall apart due to burnout, I can tell you immediately what side I'm on. I know that may be controversial to some, but how would you feel if your loved on was dying in the hospital, and no one was there to care for them?

Just responding to the article where he made a point to call out the current government on wages etc. That has nothing to do with the current situation. He was making a political point. And you don't know which party I like or don't like. There's plenty I dont like about the current ruling party but that's not relevant to this discussion.

He's not qualified to speak about all of the intricacies and impacts of a lockdown. He's not an expert in epidemics or hospital capacity just because he was a nurse.

I 100% agree he is only looking out for his members. And gives little, if any, thought to the greater impacts on society. Of course he's going to say they are overworked. They may well be.

I wasn't trying to be petty, just pointing out that this is one non expert's opinion that just might have a political angle to it.

I, for one, think there should be more of a lockdown. But it should focus on gatherings and the like, not killing small business.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I know that, but it seems to be rare? If it is, would it not make sense to initially defer those already infected lower down the list so other vulnerable people can get in on the first round?

I hear you and I agree - if science could prove your immunity I would be on the side of lower-priority vaccinations. But without that, I think everyone who isn't a high-risk patient or healthcare worker is essentially treated the same.

One could make the case that it might be more advantageous to give recovered COVID patients the vaccination first so they retain their immunity while their antibodies are in a good spot.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Here's Jason Luan, Associate Minister for Mental Health & Addiction, casually drop that the UCP's strategy for COVID is to test thresholds and push things to the limit before implementing any more measures.

Bold move Cotton, I hope that strategy pays off.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1330339373368320000

It's the correct approach. The most important metric by far that all governments should be hyperfocused on is hospitalizations, specifically ICU capacity. Cases are a secondary metric. You can have cases like mine and thousands of others that are ultimately meaningless, or you get cases that have an unfortunately high likelihood of death and suck up finite resources, ie hospitalizations. There's good questions to be asked about the doubling time of ICU admissions, where they're concentrated, surge capacity, the nature of the hospitalizations (from or with COVID) that you could quibble with but as a fundamental strategy it's sound. I'm glad our government is smart enough to recognize what the true important metric is, and it's definitely not raw case count.

[peter12]

Nobody is upset over a lockdown happening now, they are upset by how terribly government has managed things to the point where a second lockdown was needed.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by diracspike

it's the correct approach. The most important metric by far that all governments should be hyperfocused on is hospitalizations, specifically icu capacity.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1330374602053144577

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I wonder if it makes sense to put those who have had covid at the bottom of the vaccination list? Is there enough evidence these people would have a really low chance of reinfection? I know it's only about 40 000 in Alberta. I suspect a good chunk of those are healthcare workers, who should be at the top of the list, but maybe it makes sense to bump them down?

About 1% of AHS employees have tested positive which is not much more than the general population in Alberta as w whole (40k positive out of ~ 4.3 million). Not all of the 125k AHS employees are front line workers I would suspect front line workers might actually be a minority of the 125k total in terms of employee numbers. It would be more useful to know what percentage of front line AHS personnel have tested positive.

But your point about non-prioritizing those who have already tested positive is intriguing.


https://globalnews.ca/news/6451106/c...s-common-cold/

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

It's the correct approach. The most important metric by far that all governments should be hyperfocused on is hospitalizations, specifically ICU capacity. Cases are a secondary metric. You can have cases like mine and thousands of others that are ultimately meaningless, or you get cases that have an unfortunately high likelihood of death and suck up finite resources, ie hospitalizations. There's good questions to be asked about the doubling time of ICU admissions, where they're concentrated, surge capacity, the nature of the hospitalizations (from or with COVID) that you could quibble with but as a fundamental strategy it's sound. I'm glad our government is smart enough to recognize what the true important metric is, and it's definitely not raw case count.

You shouldn’t try to install brakes on a freight train after it’s already rolling downhill.

[Ozy_Flame]

Here's another interesting read about "Long COVID" for some patients conducted from researchers at King's College London, and the damage it can do to the body. Major lung tissue damage and blood clotting of lung arteries and veins doesn't sound like fun.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/.../11/2020+18:30

A study of the lungs of people who have died from COVID-19 has found persistent and extensive lung damage in most cases and may help doctors understand what is behind a syndrome known as ‘long COVID’, in which patients suffer ongoing symptoms for months.

Scientists leading the research said they also found some unique characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, which may explain why it is able to inflict such harm.

“The findings indicate that COVID-19 is not simply a disease caused by the death of virus-infected cells, but is likely the consequence of these abnormal cells persisting for long periods inside the lungs,” said Mauro Giacca, a professor at King’s College London who co-led the work.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

It's the correct approach. The most important metric by far that all governments should be hyperfocused on is hospitalizations, specifically ICU capacity. Cases are a secondary metric. You can have cases like mine and thousands of others that are ultimately meaningless, or you get cases that have an unfortunately high likelihood of death and suck up finite resources, ie hospitalizations. There's good questions to be asked about the doubling time of ICU admissions, where they're concentrated, surge capacity, the nature of the hospitalizations (from or with COVID) that you could quibble with but as a fundamental strategy it's sound. I'm glad our government is smart enough to recognize what the true important metric is, and it's definitely not raw case count.

But if ICU admissions track largely in proportion with new cases (which they have in Alberta), why wouldn't cases be a valuable metric since they give the earliest indication of what's happening? Similar to how wastewater analysis is useful because it can usually give you an earlier indication of virus spread than case levels do. To me, it seems foolish to ignore the earliest data you can get if it correlates heavily with the metric you're most concerned with.

[Ozy_Flame]

There was a march/protest in downtown Calgary yesterday with hundreds of people not wearing masks and denouncing mask and lockdown measures.

Yeah, this thing isn't ending any time soon. Personal responsibility is not going to get us through this.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1330258022569037831

[MoneyGuy]

Some parents bringing their children to that March of Idiots.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

There was a march/protest in downtown Calgary yesterday with hundreds of people not wearing masks and denouncing mask and lockdown measures.

Yeah, this thing isn't ending any time soon. Personal responsibility is not going to get us through this.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1330258022569037831

Ugh. How is this even still a thing? This should be in the 'Morons of the Pandemic' thread.

Do they not see the numbers? What do they think is going on here? That Hinshaw is pulling these out of her ass? To what end?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

There was a march/protest in downtown Calgary yesterday with hundreds of people not wearing masks and denouncing mask and lockdown measures.

Yeah, this thing isn't ending any time soon. Personal responsibility is not going to get us through this.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1330258022569037831

Do we have the freedom to deny these morons healthcare when they show up with covid?

[Yamer]

I think there's a German word for what I feel (stolen joke alert):

https://twitter.com/user/status/1330550320657817611

[greyshep]

I'm sure I'm not the only one that noticed the "Proud Boys" guy in the screengrab from that idiot march.