Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They've already been doing tests in at least the UK by injecting people with covid for research, the young and the healthy who are most likely to have mild cases.

[Starver]

It's got to be a statistical thing. A cohort of regular people (not overly in danger, either way) given the proposed vaccine, a like group of people given something that might-be-or-isn't. Follow them (either in controlled situation or with identical instructions as to how to continue with life during the study, blind to the group they are).

Keep track of all relevent events, and test for whole-virus signs (beyond the time/degree of having vaccine fragments, which you gave them) to assess whether one group dodged that bullet/were hurt less by it. (Hopefully that being innoculated one!)


Alternately, see if an antibody test pops up positive without having had a (non-vaccine) antigen test do so. But antibody testing is also quite a task (though I suppose the really thorough but low volume kinds are Ok, rather than the ones we're trying to develop for blanket mass testing). But you'd want to follow them afterwards anyway, if only to fulfil the safety monitoring of the vaccine itself, and to check its (intended) effects actually last.

[McTraveller]

or go to work and die from corona,

Hyperbole like this will lead to the downfall of modern civilization.  If you have people thinking they are going to die if they go to work, people will stop making and/or shipping food, making sure your water and power plants are working, etc.

Yes this is a pretty severe public health issue.  But it's not a death sentence to go to work.  It just really isn't.

[Rolan7]

or go to work and die from corona,

Hyperbole like this will lead to the downfall of modern civilization.  If you have people thinking they are going to die if they go to work, people will stop making and/or shipping food, making sure your water and power plants are working, etc.

Yes this is a pretty severe public health issue.  But it's not a death sentence to go to work.  It just really isn't.

"go to work and have a far increased risk of catching corona, probably spreading it to everyone you live with and possibly strangers, statistically leading to multiple deaths".

Sure it's not a personal death sentence to go to work (though it is an increased risk).  It's more than that.

[Il Palazzo]

"go to work and have a far increased risk of catching corona, probably spreading it to everyone you live with and possibly strangers, statistically leading to multiple deaths".

You've just described a 'pretty severe public health issue'.

[Dostoevsky]

Worth noting that corona is more than the death rate. Permanent lung, heart, other damage isn't uncommon for those who get bad symptoms (admittedly don't recall the statistics offhand). Still 'only' something like a 10% rate of significant consequences, but that can become a significant chunk of people within certain worksites (e.g. meat packing plants).

Will be interesting to look at numbers of people on permanent disability pre- and post- crisis, though the number has been going up pretty quick in the U.S. already for the past ~decade (for various reasons).

And yes, per Rolan7's point - what gets me the most about this whole situation is that people should be thinking about this less of a 'I'm probably not going to die if I do this' situation and more 'I could easily indirectly kill or permanently harm several people if I end up an asymptomatic carrier'.

[Doomblade187]

"go to work and have a far increased risk of catching corona, probably spreading it to everyone you live with and possibly strangers, statistically leading to multiple deaths".

You've just described a 'pretty severe public health issue'.

Yes, people tend to like not having to expose themselves to those.

[martinuzz]

Scientific research into pangolin corona virusses have cleared the pangolin of all charges.
It cannot have been the intermediate carrier between what are assumed to be bats and humans.
Another scapegoat will have to be found.

[ChairmanPoo]

Seroprevalence preliminaries in Spain point to an average of 5%. Which translates into an IFR of around 1.2%.

Sooo...

or go to work and die from corona,

Hyperbole like this will lead to the downfall of modern civilization.  If you have people thinking they are going to die if they go to work, people will stop making and/or shipping food, making sure your water and power plants are working, etc.

Yes this is a pretty severe public health issue.  But it's not a death sentence to go to work.  It just really isn't.

It's not exactly hyperbole if out of every 100 people one will die and ten or so will end up in hospital, maybe end up with long term sequelae. And no, you are absolutely right, we cannot go on as normal. We won't, in fact. In that sense society as we know it is over. The sooner we can figure out how to do things some other way the better. And the more time we earn before further waves, the more likely we'll have effective interventions for covid19

[Doomblade187]

Scientific research into pangolin corona virusses have cleared the pangolin of all charges.
It cannot have been the intermediate carrier between what are assumed to be bats and humans.
Another scapegoat will have to be found.

Good, Pangolins go through enough as it is.

[McTraveller]

Worth noting that corona is more than the death rate. Permanent lung, heart, other damage isn't uncommon for those who get bad symptoms (admittedly don't recall the statistics offhand). Still 'only' something like a 10% rate of significant consequences, but that can become a significant chunk of people within certain worksites (e.g. meat packing plants).

Will be interesting to look at numbers of people on permanent disability pre- and post- crisis, though the number has been going up pretty quick in the U.S. already for the past ~decade (for various reasons).

And yes, per Rolan7's point - what gets me the most about this whole situation is that people should be thinking about this less of a 'I'm probably not going to die if I do this' situation and more 'I could easily indirectly kill or permanently harm several people if I end up an asymptomatic carrier'.

Minor: how can we say this is "permanent" damage, when it's only been analyzed for less than a year?  Maybe it's just "slow recovering" damage?  (Consider the stuff from some years ago that showed that lung damage from smoking even can be repaired over time).

Also - almost any illness is an illness you can get from work/school/mass transit, bring it home, and spread around to your family and loved ones.  Including things that can have complications for at-risk populations.

But we are basically creating a generation that is going to be afraid to socialize at all, when it was already suffering from too much "online-only" socializing.  This is a significant "hidden" cost to the whole thing and I think people are overlooking it.

And even that 1.2% IFR is... misleading.  It's too aggregate and leads to the fear I'm talking about.

There is a difference between being responsible and being paralyzed by fear. I mean how many people do you indirectly kill by using the output of modern industry?

I just don't want to live in a world of surveillance and fear.  I'm sad that I've had to live in a world where people are asking for it.

[Dostoevsky]

Minor: how can we say this is "permanent" damage, when it's only been analyzed for less than a year?  Maybe it's just "slow recovering" damage?  (Consider the stuff from some years ago that showed that lung damage from smoking even can be repaired over time).

My understanding is that it causes lung scarring, which is permanent damage. A transplant is possible in very bad cases, though having an organ transplant comes with its own set of permanent consequences/problems.

Also - almost any illness is an illness you can get from work/school/mass transit, bring it home, and spread around to your family and loved ones.  Including things that can have complications for at-risk populations.

Yep, definitely true, though the data we have so far suggests that this virus is very good at transmitting across populations while at the same time having a higher-than-normal rate of major problems. Though, as you say, the data we have on death rate and the like is not settled, what data we do have merits real concern.

I wouldn't call this apocalyptic or anything, just that it could be a lot worse than anything we've seen since days when the world population (and density) were much smaller - e.g. during the 1918 flu the world population was less than 2 billion compared to the 7+ billion we have today.

Edit: We obviously have much better medical technology than we did then, of course. But that assumes e.g. we have medical capacity, which in some situations has become a major limitation on treatment.

But we are basically creating a generation that is going to be afraid to socialize at all, when it was already suffering from too much "online-only" socializing.  This is a significant "hidden" cost to the whole thing and I think people are overlooking it.

Based on my (obviously limited) information, I can't say I'm getting that impression. Lots of grumbling following of recommendations, less so terror.

And even that 1.2% IFR is... misleading.  It's too aggregate and leads to the fear I'm talking about.

There is a difference between being responsible and being paralyzed by fear. I mean how many people do you indirectly kill by using the output of modern industry?

It's odd how selective people can be in conceptualizing the indirect costs/consequences of actions, as you say. I work for an environmental group, so 'numbers of people killed by output of modern industry' is something I work on, and for me personally it's a pretty tough question. Coal plant is cheap power (which is disproportionately good for those with less wealth), coal plant also kills people (and disproportionately kills those with less wealth/power). It's something people need to grapple with, at the very least, and not just shrug their shoulders about.

There have been times historically when babies with birth problems (or even just babies over #X per family) were just left outside to die, and that was seen as normal. (I'm not advocating for that, of course.) In many ways society is no longer like that... except for the times it still is. And there isn't an easy line to say one can't cross.

I just don't want to live in a world of surveillance and fear.  I'm sad that I've had to live in a world where people are asking for it.

Yeah, this is the 6 million dollar question & issue.

Assuming that China's death/infection numbers aren't too far off one can say that their totalitarian approach is effective, but even so I don't think I'd rather live in China.

Going back to my baby example above, reportedly during the one child policy that sort of practice was effectively enforced for those without political connections.

Other countries seem to have had similar success, though via similar levels of 'tracing' and other invasive practices. How much is good enough, and how much risk does either side entail? I admit I'm glad I don't have to make that decision, but I am happy to do what I can to not risk spreading the virus around.

[ChairmanPoo]

And even that 1.2% IFR is... misleading.  It's too aggregate and leads to the fear I'm talking about.

I'm going to start ignoring you because otherwise I might end up flaring beyond my intention. Do you want to see the aggregate 1.2%? Here it is




How's that for aggregate?

And you still talk about freedom, and the dangers of isolation, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.... bullshit. We have a lot to fear. There's a lethal pandemic out there. Its not just the IFR which is nasty enough. For each one of those dead? There are around ten people who wont die but will be miserable for weeks in hospital. Do you really think being "free" to have a haircut is worth that? Not to mention the workers you expect to risk their lives for your recklessness. Including healthcare workers.
Civilization as you knew it is already over. The question here is how to salvage the remnants. Denials about the deadliness of this pandemic won't spare your way of life, they'll just mean you'll have to explore change later, and with a higher bodycount. Again, your way of life is over. Social distance is here to stay. The sooner everyone wears a mask the better. Denial only endangers yourself and others

[McTraveller]

I am not saying that the death count isn't high.  I'm not saying that social distancing and wearing masks isn't a reasonable thing.

I'm just saying that nobody should be afraid to go to work.

Have an understanding about the risk? Yes.  But not cowering in fear.

[mko]

@ChairmanPoo

The tricky problem is that sufficiently long and restrictive lockdown will also result in $BIGNUM number of deaths.

As bonus, it would be nice to avoid "Civilization as you knew it is already over. The question here is how to salvage the remnants." becoming actually true.

On topic of Russia:

although their death rate remains peculiarly low.

Their official reported death rate. I am curious about general excess mortality, this would be harder to fake.

I'm just saying that nobody should be afraid to go to work.

Being afraid is normal in that situation.