How much will non-vaxxing by GOP reduce the population of voting age republicans

[ncornilsen]

I am a bit disappointed that the vaccine is turning out not to be as effective as original touted, but I got the vaccine that Trump paved the way for as soon as I could and have zero regrets. The difficult thing is that reduce vaccine effectiveness means a higher portion of the population needs to get it in order to get herd immunity...

Actually no.  The vaccines are every bit as effective at preventing infection and preventing severe illness for the strains for which they were developed.. Remember that the vaccines were produced and went into clinical trials towards hte end of last year.  Several received emergency use authorization some five months ago, long before the Delta variant was even detected. Work continues to develop future vaccines and boosters that will enhance protection against the Delta variant. Even so, our current vaccines are still damn good at preventing serious illness and infection - far more so than most vaccines we have ever developed.

Fair point. And to be clear, I'll be getting any boosters that come out in the future. I still retain the right to be disappointed that getting the shot doesn't mean I can forget COVID is a thing.

His lies and cageyness about what he thought of the possibility of the origin of the virus was 100% a political move.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/06/16/heres-what-dr-fauci-has-said-about-covids-origins-and-the-lab-leak-theory/?sh=2df3e6d5a853

Once again I don't see anything in the article supporting your claim.

One can only lead a horse to water.

The communication from the CDC was absolutely partisan on a number of issues. One easy example was the who thing where teachers unions ignoring science and using our kids as human shields to get what they wanted.  This crap from teachers unions has harmed a generation of students in ways they may never fully recover from.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-04/cdc-emails-with-teachers-union-show-politics-still-trump-science

This does sound like the case, too common in the US, of people being regulated instead regulating the regulators. This is regrettable.

As for the anti-vax messaging: There are some moonbats who say its the mark of the beast and will give you infertile 5G laser eyes or whatever... sure. that's regrettable. I think it's intellectually dishonest to say anyone asking questions about the side effects, effectiveness, discrepancies in the VARES data are anti-vaxxers or whatever.

Anti-vax messaging is not the beginning of it. It started, for those wishing to forget, with claims that Covid was no big deal, that it has been successfully contained, with refusal to wear masks, refusal to accept any measures to contain the pandemic. All that was 100% politically motivated, 100x more egregious, and 100x more harmful than any messaging inconsistency coming from the CDC. I think that it is intellectually dishonest is to suggest that people who accepted every convenient lie coming their way - from Obama's birth certificate to Clinton being the leader of satanic pedophile ring - need any basis in reality to refuse vaccines. Sure, there are *some*, relatively few, who didn't buy into any of the previous BS and jumped on the anti-vax wagon now. I get that, it's not a completely uniform field, and *some* people do have legitimate concerns. But for the vast majority, it was a natural progression from one batshit crazy lie to another. Scroll up a bit - there is an article about people taking vaccine shots anonymously, to avoid being ostracized in their circles for being vaccinated. It is a statistical impossibility that people doing the ostracizing are driven by legitimate concerns.   

Excepting some of the really fringy people like Alex Jones, this all fits in the realm of reasonable people disagreeing about a virus we knew nothing about.

As for Batshit crazy lies?  How many of them turned out not to be?
It was called a batshit crazy lie that the Wuhan lab was a probable source of this. Now that more likely than the animal origin.
It was called a batshit crazy lie that masks would be helpful. Then fauci changed his mind. Then he said two masks would work. Then it turns out he never really thought they would work. That's batshit crazy, even if not a lie per say.
It was called batshit crazy that Covid would have less than a 5% case fatality rate, yet it settled at something less than 1%
It was called batshit crazy to open schools, yet places that opened them had no statistical difference in covid spread.

My point is that the CDC and "scientists" have provably lied about this virus for political and other advantages, obliterating any credibility they had. Then when the CDC gets questioned or people don't blindly accept what they say, they get fired, banned from facebook, assaulted, shouted down... this just makes anyone with any tendency  toward buying into conspiracy theories dig in further. So I will not judge those who isn't getting the shot because they don't trust what the CDC has said. Now, for the truly wacky ones like Alex Jones - he's a lunatic and is doing harm, and I condone none of that crap.

[GodlessCommie]

Excepting some of the really fringy people like Alex Jones, this all fits in the realm of reasonable people disagreeing about a virus we knew nothing about.

Please, "inject some bleach and shine some light" and "I told my people 'slow down the testing'" side is in no position to call anything fringe. Alex Jones may have been in the WH, and no one would have noticed any difference.

[Tyler durden]

We know for certain that scientist ignored evidence for political reasons.


https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/559050-harvard-scientist-says-trump-hatred-motivated

“Although Chan voiced her support for an investigation into the possibility of a lab leak in early 2020, she told NBC experts were careful not to lean too close to views linked to the former president.”

I’m sure politics doesn’t influence anything else these people do or say though…

[GodlessCommie]

We know for certain that scientist ignored evidence for political reasons.


https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/559050-harvard-scientist-says-trump-hatred-motivated

“Although Chan voiced her support for an investigation into the possibility of a lab leak in early 2020, she told NBC experts were careful not to lean too close to views linked to the former president.”

I’m sure politics doesn’t influence anything else these people do or say though…

Compare and contrast:
- person1 knew of the severity of the crisis well ahead of general knowledge, had means to act, and chose not to for political reasons (there is audio recording and records galore). As a result, hundreds of thousands died, and economic impact is incalculable
- person 2 did not want to call for investigation, which has no practical impact on anybody

You aim your ire at person 2.

[nereo]

Two things about the claims about the origin of the virus make no sense to me:

1) The Trump administration pushed that idea while in power for a solid year, yet couldn’t do more than make accusations. What’s different now that we expect a different result?

2) what does the origin fundamentally change?  We still had an absolutely atrocious initial response, and now vaccine holdouts seem to be prolonging the economic and mortal toll.

[ncornilsen]

Excepting some of the really fringy people like Alex Jones, this all fits in the realm of reasonable people disagreeing about a virus we knew nothing about.

Please, "inject some bleach and shine some light" and "I told my people 'slow down the testing'" side is in no position to call anything fringe. Alex Jones may have been in the WH, and no one would have noticed any difference.

Two things about the claims about the origin of the virus make no sense to me:

1) The Trump administration pushed that idea while in power for a solid year, yet couldn’t do more than make accusations. What’s different now that we expect a different result?

2) what does the origin fundamentally change?  We still had an absolutely atrocious initial response, and now vaccine holdouts seem to be prolonging the economic and mortal toll.

You're kidding, right?
He pushes that idea, the "Scientists" issue that paper saying its not possible for it to be a lab leak, the media freaks out and calls anyone a racist who pushes it; facebook bans anyone to mentions it... it wasn't really investigated when there would have been evidence to find.  Now, over a year later, the CCP has had plenty of time to clean up any evidence.

It matters because China should be held accountable for it. It matters so we can head off the next one. It matters because this kind of dishonesty by the "scientists" we're supposed to trust is FUELING the anti-vaxxers here.  It is moving people who otherwise could be persuaded to get the vaccine, to be hesitant.  It is a non-trivial factor.

Don't get me wrong, trump should have used different messaging. He could have encouraged people to do simple things that would have worked... he would have had the credibility at that point to talk about whether some lockdown policies were actually helpful or not... etc. But that's not Trump, and that's why we chose the other incoherent old creep to be president. 

[nereo]

No, I’m not kidding, and I don’t find your answers very compelling, nor do I understand what you mean by “scientists” (in quotation marks)
Trump had the full weight of the executive branch, and we know SoS Pompeo was tasked with verifying that the virus was “made in a Chinese lab” (not originated, as is being retroactively claimed). The opposition sends directly in line with the messaging, but I don’t thing we can seriously say it wasn’t considered given the resources put behind it. Ultimately we have fallen into an argument where the lack of clear evidence now somehow supports a scenario where a lack of evidence could not confirm earlier.

I’m also not sure what “hold China accountable” is supposed to mean. I get the human desire to make someone else pay, but I don’t see why or hire China would in this case. If that were a reality there seems to be a strong case against the US -currently and in the recent past - for allowing the spread at great harm and huge economic cost.

[Tyler durden]

No, I’m not kidding, and I don’t find your answers very compelling, nor do I understand what you mean by “scientists” (in quotation marks)
Trump had the full weight of the executive branch, and we know SoS Pompeo was tasked with verifying that the virus was “made in a Chinese lab” (not originated, as is being retroactively claimed). The opposition sends directly in line with the messaging, but I don’t thing we can seriously say it wasn’t considered given the resources put behind it. Ultimately we have fallen into an argument where the lack of clear evidence now somehow supports a scenario where a lack of evidence could not confirm earlier.

I’m also not sure what “hold China accountable” is supposed to mean. I get the human desire to make someone else pay, but I don’t see why or hire China would in this case. If that were a reality there seems to be a strong case against the US -currently and in the recent past - for allowing the spread at great harm and huge economic cost.

“Made in Chinese lab” is what gain of function research is all about. Meaning there carelessness is likely directly responsible for killing millions.

Your blaming the victim here… The US is at fault for spreading the virus the Chinese manufactured in a lab. They create the poison we create the cure but it’s are fault?

Trump downplayed the the lethality early on no questions about it. But he was right and the WHO was WRONG. orange man bad?

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-and-the-coronavirus-death-rate/

“The dispute began March 3 when the head of the WHO announced that the mortality rate for the new coronavirus was 3.4%, which was higher than previously believed and made it far more deadly than the seasonal flu.”

[LennStar]

Trump downplayed the the lethality early on no questions about it. But he was right and the WHO was WRONG. orange man bad?

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-and-the-coronavirus-death-rate/

“The dispute began March 3 when the head of the WHO announced that the mortality rate for the new coronavirus was 3.4%, which was higher than previously believed and made it far more deadly than the seasonal flu.”

See, that is a nice example of certain biases in statistics.

The first results of the death rate were about 2% from China and the first outbreaks.
Then the virus spread to new groups - like old people - and the rate climbed. Hospitals swamped.
With extensive precautions especially for vulnerable people (like old people) and first results in treatment, the rate got down again.
Now, with even better knowledge, free hospitals (more or less) and wide vaccination (which results in younger people being the main group of infected) the death rate is down to 0,5%.

And that all does not even take in account the ability to test or infections without symptoms.

Was the WHO wrong? Maybe. They took a pessimistic guesstimate. But Trump did not even take an optimitic one, but simply a wish.
And as far as I deadly stuff goes, I am certainly more happy with overestimating the risk by factor 5 than underestimating it by 5.

[bacchi]

Trump downplayed the the lethality early on no questions about it. But he was right and the WHO was WRONG. orange man bad?

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-and-the-coronavirus-death-rate/

“The dispute began March 3 when the head of the WHO announced that the mortality rate for the new coronavirus was 3.4%, which was higher than previously believed and made it far more deadly than the seasonal flu.”

See, that is a nice example of certain biases in statistics.

The first results of the death rate were about 2% from China and the first outbreaks.
Then the virus spread to new groups - like old people - and the rate climbed. Hospitals swamped.
With extensive precautions especially for vulnerable people (like old people) and first results in treatment, the rate got down again.
Now, with even better knowledge, free hospitals (more or less) and wide vaccination (which results in younger people being the main group of infected) the death rate is down to 0,5%.

And that all does not even take in account the ability to test or infections without symptoms.

Was the WHO wrong? Maybe. They took a pessimistic guesstimate. But Trump did not even take an optimitic one, but simply a wish.
And as far as I deadly stuff goes, I am certainly more happy with overestimating the risk by factor 5 than underestimating it by 5.

Exactly. Things change in a fast-moving situation.

That quote is from March 2020. Italy's current death rate, as of 8/5, is 2.9% (deaths/cases, per worldometer). It was higher in the beginning of covid, before they instituted lockdowns.


Does the "political reasons" argument really hold up anyway when delta is the current topic of the CDC and the media? Everyone has pandemic fatigue. Doesn't delta hurt Biden and the economy? Did the CDC switch sides from Democratic to Republican after the election? Is the entire world now working against Biden?

[ncornilsen]

Trump downplayed the the lethality early on no questions about it. But he was right and the WHO was WRONG. orange man bad?

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trump-and-the-coronavirus-death-rate/

“The dispute began March 3 when the head of the WHO announced that the mortality rate for the new coronavirus was 3.4%, which was higher than previously believed and made it far more deadly than the seasonal flu.”

See, that is a nice example of certain biases in statistics.

The first results of the death rate were about 2% from China and the first outbreaks.
Then the virus spread to new groups - like old people - and the rate climbed. Hospitals swamped.
With extensive precautions especially for vulnerable people (like old people) and first results in treatment, the rate got down again.
Now, with even better knowledge, free hospitals (more or less) and wide vaccination (which results in younger people being the main group of infected) the death rate is down to 0,5%.

And that all does not even take in account the ability to test or infections without symptoms.

Was the WHO wrong? Maybe. They took a pessimistic guesstimate. But Trump did not even take an optimitic one, but simply a wish.
And as far as I deadly stuff goes, I am certainly more happy with overestimating the risk by factor 5 than underestimating it by 5.

Exactly. Things change in a fast-moving situation.

That quote is from March 2020. Italy's current death rate, as of 8/5, is 2.9% (deaths/cases, per worldometer). It was higher in the beginning of covid, before they instituted lockdowns.


Does the "political reasons" argument really hold up anyway when Delta is the current topic of the CDC and the media? Everyone has pandemic fatigue. Doesn't Delta hurt Biden and the economy? Did the CDC switch sides from Democratic to Republican after the election? Is the entire world now working against Biden?

Feckless and illogical lockdowns and precautions, continued violations of said precautions, a low deathrate, and continued efforts to suppress discussion and get people canceled for not towing the CDC's line... cooercing people into getting the shot, but then saying you  have to wear a mask again without really explaining why... then things like Cuomo's "show me your papers, mein herr!" will absolutely work against Biden and democrats, hence my original point that this is all going to cost democrats far more than republicans in future elections.

[bacchi]

Does the "political reasons" argument really hold up anyway when Delta is the current topic of the CDC and the media? Everyone has pandemic fatigue. Doesn't Delta hurt Biden and the economy? Did the CDC switch sides from Democratic to Republican after the election? Is the entire world now working against Biden?

Feckless and illogical lockdowns and precautions, continued violations of said precautions, a low deathrate, and continued efforts to suppress discussion and get people canceled for not towing the CDC's line... cooercing people into getting the shot, but then saying you  have to wear a mask again without really explaining why... then things like Cuomo's "show me your papers, mein herr!" will absolutely work against Biden and democrats, hence my original point that this is all going to cost democrats far more than republicans in future elections.

So...the CDC is now working against the Democratic party. Ok, glad we got that solved.

But seriously, I doubt it will.  Look at the federal shutdowns. The Republicans got the blame but it didn't affect the elections.

Georgia and Arizona are now purple states and won't go back to being reliable red states. The majority of votes are already cast.

[neo von retorch]

This thread was obviously sewn with an acceptance of the stance that you argue things from the political party you side with. I think it's unfortunate, because no-one can claim the high ground if they start "on one side" and then throw mud and pick apart little individual things. Politics will be what they are, and most are on the mindset that you have to win. But we need a serious side of pragmatism if we ever want a glimmer of hope that we might, as humans, win against a pandemic and the changes it will impose upon our lives regardless of our political beliefs.

What does wearing a mask do? If you're infected, it decreases the spread of the virus to the air immediately surrounding you. We've very recently learned that with variants such as Delta, even the vaccinated can have a lot of virus in the moisture of your nasal passages, and that means that even if you never really get sick, there's a possibility that the virus can get spread to the air immediately surrounding you. Masks decrease this.

Are you completely safe once you're vaccinated? No. While information particularly about the newest strains are always evolving, the vaccine greatly reduces incidence of hospitalization and death. It likely decreases infection, and it may shorten the time that you might asymptomatically (or pre-symptomatically) spread the virus due to the viral load in nasal passages.

Should you be meeting indoors with groups of 10 or more? Hanging out in bars and restaurants? Probably not. Of course it's hard on small businesses if people stop going out and spending money in the same ways. But some of us would like the pandemic to end. That means different things to different people, but to minimize the spread of mutations, it seems like we should be looking to choose safer options for how we live our lives until those charts have gone down for a while and then move sideways at a very low place on the graph. A combination of vaccination happening too little and too late in densely populated areas has been a great cultivation for mutations, and now we have versions of the virus with better skill sets to spread. So what should you do instead? How about going back to ordering food for pickup and hanging out outdoors and maintaining distance between the people you're around!

Is the vaccine worse than the disease? Yes and no. For some people, they can be infected with little or no symptoms, while for some people, the vaccine knocks you on your ass for a day or two, and it's really miserable. I don't think we've had any (morally questionable) studies to determine if it's the same people. I imagine if the vaccine sucked, the disease likely sucked worse! But I don't have science on my side, for good reason. And yes, taking the vaccine is making something 100% happen vs the maybe 10.8% (so far, confirmed cases only) chance of catching COVID-19 in the U.S. (Which means up to 90% are still excellent vessels to help spread and mutate the virus, unless you've already got one of the vaccines helping you build up your body's natural anti-body defense system.) And yet, it's one of the best tools we have to reduce hospitalization, death, and infection spread. If you can, talk to the chemists who developed the vaccine, and find out their motivations for making a vaccine! For sure, they are paid to do a job, but they are also excited to be a part of helping humans fight viruses. They don't care if it helps a political cause (or at least, it's not remotely their primary motivator), and they would really prefer neither side use it as a political tool. For individuals, the choice to vaccinate or not should be pretty simple. It might save your life, and it might save others' lives, and in reducing the overall spread and mutation, it should also help us get back to "normal" freedom and autonomy and gatherings and not having to wear masks so much. Shut out all the other noise.

Have politicians and agencies contributed to this being a shit-show? Does that make any difference to the virus? The virus thanks all of you.

[EvenSteven]

Does the "political reasons" argument really hold up anyway when Delta is the current topic of the CDC and the media? Everyone has pandemic fatigue. Doesn't Delta hurt Biden and the economy? Did the CDC switch sides from Democratic to Republican after the election? Is the entire world now working against Biden?

Feckless and illogical lockdowns and precautions, continued violations of said precautions, a low deathrate, and continued efforts to suppress discussion and get people canceled for not towing the CDC's line... cooercing people into getting the shot, but then saying you  have to wear a mask again without really explaining why... then things like Cuomo's "show me your papers, mein herr!" will absolutely work against Biden and democrats, hence my original point that this is all going to cost democrats far more than republicans in future elections.

So...the CDC is now working against the Democratic party. Ok, glad we got that solved.

But seriously, I doubt it will.  Look at the federal shutdowns. The Republicans got the blame but it didn't affect the elections.

Georgia and Arizona are now purple states and won't go back to being reliable red states. The majority of votes are already cast.

'

It's entirely possible that the pandemic has turned my brain to spiders, but I don't remember a federal shutdown. I thought it was always left up to the states, and in my state the governor left it up to local municipalities.

[bacchi]

Does the "political reasons" argument really hold up anyway when Delta is the current topic of the CDC and the media? Everyone has pandemic fatigue. Doesn't Delta hurt Biden and the economy? Did the CDC switch sides from Democratic to Republican after the election? Is the entire world now working against Biden?

Feckless and illogical lockdowns and precautions, continued violations of said precautions, a low deathrate, and continued efforts to suppress discussion and get people canceled for not towing the CDC's line... cooercing people into getting the shot, but then saying you  have to wear a mask again without really explaining why... then things like Cuomo's "show me your papers, mein herr!" will absolutely work against Biden and democrats, hence my original point that this is all going to cost democrats far more than republicans in future elections.

So...the CDC is now working against the Democratic party. Ok, glad we got that solved.

But seriously, I doubt it will.  Look at the federal shutdowns. The Republicans got the blame but it didn't affect the elections.

Georgia and Arizona are now purple states and won't go back to being reliable red states. The majority of votes are already cast.

'

It's entirely possible that the pandemic has turned my brain to spiders, but I don't remember a federal shutdown. I thought it was always left up to the states, and in my state the governor left it up to local municipalities.

You're right but I was thinking about the past, years ago, when the federal shutdowns happened and the national parks were closed. I remember thinking, "Damn those Republicans! The voters will make them pay for ruining summer vacations." It didn't happen. Any anger was short-lived and most of the votes were already cast.

It takes a REAL fuckup, with specific intent, to swing voters. Kansas, thanks to Brownback and his tax experiement, is an example. Making educated guesses and policies during a pandemic is not in the same league.


tl;dr What seems as malfeasance by some is not seen as malfeasance by others.

[LennStar]

getting the shot, but then saying you  have to wear a mask again without really explaining why...

I thought by now, after more than a year and thousands of times it has been said, everyone should know that A) a vaccination does not totally prevent you from getting the virus and not from spreading it and B) a mask reduces both risks.

There, explained. Can we now shut up about the idiocy of not wearing a mask in an ongoing pandemic of a quite deadly virus?

[PDXTabs]

getting the shot, but then saying you  have to wear a mask again without really explaining why...

I thought by now, after more than a year and thousands of times it has been said, everyone should know that A) a vaccination does not totally prevent you from getting the virus and not from spreading it and B) a mask reduces both risks.

There, explained. Can we now shut up about the idiocy of not wearing a mask in an ongoing pandemic of a quite deadly virus?

No, humans are going to human. Humans won't shut up about ghosts or creationism, they aren't going to shut up about having to wear a mask for an indefinite period of time after being vaccinated. Especially if their government told them that the end of the pandemic was just around the corner. I'm not disagreeing with the mask guidance, but I am disagreeing with your understanding of human behavior. For just one example, check out this video on the Trans-Siberian Railway shot last month: Traveling the Trans-Siberian in the 3rd class train // Russian platzkart. Most of these humans have decided that they can't be bothered with masks.

[dougules]

getting the shot, but then saying you  have to wear a mask again without really explaining why...

I thought by now, after more than a year and thousands of times it has been said, everyone should know that A) a vaccination does not totally prevent you from getting the virus and not from spreading it and B) a mask reduces both risks.

There, explained. Can we now shut up about the idiocy of not wearing a mask in an ongoing pandemic of a quite deadly virus?

No, humans are going to human. Humans won't shut up about ghosts or creationism, they aren't going to shut up about having to wear a mask for an indefinite period of time after being vaccinated. Especially if their government told them that the end of the pandemic was just around the corner. I'm not disagreeing with the mask guidance, but I am disagreeing with your understanding of human behavior. For just one example, check out this video on the Trans-Siberian Railway shot last month: Traveling the Trans-Siberian in the 3rd class train // Russian platzkart. Most of these humans have decided that they can't be bothered with masks.

I frequently watch travel videos when I'm relaxing, and from what I've seen nobody seems to care about masks in more countries than not.  That being said I would chock more of it up to culture than human nature, since from what I've seen it varies a lot from country to country. 

And on the subject of human nature, it's kind of sad that there's not much money to be made in people wearing masks because then all the humans you're talking would be inundated with ads to wear one.  Human nature is something that can be channeled when there's a drive to do it. 

[HPstache]

Vaccines have been available to everyone 12+ in the U.S. for many months now.  When will it be up to each individual to determine their own risks (extremely low if vaccinated) for themselves again?  If someone is truly afraid for their life, they can now purchase a fitted N95 or P95 mask or respirator without potentially taking PPE from a medical professional / first responder that needs it more and completely protect themselves regardless of what anyone around them decides what to do.  The "I wear a mask to protect you and you wear one to protect me" was because people were told to wear cloth face protection in the early timeline of Covid and is absolute bullshit now... completely protect yourself if you don't feel like taking the risk as a vaccinated or unvaccinated person. 

The goal is to prevent people from over running our healthcare system and/or dying.  We now have a vaccine that will essentially protect you from both, and a non-shortage of proper PPE if you choose to wear it (because as stated, we all know that the vaccine is not 100% now).  Everyone who ends up in a hospital or dies at this point it's completely on them and they knowingly took that risk for themselves, regardless of what everyone around them decided to do.

[ixtap]

Vaccines have been available to everyone 12+ in the U.S. for many months now.  When will it be up to each individual to determine their own risks (extremely low if vaccinated) for themselves again?  If someone is truly afraid for their life, they can now purchase a fitted N95 or P95 mask or respirator without potentially taking PPE from a medical professional / first responder that needs it more and completely protect themselves regardless of what anyone around them decides what to do.  The "I wear a mask to protect you and you wear one to protect me" was because people were told to wear cloth face protection in the early timeline of Covid and is absolute bullshit now... completely protect yourself if you don't feel like taking the risk as a vaccinated or unvaccinated person. 

The goal is to prevent people from over running our healthcare system and/or dying.  We now have a vaccine that will essentially protect you from both, and a non-shortage of proper PPE if you choose to wear it (because as stated, we all know that the vaccine is not 100% now).  Everyone who ends up in a hospital or dies at this point it's completely on them and they knowingly took that risk for themselves, regardless of what everyone around them decided to do.

What about the people who die from something else because their local hospital was overwhelmed with these unvaccinated hospitalizations? We are still at that point in many areas of the US.

[HPstache]

Vaccines have been available to everyone 12+ in the U.S. for many months now.  When will it be up to each individual to determine their own risks (extremely low if vaccinated) for themselves again?  If someone is truly afraid for their life, they can now purchase a fitted N95 or P95 mask or respirator without potentially taking PPE from a medical professional / first responder that needs it more and completely protect themselves regardless of what anyone around them decides what to do.  The "I wear a mask to protect you and you wear one to protect me" was because people were told to wear cloth face protection in the early timeline of Covid and is absolute bullshit now... completely protect yourself if you don't feel like taking the risk as a vaccinated or unvaccinated person. 

The goal is to prevent people from over running our healthcare system and/or dying.  We now have a vaccine that will essentially protect you from both, and a non-shortage of proper PPE if you choose to wear it (because as stated, we all know that the vaccine is not 100% now).  Everyone who ends up in a hospital or dies at this point it's completely on them and they knowingly took that risk for themselves, regardless of what everyone around them decided to do.

What about the people who die from something else because their local hospital was overwhelmed with these unvaccinated hospitalizations? We are still at that point in many areas of the US.

Is this actually happening in any measurable way in areas of the US?  Or are you just creating a hypothetical scenario that you would like me to consider?

[ixtap]

Vaccines have been available to everyone 12+ in the U.S. for many months now.  When will it be up to each individual to determine their own risks (extremely low if vaccinated) for themselves again?  If someone is truly afraid for their life, they can now purchase a fitted N95 or P95 mask or respirator without potentially taking PPE from a medical professional / first responder that needs it more and completely protect themselves regardless of what anyone around them decides what to do.  The "I wear a mask to protect you and you wear one to protect me" was because people were told to wear cloth face protection in the early timeline of Covid and is absolute bullshit now... completely protect yourself if you don't feel like taking the risk as a vaccinated or unvaccinated person. 

The goal is to prevent people from over running our healthcare system and/or dying.  We now have a vaccine that will essentially protect you from both, and a non-shortage of proper PPE if you choose to wear it (because as stated, we all know that the vaccine is not 100% now).  Everyone who ends up in a hospital or dies at this point it's completely on them and they knowingly took that risk for themselves, regardless of what everyone around them decided to do.

What about the people who die from something else because their local hospital was overwhelmed with these unvaccinated hospitalizations? We are still at that point in many areas of the US.

Is this actually happening in any measurable way in areas of the US?  Or are you just creating a hypothetical scenario that you would like me to consider?

Well, I do know that hospitals are full, I don't know if we can attribute any deaths to that fact this week. But it isn't good for the overall efficiency of our health system.

[GuitarStv]

Is this actually happening in any measurable way in areas of the US?  Or are you just creating a hypothetical scenario that you would like me to consider?

This article discusses two studies of overcrowding in hostpials.  One UK based and one regarding American VA care.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/03/18/974861952/lessons-from-the-covid-19-crisis-overcrowding-hospitals-cost-lives

The upshot appears to be that when hospitals are overcrowded, ICU patients (across all ages and demographics) die at a much higher rate than normal.

"We normally don't think about outcomes based on how many other people are sick," says Dr. Lewis Rubinson, chief medical officer at Morristown Medical Center, who wrote an editorial accompanying the JAMA study. "This reinforces that one of the best ways to improve survival is to reduce the overall pace of people coming into the ICU."

The study measured the mortality rate of more than 8,500 veterans at 88 VA hospitals between March and November.

As ICU demand increased, the mortality rate went up — a trend that was consistent at different times in the pandemic.

"You have a finite set of resources that you can only slice into so small a piece before patients' care is going to be relatively compromised," says Mateen. "In the U.K., we've always known that quality of care starts to take a nosedive when you get above [85% occupancy]."

If hospital occupancy is extremely high it would seem very likely that people (who don't have covid) are dying because of it.

[HPstache]

It could also be that we saw a higher mortality rate because it was well documented that people avoided and waited way longer to get "that thing" checked out during covid due to fear of going to the doctor or emergency room. 

I think that that precautions the US took before the vaccine were acceptable and made a lot of sense (masking, shutting down non-essential work, etc.) , but my opinion above is based on going forward in a post vaccine and PPE shortage future.  People now have the opportunity to dramatically reduce their chance of needing a hospital or dying (even if they are a increasingly common breakthru case) by receiving a readily available vaccine and those who want to be sure not to contract Covid regardless of those around them have the opportunity to wear readily available proper PPE. 

I don't believe we will ever see the very rare cases of hospitals having to turn away care due to overrunning again as the vast majority of highest risk & elderly are now vaccinated (and 600,000+ have unfortunately died, but that needs to be an actual factor), a good chunk of the medium risk population has either been vaccinated or already had Covid most likely providing some sort of protection from future hospitalization and/or death, and the lowest age group of vaccination percent are also hands down the lowest risk of needing a hospital or dying in the first place.

[LennStar]

getting the shot, but then saying you  have to wear a mask again without really explaining why...

I thought by now, after more than a year and thousands of times it has been said, everyone should know that A) a vaccination does not totally prevent you from getting the virus and not from spreading it and B) a mask reduces both risks.

There, explained. Can we now shut up about the idiocy of not wearing a mask in an ongoing pandemic of a quite deadly virus?

No, humans are going to human. Humans won't shut up about ghosts or creationism, they aren't going to shut up about having to wear a mask for an indefinite period of time after being vaccinated. Especially if their government told them that the end of the pandemic was just around the corner. I'm not disagreeing with the mask guidance, but I am disagreeing with your understanding of human behavior. For just one example, check out this video on the Trans-Siberian Railway shot last month: Traveling the Trans-Siberian in the 3rd class train // Russian platzkart. Most of these humans have decided that they can't be bothered with masks.

I showed no "understanding of human behavior". I simply stated in a terse way that "nobody said why you should continue wearing a mask" is a lie. A downright "alternative fact", because you have to be blind and deaf to not have heard or read that explanation a few dozen times.

In the case of Russia (much like the Reps in the US) this is the result of the government telling that there is no problem. Nothing to see, go on. (Very typical of autocracies in a crisis.)
You can see this even in Africa. Some governments opted to say there is no virus, unofficially officially because they didn't have the health care capacities anyway.
In those states the epidemic spread a lot more agressive than in countries directly across the border (although afaik no country could get it under control eventually).

[ncornilsen]

getting the shot, but then saying you  have to wear a mask again without really explaining why...

I thought by now, after more than a year and thousands of times it has been said, everyone should know that A) a vaccination does not totally prevent you from getting the virus and not from spreading it and B) a mask reduces both risks.

There, explained. Can we now shut up about the idiocy of not wearing a mask in an ongoing pandemic of a quite deadly virus?

No, humans are going to human. Humans won't shut up about ghosts or creationism, they aren't going to shut up about having to wear a mask for an indefinite period of time after being vaccinated. Especially if their government told them that the end of the pandemic was just around the corner. I'm not disagreeing with the mask guidance, but I am disagreeing with your understanding of human behavior. For just one example, check out this video on the Trans-Siberian Railway shot last month: Traveling the Trans-Siberian in the 3rd class train // Russian platzkart. Most of these humans have decided that they can't be bothered with masks.

I showed no "understanding of human behavior". I simply stated in a terse way that "nobody said why you should continue wearing a mask" is a lie. A downright "alternative fact", because you have to be blind and deaf to not have heard or read a few dozen explanations at this time.

Fix for you.

[MudPuppy]

I can attest that locally, certain surgical cases are being postponed (not all electives outright shut down like earlier in the pandemic) because we need to keep those vents free for respiratory failure patients. We are at the same overcrowding in the hospital that we had in the latter half of last year, but the difference is that the vaccine is here now when it wasn’t then, even though everyone is spouting off about how it should be better because the old had sick have already died. That isn’t how this works. COVID doesn’t care who you are. If you are unvaccinated and haven’t been infected yet, you are simply lucky… for now. These cases don’t have to be happening.

[seattlecyclone]

I showed no "understanding of human behavior". I simply stated in a terse way that "nobody said why you should continue wearing a mask" is a lie. A downright "alternative fact", because you have to be blind and deaf to not have heard or read a few dozen explanations at this time.

Fix for you.

Care to enumerate some of these "few dozen" explanations? Here's my list:
1) A mask will block many of the respiratory droplets that you would otherwise spew into the air, reducing the probability that you will infect other people if you happen to be COVID-positive.

Like...that's it. That's the reason. I'm genuinely curious what these other dozens of reasons you've heard are.

[GodlessCommie]

In the case of Russia (much like the Reps in the US) this is the result of the government telling that there is no problem. Nothing to see, go on. (Very typical of autocracies in a crisis.)

Can confirm. My relatives in Russia are convinced that Covid there is under control even as they say, in the next sentence, that people they know are dropping like flies. Same with forest fires - they are all in the US, even as they complain about the smoke.

[SunnyDays]

I can attest that locally, certain surgical cases are being postponed (not all electives outright shut down like earlier in the pandemic) because we need to keep those vents free for respiratory failure patients. We are at the same overcrowding in the hospital that we had in the latter half of last year, but the difference is that the vaccine is here now when it wasn’t then, even though everyone is spouting off about how it should be better because the old had sick have already died. That isn’t how this works. COVID doesn’t care who you are. If you are unvaccinated and haven’t been infected yet, you are simply lucky… for now. These cases don’t have to be happening.

At what point will the hospitals stop keeping ventilators "on hold" for the willingly unvaxxed, when there are other needs for them?  It has to happen sometime, I would think.  What other illness/condition gets this kind of preferential treatment?  The longer the pandemic goes on and the more people who are vaccinated, the less tolerance there will be for this, when the majority's needs are coming secondary to the minority's.  If the unvaxxed are willing to take a chance on getting the virus, then they have to be willing to take a chance on getting treated.

[Samuel]

Vaccines have been available to everyone 12+ in the U.S. for many months now.  When will it be up to each individual to determine their own risks (extremely low if vaccinated) for themselves again?  If someone is truly afraid for their life, they can now purchase a fitted N95 or P95 mask or respirator without potentially taking PPE from a medical professional / first responder that needs it more and completely protect themselves regardless of what anyone around them decides what to do.  The "I wear a mask to protect you and you wear one to protect me" was because people were told to wear cloth face protection in the early timeline of Covid and is absolute bullshit now... completely protect yourself if you don't feel like taking the risk as a vaccinated or unvaccinated person. 

The goal is to prevent people from over running our healthcare system and/or dying.  We now have a vaccine that will essentially protect you from both, and a non-shortage of proper PPE if you choose to wear it (because as stated, we all know that the vaccine is not 100% now).  Everyone who ends up in a hospital or dies at this point it's completely on them and they knowingly took that risk for themselves, regardless of what everyone around them decided to do.

In the US it seems to me that point is when the vaccines are fully approved and no longer under the emergency use authorization. Assuming you don't have a medical issue that makes vaccination too risky the EUA is really the last credible excuse for not getting vaccinated other than "I don't want to and the government can't make me" (which I think is a stupid but valid choice). Once those approvals happen if you choose to continue rolling the dice that's entirely on you. Society has done it's job and we're no longer obligated to hobble ourselves trying to protect people who won't protect themselves as long as we can do enough to avoid completely overwhelming the medical system in hotspot areas.

The only way out of this is herd immunity, either through vaccination or post infection antibodies. If you don't want free access to the former then fine, let's get cracking on the latter.


(Note: I am a bit cranky this Monday morning, not sure I fully stand by that last line)

[MudPuppy]

At what point will the hospitals stop keeping ventilators "on hold" for the willingly unvaxxed, when there are other needs for them?  It has to happen sometime, I would think.  What other illness/condition gets this kind of preferential treatment?  The longer the pandemic goes on and the more people who are vaccinated, the less tolerance there will be for this, when the majority's needs are coming secondary to the minority's.  If the unvaxxed are willing to take a chance on getting the virus, then they have to be willing to take a chance on getting treated.

That point does not exist. Healthcare isn’t only for people who deserve it and that is not up for debate.

[nereo]

At what point will the hospitals stop keeping ventilators "on hold" for the willingly unvaxxed, when there are other needs for them?  It has to happen sometime, I would think.  What other illness/condition gets this kind of preferential treatment?  The longer the pandemic goes on and the more people who are vaccinated, the less tolerance there will be for this, when the majority's needs are coming secondary to the minority's.  If the unvaxxed are willing to take a chance on getting the virus, then they have to be willing to take a chance on getting treated.

That point does not exist. Healthcare isn’t only for people who deserve it and that is not up for debate.

This. Doctors treat patients based on need, not life-choices. Drug addicts, heavy smokers, the obese all qualify for care. In triage the severity of need is the only factor, not who “deserves” it more.

[ncornilsen]

I showed no "understanding of human behavior". I simply stated in a terse way that "nobody said why you should continue wearing a mask" is a lie. A downright "alternative fact", because you have to be blind and deaf to not have heard or read a few dozen explanations at this time.

Fix for you.

Care to enumerate some of these "few dozen" explanations? Here's my list:
1) A mask will block many of the respiratory droplets that you would otherwise spew into the air, reducing the probability that you will infect other people if you happen to be COVID-positive.

Like...that's it. That's the reason. I'm genuinely curious what these other dozens of reasons you've heard are.

Dozens is an exaggeration. But here's a few samples: If I get the vaccine, can I stop masking or not? How many masks do I need, 2? 3? Do I need an N95 or will a cloth one work? Different day, different answer.

I direct you back to this. Fauci has demonstrated he is willing to lie to achieve his ends. so he is a less than credible source anymore.  Doesn't matter that he means well, and it doesn't make someone an uneducated anti science idiot to question what he says... infact not questioning him at this point I think makes you more of a dolt than anything.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html

[MudPuppy]

… are you unclear about how evidence based science works? As we learn more, the recommendations evolve.

[nereo]

I showed no "understanding of human behavior". I simply stated in a terse way that "nobody said why you should continue wearing a mask" is a lie. A downright "alternative fact", because you have to be blind and deaf to not have heard or read a few dozen explanations at this time.

Fix for you.

Care to enumerate some of these "few dozen" explanations? Here's my list:
1) A mask will block many of the respiratory droplets that you would otherwise spew into the air, reducing the probability that you will infect other people if you happen to be COVID-positive.

Like...that's it. That's the reason. I'm genuinely curious what these other dozens of reasons you've heard are.

Dozens is an exaggeration. But here's a few samples: If I get the vaccine, can I stop masking or not? How many masks do I need, 2? 3? Do I need an N95 or will a cloth one work? Different day, different answer.

I’m not sure where your confusion lies with the above, or how the guidance lead to your confusion.

Being fully vaccinated greatly reduces but does not eliminate your risk. I have not ever seen any official source claim 100% immunity, only nearly that from death against the original variants.   Ergo, mags continue to provide additional protection at stopping the spread. Whether it’s necessary depends on where you are and who you are interacting with.

Two mags provides better protection over 1. We learned that months ago. Do you need to wear two, again that depends on circumstances.

N95 masks have always offered a higher degree of protection over both masks, but those in turn offer more protection than nothing at all. It seems only availability has been the issue.  Again, how has this message changed from day to day?

[neo von retorch]

Dozens is an exaggeration. But here's a few samples: If I get the vaccine, can I stop masking or not? How many masks do I need, 2? 3? Do I need an N95 or will a cloth one work? Different day, different answer.

When I see this kind odd line of distraction from the core issue of how can any one individual make their best effort to contribute to reducing the spread of a highly contagious, often harmful, and sometimes deadly pathogen I wonder what the issue is. It could be a huge disinterest in the physics involved. To try to simplify, once more, wearing any mask can help to reduce some of the aerosols containing the pathogen (which means reduced chance of transmission). Everything else is open for scientific research for optimization. N95 is most likely going to do a better job than cloth, and two is probably better than one. But one of any mask (covering mouth and nostrils) is  better than none. And it's a ridiculously small inconvenience when compared to the alternatives.

Vaccination never claimed 100% efficacy, even against infection and transmission, but the evidence so far has always shown that it massively reduces it. That being said, the newer variants are, well, newer, and so less time has been available as a resource to use in researching how individuals with the vaccine respond to that variant. There is already evidence that infection and transmission are possible if not altogether likely when a vaccinated individual is exposed to the delta variant. Wearing a mask will, once again, reduce the chance of transmission.

New information isn't a particularly confusing concept, though. Especially with something that changes rapidly, and can be difficult to put through the scientific process quickly, morally, and with reproducible results. Using new information to just throw up your hands and not try means you prefer to be selfish, lazy or defiant rather than contribute to the welfare of your fellow humans. Is that acceptable? Well, everyone has their own moral code.

[GodlessCommie]

Neither anti-mask, nor anti-vaxx arguments arose from good faith, fact-bases reasoning. Thus, no amount of good faith, fact-based reasoning can assuage them. Anti-maskers will start wearing masks when people they respect start wearing masks, and that's not you, me, or Fauci. 

[HPstache]

Neither anti-mask, nor anti-vaxx arguments arose from good faith, fact-bases reasoning. Thus, no amount of good faith, fact-based reasoning can assuage them. Anti-maskers will start wearing masks when people they respect start wearing masks, and that's not you, me, or Fauci.

I'm anti mask after vax, and I believe I use fact-based reasoning to get there.

[seattlecyclone]

If I get the vaccine, can I stop masking or not?

Depends on the conditions. Vaccinated people are less likely to be carriers than non-vaccinated people, so the benefit of mask-wearing is going to be comparatively less if you're vaccinated. The question is where should we put the line between "worth it" and "not worth it"?

Previously the CDC recommended mask wearing only for unvaccinated people, because the number of cases was on the decline and the probability of vaccinated people transmitting the disease was very low. Multiply the small probability of exposure by the small probability of infection and vaccinated people wearing masks wasn't thought to be a very effective countermeasure.

Conditions have changed. More people have COVID (increasing the probability that you'll have been exposed), and new variants are thought to be more resistant to the vaccine (increasing the probability that you'll be infected if you were exposed). That pushes vaccinated mask-wearing into "worth it" territory.

How many masks do I need, 2? 3? Do I need an N95 or will a cloth one work? Different day, different answer.

Again, depends on conditions. N95 is better than multiple cloth masks which is better than a single cloth mask which is better than nothing. How much better depends on how likely you are to be infected in the first place, which depends on your local conditions. The more cases there are and the more transmissible the virus is, the more of a difference it will make to wear a better mask.

[MudPuppy]

Neither anti-mask, nor anti-vaxx arguments arose from good faith, fact-bases reasoning. Thus, no amount of good faith, fact-based reasoning can assuage them. Anti-maskers will start wearing masks when people they respect start wearing masks, and that's not you, me, or Fauci.

I'm anti mask after vax, and I believe I use fact-based reasoning to get there.

Here’s why the masks are back: the chances that you will get a breakthrough case as a vaccinated person has a lot to do with how much virus you get exposed to. Now that we have another peak and so few takers for the vaccine, your potential “dose” is pretty high now and you (yes you!) are again at higher risk because of those refusing the vaccine.  We get more people vaccinate? The masks go away again.

[Omy]

Neither anti-mask, nor anti-vaxx arguments arose from good faith, fact-bases reasoning. Thus, no amount of good faith, fact-based reasoning can assuage them. Anti-maskers will start wearing masks when people they respect start wearing masks, and that's not you, me, or Fauci.

I'm anti mask after vax, and I believe I use fact-based reasoning to get there.

Here’s why the masks are back: the chances that you will get a breakthrough case as a vaccinated person has a lot to do with how much virus you get exposed to. Now that we have another peak and so few takers for the vaccine, your potential “dose” is pretty high now and you (yes you!) are again at higher risk because of those refusing the vaccine.  We get more people vaccinate? The masks go away again.

People are also missing that the more this virus spreads and mutates, the more likely that the vaccines most of us have taken *will be worthless against new variants*.

Early variants didn't seem to be all that transmissible once you were vaccinated. However, the delta variant is several times more transmissible AND vaccinated people carry as much of the viral load as unvaccinated people. By masking we reduce transmission and reduce the number of future variants we have to deal with.

[MudPuppy]

Also true, but the problem of mutation is also fixed by vaccination since that’s a crime of opportunity. Fewer potential hosts and less hospitable too make fewer chances for mutation.

[PDXTabs]

getting the shot, but then saying you  have to wear a mask again without really explaining why...

I thought by now, after more than a year and thousands of times it has been said, everyone should know that A) a vaccination does not totally prevent you from getting the virus and not from spreading it and B) a mask reduces both risks.

There, explained. Can we now shut up about the idiocy of not wearing a mask in an ongoing pandemic of a quite deadly virus?

No, humans are going to human. Humans won't shut up about ghosts or creationism, they aren't going to shut up about having to wear a mask for an indefinite period of time after being vaccinated. Especially if their government told them that the end of the pandemic was just around the corner. I'm not disagreeing with the mask guidance, but I am disagreeing with your understanding of human behavior. For just one example, check out this video on the Trans-Siberian Railway shot last month: Traveling the Trans-Siberian in the 3rd class train // Russian platzkart. Most of these humans have decided that they can't be bothered with masks.

I showed no "understanding of human behavior".

I never wrote that. I wrote that I disagreed with your understanding. To be specific I was replying to your statement of "[c]an we now shut up about the idiocy of not wearing a mask in an ongoing pandemic of a quite deadly virus?"

To which I honestly believe the answer to be "no."

In the case of Russia (much like the Reps in the US) this is the result of the government telling that there is no problem. Nothing to see, go on. (Very typical of autocracies in a crisis.)

While I certainly believe that both the US and Russia could have done a better job at controlling the outbreak they both developed vaccines ASAP. Russia was actually one of the first countries to start vaccinating their population with a vaccine that by all accounts is both safe and effective. I do not personally believe that is the action of a country that doesn't care about the pandemic.

[PDXTabs]

In the case of Russia (much like the Reps in the US) this is the result of the government telling that there is no problem. Nothing to see, go on. (Very typical of autocracies in a crisis.)

Can confirm. My relatives in Russia are convinced that Covid there is under control even as they say, in the next sentence, that people they know are dropping like flies. Same with forest fires - they are all in the US, even as they complain about the smoke.

I'm curious if you happen to have a read on whether Russia's low vaccination rate stems from lack of supply, lack of access, or general vaccine hesitancy? The above link I posted says hesitancy, but I'm still curious.

[GodlessCommie]

I'm curious if you happen to have a read on whether Russia's low vaccination rate stems from lack of supply, lack of access, or general vaccine hesitancy? The above link I posted says hesitancy, but I'm still curious.

From what I hear, 100% hesitancy - or, rather, lack of interest. Where my relatives are, vaccines were never rationed. There were vaccination stations in shopping centers since spring - no lines, come and get it. It was a point of pride for them to point that out while we waited for our turn.

[SunnyDays]

At what point will the hospitals stop keeping ventilators "on hold" for the willingly unvaxxed, when there are other needs for them?  It has to happen sometime, I would think.  What other illness/condition gets this kind of preferential treatment?  The longer the pandemic goes on and the more people who are vaccinated, the less tolerance there will be for this, when the majority's needs are coming secondary to the minority's.  If the unvaxxed are willing to take a chance on getting the virus, then they have to be willing to take a chance on getting treated.

That point does not exist. Healthcare isn’t only for people who deserve it and that is not up for debate.

This. Doctors treat patients based on need, not life-choices. Drug addicts, heavy smokers, the obese all qualify for care. In triage the severity of need is the only factor, not who “deserves” it more.

That's not what I was saying.  It's not about who deserves it, it's about what's available.  Will hospitals indefinitely leave ventilators (and whatever else is needed for Covid), sitting idle waiting for patients that may or may not come, while others who do need it now continue to wait?  That is happening now, isn't it?  Surgeries are being cancelled (some called "elective" when they are cancer surgeries) to keep vents free for incoming Covid patients.  Who have not necessarily arrived yet, but are expected to.  Am I understanding this wrong?  If patients are being cancelled individually because there is someone in greater immediate need taking up the equipment, that's one thing.  But it's another if all electives etc are cancelled at a given hospital in anticipation of Covid need.  And I believe that that is what has happened, at least at some hospitals.

[MudPuppy]

I’m not sure what you mean? Hospital operations take expected caseloads into account when allocating resources. You can’t have every vent in the hospital tied up. People will still receive resources based on urgency of need for care and suitability of alternative methods of care. What is happening is that lower priority cases are numbed back so that every single vent isn’t tied up. Nowhere are there ORs with tumbleweeds rolling through them and crickets from the admissions coordinators. Patients who are currently ill may deteriorate and then what do you do when you code them? Bag them forever? Send the to another hospital? What about when all the nearby hospitals are near capacity or even on diversion? What do you do then? Postponing an ortho surgery or whatever (my own was postponed last summer) is the logic step here. Regardless, vaccination status will not factor into who gets care.

I specifically said it wasn’t a complete shutdown in my post, so I know that isn’t the misunderstanding.

[LennStar]

So what with Delta variant seemingly being a lot more infective and delta also using vaccinated people quite sucessfully to propagate, I think it's over that we could dream of getting rid of this virus.

At the same time immunity still seems to go down after a certain time (but of course, for lack of time, we still can't say for sure how long and how much).

I got my second shot on saturday and was completely floored sunday, bad monday and today is "a bit fever but mostly okay".
As far as I read and heard experience from relatives, that is about average.

Will that mean that we will have to get a shot each year, with one third of the people being downed for two or three days every year? That would be... very uncomfortable. And maybe lead to people not getting the vaccine anymore?
Will the virus become so widespread that you are basically infected all the time, don't have symptoms most of the tiime because your immune system handles it, and a few dozen people (mostly weakened ones) per million will just die of it every year, like it is with the flu?

[GuitarStv]

I got my second shot on saturday and was completely floored sunday, bad monday and today is "a bit fever but mostly okay".
As far as I read and heard experience from relatives, that is about average.

Will that mean that we will have to get a shot each year, with one third of the people being downed for two or three days every year? That would be... very uncomfortable. And maybe lead to people not getting the vaccine anymore?

That's an interesting question.

Feeling sick after getting one of these shots is very common.  My wife had powerful headaches for eight days after getting her first shot - a bunch of tests were done, and our doctor believes it was a reaction to the shot.  I was surprised how bad the shot made me feel, with something like the flu shot I don't feel any difference at all.  Does anyone know about the likelihood of there being significant side effects for booster shots going forward?