How long can we wait while flattening the curve?

[the_fixer]

My brother in law tested positive today.

Best wishes to you and your family hope everything works out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JGS1980]

Well, I guess at least one question was just answered.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suicide-decline-united-states-covid-pandemic/

In summary, suicides went DOWN 6% in the USA in 2020.

I guess isolation in the name of saving lives is different than isolation for other reasons.

[RetiredAt63]

This is well worth reading.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/how-did-it-come-to-this/?fbclid=IwAR1RjKFDDHHGJo6s8nLL9k99xJeB1M_hjgguXZj-59vSOWbLPA-T2tJ7c5c

When I look back, it seems to me that once vaccines were available, it would have made, and still makes, huge sense to give highest priority to vaccinating people who have to go to work and are in facilities that encourage spread of Covid (and other diseases).  Set up work place vaccination clinics.  Given that some people have strong reactions, schedule things so that 1/5 of the staff get vaccinated each day, and plan for absenteeism to be high for that period.  Seriously, we had outbreaks in meat-packing plants early on, why do they continue to operate at full or close to full staff when personal activities are cut down to tiny numbers?  I have no argument with choirs and theaters and so on being stopped, but some of the big spreaders just kept happening.  And we see it - where are the bad areas in Ontario?  Places like Mississauga, with the factories and warehouses.  Where is it bad here in Ottawa?  The low income neighbourhoods where people have to go to work and be exposed to others.  In fact, it would make sense to stop vaccinating people by age and start vaccinating by exposure risk.  People in care homes of all sorts are already mostly vaccinated.  Finish vaccinating congregate living situations (including jails) but that should not take the lion's share of our vaccination effort at this point.   Vaccinate the people in factories and warehouses.  Vaccinate teachers - but close schools until the end of the academic year.  It's already almost May, why go back for a few weeks?  I know the kids are going stir crazy (like all of us) but outdoor activities are still low risk, open up the parks and the outdoor activities for them.  I'm hoping that by fall vaccines will have been approved for younger age groups, but even if they aren't, by fall most adults should have been vaccinated.

And while we are looking at things to do, improve ventilation.  We know this disease is air-borne.  So is the flu and the common cold.  We save our HVAC costs by recirculating air over and over.  Fresh air going through heat exchangers would help a lot.  Proper filtration would help a lot.  Proper air circulation would help a lot.  For now and for the future.  So air quality matters - in factories and offices and schools.  Improve it.


I'll get off my soap box now.

Part of the problem is that we classified 70-80% of businesses as 'essential'.  Even if the work is anything but.  So if you want to start vaccinating essential workers you have pretty much everyone in the province to vaccinate.  Unless you want to break it down into real and fake 'essential' work.  But that would make the lie very evident.

Of course.  Plus now that vaccine supplies are increasing it makes less and less sense to keep large reserves.  Ford I'm talking about Ontario here.   The UK strategy of getting a first dose into as many people as possible seems to be starting to pay off for them.  A 3 month gap gives the vaccine companies time to tweak second doses for new VOCs. 

I'm just wondering what this will do to Ford, and Kenney, and Legault, when the next round of elections happen.  Will people remember the stupidity, pandering to big business, greed and lack of planning? 

[PoutineLover]

I'm just wondering what this will do to Ford, and Kenney, and Legault, when the next round of elections happen.  Will people remember the stupidity, pandering to big business, greed and lack of planning? 

I sure hope speople remember. It didn't have to be like this, and the current situation is an entirely predictable outcome of the strategy they chose.
In Quebec it probably won't matter though, nobody in Montreal voted for the caq and they got a majority anyway. I don't trust the rest of the province to recognize how much Legault messed up, especially in Montreal.
I think Canada would have had an entirely different pandemic experience without these populist premiers in charge, and it's sad that thousands of people died because of their arrogance, lack of compassion, and ignorance of science.

[GuitarStv]

Well, I guess at least one question was just answered.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suicide-decline-united-states-covid-pandemic/

In summary, suicides went DOWN 6% in the USA in 2020.

I guess isolation in the name of saving lives is different than isolation for other reasons.

Same happened in Canada.  I wonder if the hysterical 'won't someone think of all the mental illness' people will now be advocating for lockdowns as they appear to reduce suicides.  Assuming they cared about those deaths and didn't just want to drink at bars and get haircuts . . .

[scottish]

Victoria made mistakes due to misguided kindness. We hired untrained hotel security guards from non-preferred contractors because we saw it as a chance to increase diversity and give marginalised people a go. We didn't go hard on contact tracing initially (i.e. we let people lie about their whereabouts) because, um I'm not sure. It's quite okay to give people an amnesty so that they don't feel obliged to lie to contact tracers, but to then not penalise people who still lied to contact tracers after getting the amnesty was toothless.

We ended up in a situation where people doing bad things (flouting restrictions), if caught WITH covid, were given full amnesty for contact tracing purposes; but those caught WITHOUT covid were given the usual fine! And now people who can't afford the fines are getting off whereas those who could afford and did pay the fines have had to suck up the financial impact. Talk about a system of perverse incentives.

Yes, the Canadian rules seem a bit like that.    If you arrive at an international airport, you're required to go to a government approved hotel and quarantine at your expense for several days.    However, if you ignore this direction and get in a taxi and go home, the worst that will happen is a summary offence with a fine less than the cost of the hotel stay.

This isn't really misguided kindness though, it seems to be what economics might call reverse incentives, where you have an incentive to do the wrong thing.    I'm sure it's not intentional though.   How could a government bureaucrat be expected to compare the two alternatives before issuing the regulations?

If we gave a fuck about controlling covid there wouldn't be personal recreational travel of any kind . . . which makes enforcing rules an awful lot easier, and the rules themselves an awful lot clearer.  But the we wouldn't get to brag about having every covid variant imported to our province and currently running amok.  So y'know . . . Pretty hard to swallow those kind of consequences.

I'm not disagreeing with you here...  the government is constrained by the charter of rights and freedoms which says that citizens have the right to enter, remain and leave the country.

I've often wondered if we should have a charter of responsibilities and obligations to go with our rights and freedoms.

Personally, I'm not sure why we shouldn't have shut down personal and business travel during the pandemic.    It's annoying to see problems brought into Canada the same way over and over again.    Everybody's allowed to make a mistake once, but making the same mistake thousands of times is pretty egregious.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.579985/full

This Australian study found that depression and anxiety were elevated during the Covid response here.

I don't know if that's because the lockdowns here were more stringent, or because their stringency meant harsher social isolation and economic damage. The economic damage here was unequally compensated too - part-time employees tended to be overcompensated, whereas a lot of self-employed business owners were under compensated. A few of my colleagues who did criminal trial work had their incomes slashed from say $150k to $50k but they were only able to access the same subsidy which applied for someone having her income cut from $15k to $0k. Anyway, the 'negative' effects of covid restrictions do not only come in the form of suicides, or even in the form of mental health generally - every economic dollar lost has a value - particularly where uncompensated; and not every dollar can be compensated because we only have so much general revenue.

[Abe]

Well, I guess at least one question was just answered.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suicide-decline-united-states-covid-pandemic/

In summary, suicides went DOWN 6% in the USA in 2020.

I guess isolation in the name of saving lives is different than isolation for other reasons.

Same happened in Canada.  I wonder if the hysterical 'won't someone think of all the mental illness' people will now be advocating for lockdowns as they appear to reduce suicides.  Assuming they cared about those deaths and didn't just want to drink at bars and get haircuts . . .

+1.

My county's numbers have stayed flat to slightly decreasing despite ending any restrictions in the state (Texas). A recent study found that at least 25% of residents had COVID (antibody tests, not for the vaccine-induced antibody but the viral infection-specific ones). 37% of all residents (with some overlap with the prior group, as people who have recovered from COVID are eligible for vaccination) have received at least one dose of a vaccine. Mask compliance indoors remains high, while outdoors remains moderate to low. This suggests that these measures are sufficient given our current level of immunity within the population.

As an aside, it's interesting how many people who believe in "personal freedoms" seem to not understand that private businesses also have the freedom to require masks. Goes to show they are honestly just selfish and don't have any real principles. Last week I was at a Subway and a guy huffed off without his sandwich (or paying) because he had to wear a mask while inside. That being said, it was the first such incident I saw in the last 6 months (out of ~20 visits to restaurants).

[MudPuppy]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.579985/full

This Australian study found that depression and anxiety were elevated during the Covid response here.

I don't know if that's because the lockdowns here were more stringent, or because their stringency meant harsher social isolation and economic damage. The economic damage here was unequally compensated too - part-time employees tended to be overcompensated, whereas a lot of self-employed business owners were under compensated. A few of my colleagues who did criminal trial work had their incomes slashed from say $150k to $50k but they were only able to access the same subsidy which applied for someone having her income cut from $15k to $0k. Anyway, the 'negative' effects of covid restrictions do not only come in the form of suicides, or even in the form of mental health generally - every economic dollar lost has a value - particularly where uncompensated; and not every dollar can be compensated because we only have so much general revenue.

Covid running rampant also makes people sad who lose loved ones, are sick themselves, or have to care for the ill. There’s no pandemic method that doesn’t result in mental health effects. I pick the sad that makes fewer people dead, since we’re all sad anyway, and I don’t know why you are arguing vehemently for the one with more deaths.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

You're putting up a false dichotomy. It's not an either/or. I think my government did some things that were good (like mandating masks indoors, at a fairly early stage), and some things that contributed to social loss or economic loss without any substantial gain in fighting covid. The unnecessary restrictions included:

- Arbitrary inclusions (e.g. construction) of "essential workers" and arbitrary exclusions (e.g. sole traders working alone at an office) of essential workers
- Lengthy city-wide lockdowns (Melbourne) instead of more localised, rolling, tapered lockdowns (the Sydney method)
- A refusal to give local government areas with nil active cases more freedoms, until every area of the city had been cleared, on no discernible grounds other than "fairness", but fairness doesn't really pay the bills for the people unnecessarily put off work

Basically, I support tailored measures that look at the risk (of transmission) and attempt to deal with some nuance. I don't support measures which are heavy-handed on the assumption that it'll be okay because 'the vulnerable are being financially compensated anyway'. That is no solace to the middle class and upper-middle class who unnecessarily lose income (at little covid gain) because the government wants to pretend we're all on a level playing field in terms of risk.

[middo]

You're putting up a false dichotomy. It's not an either/or. I think my government did some things that were good (like mandating masks indoors, at a fairly early stage), and some things that contributed to social loss or economic loss without any substantial gain in fighting covid. The unnecessary restrictions included:

- Arbitrary inclusions (e.g. construction) of "essential workers" and arbitrary exclusions (e.g. sole traders working alone at an office) of essential workers
- Lengthy city-wide lockdowns (Melbourne) instead of more localised, rolling, tapered lockdowns (the Sydney method)
- A refusal to give local government areas with nil active cases more freedoms, until every area of the city had been cleared, on no discernible grounds other than "fairness", but fairness doesn't really pay the bills for the people unnecessarily put off work

Basically, I support tailored measures that look at the risk (of transmission) and attempt to deal with some nuance. I don't support measures which are heavy-handed on the assumption that it'll be okay because 'the vulnerable are being financially compensated anyway'. That is no solace to the middle class and upper-middle class who unnecessarily lose income (at little covid gain) because the government wants to pretend we're all on a level playing field in terms of risk.

I don't disagree with much of what you have written, in an ideal world.  But arbitrary decisions are often taken because we need a good decision made today, rather than a perfect one made in two weeks time.  And lockdowns of specific areas are much harder to ensure compliance within a city.  It was much easier to ensure compliance with a lockdown of the "insular peninsular" in Sydney's northern beaches than it ever would have been in Melbourne's highly interconnected inner northern suburbs.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

It is true that it's better to aim for the good than the perfect, since the latter is never achievable. But my beef with the Vic government is that their guidelines were already arbitrary and particular in several ways, so if you're going to do that you might as well do it right. For example, we had arbitrary inclusions (abattoir workers, construction workers, greyhound racing workers...) so it made no sense to not do that "right" and include sole traders working alone; as far as I can tell, the government simply caved into certain powerful lobby groups and unions. We also had a convoluted system of worker "licences" (an ID pass of sorts) for essential workers, so if the architecture was there for such a detailed system you might as well do it right.

To use another example, we allowed hotel quarantine guards (and their families) the same freedom to move about the city as every other person, during a period where we suspected the only significant active cases were in hotel quarantine. To me that makes no fucking sense. At all.

It was constantly a case where we erred on the side of leniency/kindness to people in what you might call under-privileged demographics or suburbs - but it was these people who had a higher risk of covid transmission.

I am not saying those people should have been specifically targeted - but more that policy should be developed without any heed to "optics" and in a way that treats people without fear or favour. In this case some demographics were treated with undue favour.

Sydney did it so much better.

[habanero]

Yes, the Canadian rules seem a bit like that.    If you arrive at an international airport, you're required to go to a government approved hotel and quarantine at your expense for several days.    However, if you ignore this direction and get in a taxi and go home, the worst that will happen is a summary offence with a fine less than the cost of the hotel stay.

This isn't really misguided kindness though, it seems to be what economics might call reverse incentives, where you have an incentive to do the wrong thing.    I'm sure it's not intentional though.   How could a government bureaucrat be expected to compare the two alternatives before issuing the regulations?

We (Norway) have a bit the same system. You can ditch quarantine upon retnurning from abroad and you basically risk a fine, around 2500 US which is a lot of money for some and pocket change for others. The main problem is that going abroad (and returning) isn't illegal. In fact, free movement is a constitutional right you have and the only cases where you are explicitly forbidden from leaving the country is if you are pending trial or military service.

While going on holiday is strongly discouraged these days it ain't illegal and probably can't really be. The hotel quarantine is first and foremost a major hassle and inconvenience and has pretty much nothing to do with preventing the virus from spreading. You don't have to stay in your room the whole time, you can go outside for a walk etcetc so it's basically like quarantining at home, just more expensive and much more boring. If you are infected there are other rules (isolation) but that has another legal basis.

It very much is and looks like a half-assed measure aimed at making less people travel abroad in the first place. Our quarantine hotel also only is relevant for "non-essential travel" which of course opens up an entirely different can of worms as there are a lot of grey areas and you can argue for and against the necessity of any trip abroad pretty much.

So you are, by going on a "non-essential" trip essentially being punished for something that isn't illegal in the first place, there is no actual trial or anything remotely close to it, there is a border official who migh or might not bother really looking at your documentation of purpose of trip and there is nowehre you can appeal the verdict. It's a very, very murky area and I'd be surprised if it held up against the simplest scrutiny in an actual court.

[Plina]

Yes, the Canadian rules seem a bit like that.    If you arrive at an international airport, you're required to go to a government approved hotel and quarantine at your expense for several days.    However, if you ignore this direction and get in a taxi and go home, the worst that will happen is a summary offence with a fine less than the cost of the hotel stay.

This isn't really misguided kindness though, it seems to be what economics might call reverse incentives, where you have an incentive to do the wrong thing.    I'm sure it's not intentional though.   How could a government bureaucrat be expected to compare the two alternatives before issuing the regulations?

We (Norway) have a bit the same system. You can ditch quarantine upon retnurning from abroad and you basically risk a fine, around 2500 US which is a lot of money for some and pocket change for others. The main problem is that going abroad (and returning) isn't illegal. In fact, free movement is a constitutional right you have and the only cases where you are explicitly forbidden from leaving the country is if you are pending trial or military service.

While going on holiday is strongly discouraged these days it ain't illegal and probably can't really be. The hotel quarantine is first and foremost a major hassle and inconvenience and has pretty much nothing to do with preventing the virus from spreading. You don't have to stay in your room the whole time, you can go outside for a walk etcetc so it's basically like quarantining at home, just more expensive and much more boring. If you are infected there are other rules (isolation) but that has another legal basis.

It very much is and looks like a half-assed measure aimed at making less people travel abroad in the first place. Our quarantine hotel also only is relevant for "non-essential travel" which of course opens up an entirely different can of worms as there are a lot of grey areas and you can argue for and against the necessity of any trip abroad pretty much.

So you are, by going on a "non-essential" trip essentially being punished for something that isn't illegal in the first place, there is no actual trial or anything remotely close to it, there is a border official who migh or might not bother really looking at your documentation of purpose of trip and there is nowehre you can appeal the verdict. It's a very, very murky area and I'd be surprised if it held up against the simplest scrutiny in an actual court.

The Swedish foreign ministry advice against trips to countries outside EU, EES and UK, which means that many of the normal travelinsurances doesn't work in the those countries. You have to pay for special insurance which makes it more expensive and a real deterrent. Also the travelinsurance doesn’t cover getting stuck in some country. Swedish citizens are urged to test themselves when coming home and stay home for 7 days. For non citizens it is a lot trickier to get into the country but you basically have to have a negative test and come from a list of approved countries. I think it would be against the constitution to try forbid travel outside of the country but it is possible to make it a lot more difficult to travel.

[Freedomin5]

Yes, the Canadian rules seem a bit like that.    If you arrive at an international airport, you're required to go to a government approved hotel and quarantine at your expense for several days.    However, if you ignore this direction and get in a taxi and go home, the worst that will happen is a summary offence with a fine less than the cost of the hotel stay.

This isn't really misguided kindness though, it seems to be what economics might call reverse incentives, where you have an incentive to do the wrong thing.    I'm sure it's not intentional though.   How could a government bureaucrat be expected to compare the two alternatives before issuing the regulations?

We (Norway) have a bit the same system. You can ditch quarantine upon retnurning from abroad and you basically risk a fine, around 2500 US which is a lot of money for some and pocket change for others. The main problem is that going abroad (and returning) isn't illegal. In fact, free movement is a constitutional right you have and the only cases where you are explicitly forbidden from leaving the country is if you are pending trial or military service.

While going on holiday is strongly discouraged these days it ain't illegal and probably can't really be. The hotel quarantine is first and foremost a major hassle and inconvenience and has pretty much nothing to do with preventing the virus from spreading. You don't have to stay in your room the whole time, you can go outside for a walk etcetc so it's basically like quarantining at home, just more expensive and much more boring. If you are infected there are other rules (isolation) but that has another legal basis.

It very much is and looks like a half-assed measure aimed at making less people travel abroad in the first place. Our quarantine hotel also only is relevant for "non-essential travel" which of course opens up an entirely different can of worms as there are a lot of grey areas and you can argue for and against the necessity of any trip abroad pretty much.

So you are, by going on a "non-essential" trip essentially being punished for something that isn't illegal in the first place, there is no actual trial or anything remotely close to it, there is a border official who migh or might not bother really looking at your documentation of purpose of trip and there is nowehre you can appeal the verdict. It's a very, very murky area and I'd be surprised if it held up against the simplest scrutiny in an actual court.

The Swedish foreign ministry advice against trips to countries outside EU, EES and UK, which means that many of the normal travelinsurance doesn’t work in the those countries. You have to pay for special insurance which makes it more expensive and a real deterrent. Also the travelinsurance doesn’t cover getting stuck in some country. Swedish citizens are urged to test themselves when coming home and stay home for 7 days. For non citizens it is a lot trickier to get into the country but you basically have to have a negative test and come from a list of approved countries. I think it would be against the constitution to try forbid travel outside of the country but it is possible to make it a lot more difficult to travel.

As a Canadian stuck overseas who seriously considered the logistics of flying back to Canada this summer, Scottish’s description of Canada’s quarantine requirements isn’t entirely accurate.

You only quarantine at a government approved hotel for three days while you wait for the results of your COVID test. Once you get the negative result, you can drive yourself to your place of self-quarantine. The hotel stay will cost about $1000 + tax. You have to submit your quarantine plan and proof of hotel and test registration before boarding your flight, and your plan has to be approved. You show the approval slip to board the flight. If you miss your flight or don’t end up using the hotel (because you decide to break the law and skip the hotel quarantine) you’re still charged for the 3-day hotel stay, plus you pay a fine. How do they know if you’ve skipped the hotel quarantine? The hotel submits your information when you check in. And you have to confirm your arrival at the hotel via the ArriveCAN app. So if you break the law, you pay for the quarantine hotel and you pay a fine.

Also, only Canadian residents are allowed in the country at the moment. And there are several more requirements in place before and after you fly that I haven’t bothered listing because it’s not relevant to the quarantine hotel/pay a fine discussion. The whole process has been pretty well thought out by whomever in the government who is making the decisions.

[scottish]

I may have misunderstood - or been misled - by the article I read.    I haven't been out of the country since 2019 so I'm definitely not speaking from experience.   

I'll see if I can track down the article.

[jrhampt]

I miss Canada. I’d like to go there again and have maple sugar pie.

[scottish]

I haven't been able to find the article I recall reading.    However, this article in CBC news generally supports my comments.   It describes first hand accounts of 2 people who just walked away from the 3-day quarantine.     It appears they have not been fined, at least not yet.    And it's not clear if the hotel billed them for their stay.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/quarantine-hotel-covid-19-travel-canada-fine-1.5988378

There's another story on global news about a woman who's reservation was lost by the hotel.    She was taken to a government funded hotel (the Hilton on Dixon Rd in Toronto?) at no cost to her.   Even though she's not covering the expense, this sounds to me like a better situation than trying to punish travelers with a big hotel bill.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7753422/covid-quarantine-hotels-bills-canada/

From your description, it sounds like there's a fairly comprehensive process established at the departing airport.    The news stories provide evidence that once you're back in country the process starts to fall apart.   It's not clear to me how many of the violators are actually getting fined.

I'll stand by my original comment - the purpose of the quarantine should be to stop/reduce the spread of the virus by international travelers.    The program as setup seems to apply a reverse incentive, encouraging people to avoid the quarantine - and tries to punish them for doing something they're allowed to do.

Many of our government actions seem to be like this.   The new, tough "stay-at-home" order in council (Ontario) is actually not very new, or very tough.    The details aren't reported in the press releases, but if you track down the actual order, you're allowed to leave home for all sorts of reasons:
- you can leave your home to exercise outside.    There's no limitation on where you exercise.   I like to go for a run in Quebec Sunday mornings (it's hilly over there).   It's completely allowed by the official rules, but we've been told "this is not the time to go hiking in Quebec"
- you can leave your home to go stay at your vacation home.    You have to stay at the vacation home for either less than 24 hours (so you can do maintenance on the property) or over 14 days.

But the police can stop you and ask where you're going and why.    It's nuts.   You're allowed to do all this stuff, so why do we need police checkpoints at the provincial border?   

[Freedomin5]

I may have misunderstood - or been misled - by the article I read.    I haven't been out of the country since 2019 so I'm definitely not speaking from experience.   

I'll see if I can track down the article.

Here’s the Government of Canada website explaining the entire process in detail.

https://travel.gc.ca/travel-covid/travel-restrictions/flying-canada-checklist

[RetiredAt63]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

[GuitarStv]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

Yeah.  Funny how stuff like that doesn't happen when you have unionized teachers.

[frugalnacho]

They went full retard. 

[scottish]

There are full-retard scientifically illiterate whack jobs all over the place.   

https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/windsor-ont-store-posts-sign-barring-those-who-received-the-covid-19-vaccine-from-shopping-inside-1.5390844

In this case, the store will either change its mind or go out of business due to lack of customers.  :-)

[former player]

I blame the evangelicals and their decades-long denial of evolution - it has set the scene for scientific illiteracy in a very significant proportion of the US population

[Michael in ABQ]

I blame the evangelicals and their decades-long denial of evolution - it has set the scene for scientific illiteracy in a very significant proportion of the US population

Anti-vaxxers run the political gamut. You've got the ones on the left (hippies, natural living, etc.) and the ones on the right (conspiracy theories, micro chips, sterilization, etc.). The measles outbreaks that have occurred in recent years among unvaccinated children are usually in wealthy liberal areas, not necessarily strongholds of evangelical Christianity - though multiple hotspots were linked to Orthodox Jews as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_resurgence_in_the_United_States

[OtherJen]

Yeah, this isn’t good. ‘This Is a Catastrophe.’ In India, Illness Is Everywhere. (NY Times)

A new variant known here as “the double mutant” may be doing a lot of the damage. The science is still early but from what we know, this variant contains one mutation that may make the virus more contagious and another that may make it partially resistant to vaccines. Doctors are pretty scared. Some we have spoken to said they had been vaccinated twice and still got seriously ill, a very bad sign.

[former player]

I blame the evangelicals and their decades-long denial of evolution - it has set the scene for scientific illiteracy in a very significant proportion of the US population

Anti-vaxxers run the political gamut. You've got the ones on the left (hippies, natural living, etc.) and the ones on the right (conspiracy theories, micro chips, sterilization, etc.). The measles outbreaks that have occurred in recent years among unvaccinated children are usually in wealthy liberal areas, not necessarily strongholds of evangelical Christianity - though multiple hotspots were linked to Orthodox Jews as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_resurgence_in_the_United_States

I agree the anti-science thing is across the spectrum now.   But I think that what has made it so acceptable and widespread across so many lines of thought in the USA is the decades-long anti-evolution battle by evangelicals.  They are the original virus that gave space to all these subsequent variants, as it were.

[Freedomin5]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

Couldn’t that be considered discrimination based on personal beliefs? I believe in God — you can’t discriminate against me and refuse to employ me because I believe in God. In a similar vein, I believe in the efficacy of vaccines. You can’t discriminate against me and refuse to employ me because I believe in vaccines.

[RetiredAt63]

There are full-retard scientifically illiterate whack jobs all over the place.   

https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/windsor-ont-store-posts-sign-barring-those-who-received-the-covid-19-vaccine-from-shopping-inside-1.5390844

In this case, the store will either change its mind or go out of business due to lack of customers.  :-)

How would they even know?  However if I were a potential customer I wouldn't shop there because I could not be sure they are following the other Covid precautions.  I wonder how well they are set up for curb-side pickup?  Actually, since they are in Ontario and not in the essential category, they should be doing curbside pickup and mail orders only anyway.

[NorthernIkigai]

There are full-retard scientifically illiterate whack jobs all over the place.   

https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/windsor-ont-store-posts-sign-barring-those-who-received-the-covid-19-vaccine-from-shopping-inside-1.5390844

In this case, the store will either change its mind or go out of business due to lack of customers.  :-)

How would they even know?

Maybe they have a microchip reader at the door... ;-)

[alsoknownasDean]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

I was going to mention something along the lines of 'well it is Florida', but similar attitudes do exist among some here too, especially among the 'natural healer' types.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-04-27/covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-anti-vax-conspiracy-friends/100022786

The outbreaks in India are very worrisome. Shortages of oxygen and all, and over 300,000 new cases per day for the last week (and that's apparently understated). There's been an uptick in cases in hotel quarantine locally and flights from India to here have been suspended for the next few weeks.

Here, I'm now back in the office full-time, and the only time I need to wear a mask is on public transport. I'm extra cautious with using hand sanitiser after taking the train.

[GuitarStv]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

Couldn’t that be considered discrimination based on personal beliefs? I believe in God — you can’t discriminate against me and refuse to employ me because I believe in God. In a similar vein, I believe in the efficacy of vaccines. You can’t discriminate against me and refuse to employ me because I believe in vaccines.

Subtle difference.  It's not a case of discriminating against you because you believe in vaccines.

Efficacy of vaccine is not a belief.  There's no need for faith of any kind.  It's based on data and observation.
 I think a reasonable argument could be made that the ban is made based on faith (not evidence) and is punishing people who do not share that same faith though.

[RetiredAt63]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

Couldn’t that be considered discrimination based on personal beliefs? I believe in God — you can’t discriminate against me and refuse to employ me because I believe in God. In a similar vein, I believe in the efficacy of vaccines. You can’t discriminate against me and refuse to employ me because I believe in vaccines.

Subtle difference.  It's not a case of discriminating against you because you believe in vaccines.

Efficacy of vaccine is not a belief.  There's no need for faith of any kind.  It's based on data and observation.
 I think a reasonable argument could be made that the ban is made based on faith (not evidence) and is punishing people who do not share that same faith though.

The Anglican church is fine with the vaccine, it is actually calling for equal world-wide access.   So if a store bans me for doing something my church is fine with, isn't that religious discrimination?

[windytrail]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

Anyone else notice how the reasoning here is similar to that of people who think the vaccinated should still wear masks indefinitely? "You know, the variants and stuff...and we just don't know enough yet."

[GuitarStv]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

Couldn’t that be considered discrimination based on personal beliefs? I believe in God — you can’t discriminate against me and refuse to employ me because I believe in God. In a similar vein, I believe in the efficacy of vaccines. You can’t discriminate against me and refuse to employ me because I believe in vaccines.

Subtle difference.  It's not a case of discriminating against you because you believe in vaccines.

Efficacy of vaccine is not a belief.  There's no need for faith of any kind.  It's based on data and observation.
 I think a reasonable argument could be made that the ban is made based on faith (not evidence) and is punishing people who do not share that same faith though.

The Anglican church is fine with the vaccine, it is actually calling for equal world-wide access.   So if a store bans me for doing something my church is fine with, isn't that religious discrimination?

No, because vaccination is not it's not a matter of faith or tenet of the religion.

[bacchi]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

Anyone else notice how the reasoning here is similar to that of people who think the vaccinated should still wear masks indefinitely? "You know, the variants and stuff...and we just don't know enough yet."

No.

Who said that we should wear masks indefinitely? In this thread? Link?

[windytrail]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

Anyone else notice how the reasoning here is similar to that of people who think the vaccinated should still wear masks indefinitely? "You know, the variants and stuff...and we just don't know enough yet."

No.

Who said that we should wear masks indefinitely? In this thread? Link?

See my post from April 6, which linked to this article:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/California-to-eliminate-tier-system-fully-reopen-16080761.php

The state’s mask mandate will remain in place indefinitely even as businesses and other operations reopen, state officials said. That’s largely to continue protecting those who will not be immunized by the summer, in particular children who are not yet approved for vaccines.

“There is no timeline for ending the mask requirement,” Ghaly said. “We continue to follow the data and science to make adjustments to that requirement down the road.”

This article was from last week:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Should-California-end-its-outdoor-mask-mandate-16122486.php

Some experts, however, say that dropping the outdoor mandate would be moving too quickly.

“We have 30 of the 50 states showing an uptick in cases. We’re averaging over 65,000 new cases a day. We’ve got a more infectious variant that is now the dominant strain. The bottom line is it’s not clear what direction the United States is going in,” said Dr. John Swartzberg, an infectious disease expert at UC Berkeley. “This would be an imprudent time to get rid of mask mandates.”

This was from GuitarStv on March 24:

We're still studying the long term impacts of this disease.  My point is certainly not to say that having had covid is the end of the world and doom . . . but it is to indicate a reason why we should temper our exuberance to return to normal as quickly as possible.  While we certainly need to proceed with opening things back up, we also should continue to take annoying but necessary common sense precautions (mask mandates, social distancing, handwashing) until our experts tell us that we've achieved herd immunity.

[bacchi]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

Anyone else notice how the reasoning here is similar to that of people who think the vaccinated should still wear masks indefinitely? "You know, the variants and stuff...and we just don't know enough yet."

No.

Who said that we should wear masks indefinitely? In this thread? Link?

See my post from April 6, which linked to this article:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/California-to-eliminate-tier-system-fully-reopen-16080761.php

The state’s mask mandate will remain in place indefinitely even as businesses and other operations reopen, state officials said. That’s largely to continue protecting those who will not be immunized by the summer, in particular children who are not yet approved for vaccines.

“There is no timeline for ending the mask requirement,” Ghaly said. “We continue to follow the data and science to make adjustments to that requirement down the road.”

This article was from last week:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Should-California-end-its-outdoor-mask-mandate-16122486.php

Some experts, however, say that dropping the outdoor mandate would be moving too quickly.

“We have 30 of the 50 states showing an uptick in cases. We’re averaging over 65,000 new cases a day. We’ve got a more infectious variant that is now the dominant strain. The bottom line is it’s not clear what direction the United States is going in,” said Dr. John Swartzberg, an infectious disease expert at UC Berkeley. “This would be an imprudent time to get rid of mask mandates.”

This was from GuitarStv on March 24:

We're still studying the long term impacts of this disease.  My point is certainly not to say that having had covid is the end of the world and doom . . . but it is to indicate a reason why we should temper our exuberance to return to normal as quickly as possible.  While we certainly need to proceed with opening things back up, we also should continue to take annoying but necessary common sense precautions (mask mandates, social distancing, handwashing) until our experts tell us that we've achieved herd immunity.

Fair enough but do you think this will be in place years from now?

The CDC just released updated guidelines on vaccinated people outside and in small gatherings, sans mask. What makes you think that they wouldn't eventually declare that masks aren't needed because enough people are vaccinated and we just need boosters every year?

I'd guess that mask mandates are entirely gone by the fall unless a variant starts filling up hospitals again.

[windytrail]

I do believe that the CDC is taking a sensible approach, which will result in the end of mask mandates at the federal level soon enough.

But there are a minority of people who think we should have the mask mandates - even outdoors - indefinitely. It's troubling that those people include public health officials with enormous power over our lives.

For example, the shelter-in-place order in my county still requires:

When people need to leave their place of residence for the limited purposes allowed in this Order, they must strictly comply with the following Social Distancing Requirements unless expressly exempted by this Order or the State’s Orders and Guidance:
a.Maintaining at least six-foot social distancing from individuals who are not part of the same household or living unit.
b.Wearing a face covering when outside the home, consistent with the State’s Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings.

(https://covid-19.acgov.org/covid19-assets/docs/shelter-in-place/21-01-social-distancing-eng.pdf)

These orders have no basis in reality.

[GuitarStv]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

Anyone else notice how the reasoning here is similar to that of people who think the vaccinated should still wear masks indefinitely? "You know, the variants and stuff...and we just don't know enough yet."

No.

Who said that we should wear masks indefinitely? In this thread? Link?

See my post from April 6, which linked to this article:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/California-to-eliminate-tier-system-fully-reopen-16080761.php

The state’s mask mandate will remain in place indefinitely even as businesses and other operations reopen, state officials said. That’s largely to continue protecting those who will not be immunized by the summer, in particular children who are not yet approved for vaccines.

“There is no timeline for ending the mask requirement,” Ghaly said. “We continue to follow the data and science to make adjustments to that requirement down the road.”

This article was from last week:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Should-California-end-its-outdoor-mask-mandate-16122486.php

Some experts, however, say that dropping the outdoor mandate would be moving too quickly.

“We have 30 of the 50 states showing an uptick in cases. We’re averaging over 65,000 new cases a day. We’ve got a more infectious variant that is now the dominant strain. The bottom line is it’s not clear what direction the United States is going in,” said Dr. John Swartzberg, an infectious disease expert at UC Berkeley. “This would be an imprudent time to get rid of mask mandates.”

This was from GuitarStv on March 24:

We're still studying the long term impacts of this disease.  My point is certainly not to say that having had covid is the end of the world and doom . . . but it is to indicate a reason why we should temper our exuberance to return to normal as quickly as possible.  While we certainly need to proceed with opening things back up, we also should continue to take annoying but necessary common sense precautions (mask mandates, social distancing, handwashing) until our experts tell us that we've achieved herd immunity.

So who said indefinitely?

I did not.  I hate wearing masks, and as soon as I'm told that we can go without them safely that's what I'll do.

[Cool Friend]

I do believe that the CDC is taking a sensible approach, which will result in the end of mask mandates at the federal level soon enough.

But there are a minority of people who think we should have the mask mandates - even outdoors - indefinitely. It's troubling that those people include public health officials with enormous power over our lives.

For example, the shelter-in-place order in my county still requires:

When people need to leave their place of residence for the limited purposes allowed in this Order, they must strictly comply with the following Social Distancing Requirements unless expressly exempted by this Order or the State’s Orders and Guidance:
a.Maintaining at least six-foot social distancing from individuals who are not part of the same household or living unit.
b.Wearing a face covering when outside the home, consistent with the State’s Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings.

(https://covid-19.acgov.org/covid19-assets/docs/shelter-in-place/21-01-social-distancing-eng.pdf)

These orders have no basis in reality.

"Indefinitely" isn't a synonym for "eternally."

[bacchi]

I do believe that the CDC is taking a sensible approach, which will result in the end of mask mandates at the federal level soon enough.

But there are a minority of people who think we should have the mask mandates - even outdoors - indefinitely. It's troubling that those people include public health officials with enormous power over our lives.

For example, the shelter-in-place order in my county still requires:

When people need to leave their place of residence for the limited purposes allowed in this Order, they must strictly comply with the following Social Distancing Requirements unless expressly exempted by this Order or the State’s Orders and Guidance:
a.Maintaining at least six-foot social distancing from individuals who are not part of the same household or living unit.
b.Wearing a face covering when outside the home, consistent with the State’s Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings.

(https://covid-19.acgov.org/covid19-assets/docs/shelter-in-place/21-01-social-distancing-eng.pdf)

These orders have no basis in reality.

Alameda County downgraded to "Orange Tier" at the end of March because their numbers have improved.

https://www.alamedaca.gov/ALERTS-COVID-19

This "masks are here to stay!" belief seems like a lot of hand-wringing. Why would Alameda County downgrade if they wanted to eternally* restrict freedoms? Wouldn't they push up the scare tactics and restrict movement outside the house? What kind of incompetent dictators are running the show over there?!?



* thank you, cool friend

[windytrail]

So who said indefinitely?

I did not.  I hate wearing masks, and as soon as I'm told that we can go without them safely that's what I'll do.

I just quoted articles that specifically used that word. You did not say that word specifically, but rather said we should all wear masks "until our experts tell us that we've achieved herd immunity." Is that what you still believe? When will we reach herd immunity, and how will we know we have reached it when it comes?

Indefinite means "not clearly defined" but it also means "not precise or exact." Herd immunity is an indefinite concept.

[dmc]

No more mask requirements here.  I won’t be wearing one unless where I’m going requires it.  My wife and I have both been vaccinated,  and pretty much everyone by now who wants a shot has had time to get it.

We are going to start traveling again this summer.

[GuitarStv]

So who said indefinitely?

I did not.  I hate wearing masks, and as soon as I'm told that we can go without them safely that's what I'll do.

I just quoted articles that specifically used that word. You did not say that word specifically, but rather said we should all wear masks "until our experts tell us that we've achieved herd immunity." Is that what you still believe? When will we reach herd immunity, and how will we know we have reached it when it comes?

Indefinite means "not clearly defined" but it also means "not precise or exact." Herd immunity is an indefinite concept.

'Indefinitely' is the word that you used, not indefinite.   Indefinitely means 'without a foreseeable end' or 'for an unlimited time'.

I agree with you, there isn't a precise percentage definition of 'herd immunity'.  Generally with reference to covid-19 it has been used to refer to a point where a majority of the population has developed immunity so that transmission of the of the disease (if it still occurs) is limited.  This seems to be a sensible course to take, as re-opening before this occurs will lead to a scenario where infections continue unless measures to prevent them (like wearing masks) are taken.  Estimates that I've read on this seem to range between 60 - 75% of the population for this.

Certainly not indefinitely long periods of time.

[RetiredAt63]

My mind is blown.  This is insane.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56905752

Couldn’t that be considered discrimination based on personal beliefs? I believe in God — you can’t discriminate against me and refuse to employ me because I believe in God. In a similar vein, I believe in the efficacy of vaccines. You can’t discriminate against me and refuse to employ me because I believe in vaccines.

Subtle difference.  It's not a case of discriminating against you because you believe in vaccines.

Efficacy of vaccine is not a belief.  There's no need for faith of any kind.  It's based on data and observation.
 I think a reasonable argument could be made that the ban is made based on faith (not evidence) and is punishing people who do not share that same faith though.

The Anglican church is fine with the vaccine, it is actually calling for equal world-wide access.   So if a store bans me for doing something my church is fine with, isn't that religious discrimination?

No, because vaccination is not it's not a matter of faith or tenet of the religion.

I was thinking along the lines of their religion says not to vaccinate, mine says to vaccinate, so not allowing me entry because my religious belief causes me to be vaccinated would be religious discrimination.

Not that I would want to shop any place that is not observing adequate precautions.  Idiot twits.

[RetiredAt63]

Is Tucker Carlson always a nut job or is Covid bringing out the worst in him?  I just saw footage of an anti-mask rant where he calls on people to call the police or child protective services when children are wearing masks.

[OtherJen]

Is Tucker Carlson always a nut job or is Covid bringing out the worst in him?  I just saw footage of an anti-mask rant where he calls on people to call the police or child protective services when children are wearing masks.

Both. He's objectively a white supremacist, homophobe, and Q-cultist. COVID paranoia is making all of those things worse.

[mizzourah2006]

No more mask requirements here.  I won’t be wearing one unless where I’m going requires it.  My wife and I have both been vaccinated,  and pretty much everyone by now who wants a shot has had time to get it.

We are going to start traveling again this summer.

Yup, I'm 2 weeks out from my 2nd dose as is the wife and we are extremely healthy anyway. Neither of us even had a reaction to either doses. I'll wear a mask when a business requires it, but we're going back to normal. Going to a baseball game in a week, booked a family trip to Disney in June, going to Six Flags in July, and going on an anniversary trip to Nashville in July.

[RetiredAt63]

Is Tucker Carlson always a nut job or is Covid bringing out the worst in him?  I just saw footage of an anti-mask rant where he calls on people to call the police or child protective services when children are wearing masks.

Both. He's objectively a white supremacist, homophobe, and Q-cultist. COVID paranoia is making all of those things worse.

Thanks.  I keep hearing his name lately but this was the first time I actually watched him.  He said some weird things about Canada and our lockdowns a week or 2 ago, which is when he first really showed up in my radar.