Where do you stand on "living with Covid", "getting back to normal"

[Hotstreak]

I resumed full normal activities in early summer 2020, but continued to wear a mask as required by law in Oregon.  As of a few weeks ago, I am no longer wearing a mask at all, in indoor settings (again, this is illegal).  Compliance for indoor mask wearing is somewhere around 50%-95% depending on the store.  Some places, like the gym, certain sporting good stores, local bars, have compliance closer to 10% or 20%. COVID is over and has been over since vaccines were widely available, and I'm done pretending otherwise by following along with Oregon's poorly justified COVID mandates.

I dare you to say "Covid is over" to the families of the approximately 7500 people who died of Covid in the US in the last week alone, never mind around the world.  I'm sure they would appreciate knowing that once they are done burying their dead. 

I am happy to!  Maybe some of them will read this message.

[MOD NOTE: Forum Rule #1.]

[Dicey]

I just attended a 95th birthday party for a dear friend tonight. Thirty people at a private home, not a mask in sight. AFIK, everyone is triple vaxxed, but I'm still going to be nervous for a few days.

OTOH, my BIL died of Covid last week. He, my sister and all of their children and children's SO's are anti-vaxxers. What a crying shame and unbelievable waste of the rest of his life.

[nereo]

So here is what I don't understand, for those of you saying you are vaccinated but still unwilling to go to parties or restaurants, what is it you are afraid of? Is it taking COVID to someone you love that is vulnerable or is it getting COVID?

Fair question. For us, we have children too young to be vaccinated. One child in their daycare class just tested positive, so in addition to the small risk that children have of serious cases, that means 10 days of no daycare for all the parents in the class.

This describes us as well: child too young for the vaccine and any positive test shuts down daycare for 10 days for everyone (has happened twice in the last two months). We don’t want our kid getting sick and we don’t want to be the parents who screwed up everyone else’s schedules.

Plus, we have an 89 year old grandfather on hospice and almost no immune system left. I’m not going to be the one to kill him

Our state is at the worst point it’s been with infections, hospitalizations and deaths, by far. Roughly 70% of those in the hospital are unvaccinated, but the scary corollary is the almost a third ARE vaccinated, out of a sample population where most are vaccinated. We are masked at work, not going to large gatherings indoors, holding most of our meetings virtually and not traveling by plane or train. But I do not understand the sentiment about “not living”… our lives were majorly disrupted during lockdown but that’s over and we are able to live fairly normally and without major regrets. It’s far less of a disruption than had I, say, broken and ankle.

[former player]

At least one thing in my life is not going to get back to "normal", I've been having groceries delivered since the start of the pandemic and it's a big improvement in my life to be able to check off a list on the computer and pick things up at the end of the lane.  Quicker, cheaper and easier than driving a 30 mile round trip to the supermarket.  Probably more environmentally friendly too, it cuts out on buying the incidental crap that creeps into the trolley when walking round a supermarket and the deliveries are limited to times when a truck is coming out in my direction in any case.

When I did go into town for shopping I would often meet a friend for coffee so that has been a loss, although I do still see them at other times.

[OtherJen]

I've gone back to semi-normal. I'm fully vaccinated and boosted, but I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain. I eat at restaurants on occasion, although I try to avoid peak hours. I'm an atheist, so no houses of worship. I have no problem socializing freely indoors with other vaccinated people and have done so several times.

Last night, my choir performed its first concert since Feb. 2020. We were fully masked, just as we were at every rehearsal, as the director couldn't mandate vaccination (we're supported by municipal parks and rec). The audience was mostly masked. We didn't do our usual coffee and cookies reception afterwards. Everyone was good natured about the limitations because we all want to resume some normalcy, even if it's not 100%.

[stoaX]

Back to doing everything without thinking about who may or may not be vaccinated.  Wearing a mask only where required / enforced.

Since Mrs. StoaX and I are both triple vaxxed, the statement above describes our situation. 

[Ron Scott]

Great thread. I’m OK with “new normal“.

Vax 3X
Mask indoors in public.

In NYC—back to live theater (vax IDs checked at door + masks)
In Florida—limit commerce to grocery and outdoor dining

Flying ~4/5 round trips a year

Friends, vax types, welcomed in my house
Friends, anti-vax types, texting—then wash hands

Lots of patience with those who are more afraid of getting sick.
No patience for those who don’t seem to care about others’ Covid concerns

Unprecedented excuse to avoid accompanying wife to shop clothes/home stuff

[herbgeek]

We're not back to normal in this house, as I have a spouse who won't get vaccinated, and strongly believes his monthly ivermectin and vitamin regime will keep him safe.  (huge eyeroll)  I also have a vaccinated mom in assisted living.  So we haven't traveled much- just day trips mostly in the car.  We aren't big on group events anyways, so don't feel I'm missing out there.  We occasionally go to breweries for a beer, outside if possible, but never when its busy.

The one thing I do miss is being able to do things like attend museums or botanic gardens on the whim of the moment.  They all require tickets ahead of time.  I'm hesitant to do things like fly to Florida for some warm weather, not so much because I'm worried about getting sick, but that I don't want to deal with angry pushy anti-maskers.  I also am reluctant to be too far from home in the event my spouse does catch it.  Dealing with a serious illness is stressful enough, never mind dealing with a medical system when you are far from home.

[GodlessCommie]

I dare you to say "Covid is over" to the families of the approximately 7500 people who died of Covid in the US in the last week alone, never mind around the world.  I'm sure they would appreciate knowing that once they are done burying their dead. 

I am happy to!  Maybe some of them will read this message.

This should be shocking, but it is not.

Well, maybe it still is for readers outside the US.

[GodlessCommie]

I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain.

This is what "back to normal" crowd studiously avoids comprehending. The blast radius of our actions is pretty wide, even if we are triple vaccinated and have no immunocomprimised people in our immediate surrounding.

But, as we saw above, fuck grieving families.

Which, again, is not as shocking as it should be. I mean, crazies harassed the grieving parents of Sandy Hook parents for years, and Sandy Hook did not chase them out, nor was Alex Jones forced into well-deserved hiding. We have a damn high tolerance for cruelty in this country, in so many forms and so many ways. 

[FINate]

I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain.

This is what "back to normal" crowd studiously avoids comprehending. The blast radius of our actions is pretty wide, even if we are triple vaccinated and have no immunocomprimised people in our immediate surrounding.

But, as we saw above, fuck grieving families.

Which, again, is not as shocking as it should be. I mean, crazies harassed the grieving parents of Sandy Hook parents for years, and Sandy Hook did not chase them out, nor was Alex Jones forced into well-deserved hiding. We have a damn high tolerance for cruelty in this country, in so many forms and so many ways.

It's pretty widely accepted that COVID-19 is never going away and will keep mutating and circulating. We have effective vaccines, antivirals, and other treatment options. If we don't start going back to normal now, then when? In your opinion what's the criteria? Because "not normal" is not without a toll on human lives.

[former player]

I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain.

This is what "back to normal" crowd studiously avoids comprehending. The blast radius of our actions is pretty wide, even if we are triple vaccinated and have no immunocomprimised people in our immediate surrounding.

But, as we saw above, fuck grieving families.

Which, again, is not as shocking as it should be. I mean, crazies harassed the grieving parents of Sandy Hook parents for years, and Sandy Hook did not chase them out, nor was Alex Jones forced into well-deserved hiding. We have a damn high tolerance for cruelty in this country, in so many forms and so many ways.

It's pretty widely accepted that COVID-19 is never going away and will keep mutating and circulating. We have effective vaccines, antivirals, and other treatment options. If we don't start going back to normal now, then when? In your opinion what's the criteria? Because "not normal" is not without a toll on human lives.

"Normal" doesn't mean "good".  Normal in rich world terms is people leading unhealthy lives, eating crap and being obese and trashing the planet through long-distance travel.  "Getting back to normal" means getting back to something that is undeniably unsustainable.  I don't want us to get back to that "normal".   We all need to choose to live local, healthy lives, staying within reasonable geographic limits and having most of our close contacts with our nearest and dearest.

[FINate]

I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain.

This is what "back to normal" crowd studiously avoids comprehending. The blast radius of our actions is pretty wide, even if we are triple vaccinated and have no immunocomprimised people in our immediate surrounding.

But, as we saw above, fuck grieving families.

Which, again, is not as shocking as it should be. I mean, crazies harassed the grieving parents of Sandy Hook parents for years, and Sandy Hook did not chase them out, nor was Alex Jones forced into well-deserved hiding. We have a damn high tolerance for cruelty in this country, in so many forms and so many ways.

It's pretty widely accepted that COVID-19 is never going away and will keep mutating and circulating. We have effective vaccines, antivirals, and other treatment options. If we don't start going back to normal now, then when? In your opinion what's the criteria? Because "not normal" is not without a toll on human lives.

"Normal" doesn't mean "good".  Normal in rich world terms is people leading unhealthy lives, eating crap and being obese and trashing the planet through long-distance travel.  "Getting back to normal" means getting back to something that is undeniably unsustainable.  I don't want us to get back to that "normal".   We all need to choose to live local, healthy lives, staying within reasonable geographic limits and having most of our close contacts with our nearest and dearest.

Sure, and I agree with your underlying premise, but that's not what I'm talking about. Since we're going to play semantic games, let me be clear: "normal" as in getting back to a sustainable life, where we can shop at the farmer's market for organic non-gmo foods, bike to farm-to-table vegan restaurants, and kids can play with the other neighborhood kids (walking/biking there, of course), yada yada... e.g. a sustainable physical life (not on-line) without all the restrictions.

[GodlessCommie]

This is what "back to normal" crowd studiously avoids comprehending. The blast radius of our actions is pretty wide, even if we are triple vaccinated and have no immunocomprimised people in our immediate surrounding.

But, as we saw above, fuck grieving families.

Which, again, is not as shocking as it should be. I mean, crazies harassed the grieving parents of Sandy Hook parents for years, and Sandy Hook did not chase them out, nor was Alex Jones forced into well-deserved hiding. We have a damn high tolerance for cruelty in this country, in so many forms and so many ways.

It's pretty widely accepted that COVID-19 is never going away and will keep mutating and circulating. We have effective vaccines, antivirals, and other treatment options. If we don't start going back to normal now, then when? In your opinion what's the criteria? Because "not normal" is not without a toll on human lives.

If it start raining stones tomorrow, and periodic stone rains become a part of life for the foreseeable future, would you insist that we all have to live our lives exactly as before?

When conditions of the outside world that are beyond our control change, it is only logical to change our lives in response. This whole thread hinges on the assumption that we *must* start living exactly as we did before Covid. I don't see any basis for that assumption. Things changed. There is no going back. There will be no living life as before even if you try, because burying 1,000+ Americans every day is decidedly not as before, and not being able to get medical care in overrun hospitals is decidedly not as before.

Now, how we change our lives, given that there is cost to both action and inaction is a conversation worth having. But this thread didn't start with this question.

[GodlessCommie]

Now, "back to normal" crowd throws this accusation, concealed as a question, that actions of people who do not "go back to normal" are guided by fear.

I's argue that your actions are guided by fear. You know that there is no going back. You are afraid of it. You cope with it by denying this reality.

Again, even if you suppress your empathy for dying and their families... If you, perfectly unafraid of Covid, need urgent care, chances are that you won't get it. This is already not as before. This is already not normal. Let it sink. "As before" is not happening. There will be no "normal", at lest for a while, even if we all stop wearing masks and start congregating in indoor spaces - and especially if we do that. Sorry to be a bearer of bad news.

[FINate]

If it start raining stones tomorrow, and periodic stone rains become a part of life for the foreseeable future, would you insist that we all have to live our lives exactly as before?

This is a silly contrived example. It depends on what is causing it to rain stones, the risks, and what can be done to mitigate the risks. But I'll play along. The mostly likely explanation for regular raining of stones is volcanism. We can't stop volcanoes from erupting. A short-term strategy may be for some folks to shelter in place as stones are falling. But the better solution is to move further away from the eruptions, and then resume normal life.

When conditions of the outside world that are beyond our control change, it is only logical to change our lives in response. This whole thread hinges on the assumption that we *must* start living exactly as we did before Covid. I don't see any basis for that assumption. Things changed. There is no going back. There will be no living life as before even if you try, because burying 1,000+ Americans every day is decidedly not as before, and not being able to get medical care in overrun hospitals is decidedly not as before.

And you know what, I *did* change my life. I fully supported the initial lock downs, and still maintain they were the right thing to do at the right time. We isolated at home for a very long time. And I supported the mask mandates. And we got vaccinated as soon as possible. All changes.

This is not the first pandemic the world has ever seen, nor will it be the last. Lots of people have died, included people I knew, and it's tragic. But life goes on and the world will return to some sense of normalcy in the future. Of course, it will not return to 2019 exactly as it was (pandemic or not, things are always changing).

Now, how we change our lives, given that there is cost to both action and inaction is a conversation worth having. But this thread didn't start with this question.

No, but you did by accusing the "'back to normal' crowd" (in your words) of being unaware (uncaring?) of the transmission chain, to which my response is that that it's not that simple. I'm not denying that there are asshole alt-right types that just want to be offensive and stir the pot, but that's not what I'm talking about. It's not that simple because there are, in fact, really costs and benefits, risks vs. rewards, that have to be weighed. IMO, the situation has shifted and it's better to get back to some sense of normal at this point.

[bmjohnson35]

We are near the 2 year mark since Covid's initial outbreak.  It does look like it will be endemic.  I suspect we may never get back to shaking hands and hugging like we used to.  Spouse and I have both been vaccinated and boosted.  We already do annual flu shot and it looks like updated covid shots will become the norm as well.  We will continue to focus on staying healthy.  We intend to start back traveling next year. 

Although Covid has made a significant impact and killed many around the world, John Hopkins research has found the mortality rate in the US has been less than 2%. The mortality rate varies around the world, but most are still under 3%.  Covid-19 is more contagious than the seasonal flu but less contagious than measles.  When you compare these odds to the lifetime odds of other common causes of death (heart disease, car accidents, etc.), it's relatively low.  Of course, we didn't know this 2 years ago, but now that we do, I think we need to work our way back to previous norms, while utilizing controls available (vaccines, testing, good hygene and reasonable distancing when possible.

[FINate]

Now, "back to normal" crowd throws this accusation, concealed as a question, that actions of people who do not "go back to normal" are guided by fear.

I's argue that your actions are guided by fear. You know that there is no going back. You are afraid of it. You cope with it by denying this reality.

Again, even if you suppress your empathy for dying and their families... If you, perfectly unafraid of Covid, need urgent care, chances are that you won't get it. This is already not as before. This is already not normal. Let it sink. "As before" is not happening. There will be no "normal", at lest for a while, even if we all stop wearing masks and start congregating in indoor spaces - and especially if we do that. Sorry to be a bearer of bad news.

I support mask mandates in areas of high spread. Cases are way down in our area (down in the same range as the "hot vax summer"), so not worried about masks here, though the kids still wear them in school.

Nor do I suppress empathy for families affected by COVID. But I can't bring back their loss and life moves on at some point.

Let me make this very real and personal for you. I don't know if you have kids, but I have two. My youngest was 7 when the pandemic hit. We're almost two years into this thing by now. That's 1/4 of her life, but realistically, about 1/2 of life as she remembers/is aware. The lock downs were not without cost to her. She was always bubbly and outgoing, but about a year into the pandemic she became sullen and depressed. We had legitimate mental health concerns as she started developing some ticks and unhealthy behavior. The mental health system was already overloaded so we couldn't get an appointment with a professional. So we muddled through the best we could. We decided to start relaxing after the vaccines came out -- we were mostly concerned about protecting my vulnerable parents, and they got vaxxed and the vaccine is highly effective. That was April, and since then my daughter has improved tremendously as she's been able to socialize with other kids and be more active. But I will agree with you on this: I think she will always be affected by the pandemic even as she gets back to normal.

ETA: All I'm asking for is a little empathy and not a blanket bashing of "back to normal" as uncaring or brash. Like everyone, we're just trying to balance the costs and benefits (protecting elderly parents vs. mental health of the kids), and there are no clear or perfect answers.

[jfer_rose]

My responses depend one three main factors:

• the transmission rate in my location, per the CDC (since I'm in the US)
• the current state of hospitals in my location
• the vaccination status of people I may encounter

I will mask in public if I'm in a high transmission place since I don't want to be responsible for spreading the virus in my community. While my locale does still have a mask mandate, I would still follow CDC advice on masking per transmission rate even without such a mandate.

I also consider whether the local hospitals have capacity. Right now where I live they are near capacity. As a result I'm much more cautious-- I do not feel comfortable knowingly spending time with anyone who is unvaxxed.

This is mostly an aside: A loved one was recently hospitalized in Michigan due to a heart condition, right when they were in the news for hospitals being over capacity. I think her condition was left to worsen longer than it would have otherwise had the medical staff not been so overburdened by C19 patients. To me, this underscores the importance of adjusting masking and gathering behavior depending on the particular circumstances of the place/time.

If hospitals are at or nearing capacity,  I limit the time, duration, and number of people I spend time near indoors. So for example, I was invited to a party last night at which proof of vaccination was required but eating and drinking would mean people were unmasked. I did not attend feeling there was too much risk of spreading the virus in those circumstances. But I did feel comfortable having one vaxxed and boosted friend over the day before for a social activity, unmasked.

But when the hospitals start to have more capacity (likely within no more than 2 months, based on how covid waves tend to go), I'll be more willing to do certain things. And if transmission moves to low, I'll do even more.

[GodlessCommie]

Let me make this very real and personal for you. I don't know if you have kids, but I have two. My youngest was 7 when the pandemic hit. We're almost two years into this thing by now. That's 1/4 of her life, but realistically, about 1/2 of life as she remembers/is aware. The lock downs were not without cost to her. She was always bubbly and outgoing, but about a year into the pandemic she became sullen and depressed. We had legitimate mental health concerns as she started developing some ticks and unhealthy behavior. The mental health system was already overloaded so we couldn't get an appointment with a professional. So we muddled through the best we could. We decided to start relaxing after the vaccines came out -- we were mostly concerned about protecting my vulnerable parents, and they got vaxxed and the vaccine is highly effective. That was April, and since then my daughter has improved tremendously as she's been able to socialize with other kids and be more active. But I will agree with you on this: I think she will always be affected by the pandemic even as she gets back to normal.

Now, let me use your own words: "This is not the first pandemic the world has ever seen, nor will it be the last. Lots of people have died, included people I knew, and it's tragic". Now let me rewrite it like this" "This is not the first pandemic the world has ever seen, nor will it be the last. Lots of children had mental health issues, included people I knew, and it's tragic". 

Why can death be written off as "it's tragic, but", but (very real and serious) problems less severe than death cannot?

Again, I do acknowledge that both action and inaction has costs. Which is why I'm happy to have a discussion of *how* the life needs to change to minimize all suffering, including that of children deprived of social contact. But I see no reason to decide it is a foregone conclusion that no further changes are necessary.

As far as accusations go... so I did. In response to an accusation by the OP. And then, please note that exactly zero people from "back to normal" crowd even mentioned wider societal effects. All responses revolved around the narrowest circle possible. So if this crowd cares, it doesn't bubble through to the words they type.

I'll also point out that the idea of telling grieving families that the pandemic was over - which is pure cruelty - was pretty well received in this thread.

[GodlessCommie]

ETA: All I'm asking for is a little empathy and not a blanket bashing of "back to normal" as uncaring or brash. Like everyone, we're just trying to balance the costs and benefits (protecting elderly parents vs. mental health of the kids), and there are no clear or perfect answers.

Since it was added later, I'll respond separately.

Does maintaining your child's mental health require you to not wear a mask in a store, or dining in an indoor restaurant during a time of high transmission rates?

If not, you do not fit my definition of the "back to normal" crowd. You seem to be trying to solve the same, and very difficult, equation as I do, using the same inputs. We clearly cannot live in a lockdown forever, but there is a happy (or least sad) position between the normal circa 2019 and maximum lockdown. In my book, you are not going back to normal, you are going forward to a new normal (if it makes sense).

If maintaining your child's mental health does require you to not wear a mask in a store, then I'm really confused.

[FINate]

Let me make this very real and personal for you. I don't know if you have kids, but I have two. My youngest was 7 when the pandemic hit. We're almost two years into this thing by now. That's 1/4 of her life, but realistically, about 1/2 of life as she remembers/is aware. The lock downs were not without cost to her. She was always bubbly and outgoing, but about a year into the pandemic she became sullen and depressed. We had legitimate mental health concerns as she started developing some ticks and unhealthy behavior. The mental health system was already overloaded so we couldn't get an appointment with a professional. So we muddled through the best we could. We decided to start relaxing after the vaccines came out -- we were mostly concerned about protecting my vulnerable parents, and they got vaxxed and the vaccine is highly effective. That was April, and since then my daughter has improved tremendously as she's been able to socialize with other kids and be more active. But I will agree with you on this: I think she will always be affected by the pandemic even as she gets back to normal.

Now, let me use your own words: "This is not the first pandemic the world has ever seen, nor will it be the last. Lots of people have died, included people I knew, and it's tragic". Now let me rewrite it like this" "This is not the first pandemic the world has ever seen, nor will it be the last. Lots of children had mental health issues, included people I knew, and it's tragic". 

Why can death be written off as "it's tragic, but", but (very real and serious) problems less severe than death cannot?

*sigh* - I'm not trying to write off either. That's exactly my point! It's all tragic, which is why the costs and benefits have to be considered. There's a reason we don't install traffic signals at every intersection, even though doing so would be safer.

Again, I do acknowledge that both action and inaction has costs. Which is why I'm happy to have a discussion of *how* the life needs to change to minimize all suffering, including that of children deprived of social contact. But I see no reason to decide it is a foregone conclusion that no further changes are necessary.

Going back to a sense of normalcy doesn't mean no further changes. Not sure why you would jump to that conclusion or think that's what I'm arguing for. Like with influenza, I expect seasonal CV19 shots for the foreseeable future. And periodic mask mandates if/when hot spots emerge. But these are very low cost, high benefit action, and life can largely return to normal even with these.

[OtherJen]

I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain.

This is what "back to normal" crowd studiously avoids comprehending. The blast radius of our actions is pretty wide, even if we are triple vaccinated and have no immunocomprimised people in our immediate surrounding.

But, as we saw above, fuck grieving families.

Which, again, is not as shocking as it should be. I mean, crazies harassed the grieving parents of Sandy Hook parents for years, and Sandy Hook did not chase them out, nor was Alex Jones forced into well-deserved hiding. We have a damn high tolerance for cruelty in this country, in so many forms and so many ways.

It's pretty widely accepted that COVID-19 is never going away and will keep mutating and circulating. We have effective vaccines, antivirals, and other treatment options. If we don't start going back to normal now, then when? In your opinion what's the criteria? Because "not normal" is not without a toll on human lives.

Three hospitals in my state (including the one closest to my house) have received emergency temporary medical staff from FEMA to help with over-capacity admissions. Nearly all hospitals statewide are at capacity 2 weeks before Christmas. Most health care systems are once again cancelling non-emergency procedures. Less than 60% of the state population is fully vaccinated. There are no mask or other mandates, and schools are fully open. My niece and nephew have spent weeks off of school due to quarantine from direct exposures to infected classmates.

I'll consider it "back to normal" when I don't have to worry about whether I'll be able to get medical care for an emergency and when my niece, nephew, and friends' kids can get more than a month in school without COVID interruptions.

[GodlessCommie]

Going back to a sense of normalcy doesn't mean no further changes. Not sure why you would jump to that conclusion or think that's what I'm arguing for. Like with influenza, I expect seasonal CV19 shots for the foreseeable future. And periodic mask mandates if/when hot spots emerge. But these are very low cost, high benefit action, and life can largely return to normal even with these.

So we are exactly on the same page. This is not back to anything. There is no "back" with mask mandates. No past with mask mandates exists (within our lifetimes at least). Or with masks at all, for that matter.

[FINate]

ETA: All I'm asking for is a little empathy and not a blanket bashing of "back to normal" as uncaring or brash. Like everyone, we're just trying to balance the costs and benefits (protecting elderly parents vs. mental health of the kids), and there are no clear or perfect answers.

Since it was added later, I'll respond separately.

Does maintaining your child's mental health require you to not wear a mask in a store, or dining in an indoor restaurant during a time of high transmission rates?

If not, you do not fit my definition of the "back to normal" crowd. You seem to be trying to solve the same, and very difficult, equation as I do, using the same inputs. We clearly cannot live in a lockdown forever, but there is a happy (or least sad) position between the normal circa 2019 and maximum lockdown. In my book, you are not going back to normal, you are going forward to a new normal (if it makes sense).

If maintaining your child's mental health does require you to not wear a mask in a store, then I'm really confused.

Masks are a minor inconvenience, we don't mind wearing them. Nor do we need to dine in at restaurants for mental health. However, to a certain extent these things are connected to other restrictions, like school going virtual, social events being canceled, etc. As you say, we cannot lockdown forever. So my question remains: what's the criteria for increased normalcy? Are we going to lockdown for every new variant, or do we accept that our collective immune system is no longer naive and the threat much lower than in March 2020.

[FINate]

I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain.

This is what "back to normal" crowd studiously avoids comprehending. The blast radius of our actions is pretty wide, even if we are triple vaccinated and have no immunocomprimised people in our immediate surrounding.

But, as we saw above, fuck grieving families.

Which, again, is not as shocking as it should be. I mean, crazies harassed the grieving parents of Sandy Hook parents for years, and Sandy Hook did not chase them out, nor was Alex Jones forced into well-deserved hiding. We have a damn high tolerance for cruelty in this country, in so many forms and so many ways.

It's pretty widely accepted that COVID-19 is never going away and will keep mutating and circulating. We have effective vaccines, antivirals, and other treatment options. If we don't start going back to normal now, then when? In your opinion what's the criteria? Because "not normal" is not without a toll on human lives.

Three hospitals in my state (including the one closest to my house) have received emergency temporary medical staff from FEMA to help with over-capacity admissions. Nearly all hospitals statewide are at capacity 2 weeks before Christmas. Most health care systems are once again cancelling non-emergency procedures. Less than 60% of the state population is fully vaccinated. There are no mask or other mandates, and schools are fully open. My niece and nephew have spent weeks off of school due to quarantine from direct exposures to infected classmates.

I'll consider it "back to normal" when I don't have to worry about whether I'll be able to get medical care for an emergency and when my niece, nephew, and friends' kids can get more than a month in school without COVID interruptions.

And that's fair and valid. We've lived with a similar calculus. I closely follow my city's COVID wastewater testing dashboard and health district stats. When things start to increase we become more cautious. We had our big Delta search in early fall, similar to what other states are going through now. So we took additional precautions, including dialing back the risk on my mountain bike because I didn't want to risk needing an ICU when the system was overwhelmed. But we now have very low case rates and wastewater virus loads. So we're more back to normal than not.

[sui generis]

I'll also point out that the idea of telling grieving families that the pandemic was over - which is pure cruelty - was pretty well received in this thread.

Wait, is this sarcasm or do you think that guy really was well-received?  My sense of the thread, which honestly could be off since it's an interpretation of an absence of response, is that everyone thought that guy was so preposterous and hideous as to not to deign to respond to him (except one person).  Simply based on how people are responding on this thread, I assume they found that remark intolerable, but also not worth engaging.

FWIW, that's definitely my perspective on that guy.

[GodlessCommie]

Masks are a minor inconvenience, we don't mind wearing them. Nor do we need to dine in at restaurants for mental health. However, to a certain extent these things are connected to other restrictions, like school going virtual, social events being canceled, etc. As you say, we cannot lockdown forever. So my question remains: what's the criteria for increased normalcy? Are we going to lockdown for every new variant, or do we accept that our collective immune system is no longer naive and the threat much lower than in March 2020.

I cannot answer this question, since I don't know your definition of increased normalcy.

As far as I can observe, we are already farther into normalcy than it makes sense. Mask wearing is way down - and it is a simple act, a minor inconvenience, as you say. Immunization effort stalled. Whatever restrictions there are, they are not enforced. So I don't know what increased normalcy even means.

I'm gonna make another broad swipe, and likely strike someone I did not intended to offend again - but I have a strong sense that people are searching for a license to do what they are already doing, dropping all precautions (maybe except vax), but without being reminded that their actions have negative consequences. This is what thread looks to me as, a search for validation.

[sui generis]

I'm gonna make another broad swipe, and likely strike someone I did not intended to offend again - but I have a strong sense that people are searching for a license to do what they are already doing, dropping all precautions (maybe except vax), but without being reminded that their actions have negative consequences. This is what thread looks to me as, a search for validation.

I don't disagree, though to the extent it's a natural human thing, it's a bit hard to fight against.  The example I mentioned upthread about how getting in my car each day is probably more dangerous to those around me than the likelihood of me spreading COVID to someone who would suffer is a case in point.  I've used it to be more comfortable with doing more things I like to do and not worrying as much if people at a friend's house aren't wearing masks.  But maybe the more logical and humane thing to do would be for me to conclude I should be driving less.  But I'm not and I don't think any of us are.  Shouldn't we?  Should we not take this opportunity to reevaluate what we are doing that is even higher risk to our neighbors than COVID?  If not, why not?

[OtherJen]

Yeah, we're nowhere close to normalcy, and in my experience, those who refuse to be vaccinated also refuse to mask up, stay home, or take any other precautions. It's almost like a badge of right-wing honor. But we all suffer when the health care system is pushed to the brink. This article, published yesterday, reads like something from 20 months ago, back when our medical workers were still relatively fresh.

Inside a Grand Rapids hospital as COVID rages on: "I don't know how much our team has left." (Michigan Radio, Dec. 11, 2021)

Standing behind him as the door closes, Dr. Biersack says this hospital is really seeing two kinds of COVID right now. One kind is not as common, or severe. That’s the COVID in fully-vaccinated patients. Then there’s the kind that is really swamping this hospital, and every other hospital in the state: that’s COVID in unvaccinated patients.

He says the difference is stark.

“COVID in unvaccinated patients is relentless, it is fast, it is dramatic,” Dr. Biersack says. “Patients go from requiring just a few liters of oxygen to requiring intubation and being placed on a ventilator in a very short time frame. And it’s scary.”

“Is this one of those patients?” I ask.

“Yeah,” he says. “This is a circumstance where someone pretty rapidly deteriorated. Someone who was comfortable just a couple days ago when I saw her.”

Now, the patient is on a ventilator.

This virus still has the ability to surprise, even for those who’ve seen it most.

Around a corner down the hallway, we run into Kelly Kelm, a respiratory therapist. She looks very tired. The influx, she says, has been the worst she’s seen.

“This surge has been a lot of younger people,” she says, “a lot of people my age, a lot of you know, your 40s and your 50 year olds, and your ... younger moms or dads and brothers and sisters that just still have so much life left to give.”

[Gin1984]

I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain.

This is what "back to normal" crowd studiously avoids comprehending. The blast radius of our actions is pretty wide, even if we are triple vaccinated and have no immunocomprimised people in our immediate surrounding.

But, as we saw above, fuck grieving families.

Which, again, is not as shocking as it should be. I mean, crazies harassed the grieving parents of Sandy Hook parents for years, and Sandy Hook did not chase them out, nor was Alex Jones forced into well-deserved hiding. We have a damn high tolerance for cruelty in this country, in so many forms and so many ways.

It's pretty widely accepted that COVID-19 is never going away and will keep mutating and circulating. We have effective vaccines, antivirals, and other treatment options. If we don't start going back to normal now, then when? In your opinion what's the criteria? Because "not normal" is not without a toll on human lives.

When children also have treatments.  As of now most treatments are only approved for adults. 

[nereo]

My thoughts on getting “back to normal” center around the idea that our previous “normal” was a core reason why this pandemic has been so challenging, both from a illness/loss-of-life standpoint as well how disruptive it was to all of our lives.  I think it would be a mistake to go back to the way things were, and would likely be driven by some rosy-hued nostalgia.

From a health standpoint, experts seem to be in agreement that pandemics in a globally-linked world are all but inevitable, and that we (particularly in the US) made it much worse than it had to have been. Vaccines, coming into work even when you felt like crap, wearing masks in public, not having health-screening protocols…all of that seems important.  Our national health services and coordinated (i.e. between states and local governments) also could be improved.

Then there’s all the aspects that made the isolation of emergency measures that much worse.  Supply chain disruptions. No great work-from-home protocols in place. An absolutely abysmal child-care system. Even the ability to do curb-side pickup from local businesses and pay people virtually all seemed woefully behind just a year ago.

[HPstache]

I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain.

This is what "back to normal" crowd studiously avoids comprehending. The blast radius of our actions is pretty wide, even if we are triple vaccinated and have no immunocomprimised people in our immediate surrounding.

But, as we saw above, fuck grieving families.

Which, again, is not as shocking as it should be. I mean, crazies harassed the grieving parents of Sandy Hook parents for years, and Sandy Hook did not chase them out, nor was Alex Jones forced into well-deserved hiding. We have a damn high tolerance for cruelty in this country, in so many forms and so many ways.

It's pretty widely accepted that COVID-19 is never going away and will keep mutating and circulating. We have effective vaccines, antivirals, and other treatment options. If we don't start going back to normal now, then when? In your opinion what's the criteria? Because "not normal" is not without a toll on human lives.

When children also have treatments.  As of now most treatments are only approved for adults.

But what about the immunocompromised?  And those who can't receive the vaccine after that?

[former player]

I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain.

This is what "back to normal" crowd studiously avoids comprehending. The blast radius of our actions is pretty wide, even if we are triple vaccinated and have no immunocomprimised people in our immediate surrounding.

But, as we saw above, fuck grieving families.

Which, again, is not as shocking as it should be. I mean, crazies harassed the grieving parents of Sandy Hook parents for years, and Sandy Hook did not chase them out, nor was Alex Jones forced into well-deserved hiding. We have a damn high tolerance for cruelty in this country, in so many forms and so many ways.

It's pretty widely accepted that COVID-19 is never going away and will keep mutating and circulating. We have effective vaccines, antivirals, and other treatment options. If we don't start going back to normal now, then when? In your opinion what's the criteria? Because "not normal" is not without a toll on human lives.

When children also have treatments.  As of now most treatments are only approved for adults.

But what about the immunocompromised?  And those who can't receive the vaccine after that?

Part of the "new normal" is going to be reduced life expectancy.

[OtherJen]

I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain.

This is what "back to normal" crowd studiously avoids comprehending. The blast radius of our actions is pretty wide, even if we are triple vaccinated and have no immunocomprimised people in our immediate surrounding.

But, as we saw above, fuck grieving families.

Which, again, is not as shocking as it should be. I mean, crazies harassed the grieving parents of Sandy Hook parents for years, and Sandy Hook did not chase them out, nor was Alex Jones forced into well-deserved hiding. We have a damn high tolerance for cruelty in this country, in so many forms and so many ways.

It's pretty widely accepted that COVID-19 is never going away and will keep mutating and circulating. We have effective vaccines, antivirals, and other treatment options. If we don't start going back to normal now, then when? In your opinion what's the criteria? Because "not normal" is not without a toll on human lives.

When children also have treatments.  As of now most treatments are only approved for adults.

But what about the immunocompromised?  And those who can't receive the vaccine after that?

They're going to have to take the same precautions that they already do during flu season. There's no reason why the rest of us should make things even more difficult for them. Getting everyone vaccinated (other than the small minority who cannot be) and masking up in/avoiding crowded indoor public environments until the hospitals are no longer overloaded would help immensely toward reaching real herd immunity without a health system collapse. Unfortunately, too many people are unwilling to do those things, so we all suffer.

I cannot believe that we're still having this conversation after 21 months.

[PDXTabs]

I cannot believe that we're still having this conversation after 21 months.

I can, I can totally believe it.

[seattlecyclone]

If it start raining stones tomorrow, and periodic stone rains become a part of life for the foreseeable future, would you insist that we all have to live our lives exactly as before?

I'll bite.

Let's say it did start raining stones from the sky, with no end in sight. Walking outside unprotected could be a death sentence (or, worse from the perspective of the health care system, give you a traumatic brain injury that requires weeks of intensive care in a hospital). So at the beginning of this stone rain situation, anyone with half a brain would hunker down indoors as much as possible. You'd hear news stories every day about essential workers who got wiped out by a falling stone during their daily commute. Very tragic and scary! Of course the rest of us have a duty to minimize our exposure so that those who have less of a choice about going outside can still have access to the best care.

At the same time, our scientists and engineers put their heads together to see if there's anything we could do to mitigate the situation. After about a year of these stone rains they perfect a "rockbrella," an inexpensive and effective personal protective device. It's transparent and quietly flies above you as you move about the outdoors. You can barely even tell it's there. It effectively stops most of the rocks that may fall on you. Some will occasionally break through, but even those that do will rarely do more damage than giving you a bump on the head. Walking outside with a rockbrella is still a bit more risky than walking unprotected was before, but not significantly so: any given walk with a rockbrella results in something like a one-in-a-million chance of getting a breakthrough stone that requires medical attention.

Now, despite how great the rockbrella is, some people just don't want to use it. The people at their church have told them that the stones falling from the sky are God's will, or the talking heads on TV have convinced them that the rockbrella is a sinister government tracking device. Many of these folks have convinced themselves that the real way to protect yourself is to wear a big sombrero covered in horseshoes. Spoiler alert: the sombreros do nothing. Two years after the stone rains started, the hospitals are as full as ever because a third of the population refuses to protect themselves.

In this situation would I "insist that we all have to live our lives exactly as before?" Of course not. Everyone has to do their own risk analysis, and if people want to go outside less often than before that's fine. What I would say is that people who want to go outside as much as they did before are reasonable to do so as long as they take their rockbrella along. I would also say that it's inappropriate to encourage rockbrella users to keep doing their jogging on a treadmill indoors like they had to do at the beginning of the stone rains. Yes, the hospitals are still full, and jogging outdoors with a rockbrella is not without risk, but the rockbrella joggers are making a negligible contribution to the problem. They have done their part. It's the sombrero people who need to change, and I have no earthly idea how to convince them to do that at this point, but convincing them is the only thing that can really move the needle anymore.

[Villanelle]

Seems like I lucked out by not seeing the response that got edited.

Here's the thing:  as I said, we are not back to "normal", as defined something like, "exactly the same as pre-Covid".  And also, our lives are still pretty fucking fantastic.  A scrap of fabric over my face at the grocery store doesn't diminish my life in any way.  In fact, it likely keeps me from getting sick--not just Covid, but also the everyday sniffles that happened a couple times a year--so I suppose it could be considered an improvement on my life. 

I also now Zoom with my elderly parents once a week, and my sister and her spouse join us ever other week.  What a boon that has been for our family, when before we spoke sporadically (and we still do that as well as things come up between zooms. 

I still manage to see friends in relatively safe ways--outside or in a home but mindful of distance, usually, and if all are vaccinated. 

And I'll admit that I feel decent about wearing a mask and, in some small way, contributing to the well-being of my community.  All achieved with the unimaginable sacrifice of staying ~6" away from another shopper and strapping a little cloth to my face. 

While I am in no way ready to go to a concert or a packed movie theater--a friend recently posted a photo from a concert of bodies smashed together, not a mask to be seen, and it made me cringe *for my own comfort*, I can see how those things have their place and are becoming more personal judgements than [what I previously perceived to be] questions with clear moral answers.  Things are easing.  I don't think that's bad or wrong (barring another large wave that puts our hospitals back on the brink of collapse). 

But there is plenty of space between "normal, exactly as we were" and "complete lockdown".  It's amazing to me that people can't seem to envision perfectly happy lives that are somewhere on that spectrum other than the absolute "exactly as we were end".  Again, the minimal 'sacrifices' seem to be things like masking in more public or crowded situations and some basic social distancing just seem like ridiculous things to fight, in nearly all cases.  If that stands between someone and happiness... what an odd life that seems like it must be.

[HPstache]

If it start raining stones tomorrow, and periodic stone rains become a part of life for the foreseeable future, would you insist that we all have to live our lives exactly as before?

I'll bite.

Let's say it did start raining stones from the sky, with no end in sight. Walking outside unprotected could be a death sentence (or, worse from the perspective of the health care system, give you a traumatic brain injury that requires weeks of intensive care in a hospital). So at the beginning of this stone rain situation, anyone with half a brain would hunker down indoors as much as possible. You'd hear news stories every day about essential workers who got wiped out by a falling stone during their daily commute. Very tragic and scary! Of course the rest of us have a duty to minimize our exposure so that those who have less of a choice about going outside can still have access to the best care.

At the same time, our scientists and engineers put their heads together to see if there's anything we could do to mitigate the situation. After about a year of these stone rains they perfect a "rockbrella," an inexpensive and effective personal protective device. It's transparent and quietly flies above you as you move about the outdoors. You can barely even tell it's there. It effectively stops most of the rocks that may fall on you. Some will occasionally break through, but even those that do will rarely do more damage than giving you a bump on the head. Walking outside with a rockbrella is still a bit more risky than walking unprotected was before, but not significantly so: any given walk with a rockbrella results in something like a one-in-a-million chance of getting a breakthrough stone that requires medical attention.

Now, despite how great the rockbrella is, some people just don't want to use it. The people at their church have told them that the stones falling from the sky are God's will, or the talking heads on TV have convinced them that the rockbrella is a sinister government tracking device. Many of these folks have convinced themselves that the real way to protect yourself is to wear a big sombrero covered in horseshoes. Spoiler alert: the sombreros do nothing. Two years after the stone rains started, the hospitals are as full as ever because a third of the population refuses to protect themselves.

In this situation would I "insist that we all have to live our lives exactly as before?" Of course not. Everyone has to do their own risk analysis, and if people want to go outside less often than before that's fine. What I would say is that people who want to go outside as much as they did before are reasonable to do so as long as they take their rockbrella along. I would also say that it's inappropriate to encourage rockbrella users to keep doing their jogging on a treadmill indoors like they had to do at the beginning of the stone rains. Yes, the hospitals are still full, and jogging outdoors with a rockbrella is not without risk, but the rockbrella joggers are making a negligible contribution to the problem. They have done their part. It's the sombrero people who need to change, and I have no earthly idea how to convince them to do that at this point, but convincing them is the only thing that can really move the needle anymore.

There was also a time, prior to the rockbrella invention & rollout, where individuals tried to hold thin fabric tarps above their heads to try to protect themselves from the raining rocks (they had to go to the grocery store after all).  The scientists early on told tarp holders that their tarps would not work because it was too difficult to fully shield oneself from the falling rocks.  However, later on it was discovered if everyone grabbed a corner of a large fabric tarp as they moved about outdoors, they were able to pretty effectively protect themselves from the falling rocks as a group (though everyone knew it wasn't perfect).  Fast forward to the future, what frustrates many rockbrella owners is that, for whatever reason, people still insist on the carrying of the tarps as a group in addition to their rockbrellas even though the majority of the population is perfectly safe under their own rockbrellas.  Sure, it's really just a slight annoyance to carry a corner of the tarp... but why are we still doing it?  To protect those who insist on wearing horseshoe sombreros and not participating in the holding of the tarp rather than acquiring a free rockbrella?  Do we not believe the rockbrella works any more?

[trollwithamustache]

I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain.

But what about the immunocompromised?  And those who can't receive the vaccine after that?

The immunocompromised are always at risk of Everything. If you get Vaxxed or not, they should be careful since all the other diseases are still out there.  RSV, whatever the flu gives us, various stomach bugs, infected cuts.

[Gin1984]

I still prefer to mask in crowded indoor public settings because COVID/hospitalization rates are so high here and I'd rather not be part of the transmission chain.

This is what "back to normal" crowd studiously avoids comprehending. The blast radius of our actions is pretty wide, even if we are triple vaccinated and have no immunocomprimised people in our immediate surrounding.

But, as we saw above, fuck grieving families.

Which, again, is not as shocking as it should be. I mean, crazies harassed the grieving parents of Sandy Hook parents for years, and Sandy Hook did not chase them out, nor was Alex Jones forced into well-deserved hiding. We have a damn high tolerance for cruelty in this country, in so many forms and so many ways.

It's pretty widely accepted that COVID-19 is never going away and will keep mutating and circulating. We have effective vaccines, antivirals, and other treatment options. If we don't start going back to normal now, then when? In your opinion what's the criteria? Because "not normal" is not without a toll on human lives.

When children also have treatments.  As of now most treatments are only approved for adults.

But what about the immunocompromised?  And those who can't receive the vaccine after that?

That is what the monoclonal antibodies were developed for.  We are moving forward but it would be foolish to ignore that not everyone can get these treatments.

[Captain FIRE]

I'll go back to a "new normal" once my kids (1.5/4.5) are eligible to be vaccinated.  And I personally consider it shit that so many in this thread have claimed COVID is over & vaccines widely available when that's not the case for the under 5.  If only everyone took it seriously from the start...

Until then:
- No indoor gatherings - even vaccinated/masked.  I'll go to work (mask requirement, vaccine mandate + weekly testing).  We are also doing a pre-Christmas gathering with my vaccinated family after testing (because their Christmas gathering is too large for us to feel comfortable.  We probably won't repeat that.
- Outdoor gatherings 6 ft apart or masked.

Afterwards:
- Will take our first vacation in 2.5 years.  On a plane even.
- Will see vaccinated family/friends indoors unmasked again
- Will dine indoors on non-crowded nights
- Will probably be a long time before we feel comfortable going to crowded venues again
- Will continue wearing masks when recommended

Factors that will affect my activities (copied from another poster):
- the transmission rate in my location, per the CDC (since I'm in the US)
- the current state of hospitals in my location
- the vaccination status of people I may encounter
- added: virulence and transmissibility of new variants

[nereo]

I'll go back to a "new normal" once my kids (1.5/4.5) are eligible to be vaccinated.  And I personally consider it shit that so many in this thread have claimed COVID is over & vaccines widely available when that's not the case for the under 5. If only everyone took it seriously from the start...

I share your frustration as a fellow parent of a small child. One thing this pandemic has laid bare it’s how little forethought and consideration is given towards parents of children - particularly those too young for school.

[Focus_on_the_fire]

A vaccinated friend who hadn't qualified for the booster at the time caught Covid from an unvaccinated coworker. Their work environment required masks. However, she caught it nonetheless. She's in her early 20s and she had a terrible time. She wasn't  hospitalized and is fortunately recovering. However, a breakthrough infection isn't fun even if it's not fatal.

Indoor gatherings with friends?  Vaccinated people only? Only small gatherings with family that I know are vaccinated (including booster) I passed on the company Christmas party held indoors with unvaccinated people and food so masks weren't consistently on.
Church? Don't go to church
Gym? I wish I could but gyms here aren't requiring proof of vaccination.
Getting on an airplane? Nope
Going maskless in public (retail stores, grocery stores)? No way.
Indoor restaurants that aren't busy?  Indoor restaurants with someone at every table? No, not worth it
Outdoor stadiums that aren't completely full?  Outdoor stadiums at full capacity? No, but I wouldn't have generally anyway
Indoor stadiums (theatre, concerts, sporting events) that aren't completely full?  Indoor stadiums at full capacity? No
Going to a bar? Not a drinker.

[seemsright]

My responses depend one three main factors:

• the transmission rate in my location, per the CDC (since I'm in the US)
• the current state of hospitals in my location
• the vaccination status of people I may encounter

I will mask in public if I'm in a high transmission place since I don't want to be responsible for spreading the virus in my community. While my locale does still have a mask mandate, I would still follow CDC advice on masking per transmission rate even without such a mandate.

I also consider whether the local hospitals have capacity. Right now where I live they are near capacity. As a result I'm much more cautious-- I do not feel comfortable knowingly spending time with anyone who is unvaxxed.

This is mostly an aside: A loved one was recently hospitalized in Michigan due to a heart condition, right when they were in the news for hospitals being over capacity. I think her condition was left to worsen longer than it would have otherwise had the medical staff not been so overburdened by C19 patients. To me, this underscores the importance of adjusting masking and gathering behavior depending on the particular circumstances of the place/time.

If hospitals are at or nearing capacity,  I limit the time, duration, and number of people I spend time near indoors. So for example, I was invited to a party last night at which proof of vaccination was required but eating and drinking would mean people were unmasked. I did not attend feeling there was too much risk of spreading the virus in those circumstances. But I did feel comfortable having one vaxxed and boosted friend over the day before for a social activity, unmasked.

But when the hospitals start to have more capacity (likely within no more than 2 months, based on how covid waves tend to go), I'll be more willing to do certain things. And if transmission moves to low, I'll do even more.

I kinda agree with you. But I live in OR. We have no hospital beds per capita. We have ran at 8% availability for years. With Covid we are still at 8% availability. Going to other states and seeing 8% for the hospitals might be alarming...here it is normal. So please take hospital availability with a grain of salt unless you fully understand the big picture.

[seattlecyclone]

If it start raining stones tomorrow, and periodic stone rains become a part of life for the foreseeable future, would you insist that we all have to live our lives exactly as before?

I'll bite.

Let's say it did start raining stones from the sky, with no end in sight. Walking outside unprotected could be a death sentence (or, worse from the perspective of the health care system, give you a traumatic brain injury that requires weeks of intensive care in a hospital). So at the beginning of this stone rain situation, anyone with half a brain would hunker down indoors as much as possible. You'd hear news stories every day about essential workers who got wiped out by a falling stone during their daily commute. Very tragic and scary! Of course the rest of us have a duty to minimize our exposure so that those who have less of a choice about going outside can still have access to the best care.

At the same time, our scientists and engineers put their heads together to see if there's anything we could do to mitigate the situation. After about a year of these stone rains they perfect a "rockbrella," an inexpensive and effective personal protective device. It's transparent and quietly flies above you as you move about the outdoors. You can barely even tell it's there. It effectively stops most of the rocks that may fall on you. Some will occasionally break through, but even those that do will rarely do more damage than giving you a bump on the head. Walking outside with a rockbrella is still a bit more risky than walking unprotected was before, but not significantly so: any given walk with a rockbrella results in something like a one-in-a-million chance of getting a breakthrough stone that requires medical attention.

Now, despite how great the rockbrella is, some people just don't want to use it. The people at their church have told them that the stones falling from the sky are God's will, or the talking heads on TV have convinced them that the rockbrella is a sinister government tracking device. Many of these folks have convinced themselves that the real way to protect yourself is to wear a big sombrero covered in horseshoes. Spoiler alert: the sombreros do nothing. Two years after the stone rains started, the hospitals are as full as ever because a third of the population refuses to protect themselves.

In this situation would I "insist that we all have to live our lives exactly as before?" Of course not. Everyone has to do their own risk analysis, and if people want to go outside less often than before that's fine. What I would say is that people who want to go outside as much as they did before are reasonable to do so as long as they take their rockbrella along. I would also say that it's inappropriate to encourage rockbrella users to keep doing their jogging on a treadmill indoors like they had to do at the beginning of the stone rains. Yes, the hospitals are still full, and jogging outdoors with a rockbrella is not without risk, but the rockbrella joggers are making a negligible contribution to the problem. They have done their part. It's the sombrero people who need to change, and I have no earthly idea how to convince them to do that at this point, but convincing them is the only thing that can really move the needle anymore.

There was also a time, prior to the rockbrella invention & rollout, where individuals tried to hold thin fabric tarps above their heads to try to protect themselves from the raining rocks (they had to go to the grocery store after all).  The scientists early on told tarp holders that their tarps would not work because it was too difficult to fully shield oneself from the falling rocks.  However, later on it was discovered if everyone grabbed a corner of a large fabric tarp as they moved about outdoors, they were able to pretty effectively protect themselves from the falling rocks as a group (though everyone knew it wasn't perfect).  Fast forward to the future, what frustrates many rockbrella owners is that, for whatever reason, people still insist on the carrying of the tarps as a group in addition to their rockbrellas even though the majority of the population is perfectly safe under their own rockbrellas.  Sure, it's really just a slight annoyance to carry a corner of the tarp... but why are we still doing it?  To protect those who insist on wearing horseshoe sombreros and not participating in the holding of the tarp rather than acquiring a free rockbrella?  Do we not believe the rockbrella works any more?

It's not that we don't believe in the rockbrella. A rockbrella plus tarp is going to catch a few more stones than the rockbrella alone, so tarp-carrying still isn't a bad idea exactly, but a lot of people would be happy to lose the minor inconvenience of tarp carrying in exchange for the minor risk of getting hit by a breakthrough stone. The main reason for the continued tarp mandate is to try and protect those who aren't using rockbrellas, most of whom can't be bothered to follow the tarp-carrying rule either.

Meanwhile the Consumer Product Safety Commission is taking their sweet time doing an exhaustive study on the safety of rockbrella use by children before they approve its use in younger age groups. Frazzled parents are still keeping their kids inside when possible and vigilantly using tarps when outdoor movements are absolutely necessary, wondering how the hell it takes so long to collect enough data to show that rockbrellas are more likely than not to be safer for kids than the status quo.

[Nate79]

We are vaxed and generally moving towards the new normal. Masks when out in public recently due to the new varient with people we don't know, generally cautious to stay back from people, masks at work, etc.. But we do any activities we want indoor (events, dining in restaurants, etc). But most people are not wearing masks anymore around here and we've been on vacation in many areas also where most don't wear masks. I don't think nonmaskers look at maskers any different.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[GodlessCommie]

I really enjoyed what y'all did with the falling rocks thing!

Another twist: sometimes rocks explode and hurt - even kill - people not directly stricken. They can even get stuck under rockbrella, and explode days later. Sombrero people are most vulnerable to rock fragments, but sometimes people not eligible for a rockbrella also suffer.

Oh, and fragments created by an explosion also explode, losing no potency as they fragment further.   

[Villanelle]

If it start raining stones tomorrow, and periodic stone rains become a part of life for the foreseeable future, would you insist that we all have to live our lives exactly as before?

I'll bite.

Let's say it did start raining stones from the sky, with no end in sight. Walking outside unprotected could be a death sentence (or, worse from the perspective of the health care system, give you a traumatic brain injury that requires weeks of intensive care in a hospital). So at the beginning of this stone rain situation, anyone with half a brain would hunker down indoors as much as possible. You'd hear news stories every day about essential workers who got wiped out by a falling stone during their daily commute. Very tragic and scary! Of course the rest of us have a duty to minimize our exposure so that those who have less of a choice about going outside can still have access to the best care.

At the same time, our scientists and engineers put their heads together to see if there's anything we could do to mitigate the situation. After about a year of these stone rains they perfect a "rockbrella," an inexpensive and effective personal protective device. It's transparent and quietly flies above you as you move about the outdoors. You can barely even tell it's there. It effectively stops most of the rocks that may fall on you. Some will occasionally break through, but even those that do will rarely do more damage than giving you a bump on the head. Walking outside with a rockbrella is still a bit more risky than walking unprotected was before, but not significantly so: any given walk with a rockbrella results in something like a one-in-a-million chance of getting a breakthrough stone that requires medical attention.

Now, despite how great the rockbrella is, some people just don't want to use it. The people at their church have told them that the stones falling from the sky are God's will, or the talking heads on TV have convinced them that the rockbrella is a sinister government tracking device. Many of these folks have convinced themselves that the real way to protect yourself is to wear a big sombrero covered in horseshoes. Spoiler alert: the sombreros do nothing. Two years after the stone rains started, the hospitals are as full as ever because a third of the population refuses to protect themselves.

In this situation would I "insist that we all have to live our lives exactly as before?" Of course not. Everyone has to do their own risk analysis, and if people want to go outside less often than before that's fine. What I would say is that people who want to go outside as much as they did before are reasonable to do so as long as they take their rockbrella along. I would also say that it's inappropriate to encourage rockbrella users to keep doing their jogging on a treadmill indoors like they had to do at the beginning of the stone rains. Yes, the hospitals are still full, and jogging outdoors with a rockbrella is not without risk, but the rockbrella joggers are making a negligible contribution to the problem. They have done their part. It's the sombrero people who need to change, and I have no earthly idea how to convince them to do that at this point, but convincing them is the only thing that can really move the needle anymore.

There was also a time, prior to the rockbrella invention & rollout, where individuals tried to hold thin fabric tarps above their heads to try to protect themselves from the raining rocks (they had to go to the grocery store after all).  The scientists early on told tarp holders that their tarps would not work because it was too difficult to fully shield oneself from the falling rocks.  However, later on it was discovered if everyone grabbed a corner of a large fabric tarp as they moved about outdoors, they were able to pretty effectively protect themselves from the falling rocks as a group (though everyone knew it wasn't perfect).  Fast forward to the future, what frustrates many rockbrella owners is that, for whatever reason, people still insist on the carrying of the tarps as a group in addition to their rockbrellas even though the majority of the population is perfectly safe under their own rockbrellas.  Sure, it's really just a slight annoyance to carry a corner of the tarp... but why are we still doing it?  To protect those who insist on wearing horseshoe sombreros and not participating in the holding of the tarp rather than acquiring a free rockbrella?  Do we not believe the rockbrella works any more?

The man who had a heart attack, entirely unrelated to any falling rocks, and can't get timely care because the hospitals are full of rock-related concussions, would have benefitted from more tarp holders and more people continuing to jog on their treadmills.  Perhaps, for many people, they feel they are holding tarps to benefit him, and to help their neighbor who is unable to have a rockbrella at all, or who has a situation where her rockbrella is far more likely to fail and would therefore continue to benefit from the group's tarp. 

And maybe they even feel that the sombrero group, however misguided, still deserve some protection, both so that the man with the heart attack is less likely to find the ER full of rock injuries, and because they are still human beings.  I am certainly frustrated with them and I see the hand they have in their own fate (as well as the hands other have in it) and their unwillingness to contribute to the public good by contributing to their own good, but I can't really see why that should stop me from doing something so small as holding the corner of a tarp when it could protect them, and others. 

Because really, it is just holding the corner of a tarp. 

[PDXTabs]

Meanwhile the Consumer Product Safety Commission is taking their sweet time doing an exhaustive study on the safety of rockbrella use by children before they approve its use in younger age groups. Frazzled parents are still keeping their kids inside when possible and vigilantly using tarps when outdoor movements are absolutely necessary, wondering how the hell it takes so long to collect enough data to show that rockbrellas are more likely than not to be safer for kids than the status quo.

That's where the analogy kind of breaks down, somehow little kids are almost immune to the falling rocks. I checked today and according to the CDC 71/6,733 = 1% of deaths during the pandemic for the 1-4 cohort during the pandemic have been from COVID-19 (source). The other 99% of deaths have presumably been from all the "normal" things that kill children which are typically cars, guns, pediatric cancer, and suffocation (in that order, source).

My children are all old enough to have been fully vaccinated, but if I had a 1-4 year old I would be way more worried about the stuff that is actually likely to kill them. Even when my teenagers weren't yet vaccinated I was never particularly worried about COVID because their risk from COVID were still less than from automobile accidents (the #1 killer of adolescents in this country, even during a global pandemic).