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

[roomtempmayo]

Although we each prioritize differently, fewer restrictions and more flexibility seems to be enjoyed by pretty much everybody.

Perhaps a more cynical take is that we all want to maximize our own freedom and flexibility (wear a mask or not, go to the office or not, go to a doctor's appointment virtually or in person), while also simultaneously hoping to arrange the behavior of others (other people should/shouldn't wear masks, school should be in person, others should be vaccinated) according to our preferences and convenience.

[nereo]

So the consistent theme that seems to run through almost all of these "return to normal" scenarios is a desire to have fewer limitations and more freedom for each individual to choose what's right for them.

I wouldn’t put it like that. One of the frustrating parts for us is how many people in our region have forgone ‘personal responsibility’ and faked/refused vaccines, continued to have close contact with the general public and have avoided most basic precautions at spreading the virus.

As a direct result we find ourselves where we are.

[jinga nation]

went to beach pizza restaurant yesterday. it was busy. had a 5 minute wait to get seated, preference was outdoors, but we got an indoor table for 10-12 (7 of us). Tables were not very close to each other, maybe 4-5 feet apart. No masks in there (we are vaccinated/boosted). Felt normal pre-covid. Great to see everyone having fun and banter with the awesome staff.

[Gin1984]

Omicron scares me due to its transmissibility, but thankfully early data indicates its slightly less deadly than Delta.

I saw this today. That states  "markedly lower risk of hospitalization... The University of Edinburgh study, drawing on the health records of 5.4 million people in Scotland, found the risk of hospitalization with Covid-19 was two-thirds lower with Omicron than with Delta." Of course the catch being that if three times as many people get it then it's a wash.

Except they did not account for vaccinate status in this.

[JoJo]

Friend who was super paranoid about getting covid has it, so far it's been like a cold for the last 4 days.   I believe shes' still teaching remotely. 

[PDXTabs]

Omicron scares me due to its transmissibility, but thankfully early data indicates its slightly less deadly than Delta.

I saw this today. That states  "markedly lower risk of hospitalization... The University of Edinburgh study, drawing on the health records of 5.4 million people in Scotland, found the risk of hospitalization with Covid-19 was two-thirds lower with Omicron than with Delta." Of course the catch being that if three times as many people get it then it's a wash.

Except they did not account for vaccinate status in this.

Yes, but I'm not sure why that it a problem in their study design. They do talk about relative vaccine efficacy if you are interested, the full paper is here: https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/245818096/Severity_of_Omicron_variant_of_concern_and_vaccine_effectiveness_against_symptomatic_disease.pdf

[StashingAway]

Paper chaser, you are starting to remind me of hash brown in your unwillingness to see that choices you think are valid may be valid from your viewpoint, but are real risks from a society viewpoint.  You are certainly a good example of the American rugged individualist thinking, as opposed to the American barn-raising we are all in this together and help each other thinking. 

I'm not going to bother replying to you any more.  I'm too old for this nonsense, I will conserve my energy for more useful endeavours.

First it was "Stay home for the greater good. We're all in this together". Then it was "Wear a mask for the greater good. We're all in this together". Then it was "Get vaccinated for the greater good. We're all in this together". I've done those things, and I'll continue to do them as needed (staying home when feeling sick, wearing a mask when requested, etc). I'm abiding by all local regulations. I've followed the rules and expectations of society throughout this pandemic and will continue to. I'm simply not going above and beyond those rules and expectations. If that's not enough for you then you're free to judge as you see fit I guess.

It's just that you are following the rules without really seeming to see the need for them.  Without seeing that some people are going to be more vulnerable despite all their choices because of other peoples' choices. 

Maybe I am mis-interpreting your posts.  Let's let it rest.

I'm with Paper here in sentiment. We can't keep pretending that this is some temporary setback where we all need to take significant personal measures to get back to rosey colored 2019. Unless strictly enforced (and on an island like Singapore or New Zealand), lockdowns just aren't going to do anything. Covid, for me, has been thrown into the shuffle of everyday risks. I take many risks during the year that could affect mine or my familiy's health. I drive a gas vehicle that's pumping CO2 into the planet. This is contributing to health and economic factors worldwide. I limit the use of this vehicle far beyond what is legally required (although I do what is legal as well). But I still use it, knowing that I'm causing issues that have more risk for others more than me (third world countries and their citizens are getting much worse effects of climate change before I do). Vehicles themselves are dangerous on a persona level, so I have selfish reasons to make them safer- keep them maintained, don't drive drousy/drunk, maintain vigilance on the road, keep safety systems up to date.

I do the same for Covid. Vaxxed and will be boosted soon (staying maintained), don't go out when feeling sick, maintaining vigilance with washing my hands, etc. I am respectful of whatever folks or businesses want me to do in their circumstances. It's a metaphor, I don't think of Covid as driving a vehicle, just noting that it just runs through the same values and risk checklist that all of my other daily activities do.

Most hospital bed shortages are a result of exhausted and fed up staff. Our hospitals are for the most part able to handle Covid if we could recover personnel who have understandably thrown in the towel. What I'm suggesting is that we've taken a mental/societal and economic hit that we have to try to recover from rather than keep kicking the can down the road. Those that worry about the long term effects of mild Covid but not the long term effects of perpetual fear, anger and resentment have different priorities than me. I don't agree with the vaccine hesitant, but most of them are fed a whole world of fairly convincing arguments on why not to take it. Best I can do is converse with them and point out the flaws in their logic rather than pretend that they are some sort of sub-human incapable of empathy.

[Abe]

There are a few thoughts about this study that guide its interpretation

1. Number of events (hospitalizations) was low for S- (omicron) patients: only 15. Obviously a good thing but hard to account for multiple factors with this few events.
2. The unvaccinated population in the study was much lower than in the US (<10% of those 40+). Also the healthy population was much higher (73% had no comorbidities and only 6% had more than 1). In the US this is closer to 40% healthy.
3. This difference between the UK and the US is important because their data shows that the efficacy of non-booster doses against omicron wanes after 14 weeks, and by 25 weeks is similar to not being vaccinated at all!
Thus even if people are being admitted at lower rates (30-45% of expected), the entire non-booster population is essentially unprotected. In the US that is a very large population, especially accounting for our poor health status as a nation.
4. Prior covid infection does not provide any protection.

[PhilB]

There are a few thoughts about this study that guide its interpretation

1. Number of events (hospitalizations) was low for S- (omicron) patients: only 15. Obviously a good thing but hard to account for multiple factors with this few events.
2. The unvaccinated population in the study was much lower than in the US (<10% of those 40+). Also the healthy population was much higher (73% had no comorbidities and only 6% had more than 1). In the US this is closer to 40% healthy.
3. This difference between the UK and the US is important because their data shows that the efficacy of non-booster doses against omicron wanes after 14 weeks, and by 25 weeks is similar to not being vaccinated at all!
Thus even if people are being admitted at lower rates (30-45% of expected), the entire non-booster population is essentially unprotected. In the US that is a very large population, especially accounting for our poor health status as a nation.
4. Prior covid infection does not provide any protection.

The drop off in vaccine efficacy is in regard to developing symptoms, not in regard to developing severe disease.  This has been a consistent finding in many studies.  Bad news for spreading potential, but nothing like that bad for death rates or hospital occupancy.

[Abe]

There are a few thoughts about this study that guide its interpretation

1. Number of events (hospitalizations) was low for S- (omicron) patients: only 15. Obviously a good thing but hard to account for multiple factors with this few events.
2. The unvaccinated population in the study was much lower than in the US (<10% of those 40+). Also the healthy population was much higher (73% had no comorbidities and only 6% had more than 1). In the US this is closer to 40% healthy.
3. This difference between the UK and the US is important because their data shows that the efficacy of non-booster doses against omicron wanes after 14 weeks, and by 25 weeks is similar to not being vaccinated at all!
Thus even if people are being admitted at lower rates (30-45% of expected), the entire non-booster population is essentially unprotected. In the US that is a very large population, especially accounting for our poor health status as a nation.
4. Prior covid infection does not provide any protection.

The drop off in vaccine efficacy is in regard to developing symptoms, not in regard to developing severe disease.  This has been a consistent finding in many studies.  Bad news for spreading potential, but nothing like that bad for death rates or hospital occupancy.

Correct, but asymptomatic individuals rarely are hospitalized. Anything that spreads the virus will necessarily increase hospitalization unless risk of hospitalization from a variant is 0%

[GodlessCommie]

It's the way it was before... so yes, I think it can be.  Let me be clear I'm not saying you shouldn't have a choice who you socialize with, but what I am saying is I want it back to the way before where people did not care who had their flu shot to go over to their house for christmas... or ask for their vaccination card to enter a restaurant.   I asked for a reduction in the level of paranoia regarding vaccination status as it was before.

I'm sorry that my interpretation is not very charitable - but it sounds to me like you want other people's risk assessment (for themselves and the society) to match yours, and you justify it by calling their risk assessment paranoia.

[RetiredAt63]

It's the way it was before... so yes, I think it can be.  Let me be clear I'm not saying you shouldn't have a choice who you socialize with, but what I am saying is I want it back to the way before where people did not care who had their flu shot to go over to their house for christmas... or ask for their vaccination card to enter a restaurant.   I asked for a reduction in the level of paranoia regarding vaccination status as it was before.

I'm sorry that my interpretation is not very charitable - but it sounds to me like you want other people's risk assessment (for themselves and the society) to match yours, and you justify it by calling their risk assessment paranoia.

Things are pretty tight here at the moment because of omicron.  They were a lot easier before - yes vaccinated, but at a restaurant you have to take a mask off.

Now 2 friends of my DD have omicron, because he works at a bar/restaurant and they had all the pre-Christmas parties.  Both healthy and vaccinated, severe colds (and diagnosed) but not bad enough to go to hospital.  So basically omicron is a rule changer - super infectious but so far not as nasty.  And here at least, our waste water analysis says it is now 100% of our cases.  We just need to see now if the low hospitalization rate seen in South Africa for omicron holds true here (different population, winter).

[GodlessCommie]

So the consistent theme that seems to run through almost all of these "return to normal" scenarios is a desire to have fewer limitations and more freedom for each individual to choose what's right for them.

Based on these responses, it seems like most people want the freedom to choose to stay home if they're sick. They want to work remotely if possible, but having an option to work onsite appeals to many as well. They want to be able to wear a mask, or not wear a mask in public as they see fit, or go into stores/restaurants, or easily pick items up curbside or have them delivered, or travel freely.

Although we each prioritize differently, fewer restrictions and more flexibility seems to be enjoyed by pretty much everybody.

Here I once again see a less charitable picture. It's not back to normal if a significant number of us take voluntary precautions that didn't exist before. Your freedom is limited if a restaurant owner decides to check your vaccine status to protect their staff, or your family refuses to let you in their house without a covid test. Proponents of back to normal are pushing back on all of this, are pushing on others to accept the higher level of risk.

So both "no going back" and "back to normal" approaches are coercive. The former is openly, honestly coercive, justifying it by the needs of society. The latter is in denial about the coercion aspect, talking instead exclusively about freedom.

[HPstache]

It's the way it was before... so yes, I think it can be.  Let me be clear I'm not saying you shouldn't have a choice who you socialize with, but what I am saying is I want it back to the way before where people did not care who had their flu shot to go over to their house for christmas... or ask for their vaccination card to enter a restaurant.   I asked for a reduction in the level of paranoia regarding vaccination status as it was before.

I'm sorry that my interpretation is not very charitable - but it sounds to me like you want other people's risk assessment (for themselves and the society) to match yours, and you justify it by calling their risk assessment paranoia.

The person I quoted asked for opinions about what people are craving as "back to normal".  Unless you are telling me that you believe people were avoiding social gatherings based on vaccination status and restaurants were checking vaccination cards at the door prior to entry prior to 2020, I think it's fair for me to wish to have that back.... that's my opinion, so shoot me.  I'm not saying people need to match their risk assessment to mine, I'm saying, "those were good times when people didn't lose their friends and family over vaccination status" and personally I wouldn't mind getting back to that.  This whole "wow someone thinks that this virus is going to be around forever and they think it's reasonable to get back to pre-Covid normal so they are automatically an inconsiderate selfish asshole" is getting a little old.

[GodlessCommie]

Things are pretty tight here at the moment because of omicron.  They were a lot easier before - yes vaccinated, but at a restaurant you have to take a mask off.

Now 2 friends of my DD have omicron, because he works at a bar/restaurant and they had all the pre-Christmas parties.  Both healthy and vaccinated, severe colds (and diagnosed) but not bad enough to go to hospital.  So basically omicron is a rule changer - super infectious but so far not as nasty.  And here at least, our waste water analysis says it is now 100% of our cases.  We just need to see now if the low hospitalization rate seen in South Africa for omicron holds true here (different population, winter).

Yes, omicron may be a game changer. Up until and including Delta, reasonable precautions seem to have worked. With Omicron, there seems to be no defense, other than vaccines. Several people in my circle who are super-strict got Covid. Case counts in the county that stayed low in all previous waves are very high. This mutation may have decided the argument for us.

[GodlessCommie]

The person I quoted asked for opinions about what people are craving as "back to normal".  Unless you are telling me that you believe people were avoiding social gatherings based on vaccination status and restaurants were checking vaccination cards at the door prior to entry prior to 2020, I think it's fair for me to wish to have that back.... that's my opinion, so shoot me.  I'm not saying people need to match their risk assessment to mine, I'm saying, "those were good times when people didn't lose their friends and family over vaccination status" and personally I wouldn't mind getting back to that.  This whole "wow someone thinks that this virus is going to be around forever and they think it's reasonable to get back to pre-Covid normal so they are automatically an inconsiderate selfish asshole" is getting a little old.

What you wrote here would have made perfect sense if not for the "paranoia" part.

[OtherJen]

It's the way it was before... so yes, I think it can be.  Let me be clear I'm not saying you shouldn't have a choice who you socialize with, but what I am saying is I want it back to the way before where people did not care who had their flu shot to go over to their house for christmas... or ask for their vaccination card to enter a restaurant.   I asked for a reduction in the level of paranoia regarding vaccination status as it was before.

I'm sorry that my interpretation is not very charitable - but it sounds to me like you want other people's risk assessment (for themselves and the society) to match yours, and you justify it by calling their risk assessment paranoia.

The person I quoted asked for opinions about what people are craving as "back to normal".  Unless you are telling me that you believe people were avoiding social gatherings based on vaccination status and restaurants were checking vaccination cards at the door prior to entry prior to 2020, I think it's fair for me to wish to have that back.... that's my opinion, so shoot me.  I'm not saying people need to match their risk assessment to mine, I'm saying, "those were good times when people didn't lose their friends and family over vaccination status" and personally I wouldn't mind getting back to that.  This whole "wow someone thinks that this virus is going to be around forever and they think it's reasonable to get back to pre-Covid normal so they are automatically an inconsiderate selfish asshole" is getting a little old.

My SIL required all visitors to be up-to-date on vaccinations when visiting her newborns in 2013 and 2014. Public and many private school kids have long been required to present proof of vaccination, and the military has long ordered a huge panel of vaccines for enlisted members. Immunocompromised people and their families have long requested that others not visit if sick or unvaccinated. The difference now is that we have a recently introduced, highly contagious, and rapidly mutating virus. I reiterate that we're not back to normal yet, whatever that means. More than 200K cases on Christmas Day, when many normal testing facilities were closed, and 4,500 canceled flights worldwide over the last weekend is not normal.

I don't think a person deciding that they don't want the additional risk of inviting an unvaccinated person into their private home = losing friends and family over vaccination status. That seems to be a false equivalence for dramatic effect. It's the unvaccinated person's choice to refuse the vaccine and accept the consequences of that choice, and everyone else's choice to decide their own level of risk exposure. Is that freedom to decide for oneself not what you wanted? In my own case, I do not care to entertain unvaccinated people in my home in the current major wave. If they choose to be vaccinated, they will be welcomed. When the wave subsides, I will reconsider my stance based on the best available information. Should I not have the right to make such decisions in my own home, just because my decisions might make someone else feel bad about the consequences of their own free choices? Should business owners not have the choice to decide how much risk from potentially unvaccinated customers they will require their employees to tolerate?
 
It really is coming across as though you want the freedom to make your own choices but don't feel that others should have the same freedom. I do hope I've misread several of your posts.

[magus]

We've been back to normal for a long while when the CDC data was clear the risk < 50 for healthy individuals from COVID was very low (~3% increase in death rate risk at my age for healthy, 8-9% if unhealthy). Only thing we're not doing is international to Europe since we don't want to get stuck with any changing rules nor risk lots of places closes/wear mask 100% of the time (not a very fun vacation. We have still gone to the Caribbean/Mexico though several times since covid hit, including 12 of us that just went to Cabo together recently.

I laugh when people restrict access to their kids over covid worries. Your kid/grandkid has almost no risk of covid (which isn't to say zero, but its less than 1 in 100k)! Covid increased child death rates by just 1% in the last 2 years - your kid is 10x more likely to die in a car wreck and nearly 3x more likely to die from flu/pneumonia as covid based on CDC stats so if you really want to protect your kid, don't drive them anywhere - ever.

The data is clear from Israel, UK, etc - vaccines are not going to end the pandemic. UK is significantly more vaccinated than the US but more than 2x the rate of covid spread and 85% of those dying in UK are vaccinated. Israel is already working on shot #4. Life has risk, I'm going to live my life than worry in fear about a virus that has a 99.9% survival rate for my age group and 99.7% overall.

[HPstache]

It's the way it was before... so yes, I think it can be.  Let me be clear I'm not saying you shouldn't have a choice who you socialize with, but what I am saying is I want it back to the way before where people did not care who had their flu shot to go over to their house for christmas... or ask for their vaccination card to enter a restaurant.   I asked for a reduction in the level of paranoia regarding vaccination status as it was before.

I'm sorry that my interpretation is not very charitable - but it sounds to me like you want other people's risk assessment (for themselves and the society) to match yours, and you justify it by calling their risk assessment paranoia.

The person I quoted asked for opinions about what people are craving as "back to normal".  Unless you are telling me that you believe people were avoiding social gatherings based on vaccination status and restaurants were checking vaccination cards at the door prior to entry prior to 2020, I think it's fair for me to wish to have that back.... that's my opinion, so shoot me.  I'm not saying people need to match their risk assessment to mine, I'm saying, "those were good times when people didn't lose their friends and family over vaccination status" and personally I wouldn't mind getting back to that.  This whole "wow someone thinks that this virus is going to be around forever and they think it's reasonable to get back to pre-Covid normal so they are automatically an inconsiderate selfish asshole" is getting a little old.

My SIL required all visitors to be up-to-date on vaccinations when visiting her newborns in 2013 and 2014. Public and many private school kids have long been required to present proof of vaccination, and the military has long ordered a huge panel of vaccines for enlisted members. Immunocompromised people and their families have long requested that others not visit if sick or unvaccinated. The difference now is that we have a recently introduced, highly contagious, and rapidly mutating virus. I reiterate that we're not back to normal yet, whatever that means. More than 200K cases on Christmas Day, when many normal testing facilities were closed, and 4,500 canceled flights worldwide over the last weekend is not normal.

I don't think a person deciding that they don't want the additional risk of inviting an unvaccinated person into their private home = losing friends and family over vaccination status. That seems to be a false equivalence for dramatic effect. It's the unvaccinated person's choice to refuse the vaccine and accept the consequences of that choice, and everyone else's choice to decide their own level of risk exposure. Is that freedom to decide for oneself not what you wanted? In my own case, I do not care to entertain unvaccinated people in my home in the current major wave. If they choose to be vaccinated, they will be welcomed. When the wave subsides, I will reconsider my stance based on the best available information. Should I not have the right to make such decisions in my own home, just because my decisions might make someone else feel bad about the consequences of their own free choices? Should business owners not have the choice to decide how much risk from potentially unvaccinated customers they will require their employees to tolerate?
 
It really is coming across as though you want the freedom to make your own choices but don't feel that others should have the same freedom. I do hope I've misread several of your posts incorrectly.

I want the freedom to make my own choices and I want the same for others...  Plain and simple.  What I wish would go back to the way things were before Covid was the general lack of care regarding this new extremely hot button issue of someone's vaccination status.  I'm not saying we should FORCE people to no longer care.  As mentioned before that's their choice and I'm good with that, I just crave the good old days where everyone just went to the Christmas party, we didn't have to second guess whether our veterinarian or hairdresser's vaccination policy was actually true, or you just walked into the restaurant or crossed that boarder without having to show your card.  I personally believe the majority will get back to this at some point in time, but there will be many who will be extremely cautious for the rest of their lives... and that will be their choice that no one should take from them.

[OtherJen]

It's the way it was before... so yes, I think it can be.  Let me be clear I'm not saying you shouldn't have a choice who you socialize with, but what I am saying is I want it back to the way before where people did not care who had their flu shot to go over to their house for christmas... or ask for their vaccination card to enter a restaurant.   I asked for a reduction in the level of paranoia regarding vaccination status as it was before.

I'm sorry that my interpretation is not very charitable - but it sounds to me like you want other people's risk assessment (for themselves and the society) to match yours, and you justify it by calling their risk assessment paranoia.

The person I quoted asked for opinions about what people are craving as "back to normal".  Unless you are telling me that you believe people were avoiding social gatherings based on vaccination status and restaurants were checking vaccination cards at the door prior to entry prior to 2020, I think it's fair for me to wish to have that back.... that's my opinion, so shoot me.  I'm not saying people need to match their risk assessment to mine, I'm saying, "those were good times when people didn't lose their friends and family over vaccination status" and personally I wouldn't mind getting back to that.  This whole "wow someone thinks that this virus is going to be around forever and they think it's reasonable to get back to pre-Covid normal so they are automatically an inconsiderate selfish asshole" is getting a little old.

My SIL required all visitors to be up-to-date on vaccinations when visiting her newborns in 2013 and 2014. Public and many private school kids have long been required to present proof of vaccination, and the military has long ordered a huge panel of vaccines for enlisted members. Immunocompromised people and their families have long requested that others not visit if sick or unvaccinated. The difference now is that we have a recently introduced, highly contagious, and rapidly mutating virus. I reiterate that we're not back to normal yet, whatever that means. More than 200K cases on Christmas Day, when many normal testing facilities were closed, and 4,500 canceled flights worldwide over the last weekend is not normal.

I don't think a person deciding that they don't want the additional risk of inviting an unvaccinated person into their private home = losing friends and family over vaccination status. That seems to be a false equivalence for dramatic effect. It's the unvaccinated person's choice to refuse the vaccine and accept the consequences of that choice, and everyone else's choice to decide their own level of risk exposure. Is that freedom to decide for oneself not what you wanted? In my own case, I do not care to entertain unvaccinated people in my home in the current major wave. If they choose to be vaccinated, they will be welcomed. When the wave subsides, I will reconsider my stance based on the best available information. Should I not have the right to make such decisions in my own home, just because my decisions might make someone else feel bad about the consequences of their own free choices? Should business owners not have the choice to decide how much risk from potentially unvaccinated customers they will require their employees to tolerate?
 
It really is coming across as though you want the freedom to make your own choices but don't feel that others should have the same freedom. I do hope I've misread several of your posts.

I want the freedom to make my own choices and I want the same for others...  Plain and simple.  What I wish would go back to the way things were before Covid was the general lack of care regarding this new extremely hot button issue of someone's vaccination status.  I'm not saying we should FORCE people to no longer care.  As mentioned before that's their choice and I'm good with that, I just crave the good old days where everyone just went to the Christmas party, we didn't have to second guess whether our veterinarian or hairdresser's vaccination policy was actually true, or you just walked into the restaurant or crossed that boarder without having to show your card.  I personally believe the majority will get back to this at some point in time, but there will be many who will be extremely cautious for the rest of their lives... and that will be their choice that no one should take from them.

Yeah, I get that. I don't miss everything about the Before Times, but I do miss some of it.

I'm glad that one of my choirs was able to resume this fall. We'll be singing in masks until everyone is comfortable taking them off again. It's definitely not ideal. Singers' masks help, but it's much more comfortable to not to wear them and much harder to convey the emotion of the music with them. Still, we're all a bit scarred by the realization that our last concert was Feb. 29, 2020, and less than two weeks later, the world heard about the choir in WA State that lost several members due to a superspreader event at one of their rehearsals. Given how bad the first wave was here, we were extremely lucky not to have caused an outbreak at our concert and not to have lost any of our elderly members to COVID.

[former player]

UK is significantly more vaccinated than the US but more than 2x the rate of covid spread and 85% of those dying in UK are vaccinated.

Highly misleading stat for deaths in the UK there. The official vaccinated/unvaccinated UK covid19 death stats are here -

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31october2021#monthly-age-standardised-mortality-rates-by-vaccination-status-deaths-involving-covid-19

"Over the whole period (1 January to 31 October 2021), the age-adjusted risk of deaths involving COVID-19 was 96% lower in people who had received a second dose at least 21 days ago compared with unvaccinated people."

[Paper Chaser]

So the consistent theme that seems to run through almost all of these "return to normal" scenarios is a desire to have fewer limitations and more freedom for each individual to choose what's right for them.

Based on these responses, it seems like most people want the freedom to choose to stay home if they're sick. They want to work remotely if possible, but having an option to work onsite appeals to many as well. They want to be able to wear a mask, or not wear a mask in public as they see fit, or go into stores/restaurants, or easily pick items up curbside or have them delivered, or travel freely.

Although we each prioritize differently, fewer restrictions and more flexibility seems to be enjoyed by pretty much everybody.

Here I once again see a less charitable picture. It's not back to normal if a significant number of us take voluntary precautions that didn't exist before. Your freedom is limited if a restaurant owner decides to check your vaccine status to protect their staff, or your family refuses to let you in their house without a covid test. Proponents of back to normal are pushing back on all of this, are pushing on others to accept the higher level of risk.

So both "no going back" and "back to normal" approaches are coercive. The former is openly, honestly coercive, justifying it by the needs of society. The latter is in denial about the coercion aspect, talking instead exclusively about freedom.

I have no problem with businesses doing what they feel is best to protect their workers. I'll don a mask whenever it's requested or required of me. I do that because I respect their authority to set their own rules, and I understand that if I choose to patronize said business, then I need to follow their rules. Same is true for visiting friends or family. It's their house and their rules. I'm good with that. I also have a choice in each matter.

I had no choice in society wide restrictions at the beginning of the pandemic. I tolerated them without too much grumbling because I think they had some very good benefits when the stakes were higher. I'm an essential worker, but I was willing to stay home as much as possible during the initial shutdown phase of the pandemic. I've willingly worn a mask when required (and will still do so upon request provided I have a mask with me or one is provided for me) throughout the pandemic. These steps were needed at the beginning of this pandemic because the potential unwilling loss of life was pretty great. Then, highly effective vaccines came along. For many months now, any adult (and many children) in the US that wants a free, effective vaccine to decrease their risk of severe outcomes has been able to make that choice for themselves. That changes the risk on a societal level in my opinion. I'm willing to give up some society wide freedoms temporarily to avoid widespread severe illness and death without recourse, but the vaccines have changed things tremendously on that front. I'm not willing to give up freedoms on a society wide level to protect people that refuse to protect themselves. I'm not willing to give up freedoms on a society wide level to maybe improve the risk level of somebody, somewhere from suffering what's very likely to be a minor cold by an amount that cannot be calculated.

[PhilB]

UK is significantly more vaccinated than the US but more than 2x the rate of covid spread and 85% of those dying in UK are vaccinated.

Highly misleading stat for deaths in the UK there. The official vaccinated/unvaccinated UK covid19 death stats are here -

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31october2021#monthly-age-standardised-mortality-rates-by-vaccination-status-deaths-involving-covid-19

"Over the whole period (1 January to 31 October 2021), the age-adjusted risk of deaths involving COVID-19 was 96% lower in people who had received a second dose at least 21 days ago compared with unvaccinated people."

Wonderfully misleading indeed.  It is indeed true that the vast majority of people dying, from any cause, in the UK are vaccinated.  That's because the the only significant populations of unvaccinated people in the UK are the under 12s and they don't tend to die very often.  The people who do tend to pop their clogs, for a multitude of reasons, are the elderly and more than 90% of them are vaccinated.  In every age cohort the unvaccinated are demonstrably at higher risk of death than the vaccinated.

[Gin1984]

Omicron scares me due to its transmissibility, but thankfully early data indicates its slightly less deadly than Delta.

I saw this today. That states  "markedly lower risk of hospitalization... The University of Edinburgh study, drawing on the health records of 5.4 million people in Scotland, found the risk of hospitalization with Covid-19 was two-thirds lower with Omicron than with Delta." Of course the catch being that if three times as many people get it then it's a wash.

Except they did not account for vaccinate status in this.

Yes, but I'm not sure why that it a problem in their study design. They do talk about relative vaccine efficacy if you are interested, the full paper is here: https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/245818096/Severity_of_Omicron_variant_of_concern_and_vaccine_effectiveness_against_symptomatic_disease.pdf

It is a problem because you can't say it is less harmful (which btw include long COVID not just hospitalizations, things like brain fog, heart and lung damage) when you are looking at people who are vaccinated.  You can say that vaccines plus this variant are less likely (they think) to cause hospitalizations nothing more.  People are jumping from that to less virulent/less harmful and they are not the same thing.   

[K_in_the_kitchen]

My SIL required all visitors to be up-to-date on vaccinations when visiting her newborns in 2013 and 2014. Public and many private school kids have long been required to present proof of vaccination, and the military has long ordered a huge panel of vaccines for enlisted members. Immunocompromised people and their families have long requested that others not visit if sick or unvaccinated. The difference now is that we have a recently introduced, highly contagious, and rapidly mutating virus. I reiterate that we're not back to normal yet, whatever that means. More than 200K cases on Christmas Day, when many normal testing facilities were closed, and 4,500 canceled flights worldwide over the last weekend is not normal.

I don't think a person deciding that they don't want the additional risk of inviting an unvaccinated person into their private home = losing friends and family over vaccination status. That seems to be a false equivalence for dramatic effect. It's the unvaccinated person's choice to refuse the vaccine and accept the consequences of that choice, and everyone else's choice to decide their own level of risk exposure. Is that freedom to decide for oneself not what you wanted? In my own case, I do not care to entertain unvaccinated people in my home in the current major wave. If they choose to be vaccinated, they will be welcomed. When the wave subsides, I will reconsider my stance based on the best available information. Should I not have the right to make such decisions in my own home, just because my decisions might make someone else feel bad about the consequences of their own free choices? Should business owners not have the choice to decide how much risk from potentially unvaccinated customers they will require their employees to tolerate?
 
It really is coming across as though you want the freedom to make your own choices but don't feel that others should have the same freedom. I do hope I've misread several of your posts.

Here in California, vaccination laws for school-aged children went from very lax to extremely stringent in 2015. The religious and philosophical exemptions were done away with. When medical exemptions went way up, the state started tracking how many exemptions doctors were giving. These days a child has to have a solid medical reason to not be vaccinated or they cannot go to public or private school. Parents can homeschool if they don't want to vaccinate.  From what I've read the state is rolling Covid-19 vaccination into the list of required vaccines beginning in July 2022 for grades 7-12 and likely other grades in January 2023.

The vast majority of people who are antivax for Covid already vaccinate their children against a wide variety of diseases, which tells me this is a political stance and not a medical one.

It's been hard for me to say no to unvaccinated family members, but I've finally come to see that they have chosen not to be vaccinated and that I'm not required to change my standards based on their decisions.  I'm rather astounded that these family members are upset at not being able to attend gatherings and possibly infect loved ones who are over 50 with underlying conditions.  Two of the unvaccinated regularly interact with their 77 year old mother who has multiple underlying conditions.  Now, I understand that she wants to see them, but I just don't understand why they can't see the risk they pose to her.  These same children strongly advised her not to get vaccinated -- luckily my husband was able to convince her to get vaccinated -- and then when she did they had the gall to say "I hope you don't die from the vaccine" which freaked her out.  On the other side of the family, my sister-in-law didn't see her parents in person for more than a year because she and her family decided they didn't want to be the reason her parents (early 80s) died.

I don't believe there will ever be normal again -- Covid is here to stay and even as an endemic virus there will be years it's worse and we have to tighten up precautions. And I think Covid is only the beginning -- this has been waiting to happen and other pathogens will develop and then pass to humans.  At some point it might be a virus that comes for our children, and then I think this ridiculous anti-vax and anti-mask behavior will get tossed aside.  I've said all along that if C19 was killing children in the beginning the way it was killing the elderly, we wouldn't be having these fights about vaccines -- parents would be begging for them.  So the question isn't about getting back to normal, it's about moving forward.  Those who are more risk averse are going to have to accept some risk.  Those who aren't risk averse at all are going to have to accept some precautions.  We're all going to dance in and out of it.

[magus]

UK is significantly more vaccinated than the US but more than 2x the rate of covid spread and 85% of those dying in UK are vaccinated.

Highly misleading stat for deaths in the UK there. The official vaccinated/unvaccinated UK covid19 death stats are here -

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31october2021#monthly-age-standardised-mortality-rates-by-vaccination-status-deaths-involving-covid-19

"Over the whole period (1 January to 31 October 2021), the age-adjusted risk of deaths involving COVID-19 was 96% lower in people who had received a second dose at least 21 days ago compared with unvaccinated people."

Anything in the first half of the year is irrelevant for recent trends for a number of reasons - 1) The first four months of the year most in the UK were not vaccinated so that period is largely irrelevant 2) The vaccines peak efficacy is in months 2-4 - most folks are well past their peak.  3) we are now 2 variations later in the virus and future breakouts of covid will be even further mutated versions of the virus that the vaccine is even less likely to be effective against.

In the last 3 months, 85% of those who have died in the UK are vaccinated and cases in the UK are double what they were last winter before vaccines at all. My point is the vaccines are not going to end the pandemic. They really aren't even a vaccine as they don't prevent you from getting it, it simply reduces your risk of dying from it - definitely worth taking if you are > 50 or have comorbidities, but saying "if only everyone was vaccinated this would be over" is flat out incorrect. The early data is even suggesting the boosters are only good vs Omicron for about 10 weeks and then may actually enhance the probability to get it.

[MOD NOTE:  This is a lot of misinformation and regurgitated misunderstandings of the science involved in immunology]

Full disclosure: Vaccinated but not boosted myself

[nereo]

In the last 3 months, 85% of those who have died in the UK are vaccinated and cases in the UK are double what they were last winter before vaccines at all.

I do not think this means what you seem to think it means.

They really aren't even a vaccine as they don't prevent you from getting it, it simply reduces your risk of dying from it

What you describe (regardless of whether it is accurate) very much describes a vaccine.

The early data is even suggesting the boosters are only good vs Omicron for about 10 weeks and then may actually enhance the probability to get it.

Which “early data suggests that boosters increase the probability of contracting Covid? Because this completely contradicts every single peer-reviewed report I have seen thus far.

[bill1827]

In the last 3 months, 85% of those who have died in the UK are vaccinated and cases in the UK are double what they were last winter before vaccines at all. My point is the vaccines are not going to end the pandemic. They really aren't even a vaccine as they don't prevent you from getting it, it simply reduces your risk of dying from it - definitely worth taking if you are > 50 or have comorbidities, but saying "if only everyone was vaccinated this would be over" is flat out incorrect.

From the UKHSA covid 19 vaccine survey report week 19:
"In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19."

In other words, if most of the population is vaccinated, most of those who die will have been vaccinated. If you look at the data by age group you'll get a different picture, for instance, in those under 40 69% of the deaths are in the un-vaccinated as the vaccination rate is lower in younger people.

In the UK comparing the number of cases with hospitalisations is instructive. At the moment there are over 100,000 cases a day compared to a peak of about 55,000 last winter, but the number in hospital is about 8,000 compared to a peak of nearly 40,000 a year ago. Similarly, deaths are about 140 per day compared to around 1500 a day a year ago.

The vaccine has been extremely effective in the UK; it has reduced deaths and hospitalisation dramatically and is well worth doing.

Of course they won't end the pandemic, there are too many people worldwide who aren't and probably won't be vaccinated.

[Paper Chaser]

... I'm not willing to give up freedoms on a society wide level to maybe improve the risk level of somebody, somewhere from suffering what's very likely to be a minor cold by an amount that cannot be calculated.

Hmmm.  I know we're in different countries / health care systems.  Here, society wide measures are to protect the health care system, in the main.  I think it's worth protecting.  But then, I'm over 60 with parents in mid-80s and many loved ones of varying ages and behaviours.  I'd prefer we all have access to good care for now and for years to come.

Overloaded healthcare systems are bad news for sure. I don't see a reason to restrict people that have taken precautions to reduce their risk of using the healthcare system so that people that have not taken the opportunity can go about their lives as normal and then end up overloading the healthcare system. The vaccinated are not the ones overloading the system. If we're going to restrict a large part of the populace to avoid overloading the medical system I'd propose starting with the groups most at risk of causing the overloading.

As I already said, the likelihood of receiving medical care in an emergency should definitely be accounted for in one's own personal risk assessment. If people want to restrict themselves voluntarily for any reason that's fine with me. Wear a mask when it's not required? Go right ahead. Stay home to avoid unnecessary interactions? Knock yourself out. Avoid potentially dangerous activities if the local healthcare system is at capacity? That makes total sense to me. If they want to take any of these steps to avoid contracting the virus, that's perfectly reasonable. If they want to do it to feel like they're doing their part to avoid overloading the healthcare system, that's fine too but I'd question how much positive impact that actually has when unvaccinated jokers are running around like normal and getting sick.

[GodlessCommie]

I read this article and was impressed with how well it captured the arguments from this thread. Guess this forum does as good of the job as The Atlantic!

[SwordGuy]

Overloaded healthcare systems are bad news for sure. I don't see a reason to restrict people that have taken precautions to reduce their risk of using the healthcare system so that people that have not taken the opportunity can go about their lives as normal and then end up overloading the healthcare system. The vaccinated are not the ones overloading the system. If we're going to restrict a large part of the populace to avoid overloading the medical system I'd propose starting with the groups most at risk of causing the overloading.

Absolutely.  Put the voluntarily unvaccinated at the back of the line when triage is needed.   Let the stubbornly ignorant pay the price for their stupidity, not the innocent.

Selfishness and greed on top of what should have been short-duration vaccine shortages has kept the bulk of the world from getting vaccinated, and willful stupidity has kept large swaths of the US unvaccinated.   So everyone will probably end up getting it at some point.   God damn the willfully stupid and the greedy who made this situation so very much worse.

I sure don't want to get it when the healthcare system is overwhelmed.   If we get bad sick from covid I want the healthcare system fully able to treat us.    Plus, the longer the disease spreads around the less virulent it is (likely) to become and the more skilled the medical practitioners will be in treating it, so later is better than earlier.

[RetiredAt63]

Overloaded healthcare systems are bad news for sure. I don't see a reason to restrict people that have taken precautions to reduce their risk of using the healthcare system so that people that have not taken the opportunity can go about their lives as normal and then end up overloading the healthcare system. The vaccinated are not the ones overloading the system. If we're going to restrict a large part of the populace to avoid overloading the medical system I'd propose starting with the groups most at risk of causing the overloading.

Absolutely.  Put the voluntarily unvaccinated at the back of the line when triage is needed.   Let the stubbornly ignorant pay the price for their stupidity, not the innocent.

Selfishness and greed on top of what should have been short-duration vaccine shortages has kept the bulk of the world from getting vaccinated, and willful stupidity has kept large swaths of the US unvaccinated.   So everyone will probably end up getting it at some point.   God damn the willfully stupid and the greedy who made this situation so very much worse.

I sure don't want to get it when the healthcare system is overwhelmed.   If we get bad sick from covid I want the healthcare system fully able to treat us.    Plus, the longer the disease spreads around the less virulent it is (likely) to become and the more skilled the medical practitioners will be in treating it, so later is better than earlier.

I saw a synopsis of a paper* recently where the researchers think Omicron was off evolving in mice since it is a direct genetic descendant of the original strain, while we went through all the other major variants mutating in us.  Its spike proteins are perfect for mouse ACE receptors.  This is why we are seeing lower nastiness.  As the commentator said, we are lucky the animal species was mice, not camels - MERS was from camels with high human mortality rates.  So yes the general trend is to less severity, but no guarantees.

It would be nice to have the hospitals properly staffed and with capacity for cases other than Covid.  /s


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1673852721003738  In the species comparison the rodents were Norway rats, house mice mice and hamsters, so I am guessing that for those they were using lab animals.  Since it appears to have originated in Africa, the mouse species could have been house mice, other mice, or more than one species.  I imagine someone at some point may examine various mouse species to see if some are implicated more than others.  That would be useful to know since house mice are notorious pests and I really don't like to think of them as a reservoir species.  Still better than camels.

[PDXTabs]

I read this article and was impressed with how well it captured the arguments from this thread. Guess this forum does as good of the job as The Atlantic!

For sure, why do you think I hang out here reading everyone's opinion? For serious, many posters here makes me think (including you). Sometimes people here change my mind.

Also, an update: I went from not knowing anyone who had COVID to knowing multiple people with breakthrough infections after booster shots. I guess that Omicron is the real deal. No one seriously sick with those boosters though.

[Joeko]

https://peterattiamd.com/covid-19-current-state-omicron/

Excellent and fair discussion of Covid policies and where are we headed.

[PhilB]

... house mice are notorious pests and I really don't like to think of them as a reservoir species.  Still better than camels.

A domestic infestation of camels doesn't bear thinking about!

[MrsV]

https://peterattiamd.com/covid-19-current-state-omicron/

Excellent and fair discussion of Covid policies and where are we headed.

Just started listening to this today (coincidentally). I’m familiar with these three doctors and although I’m only half way through their conversation here, as usual with each of them, they make so much sense!

[Ron Scott]

We’re triple vaxxed, and aren’t bothered much by wearing masks inside public places.

REALLY missing theater and music and clubs. 3 outings this fall in NY but back in limbo now.

Cancelled a family bucket list safari and had to fight with the travel agent for the refund.

Grew tired of being angry with the antivax/anti mask crowd. Moved on.

Stopped watching CNN with their unintentionally comic “Breaking News” on Covid. Latest Fauci tweet or whatever. We all know now that social media and TV news companies work to keep us angry so we “stay tuned”. So over it.

Disappointed with CDC et al. Heartened by the never-ending support from our medical pros.

Wondering why we don’t all have a drawer full of tests and some pills handy. That’d be nice.

I’ve become more conscious of hand-to-face contact. Haven’t had so much as a sniffle in two years.

Walking and generally exercising more now than in the past, but balancing things out by eating more ice cream at night.

I’m fascinated by people’s mass quitting poorly structured jobs and where WFH I’d going to take us. Crises beget social change.

Cloth masks are not good?

[nereo]

Walking and generally exercising more now than in the past, but balancing things out by eating more ice cream at night.

Balance is important in life
:-)

[jrhampt]

The main indoor thing I *really* care about (the Y, yoga studio), I have put on hiatus from late December through probably the end of January since I know too many people to count right now who have covid.  Ugh.  Lots of long, cold runs for me augmented with basement workouts, which is not too bad if I know it's not forever. I do miss restaurants and indoor performances too, but I can live without them.  Have ballet tickets in NYC 1/30 and 2/12, and debating whether to attend - they do require masks and vax and I have been wearing the good kn95s indoors anywhere for weeks now, but will see what they're looking like there in a couple of weeks.  Hoping that after this latest surge passes the hospitals can be under less stress and we will stop having to worry about this sometime this year.

[nereo]

I normally go to a board game convention in early March. In 2020, it happened just before lockdowns started, and it got cancelled in 2021. This year, they are requiring masks, even for the fully vaccinated. I don't think that I would enjoy trying to talk through a mask while playing board games, so I'll unfortunately be missing out in 2022.

Interesting that you mentioned board games and masks.  While we don't go to conventions, we do play with friends, and given the surge in cases we've played with masks on ever since moving it indoors as the weather turned cold. The biggest drawback to me isn't talking but not being able to eat snacks during the game. 

[roomtempmayo]

Grew tired of being angry with the antivax/anti mask crowd. Moved on.

Stopped watching CNN with their unintentionally comic “Breaking News” on Covid. Latest Fauci tweet or whatever. We all know now that social media and TV news companies work to keep us angry so we “stay tuned”. So over it.

Disappointed with CDC et al. Heartened by the never-ending support from our medical pros.

For sure.  I'm out of outrage.  Or maybe I've just redirected it toward society's shirkers who have spent the pandemic trying to get what they can for them and theirs without regard for others.

The pandemic has clarified what it means to do essential work, and differentiated it from all the work that's optional.  I do hope that in the long run we recognize the work that really holds society together.

[bmjohnson35]

I'm wondering if the Omicron variant will prove to be the catalyst that transitions us from pandemic to endemic. 

 

[seattlecyclone]

I'm wondering if the Omicron variant will prove to be the catalyst that transitions us from pandemic to endemic. 

What's the technical difference between the two? Is it mostly a state of mind at this point? It's obvious COVID is here to stay in some form. This omicron variant is extremely contagious. Policies that require people to isolate themselves for a week or two after a close contact with a COVID carrier just seem super untenable at this point; nobody's going to be left to work in a lot of places that really need workers.

[Zola.]

i think we are nearing the end times of all of this stuff...

[2sk22]

Derek Thompson covered this topic really well in the latest episode of his podcast Plain English. Derek Thomson is a writer for The Atlantic and has written some of the best articles on the subject.

This episode covers some of the material in his article Why some Americans are saying they're Vaxxed and Done. This article really captures a lot of the discussions I have seen here and elsewhere.

To be honest, I find myself increasingly moving strongly to the "vaxxed and done" camp. I have had covid (first wave April 2020) and three doses of vaccine. I have been exercising every day in a gym right starting from September 2020. I have been tested several times and it has always been negative.

[dividend]

Stopped watching CNN with their unintentionally comic “Breaking News” on Covid. Latest Fauci tweet or whatever. We all know now that social media and TV news companies work to keep us angry so we “stay tuned”. So over it.

This is so true!  I spent 2 weeks on v/k in a condo with my parents, and they have CNN, etc. on all the time as just background noise, whereas I read news articles online mostly.    After a few days, my anxiety about this stuff was so much higher than it is normally! 

Wondering why we don’t all have a drawer full of tests and some pills handy. That’d be nice.

The home tests are kind of crap against the new variant.  I know so many people who had multiple negative home tests before getting a positive PCR test.

[GuitarStv]

I'm wondering if the Omicron variant will prove to be the catalyst that transitions us from pandemic to endemic. 

What's the technical difference between the two? Is it mostly a state of mind at this point? It's obvious COVID is here to stay in some form. This omicron variant is extremely contagious. Policies that require people to isolate themselves for a week or two after a close contact with a COVID carrier just seem super untenable at this point; nobody's going to be left to work in a lot of places that really need workers.

Endemic is where the disease is everywhere, most of the vulnerable people are either protected by medical science or dead, and we just kind of give up fighting the disease and accept living with it is part of life.

[BeanCounter]

Stopped watching CNN with their unintentionally comic “Breaking News” on Covid. Latest Fauci tweet or whatever. We all know now that social media and TV news companies work to keep us angry so we “stay tuned”. So over it.

This is so true!  I spent 2 weeks on v/k in a condo with my parents, and they have CNN, etc. on all the time as just background noise, whereas I read news articles online mostly.    After a few days, my anxiety about this stuff was so much higher than it is normally! 

Wondering why we don’t all have a drawer full of tests and some pills handy. That’d be nice.

The home tests are kind of crap against the new variant.  I know so many people who had multiple negative home tests before getting a positive PCR test.

I'm not sure it matters. My understanding is that your home test predicts if you have it and are contagious. The PCR test will indicate that you have it but you may not still be contagious. This is part of the change from 10 day to 5 day quarantine.
My former employer (hospital system), just put out a notice that employees may work while having covid. Even if they have symptoms. Wear a mask and come to work, but please take your breaks in your vehicle.
I do think it's time for the majority of us to move on. Get vaxxed and keep moving. Unless you are elderly or have other health conditions, in which case you might want to lay low a few more weeks and wear an N95 mask.
It just feels weird because we were shut down and had mask mandates when this all started. Now cases are terrible and everyone is just like "oh well, can't do anything about it. Keep moving."  The difference is we have vaccines and treatments to keep the vast majority of us from dying.

[HPstache]

I'm wondering if the Omicron variant will prove to be the catalyst that transitions us from pandemic to endemic. 

What's the technical difference between the two? Is it mostly a state of mind at this point? It's obvious COVID is here to stay in some form. This omicron variant is extremely contagious. Policies that require people to isolate themselves for a week or two after a close contact with a COVID carrier just seem super untenable at this point; nobody's going to be left to work in a lot of places that really need workers.

Endemic is where the disease is everywhere, most of the vulnerable people are either protected by medical science or dead, and we just kind of give up fighting the disease and accept living with it is part of life.

I have an alternate definition.  Pandemic: Government tells you what you must do and cannot do in order to help stop the spread of a virus.  Endemic: Government lets you risk assess and make the decisions for yourself.

[GuitarStv]

I'm wondering if the Omicron variant will prove to be the catalyst that transitions us from pandemic to endemic. 

What's the technical difference between the two? Is it mostly a state of mind at this point? It's obvious COVID is here to stay in some form. This omicron variant is extremely contagious. Policies that require people to isolate themselves for a week or two after a close contact with a COVID carrier just seem super untenable at this point; nobody's going to be left to work in a lot of places that really need workers.

Endemic is where the disease is everywhere, most of the vulnerable people are either protected by medical science or dead, and we just kind of give up fighting the disease and accept living with it is part of life.

I have an alternate definition.  Pandemic: Government tells you what you must do and cannot do in order to help stop the spread of a virus.  Endemic: Government lets you risk assess and make the decisions for yourself.

Your political bias is showing.  The government doesn't really have anything to do with pandemic/endemic.  The definition you've given can be broken down in it's simplest form to:

Government = bad.

Which is fine, as it's clearly something that you believe . . . but doesn't really address the question.