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

[GuitarStv]

I think people made the best decisions they could with the limited information they had and based on whatever research they had at the time, during an incredibly stressful, challenging, and uncertain time.

Unlike China, where the current implementation of their dynamic zero COVID policy really makes absolutely no sense.

From where I’m sitting (in lockdown at home in Shanghai as a potential close contact), at least your countries tried to employ critical thinking skills when making decisions and at least somewhat consider basic human rights.

When it comes to the question, where do I stand on “living with COVID” versus “getting back to normal”, we are leaning more and more towards repatriating back to North America so that we can “get back to normal”.

There had been studies done prior to 2020 that showed the proposed solutions had limited effectiveness. These were promptly thrown out and ignored when they were deemed "problematic."

And I don't think China's "Zero COVID Policy" is about COVID. But that would be more of a conspiracy theory than actual facts.

When policy makers are faced with a novel disease with uncertain effects they employ something called the "precautionary principle".  They have to make decisions based on limited information ("uncertainty") where outcomes either way are likely to be irreversible.  In the case of covid precautions mask wearing has the potential to reduce death and permanent disability while having limited and largely reversible downsides.  Requiring potential super-spreader events to stop for a certain period again has the potential to reduce death and permanent disability but has significant potential downsides to social interactions (mostly not too bad if for a limited period) and economic activity (dealt with, atlhough not particularly well, by monetary interventions from governments).  Full lockdowns at the beginning of the pandemic could have had the potential to stop covid altogether in which case many hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved, so a calculation that this was worth trying at the time is one governments could reasonably make.

Did governments get everything right?  Of course not.  Were they properly prepared?  No.  in the situation they found themselves in, did they make reasonable good faith attempts to deal with the situation?  Mostly, yes, sometimes dragged kicking and screaming in that direction and sometimes not at all and acting in extreme bad faith.

Most of us (China excepted) are now in a situation where we are being left to make our own choices.  Getting vaccines and boosters has few downsides and major potential upsides.  Wearing a mask according to one's own risk assessment has few downsides and major potential upsides.  Not complaining about other people's choices about protecting themselves is good manners, complaining about people's choices about not protecting other people is reasonable but probably futile.

I've heard the estimate that by the time the lockdowns were initiated in America 3-4% of the population had been exposed to COVID, making control of it impossible.
We could have focussed on protecting the most vulnerable but instead attempted the impossible.

Again, what do you mean when you talk about the US going into lockdown? We never went into lock down. In my neck of the woods, most work places, including mine, never closed. Grocery stores never closed. Parks never closed. People were out walking the streets, patronizing businesses and socializing. Restaurants transitioned from sit-down to take-out.

Hospitals were overwhelmed and there were not enough beds for those who needed it. People with non-Covid health needs suffered from lack of available care. Most of the talk was about "flattening the curve."

Same sort of thing happened here in Ontario.  You were supposed to stay home if you were a non essential worker.  Essential works are those of us who work in:
- Energy and Utilities
- Information and Communication Technologies
- Finance
- Health
- Food
- Water
- Transportation
- Safety
- Government
- Manufacturing

So, pretty much everyone but hairdressers, musicians, and gyms.  I don't think I knew anyone personally who wasn't deemed 'essential'.  There was never any 'lockdown' per se.  It was suggested that you stay home, but people were always free to move around, go to stores, go driving, etc.  If you wanted to go to a huge party or a massive church service the police would break it up and tell you to go home - that was about it.

[deborah]

Full lockdowns at the beginning of the pandemic could have had the potential to stop covid altogether in which case many hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved

No, it couldn't have had that potential. And by the time anyone even considered something like that it was way too late for it to be a remotely possible outcome anyways.

Yeah, no. If the above were even remotely true, China would be covid free by now.

A big problem in North America is that people's baseline health is poor compared to Scandanavians' and just about everyone else, in the First World anyway. North Americans living a sedentary, car-based lifestyle, eating predominantly heavily processed fast foods, are uniquely situated to become victims of any novel disease that comes along. Pretty sure covid is playing out exactly as Darwin would've predicted. It's culling the herd of the weaker, sicker humans.

See New Zealand.

What's possible in a tiny, island country like NZ, with a population of only 5MM, is NOT possible in a huge country like China, with a population of >1.4BB. That's why we're challenging your statement above, "Full lockdowns at the beginning of the pandemic could have had the potential to stop covid altogether" No, they couldn't have.

And Australia.

[Cawl]

I think people made the best decisions they could with the limited information they had and based on whatever research they had at the time, during an incredibly stressful, challenging, and uncertain time.

Unlike China, where the current implementation of their dynamic zero COVID policy really makes absolutely no sense.

From where I’m sitting (in lockdown at home in Shanghai as a potential close contact), at least your countries tried to employ critical thinking skills when making decisions and at least somewhat consider basic human rights.

When it comes to the question, where do I stand on “living with COVID” versus “getting back to normal”, we are leaning more and more towards repatriating back to North America so that we can “get back to normal”.

There had been studies done prior to 2020 that showed the proposed solutions had limited effectiveness. These were promptly thrown out and ignored when they were deemed "problematic."

And I don't think China's "Zero COVID Policy" is about COVID. But that would be more of a conspiracy theory than actual facts.

When policy makers are faced with a novel disease with uncertain effects they employ something called the "precautionary principle".  They have to make decisions based on limited information ("uncertainty") where outcomes either way are likely to be irreversible.  In the case of covid precautions mask wearing has the potential to reduce death and permanent disability while having limited and largely reversible downsides.  Requiring potential super-spreader events to stop for a certain period again has the potential to reduce death and permanent disability but has significant potential downsides to social interactions (mostly not too bad if for a limited period) and economic activity (dealt with, atlhough not particularly well, by monetary interventions from governments).  Full lockdowns at the beginning of the pandemic could have had the potential to stop covid altogether in which case many hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved, so a calculation that this was worth trying at the time is one governments could reasonably make.

Did governments get everything right?  Of course not.  Were they properly prepared?  No.  in the situation they found themselves in, did they make reasonable good faith attempts to deal with the situation?  Mostly, yes, sometimes dragged kicking and screaming in that direction and sometimes not at all and acting in extreme bad faith.

Most of us (China excepted) are now in a situation where we are being left to make our own choices.  Getting vaccines and boosters has few downsides and major potential upsides.  Wearing a mask according to one's own risk assessment has few downsides and major potential upsides.  Not complaining about other people's choices about protecting themselves is good manners, complaining about people's choices about not protecting other people is reasonable but probably futile.

I've heard the estimate that by the time the lockdowns were initiated in America 3-4% of the population had been exposed to COVID, making control of it impossible.
We could have focussed on protecting the most vulnerable but instead attempted the impossible.

Again, what do you mean when you talk about the US going into lockdown? We never went into lock down. In my neck of the woods, most work places, including mine, never closed. Grocery stores never closed. Parks never closed. People were out walking the streets, patronizing businesses and socializing. Restaurants transitioned from sit-down to take-out.

Hospitals were overwhelmed and there were not enough beds for those who needed it. People with non-Covid health needs suffered from lack of available care. Most of the talk was about "flattening the curve."

The collection of policies that were supposed to "slow the spread."
https://fee.org/articles/fauci-claims-he-had-nothing-to-do-with-school-closures-his-own-statements-suggest-otherwise/
"Lockdown" seems to be the primary term for that umbrella.
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1924
Another article on school closures due to COVID 19.
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/10/pandemic-school-closures-americas-learning-loss/671868/
When I say lockdowns I mean the "broad set of policies that hindered the normal functions of life due to COVID 19 restrictions. Or suggested restrictions that were implemented at a state level. Or implemented at a business level."

I remember McCormick place being converted into a massive treatment center to expand hospital bed capacity.
https://news.wttw.com/2020/05/01/field-hospital-mccormick-place-will-close-after-treating-few-patients-curve-bends
"Flattening the curve" became a two year long thing. It went from "reduce the strain on the healthcare system" to " 0 COVID cases." It became an unreasonable and insane goal that was unattainable.

[deborah]

Several countries managed to get to 0 covid19 cases, so it wasn’t unattainable. If all countries had worked together to do it, we would no longer have covid19.

[Cawl]

Several countries managed to get to 0 covid19 cases, so it wasn’t unattainable. If all countries had worked together to do it, we would no longer have covid19.

I do not believe that would have been possible given how interconnected our world is, there being no record of "purging" the animal populations that the virus started in ( first it was bats, then it was dog raccoons and some third species) and the delay inherent in every bureaucracy when faced with something unknown.

[deborah]

Several countries managed to get to 0 covid19 cases, so it wasn’t unattainable. If all countries had worked together to do it, we would no longer have covid19.

I do not believe that would have been possible given how interconnected our world is, there being no record of "purging" the animal populations that the virus started in ( first it was bats, then it was dog raccoons and some third species) and the delay inherent in every bureaucracy when faced with something unknown.

As my country managed to do it, without 0 actually being the goal, and other countries managed to do it, I believe it could have been done everywhere. We proved that it could.

[Captain FIRE]

It seems mostly people who are pissed with the precautions are posting they won't offer amnesty to those being cautious in early days.

I'll go the other direction and say, no, I have no interest in offering amnesty to those who refused to take basic precautions when very little was known about a virulent and deadly disease. Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

People *on this board even* still harass me for my personal choice to wear a mask when grocery shopping/attending medical appointments. Why?  It doesn't affect you.

And let's not fool ourselves pretending we were like China's lockdown.  Yes, bars (optional social spreader activity) were temporarily closed, but I know of no area that shut down grocery stores at any time.

- A person who lost a relative to COVID-19

[StarBright]

Another article on school closures due to COVID 19.
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/10/pandemic-school-closures-americas-learning-loss/671868/
When I say lockdowns I mean the "broad set of policies that hindered the normal functions of life due to COVID 19 restrictions. Or suggested restrictions that were implemented at a state level. Or implemented at a business level."

re: School Closures. Something I see pointed out frequently is the lowered test scores, including from people in my own community (and our test scores improved over the course of the pandemic!).

But as this New Yorker piece points out,
https://www.newyorker.com/news/essay/whos-left-out-of-the-learning-loss-debate
the biggest learning loss was for black and latino students:

"By August, 2020, when the clamoring of mostly white parents to return to in-person school reached a cacophony, fifty-seven per cent of Black American adults said that they knew someone hospitalized or dead as a result of the virus, compared to thirty-four per cent of white American adults. By February, 2021, nearly three quarters of Latino adults said they knew of someone dead or hospitalized from the virus. These realities were born out in the reluctance of Black and brown parents to send their kids back into school buildings. Critics of remote learning almost always focussed on the mildconsequences for most children who became ill with covid, as if these children lived and were schooled within a vacuum and not among adults for whom the consequences could be dire, if not deadly. By the end of February, 2022, more than two hundred thousand children under the age of eighteen—more than one out of every three hundred and sixty—had lost a caregiver to covid-19. Black and Latino kids lost their caregivers at nearly twice the rate of white children. As one expert reminded, “Bereavement is the No. 1 predictor of poor school outcomes.”

As someone who works with a bunch of upper middle class white East Coasters, but comes from a diverse lower/lower middle class blue collar background, I have been shocked by how my coworkers don't seem to know people who are being hospitalized or dying, while I can name at least a dozen over the last two years (including family members).

This is absolutely a class and race issue and is insanely nuanced. Even the Atlantic article that you linked to suggests that the communities most affected by learning loss would still prefer remote learning to covid exposure. 

I'd venture  that the more people you know who are dead or significantly disabled, the more likely you are to choose learning loss over covid. The folks complaining about learning loss may be the least affected by it.

[sonofsven]

It seems mostly people who are pissed with the precautions are posting they won't offer amnesty to those being cautious in early days.

I'll go the other direction and say, no, I have no interest in offering amnesty to those who refused to take basic precautions when very little was known about a virulent and deadly disease. Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

People *on this board even* still harass me for my personal choice to wear a mask when grocery shopping/attending medical appointments. Why?  It doesn't affect you.

And let's not fool ourselves pretending we were like China's lockdown.  Yes, bars (optional social spreader activity) were temporarily closed, but I know of no area that shut down grocery stores at any time.

- A person who lost a relative to COVID-19

Yes x 1000. It's like opposite day on this thread.

[Gronnie]

It seems mostly people who are pissed with the precautions are posting they won't offer amnesty to those being cautious in early days.

I'll go the other direction and say, no, I have no interest in offering amnesty to those who refused to take basic precautions when very little was known about a virulent and deadly disease. Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

People *on this board even* still harass me for my personal choice to wear a mask when grocery shopping/attending medical appointments. Why?  It doesn't affect you.

And let's not fool ourselves pretending we were like China's lockdown.  Yes, bars (optional social spreader activity) were temporarily closed, but I know of no area that shut down grocery stores at any time.

- A person who lost a relative to COVID-19

Yes x 1000. It's like opposite day on this thread.

Wow -- seriously doubling down?

[Cawl]

Several countries managed to get to 0 covid19 cases, so it wasn’t unattainable. If all countries had worked together to do it, we would no longer have covid19.

I do not believe that would have been possible given how interconnected our world is, there being no record of "purging" the animal populations that the virus started in ( first it was bats, then it was dog raccoons and some third species) and the delay inherent in every bureaucracy when faced with something unknown.

As my country managed to do it, without 0 actually being the goal, and other countries managed to do it, I believe it could have been done everywhere. We proved that it could.

Wait, did your country use PCR tests? Do you know know how many amplification cycles your labs used? What year did your country reach "0 COVID"?

It seems mostly people who are pissed with the precautions are posting they won't offer amnesty to those being cautious in early days.

I'll go the other direction and say, no, I have no interest in offering amnesty to those who refused to take basic precautions when very little was known about a virulent and deadly disease. Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

People *on this board even* still harass me for my personal choice to wear a mask when grocery shopping/attending medical appointments. Why?  It doesn't affect you.

And let's not fool ourselves pretending we were like China's lockdown.  Yes, bars (optional social spreader activity) were temporarily closed, but I know of no area that shut down grocery stores at any time.

- A person who lost a relative to COVID-19

That's a bold strategy there, Cotton. Hope it works out for you.

[ATtiny85]

It seems mostly people who are pissed with the precautions are posting they won't offer amnesty to those being cautious in early days.

I'll go the other direction and say, no, I have no interest in offering amnesty to those who refused to take basic precautions when very little was known about a virulent and deadly disease. Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

People *on this board even* still harass me for my personal choice to wear a mask when grocery shopping/attending medical appointments. Why?  It doesn't affect you.

And let's not fool ourselves pretending we were like China's lockdown.  Yes, bars (optional social spreader activity) were temporarily closed, but I know of no area that shut down grocery stores at any time.

- A person who lost a relative to COVID-19

A woman in my old organization came into our shop in March 2020 wearing a mask. It caused a huge stir. Management fired off questions to her supervisor, blah blah blah. I recall a couple of us saying in a team meeting "who cares if she was wearing a mask? It has no impact on anyone. Worst case is....well there is no worst case." The response was that she was causing panic. Sheesh.

A couple weeks later the whole org was shutdown, essential folks only, everyone in face shields and masks. Of course no one reached out to her to thank her for being ahead of the administration.

[Phenix]

It seems mostly people who are pissed with the precautions are posting they won't offer amnesty to those being cautious in early days.

I'll go the other direction and say, no, I have no interest in offering amnesty to those who refused to take basic precautions when very little was known about a virulent and deadly disease. Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

People *on this board even* still harass me for my personal choice to wear a mask when grocery shopping/attending medical appointments. Why?  It doesn't affect you.

And let's not fool ourselves pretending we were like China's lockdown.  Yes, bars (optional social spreader activity) were temporarily closed, but I know of no area that shut down grocery stores at any time.

- A person who lost a relative to COVID-19

That's a bold strategy there, Cotton. Hope it works out for you.

They've done studies, you know. 60 percent of the time, it works every time.

I'll see your Dodgeball quote and raise you an Anchorman quote

[StashingAway]

Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

Trying to avoid picking sides here, but this seems a bit cavalier. I don't want to mix up these two subjects, though. There is a bit of a straw man mixed in here. You seem to be equating wearing masks with all of the strange issues that students and schools had to go through...

Development windows for kids aren't infinite. Schooling cannot be "caught up on", and from the data it appears that we have interrupted a generation's learning with unknown long term consequences (similar to how we have affected the health of long term covid survivors with unknown long term consequences). You can be concerned about both. I certainly am. I also empathize with parents who are dealing with this. My brother is a teacher in high school... this is not a minor problem. I could see it being argued that it is a better problem than more lives lost, but now we are getting into more philosophical types of discussion, such as how we measure quality of life. Is simply being alive the best metric, or should it be satisfaction or productivity or pleasure or something else? Kids are developmentally stunted, and we don't have many fixes on the horizon, an the system isn't built to cope with that.

[Cawl]

It seems mostly people who are pissed with the precautions are posting they won't offer amnesty to those being cautious in early days.

I'll go the other direction and say, no, I have no interest in offering amnesty to those who refused to take basic precautions when very little was known about a virulent and deadly disease. Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

People *on this board even* still harass me for my personal choice to wear a mask when grocery shopping/attending medical appointments. Why?  It doesn't affect you.

And let's not fool ourselves pretending we were like China's lockdown.  Yes, bars (optional social spreader activity) were temporarily closed, but I know of no area that shut down grocery stores at any time.

- A person who lost a relative to COVID-19

That's a bold strategy there, Cotton. Hope it works out for you.

They've done studies, you know. 60 percent of the time, it works every time.

I'll see your Dodgeball quote and raise you an Anchorman quote

We're not retreating, we're advancing! Towards future victory!
Red Vs Blue.

I'm sure there is some "last stand" quote from 40k that would be more appropriate.

[Captain FIRE]

Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

Trying to avoid picking sides here, but this seems a bit cavalier. I don't want to mix up these two subjects, though. There is a bit of a straw man mixed in here. You seem to be equating wearing masks with all of the strange issues that students and schools had to go through...

Development windows for kids aren't infinite. Schooling cannot be "caught up on", and from the data it appears that we have interrupted a generation's learning with unknown long term consequences (similar to how we have affected the health of long term covid survivors with unknown long term consequences). You can be concerned about both. I certainly am. I also empathize with parents who are dealing with this. My brother is a teacher in high school... this is not a minor problem. I could see it being argued that it is a better problem than more lives lost, but now we are getting into more philosophical types of discussion, such as how we measure quality of life. Is simply being alive the best metric, or should it be satisfaction or productivity or pleasure or something else? Kids are developmentally stunted, and we don't have many fixes on the horizon, an the system isn't built to cope with that.

So let's tweak the system and fix it. The ease of learning during developmental windows may not be infinite, but they aren't closed. Death is final. In the past two years, we've lost almost 3 years in life expectancy, largely driven by COVID-19.

One side was uninterested in taking minimal precautions that could have prevented deaths and maybe the need for larger interventions. Masking is a catch all for minimum precautions, but I have been a proponent of others, like pooled regular testing for schools.  I also favor additional supports such as companies being mandated to provide a minimum sick leave for all workers. I used masking as an example because I was responding to the amnesty question - where I responded no, I have no desire to offer amnesty to people who were willing to do absolutely nada to help others.

When you see people dying (30+ in the long-term care facility where I work, yes it's personal to me, beyond the relative I lost), yeah, I f'ing believe you ought to take precautions until you can take stock and figure out what's working and what's not as effective.

I emphasize with those who had their kids lose ground in school and parents trying to teach and work at the same time. (I also emphasize with teachers and kids who are or have family members with health challenges who worried going to school would be deadly.) Lest you think me entirely callous and not considering of any other consequences, know that I donated large sums of money starting early in the pandemic to organizations supporting hunger relief and domestic violence. But yes, even in retrospect I would still prioritize the lives and avoiding unknown long-term health issues over possible lost education, and I'm huge proponent of education.

[Shane]

It's not just kids' schooling that was lost during the pandemic. A good friend's mom is 93 and in an assisted living facility. In 2019, she was totally lucid, knew who everyone was, understood what was going on around her. For 2 entire years, my friend was unable to meet with his mother in person, at all. No visits. During that time, while everyone around her was socially distancing themselves from each other and wearing masks, my friend's mom sunk deeper and deeper into depression and, basically, senility. After about a year and a half of social distancing and no visits from anyone, Mom caught covid anyway, at age 92, and within a week was totally fine, back to normal. Maybe mom would've developed dementia anyway, but either way, my friend lost two good years with his mother that they'll never get back.

My family and I totally followed all of the CDC's recommendations, all throughout the pandemic. My wife sewed cloth masks for us, back in March or April, 2020, and we wore them everywhere. We didn't ever meet with friends or relatives in person for all of 2020 and most of 2021. Our daughter did online schooling for 6th and 7th grade. Academically, she was fine, but socially she definitely regressed.

In hindsight, was it worth it? I don't think so. Would more people have died had my family and I not sacrificed and socially distanced ourselves from friends and family for two years? Maybe, but who knows? I just know, if it happens again in our lifetimes, it's going to be a pretty hard sell to get Americans to be willing to give up years of their lives. For what? So we can flatten the curve? Protect vulnerable people? There are thousands of poor Blacks and Latinos within a couple of miles of my house. They all worked at in-person jobs, all throughout the pandemic. Having their kids not in school was REALLY hard for many of them. Back in 2020 and 2021, while we and all of our white friends and neighbors were still wearing masks and socially distancing ourselves, I watched black people in my neighborhood shake hands, hug, and even get to enjoy smoking joints together. So, were my family and I supposed to be wiping down our groceries with bleach and wearing masks inside stores to protect those people? I guess, but why?

[Captain FIRE]

Yes, there was definite impact to those in assisted living.  Some did better at setting up virtual and other connections for their residents. And it's always going to be difficult to tell how much decline would have happened anyways.

There are thousands of poor Blacks and Latinos within a couple of miles of my house. They all worked at in-person jobs, all throughout the pandemic. Having their kids not in school was REALLY hard for many of them. Back in 2020 and 2021, while we and all of our white friends and neighbors were still wearing masks and socially distancing ourselves, I watched black people in my neighborhood shake hands, hug, and even get to enjoy smoking joints together. So, were my family and I supposed to be wiping down our groceries with bleach and wearing masks inside stores to protect those people? I guess, but why?

I'm sure there are POC on both sides of the issue, but anecdotal evidence also isn't exactly the best source.  Don't know about yours, but my neighborhood, the POC were the ones who wanted to continue virtual school. (Source: Surveys, my next door neighbor on the school committee)

You also wiped down groceries for yourself, not for others, before people knew anything.  Pretty sure no one was recommending it in 2021, that was a very short thing while they were figuring things out. (I'm not even sure it was even officially recommended so much as "if you want to be careful".) But go ahead and drink the bleach!

[Shane]

My wife and I have both been vaccinated for covid 5 times, and our teenage daughter has gotten 4 shots, I think, so far. If they came out with a new and improved vaccine for covid, I'd walk up to our neighborhood pharmacy and get the shot tomorrow. But we're not doing any more social distancing. Not wearing masks. Not avoiding friends, neighbors, relatives. I shake hands and hug people, all the time, now. The pandemic's over, as far as we're concerned. Time to go back to normal. Two+ years was enough.

[RetiredAt63]

I'm in a high risk group simply because of age.  I have had 4 vaccinations and am arranging for my 5th.  I still wear an N95 in public, don't eat out. When I shop now the people most likely to be wearing masks are older, because no one else is keeping them safer by masking so they really need to mask.

Most of my activities are now in hybrid mode, so that those who are lower risk can meet in person while those of us at higher risk can still be involved.  My choir has people in their 80s singing together via Zoom. 

The first wave hit hardest, becasue we had no idea on how to deal with it.  I listened to a social worker on CBC talking about how it was devastating in her community, and not just the elderly.  Every age, whole families dying, children orphaned, the works.

The mutations so far have trended towards more infectious but less deadly, and the vaccinations do help - you can still catch Covid but are way less likely to need to be hospitalized.  To me that is incentive to be vaccinated.  Just as I get my annual flu shot, I want my immune system prepped.   And given the other demands on the health care system, it would be nice if everyone was fully vaccinated, sure they may get sick but they won't be taking up hospital beds.

To me it is pretty obvious that ventilation is massively important - if you are going to be in an area that is not well ventilated/has poor air filtration the number of virus particles in the air will accumulate and your exposure will be higher.  So that is indoors and crowded events outdoors.  Outdoors is not necessarily "safe", I know of an outdoor early summer wedding where most of the guests caught Covid, including the bride and groom.

[Cawl]

Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

Trying to avoid picking sides here, but this seems a bit cavalier. I don't want to mix up these two subjects, though. There is a bit of a straw man mixed in here. You seem to be equating wearing masks with all of the strange issues that students and schools had to go through...

Development windows for kids aren't infinite. Schooling cannot be "caught up on", and from the data it appears that we have interrupted a generation's learning with unknown long term consequences (similar to how we have affected the health of long term covid survivors with unknown long term consequences). You can be concerned about both. I certainly am. I also empathize with parents who are dealing with this. My brother is a teacher in high school... this is not a minor problem. I could see it being argued that it is a better problem than more lives lost, but now we are getting into more philosophical types of discussion, such as how we measure quality of life. Is simply being alive the best metric, or should it be satisfaction or productivity or pleasure or something else? Kids are developmentally stunted, and we don't have many fixes on the horizon, an the system isn't built to cope with that.

So let's tweak the system and fix it. The ease of learning during developmental windows may not be infinite, but they aren't closed. Death is final. In the past two years, we've lost almost 3 years in life expectancy, largely driven by COVID-19.

One side was uninterested in taking minimal precautions that could have prevented deaths and maybe the need for larger interventions. Masking is a catch all for minimum precautions, but I have been a proponent of others, like pooled regular testing for schools.  I also favor additional supports such as companies being mandated to provide a minimum sick leave for all workers. I used masking as an example because I was responding to the amnesty question - where I responded no, I have no desire to offer amnesty to people who were willing to do absolutely nada to help others.

When you see people dying (30+ in the long-term care facility where I work, yes it's personal to me, beyond the relative I lost), yeah, I f'ing believe you ought to take precautions until you can take stock and figure out what's working and what's not as effective.

I emphasize with those who had their kids lose ground in school and parents trying to teach and work at the same time. (I also emphasize with teachers and kids who are or have family members with health challenges who worried going to school would be deadly.) Lest you think me entirely callous and not considering of any other consequences, know that I donated large sums of money starting early in the pandemic to organizations supporting hunger relief and domestic violence. But yes, even in retrospect I would still prioritize the lives and avoiding unknown long-term health issues over possible lost education, and I'm huge proponent of education.

In your opinion how long would it have taken to get the appropriate data to show COVID wasn't as deadly as they claimed?

Thou dost protest too much. Anyway you slice it, it still sounds like hobbling children for the sake of the elderly.

[GuitarStv]

Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

Trying to avoid picking sides here, but this seems a bit cavalier. I don't want to mix up these two subjects, though. There is a bit of a straw man mixed in here. You seem to be equating wearing masks with all of the strange issues that students and schools had to go through...

Development windows for kids aren't infinite. Schooling cannot be "caught up on", and from the data it appears that we have interrupted a generation's learning with unknown long term consequences (similar to how we have affected the health of long term covid survivors with unknown long term consequences). You can be concerned about both. I certainly am. I also empathize with parents who are dealing with this. My brother is a teacher in high school... this is not a minor problem. I could see it being argued that it is a better problem than more lives lost, but now we are getting into more philosophical types of discussion, such as how we measure quality of life. Is simply being alive the best metric, or should it be satisfaction or productivity or pleasure or something else? Kids are developmentally stunted, and we don't have many fixes on the horizon, an the system isn't built to cope with that.

So let's tweak the system and fix it. The ease of learning during developmental windows may not be infinite, but they aren't closed. Death is final. In the past two years, we've lost almost 3 years in life expectancy, largely driven by COVID-19.

One side was uninterested in taking minimal precautions that could have prevented deaths and maybe the need for larger interventions. Masking is a catch all for minimum precautions, but I have been a proponent of others, like pooled regular testing for schools.  I also favor additional supports such as companies being mandated to provide a minimum sick leave for all workers. I used masking as an example because I was responding to the amnesty question - where I responded no, I have no desire to offer amnesty to people who were willing to do absolutely nada to help others.

When you see people dying (30+ in the long-term care facility where I work, yes it's personal to me, beyond the relative I lost), yeah, I f'ing believe you ought to take precautions until you can take stock and figure out what's working and what's not as effective.

I emphasize with those who had their kids lose ground in school and parents trying to teach and work at the same time. (I also emphasize with teachers and kids who are or have family members with health challenges who worried going to school would be deadly.) Lest you think me entirely callous and not considering of any other consequences, know that I donated large sums of money starting early in the pandemic to organizations supporting hunger relief and domestic violence. But yes, even in retrospect I would still prioritize the lives and avoiding unknown long-term health issues over possible lost education, and I'm huge proponent of education.

In your opinion how long would it have taken to get the appropriate data to show COVID wasn't as deadly as they claimed?

Thou dost protest too much. Anyway you slice it, it still sounds like hobbling children for the sake of the elderly.

You're asking for a specific answer to a general question.  That's very difficult to give.

Who are 'they'?  Exactly what level of deadliness was claimed that you're referencing?  Can you source the specific quote that has you concerned?

Early estimates of the deadliness of covid were all over the place as not much data was known.  As the data got better, so did our estimates based on measurements.  The virus also mutated to a less damaging form and populations became better vaccinated, increasing survival rates further.

There are still concerns about long-covid impacts from infection (and the impact of multiple re-infections which seem worsen problems further).  Are we including this information into the 'deadliness' calculation?

[RetiredAt63]

Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

Trying to avoid picking sides here, but this seems a bit cavalier. I don't want to mix up these two subjects, though. There is a bit of a straw man mixed in here. You seem to be equating wearing masks with all of the strange issues that students and schools had to go through...

Development windows for kids aren't infinite. Schooling cannot be "caught up on", and from the data it appears that we have interrupted a generation's learning with unknown long term consequences (similar to how we have affected the health of long term covid survivors with unknown long term consequences). You can be concerned about both. I certainly am. I also empathize with parents who are dealing with this. My brother is a teacher in high school... this is not a minor problem. I could see it being argued that it is a better problem than more lives lost, but now we are getting into more philosophical types of discussion, such as how we measure quality of life. Is simply being alive the best metric, or should it be satisfaction or productivity or pleasure or something else? Kids are developmentally stunted, and we don't have many fixes on the horizon, an the system isn't built to cope with that.

So let's tweak the system and fix it. The ease of learning during developmental windows may not be infinite, but they aren't closed. Death is final. In the past two years, we've lost almost 3 years in life expectancy, largely driven by COVID-19.

One side was uninterested in taking minimal precautions that could have prevented deaths and maybe the need for larger interventions. Masking is a catch all for minimum precautions, but I have been a proponent of others, like pooled regular testing for schools.  I also favor additional supports such as companies being mandated to provide a minimum sick leave for all workers. I used masking as an example because I was responding to the amnesty question - where I responded no, I have no desire to offer amnesty to people who were willing to do absolutely nada to help others.

When you see people dying (30+ in the long-term care facility where I work, yes it's personal to me, beyond the relative I lost), yeah, I f'ing believe you ought to take precautions until you can take stock and figure out what's working and what's not as effective.

I emphasize with those who had their kids lose ground in school and parents trying to teach and work at the same time. (I also emphasize with teachers and kids who are or have family members with health challenges who worried going to school would be deadly.) Lest you think me entirely callous and not considering of any other consequences, know that I donated large sums of money starting early in the pandemic to organizations supporting hunger relief and domestic violence. But yes, even in retrospect I would still prioritize the lives and avoiding unknown long-term health issues over possible lost education, and I'm huge proponent of education.

In your opinion how long would it have taken to get the appropriate data to show COVID wasn't as deadly as they claimed?

Thou dost protest too much. Anyway you slice it, it still sounds like hobbling children for the sake of the elderly.

And all the other people who died or who have long Covid?  It wasn't just the elderly who died.

And generally epidemics take the weakest, so that is the elderly and the very young.  The 1918-1920 flu epidemic was unusual in that it took the 20-40 group the most.  Took my Dad's parents, he was 3.  Covid took people in their 20s and 30s and 40s too, just not as many.  What fun epidemics are.

Someday you will be the elderly (at what age does that start, btw?) if something doesn't get you earlier.  I hope you will be philosophical about society not wanting to protect your health then.

[JupiterGreen]

COVID is currently on the rise where I am in the US. I never really got "back to normal", but I did get a bit soft on mask wearing over the summer. But now I'm back to wearing masks and I'll be staying away from large gatherings too. Who knows how long this will last, but I'm not going to risk the health of others and also my long term health. This timeline is nutters.

[Shane]

We're following the science that says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020.

[GuitarStv]

We're following the science that says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020.

Can you post a link to the science that is telling you that?

[Cawl]

Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

Trying to avoid picking sides here, but this seems a bit cavalier. I don't want to mix up these two subjects, though. There is a bit of a straw man mixed in here. You seem to be equating wearing masks with all of the strange issues that students and schools had to go through...

Development windows for kids aren't infinite. Schooling cannot be "caught up on", and from the data it appears that we have interrupted a generation's learning with unknown long term consequences (similar to how we have affected the health of long term covid survivors with unknown long term consequences). You can be concerned about both. I certainly am. I also empathize with parents who are dealing with this. My brother is a teacher in high school... this is not a minor problem. I could see it being argued that it is a better problem than more lives lost, but now we are getting into more philosophical types of discussion, such as how we measure quality of life. Is simply being alive the best metric, or should it be satisfaction or productivity or pleasure or something else? Kids are developmentally stunted, and we don't have many fixes on the horizon, an the system isn't built to cope with that.

So let's tweak the system and fix it. The ease of learning during developmental windows may not be infinite, but they aren't closed. Death is final. In the past two years, we've lost almost 3 years in life expectancy, largely driven by COVID-19.

One side was uninterested in taking minimal precautions that could have prevented deaths and maybe the need for larger interventions. Masking is a catch all for minimum precautions, but I have been a proponent of others, like pooled regular testing for schools.  I also favor additional supports such as companies being mandated to provide a minimum sick leave for all workers. I used masking as an example because I was responding to the amnesty question - where I responded no, I have no desire to offer amnesty to people who were willing to do absolutely nada to help others.

When you see people dying (30+ in the long-term care facility where I work, yes it's personal to me, beyond the relative I lost), yeah, I f'ing believe you ought to take precautions until you can take stock and figure out what's working and what's not as effective.

I emphasize with those who had their kids lose ground in school and parents trying to teach and work at the same time. (I also emphasize with teachers and kids who are or have family members with health challenges who worried going to school would be deadly.) Lest you think me entirely callous and not considering of any other consequences, know that I donated large sums of money starting early in the pandemic to organizations supporting hunger relief and domestic violence. But yes, even in retrospect I would still prioritize the lives and avoiding unknown long-term health issues over possible lost education, and I'm huge proponent of education.

In your opinion how long would it have taken to get the appropriate data to show COVID wasn't as deadly as they claimed?

Thou dost protest too much. Anyway you slice it, it still sounds like hobbling children for the sake of the elderly.

And all the other people who died or who have long Covid?  It wasn't just the elderly who died.

And generally epidemics take the weakest, so that is the elderly and the very young.  The 1918-1920 flu epidemic was unusual in that it took the 20-40 group the most.  Took my Dad's parents, he was 3.  Covid took people in their 20s and 30s and 40s too, just not as many.  What fun epidemics are.

Someday you will be the elderly (at what age does that start, btw?) if something doesn't get you earlier.  I hope you will be philosophical about society not wanting to protect your health then.

Considering that Alzheimer's runs in my family and I am pretty terrified of that, I would probably welcome COVID as a mercy. And I would probably be pissed off if my family sacrificed my hypothetical grandkids to save my life.

Thank God we have better angels such as yourself that would sacrifice a man's grand children to keep him locked in his own personal hell. We would be loalst without people like you.

Yes, some schooling time was lost. Better that than more lives. We already lost over a million lives to COVID-19. Yeah, I still think it was horribly selfish/self-interested to defy local mandates to take even the most minor precautions such as wearing a mask. Schooling can be caught up on but there's no way to bring back the lost lives.

Trying to avoid picking sides here, but this seems a bit cavalier. I don't want to mix up these two subjects, though. There is a bit of a straw man mixed in here. You seem to be equating wearing masks with all of the strange issues that students and schools had to go through...

Development windows for kids aren't infinite. Schooling cannot be "caught up on", and from the data it appears that we have interrupted a generation's learning with unknown long term consequences (similar to how we have affected the health of long term covid survivors with unknown long term consequences). You can be concerned about both. I certainly am. I also empathize with parents who are dealing with this. My brother is a teacher in high school... this is not a minor problem. I could see it being argued that it is a better problem than more lives lost, but now we are getting into more philosophical types of discussion, such as how we measure quality of life. Is simply being alive the best metric, or should it be satisfaction or productivity or pleasure or something else? Kids are developmentally stunted, and we don't have many fixes on the horizon, an the system isn't built to cope with that.

So let's tweak the system and fix it. The ease of learning during developmental windows may not be infinite, but they aren't closed. Death is final. In the past two years, we've lost almost 3 years in life expectancy, largely driven by COVID-19.

One side was uninterested in taking minimal precautions that could have prevented deaths and maybe the need for larger interventions. Masking is a catch all for minimum precautions, but I have been a proponent of others, like pooled regular testing for schools.  I also favor additional supports such as companies being mandated to provide a minimum sick leave for all workers. I used masking as an example because I was responding to the amnesty question - where I responded no, I have no desire to offer amnesty to people who were willing to do absolutely nada to help others.

When you see people dying (30+ in the long-term care facility where I work, yes it's personal to me, beyond the relative I lost), yeah, I f'ing believe you ought to take precautions until you can take stock and figure out what's working and what's not as effective.

I emphasize with those who had their kids lose ground in school and parents trying to teach and work at the same time. (I also emphasize with teachers and kids who are or have family members with health challenges who worried going to school would be deadly.) Lest you think me entirely callous and not considering of any other consequences, know that I donated large sums of money starting early in the pandemic to organizations supporting hunger relief and domestic violence. But yes, even in retrospect I would still prioritize the lives and avoiding unknown long-term health issues over possible lost education, and I'm huge proponent of education.

In your opinion how long would it have taken to get the appropriate data to show COVID wasn't as deadly as they claimed?

Thou dost protest too much. Anyway you slice it, it still sounds like hobbling children for the sake of the elderly.

You're asking for a specific answer to a general question.  That's very difficult to give.

Who are 'they'?  Exactly what level of deadliness was claimed that you're referencing?  Can you source the specific quote that has you concerned?

Early estimates of the deadliness of covid were all over the place as not much data was known.  As the data got better, so did our estimates based on measurements.  The virus also mutated to a less damaging form and populations became better vaccinated, increasing survival rates further.

There are still concerns about long-covid impacts from infection (and the impact of multiple re-infections which seem worsen problems further).  Are we including this information into the 'deadliness' calculation?

I was asking "would mid 2020 been long enough to collect data"? It was apparent that this wasn't going to be a civilization ending plague despite the hype.

I'm fairly certain that there had been a German study that showed children did not transmit the disease in 2020. Or schools. People should have started reconsidering things when that information came out.

[EvenSteven]

Wearing a mask = lockdown
Remote school for a couple years = sacrificing children

Can you try and get a little more ridiculous? Keeping people healthy in a pandemic on the one hand, and going about life as normal on the other hand, are things that we all want. Those things are in conflict, and we tried to strike a balance over the last couple years based on what limited information we had.

[BeanCounter]

I really believe that the issue with schools became dry political. At least that is what we saw here. Public schools with strong unions stayed out the longest because the unions wanted to “fight hard for their teachers”. The Unions will use any opportunity to show their value. Meanwhile the private schools in the area (and we have a lot) all went back to in person classes wearing masks and it was fine. Our public districts had plenty of data from their private school counterparts but stood fast in their conviction that it was too dangerous.

[HPstache]

Wearing a mask = lockdown

This forum has used the word "lockdown" to refer to the wide range of restrictions and work from home orders in 2020 / 2021 in a multitude of threads.  Don't act like you don't know that.

[Kris]

Wearing a mask = lockdown

This forum has used the word "lockdown" to refer to the wide range of restrictions and work from home orders in 2020 / 2021 in a multitude of threads.  Don't act like you don't know that.

“this forum” does not.

Certain people on this forum do, incorrectly. Because it bolsters their flimsy case.

[HPstache]

Wearing a mask = lockdown

This forum has used the word "lockdown" to refer to the wide range of restrictions and work from home orders in 2020 / 2021 in a multitude of threads.  Don't act like you don't know that.

“this forum” does not.

Certain people on this forum do, incorrectly. Because it bolsters their flimsy case.

Certain people... like you?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/unmustachian-things-we're-doing-due-to-coronavirus/msg2611646/#msg2611646

[Kris]

Wearing a mask = lockdown

This forum has used the word "lockdown" to refer to the wide range of restrictions and work from home orders in 2020 / 2021 in a multitude of threads.  Don't act like you don't know that.

“this forum” does not.

Certain people on this forum do, incorrectly. Because it bolsters their flimsy case.

Certain people... like you?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/unmustachian-things-we're-doing-due-to-coronavirus/msg2611646/#msg2611646

Dude, even if certain people say certain things, it still doesn’t prove that “the forum” has a single definition.

[HPstache]

Wearing a mask = lockdown

This forum has used the word "lockdown" to refer to the wide range of restrictions and work from home orders in 2020 / 2021 in a multitude of threads.  Don't act like you don't know that.

“this forum” does not.

Certain people on this forum do, incorrectly. Because it bolsters their flimsy case.

Certain people... like you?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/unmustachian-things-we're-doing-due-to-coronavirus/msg2611646/#msg2611646

Dude, even if certain people say certain things, it still doesn’t prove that “the forum” has a single definition.

Just saying that you literally refer to the early 2020 restrictions as a lockdown.  Just like the rest of this forum accepts it as meaning that.

[Kris]

Wearing a mask = lockdown

This forum has used the word "lockdown" to refer to the wide range of restrictions and work from home orders in 2020 / 2021 in a multitude of threads.  Don't act like you don't know that.

“this forum” does not.

Certain people on this forum do, incorrectly. Because it bolsters their flimsy case.

Certain people... like you?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/unmustachian-things-we're-doing-due-to-coronavirus/msg2611646/#msg2611646

Dude, even if certain people say certain things, it still doesn’t prove that “the forum” has a single definition.

Just saying that you literally refer to the early 2020 restrictions as a lockdown.  Just like the rest of this forum accepts it as meaning that.

Meh. We had very little vocabulary back then. And you are already eliding 2021 with 2020.

Which were very different circumstances.

[EvenSteven]

Wearing a mask = lockdown

This forum has used the word "lockdown" to refer to the wide range of restrictions and work from home orders in 2020 / 2021 in a multitude of threads.  Don't act like you don't know that.

I don't agree "lockdown" is the forum wide agreed upon nomenclature, but I do recognize that that poster was referring to the early response of the US government as a lockdown. And that is what I am disagreeing with. Poster @Freedomin5 is in China and is experiencing lockdowns, and those suck. We in the US never did.

In the summer of 2020, I went into Home Depot and someone politely asked me to stand 6 feet apart from other people. I'm basically like Nelson Mandela, let's go storm the capitol.

Is your issue with my post that you think we really did have lockdowns here, or that you don't think I should be allowed to say that we didn't?

[Shane]

We're following the science that says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020.

Can you post a link to the science that is telling you that?

The CDC says, Covid-19 Vaccines Work. Aren't they the final arbiters of science in the US? If so, and we're otherwise healthy, seems like we should be safe living life normally, right? If not now, then when?

"COVID-19 Vaccines Protect Against COVID-19 Infections and Hospitalizations

Vaccines reduce the risk of COVID-19, including the risk of severe illness and death among people who are fully vaccinated. In addition to data from clinical trials, evidence from real-world vaccine effectiveness studies show that COVID-19 vaccines help protect against COVID-19 infections, with or without symptoms (asymptomatic infections). Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalizations has remained relatively high over time, although it tends to be slightly lower for older adults and for people with weakened immune systems."

[GuitarStv]

We're following the science that says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020.

Can you post a link to the science that is telling you that?

The CDC says, Covid-19 Vaccines Work. Aren't they the final arbiters of science in the US? If so, and we're otherwise healthy, seems like we should be safe living life normally, right? If not now, then when?

"COVID-19 Vaccines Protect Against COVID-19 Infections and Hospitalizations

Vaccines reduce the risk of COVID-19, including the risk of severe illness and death among people who are fully vaccinated. In addition to data from clinical trials, evidence from real-world vaccine effectiveness studies show that COVID-19 vaccines help protect against COVID-19 infections, with or without symptoms (asymptomatic infections). Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalizations has remained relatively high over time, although it tends to be slightly lower for older adults and for people with weakened immune systems."

I was asking for science that "says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020."  That has not been supplied.

The link you posted indicates that vaccines work pretty well to prevent hospitalization and severe illness.  It doesn't discuss long covid (and related complications that don't necessitate hospitalization but can seriously impact someone's life), it doesn't mention anything masking, and it doesn't discuss 'going back to normal just like everyone used to before 2020'.

Do you actually have any science that supports the argument you were making, or were you taking the information that the CDC supplied and drawing your own personal conclusions?  If the latter, can you not see how others could draw different but equally reasonable conclusions from the same data?

[Shane]

We're following the science that says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020.

Can you post a link to the science that is telling you that?

The CDC says, Covid-19 Vaccines Work. Aren't they the final arbiters of science in the US? If so, and we're otherwise healthy, seems like we should be safe living life normally, right? If not now, then when?

"COVID-19 Vaccines Protect Against COVID-19 Infections and Hospitalizations

Vaccines reduce the risk of COVID-19, including the risk of severe illness and death among people who are fully vaccinated. In addition to data from clinical trials, evidence from real-world vaccine effectiveness studies show that COVID-19 vaccines help protect against COVID-19 infections, with or without symptoms (asymptomatic infections). Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalizations has remained relatively high over time, although it tends to be slightly lower for older adults and for people with weakened immune systems."

I was asking for science that "says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020."  That has not been supplied.

The link you posted indicates that vaccines work pretty well to prevent hospitalization and severe illness.  It doesn't discuss long covid (and related complications that don't necessitate hospitalization but can seriously impact someone's life), it doesn't mention anything masking, and it doesn't discuss 'going back to normal just like everyone used to before 2020'.

Do you actually have any science that supports the argument you were making, or were you taking the information that the CDC supplied and drawing your own personal conclusions?  If the latter, can you not see how others could draw different but equally reasonable conclusions from the same data?

The latter. Based on the CDC's claims that in healthy individuals vaccines work to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death, we are choosing to go back to living our lives as we did before covid started. Absolutely, I can understand others drawing different but equally reasonable conclusions based on the same information. A close relative recently underwent organ transplant surgery. Even if covid disappeared tomorrow, he would have to continue social distancing and wearing masks in indoor spaces, for the rest of his life, because even a cold or flu could easily kill him. Thankfully, we aren't in that same risk group. Also, I don't believe that we are in any way 100% assured of not getting covid, just because we're vaccinated. One of us could still get it, get really sick, and even die, but we're willing to accept that relatively small risk. If I died from covid next week, it would suck, but so what? Eventually, we're all going to die from something, anyway. My family would get another $100K in life insurance benefits to use to buy stocks at discount prices. Pretty sure, though, my risk of dying by getting run over by a car is way, way higher than dying from covid, given that I ride everywhere on my bike in a city where distracted driving is pretty much the norm.

[GuitarStv]

The latter. Based on the CDC's claims that in healthy individuals vaccines work to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death, we are choosing to go back to living our lives as we did before covid started. Absolutely, I can understand others drawing different but equally reasonable conclusions based on the same information. A close relative recently underwent organ transplant surgery. Even if covid disappeared tomorrow, he would have to continue social distancing and wearing masks in indoor spaces, for the rest of his life, because even a cold or flu could easily kill him. Thankfully, we aren't in that same risk group. Also, I don't believe that we are in any way 100% assured of not getting covid, just because we're vaccinated. One of us could still get it, get really sick, and even die, but we're willing to accept that relatively small risk. If I died from covid next week, it would suck, but so what? Eventually, we're all going to die from something, anyway. My family would get another $100K in life insurance benefits to use to buy stocks at discount prices. Pretty sure, though, my risk of dying by getting run over by a car is way, way higher than dying from covid, given that I ride everywhere on my bike in a city where distracted driving is pretty much the norm.

Sure, and I can respect that you're making that choice and understand where you're coming from.

Maybe I'm harping on this, but that's a personal decision - not what 'the science' is saying you should do.  Someone could make a completely different choice that is at least as valid based on the same science available.  So the claim that "the science that says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020" is really not a valid one to make, right?

[former player]

We're following the science that says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020.

Can you post a link to the science that is telling you that?

The CDC says, Covid-19 Vaccines Work. Aren't they the final arbiters of science in the US? If so, and we're otherwise healthy, seems like we should be safe living life normally, right? If not now, then when?

"COVID-19 Vaccines Protect Against COVID-19 Infections and Hospitalizations

Vaccines reduce the risk of COVID-19, including the risk of severe illness and death among people who are fully vaccinated. In addition to data from clinical trials, evidence from real-world vaccine effectiveness studies show that COVID-19 vaccines help protect against COVID-19 infections, with or without symptoms (asymptomatic infections). Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalizations has remained relatively high over time, although it tends to be slightly lower for older adults and for people with weakened immune systems."

I was asking for science that "says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020."  That has not been supplied.

The link you posted indicates that vaccines work pretty well to prevent hospitalization and severe illness.  It doesn't discuss long covid (and related complications that don't necessitate hospitalization but can seriously impact someone's life), it doesn't mention anything masking, and it doesn't discuss 'going back to normal just like everyone used to before 2020'.

Do you actually have any science that supports the argument you were making, or were you taking the information that the CDC supplied and drawing your own personal conclusions?  If the latter, can you not see how others could draw different but equally reasonable conclusions from the same data?

The latter. Based on the CDC's claims that in healthy individuals vaccines work to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death, we are choosing to go back to living our lives as we did before covid started. Absolutely, I can understand others drawing different but equally reasonable conclusions based on the same information. A close relative recently underwent organ transplant surgery. Even if covid disappeared tomorrow, he would have to continue social distancing and wearing masks in indoor spaces, for the rest of his life, because even a cold or flu could easily kill him. Thankfully, we aren't in that same risk group. Also, I don't believe that we are in any way 100% assured of not getting covid, just because we're vaccinated. One of us could still get it, get really sick, and even die, but we're willing to accept that relatively small risk. If I died from covid next week, it would suck, but so what? Eventually, we're all going to die from something, anyway. My family would get another $100K in life insurance benefits to use to buy stocks at discount prices. Pretty sure, though, my risk of dying by getting run over by a car is way, way higher than dying from covid, given that I ride everywhere on my bike in a city where distracted driving is pretty much the norm.

The quote from the CDC doesn't say "prevent", it says "reduces the risk".

[RetiredAt63]

An Ontario doctor and former member of the advisory committee thinks we should start masking again now that it is November and we are indoors so much more.  And cases are starting to rise.  Masking isn't that hard, I do it all the time.  Sat for 2 hours yesterday while my car got a tire and oil change, wearing my N95.  Not a big deal.  My N95  fits pretty well, so I figure I get 90% protection with it.  That means my immune system is handling 10% of whatever viruses are in the air, not all 100% of them.  I'm quite happy to be protecting myself from cold and flu viruses too.   I'm also protecting others from me.

Basic arithmetic - if x/1000 people in an age group will be seriously ill with Covid, the actual number of seriously ill people in that age group will be larger if the overall case number is larger.

And sure the largest X will be in older people but x is not 0 for younger people.

And yes there were high death rates in nursing homes, but most seniors are still living on their own, active in the community.  And if there are lots of cases this winter they are being exposed.  I'm not talking about people who would be dead in a year or two of old age, I am talking about people who have 10-30 years life expectancy.  Plus all the people who are vulnerable because of other health issues, who may be any age.

A lot of the most onerous precautions were taken when we didn't know the details of Covid spread.  Now we do.  Just like now we know malaria (literally bad air) is not spread by bad air, it is spread by mosquitoes, so we take measures in malaria areas not to be bitten.  Similarly, for an air-borne virus, air quality is the most important consideration.  If the chances of high virus load are low, we don't need masks.  If the chances of high virus load are high, we do need masks.  If the air is being well filtered we are safer.  If the air is not being well filtered, we are at higher risk.  One of the long-term effects of Covid should be requirements for better ventilation in places like schools.

[RetiredAt63]

Cawl, the was in such a nested post that it was a mess.  I can't edit it easily.  So you wrote:
Considering that Alzheimer's runs in my family and I am pretty terrified of that, I would probably welcome COVID as a mercy. And I would probably be pissed off if my family sacrificed my hypothetical grandkids to save my life.

Thank God we have better angels such as yourself that would sacrifice a man's grand children to keep him locked in his own personal hell. We would be lost without people like you.

That took a very general post and narrowed it down to your own personal situation.  I'm sorry that you have to worry about Alheimer's and I expect your charitable donations are going to Alzeimer's research.  I'm also guessing you plan to have a medical DNR when you get older and the situation applies.

My daughter's viewpoint is that she wants me alive to be Grannie to her daughter.  I want your hypothetical grandchildren to be healthy and have healthy parents and grandparents. My father was orphaned at 3 because of the Spanish flu.  Lots of children were orphaned in the early stages of the Covid pandemic.  And more lost grandparents they loved.   

But that was a very personal attack, which is frowned on in the forums.  I don't want you locked in your personal hell, assuming you end up there.  But I also don't want children's parents and grandparents dead when they could be healthy if we as a society took reasonable precautions.

[RetiredAt63]

If I died from covid next week, it would suck, but so what? Eventually, we're all going to die from something, anyway. My family would get another $100K in life insurance benefits to use to buy stocks at discount prices. Pretty sure, though, my risk of dying by getting run over by a car is way, way higher than dying from covid, given that I ride everywhere on my bike in a city where distracted driving is pretty much the norm.

If you died from Covid next week because you didn't take reasonable precautions, you would leave behind a grieving family (I assume they love you) who would also be mad at you because you didn't take reasonable precautions.  And believe me, the insurance money wouldn't make them feel better.  As I've written here before, my Dad lost his parents when he was 3, to the Spanish Flu. There was enough insurance to see him and his brother through University during the Depression.  But he often said he would have much rather his parents lived.  Unfortunately they were in the high risk age group for that pandemic.

[Shane]

The latter. Based on the CDC's claims that in healthy individuals vaccines work to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death, we are choosing to go back to living our lives as we did before covid started. Absolutely, I can understand others drawing different but equally reasonable conclusions based on the same information. A close relative recently underwent organ transplant surgery. Even if covid disappeared tomorrow, he would have to continue social distancing and wearing masks in indoor spaces, for the rest of his life, because even a cold or flu could easily kill him. Thankfully, we aren't in that same risk group. Also, I don't believe that we are in any way 100% assured of not getting covid, just because we're vaccinated. One of us could still get it, get really sick, and even die, but we're willing to accept that relatively small risk. If I died from covid next week, it would suck, but so what? Eventually, we're all going to die from something, anyway. My family would get another $100K in life insurance benefits to use to buy stocks at discount prices. Pretty sure, though, my risk of dying by getting run over by a car is way, way higher than dying from covid, given that I ride everywhere on my bike in a city where distracted driving is pretty much the norm.

Sure, and I can respect that you're making that choice and understand where you're coming from.

Maybe I'm harping on this, but that's a personal decision - not what 'the science' is saying you should do.  Someone could make a completely different choice that is at least as valid based on the same science available.  So the claim that "the science that says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020" is really not a valid one to make, right?

We are making a personal decision based on scientific evidence, as represented by the CDC. If the CDC were saying, "Covid vaccines aren't very effective. All schools are closed. Don't go to the gym. Don't go into the office if you can avoid it. Don't meet up with friends or relatives. No bars. No restaurants. Masks everywhere. Etc," and we decided it was a good idea to go to Disneyland, then that wouldn't be a valid choice, at least not based on the scientific evidence. Given the fact that the CDC is saying that covid vaccines are highly effective at preventing serious illness from the coronavirus, and we are all fully vaccinated (5X each, in my wife's and my cases), our choice to accept a small amount of risk that we might catch covid and get really sick from it anyway, seems completely reasonable to me. That's not saying that others, who may have very different levels of risk tolerance or different baseline levels of health, can't make completely different choices. Everyone's free to do as they like. It just seems to me like, at some point, we need to trust in our public health officials. The CDC is telling us that, based on the best science currently available, covid vaccines are highly effective. We're choosing to trust the CDC and the science that they represent.

[Shane]

If I died from covid next week, it would suck, but so what? Eventually, we're all going to die from something, anyway. My family would get another $100K in life insurance benefits to use to buy stocks at discount prices. Pretty sure, though, my risk of dying by getting run over by a car is way, way higher than dying from covid, given that I ride everywhere on my bike in a city where distracted driving is pretty much the norm.

If you died from Covid next week because you didn't take reasonable precautions, you would leave behind a grieving family (I assume they love you) who would also be mad at you because you didn't take reasonable precautions.  And believe me, the insurance money wouldn't make them feel better.  As I've written here before, my Dad lost his parents when he was 3, to the Spanish Flu. There was enough insurance to see him and his brother through University during the Depression.  But he often said he would have much rather his parents lived.  Unfortunately they were in the high risk age group for that pandemic.

But we are taking 'reasonable precautions'. Both my wife and I have been vaccinated 5x already, and we are both more than willing to get vaccinated again if and when another vaccine becomes available. That seems like more than enough to me. We're not looking for a 100% guarantee, because we know that's not possible. 5-doses of highly effective vaccines seems fine to me. I'm comfortable with the odds on this bet. As I said, my chances of getting killed by a distracted driver seem much higher than those of dying from covid, as a fully vaccinated healthy person. YMMV.

[HPstache]

The latter. Based on the CDC's claims that in healthy individuals vaccines work to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death, we are choosing to go back to living our lives as we did before covid started. Absolutely, I can understand others drawing different but equally reasonable conclusions based on the same information. A close relative recently underwent organ transplant surgery. Even if covid disappeared tomorrow, he would have to continue social distancing and wearing masks in indoor spaces, for the rest of his life, because even a cold or flu could easily kill him. Thankfully, we aren't in that same risk group. Also, I don't believe that we are in any way 100% assured of not getting covid, just because we're vaccinated. One of us could still get it, get really sick, and even die, but we're willing to accept that relatively small risk. If I died from covid next week, it would suck, but so what? Eventually, we're all going to die from something, anyway. My family would get another $100K in life insurance benefits to use to buy stocks at discount prices. Pretty sure, though, my risk of dying by getting run over by a car is way, way higher than dying from covid, given that I ride everywhere on my bike in a city where distracted driving is pretty much the norm.

Sure, and I can respect that you're making that choice and understand where you're coming from.

Maybe I'm harping on this, but that's a personal decision - not what 'the science' is saying you should do.  Someone could make a completely different choice that is at least as valid based on the same science available.  So the claim that "the science that says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020" is really not a valid one to make, right?

We are making a personal decision based on scientific evidence, as represented by the CDC. If the CDC were saying, "Covid vaccines aren't very effective. All schools are closed. Don't go to the gym. Don't go into the office if you can avoid it. Don't meet up with friends or relatives. No bars. No restaurants. Masks everywhere. Etc," and we decided it was a good idea to go to Disneyland, then that wouldn't be a valid choice, at least not based on the scientific evidence. Given the fact that the CDC is saying that covid vaccines are highly effective at preventing serious illness from the coronavirus, and we are all fully vaccinated (5X each, in my wife's and my cases), our choice to accept a small amount of risk that we might catch covid and get really sick from it anyway, seems completely reasonable to me. That's not saying that others, who may have very different levels of risk tolerance or different baseline levels of health, can't make completely different choices. Everyone's free to do as they like. It just seems to me like, at some point, we need to trust in our public health officials. The CDC is telling us that, based on the best science currently available, covid vaccines are highly effective. We're choosing to trust the CDC and the science that they represent.

You're not alone with this opinion

[Cawl]

Wearing a mask = lockdown

This forum has used the word "lockdown" to refer to the wide range of restrictions and work from home orders in 2020 / 2021 in a multitude of threads.  Don't act like you don't know that.

I don't agree "lockdown" is the forum wide agreed upon nomenclature, but I do recognize that that poster was referring to the early response of the US government as a lockdown. And that is what I am disagreeing with. Poster @Freedomin5 is in China and is experiencing lockdowns, and those suck. We in the US never did.

In the summer of 2020, I went into Home Depot and someone politely asked me to stand 6 feet apart from other people. I'm basically like Nelson Mandela, let's go storm the capitol.

Is your issue with my post that you think we really did have lockdowns here, or that you don't think I should be allowed to say that we didn't?

You went to Home Depot? Well shit. Can't argue with that logic. Guess I can just disregard this report of millions of people being pushed towards famine due to economic damage.
https://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2021/en/

Also this report about the increase in teenage suicides.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7024e1.htm

But instead we must argue vocabulary.

[Cawl]

Cawl, the was in such a nested post that it was a mess.  I can't edit it easily.  So you wrote:
Considering that Alzheimer's runs in my family and I am pretty terrified of that, I would probably welcome COVID as a mercy. And I would probably be pissed off if my family sacrificed my hypothetical grandkids to save my life.

Thank God we have better angels such as yourself that would sacrifice a man's grand children to keep him locked in his own personal hell. We would be lost without people like you.

That took a very general post and narrowed it down to your own personal situation.  I'm sorry that you have to worry about Alheimer's and I expect your charitable donations are going to Alzeimer's research.  I'm also guessing you plan to have a medical DNR when you get older and the situation applies.

My daughter's viewpoint is that she wants me alive to be Grannie to her daughter.  I want your hypothetical grandchildren to be healthy and have healthy parents and grandparents. My father was orphaned at 3 because of the Spanish flu.  Lots of children were orphaned in the early stages of the Covid pandemic.  And more lost grandparents they loved.   

But that was a very personal attack, which is frowned on in the forums.  I don't want you locked in your personal hell, assuming you end up there.  But I also don't want children's parents and grandparents dead when they could be healthy if we as a society took reasonable precautions.

I apologize. I had to take care of my 100 year old grandmother during COVID when Hospice decided to shut down. And people would probably have accused me of being a "granny killer" but we didn't any other choice. We were put in an impossible situation.

And now I'm dealing with pedantics who keep going "well actually, I went to a big box store, so there wasn't lockdowns, therefore that couldn't happen."

[GuitarStv]

The latter. Based on the CDC's claims that in healthy individuals vaccines work to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death, we are choosing to go back to living our lives as we did before covid started. Absolutely, I can understand others drawing different but equally reasonable conclusions based on the same information. A close relative recently underwent organ transplant surgery. Even if covid disappeared tomorrow, he would have to continue social distancing and wearing masks in indoor spaces, for the rest of his life, because even a cold or flu could easily kill him. Thankfully, we aren't in that same risk group. Also, I don't believe that we are in any way 100% assured of not getting covid, just because we're vaccinated. One of us could still get it, get really sick, and even die, but we're willing to accept that relatively small risk. If I died from covid next week, it would suck, but so what? Eventually, we're all going to die from something, anyway. My family would get another $100K in life insurance benefits to use to buy stocks at discount prices. Pretty sure, though, my risk of dying by getting run over by a car is way, way higher than dying from covid, given that I ride everywhere on my bike in a city where distracted driving is pretty much the norm.

Sure, and I can respect that you're making that choice and understand where you're coming from.

Maybe I'm harping on this, but that's a personal decision - not what 'the science' is saying you should do.  Someone could make a completely different choice that is at least as valid based on the same science available.  So the claim that "the science that says if you're fully vaccinated and not in poor health or any other sort of high-risk group, it's safe to go about our lives as normal, just like everyone used to before 2020" is really not a valid one to make, right?

We are making a personal decision based on scientific evidence, as represented by the CDC. If the CDC were saying, "Covid vaccines aren't very effective. All schools are closed. Don't go to the gym. Don't go into the office if you can avoid it. Don't meet up with friends or relatives. No bars. No restaurants. Masks everywhere. Etc," and we decided it was a good idea to go to Disneyland, then that wouldn't be a valid choice, at least not based on the scientific evidence. Given the fact that the CDC is saying that covid vaccines are highly effective at preventing serious illness from the coronavirus, and we are all fully vaccinated (5X each, in my wife's and my cases), our choice to accept a small amount of risk that we might catch covid and get really sick from it anyway, seems completely reasonable to me. That's not saying that others, who may have very different levels of risk tolerance or different baseline levels of health, can't make completely different choices. Everyone's free to do as they like. It just seems to me like, at some point, we need to trust in our public health officials. The CDC is telling us that, based on the best science currently available, covid vaccines are highly effective. We're choosing to trust the CDC and the science that they represent.

Covid vaccines are highly effective at preventing death and hospitalizations.

- Post-COVID conditions can include a wide range of ongoing health problems; these conditions can last weeks, months, or longer.
- Post-COVID conditions are found more often in people who had severe COVID-19 illness, but anyone who has been infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 can experience post-COVID conditions, even people who had mild illness or no symptoms from COVID-19.
- People who are not vaccinated against COVID-19 and become infected might also be at higher risk of developing post-COVID conditions compared to people who were vaccinated and had breakthrough infections.

The best way to prevent post-COVID conditions is to protect yourself and others from becoming infected.

- https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/index.html

So the CDC is telling us that, based on the best science currently available, covid vaccines can't be trusted to prevent long term problems resulting from covid infection.  Vaccination reduces the risk of contracting covid, but certainly doesn't prevent it.


Again, if you've weighed the risks and made a choice that you're comfortable with - cool.  I don't think that it's fair to say that you're 'choosing to trust the CDC' if you're ignoring some of what the CDC is saying though.