COVID the pandemic ended back in May when the vaccine was widely available. What we have today is COVID the Culture War, screaming about The Science, and narcissists showing how much better they are at following The Rules than you.
My daughter has spent nearly half her life wearing a mask 50 hours a week for a disease less risky to her than the Flu or RSV. The vaccine has a ~6x risk of myocarditis for her than COVID itself. Who does that protect?
We squandered our opportunity to open up months ago. The vaccine apparently DOES rapidly lose efficacy, as more data has shown, and one political party wants a booster subscription model and outright refuses to commit to any sort of end.
Oh, the pandemic is over? Well I'm glad I heard it here on HN first. The 7-day average for COVID deaths is over 1,000, and nearly a million Americans have died (how many 9/11s is that?) but the pandemic is over because nearly 60% of our population took a free vaccine!
Vaccines rapidly lose efficacy when the virus they target has free real estate (vectors) in which to mutate. The laughably slow vaccine uptake in the US (while the rest of the world couldn't secure doses) is to blame there, not anything else.
Americans having to wear a cloth covering to keep their neighbors from catching something almost as contagious as measles is not a large ask, but here we are. It also protects against the flu and RSV since you're concerned about those—which is why the US didn't really have a flu season. Guess those couple hundred thousand deaths a year are preferable to masks when public outbreaks occur though.
What I don't understand is the rest of the world has figured this out? Go ride the subway in Japan and no one struggles with this, just westerners who think thatdoing the bare minimum to prevent illness, hospitalizations, and even death impede on their manifest destiny / freedom / constitutional rights / etc
>Vaccines rapidly lose efficacy when the virus they target has free real estate (vectors) in which to mutate.
The finger pointing game really has to stop considering anyone vaccinated can contract, get sick from, act as a vector/petri dish, and consequently spread the mutated virus. Unvaccinated as well.
>The laughably slow vaccine uptake in the US (while the rest of the world couldn't secure doses) is to blame there, not anything else.
Instead of attempting to blame unvaccinated vectors for the poor vaccine performance, why not blame the actual culprit - the barely tested (with only ~200 clinical trial participants), rushed (sorry, expedited) vaccines?
From what I've read widespread mask wearing would greatly reduce transmission [1]. Where are you hearing that it doesn't?
> Our review of the literature offers evidence in favor of widespread mask use as source control to reduce community transmission: Nonmedical masks use materials that obstruct particles of the necessary size; people are most infectious in the initial period postinfection, where it is common to have few or no symptoms (45, 46, 141); nonmedical masks have been effective in reducing transmission of respiratory viruses; and places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.
> The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re
to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained. Economic analysis suggests that mask wearing mandates could add 1 trillion dollars to the US GDP (32, 34).
> Models suggest that public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high (39).
There’s plenty of articles to be found that say whatever you want. Broadly, you’ll find articles that state that models or theories suggest that wearing masks will probably work great and articles that say that in practice it turns out cloth masks are at most of very limited value, because you can’t say what they filter and they never fit well.
> The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, […] could successfully reduce R to below 1
The very clear fact that no country actually succeeded in doing this, even the countries like Japan where mask wearing is as normal as it gets, should be a hint.
All countries did not perform equally, and we all took very different measures of varying degress. Japan didn't really do any official lockdown, for example, while other countries did. The fact that you can't point to a country that already wears masks as a custom (Japan) and see the obvious benefits means exactly nothing because of that. Now hey, if we had two Japans that behaved identically in every way besides mask usage then that would really be something. Instead, we have a bunch of data being collected on what amount to uncontrolled experiments and we won't really know for a while, if ever.
What I do know is most of the time it's very, very easy to wear a mask. So maybe, if you have good reason to believe it helps, just do the easy thing even if you can't know for sure.
So, that’s what I said. It’s very apparent that the masks should work and it’s very easy. But there’s little actual data and the data there is shows it doesn’t work.
Plus the old story about how Schrödinger’s Japan that is the big example of masks working, also isn’t the example when it turns out they don’t work. Of course.
That's the opposite of what you said. The data there doesn't show it doesn't work, because they didn't take other measures that other countries did take, and the variables are all intermixing their effects.
It's sad to read that someone interprets my behavior, which is inconvenient for me but is mainly about keeping other people from getting hurt because I'm not in a high risk group, as narcissistic, somehow. You should try to reconsider what you think you know about the people who disagree with you, because you are absolutely incorrect and borderline delusional.
The narcissistic part comes when people boast on Twitter how they are doing their supreme civic duty by taking the vaccine, not like those disgusting filthy diseased barely human individuals that choose a different path. Take the vaccine for whatever reason you may, but there are very little reasons to publicly announce your superiority to others just because you did. Sadly, the vaccine doesn't do much to prevent infection, especially after a few months.
> You should try to reconsider what you think you know about the people who disagree with you, because you are absolutely incorrect and borderline delusional.
You are doing exactly what you're insulting. Some self reflection is in order.
"narcissists showing how much better they are at following The Rules than you"
He didn't though. Unless you do show off how much better you are at following The Rules on a regular basis. And yet you called him "borderline delusional".
> COVID the pandemic ended back in May when the vaccine was widely available. What we have today is COVID the Culture War
So if you don't think the pandemic is over, you are on the wrong side of the "culture war".
> screaming about The Science, and narcissists showing how much better they are at following The Rules than you.
This could be Twitter people or it could be people wearing masks in public. You don't know what this person meant outside of the context provided here. Given how they think that all that remains is a culture war, I took it to mean people who don't think the pandemic is over, so they wear masks and continue to social distance (you know, because we want people to know we can follow rules). Regardless, it reads as though it was written to be intentionally inflamatory to people like me who do not think it's over, or, at least won't act as though it is until a plan is communicated. I think you know that it was inflammatory. So your reading of it to not not include me as its target of criticism is of no interest to me. If I said "idiots who respond to my comments" and you rightly pointed out that it's not nice to call people idiots, how would you respond to a third commenter saying "well, he's not talking about you, he's talking about idiots."
Some days I forget how acrimonious our culture wars are. It didn't occur to me that mask wearing (or not wearing) has become a symbol. I was operating under the assumption that it's a minor personal choice.
This simply isn't true in my state. We had a significant spike in COVID patient hospitalizations and deaths starting in August. This is attributed by public health experts to the low vaccination rate in my state. I'm not sure if you count them among the culture warriors or narcissists.
I think we are overlooking a simple conclusion: the Americans, in sum, find the cost of several hundred thousand deaths each year acceptable in order to safeguard their freedoms and their way of life.
Historically, they made peace with the death toll of yellow fever (~5% fatality rate!) and they made peace with the death toll of malaria. Disease prevention is a relatively novelty in the US, historically speaking, and mostly secondary to war readiness (undermined by the Spanish flu around WW1 and polio around WW2). If it wasn't for the threat of foreign wars destroying the American way of life, the American society at large is indifferent to a high death toll from disease.
It's not clear whether this is a matter of high religiosity (because death is a goal and only the beginning of a soul's journey) or a history of dehumanizing a huge segment of their own population.
The plot has always been not to let a serious crisis go to waste and that plot is still very well alive.
The vestiges of covid restrictions will still be floating around with patriot act clauses 20 years from now when 99% of people will not be quite sure what the exact origin was but they'll be used to it and 100% certain that things can't be any other way.
This comments section is an absolute dumpster fire. I don't know why anyone tries to discuss Covid on HN anymore. It is always a culture war with no new or interesting information presented.
The author refers to getting innoculated as "immunized" which is about as scientific as flat earth. The rest of the article isn't much better.
If everyone was actually immunized, we would have hit Fauci's early number of 65% herd immunity months ago. What's the herd immunity threshold at these days.. 85%? 90%? Utter quackery.
I believe the word slip is 100% intentional. It's the same kind of people that conflate, on purpose, "the vaccines are 95% effective!" with the wishful notion that they stop the spread of the virus.
This argument is disingenuous for a few reasons. Not least of which is that no one calls "natural" immunity psuedoscience—it's how the vaccine works. We take issue with people relying solely on that vs a vaccine (where at this point n=hundreds of millions) that prevents hospitalizations.
America does not have the capacity for everyone to get sick "the old fashioned way" and then go back to business as usual. The past several months should have clued most of us in on that by now. What happens when we reach a critical mass of health workers quitting?
The transmission argument similarly falls short given that the vaccine reduces the odds of you becoming a vector in the first place, or progressing to the point you require state intervention to survive.
I'm all for personal choice. If you want to opt out of vaccinations, that has already been in place. It means you may not be able to attend a public school, or hold a position as a nurse. Those are the tradeoffs we make in the name of our freedom.
Americans have chosen, in this instance, to put Planet Fitness and Applebee's over the public health. Had everyone been paid to stay home until domestic transmission halted + masked and socially distanced when necessary + got the vaccine if able to we would not see nearly a million dead Americans. I hold the elected officials (Dems and Reps) responsible for politicizing this pandemic and poisoning the public discourse such that a non-negligible portion of our population is consuming veterinary formulations of an anti-helminth dewormer instead of the free mRNA vaccine.
> The rest of the world understands that previously infected people have natural immunity
From your comment I'm not sure you fully understand what that means in terms of COVID-19, and what are the real world implications of natural vs vaccine-induced immune response.
For starters, a prior COVID-19 infection, unlike taking the vaccine, not only leads to a worse and sometimes outright ineffective immune response but also leaves you open to reinfection that are reported to be far more serious and outright deadly.
> and are granted the same freedoms as vaccinated people.
This really depends on which country you opt to cherry pick. In the EU for instance prior infections are not recognized as being the same as vaccination and consequently travellers are not "granted the same rights". For a person who had a previous COVID-19 infection to be granted the same privileges as a fully vaccinated person, that person has to take at least a single dose of a vaccine.
> From the outside looking in this issue looks like Americans having a religious war as usual
From the outside looking in, the only thing that's dumbfounding is this widespread resistence to get the damn shot. Countries like Portugal and Spain already show fully vaccinated rates of around 80% of their population, Canada reports 75%, and unexplainably the US only has around 58% of it's population? What can possibly explain this madness?
> In the EU for instance prior infections are not recognized as being the same as vaccination and consequently travellers are not "granted the same rights". For a person who had a previous COVID-19 infection to be granted the same privileges as a fully vaccinated person, that person has to take at least a single dose of a vaccine.
I don't know where you heard that
"Recovered persons, holding an EU Digital COVID Certificate should be exempt from travel-related testing or quarantine during the first 180 days after a positive PCR test."
> "Recovered persons, holding an EU Digital COVID Certificate should be exempt from travel-related testing or quarantine during the first 180 days after a positive PCR test."
If you pay attention to the source you've cited, you'll notice that:
a) the EU requires a Certificate of Recovery, which has stringent requirements,
b) the EU requires mandatory PCR tests for people holding a Recovery Certificate after 180 days from the positive PCR test, which are not required for fully vaccinated persons,
c) to avoid mandatory PCR tests a recovered person needs to take at least a single dose of a vaccine.
If you read your source, you'll eventually get to this info.
Yes the stringent requirement of getting a test that proves that you've recovered.
You can also get a test certificate after getting a RAT test in any drop-in testing center 30 mins before you travel.
The fact is that the rest of the world understands this while in the US you will chant the mantra "trust the science" while ignoring the science because this like everything has been turned into a religious war between the two halves of the political spectrum
>Not least of which is that no one calls "natural" immunity psuedoscience—it's how the vaccine works.
I’m sure that’s how it was intended to work but the term you’re looking for is artificial immunity or vaccine derived immunity. Unfortunately the vaccines don’t confer immunity so there goes that.
>What happens when we reach a critical mass of health workers quitting?
For not consenting to a vaccination mandate? We’re all about to find out. Can you imagine working on the front lines for over a year to suddenly be discarded like a piece of trash because you won’t take a vaccine (when you are almost certainly already immune)?
>The transmission argument similarly falls short given that the vaccine reduces the odds of you becoming a vector in the first place, or progressing to the point you require state intervention to survive
Speaking of disingenuous... I’m not sure why people gloss over the fact that the vaccines don’t prevent transmission. Why fumble over word games instead of acknowledging the simple fact that you don’t get immunity from the vaccine.
Now follow that train of thought to it’s logical end. Universal forced vaccination of everyone on Earth with passports to boot and the outbreaks still continue.
Well hey at least we have this neato “world ID” (vaccine passport) which couldn’t possibly be used for nefarious means.
This is one of the MAJOR things that make me concerned about the vaccine. A leaky vaccine almost seems worse than none at all, to me. (Just look at mareks disease in chickens)
> Even with 100% vaccination coverage, there will still be outbreaks. It’s only a matter of time before the goalposts shift on “fully vaccinated” and one’s passport isn’t valid anymore. Not until you get the booster. And you may think it ends at shot #3, nope. This goes on for as long as we let it.
This antivax/denialist/contrarian blend of bullshit is tiring and disheartening.
It seems people like you don't realize how the scientific community is scrambling to not only find a cure or fix to mitigate the impact of a disease that's also developing but also better understand the real world impact of the currently available treatments.
Public health officials are then taking this info and all updates and developments to determine public health and safety guidelines.
Yet, somehow clueless people try to spin these facts as if the world is full of certainties and any update in light of new info is somehow the result of an evil inconsistent conspiracy?
Listen, practically all the recent updates regarding public health and safety guidelines are a reaction to a variant that didn't existed until a few months ago well after the current batch of vaccines was developed and has proven deadlier and easier to spread. All the updates you're somehow attacking and criticizing can be tracked to the inception and spread of that variant, as a direct consequence of learning more about it and how the current set of vaccines work to counter it. But somehow you fail to take into account and instead pretend that nothing changed besides whims of evil officials conspiring against you? Where does that make any sense?
I draw two lines: no vaccine mandates and vaccines are unnecessary for kids. But, the data we have so far does show that vaccines are very good at preventing severe covid & death among adults. While natural immunity is also good, the individual risk and collective pandemic burden can be significantly reduced in adults by getting the vaccine.
My daughter has spent nearly half her life wearing a mask 50 hours a week for a disease less risky to her than the Flu or RSV. The vaccine has a ~6x risk of myocarditis for her than COVID itself. Who does that protect?
We squandered our opportunity to open up months ago. The vaccine apparently DOES rapidly lose efficacy, as more data has shown, and one political party wants a booster subscription model and outright refuses to commit to any sort of end.