US Heading Out of 'Full-blown Pandemic Phase', Fauci Says (axios.com) 379
COVID-19 pandemic restrictions could end "soon," even as early as this year, NIAID director Anthony Fauci told the Financial Times in an interview published Tuesday. From a report: Fauci explained that he does not believe "we are going to eradicate this virus," but said that it will instead reach an "equilibrium." He said, "I hope we are looking at a time when we have enough people vaccinated and enough people with protection from previous infection that the COVID restrictions will soon be a thing of the past." Fauci added that he hoped restrictions would end "soon," agreeing with a suggestion that they could largely end this year. Fauci also said that as the U.S. is "certainly heading out" of a particularly difficult phase of the pandemic driven largely by Omicron, local health departments will be the ones to make virus-related decisions instead of the Biden administration.
Might be true, might not be (Score:5, Insightful)
Omicron is less severe but more communicable, that could signal a trend... or it might not. It seems like it would be cleverer to wait for another one or two variants to either follow the trend or buck it before making declarative statements like this one. Confidence in the statements from the public health apparatus is already low. Even the liberal pundits are beating that drum now.
Re:Might be true, might not be (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah thats the part that concerns me. Once the US is utterly soaked in omicron, possibly doing not much damage in the scheme of things, its gonna be HARD to pivot to full on restrictions again if something ugly rears its head.
Like, NeoCov, a MERs family coronvirus, likely from the same cave system that birthed covid, with a ACE2 spike (currently horseshoe bat ACE2 however) is one or two protein substitutions away from a full blown human wrecking horror pandemic capable of killing off 60% of victims instead of the 1% that delta whacks. Thats civilization ending numbers. We are on very thin ice, and viral evolution is doing its darndest to try and throw our species in early graves right now.
Re:Might be true, might not be (Score:5, Insightful)
If something that kills 60% happens completely different measures will obviously be warranted and put in place.
I don't get your point. Do you mean we should keep restrictions just in case, even though we know they are currently doing more harm than good? Imho, people shouldn't speak of restricting people's basic rights in such a casual way.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get your point. Do you mean we should keep restrictions just in case, even though we know they are currently doing more harm than good? Imho, people shouldn't speak of restricting people's basic rights in such a casual way.
How are masks and vaccines doing more harm than good?
Re: (Score:3)
I assume he refers to other restrictions (like say remote schooling), but if so at least around where I live there are no such restrictions, apart from self-imposed ones by some businesses. Some local areas may still have things in place though.
So if he speaks of mask mandates (which is mostly harmless, though not so great for the deaf) and vaccines, I'd disagree with his assessment of them being harmful.
If he speaks to other restrictions, I might agree with him, but I don't see such restrictions in place
Re: (Score:2)
Have to weigh that against fatigue against the restrictions. Early on the overwhelming majority was able to do it. As time wore on, people's patience for such measures wore increasingly thin, manifested as both violated restrictions and also easing restrictions even when data didn't suggest it was correct.
If restrictions are dragging on and a new thing crops up, people are unlikely to go into even tighter restrictions without so much as a reprieve. If people have normalcy for a time, it might be possible
Re:Might be true, might not be (Score:5, Interesting)
What would be gained?
Thus far every variant of COVID has had its lethality pretty effectively shielded against by vaccination - it's not looking likely that things are *ever* going to get significantly safer for the vaccinated. And if the vaccine doesn't work for you for whatever reason, there's not much else we can do to lower your long-term risks short of extending the pandemic restrictions forever.
It's become clear that nothing is going to change the minds of the remaining unvaccinated aside from them or their friends suffering a severe case, or government-mandated medical procedures, which have a lot of opposition from both sides of the aisle. So widespread resistance will only be achieved with near-universal infection of the unvaxxed.
At this point the restrictions are mainly to slow the spread among the unvaxxed enough to avoid overloading hospitals (since the death rate will skyrocket if we can't help all those who need it), plus some inertia from years of being on the defensive, and maybe a bit of waiting for vaccination options for the young, at-risk children. Omicron makes that easier since far fewer people need hospitalization - so lifting restrictions as fast as possible while Omicron is the dominant strain makes a whole lot of sense.
Better to let everyone catch Omicron than whatever the next, probably more dangerous variant is - after all there's absolutely no reason to expect a short-term trend to milder variants. Even the worst variant of COVID is already so mild that there's very little evolutionary pressure to become less lethal until all other methods of increasing infection rates have been exhausted.
Re: (Score:2)
Better to let everyone catch Omicron than whatever the next, probably more dangerous variant is
I generally agree with your whole comment, and it's very well-put, but I have to point out that you're making an unjustified assumption in this sentence, that catching Omicron will provide significant protection against future, more dangerous variants. Having recovered from a pre-Omicron variant provides only limited immunity from Omicron, for the same reasons that vaccination provides only limited immunity -- Omicron has mutated enough that it doesn't carry many of the markers that peoples' immune systems
Re: (Score:3)
Having recovered from a pre-Omicron variant provides only limited immunity from Omicron
Both prior infection and vaccination offer significant immunity to Omicron. Antibody fitness from prior infection and vaccines is quite low resulting in people still getting symptomatic disease yet T-cell response remains intact offering significant protection from hospitalization and death in line with protections enjoyed from previous variants.
unjustified assumption in this sentence, that catching Omicron will provide significant protection against future, more dangerous variants.
Obviously the future is unpredictable and anything could happen yet the fact remains natural infection is superior to vaccination.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volum... [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
You really think there's a whole lot of people that would rather die than have to deal with a collections agency eventually coming after them? Because that's the only way that's likely to help. Doesn't matter who pays, there's still only so many people who can be treated.
And I rather doubt it would increase the vaccination rate substantially since this point those who continue to refuse vaccination are operating on near-religious conviction. There's just not a credible threat in having to pay for medical
Re:Might be true, might not be (Score:5, Insightful)
From the expert comments I have seen (actual experts with relevant research experience, not the these days oh-so-frequent pseudo-experts that have never done any relevant research and just have some irrelevant academic credentials like an MD that very much does not include relevant research expertise) there is no "trend" and we just got lucky that Omicron is less deadly and seems to cause less Long-Covid. It could have gone the other way and it still very much can on the next mutation. Covid does not maim or kill nearly fast enough to become self-limiting even in the non-vaccinated.
What will happen though is that we will get adjusted vaccines faster. There really is not much choice besides to vaccinate everybody that is willing and let the others die (rarely) or maim (Long-Covid, not rare at all) themselves as result of their stupidity. As most of the stupid group will get infected this year, the "hot" phase will indeed be over after that. The pandemic will not be and since many people may/will misunderstand that statement as "the pandemic will be over", I basically agree with you.
Re:Might be true, might not be (Score:5, Informative)
Relationship with Covid symptom severity is unclear. Connection to vaccination, no. Vaccination significantly reduces the Long Covid risks overall. Whether that is by preventing the problems or making them small enough to not be noticeable anymore to most people is unclear at this time. What seems to not be strongly connected is how severe your Covid case was and how severe Long Covid will be after that or whether you get it. There are apparently a lot of people with "mild" Covid and anything but mild Long Covid afterwards. There are _also_ some (few) people that get a Long Covid refresh after a booster shot. This is not a set of yes/no questions.
Re: (Score:3)
The vaccines are worthless at preventing Omicron infection
And there the lies start. I will not even read the rest of the demented propaganda you are obviously pushing.
Re: (Score:2)
The disease has different paths of spreading. [youtu.be]
Re:Might be true, might not be (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really - The only "lie" I can think of was the recommendation for the general public to not wear masks when the airborne properties of covid were still being studied and PPE was in short supply. Other than that they've just provided the public with the latest scientific information.
Re:Might be true, might not be (Score:5, Insightful)
My favorite part of people being up in arms about the mask comment early on is that while Fauci's reasons were not right in principle (They should tell us like adults what is really happening and what they currently know) it was probably right in practice.
If Fauci did come out and say masks were a good defense and N95's were the most effective early in 2020 there would have absolutely been a run on them and every person would have started panic buying and hoarding them en masse. The great toilet paper war shows me that was absolutely would be the case.
If you don't want the government to treat us like dumb panicky babies we should sometimes stop acting like dumb panicky babies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly this. People were already panic-buying toilet paper, hand sanitizer, isopropyl alcohol, etc. There were even assholes trying to make money on hand sanitizer arbitrage.
I have no problem with what was done early in this thing to make sure that N95 masks were available to health care and first responders until manufacturing could scale up - it was the morally right thing to do because the public at large had already shown themselves to not be capable of doing the right thing.
Re:Might be true, might not be (Score:5, Interesting)
. . . and maybe we would have halted exports of PPE to China:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
If the CDC weren't so busy trying to manipulate public perception, maybe they could have coordinated with the White House and/or Congress to facilitate the mass-production of N95s in the United States. We did spend trillions of dollars on pandemic "relief", so why shouldn't part of that bill been based on providing good PPE to the public as quickly as possible?
Why did it take this long for the Feds to hand out N95s to the public?
For nearly two years, we've been told to wear our cloth or paper masks that never really were that good to begin with, and that have been rendered even less useful by Delta and Omicron variants. If the CDC had been honest with both the public AND policy-makers, we could have focused on N95s when it counted.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really - The only "lie" I can think of was the recommendation for the general public to not wear masks when the airborne properties of covid were still being studied and PPE was in short supply.
If you want to know what Fauci has believed for years about masks to fight a pandemic of a respiratory virus watch his David Rubinstein May 22 2019 interview just prior to the pandemic. He outright laughed mocking the idea and went on to say the best thing people could do was to become healthy.
This idea he was lying then and only said what he said because PPE shortage was itself the lie. The sentiment was a reflection of what he and many in his field believed for years prior.
What was worse than the lie w
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.wired.com/story/th... [wired.com]
Re:Might be true, might not be (Score:5, Insightful)
The general opinion of doctors in the US before covid was that masks are generally useless for preventing infection. That is still true
It's also true that masks are good at stopping the spread of infection. So if I have an infection and wear a mask, other people won't get it.
Note that this is the reason people have worn masks in Japan for over a decade at least.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Glad someone's got their eye on the ball.
The CDC is mostly now a political organization. It has spent too much time trying to manipulate the behavior of the American people and too little time actually fighting the virus.
Eradicate? (Score:2, Informative)
"he does not believe "we are going to eradicate this virus," but said that it will instead reach an "equilibrium"
Wow, really? Who knew! Clearly this man is a savant level genius.
Meanwhile here in the UK the government medical advisors (finally) realised this months ago and almost all restrictions have been lifted.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"he does not believe "we are going to eradicate this virus," but said that it will instead reach an "equilibrium"
Oh, we reached an "equilibrium" with him alright.
We found the fulcrum point between facts and bullshit.
Re:Eradicate? (Score:5, Insightful)
But you didn't. Are you under the impression COVID and polio are the same virus and that the polio vaccine and the COVID vaccines are the same vaccines?
People have clearly chosen to ignore the "We can't predict the future, and despite our best efforts, not all vaccines will be equally effective against all variants of a virus that is new to us?" messaging that has been nigh constant. The expectation of anything remotely approaching perfection - and the resistance to accept that knowledge changes frequently when dealing with new viruses and their variants and that change is not an indication of failure - is a self-inflicted fabrication on the part of the morons among us.
Re: (Score:2)
The short efficacy+effectiveness should not have been a surprise to anyone in the field. Past attempts to create coronavirus vaccines generally failed because antibodies decayed too fast in the body, and the virii mutate too readily.
Rapid antibody decay would be present in the original mRNA vaccine clinical trials, so it would be easy to spot and verify it. https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... [medrxiv.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"should not have been a surprise to anyone in the field"
You sound like you're saying it was. I'm pointing out that your own fabrication - to make you feel smart and/or to conform to a predisposed attitude.
Two weeks to flatten the curve (Score:2, Informative)
I concluded that we would/could not reach herd immunity via vaccination in July 2021 when the 100% vaccinated HMS Queen Elizabeth had a significant COVID outbreak onboard. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57... [bbc.com] Around that same time, the media consensus was that 70-80% vaccination rates would be enough to reach herd immunity. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/04... [npr.org]
I was predicting indefinite 3-6 month injections based on research back when a 3rd+4th shots and vax passports were a conspiracy theory. Not sure ho
Re:Two weeks to flatten the curve (Score:4, Insightful)
hopefully your parents are still around because I think you're looking for a pat on the head rather than presenting your case that "anyone in the field" didn't know these things at the times you did
Re: (Score:3)
in July 2021 when the 100% vaccinated HMS Queen Elizabeth had a significant COVID outbreak onboard.
The article reports 100 people sick, which is somewhat less than 10% of the population (on the ship).
That's in line with expectations for the vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
Questions like "would you please explain how vaccines work because clearly I don't know?"?
Re: (Score:2)
The next question should be. Did you recover from Polio or are you posting from inside your iron lung?
Re:Eradicate? (Score:5, Informative)
Polio is almost eliminated from the world, thankfully. It's only known to be present in 12 countries, and there aren't many cases in them. Since it's mostly spread from contaminated food or water or person to person because of poor hygiene practices, and isn't airborne, you'd have to be really, incredibly unlucky to catch it, regardless of your vaccination status.
But polio's been around, quite possibly, since the 18th dynasty of Ancient Egypt according to the Encylopaedia Britannica. Some think people were just exposed in small doses while young and gradually built up an immunity, but as civilization progressed and cleanliness became a thing, it started to reach epidemic proportions as fewer were exposed while young.
If there were as many polio cases around the world as there were Covid cases at the time the vaccines became available and if the virus that causes polio were as susceptible to mutations during replication, you might be seeing more mutations in it that would eventually cause the vaccine you just took to be ineffective. At polio's peak there were roughly 58,000 US cases in one year (not sure of the time frame, but for comparitive purposes only, that's a daily average of 159). There were around 213,000 daily US cases in the 7 day moving average when the vaccine first became available and roughly twice that total around the world. That's massively more prevalent.
If everyone around the world who could have received the vaccine would have been vaccinated as quickly as possible, Covid might well have ceased to be an issue much earlier. Due to logistics and keeping the vaccine very cold, some parts of the world were and still are difficult to vaccinate. But it's the mutations that make any virus difficult to fight with a vaccine. More people with active cases means more chances for a mutation that makes the virus more virulent but perhaps less likely to spread due to that or less virulent and therefore more likely to spread. Clearly, a mutation can (and does) happen with one person. But if that person lives in the boonies and doesn't interact with anyone, it doesn't really matter. The mutation dies out. If a huge number of people have it, the chances of a similar mutation happening and then replicating goes up. Population density matters and the total infected number of people matter.
The quickly engineered and effective vaccines went after a particular characteristic of the virus. When that characteristic changed, they couldn't fight as well although there is evidence that if you had 3 shots in 6 months, you were much less likely to die or end up with severe complications even though you did become infected. That's worth something. It's like the flu vaccines you hopefully get every year. They do the best job they can in preparing a vaccine that they think will match up against what it looks like the next year's flu changes will bring. Usually they are pretty close. Sometimes they aren't. But a single flu shot won't protect you for life either.
Not sure if those helped answer any of your unasked questions or not.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Meanwhile here in the UK the government medical advisors (finally) realised this months ago and almost all restrictions have been lifted.
It would be great if the US could get from its current 76% [ourworldindata.org] partially or fully vaccinated up to the UK's 90% [bbc.com]
Re:Eradicate? (Score:5, Informative)
The UK isn't 90% vaccinated, but more like 73%. Where do you get the 90% from? That BBC article you linked to only says 90% of over 65s. If you look at the UK government's dashboard, you will see that currently 91.2% have had one shot, and 84.5% are fully vaccinated. BUT, this only refers to the subset of the population who are 12+.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.u... [data.gov.uk]
The Bloomberg tracker is possibly a better source for overall vaccination rates, and it puts the UK at 72.5%. This is a long way ahead of the the US's 63.6%, but still not as dramatic as your claim.
https://www.bloomberg.com/grap... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Bloomberg tracker is possibly a better source for overall vaccination rates, and it puts the UK at 72.5%. This is a long way ahead of the the US's 63.6%, but still not as dramatic as your claim.
Against pre-Omicron variants, ~70-80% is roughly around the level where herd immunity becomes significantly beneficial, so the difference is larger than the numbers may appear. Of course, Omicron is so much more infectious and the vaccines so much less effective against it that 100% vaccination wouldn't stop it from spreading (though it would reduce the death toll).
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, never mind. The above posts numbers are off. There is a big gap in vaccinations between the countries though.
Re: (Score:2)
Government officials have to say these obvious statements, similar to how the Federal Reserve will say obvious bland statements about the economy. Anything too opinionated has people taking it as gospel
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that has been the official US statement on the outcome of Covid-19 for the past 2 years, however unfortunately this has been politically charged issue, for the reason of they just want their side to win, like how they stand behind their favorite sports team.
So one side is hoping for a full end of the virus, and say Look we cured it, and you other guys are a bunch of idiots for your stupid steps.
The other side wants the virus to continue, just to show that they were right not to bother with those st
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is all happening in the US because the elections are 8 months away. Purely political and transparently obvious. I don't think it'll work though.
Re:Eradicate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind plenty of other countries have already lifted restrictions, it has to be for American political reasons.
Those other countries are obviously in on it just like they were when they all got together to invent omicron last October. Obviously that was to help the Democrats too.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, plenty of other countries are scaling back. Are you saying they're all in on it too?
All we're doing is the same damn thing most of our allies are. Your desperate attempts to create partisan discord around this don't hold up.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mind Train0987. The man does not have a brain.
The UK has a lot less anti-vax (Score:2)
Finally, the UK has a proper national health service, which helped a lot. Even with their right wing trying to actively sabotage it in the hopes of privatizing it for a quick buck.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness to the statements from the US, they've reached their current peak active cases just a couple of days ago, while the UK reached their respective peak a couple of days before that BBC article (~January 14th).
Hence if you follow the data from your own country, you will come to different conclusions about the right time to do something.
UK had different timing (Score:2)
The patterns of infection spikes are different in different countries. The US is just coming out of a spike. Our hospitals were reaching a breaking point.
If hospitals are flooded, people can't get care for OTHER illnesses besides just Covid. The right's alleged freedom to infect can set our medical care back to the bronze age.
Maybe the right likes the bronze age and don't
Re: (Score:2)
Th UK has a better vaccination rate than the US and a PM that is willing to "let the bodies pile up". You probably missed those little unimportant details.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want to be like the UK. Here the virus is being allowed to spread through the population. The only concern is that it doesn't completely overwhelm the NHS, beyond that as many people can be sacrificed as necessary to protect the business interests of people with ties to the government.
China has done the best overall. Low numbers of cases, effective testing and tracing system, and basically zero restrictions for most people. There are occasional local restrictions when there is an outbreak, and peo
Re: (Score:2)
It's having no bearing on how Covid is being handled in the UK, but thanks for asking.
Ok ... (Score:2, Troll)
US Heading Out of 'Full-blown Pandemic Phase
So in other words the great anti-vaxxer cull of 2019 to 2023 is winding down.
Re:Ok ... (Score:4, Insightful)
you seem smug for some reason, are you happy for all these people to die? why are you so emotionally disconnected from human death? you may want to reach out to a psychiatrist to get yourself evaluated you may be a full blown retard
Sad as their deaths are they are nobody's fault except their own. They made the conscious decision to call into doubt the thousand year old practice of vaccination because, apparently, the vaccine will cause tentacle monsters to hatch in their brain, or some other such moronic tripe. When somebody dies in a car crash that's sad, but when that car crash also resulted form them being against having breaks installed on the vehicle their death is nobody's fault but their own.
Re:Ok ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree. The sad thing is, it's not the professional anti-vaxxers that died. (No, they all secretly got vax'ed). It's the fence sitting, "I'm not sure which science to trust" paralyzed by fear and confused by the loud shouting ones that died. That's the real tragedy. I think there were a lot of people who simply misunderstood and didn't fully understand the arguments being made, didn't know who to trust, and didn't act out of a misguided internal risk model (yes, statistically, doing nothing was much riskier than getting a vaccine). They had a genuine desire to do what was right, but were confused by the "fog of war" surrounding everything and therefore didn't act.
Also, strictly speaking, worldwide, the vaccine hasn't been available for most of the pandemic, (in the US, we didn't get it for over 9 months) so many of those deaths weren't anti-vaxxers, they were simply casualties of the reality of production lead times. I severely dislike Trump, but to his credit, he wiped out a LOT of red tape that got us the vaccine must faster than would have been possible otherwise. Credit where credit is due.
Re: (Score:3)
Right now, what percentage of the unvaccinated population under 70 years of age that have no other complicating conditions are dying of Covid when they catch it? How about the vaccinated? How about under 50? These are very simple questions. These are the types of questions literally everybody, independent of their political leanings, should care about.
That data has been assembled and publicised ad nauseam:
All Ages: https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
18-49: https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
50-64: https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
65+: https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Nobody still questions the veracity of this data except delusional ultra right-wing anti-vaxxer morons who can't bear to admit that they have been out-alpha'd and their politicised medical ideology has been comprehensively discredited by a bunch of fully vaccinated libtards using math
What changed? (Score:2, Insightful)
Election year (Score:2, Insightful)
It was easy to anticipate that our betters would begin toning down the biosecurity state as the midterms approached.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind most first world countries are winding down their covid protections, it has to be something to demonize the political other!
Re:What changed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe it was done because we now know more about Omicron then we did when it first started popping up only a few months ago.
Fauci waiting for more data is a far more plausible theory then the man who has served under every president since Regan all of a sudden turning political.
No shit, sherlock (Score:2, Insightful)
What ever could have made us think this wasn't a politically motivated game to begin with? Even after the threat was better identified, and going on long after we had vaccines and therapeutics available, there was massive amounts of virtue signaling going on from both sides of the political spectrum. It gave political stooges something to soapbox about so they could dodge real issues. It also sold a lot of eyeball time to the advertisers of dying media empires, and gave policy makers inside access to some v
"Fake patients, all plastic, totally rigged!" (Score:2)
Hogwash! While Omicron's infections are milder than earlier variants on average, it's also more infectious, countering the first. All those people who filled up hospital beds recently were not "fake people", although I do expect MAGAs to start claiming that. I'll be surprised if they don't.
Medical staff were also getting Omicron, creating staff shortages. We have to borrow nurses from the Philippines. One of these days they may want them back. Imagine if their infection spikes coincide with ours.
Repeatedly
Inevitable (Score:2)
I'd imagine it's actually inevitable, especially for a country that figures strongly on personal freedom. The UK is basically almost there: as-of 11th Feb there will be no need to test before or after an international arrival, and no need to quarantine, so long as you're vaccinated. The other major national restriction: having to isolate for five days after getting Covid will go on 24th March, or possibly sooner. Other countries in
Hmmm.... (Score:2)
Signs of the end of lock downs coming conveniently ahead of congressional elections in November. The mostly democrat run states that are still imposing strict mask and lock down mandates have all experienced net migrations out of their respective states. Both Biden and Harris are polling at exceptionally low levels - Biden is running around 39% approval rating the last I heard. Even the mainstream media has started to turn on Biden.
Call me cynical but I find it more than just a coincidence that Fauci is now
Re: (Score:2)
Signs of the end of lock downs coming conveniently ahead of congressional elections in November. The mostly democrat run states that are still imposing strict mask and lock down mandates have all experienced net migrations out of their respective states
Sounds great!
You're cynical (Score:3)
Call me cynical...
You're cynical. Other countries are in the process of scaling down their covid measure as well.
This is no different then when Omicron appeared last October and some conservatives started claiming conspiracy that it only appeared because it was close to November despite the fact that the rest of the entire world recognized it as a new major variant of concern.
Re: (Score:3)
You are an uniformed conspiracy theorist, not a cynic. In the last 3 weeks rates in the US have fallen from 250 to 80 per day per 100k population. Still STEEPLY falling. Gee, I wonder what has changed recently? This is well-modeled as an omicron+winter outbreak that will peter out within weeks. The only real question is how the late-summer seasonal outbreak will go.
And shelter-in-place lockdowns have been gone for many months. We're just talking about wearing masks.
And no vaccines are 100% effective,
Until Immunity Wanes... (Score:2)
We have learned over the last 700+ days that you don't get COVID immunity like you do Chickenpox. It wanes. A huge proportion of Omicron infections were actually re-infections and "breakthroughs" because immunity faded over six months. If we assume that 90% of our Omicron infections happened in January, it sets us up for another spike in July (July 4th as is COVID tradition, now) if we allow the disease to persist.
To be 100% clear, I work at a university that has been at the forefront of COVID response and
Re: (Score:3)
We have learned over the last 700+ days that you don't get COVID immunity like you do Chickenpox. It wanes. A huge proportion of Omicron infections were actually re-infections and "breakthroughs" because immunity faded over six months.
You are confusing time with viral drift. The salient reason for reinfection were changes in Omicron that evaded antibody response. Immunity to hospitalization and death was maintained.
If we assume that 90% of our Omicron infections happened in January, it sets us up for another spike in July (July 4th as is COVID tradition, now) if we allow the disease to persist.
What matters are health outcomes not infections.
To be 100% clear, I work at a university that has been at the forefront of COVID response and we're well below 1% infection rate, have a vaccine mandate (99% of students and 95% of employees are vax'd), testing mandate (every two weeks if vax'd, every 4 days if not), mandatory isolation if positive or exposed, and a mask mandate.
To what end? Is the goal simply numbers? Do you think your measures are going to keep anyone from being exposed to covid?
All that said, I would be in no way surprised if we spike in the fall and have to re-implement our COVID protocols in Fall 2022 because the Omicron variant (not even a new variant) returns and begins re-infecting people.
We (as a nation/society/economic system) have elected to "live with it" instead of eradicate it and thus it's going to come back.
Eradication was never on the table.
COVID-19 source and cure found (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Go to a public school in LA and you'll see them enforced, big time. Mandatory vaccinations, full masking, and weekly testing for all staff & students + daily a daily 'pass' on the phone to be able to get into the school (depending on the school) after confirming you're still feeling well and haven't been exposed to anyone.
They seem to have fallen into and stayed with a "we've always at war with Eastasia" attitude.
Re:Is there anywhere that actually has restriction (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing the pandemic has done for me is told me who I don't want to have as friends anymore. It's also revealed that a fairly large proportion of the adult population has the emotional maturity of an eight year old.
Re:Is there anywhere that actually has restriction (Score:5, Interesting)
Hah, well said.
I've been working with a local school for months now, developing and updating its masking and vaccination or testing policies.
They regularly get screeds from parents that just reak of insanity. I'm talking 20-30 run-on paragraphs about why their particular position is the only smart, correct, moral, and viable position, and if you don't agree with them you are against "the science" (not science, but THE science), you are are anti-liberty, you are abusing kids (both sides), etc.
It's freaking crazy.
Southpark -- "It's been a tough two years. Let's just cut each other some slack, ok?"
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for putting up the good fight. These right wing nutjobs have a plan to force out school board members by harassing and outright threatening them.
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I could not disagree more with that article. Schools boards ARE partisan and they have been partisan. They were just largely ignored by the media up until recently.
School boards, imho, are about the truest and most local form of democracy. They SHOULD be responsive to their constituents and they SHOULD engage with everyone.
We have had frothing parents of both the left- and the right-wing, and parents have pulled kids from this school for both right-wing reasons (mask mandate) and left-wing reason (the schoo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Going to ask this un-ironically and quite seriously: what civil liberties do you not have today, that you had 2 years ago? And please be specific.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is there anywhere that actually has restriction (Score:5, Insightful)
The exaggerations around this debate are ridiculous. "unforgivable child abuse" is not making a child put a piece of cloth over their face. You might as well do the holocaust comparison and just go full nutter.
Or how about ones like "forcing me to put a piece of cloth over my face is cause for me to threaten violent revolution" as some conservatives seem to think is appropriate? Yeah, you sure love your country there folks...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and don't forget any studies you link to need to make the case that the problems created for children wearing masks amount to "unforgivable child abuse" as well. So you know, right up there with molestation and stuff.
Re:Is there anywhere that actually has restriction (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would me being in favor of disease precautions mean I'm fine with weird church shit? That two are barely related as the motivations around the clothing requirements are completely different.
I noticed you havent been able to furnish any of the "plenty of studies" around how bad these masks are for kids relative to Covid by the way. Are you having problems finding those? I thought you knew all about them. Maybe some of these links might help you with that.
https://apnews.com/article/lif... [apnews.com]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
https://www.webmd.com/lung/chi... [webmd.com]
Yeah sure, "unforgivable child abuse".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, you did a lot of work for nothing with all that. Remember, this conversation is about your use of ridiculous, extremist, and inflammatory language. It has nothing to do with if kids should or should not wear masks.
Rather than change the subject why don't you just show me those studies you said you had that showed kids wearing masks was "unforgivable child abuse".
Re: (Score:3)
From my last post:
"Remember, this conversation is about your use of ridiculous, extremist, and inflammatory language. It has nothing to do with if kids should or should not wear masks."
At this point you're just acting like a simpleton by desperately changing the subject to anything you think you can "gotcha" me on. When you can explain to me how you stating kids wearing masks is "unforgivable child abuse" isnt ridiculous rhetoric get back to me. I have no interest in talking to you about whatever comes into
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
My kid is in kindergarten and doesn't give a shit about the mask. She happily puts it on. I don't even have to ask her. Sometimes she wears it places she doesn't even have to.
Literally the only reason a child could possibly be negatively impacted about it is because a role model is telling them it's bad for them or they're missing out on something. Kids are way more adaptable than adults, and adults project all kinds of stupid adult shit on them. It's how idiots raise idiots.
Re: (Score:3)
Making kindergarteners wear useless masks 7 hours a day, even now, is unforgivable child abuse imho.
Lol, the Canadian Olympic women's hockey team beat the Russian team while wearing masks. So yes, you can breathe just fine with a mask.
https://www.cbssports.com/olym... [cbssports.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Who is making money? Can I get in on this deal somehow?
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. Start a weapon manufacturing company, donate to politicians re-election funds, take them on an "information gathering" trip to nice vacation destinations and maybe throw in a few hookers as entertainment.
You'll have no-bid contracts granted to you so fast your head will spin.
Re:They are working on a war now (Score:5, Funny)
Damn those drug companies for coming up with a vaccine to protect people from a dangerous virus. The nerve of them, next we'll hear they are trying to cure cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now? Pfizer and anyone who invests in them at the right time. These folks might be able to offer some financial advise https://www.opensecrets.org/or... [opensecrets.org].
Big pharma profits are suddenly a concern now, and not when they increased insulin prices 10 fold? https://www.rand.org/blog/rand... [rand.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine working in epidemiology for 7 administrations, and some dipshit on social media, with utmost confidence, says you have no credibility.
"Modded interesting." - lol
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine working in epidemiology for 7 administrations, and some dipshit on social media, with utmost confidence, says you have no credibility.
"Modded interesting." - lol
Do you feel the same way about every career politician or bureaucrat?
some dipshit on social media [Re:They are work...] (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine working in epidemiology for 7 administrations, and some dipshit on social media, with utmost confidence, says you have no credibility.
Appeal to authority with some ad hominem sprinkled on top.
Calling an anonymous coward "some dipshit on social media" is ad hominem? I suppose, but history shows that the credibility of ACs is less than zero.
Re:They are working on a war now (Score:5, Informative)
He's worked with Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and now Biden.
Re:They are working on a war now (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly my point. Now Fox has made him the designated punching bag after decades of great work. Can I point out which political party from the 1930s started blaming one group for their own failures?
Re:They are working on a war now (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah Reagan handled it badly, but let's see what Fauci had to say.
https://www.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]
Despite the agonizing wait for a treatment while tens of thousands died, today Keale still feels confident the NIH was doing all it reasonably could in those early years. Fauci was one of the few government health officials willing to speak about AIDS at all—and especially about the fact that AIDS was much more than an isolated threat.
“This was a massive outbreak,” Fauci says. “But in those early years, officials in the Reagan administration were not particularly amenable to going out and speaking about this. They didn’t use the bully pulpit of the presidency.”
Fauci didn’t have the presidency behind him, but he did have the voice of authority and a growing sense of comfort before news cameras. While the Reagan administration remained relatively quiet, he gave one interview after another, pushing for increased research funding and trying to explain the nature of AIDS to the public. After Reagan left office, he says, “I developed very strong relationships with the succeeding Presidents.”
Seems he thought it was a growing problem that should be addressed but no one was willing to listen.
Re: They are working on a war now (Score:5, Informative)
Your comment is absolutely stupid.
You haven't seen them do anything, because the federal government is LIMITED from being able to do anything. What they tried to do was instantly challenged in court, and the Supreme Court killed it. [supremecourt.gov]
What would you have them do, that wouldn't violate existing laws and judicial decisions that limit government overreach or require Congress to get on board with 60+ votes in the Senate? Be specific, or be quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen Fauci or Biden actually DO jack shit when it came to masks, distancing, quarantine procedures, etc. Other than talk and "recommend."
But isn't that in a fucked up way their jobs?
That is absolutely their job, nothing "fucked up" about it.
Fauci is head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He doesn't have the authority to put mandates in place, and it's not his job to do so. His job is to study infectious diseases (like COVID-19), and from that study, to make recommendations.
Re: They are working on a war now (Score:5, Insightful)
The GOP's main goal is "obtain and retain power". No more, no less. Any feigned principled stand about "freedoms" can be safely ignored because there's no principle to it. We know this because in places like Florida, they tried to pass a law penalizing business owners for requiring masks despite property rights being the basis for most of conservative thought.
The only reason to tolerate self-righteousness is principle. Right? It's why we look at Ghandi as an example of lawful disobedience - he was acting on principle. I want someone to tell me what principles modern Republicans support. "Greed" and "power" are what they appear to be. Don't get me started on Donald Trump being the de-facto leader of the GOP. That man has ZERO observable principles. I'm not a religious man but he checks every box for the anti-Christ.
Re:They are working on a war now (Score:5, Insightful)
When your acts of freedom cause social and economic damage, then yes, I will act to constrain your freedom. It's no different than prosecuting vandalism.
I give up some of my own freedom voluntarily in this because I'm not an antisocial git.
Re:They are working on a war now (Score:5, Insightful)
Vaccine induced ADE
No. Current FDA regulations make ADE stuff non-profitable. Hence the reason if they can avoid it, they will.
AIDS treatment and testing
Well the testing is super cheap because the testing has like five or six different people who can make it. Unless Pfizer has some new testing that's blowing the competition out of the water, I don't think many Doctors would recommend it. That said, they could just buy off enough doctors to guide their patients towards their testing. At any rate, AIDS isn't all that profitable either. NRTIs and NNRTIs got their first start in the late 90s and most have fallen out of patent. Now there's newer, more targeted ones that came out in the 2010s. But poor people just pick up the older versions and get asked to modify their lifestyle and daily habits. But yeah, there's still SOME money to be made, but only in the fancier drugs and many of them will fall off in the 2030s.
Pfizer has already planned for this and is buying up companies handling heart medication
Okay now this is why I replied because, YEAH, this is very much a thing. Monopolies going to monopoly and Congress keeps giving it all a pass. So you've got the right idea, you are just picking all the wrong diseases.
People are stuck paying 600/month for Pfizer blood thinners already
Yeah, you're talking about Pradaxa. That's been Pfizer's sweet spot that they've been working on for awhile. Long before the COVID-19 thing hit. Back in 2018 they hit a sang in that it was causing internal bleeding in some patients and their stock took a bit of a hit. I remember the CNBC article new that we're talking about it. Anyway, dabigatran etexilate is the newest kind of blood thinner. It'll thin your blood, but once your blood gets to a particular thinness, the drug has a hard time being absorbed and stops thinning the blood. Sort of a self-regulating blood thinning. The upsell is that you don't have to do the blood testing stuff that you have to do with warfarin. I think the conspiracy theorist, keep yelling that it's for all the blood clots that children will get from the COVID-19 vaccine since Pradaxa got approved about three months before their COVID-19 vaccine for children. But Pradaxa's biggest money maker will likely be hip replacement. There's a ton of cheap shit blood thinners that parents will go for long before Pradaxa, since testing kids is a way simpler task than some cranky 80 year who just had their rotor cuff redone. Also, the 80 year more than likely has the US government to pick up the tab for the drug.
Also, in very rare cases does the COVID-19 vaccine cause blood clots and even then it is acute in duration. The blood clots that do happen in response to a vaccine (any vaccine can cause them), are a reaction to the vaccine. Just like if I get exposed to grass, once I'm no longer being exposed to cut grass, the symptoms of my exposure start to go down. So too vaccine reactions.
Firms have already started acquiring large quantities of tests for aids symptoms
Okay but that's something totally different. And again, that's just the drug company's greed kicking in but again, that mostly because the US Government has kind of stepped to the side in ensuring any kind of competition.
I think you're mixing two things together that aren't really mixed together, additionally, you've got some really bad examples of diseases that "companies are going to profit off of" that have super cheap options already available. You've got just enough correct there, for me to not write your comment off completely, but I think you're doing a bit of disservice to toss in a dash of conspiracy theory in there.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, look at the profits they made during restrictions while smaller businesses were forced to close and go bankrupt. It has been one of the biggest (if not the biggest) wealth transfers in the history of the country.
This year's billionaires are worth a combined $13.1 trillion, up from $8 trillion last year, Forbes said.
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re:They are working on a war now (Score:5, Insightful)
The wingnuts would bitch and moan, but it wouldn't necessarily be about freedom. The verbage they would use would be more akin to "nationalizing" medicine, or banging on the "socialism" drum. Never mind that the US Government is already deeply involved in vaccine and medicine research through the National Institutes of Health, and the United States Army researchers at Walter Reed Medical Center [defenseone.com]...