So now the long term plan is for the holdouts to either change their minds and get vaccinated (and many of them have), or for natural herd immunity to take over when there aren't enough people who have neither been infected or vaccinated for the virus to spread to. It seems like the current wave has probably hit a peak. No idea what happens next. New infections could dwindle away to almost nothing, or we might have another big wave. At this point anyone in the U.S. who wants the vaccine can get it. It's sad that over a thousand people a day are still dying of this, but those are the risks that people have for some reason chosen to take.
If we continue to have waves of new infections, I don't know what the long term strategy is. We could drop all restrictions and "let nature run its course". A substantial portion of vaccinated people are probably going to be on board with that as long as we don't have a new variant that the vaccines are ineffective against. We could keep rigid restrictions on masking, social distancing, and large gatherings. That's really disruptive though to schools and churches and a lot of businesses, not to mention taking a long term toll on mental health.
I do wish those in wealthier countries like the U.S. were more invested in getting vaccines to everyone that wants it, anywhere in the world. New variants can come from anywhere.
The problem with this plan is that vaccinated people still catch and spread the virus. The available vaccines do not create "herd immunity" in the traditional sense.
I think the best argument for getting a vaccine now is you will be much less likely to get hospitalized (and/or die) if you catch COVID after being vaccinated. But that argument may not apply to people who already caught it, recovered and now have some natural immunity.
Ugh. The antivax stance on HN makes me think wbole of the banned Reddit antivaxx subs moved here.
Was this your plan back in March 2020 or did it become your plan somewhere down the line? What I remember from March 2020 is that the plan was to "flatten the curve" with temporary restrictions. The possibility of a vaccine was theorized to be between 18 months away to possibly never.
Now we have Delta variant which is far more contagious. Looks like we may be over the hump in the current wave (speaking from a U.S. centric point of view). What happens next depends on whether we can achieve a level of immunity that prevents the virus from spreading.
Sir Andrew Pollard, the head of the Oxford Vaccine Group that developed the AZ vaccine, does not think this is possible because vaccinated people can still get and spread the virus.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/herd-immunity-is-mythical-wi...
> “The problem with this virus is [it is] not measles. If 95% of people were vaccinated against measles, the virus cannot transmit in the population,” he told the U.K.’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on the coronavirus.
> Pollard said that while Covid vaccines might slow the spread of the virus — because fully vaccinated but infected people appeared, in studies, to shed less virus, giving the virus less opportunity to spread — new variants were likely to emerge that would also spread.
> “I suspect that what the virus will throw up next is a variant which is perhaps even better at transmitting among vaccinated populations and so that’s even more of a reason not to be making a vaccine program around herd immunity.”
It is increasingly obvious that we are going to have to find ways to live with this virus. It will be (and basically already is) endemic. Hopefully over time it will become more and more like a cold but until then, aiming for the impossible is only going to make the situation worse because more and more people are seeing that the narrative and claims presented by politicians and technocrats don't add up.
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
In the US, adults who want to be vaccinated have been vaccinated. Children aren't at significant risk. So the best approach is to drop all restrictions and accept the risk.
1. Many diseases have been considered endemic but were eradicated. Don't be a doomer.
2. The whole schtick about anyone who wants to get the vaccine can get it, so it should be a personal choice makes this common but very much mistaken assumption that a vaccinated individual is safe from harm. It just isn't so. Your personal risk is not affected only by your acquired immunity, but the acquired immunity of everyone around you. Vaccines fundamentally require a communal, cooperative endeavor to succeed.
Vaccines are highly effective at preventing deaths and I do encourage vaccination, but vaccinated people can still catch and spread the virus. They are probably less contagious on average, but unfortunately that isn't enough to control community spread.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03944-y
Acknowledging reality isn't being a doomer. Don't engage in magical thinking.
You are overstating the extent to which vaccinated individuals are likely to be infectious. But more importantly, you are ignoring the importance of the network effects involved.
For x to get to z through y, x has to infect y, and y has to infect z. If probability of infectious breaktrhough and a contact event is 20%, the probability of it getting to z from x, is .2^3 = 0.008. And yet, a 20% is really high-end estimate of that likelihood. You need to both have a breakthrough infection and be in the vicinity of others for potential transmission.
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html
Your other numbers are just made up and not worth discussing.
2. The measles is way more contagious. It's dreadful for you to simply ignore that when it matters so much to the calculations.
I think this study tries to address this. But haven't had time to read through
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/90800/2/reac...
Name two (and also, how long did it take for each one? Is that a reasonable amount of time to wait?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_dise...
> Eradication is the reduction of an infectious disease's prevalence in the global host population to zero.[1]
> Two infectious diseases have successfully been eradicated: smallpox in humans and rinderpest in ruminants.
There is exactly one disease that has been eradicated in humans: smallpox, which took somewhere between 19 years and 27 years depending on when you consider the eradication effort to have started in earnest. We've gotten close with polio (after 40 years) and guinea worm (37 years). There are also a bunch of other diseases on that list where elimination efforts are in progress, but have not yet been completed.
Regardless, "eliminate COVID", should we decide to go down that path, is going to be a multi-decade project at best. It's also likely to be much harder than eradicating smallpox given the asymptomatic transmission and animal reservoirs. It might still be worth doing, in the same way that our eradication effort for measles is worth doing, but it's not worth holding up anything important until the effort completes considering that "until the effort completes" is likely to be a couple generations at the earliest.
The point I was responding to was this idea that we should just settle for covid being endemic. So I'm really not sure why you are going on at about semantics.
My point is it will not be just a few months. It will be decades. Even in the case of measles, it took almost 10 years to get from 250,000 cases / year in the Americas to 100, and we're starting from a lot more than 250,000 cases a year in the Americas this time.
If the alternative is 10 or 20 more years of restrictions, I think "settle for covid being endemic for now, with vaccines available for anyone who wants them, and maybe push eradication at a later date when most everyone has either natural or vaccine immunity and that job is easier" is in fact a better solution.
We have these "rules" to play by: Vaccines don't stop transmission, vaccines majorly help prevent major complications, kids at zero risk, overwhelming majority of adults at zero risk, unvaccinated people are unlikely to convert for whatever reason (political, fear, friends won't, etc), and natural immunity after infection is very helpful.
If given these "rules" - aka reality - what would you do? The dumb people are like, "Durrr, we need more vaccinated people, those evil bastards they are" even though it blatantly ignores reality and will therefore accomplish nothing, besides being an illogical fear since they're protected anyhow. But if you just accept this is how reality is, there's no other logical option but to drop restrictions and move on. It's a relief that at least a couple countries in Scandinavia are normal enough to recognize this. We're too stupid, too broken with fear.
This makes the huge assumption that the variants stop. The Mu variant, which appears to be vaccine resistant, is here already: https://www.newsweek.com/mu-variant-which-may-vaccine-resist...
My question is, have we ever mass distributed a non-sterilizing vaccine before?
> People infected with the Delta variant, including fully vaccinated people with symptomatic breakthrough infections, can transmit the virus to others.
1: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-var...
The question then is can we get new infection under control all around the world? Maybe it'll happen naturally due to herd immunity in places where vaccination is rare, but I'd rather we exported more vaccines to those places. We're all in this together.
Interesting thing from that article you link is that just over 99 percent of Covid cases in the U.S. are delta variant.
I'm inclined to be skeptical of claims that any variant is bypassing vaccine protections unless we have pretty solid evidence. It's just the nature of news to speculate about worst-case scenarios.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportion...
The seasonal influenza vaccine that is mass distributed every year isn't very sterilizing. But it has a good safety profile and some protection is better than nothing.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectiveness-studies....
I think this logic only works if a Delta variant infection provides strong protections against Mu, and a large part of the unvaccinated and vaccinated population first gets exposed to delta variant (assuming it can spread easily...can't find R estimates for some reason, which seems crazy). After all, the same was said about delta before it was prolific, and this whole thing started with one person. "It's not very present, so it won't be present" doesn't make sense, only R numbers do.
Which half?
Democrats: 88%
Republicans: 55%
Republicans who support party more than Trump: 62%
Republicans who support Trump more than party: 46%
Biden voters in 2020 general election: 91%
Trump voters in 2020 general election: 50%
Let's not "both sides" this issue. It should be obvious who is to blame for the US's less than stellar vaccination rates and it isn't well-intentioned but manipulative messaging coming from health officials.
[1] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-pol...
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demogr...
>These demographic data represent the geographic areas that contributed data and might differ by populations prioritized within each jurisdiction’s vaccination phase. Therefore, these data may not be generalizable to the entire US population.
That page also shows the overall percentage of the population with at least one shot is 75.7% and yet no demographic group reaches that number except those over 50 years old. It seems clear that the CDC data is incomplete enough to not be fully trusted, but even if we do trust it, it doesn't do anything to disprove that the highest contributor to a person's vaccination status (besides potentially age) is their personal politics.
Regardless, if we're nitpicking data quality surely a random nbc news poll doesn't exactly pass muster either.
And like I said, even if we take the CDC numbers as the objective truth, they do not contradict my original point.
Idk if it's supposed to mislead or confuse, or if they're just idiots at the CDC that don't understand statistics.
They shouldn't be comparing percentages of the 3 populations, which is misleading based on different subset sizes.
They should be saying what percentage of each demographic has been vaccinated, which is what they insinuate.
They give 9.9% total and 14.6% last 14 days representative proportions for Black, who are 12.4 % of the US population.
And 61.6% total and 47.9% 14-day for White, who are 61.2% of the US.
These seem fairly even, but really 9.9/12.4 gives only 80% of black proportional makeup.
While White is 61.6/61.2= 101%
And it makes no sense to compare the 14 day subset percentage against either other number.
...and yet Trump himself is vaccinated. American politics is weird.
If you use actual vaccination data, there are other patterns[0]:
White: 52%
Black: 43%
Hispanic: 48%
Asian: 68%
When you view all things through a political lens, you'll miss important details.
[0] - https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-... - as of 07 September
"Percent of Total Population that has Received a COVID-19 Vaccine Dose by Race/Ethnicity, Selected States, September 7, 2021"
This doesn't disprove my initial point. Remember that Black people and Hispanics only make up roughly 30% of the population. They can be vaccinated at much lower rates than whites and still by only a minority of the overall unvaccinated population. Looking at all these numbers together, who someone voted for in the last presidential election is a much stronger indicator of their vaccination status than their race.
The pandemic is largely over culturally and mentally for pretty much all of the country - I'm in the middle of San Francisco and the only real remaining enforced anti-COVID measures are flashing your vaccine card before going into bars, masks inside of gyms, and masking and demasking when you enter restaurants - although I remember a friend with kids telling me there's still some strangeness at schools.
No one's really locked down anymore outside of a few holdouts in each state.
That's a real understatement. Here in Maryland, my 8 year old is still in a mask at school both inside and outside. She's been a trooper with all the precautions over the last year and a half, but started crying when she heard her school was going to do masking again in the fall, because it means probably another year of social distancing in schools (not being able to play with all your friends, etc). The masks really interfere with her gymnastics class, because of O2 restrictions as well as difficulty hearing/understanding what instructors are saying.
My 3 year old is masked all day in preschool, as well as at his extracurriculars. He does a "toddler crossfit" type class where all the kids and instructors are masked, and it's a disaster. At this age their ability to comprehend instructions is marginal to begin with. Add the muffled speech and inability to see facial expressions and it means the kids have a lot of trouble understanding what's going on. I've done A/B testing helping my kid with the activities. With a mask on, he has a much harder time understanding me, and also mistakes my mood--e.g. he can't see me smiling so he interprets my giving him directions as yelling (it's loud in the gym obviously).
Wearing a mask, as we did for 4-5 hours on a flight recently, weirds out my 2 month old since he can't see my face. We are not going to even try to send him to daycare with masked caregivers. I hate to sound like a nutter--I'm a STEM major, I know how to "science"--but I don't trust that they actually have considered the developmental effects on infants not being able to see faces for 8 hours a day at daycare.
It's a shame that you have to defend not being crazy to say that a child not seeing faces won't have some kind of psychological impact when for all of human history (the biological perspective) we have seen the faces of our elders, peers and parents.
(And I would urge any intellectually curious people who are also laser-focused on empiricism as the only valid way to acquire knowledge, to instead apply rational thought to the question. Why don't we have any scientific evidence on the matter?)
Okay, I'll give that a try: the benefits of wearing masks in public during a pandemic are known, whereas any harm that might be caused by occasionally exposing children to the sight of partially covered human faces is unknown. Therefore, to minimize harm, we should favour masking.
Ignoring it essentially means making a strong assumption that the harm is absolutely insignificant, but is that really the best informed guess specialists can make?
"In summary, though we support mask wearing by the general public, we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering COVID-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles, offer limited personal protection with respect to small particle inhalation, and should not be recommended as a replacement for physical distancing or reducing time in enclosed spaces with many potentially infectious people."
[0] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commenta...
Because it would be too cruel of an experiment to run.
I’m not going to experiment on my youngest to see what happens when an infant spends all day surrounded by masked people at daycare. I’m just not. If things don’t normalize here in Maryland by the time my wife’s done with maternity leave I’m moving to Florida or Texas.
Reading another massive thread on HN about covid and vaccines. We are all drawn to it like a moth to the flame, trying to hash all of these differences out. I hope some good can come out of all of this.
I never quite understood why clear face masks haven't caught on more, especially in these kinds of environments. Some of the air may escape, since it certainly won't be like an N95, but if we can increase ventilation, keep distance a little bit, and wear see-through masks to convey emotions and meaning better, that seems like a pretty reasonable tradeoff.
"A study from the National Academy of Sciences Press establish that most of the COVID-19 particles emitted from those infected are aerosols, or consisting of 0.3 to 0.5 microns. “Droplets” consist of particles much greater in size than aerosols. The science shows however, that most COVID-19 particles are aerosols, not droplets. As such, they are less than 1 micron in size."
See Edwards 2/23/21
And this for a thorough analysis: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2021/04/06/masks-do-nothing...
If there are better masks than N95s for dealing with carcinogens like asbestos, you should use those for that application. Maybe they would work better for Covid too, but providing super high-quality fancy masks to hundreds of millions of people in a pandemic isn't really practical, though. You use the tools you have on hand. Even distributing N95s was challenging.
Controlled tests (with correct fitting) show cloth masks at around 10% efficiency and surgical masks at around 12% efficiency, vs up to 60% for correctly fitted R95/KN95 masks. The difference is huge. The measures that most people are taking with their loosely-fitting cloth masks are having negligible impact on coronavirus transmission.
Then you know that a mask is the least we can ask of parents.
Children are germ factories. What compounds the problem is they can't be vaccinated.
In CA, we opened the schools.
In two weeks, I have a feeling we will be in trouble.
Kids get virus. Some people show no symptoms, but are little viruse spreaders.
It's a pretty simple equation. Kids spread viruses very easily.
So put a mask on it.
Not for your kids sake, but for grandma's sake, and others.
(Personally, I would have kept the kids out of school for another year. Every kid would be able to stay in school two extra years, if needed. So instead of graduating at 18, some kids would be applying to college, or Amazon, at 20.)
How can a two month old possibly express that he's "weirded out" by a mask. As you said, you were on a plane, which was surely a novel situation for him, so even if he was behaving strangely you can't know that it was because of the mask. I think it's much more likely you're projecting your own fears onto him.
Edit: I've been clear about my reasoning; you have just resorted to ad hominem attacks on my understanding or emotional intelligence. If you don't have any actual counterargument, I'll consider the debate to be over.
On the merits--human babies are hard-wired to recognize faces from birth: https://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/december/infants-process....
How does a baby express being upset? They can smile on purpose at 2 months: https://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/ue5463. So the lack of a smile is a detectable sign. After just a few weeks, they have a range of reactions short of crying. They change their facial expressions based on what they're feeling. They make grunting noises to express minor discomfort. You can even tell when they're bored.
It is if, as the other comment did, you just claim I don't know what I'm talking about without providing evidence of that.
But congratulations to you on using sources and arguments. I still think you're projecting. In my experience babies have no trouble recognizing human faces with masks on because they are drawn to eyes. In fact, they even recognize and will respond to a smile behind a mask, again because the muscles around the eyes contract. Probably masks are harder for slightly older children who are learning language, because they can't associate mouth movements with sounds.
At the risk of adding some global diversity to this conversation:
In a bunch of countries with a significant Muslim population, many women cover their face/head far more than your face is covered by a mask when they go out. Their kids grow up fine.
The kids obviously grow up fine, but IMHO they do see the faces of their peers and parents pretty much always.
My overall point, though, is that it is easy to imagine a horrible, negative effect on a child's psyche, but it is more likely not a problem. Humans, and kids in particular, are fairly robust and adaptable creatures.
In my experience, for most fears about X people have, X alone usually is not damaging. However, being surrounded by people who are convinced X is bad will make it more likely that the person will believe it. This tends to cause more issues than X does.
If a kid has parents and other close people around him/her who believe wearing a mask and not seeing people's faces often is bad for the kid - then it will be.
Edit: look no further than the fact that this comment is downvoted for confirmation that some people feel this way.
I've seen it, but this just seems silly. I think the way bars work is you walk in with a mask, take it off, and put it on when you go to the restroom?
From my perspective people who aren’t concerned about contracting and spreading covid are the short term thinkers - they just want to have things back to how they used to be right now without any thought about mitigating the threat.