It'll be interesting to see what we think of the "let it rip" strategy for Omicron a lot of areas used a decade from now.
1. Omnicron is so infectious no public health measures can prevent it. 2. Omnicron infects the upper air ways NOT the lungs like previous strains, this prevents it from easily spreading to other organs.
Omnicron should really be thought of as a different but adjacent virus because of how differently it attacks our bodies.
Thankfully "let it rip" is paying off with infections plummeting around the world after an 8 week~ wave of it.
Our reported cases here in Canada are only plummeting since restrictions have been placed on who can actually have a PCR test scheduled, and these are the only results that are reported.
The emphasis has been put on handing out rapid tests, which aren't tracked. As expected, cases started dropping immediately alongside the number of PCR tests performed. We're not past the spike, we're just ignoring it.
You can dive into it, but by all metrics cases are going in countries that started their omnicron wave mid to late December
If you look to Nova Scotia, you can also see hospitalization peaking and arguably decreasing, aprox 1-2 weeks after reported cases peaked. (Nova Scotia is a good case because it started the Omnicron wave 2-3 weeks before the rest of Canada)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/covid-update-nova...
Let's see if the cardiologists agree next year.
Source?
Further the new BA.2 strain (which is causing a slight re-uptick of cases in the UK) is reported as 1.5x more infectious as well. So this is literally the most infectious disease ever recorded, and possibly the most infectious ever full stop.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ba2-omicron-coronavirus-cont...
My interpretation of this is health measures can slow it a bit, but 100% of the population will be exposed, so given the less pathogenic nature of it, getting it over with faster would likely be a net benefit.
We didn't shut down society for polio before the vaccine. That was an exponentially more fucked up disease.
The deadliest day of the COVID pandemic beats the deadliest year of polio.
Ignoring, of course, the fact that if we'd done so then the death toll would have been pretty horrendous and that if everyone's sick or afraid of getting sick the economy is still going to to get screwed.
The way I'm going to remember it is that when this country had a crisis, instead of us coming together it caused division vitriol and hatred
Plenty of people will remember it this way. Many small businesses went bankrupt and an entire generation of kids had massive educational and social setbacks.
It's absurd to even suggest that everything is back to normal and everyone is A-OK with how things worked out.
It's almost like killing a million Americans has an impact on labor availability.
> an entire generation of kids had massive educational and social setbacks
This is largely a guess at this point, unless you're Doctor Who, and we've zero information on how they might make up ground.
It will certainly be interesting to see these results between, say, red and blue states in the US with wildly different mitigation approaches.
2. The demographics of the people who died with/of covid skew what, 70% over the age of 65? More? How many of those people do you think were actively looking for a job?
3. I'd say that "and we've zero information on how they might make up ground" is _exactly_ why it's unconscientious to inflict this kind of damage on them.
Pre-covid the labor participation rate for people 65+ was 26% and the 65-75 bracket was projected to climb to 30% by 2030 as the last of the baby boomers entered that range. The idea that everyone retires at 65 is not particularly accurate.
How many folks in their late 70s are still working that late in life? - Approximately 5% in the US.
Not sure that the math supports that US deaths were the decrease in the participating labor force. I don’t recall too many octogenarians waiting tables and being retail cashiers pre-pandemic. They seem to be concentrated primarily in roles where they are public health experts with piss poor communication skills (in my opinion).
How many do you think are born every year? The pandemic is 2 years old at this point.
Unemployment was already quite low pre-pandemic. https://imgur.com/a/pFvBFgg is bound to have an impact on ability to hire folks.
"I will not take the vaccine because there are no long-term studies" is silly because it's inconsistent. "I will not take the vaccine and I will not get COVID" isn't a reliable option, so it's largely a choice between two unknowns.
That leaves us having to make educated guesses. Based on the history of vaccination, the safety thus far of nearly 10 billion doses of vaccine administered, and stuff like the biology and half-life of mRNA, the choice seems fairly clear.
I don't think it's unreasonable for a healthy person under 60 years of age with no comorbidities to opt out of the vaccine (or the flu vaccine, which actually is deadlier than people think, yet nobody cares about your flu vaccination).
Second, the short half life of mRNA does not guarantee that there are no long term effects.
Third, you are ignoring that in this choice between "two unknowns", the probability of getting symptomatic covid (presumably asymptomatic/mild covid is unlikely to cause heart issues) is less than 1. The probability of exposure to the vaccine for a vaccinated person is 1.
Fourth, unlike exposure to covid in young, healthy people, the vaccine guarantees that your tissues are exposed to a rapid megadose of an inflammatory protein, manufactured in isolation, as opposed to an infection where the protein is attached to the rest of the virus and exposure ramps up gradually. That's my personal concern and I feel like its being swept under the rug. There is a nonzero risk of autoimmune disorders which will be difficult to detect, especially if past preprints regarding expression of the spike protein in human tissues post vaccination prove to be true.
Finally: >The long-term impact of either one cannot be conclusively determined in the short-term, barring the invention of time travel
Right, which is why vaccine trials normally take 5-10 years and "safe and effective" has been a campaign of transparent propaganda. Numerous past vaccines have been pulled from the market for fewer side effects. Combine that with the stigma against reporting side effects/speaking against the vaccines, the fact that the actual safety trial data is a secret known only to pfizer/moderna and the FDA, the rumors that adverse event collection during clinical trials was (deliberately?) inadequate, the history of big pharma deliberately harming consumers in pursuit of profits, the full protection of pfizer et al from liability, and the assertion that covid is less of a problem than it has been made out to be (especially with recent data on omicron), no, the choice is not clear at all if you have not been taken in by the propaganda.
Edit: let's also remember that the claims of both safety and effectiveness have been repeatedly revised, and multiple points of "misinformation" have been proven correct. So on top of all this it should be clear that our institutions are not deserving of the amount of trust that people like you are placing in them. The executive branch wanted a vaccine yesterday, the FDA suspended typical testing protocols for what amounts to a rubber stamp, and now we are the safety trials. Not even getting into our sudden collective amnesia regarding regulatory capture.
> There is a nonzero risk of autoimmune disorders which will be difficult to detect, especially if past preprints regarding expression of the spike protein in human tissues post vaccination prove to be true.
Which preprints? Why do you say autoimmune disorders have a nonzero risk and will be difficult to detect?
> actual safety trial data is a secret known only to pfizer/moderna and the FDA
Do you have a source?
> multiple points of "misinformation" have been proven correct.
Which points of misinformation are now correct?
>We don't know the long-term effects of COVID, either
>They're [the long-term effects] likely to be bigger
How were you able to determine that last quote?
We know, for example, that the incidence of myocarditis from COVID infection is substantially higher than the incidence induced by vaccination.
You didn't notice but your argument is actually one against being the first to take the vaccine. Since it is perfectly reasonable to assume that one can avoid getting COVID for a long time long enough to make a decision on actual numbers later on.
Yes, considering the vaccine's mechanism - causing your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 viral protein that an active infection would also cause you to produce. Worrying about the vaccine while getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 is like worrying about getting wet in a swimming pool; you're already wet.
> Since it is perfectly reasonable to assume that one can avoid getting COVID for a long time long enough to make a decision on actual numbers later on.
I do not think that's perfectly reasonable to assume in the days of Omicron.
No, that exactly not what it is. I never had COVID so I was never in that swimming pool in the first place. My personal situation allowed me to stay far away form any swimming pools so the risk of falling in one was very small.
Intentionally getting the vaccine gives me 100% of the unknown risk associated with it while not getting the vaccine gives me a unknown but lower than 100% risk of getting COVID and then once I have it 100% of the unknown risk associated with COVID but that happens ONLY when I get it.
This kind of risk assessment is done for every medical procedure.
Lets just make a though experiment and assume the risk of COVID and the vaccine would be exactly the same. Now its obvious that taking the vaccine is more risk than trying to avoid getting COVID instead.
Of course the risk is not the same but back in the days we did not know the risk of either so it was perfectly reasonable to try to avoid COVID for as long as possible until the actual risk for both is better known.
>I do not think that's perfectly reasonable to assume in the days of Omicron.
Pretty much everyone already did try to avoid getting COVID for over a year when the vaccines came out. Most of us succeed and did not get COVID in that time but somehow it should not be reasonable to think one can do it longer? Omicronw wasn't a thing then, its irrelevant, no one could include it in their personal risk assessment back then. No one knew that Omicron would come and between the vaccine roll out and the first Omicron case many month passed.
Sure, things have changed now, Omicron seems to be way harder to avoid but on the other hand the risk is also way lower so the risk assessment is completely different now. Funny enough many people regret getting pushed to take the vaccine and would not do it again and even reject the booster(s).
Also the risk assessment for kids always suggested that vaccines are not needed for them and now with Omicorn less then ever. But the same people who declared everyone stupid/selfish or whatever who didn't take the vaccine, are the people who now push and promote that kids also get vaccinated and parent who dont want that are declared monsters. In other words thous people never cared about risk assessment and logical decision anyway they just want everyone to do what they want. Everyone else is declared an anti-vaxxer and a horrible human for no reason.
Risk assessment for medical stuff is a personal decision. And People will decide differently which is perfectly fine. Not acceptable is to not respect it and treat people differently based on their decision.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33088905/
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
> During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age.
https://www.myocarditisfoundation.org/about-myocarditis/
> While we often associate cardiovascular conditions with elderly populations, myocarditis can affect anyone, including young adults, children and infants. In fact, it most often affects otherwise healthy, young, athletic types with the high-risk population being those of ages from puberty through their early 30’s, affecting males twice as often as females. Myocarditis is the 3rd leading cause of Sudden Death in children and young adults.
Define "viable". Viable for whom? For what?