Corona Vaccine - Anyone getting it?

In reply to Subscriber-unavailabile :

Again, your beliefs on that being effective are entirely different from mine.

SVreX (Forum Supporter:

I don't believe there were any conspiracies related to coronavirus, but it's on shaky footing.  I'm forcing myself to stand on that position, because I desperately want to believe everyone has acted with good intent.

I think most people started with good intentions, but like so many issues today not many want to change their minds once new information becomes available. This seems true on both sides. When it started a full shutdown was probably the best thing to do as we didn't know much and had little effective treatment.  10 months in we should be able to have everyone on board with masks and distancing, and with everything being close to business as usual. Instead both sides are entrenched in their arguments so we have a fun mix of widespread closures and skyrocketing deaths. Somehow we've once again managed to pick the absolute worst of both worlds. 
 

In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :

Reminds me of this:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I didn't state that on belief of being effective. Like I said before just here for a discussion, not a I'm right or wrong. I've read your post with respect, we're all human and feel differently.

Most people I interact with just want to get on with their lives, if something bad happens to them/me we'll deal with the repercussions of it.
I wear my mask and keep my distance if someone wants me to. I stride it be a nice person that treats everyone with respect.

In reply to Subscriber-unavailabile :

Despite all the numerous times that I have mentioned what I think is true, you wouldn't be saying that, though about moving on.

According to the science, the data, and the way the virus works:

Scenario 1).  Everyone just gets on with their lives and we're all exposed to potential infection and possible death.
Scenario 2)   Half of the people get on with their lives because they don't believe the risks...and we're ALL still exposed to potential infection and possible death.

If the science and data is correct, (important distinction) if we don't ALL do it, it isn't effective at controlling the virus.  In effect, not doing the safe things is not "I'll take the risk and you can stay safe at home," it's more like "I'm going to expose everyone to the risk."  It's not you do you and I'll do me, it's I'll do me AND increase the risk for you too.  If you want the dust to settle, everyone has to stop sweeping.  You can't have one person keep sweeping and not have it affect the whole room.

The other problem is, if half of the population just moves on and stops doing the safe things, it makes it exponentially worse for those who are at higher risk.  My mother's cancer/immune system means that as the cases go up, she has no choice but to stay at home and get food delivered. She (not kidding) hasn't left her property since before Thanksgiving. Dad, of course, couldn't go out either and risk bringing it home to her.  Thank goodness it's hunting season or he would be going crazy.  At least he can go 2 miles into the woods and do something he enjoys.  Not much fun for mom.  This is not directed at you, but it just seems a little myopic to actively participate in things that make the pandemic worse for others because they think they aren't at risk.  Again, provided the science and data is factual, which I believe it to be - on the important overview parts anyway.

This is kinda like when someone loses a contact out of their eye.  It's like this human instinct that everyone freezes in position until it's found.  If we had that same reaction to this pandemic, I think we'd be a lot closer to "moving on"

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

A lot of people have advocated herd immunity which should protect people like your mom. But if a person has  comorbidities covid isn't the only thing that can kill the person. Flu,cold, various viral infections can also be a cause of death. I know cold hearted. 
I don't feel I'm putting people at risk, again, albeit it sucks, if your concerned about getting it then stay at home. 

Crazy part is some of data I've heard today seems like the places that have the hardest lockdown are having a much higher spike vs places that are more open.

At some point people have to make an risk assessment in their life and act accordingly. There's going to be mutations of this virus just like the flu. I believe it's going to turn into  a vaccine every year that they think will be the right one. I truly believe Covid is never going to go away...

Subscriber-unavailabile said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

A lot of people have advocated herd immunity

List of viruses that we have reached herd immunity without a vaccine:

... that's all of them. 

The more people exposed to the virus, the more likely we are to also have more mutations.

Subscriber-unavailabile said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

A lot of people have advocated herd immunity which should protect people like your mom. But if a person has  comorbidities covid isn't the only thing that can kill the person. Flu,cold, various viral infections can also be a cause of death. I know cold hearted. 
I don't feel I'm putting people at risk, again, albeit it sucks, if your concerned about getting it then stay at home. 
 

According to the science and data, you would be putting everyone at risk.  And your last sentence is just unfathomably obtuse.  You're saying that you are going out and making the world so unsafe that everyone who isn't as healthy as you has to be a prisoner in their own homes for a year if they want to live.  When half the population goes out and churns up muddy water, no one can enjoy the lake.

Doing what you want also means the smart people's jobs are infinitely harder.  It's like giving your kid a bath and then they run out and play in the mud, then come in and roll on the carpet and couch. You've now made far more work than you started with, but in the case of COVID, you're making everyone else clean up your kid's muddy mess.

The fact that you don't get it or understand it is the only reason we're debating and the reason I'm not one of those D-bags who calls people murderers for not wearing a mask.  You "don't feel like you're putting people at risk."  What you're saying there is, "millions of incredibly smart people with 10-year degrees in medicine and epidemiology are wrong and I know more than they do."

Think of it this way.  If everyone (except obvious essential things) stayed home for a single 14-day stretch, COVID would be nearly gone.  That's not an attainable goal, obviously, but what we're trying to do is practice methods for limiting the spread.  That is exactly what Italy did with the first wave and it was incredibly effective. Moving on and ignoring those guidelines is the antithesis of what needs to be done for controlling the virus.  Unfortunately, half of the population thinks they as individuals are smarter than millions of experts.  It's why we're in a crunch, and its why the States have it so much worse than every other country.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Curtis.  Maybe we should let the "herd immunity" proponents have their way?  Aren't there too many stupid people in this country anyway?  
   We can stay hunkered down long enough for the "herd immunity" go through the natural reduction  their belief will have. 
In my wife's family one person went up to North Dakota to go duck hunting. Even though they were outdoors all 8 members came down with it and that person came very close to death.  He's still recovering and at best has months more recovery before he can resume work. 
 

He's also dramatically changed his tune.  Now strongly recommends following CDC guidelines. 

In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :

The best thing to do would have been a 3 week full shutdown, people NOT allowed to leave their homes.  No "essential services".  National Guard distributing food as necessary, people in hospitals and power stations and such dorming at work, or staying home.

Zero political will do to it, of course, and even less tolerance of that by the public.

So here were are, eleven months later, getting worse and worse off health-wise and economically.

Actually, the reason we are debating is because some folks like to debate. 
 

The thread just asked if we are getting the vaccine. 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :

The best thing to do would have been a 3 week full shutdown, people NOT allowed to leave their homes.  No "essential services".  National Guard distributing food as necessary, people in hospitals and power stations and such dorming at work, or staying home.

 

Zero political will do to it, of course, and even less tolerance of that by the public.

 

So here were are, eleven months later, getting worse and worse off health-wise and economically.

It worked in every country that tried it.

If we had shut it all down except essential healthcare and a few other things, we'd be in so much better shape, the economy would be beginning to thrive again.  If we had said to every business and individual "show me your books for the last three months.  You made $X per month?  Great, here's a check for 60% of X, close your business and stay home for 21 days."  No gas stations, no auto parts stores, no Walmarts.  Utility companies would be on-call only.  No elective medical procedures. The National guard will coordinate with grocery suppliers to deliver food to your homes, they will drive the trucks for essential things like food and medicine, but trucks that carry things like toys or clothing can just sit still.  If you're in an income bracket that can't afford things like a phone, Nextel and Cricket will give you a loaner burner phone.   90% of the population in the States has the ability to shop for 21 days worth of needs.  National Guard covers the other 10%. 

But that will never happen because some people think that if they don't have the freedom to get a haircut for even one day, it's government oppression and a precursor to communism.  Instead, we have let it run rampant and thrown insane amounts of money to band-aid the crumbling economy.  It started as a small rust spot on a fender.  If we had taken the car off the road for a few days and cut out the rust and did a proper repair the car would be fine.  Instead we just rattle-can covered it up and if we're not careful we'll discover one day that the entire body is just rust held together with 20 layers of paint.  A 2-day, $50 repair versus a year of neglect and $700 worth of spray paint and a now-rotted car that will take $10,000 to restore.

Apologies to SVreX for the metaphor with made-up numbers :)

Brake_L8 (Forum Supporter) said:

Yep, I'll happily get it although I won't be at the front of the line given I'm considered pretty low-risk.

I don't live in fear, but I believe in science and understand how my being vaccinated may help prevent someone higher-risk from going on a ventilator and/or dying. Empathy for others is a great thing.

Good answer!

I'll be getting mine whenever my number comes up. Low risk so I assume late spring.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

We could do a mass lockdown. But I don't believe it's a viable option. Not saying that because of freedom etc.
I deliver products to 50-80 stores in 15-20 towns a week. There is ALOT of various moving parts and vendors required to keep stores stocked with all the goods we need, and most need multiple deliveries in a week just to keep shelves full. It would be a HUGE task to be able stockpile goods needed for a mass shut down. My company has a hard time keeping warehouse full on daily basis. I delivered to an Amazon warehouse yesterday, the amount of trucks delivering, and amount of staff building orders is truly mind boggling. It'd  take several weeks just to be able have goods on hand to keep everyone fed, which in turn is still exposing lots of people. 

 

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I have no issue with metaphors. 
 

It's a little hard to continue to ride with your very aggressive push to defend your speculative positions. You are dominating the thread and calling it "science", but arguing for ideas that are completely speculative on your part, and completely rearward focused. 
 

I love you, and think you are one of the smartest guys I know. I also agree with most of what you say. But this thread (like others before it) has been dragged down the toilet of speculative debate, and is not very useful.

There are differing valid views. You are not giving space for the ideas that compete with yours to coexist.  You are taking the air out of the room. 
 

I don't care what "might have happened if only we had...". I don't completely buy it. Millions of people have made monumental efforts, and done the best we can in the moment.  We need to continue doing that moving forward, not arguing about ways we could have done it better.

It was a legitimate thread that asked how people feel about getting the vaccine, because there are legitimate differing viewpoints and concerns.  It has turned into something different. 
 

I prefer hearing varying viewpoints, even when I disagree. It gives me better perspective and understanding.  I disagree with the approach of shouting down people with differing viewpoints, and making arguments out of gross speculation. 
 

In reply to Subscriber-unavailabile :

I don't see any way for a complete lockdown to work here either, even in NYC where had a very strict one compared to much of the country it was impossible to shut totally.  Many people hold up places like New Zeeland and parts of Europe as examples of what to do but it's much easier to manage when your dealing with a smaller country both in population and area.  We certainly could have and should have done much better but to go to the extremes that some did is a logistical impossibility.

In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :

I am in no way saying it would have been at all practical.  But that was also the only thing that would have been a sure fire success.

Found out today that one of my aunts is scheduled to get the primary vaccination shot on the 4th, then the big one on the 25th.  I asked if the nursing home where she works needed any part time help so that I could get one too 

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I have no issue with metaphors. 
 

It's a little hard to continue to ride with your very aggressive push to defend your speculative positions. You are dominating the thread and calling it "science", but arguing for ideas that are completely speculative on your part, and completely rearward focused. 
 

I love you, and think you are one of the smartest guys I know. I also agree with most of what you say. But this thread (like others before it) has been dragged down the toilet of speculative debate, and is not very useful.

There are differing valid views. You are not giving space for the ideas that compete with yours to coexist.  You are taking the air out of the room. 
 

I don't care what "might have happened if only we had...". I don't completely buy it. Millions of people have made monumental efforts, and done the best we can in the moment.  We need to continue doing that moving forward, not arguing about ways we could have done it better.

It was a legitimate thread that asked how people feel about getting the vaccine, because there are legitimate differing viewpoints and concerns.  It has turned into something different. 
 

I prefer hearing varying viewpoints, even when I disagree. It gives me better perspective and understanding.  I disagree with the approach of shouting down people with differing viewpoints, and making arguments out of gross speculation. 
 

As usual, you are completely right. 

I had decided to stop posting in this thread but I had to speak up one more time.  Much respect to all of you for the good debate, though.

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Subscriber-unavailabile said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

A lot of people have advocated herd immunity

List of viruses that we have reached herd immunity without a vaccine:

•  

 
 

 

... that's all of them. 

Spanish Flu of 1918.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I'm also going to stop posting. Sorry if I offended anyone here.

Subscriber-unavailabile said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I'm also going to stop posting. Sorry if I offended anyone here.

Certainly not me, friend.  Thanks for the great debate.

spitfirebill said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Subscriber-unavailabile said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

A lot of people have advocated herd immunity

List of viruses that we have reached herd immunity without a vaccine:

•  

 
 

 

... that's all of them. 

Spanish Flu of 1918.

Nope. Never reached herd immunity with it. At least not in the US. That's why it/it's very close relatives, "it" being H1N1, have popped up every few decades, or more. 

spitfirebill said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Subscriber-unavailabile said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

A lot of people have advocated herd immunity

List of viruses that we have reached herd immunity without a vaccine:

•  

 
 

 

... that's all of them. 

Spanish Flu of 1918.

It mutated to a more benign strain and stopped being as much of an issue.

Really, it should be called the Kansas City Flu, because that's where it was first noted, and shipped to Europe with the US soldiers entering the war, but wartime censorship meant that we were first allowed to hear about it from neutral Spain.

Words I'm not hearing from politicians of any stripe on this issue include "equality" and "freedom of choice"

Perhaps that's best for now, because we don't have enough doses of the vaccine to be able to sound American about it, but I hope we start hearing them soon.

My thoughts on the matter are that our government needs to not over-complicate our strategy, and that we should soon care more about how many people have gotten the vaccine than who got it. When we have enough for:

0-8% of the population: Healthcare workers, as they must come into contact with those who are severely ill from the disease. Most of them are anxious to get this vaccine and I have had Facebook posts from half a dozen doctors, PAs, and nurses proudly showing off buttons and bandages. 

8-15% of the population: Protect people from the virus. The most obvious population here is working seniors, but I'll listen an argument that also including some older retirees would reduce the load on the healthcare system and rapidly decrease the death rate. I don't currently agree with it, because I think the virus cripples more people than it kills, and if we have a lower death rate governments and businesses won't be as willing to restrict operations. Either way I'm flexible on whom to include in this population.  I predict low resistance to vaccination among this group - maybe 20% won't get it as soon as it's available. 

After this is where I don't agree with the way we're currently planning to vaccinate. Right now the plan is to expand the "protect people from the virus" group until it's nearly half the population, and that we're going to continue to protect individuals from an outbreak that'll rage on until full herd immunity is reached. Most things I enjoy doing, both at work and at play, rely on my having a big lung capacity. I'd really rather not lose that. I can stretch myself into the "gets the vaccine reasonably soon" group by pointing to a scale and to my asthma inhaler, but it'd be better to slow down the epidemic so that even those not vaccinated yet are safer from it. So here I'll start diverging from the current plan.

15-40% of the population: Slow down the outbreaks - reduce R either by reducing the number of people who can transmit it or reducing the number of people one infected person can spread it to. If current restrictions have us at an R of 1.1 with nobody vaccinated, once a community is 10% vaccinated R will be 0.99 and case counts will level off. Once 20% are vaccinated, R is 0.89 and case counts will be halved every six weeks. After that the differential equation is more complicated. This is a general-public vaccination, and I think we should be willing to distribute it to those most willing to get it. Those in that group have their reasons for it - the ability to return to work, the ability to operate a business profitably rather than just hang on, interaction with multiple social groups that would cause a rapid spread if they got the virus, vulnerable friends and relatives unwilling to be vaccinated, a desire to show trust in the vaccine manufacturer and FDA, travel that's otherwise impossible or impractical. I would trust all of their reasons for being enthusiastic and willing to go out of their way to get vaccinated and prioritize it over trying to convince people who are vulnerable and unwilling. 

40-75% of the population: Obtain local herd immunity, community-by-community. We are lucky to have 60% of the public willing to get vaccinated already, and unlucky enough to have had 5-15% of us already have gotten the disease. R0 is around 3 with no COVID-19 countermeasures, so with 75% of a population at least temporarily immune, R will be below 1.  If whole towns or cities have achieved this, R will be near 0 (if I did the math right it's actually 0.1 with 75% immune and R0 of 1) with present restrictions, and everything can be lifted after waiting for it to die out - which will only take a few weeks. Then even those who travel there with the virus can't cause a big outbreak. If we get everybody who's willing to get vaccinated, only 10% more need to be convinced to do so. I'm not sure how to determine what places should get to this stage before others. Picking ping-pong balls out of a barrel in Congress, one per house district?