COVID-19 thread

[Raphael]

I just got home from my second jab.

[doctor shark]

As of next Saturday (25 September), the 1.5-meter social distancing rule here in the Netherlands will be downgraded to a "urgent recommendation". (We're still urged to keep physical distance, but no longer required to, which means capacity limits for many venues will be increased.) Masks will remain compulsory on public transport, though, and many more venues will now be subject to access pass requirements.

Hopefully this doesn't result in spikes like the loosening in June did...

[Nortaneous]

I know opinions are like assholes, but I really think the US would be better off if they stopped thinking in terms of "during Covid" and "after Covid." I was there in the summer and it was amazing. Nobody wore a mask because either they were vaccinated or most people they knew were, and so the "pandemic was over," and apparently being vaccinated once means you're Superman. And now of course numbers are going up. If people would just treat it like the flu (regular vaccines, keep an eye out for bad strains, take basic precautions in high-risk situations, etc.) then we could probably avoid these crashing waves.

do we know the effect of initial viral exposure on case severity? if the vaccines are that unreliable maybe it's worth considering additional variolation, at least for under-50s. i've seen some lesswrong types thinking along those lines, and they were one of the few groups not to be embarrassingly wrong in the beginning of the plague

revising building codes to insist on better ventilation would also be a worthwhile outcome, but i believed this before covid so whatev

[Ares Land]

do we know the effect of initial viral exposure on case severity? if the vaccines are that unreliable maybe it's worth considering additional variolation, at least for under-50s. i've seen some lesswrong types thinking along those lines, and they were one of the few groups not to be embarrassingly wrong in the beginning of the plague

The vaccines are actually pretty good.
It seems even better ones are under development, notably nasal sprays (which are better at stopping contagion for respiratory viruses, apparently.)

I admit the idea of 'variolation' is pretty funny. But the vaccines offer better immunity that catching COVID itself. Something about our immune system targetting the wrong protein. I'm no immunologist, so I don't really understand that either.

Health workers are actually going on strike because of the vaccine passes and the vaccine mandate. Nobody seems to care or report on that, so I suppose the pandemic is officially over!
(Irony aside, I'm mostly optimistic. Though I suppose we'll get a big scare when it starts getting cold and rainy.)

[Travis B.]

From what I've heard second cases of COVID-19 are often worse than the initial cases, whereas breakthrough cases of COVID-19 after vaccination are milder overall than COVID-19 amongst the unvaccinated.

[Linguoboy]

My institution just announced that the combined staff, faculty, and student body for the coming school year is 97% fully vaccinated. Of course, AFAIK, only students actually need to submit proof; for me, it was enough to pinky-swear that I was weally twuly vaccinated. And only students are required to be tested before coming back, but so far only 9 have officially tested positive which puts the rate below 1 in 1000.

[fusijui]

Heh. The building I live in is officially 100% vaccinated, according to management, but according to what my neighbors tell me, I know it can't be above 80% -- and given I only talk with less than half of 'em, I have to assume it's much lower than that.

[Nortaneous]

I admit the idea of 'variolation' is pretty funny. But the vaccines offer better immunity that catching COVID itself. Something about our immune system targetting the wrong protein. I'm no immunologist, so I don't really understand that either.

immunologists, being practitioners of a field that can position itself upstream of policy, will just lie to you. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or at least the endorsement of some autistic bloggers who read sci-hub 25 hours a day

[Moose-tache]

That seems unnecessarily mean. There is a new paper out of Israel (yet to be peer reviewed) which suggests that natural immunity is stronger than vaccine-induced immunity (though that's a pretty poor reason to not get vaccinated).

Since I was quote above, I will check in and say the problem persists that many people assume Covid is a one-and-done situation. People are still talking about additional vaccines as "the third shot" instead of what it clearly is: a recurring annual vaccine like the flu vaccine. Every time there is a slight loosening of rules, a bunch of people eagerly declare things "back to normal" and take off their masks, stand inside each others trousers, and cough the national anthem into their children's mouths. This attitude is almost as frustrating as the anti-maskers. At least they were honest about being on the side of the death and mayhem.

[fusijui]

I'm out of the medical biz, but from following the footnotes I've got the impression that 'natural immunity' is clearly short-lived compared to vaccine -- which I imagine is part of what's biting a lot of 'vaccine questioning for nonpartisan political justifications' in the ass lately. And in my part of the country, leading to ERs and ICUs (literally, ICUs) spilling out into parking lots under tarps.

[Ares Land]

immunologists, being practitioners of a field that can position itself upstream of policy, will just lie to you. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or at least the endorsement of some autistic bloggers who read sci-hub 25 hours a day

That particular bit about immunity I got from immunology nerds that do read sci-hub 25 hours a day. But I don't really see how the idea that vaccines work is in any way extraordinary. Or how it would benefit policy makes to lie about it. Anyone will eventually see if they work or not!
(Besides, I really don't see how vaccines would fit in any master plan. Lockdowns and curfew serve an authoritarian's purpose; immunity means you can't justify them!)

Since I was quote above, I will check in and say the problem persists that many people assume Covid is a one-and-done situation. People are still talking about additional vaccines as "the third shot" instead of what it clearly is: a recurring annual vaccine like the flu vaccine. Every time there is a slight loosening of rules, a bunch of people eagerly declare things "back to normal" and take off their masks, stand inside each others trousers, and cough the national anthem into their children's mouths. This attitude is almost as frustrating as the anti-maskers. At least they were honest about being on the side of the death and mayhem.

There has to be a return to normal at some point: you just can't keep up lockdowns, curfews or strict social distancing forever.

EDIT: However, I definitely agree with you in that there's a worrying lack of forward thing. What's the plan for next year? The year after that? And how about booster shots or an annual vaccine?

[Moose-tache]

There has to be a return to normal at some point: you just can't keep up lockdowns, curfews or strict social distancing forever.

Lockdowns? Who's still having lockdowns? We're lucky if we can convince people to stop licking each other's noses. Lockdowns are a luxury of the past when the government could actually convince people to comply. The rest of it, standing 2 meters apart, wearing masks, bars closing at midnight, not having large events, that stuff absolutely can continue indefinitely. It probably won't need to, since eventually the death rate will be low enough that nobody really cares anymore and we can go back to worrying about cancer, global warming, and the Discovery Channel. But I see no reason to assume that "normal" can or should return in the foreseeable future.

[Nortaneous]

That particular bit about immunity I got from immunology nerds that do read sci-hub 25 hours a day. But I don't really see how the idea that vaccines work is in any way extraordinary. Or how it would benefit policy makes to lie about it. Anyone will eventually see if they work or not!

Vaccines are hard. Different COVID vaccines have different efficacies - compare the mRNA vaccines to Sinovac. And vaccine side effects aren't new - the polio vaccine had some manufacturing difficulties that ended up causing outbreaks of polio. IIRC the tuberculosis vaccine isn't very good either.

The benefit to policymakers from not telling the truth is that they, like, have careers. They need to save face. And some of them work in PR, which is a blank check for noble lies until it isn't. Has anyone tried talking to Americans like grown-ups? ("Horse dewormer"? Anyone with a smartphone can look up ivermectin. The problem with ivermectin for COVID isn't that it's a "horse dewormer", nor is it that people have started taking veterinary medicine [they haven't "started"]; it's that it probably isn't an effective antiviral at safe doses.)

(Besides, I really don't see how vaccines would fit in any master plan. Lockdowns and curfew serve an authoritarian's purpose; immunity means you can't justify them!)

Don't authoritarians, like, want authority to be respected?

EDIT: However, I definitely agree with you in that there's a worrying lack of forward thing. What's the plan for next year? The year after that? And how about booster shots or an annual vaccine?

The plan for next year is that people will continue to exist solely to produce shareholder value for large corporations in which the responsible authorities hold financial interests. The plan for the year after that is the same.

Lockdowns? Who's still having lockdowns? We're lucky if we can convince people to stop licking each other's noses. Lockdowns are a luxury of the past when the government could actually convince people to comply. The rest of it, standing 2 meters apart, wearing masks, bars closing at midnight, not having large events, that stuff absolutely can continue indefinitely. It probably won't need to, since eventually the death rate will be low enough that nobody really cares anymore and we can go back to worrying about cancer, global warming, and the Discovery Channel. But I see no reason to assume that "normal" can or should return in the foreseeable future.

That's exactly the point of the messaging. You have to go to the office, but after that, you'd better go home and consume subscription streaming product. Fuck bars and events and shit.

Everyone stopped caring last August, but you don't need them to care - you just need the competition to care. Netflix competes with a lot of things, but it doesn't compete with the park - what are you even going to do at the park?

And Cass Sunstein says that if people have fewer friends they're less likely to threaten the political order. Maybe it was the bowling leagues that elected Trump. Who needs bowling anyway? The alleys can be regulated - out of existence if need be.

[Ares Land]

Lockdowns? Who's still having lockdowns?

Melbourne, I think?

Lockdowns are a luxury of the past when the government could actually convince people to comply. The rest of it, standing 2 meters apart, wearing masks, bars closing at midnight, not having large events, that stuff absolutely can continue indefinitely.

No, they can't and they shouldn't. Keeping a permanent curfew and forbidding concerts, forever, and arbitrarily, just in case, is a dictatorial move. It's not surprising people aren't interested in that.

The benefit to policymakers from not telling the truth is that they, like, have careers. They need to save face.

That makes no sense. If it turns out vaccines, like anti-vaxxers claim, causes sudden death, sprouting extra limbs and irregular periods in males, the policymakers won't have much of a career, will they?
Considering the more reasonable change, ie. that the vaccines aren't effective, I'm certain getting a huge wave this winter would be a huge blow to anyone currently in charge.

Has anyone tried talking to Americans like grown-ups? ("Horse dewormer"? Anyone with a smartphone can look up ivermectin. The problem with ivermectin for COVID isn't that it's a "horse dewormer", nor is it that people have started taking veterinary medicine [they haven't "started"]; it's that it probably isn't an effective antiviral at safe doses.)

I'm sorry, man, but I did look up ivermectin and it is a horse dewormer.
That said, I do think people should have been allowed to kill themselves with bleach, quinine, gin and tonic or horse dewormers. It would have saved us a lot of whingeing.

(Besides, I really don't see how vaccines would fit in any master plan. Lockdowns and curfew serve an authoritarian's purpose; immunity means you can't justify them!)

Don't authoritarians, like, want authority to be respected?

Aren't people being stuck at home even better, from an authoritarian perspective? Some authoritarians, besides. I don't think the vaccine is even mandatory anywhere.

EDIT: However, I definitely agree with you in that there's a worrying lack of forward thing. What's the plan for next year? The year after that? And how about booster shots or an annual vaccine?

The plan for next year is that people will continue to exist solely to produce shareholder value for large corporations in which the responsible authorities hold financial interests. The plan for the year after that is the same.

Maybe it was the bowling leagues that elected Trump. Who needs bowling anyway? The alleys can be regulated - out of existence if need be.

Last I checked, the bowling alleys were open. All evidence so far points in the direction of bars, events and bowling alleys slowly reopening.

[bradrn]

Lockdowns? Who's still having lockdowns?

Melbourne, I think?

And Sydney, for even longer. Mostly because (a) vaccination rates were still low when this outbreak began, (b) our Premier started the lockdown too late to be really effective, and (c) some people in locked-down areas simply ignored the restrictions. Thankfully, cases per day finally seem to be decreasing, mostly because our vaccination rates went through the roof once people realised their importance (graph).

Lockdowns are a luxury of the past when the government could actually convince people to comply. The rest of it, standing 2 meters apart, wearing masks, bars closing at midnight, not having large events, that stuff absolutely can continue indefinitely.

No, they can't and they shouldn't. Keeping a permanent curfew and forbidding concerts, forever, and arbitrarily, just in case, is a dictatorial move. It's not surprising people aren't interested in that.

Is that really what Moose-tache suggested? No-one’s forbidding concerts ‘forever and arbitrarily’ — just until cases settle down a bit and/or enough of the population is vaccinated. In the meantime, measures such as standing 2m apart and wearing masks sound very reasonable to me.

Has anyone tried talking to Americans like grown-ups? ("Horse dewormer"? Anyone with a smartphone can look up ivermectin. The problem with ivermectin for COVID isn't that it's a "horse dewormer", nor is it that people have started taking veterinary medicine [they haven't "started"]; it's that it probably isn't an effective antiviral at safe doses.)

I'm sorry, man, but I did look up ivermectin and it is a horse dewormer.
That said, I do think people should have been allowed to kill themselves with bleach, quinine, gin and tonic or horse dewormers. It would have saved us a lot of whingeing.

Unfortunately, Nortaneous is correct here. Ivermectin is a horse dewormer and a human dewormer. It is, however, not an effective antiviral, since the dose required for that simultaneously makes it an effective anti-human as well.

(I say ‘unfortunately’ here because ‘don’t take horse dewormer!’ would really be an excellent advertisement, were it true. Unfortunately, it isn’t, and claiming othewise just gives more ammunition to the committed lunatic, especially those of the big-gub’ment-is-lyin’-to-us type.)

[Vardelm]

That said, I do think people should have been allowed to kill themselves with bleach, quinine, gin and tonic or horse dewormers. It would have saved us a lot of whingeing.

Generally, I'm in agreement with Ares Land here, because Darwin.

That said, having discovered the joy of gin & tonic during COVID, I take exception to it being included with the others here. And with that said, it would probably be the best way to go out of those options.

Cheers.

[Ares Land]

Is that really what Moose-tache suggested? No-one’s forbidding concerts ‘forever and arbitrarily’ — just until cases settle down a bit and/or enough of the population is vaccinated. In the meantime, measures such as standing 2m apart and wearing masks sound very reasonable to me.

Ah, maybe I misunderstood. My main objection is to the word 'indefinitely.' -- and I think expecting some kind of exit from the crisis is reasonable.
(Of course, yeah, until such time wearing masks is the sensible thing to do. I really wish we could stand 2m apart at all times here, but everything's just too cramped and crowded.)

Unfortunately, Nortaneous is correct here. Ivermectin is a horse dewormer and a human dewormer. It is, however, not an effective antiviral, since the dose required for that simultaneously makes it an effective anti-human as well.

Oh yes, you're both right. That's too bad. I really liked the horse paste jokes.

[Nortaneous]

That makes no sense. If it turns out vaccines, like anti-vaxxers claim, causes sudden death, sprouting extra limbs and irregular periods in males, the policymakers won't have much of a career, will they?

How many poliucymakers have been demoted to McDonald's over the year and a half of atrocious COVID-related misrule we've already had? Or, you know, the rest of the misrule?

Considering the more reasonable change, ie. that the vaccines aren't effective, I'm certain getting a huge wave this winter would be a huge blow to anyone currently in charge.

A huge wave this winter would be a huge blow to the people, who will have once again failed the authorities. All the more reason for the authorities to elect a new people.

Aren't people being stuck at home even better, from an authoritarian perspective? Some authoritarians, besides. I don't think the vaccine is even mandatory anywhere.

If you work for a company with more than 100 employees, or the federal government, you have to either take the vaccine or get weekly tests. This is routinely described in the press as a "vaccine mandate". Our patience is wearing thin!

(Since when can a regime lose patience with its subjects? Shouldn't it be the other way around?)

Unfortunately, Nortaneous is correct here. Ivermectin is a horse dewormer and a human dewormer. It is, however, not an effective antiviral, since the dose required for that simultaneously makes it an effective anti-human as well.

(I say ‘unfortunately’ here because ‘don’t take horse dewormer!’ would really be an excellent advertisement, were it true. Unfortunately, it isn’t, and claiming othewise just gives more ammunition to the committed lunatic, especially those of the big-gub’ment-is-lyin’-to-us type.)

Big gubmint literally is lying to us. "If we lie, people we don't like will be able to point out that we're lying" is not the most morally upstanding reasoning in the world, but it's still not as bad as the actual PR strategy of the actual regime.

But the wonders of meritocracy have given us a regime ruled by... people who've spent their whole lives reshaping themselves to please authority. If you're too much of an ornery bastard to get the Harvard admissions people to like you, you don't go to Harvard. Competition is fierce. Any deviation from the norm will be punished. And you end up with a class of ultra-conformists who've spent their whole lives in ultra-conformist bubbles and don't realize most people aren't like them.

[bradrn]

Unfortunately, Nortaneous is correct here. Ivermectin is a horse dewormer and a human dewormer. It is, however, not an effective antiviral, since the dose required for that simultaneously makes it an effective anti-human as well.

(I say ‘unfortunately’ here because ‘don’t take horse dewormer!’ would really be an excellent advertisement, were it true. Unfortunately, it isn’t, and claiming othewise just gives more ammunition to the committed lunatic, especially those of the big-gub’ment-is-lyin’-to-us type.)

Big gubmint literally is lying to us. "If we lie, people we don't like will be able to point out that we're lying" is not the most morally upstanding reasoning in the world, but it's still not as bad as the actual PR strategy of the actual regime.

But the wonders of meritocracy have given us a regime ruled by... people who've spent their whole lives reshaping themselves to please authority. If you're too much of an ornery bastard to get the Harvard admissions people to like you, you don't go to Harvard. Competition is fierce. Any deviation from the norm will be punished. And you end up with a class of ultra-conformists who've spent their whole lives in ultra-conformist bubbles and don't realize most people aren't like them.

I must admit to finding most of your political posts incomprehensible, and this one is no exception. What, exactly, is your point here?

[Vardelm]

(Since when can a regime lose patience with its subjects? Shouldn't it be the other way around?)

Since a significant portion of the subjects refused to do the sensible & easy thing to save as many lives as possible, which required mass cooperation and therefor some kind of public coordination.