There is simply no basis for these claims of dramatically increased contagion. It’s a meme that was based on early speculation, and repeated mindlessly by the press.
It is endemic. What you think of that fact is irrelevant. It’s a contagious respiratory virus with multiple animal reservoirs. Even if you could somehow vaccinate every person on earth tomorrow, the virus would still be here.
This virus is not going to be eliminated, and it’s well past time to move on from that discussion.
I was just thinking about this today as I prepare for another transatlantic flight: we seem to all be planning for a time when mask mandates and lockdowns are over.
But what if they're never over?
The US and Western Europe have, by now, enough high-quality vaccine for everyone, and we're all stuck at, what, 60% of the population vaccinated?
A bunch of people died, a bunch of people went broke, but during this pandemic the rich have mostly gotten a whole lot richer. Even the rich who don't think of themselves as rich: own a house in Silicon Valley, have a dozen years of 401K and some stock -- these people have done very well.
We have to fight the virus; but we also have to fight the anti-vaxxers and the apathetic, and we have to do it in a world where the people with real power are actually gonna be just fine if everything locks down for four months out of every year.
I've started trying to imagine life in that kind of future. Say two lockdowns every year, in a good year it's a month each time, in a bad year maybe you're locked in your apartment half the time, and that's for people who get their booster shot every year.
Maybe forever. What does society look like in that scenario?
They’re over. The only people clinging to them are either playing political games, or are completely uninformed about the scientific evidence (and yes, I include the CDC and LA county’s public health authorities in those groups).
Masks were maybe slightly better than nothing when we didn’t have vaccines. They are utterly pointless now. There is zero evidence that they have any marginal benefit in a vaccinated population. This stuff has risen to the level of superstition, and like any superstition, there will be adherents who refuse to let go. That’s fine, but they’re not reflecting science or rational thinking. They are marginal.
Those who are scared of the virus should get vaccinated. Those who are not can do whatever they like, but their choices do not affect me, and they don’t affect you.
We have the technology to completely eradicate the 2019 novel coronavirus if we have the collective will to use it.
Other coronaviruses will evolve to infect humans, yes. We’ll never eradicate infectious disease in general. But we’re talking about one specific distinctive virus here. One for which we already have multiple effective vaccines.
Smallpox has exactly one host (us), had an amazingly effective vaccine, the virus doesn’t mutate quickly or spread as readily, and it still took almost 200 years to eradicate it.
Polio is NOT eradicated, it spreads only through contact with fecal matter, and the remaining areas where it is endemic make a great illustration of exactly why this virus isn’t going anywhere either: Afghanistan and Pakistan.
That you would suggest that either of these make an argument for eradication of a flu-like illness with multiple non-human hosts shows how detached from reality you have become.
SARS-COV-2 is a single distinct virus with little variation. While it appears to be able to infect some domestic animals from human hosts, we have yet to find an animal reservoir. (If we had, that would be the end of the lab leak theory.)
And we have two vaccines against it with near 95% effectiveness, which compares with the estimated effectiveness of the smallpox vaccine.
If you want another point of comparison, look at measles. It’s not eradicated, but it’s not endemic either. In fact it is quite rare (far rarer than the flu) in counties with competent child vaccination programs.
Those are called “trade schools” in the US, and most community colleges have programs for trades. For example, a lot of community colleges have programs in auto repair and heating/cooling.
It gets more complicated in the US because of unions. In many places, you can’t become a plumber or electrician without an apprenticeship, which is controlled by the trade unions. Therefore, community colleges might offer classes on plumbing or electrical, but there’s no equivalent to a certification program, because it’s not possible to become a professional just by going to school.
Vaccines have been readily available to anyone who wants them (in the US) since mid April, even in the highest demand parts of the country. If you are not vaccinated, at this point, there is no excuse.
(edit: obviously, I’m assuming the article is talking about a company in the US, since the article is about the US.)
So, I made a comment about how vaccines are widely available in the US, on an article about the US, and you’re nitpicking it because you have an ideological problem with what I wrote.
I'll paraphrase the reply I put under a post that's about to also get buried in a flurry of downvotes:
Seattle area has had access since mid-April, and I drove 90 minutes to get that shot as early as I could. I hit full vaccination status on Monday of this week, so no outdoor lunches for me last week. But math is hard, amirite?
Only if you are in certain parts of the world. If you aren't, then no. No they are not. For the record: I'm in Norway. Vaccine rollout has been slow - and it hasn't been my turn yet.
At least 10% of Americans don't live within 5 miles of any pharmacy, and nearly 10% don't have access to a vehicle, a number which is higher among no non-white populations.
Depending on what area they're in and local policies, undocumented immigrants may have difficulty getting the vaccine.
Those are just a few examples of situations that, due to your unexamined privilege, you're apparently incapable of imagining.
We've only just reached the 50% mark for vaccinated people. Certainly some percent of those don't want the vaccine, but included in the remainder are people who have difficulty getting time off work, difficulty with transportation, etc.
Similar issues apply for voting. If these factors weren't important, Republicans wouldn't spend so much effort trying to disenfranchise voters by exploiting these factors to make it more difficult for people to vote.
The idea that pointing these issues out is "posturing" is either a sad commentary on your obliviousness, or indicates that you're perfectly aware of the status quo and want it to stay that way. Neither is a good reflection on you.
IANAD, but I'm sure there are some medical contraindications for certain individuals, such as people who are immunocompromised, that may legitimately keep them from being vaccinated. That's why achieving herd immunity is important, and my understanding is that we aren't quite there yet.
Sure, but this thread is about an employer bringing everyone in for a luncheon. People who are not vaccinated for medical reasons should be taking responsibility for their health in these situations and declining to attend an event like this. (If the employer will count this absence against them despite their medical situation, that's a shitty employer that might be violating ADA laws.)
The issue is with the anti-vaxxer types (including people who won't get vaccinated for religious reasons) who seem to be more likely to attend an event like this without caring about their (or others') vaccination status.
I do believe it is true that everyone in the US who both wants and is able to medically tolerate a vaccine should have been able to get at least their first dose by now.
Regarding herd immunity, I'm honestly not expecting that to ever happen in the US. There are too many people who are skeptical of these vaccines, some for the regular disappointing anti-vax reasons, others who do have serious concerns and/or have been swayed by misinformation. The fact that states and municipalities are resorting to crazy incentives like cash lotteries and even stuff like trucks and guns for people to get vaccinated really illustrates how bad it is.
I read that something like 3-4% of the US might be immunocompromised, easily an order of magnitude higher than I would have initially guessed, which means that if you have a staff of 20, it’s possible that vaccines might not be effective when administered to one of them.
It’s not just antivaxxers who are at risk from in-person meetings.
> I read that something like 3-4% of the US might be immunocompromised, easily an order of magnitude higher than I would have initially guessed
Wow, agreed, I would not have guessed that high a percentage.
> It’s not just antivaxxers who are at risk from in-person meetings.
Right, and I explicitly said that I would hope people with medical conditions would decline these kinds of in-person meetings if they weren't comfortable with them just yet.
Herd immunity is not a fixed vaccination percentage pulled from Anthony Fauci’s latest media appearance. It’s the immunity level at which cases stabilize and begin to decline. It is defined by observation.
Cases are at all-time lows in the most vaccinated locations, and are dropping rapidly nationwide.
No, it's the level at which people not eligible for vaccination are no longer at risk because most of their peers are incapable of spreading the disease. The political aspects are just some stuff some people made up.
This isn’t a paper, it’s an editorial, and it’s utter trash, printed in a bad “journal” (New Scientist is essentially a mass-market magazine, on par with Discover). The only evidence advanced for the claim is this:
This is a survey of parent-reported symptoms in 129 children, and of the “long-term” symptoms, all are vague, (e.g. headache, fatigue, muscle pain) overlapping substantially with the aches and pains of daily life.
They don’t even bother to link to it directly in the editorial; they simply mention the doi in the text. This wasn’t even proofread by an editor.
No, the point is, you probably don’t. Most anecdotal “reinfections” are from people who think they were infected, but never had it confirmed.
These stories are also typically second- or third-hand, and resemble whatever story was most recently in the news: “my ‘friend’ had a bad cold in March 2020, then got tested in July and had Covid. He was reinfected!” Stories that are heavy on hearsay, but light on details.
When we actually go and look for reinfections using rigorous standards, we find that they’re incredibly rare. It’s highly unlikely that there’s a huge wave of reinfections that we’re simply not seeing after hundreds of millions of infections and months of effort to find them.
> No, the point is, you probably don’t. Most anecdotal “reinfections” are from people who think they were infected, but never had it confirmed.
Not sure what you mean by "confirmed", but this particular case had positive PCR results for both the first infection and the subsequent re-infection after 4 months.
That is a joke of a “review”, and should never have been published.
Consider that it doesn’t mention the only randomized controlled trial of masks and Covid ever performed (it showed no significant protective effect), which was conducted during the period the “review” was being compiled:
You should note well that the study you point out made no assessment of whether mask wearing reduced the risk of spread from the mask wearer to others, which is a key point of the utility of mask-wearing during this pandemic.
It is very deceptive for you to claim that this is the only trial of “masks and COVID” when you omit that nuance.
I'm not familiar with that study, but I think it's important to note that the PNAS article was submitted mid-2020, so it's hard to understand your criticism here.
According to the latest data out of the UK, Delta is approximately as contagious as Alpha:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
There is simply no basis for these claims of dramatically increased contagion. It’s a meme that was based on early speculation, and repeated mindlessly by the press.