Corona Virus... the second wave

[turbodog]

Short of having a logistics expert decide how to dole out the doses I would push doses to the elderly. But at the same time I would open it wide open to anyone wanting. Plenty of people sacrificed to save their fellow man, and these are probably the most eager to get vaccinated.

Plenty of major vectors are being overlooked. I'm in IT, and on a given day I could be at any one of 500+ businesses across town, each one with anywhere from 2-3 employees to hundreds. I expect the same from any person in telcom, office products delivery, vending machines, HVAC service, water delivery, UPS, Fedex, USPS, etc. People in these roles cut across normal isolation bubbles, connecting people that normally would have never contacted each other.

[bykfixer]

You would be in 1C in my state TD.
1B included the pony express folks.

Many are saying "nah, you go ahead of me". I'm still on the fence about what to do when my turn pops up.

[turbodog]

You would be in 1C in my state TD.
1B included the pony express folks.

Many are saying "nah, you go ahead of me". I'm still on the fence about what to do when my turn pops up.

The thing that's lacking in the 'tiered rollout' is that _so_ many people are NOT taking the vaccine. To me, this more or less destroys the distribution model/goal.

Overall, we might be better served if our plans were tailored to entice/convince the <insert your choice of word here, any synonym for irresponsible person will do> group to get vaccinated. The willing need no convincing. The unwilling will drag this out and give it time to critically mutate.

[Kestrel]

It would help if parties that declined the vaccination, would get notification that their insurers would refuse to pay for any subsequent COVID-related health care expenses; that would go a way towards solving a couple of problems.

[turbodog]

It would help if parties that declined the vaccination, would get notification that their insurers would refuse to pay for any subsequent COVID-related health care expenses; that would go a way towards solving a couple of problems.

Can we include MMR, hep, and other stuff on that list also?

[Katherine Alicia]

unless the insurance contract contained some sort of clause to the effect "must take all resonable precautions to prevent X, Y or Z..." I`m not sure something like that could be enacted retroactively, pity though, I think it`s a great idea.
I know there`s a such a charge called "Reckless endangerment", I wonder if there`s a `Wilfull` endangerment as well? I think there should be, and those that refuse to comply be charged with it.

[Chauncey Gardiner]

unless the insurance contract contained some sort of clause to the effect "must take all resonable precautions to prevent X, Y or Z..." I`m not sure something like that could be enacted retroactively, pity though, I think it`s a great idea.
I know there`s a such a charge called "Reckless endangerment", I wonder if there`s a `Wilfull` endangerment as well? I think there should be, and those that refuse to comply be charged with it.

Do you believe people that knowingly refuse to stop socializing while infected with other communicable diseases also be charged? The ramifications of such a law would be pretty far reaching.

[bykfixer]

Even George Orwell himself might say "hmmmm" to that notion.

[jtr1962]

It would help if parties that declined the vaccination, would get notification that their insurers would refuse to pay for any subsequent COVID-related health care expenses; that would go a way towards solving a couple of problems.

Easier way is for employers and schools to require vaccinations. No vaccination, no job, and no school. Economic imperative will get nearly everyone to comply.

[bykfixer]

And where does it go from there? Insurance companies and big companies having all that power?
Well let's see here Mr JRT, it says here you didn't get your flu stot last year, you're fired". "Your analytics say you've got high trigricerides, you're outta here"……

And tell the families of the 1300+ people who have died from complications of the vaccine "get your shot or you don't get to enter the baseball stadium?"
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...se-events.html

Again, where would it end?

[Katherine Alicia]

Do you believe people that knowingly refuse to stop socializing while infected with other communicable diseases also be charged?

Yes, to knowingly and wilfully endanger others is a crime IMO, just like DUI is even if you haven`t actually hit anyone (yet).

[turbodog]

And where does it go from there? Insurance companies and big companies having all that power?
Well let's see here Mr JRT, it says here you didn't get your flu stot last year, you're fired". "Your analytics say you've got high trigricerides, you're outta here"……

And tell the families of the 1300+ people who have died from complications of the vaccine "get your shot or you don't get to enter the baseball stadium?"
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...se-events.html

Again, where would it end?

Y'all must not be paying attention... the framework for this is being built already. More than one employer has a no tobacco policy. And I've seen prosecutions for people that knowingly infected others with STDs. And employers that reward weight loss and gym attendance are simply acting against those that do not lose weight or work out.

[jtr1962]

And where does it go from there? Insurance companies and big companies having all that power?
Well let's see here Mr JRT, it says here you didn't get your flu stot last year, you're fired". "Your analytics say you've got high trigricerides, you're outta here"……

And tell the families of the 1300+ people who have died from complications of the vaccine "get your shot or you don't get to enter the baseball stadium?"
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...se-events.html

Again, where would it end?

Why do we always have to assume incrementalism? The vaccine policy could begin and end exactly as I described. Also, lots of jobs, especially for those in health care such as my brother's job, already require flu shots. The legal framework is in place for this. When you become an employee of a company, it's a voluntary relationship where you agree to abide by any rules they set. If you don't like the rules, you're always free to leave and find a place with rules more to your liking. Or start a home-based business where there are no rules at all. Here at least the reasons for pushing people to get vaccinated have to do with public health. That's actually a very valid reason.

1381 deaths after 76 million doses isn't a horrible number. In fact, some number of those people may have died from other causes not related to the vaccine. That's why each case of death needs to be thoroughly investigated. There may be a certain set of health conditions which places some people at unacceptable risk if they get vaccinated. I'm fine giving those people a waiver. It's such a small number that doing so won't prevent reaching eventual herd immunity. We've given waivers from vaccinations in the past for medical reasons.

[idleprocess]

Y'all must not be paying attention... the framework for this is being built already. More than one employer has a no tobacco policy. And I've seen prosecutions for people that knowingly infected others with STDs. And employers that reward weight loss and gym attendance are simply acting against those that do not lose weight or work out.

More directly related to the task at hand, good luck enrolling your kid in school without getting them the full course of childhood vaccinations; in many states I don't wanna isn't good enough for an exemption.

[Kestrel]

Freedom of action doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

[turbodog]

More directly related to the task at hand, good luck enrolling your kid in school without getting them the full course of childhood vaccinations; in many states I don't wanna isn't good enough for an exemption.

The biggest legal impediment is that the FDA issued an EMERGENCY use exception. Good luck getting c-19 shots being required past your corporate legal dept. The reality is that there would be a revolt in the population as a whole as vaccine hesitancy is so stupidly high. There would be a flood of people asking their GP to issue an exemption.

[Poppy]

And where does it go from there? Insurance companies and big companies having all that power?
Well let's see here Mr JRT, it says here you didn't get your flu stot last year, you're fired". "Your analytics say you've got high trigricerides, you're outta here"……

And tell the families of the 1300+ people who have died from complications of the vaccine "get your shot or you don't get to enter the baseball stadium?"
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...se-events.html

Again, where would it end?

After reading the link posted, your interpretation is mistaken. According to the link there were no deaths related to the vaccine.

Over 76 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 1, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 1,381 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths.

[PhotonWrangler]

The possibility of anaphylaxis is the most immediate concern after any type of vaccination. That's why patients are typically observed for 15 to 30 minutes after receiving a shot. If it's going to happen it will usually occur quickly after vaccination. I heard of a few reactions happening overseas but they were quickly remediated with an epinephrine-type treatment.

[idleprocess]

The biggest legal impediment is that the FDA issued an EMERGENCY use exception. Good luck getting c-19 shots being required past your corporate legal dept. The reality is that there would be a revolt in the population as a whole as vaccine hesitancy is so stupidly high. There would be a flood of people asking their GP to issue an exemption.

These specific vaccines at this specific time, sure. But in the future the legalities will change, there will be more information on the vaccines, and it may well be like childhood vaccinations, no-smoking policies, drug testing, and numerous other mandates placed upon people as a condition for certain fundamental things in life.

[nbp]

It would help if parties that declined the vaccination, would get notification that their insurers would refuse to pay for any subsequent COVID-related health care expenses; that would go a way towards solving a couple of problems.

Considering they don’t do this for a myriad other risky behaviors I don’t see it happening now. They dont refuse treatment for smokers and vapers, people who have several alcoholic drinks per day, people who use abuse drugs, people with multiple sexual partners, people who eat too much fast food, people who are overweight, people who don’t manage their diabetes effectively, people who don’t wear seatbelts, people who race motorcycles or ski down mountains, or any other preventable risky or self destructive behavior. These things kill hundreds of thousands every year like clockwork and no one gets outraged at all. If the 600 lb person or the chainsmoker gets treated so should the person who chooses not to get a COVID19 vaccination.

[bykfixer]

I'm fascinated by the perspective of people posting in this one. Not a right or wrong, agree or disagree type thing. Just a "well that's one persons perspective".
Like the old saying "you do not know what it's like for the other until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

It seems some a very concerned about the virus. Some are not. Most are somewhere in between.

[Katherine Alicia]

They dont refuse treatment for smokers and vapers, people who have several alcoholic drinks per day, people who use abuse drugs, people with multiple sexual partners, people who eat too much fast food, people who are overweight, people who don’t manage their diabetes effectively, people who don’t wear seatbelts, people who race motorcycles or ski down mountains, or any other preventable risky or self destructive behavior. These things kill hundreds of thousands every year like clockwork and no one gets outraged at all. If the 600 lb person or the chainsmoker gets treated so should the person who chooses not to get a COVID19 vaccination.

if you have a good look at that list, you`ll notice (with the possible exception of multiple sex partners) that all of these involve only risk to Self, I wouldn`t expect anyone to be outraged at this. Refusing to have the vaccine or self isolate is a direct risk to others and those people need to be held accountable for it.
It seems so many today know more about their rights than their responsibilities, it`s a very selfish, self important, me, me, me age we live in

[nbp]

That is a topic I see a lot of confusion on, Katherine. So far there is not good data to prove that the vaccine will prevent you from transmitting viral particles, only that it will prevent the recipient themselves from illness. If/when it is proven that the vaccine can/will prevent you from being able to spread the virus, then that argument will definitely hold water. If it turns out it only protects the vaccinated person and does not prevent them from shedding viral particles, then it really is up to each individual as to whether they want that protection for themselves. I am very interested in the findings on this topic.

Tangentially, I would say that second hand smoke damage and the risks to others by those who drive under the influence of drugs and alcohol are in fact very real also.

[markr6]

I just saw some talk about the vaccine preventing spread as well. One study was from Israel, or maybe just some evidence so far. It'll take time to know for sure. Of course it seems like it would depend on timing as well...did you get the shot last week or a month ago.

In the US we are about 7-12% fully vaccinated and 15-20% partially depending on the state. Getting things rolling.

[Katherine Alicia]

100% if these things are done around others then it is dangerous, it`s a bit like the old saying something to the effect of ` your right to wave your fists about, ends where the other persons nose starts`.

I remember hearing something said by one of our .Gov science advisors that the vaccine will lower the chances of passing it on but there`s no percentage worked out yet, my concern is that if enough people don`t get vaccinated and within a certain timeframe (this applies globally) that there will be variants appear that will put us ALL in danger again. this whole covid thing started with a single person and now look at it, it only takes One and we`re all screwed again.
We managed to get rid of smallpox, so I`m sure it can be done again as long as there are no hosts keeping it `alive`, we certainly owe it to each other to try.

[idleprocess]

That is a topic I see a lot of confusion on, Katherine. So far there is not good data to prove that the vaccine will prevent you from transmitting viral particles, only that it will prevent the recipient themselves from illness. If/when it is proven that the vaccine can/will prevent you from being able to spread the virus, then that argument will definitely hold water. If it turns out it only protects the vaccinated person and does not prevent them from shedding viral particles, then it really is up to each individual as to whether they want that protection for themselves. I am very interested in the findings on this topic.

Absolutely prevent you from shedding particles? Probably not - being vaccinated and producing antibodies isn't an impenetrable shield by any means. And for those for whom get sick anyway and their immune system simply gets an upper hand on the infection because of the vaccine odds are they'll be shedding enough particles to infect someone else who doesn't take precautions. But if it works like most other vaccines and effectively prevents an infection from taking root for a strong majority of those vaccinated, odds are quite high that any viral load you might be shedding won't expel enough particles to infect another person not taking precautions since there will be so few particles being produced.

[nbp]

@Katherine. Yes, all true. My armchair expert prediction is that people will probably have to get shots annually or at least at some regular interval like the flu. Experts are saying that it could take into 2023 or even 2024 to get the whole world vaccinated so it will be circulating for some time.

[nbp]

As an aside, I am not any kind of anti-vaxxer. I trust that these vaccines are probably as safe as any of the other ones people regularly take. But it gets a little weird when some folks start talking about forcing medical treatments on people, so I think that is an area that requires care and sensitivity and patience. We should all show love and concern for our neighbor and their safety, but also respect their feelings about medical care. It is a delicate balance. That was my only point really.

[bykfixer]

I just attended a company luncheon with 26 people who talked mostly about current events, yet not one word about the pandemic. We all entered the restaraunt wearing a mask but once in the meeting room everybody removed them. One person said "I'll be glad when I won't need this anymore" pointing to the mask and another said "me too". That was the total extent of the conversation related to the pandemic.

The table had 28 chairs for 26 people. I had a chair between me and the fellow next to me. At the other end the oldest person in the room did the same. Like me, he instinctively took a spot with a gap and set his jacket in the unused chair. I would have done that before the pandemic for two reasons. First, it's flu season and my habits had been to do that years ago. Second, my elbow won't bump my neighbor while cutting my steak. So in say 10 years when the pandemic has passed us by I will still pick a spot with a gap between the next person away if available. Maybe by then everybody on planet earth that wants one will have received the covid-19 innoculation.

[jtr1962]

I just attended a company luncheon with 26 people who talked mostly about current events, yet not one word about the pandemic. We all entered the restaraunt wearing a mask but once in the meeting room everybody removed them. One person said "I'll be glad when I won't need this anymore" pointing to the mask and another said "me too". That was the total extent of the conversation related to the pandemic.

The table had 28 chairs for 26 people. I had a chair between me and the fellow next to me. At the other end the oldest person in the room did the same. Like me, he instinctively took a spot with a gap and set his jacket in the unused chair. I would have done that before the pandemic for two reasons. First, it's flu season and my habits had been to do that years ago. Second, my elbow won't bump my neighbor while cutting my steak. So in say 10 years when the pandemic has passed us by I will still pick a spot with a gap between the next person away if available. Maybe by then everybody on planet earth that wants one will have received the covid-19 innoculation.

I'll probably be wearing a mask indefinitely whenever I'm in a indoor public place (but not outdoors) once this is over. I don't like being sidelined by colds, or more occasionally the flu. I'll also continue to keep at least 6 feet away from people indoors for the same reason. I figure I'll not only avoid seasonal illnesses by doing this but if another pandemic starts before I'm aware of it the mask will at least offer some protection. Of course, if we start disinfecting public spaces continuously with UV-C I won't feel a need to do these things.

I'm no longer going to stadiums, theaters, indoor restaurants, or anything similar, ever. Even in the best of times these places are like petri dishes. Besides, it's not like I went to them that often anyway.