WHO died of Covid?

[GeoffH]

20 minutes ago, Snowy79 said:

As for vaccines I'm aware that with Covid many Governments are pushing to accelerate the licensing which will include a non liability clause as historically up until the Ebola vaccine it took between 15 to 20yrs to produce a vaccine without the get out of jail free card. I know what one I'd take.

The vaccines aren't going to be made compulsory (not in a western country anyway) so you can choose not to have one and I can choose to have one.  The way I see it is that serious and common side effects are identified in stage 1 and stage 2 trials and stage 3 is for efficacy estimation and rare side effects.

So in my book it comes down to whether you think it's more likely you'll get sick and die from having a vaccine or from Covid (or flu for the flu vaccine for example).

The math I've seen around this suggests that the chances of a severe vaccine reaction are much lower than the chances of a severe case of Covid (but like I said, it's a free country no one is making you take a shot) 

As to the liability exemption that's more aimed at rare side effects and is more of a government guarantee to cover compensation to the few people who might possibly be effected, I don't see that as a big issue.  Governments cover all sorts of medical costs as a matter of course (well at least outside of the US they do).

Edited October 18, 2020 by GeoffH

[DaveB]

2 hours ago, OnMyWay said:

You left one thing out, the most important.  Lockdowns and closing of businesses.  That is not decades old and proven.  This has destroyed lives and those lives seem to be forgotten.  Can you imagine how a small business owner must feel when they are suddenly locked out of doing business "for the good of all" while the Walmart down the street never closes?  Years of work flushed down the drain.  It is no wonder that suicides have soared.

 I think in the early days, sweeping closures might have been prudent because no one really knew what we were dealing with.  Problem is they settled into some kind of norm.  We now know enough to define what constitutes reasonably safe operating parameters.  Under those, businesses would not thrive, with increasing profits, but they could maintain a reasonable chance of staying in business and riding this thing out.  For a long time, there have been good models in, for example, the regulations for safe restaurant operation..  Follow the regs, stay in business - beak the regs, THEN get shut down.  Don't know why that can't be the model going forward.

I still think there's some angst to affect 100% stop of infection - and it's a pipe dream.  Best we are going to achieve is to keep it as low as possible..  Even with businesses closed, it has been spreading.  It really is going to come down to the degree that individuals are doing smart things to take care of themselves, and deciding if the risk of entering a business, within the guidelines of how that business is operating, are worth it.

Personal example: in the base barber shop on McChord Air Base, they re-opened the barber shop.  Now that's a pretty intimate experience that precludes social distancing.  But the barbers all wear masks, and the patrons sit in the chair holding the mask to their face while their hair is cut.  No mask on a customer - out you go.  No mask on a barber - out she goes.

[DaveB]

I'm pretty sure, by the way, that if it ever looked like the barber shop was some kind of disease spreader, it Base CO would shut it down right away.  But it's been operating that way, taking precautions prudent to that kind of business, and no adverse results.

[hk blues]

43 minutes ago, DaveB said:

 I think in the early days, sweeping closures might have been prudent because no one really knew what we were dealing with.  Problem is they settled into some kind of norm.  We now know enough to define what constitutes reasonably safe operating parameters.  Under those, businesses would not thrive, with increasing profits, but they could maintain a reasonable chance of staying in business and riding this thing out.  For a long time, there have been good models in, for example, the regulations for safe restaurant operation..  Follow the regs, stay in business - beak the regs, THEN get shut down.  Don't know why that can't be the model going forward.

I still think there's some angst to affect 100% stop of infection - and it's a pipe dream.  Best we are going to achieve is to keep it as low as possible..  Even with businesses closed, it has been spreading.  It really is going to come down to the degree that individuals are doing smart things to take care of themselves, and deciding if the risk of entering a business, within the guidelines of how that business is operating, are worth it.

Personal example: in the base barber shop on McChord Air Base, they re-opened the barber shop.  Now that's a pretty intimate experience that precludes social distancing.  But the barbers all wear masks, and the patrons sit in the chair holding the mask to their face while their hair is cut.  No mask on a customer - out you go.  No mask on a barber - out she goes.

One of the major flaws with the individual responsibility approach is that not everyone is as responsible as us - and we have almost no way to know who is or isn't yet we may well interact with them. A good example is a restaurant - it's impossible to be masked throughout the meal for obvious reasons so we are trusting that all protocols are being followed by not just the business but other customers - and for sure they aren't. So, no matter how diligent we are, we are put at risk by others who may be less so.

And, let's not lose sight of the reason for lockdowns - it's not to stop the spread of the virus - that's not happening without a vaccine as far as we know - but to slow the spread to ensure services can cope. So, every little helps.

I really don't think their is any government looking to eliminate Covid-19 with current measures - they are simply trying to hold back the tide. 

Another bugbear of mine is the continual criticism of governments for not doing more to balance health and the economy despite the fact most of them are clearly doing so and not hiding it. If they weren't, we'd all still be locked down. 

[OnMyWay]

5 hours ago, DaveB said:

Personal example: in the base barber shop on McChord Air Base, they re-opened the barber shop.  Now that's a pretty intimate experience that precludes social distancing.  But the barbers all wear masks, and the patrons sit in the chair holding the mask to their face while their hair is cut.  No mask on a customer - out you go.  No mask on a barber - out she goes.

I have the same experience here.  I have had my hair cut twice at GQ.  Both times I was the only customer.  Sad for them.  Barber wore a mask and shield, I wore a mask.  Checked my temp on the way in and I had to log in.

The important piece in this particular business is that management needs to keep close tabs on the employees.  If any employee has any symptoms of cold or flu, send them home immediately.

I'm 64 with comorbidities.  I can manage my level of possible exposure.  If I want 100% non-exposure, I could achieve that.  However, I might die of boredom and/or have very long hair!

[Jollygoodfellow]

11 hours ago, DaveB said:

Personal example: in the base barber shop on McChord Air Base, they re-opened the barber shop.  Now that's a pretty intimate experience that precludes social distancing.  But the barbers all wear masks, and the patrons sit in the chair holding the mask to their face while their hair is cut.  No mask on a customer - out you go.  No mask on a barber - out she goes.

I dont think you live here and I'm sure this only applies to cities rather than the back woods ETC but here or at least in my area barber shops and basically everything else are following the rules of mask at least. 

Beats me why in reality I can go to a resturaunt and as soon as I have signed in and given details I no longer need mask or face shield. 

Time to get over this crap and move on in my opinion. 

[Jay Smith]

The National Academy of Sciences has an article on Covid mortality that the poster and any readers who are curious about the true mortality impacts might consider interesting.

 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/36/22035

Also regarding worldwide poverty levels...Worldbank.org has some really good data. 

https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/updated-estimates-impact-covid-19-global-poverty-effect-new-data

I think that after doing some research, even if you don't like my links, you will find that the  posters claims are slightly exaggerated. 

[GeoffH]

58 minutes ago, Jay Smith said:

 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/36/22035

I just read through this and there isn't really anything in there that disagrees terribly much with what my views are.   There are some areas around estimation of value of life in dollar terms per year (as the authors mention) where I would fall towards the lower end of the scale they mention (but not outside it) but other than that it seems fine to me *shrug*.

The other article isn't really within my area of experience so I can't really comment.

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by GeoffH

[hk blues]

10 hours ago, Jollygoodfellow said:

Beats me why in reality I can go to a resturaunt and as soon as I have signed in and given details I no longer need mask or face shield. 

 

I said a as much in my post above.

But, it's nothing to do with health or safety, it's purely an economic decision. The fast food companies here are big business so have some clout.

[Snowy79]

Hot off the press and peer reviewed the case mortality rates for Covid. As I'm sure as most suspected it varies between locations but throwing in the fact that there is evidence of false diagnosis I wonder if the fatality rate is even lower. Obviously not lower than the 0% in some cases.