General > General Technical Chat
Vaccine
<< < (21/50) > >>
coppice:

--- Quote from: Siwastaja on March 20, 2021, 03:27:32 pm ---Being dangerous doesn't require a death. Traffic accidents result in larger number of injured than deaths and nobody thinks it's all well as long as you don't die.

--- End quote ---
Quite right. There are still people in Hong Kong suffering the after effects of SARS in 2003. SARS2 seems to be showing all the same qualities as SARS1, although they are less aggressive with SARS2. I assume many people's health (e.g. lung performance) will be affected for decades, and the health services will be carrying a financial burden for just as long.
Habropoda:
Plus we don't know the possible very long term effect like HPV causing cancer or chickenpox causing shingles.
Zero999:

--- Quote from: Siwastaja on March 20, 2021, 03:27:32 pm ---Do note that measuring the awfulness of this disease simply through number of deaths gives the wrong impression it's only dangerous to elderly and some specific risk groups.

Being dangerous doesn't require a death. Traffic accidents result in larger number of injured than deaths and nobody thinks it's all well as long as you don't die.

It's true younger population and those not in risk groups are extremely unlikely to die, but it seems much more common to have a near-death experience, being weeks to months in ICU, then leave severely injured for months to a year, possibly the rest of your life, nobody knows yet if they can ever work again due to symptoms such as extreme fatigue or paralysis so now you are in a wheelchair, in extreme pain, sleeping all day long and nobody counts you as a number anywhere because you are not dead.

This is now clearly visible even in Finland because we finally have managed to vaccinate the most obvious risk groups (but practically no one else yet), and you can already see the result of that: the ratio of deaths vs. cases has gone down significantly (by about 5x), but the ratio of hospitalized vs. cases, or even in ICU vs. cases have not gone down almost at all, suggesting that a significant part of those in really bad condition are not in the obvious risk groups.

--- End quote ---
Yes, you're right. The person I mentioned in the other post who was hospitalised with COVID-19, at the tender age of 19, back in early summer 2020, still hasn't fully recovered. Long term damage due to COVID-19 is a definite concern, which is why it shouldn't be allowed to infect everyone. Children also can suffer from long term health problems, albeit to a lesser degree than older people, even if the initial disease was mild. Fortunately vaccination should minimise the risk of long COVID.

Just to be clear, I'm not trivialising the disease, as some do. It's killed millions, injured many more and will continue to do so, for awhile yet. It's just that all of the evidence seems to point towards it getting better, in the long term. It's highly unlikely it will be harming millions of people in 10 years time. Unlike the other coronaviruses which cause the common cold and influenza, it mutates relatively slowly. It's also not infected farm animals, except for mink, like influenza does, so there's no disease reservoir close to human contact.
https://www.biospace.com/article/https-www-nature-com-articles-s41422-020-00430-4/


--- Quote from: coppice on March 20, 2021, 04:06:45 pm ---
--- Quote from: Siwastaja on March 20, 2021, 03:27:32 pm ---Being dangerous doesn't require a death. Traffic accidents result in larger number of injured than deaths and nobody thinks it's all well as long as you don't die.

--- End quote ---
Quite right. There are still people in Hong Kong suffering the after effects of SARS in 2003. SARS2 seems to be showing all the same qualities as SARS1, although they are less aggressive with SARS2. I assume many people's health (e.g. lung performance) will be affected for decades, and the health services will be carrying a financial burden for just as long.

--- End quote ---
Yes, it's nothing new. It's happened in previous pandemics.

The fact that it seems to be similar to the original SARS is good news for immunity. There's evidence to suggest those who've had SARS back in 2003 still have some level of immunity today and may have a level of cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This is why it seems unlikely it will cause severe disease forever.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
EEVblog:

--- Quote from: Zero999 on March 20, 2021, 02:30:43 pm ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 20, 2021, 08:05:15 am ---
--- Quote from: gnuarm on March 19, 2021, 11:14:05 am ---Again, fallacious assertions.  Australia has the virus.  Some 10 to 20 people get infected each day. 
--- End quote ---

If you are going to argue with numbers, at least get them right, we have ZERO local covid spread here.
Here is a the last 3 months for the entire country.
Practically all of our cases are people coming into the country and we catch them at the border.

--- End quote ---
How long do you think you'll be able to keep it up for?

What about the costs: tourism, business lost, quarantine hotels, the occasional lockdown, when it does escape?

I don't see how it's sustainable.

--- End quote ---

Apart from tourism and related things, Australia is actually doing really well. Almost everything is open. Few service businesses like restaraunts went under, kids have been back in schools since May 2020 etc etc. We were having 50,000 people without masks in a sports stadium when the rest of the world was still completely shut.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-18/state-of-origin-3-queensland-home-advantage/12892044

But yes, untimately we have to get out of the mindset of panicing and shutting things down for a week when we get ONE case. Yes, ONE single case here is enough to trigger panic here and localised lockdowns. It's ridiculous and is unsustainable. We still have ridiculous mandatory mask orders on public transport even though we got through this entire thing without any mask madates or community takeup.

At some point we have to allow international travel without quarantine happen. Sure test people and quarantine the possitive, but let everyone else in.
Local tourism has actually boomed here, but yeah anything reliant upon overseas tourism or overseas students has been hit hard.

We often make the news for our draconian lockdowns, but I wouldn't want to be living anywhere else at the moment. Life is pretty much normal here, and apart from a week or two here and there over the last year, always has been for me.
Siwastaja:
Wide-scale (basically the whole planet) real-world human experiments and testing have undeniably revealed the following:

1) While most of the "West" have theorized about the advantage to the economy of letting the disease spread without restrictions, not a single nation, not even Sweden, have had guts to go all the way (or even close) to see if this works. The breaking point seems to be the army mass-transporting dead bodies under the windows of people. At this point, losers try the strategy of the winners, but it's too late. What that means, "economy vs. human life" is, and was from day one, a completely false dichotomy. In reality, they go hand-in-hand.

2) Statistically signicant number of nations, mostly in Asia (and Oceania), have definitely proved that strong early actions (that seem "excessively strong" or "panicking" to many at that stage) result in least death, least injury, least suffering, but also least damage to the economy, and maybe most importantly, least amount of restriction of human rights like the right to go shopping or have a coffee with friends. While most of the EU and USA is still more or less closed, people in Australia, New Zealand, South Korea or Singapore are sipping their coffee in restaurants almost normally. These nations have proved that seemingly "excessive" but scientifically rational actions which look like "panicking" to some are effective to guarantee people can quickly go back to normal life at some 90% duty cycle and don't need to suffer for 1.5 years nonstop from this shit.

Doing too little too late has clearly led to having to go to much stronger limitations than what "strong" limitations would have originally been, and also for much longer time. It is devastating to see how pretty much all of the "West" has utterly failed to understand this blatantly obvious relationship even WHO, despite all of their shortcomings, talked about from day one.

Our Western approach seems to be, panic panic panic, "no we are not panicking! need to show that off", until the death scares the shit out and then we start to visibly panic, still unable to make rational choices based on expert analysis - or even common sense.

A large handful of nations have clearly proved though all of this suffering is completely optional tragedy bought to us by our incompetent leaders, but what can we do.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod