HN user
Let’s duplicate the weather radio broadcasts on the AM bands and leave the commercial stuff on the internet/podcasts in order to maximize safety, then. I’m sure the folks lobbying for this bill like the Salem Media Group wouldn’t mind.
So flu vaccine mandates are still allowed?
mortality of common comparisons like Influenza way higher
Source? I see 188 pediatric deaths from flu in the 2017-2018 season, and 464 for covid over 1.5 years.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2019-2020/2019-20-pediatr...
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se...
This is precisely correct, especially wrt the cost/benefit. The antibody tests won't tell you when you were infected, with which variant, or how much viral dose, on top of their imperfect accuracy. And if you're going to bother going to a hospital to get your blood drawn, why not just... get the shot and remove all doubt?
Does the calculus change in the countries where vaccines are basically nonexistant? Yes, of course. But vaccines in the US are as nearly easy to get as Gatorade now, and have been for several months. We spent many billions making it that way - we don't need to turn around and start spending even more money on pox party incentives.
I think it's also important to note that there was no change in physical distancing seen in indoor environments (mosques) - maybe due to the fact that it's obviously easier to spread out when outdoors. I think we are fairly confident by now that the vast majority of spread occurs indoors [1].
With three out of those four states having vaccination rates that are now above average, how can you be sure that an independent safety review didn't have the opposite effect?
In some cases (e.g. Jews, Amish) the lines between race/religion/national origin become pretty blurry. I agree that it's the most ambiguous of the classes, though.
It's technically true that you could find some way to dye your skin a different colour, but I don't think most people would find that to be a realistic solution to anything.
Yes, because the difference is that they are essentially immutable personal traits. The parent was presenting this scenario as an equivalent one and I don't think they are.
Having a certain political opinion is not a protected class in the US
I’m curious, what would the mechanism be for this to not be true?
Alternatively, face masks are this much more effective at blocking much-larger virus particles.
Depending on age and condition the risk to an individual can vary from one in ten million to under one in a hundred
You're off by several orders of magnitude here. See "current best estimate": https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
I'm not sure those states are good examples when their governors were happy to impose restrictions on private businesses and remove their freedom of choice wrt proof of vaccination - to the complaint of the Cato Institute, no less.
Having an already-high baseline risk before adding covid is a reason to be more cautious, not less. The point is that this particular vector is so trivially preventable.
quarantine is definitely more expensive than $0, unless their time is worthless
"persistent or significant incapacity" does not include "a sick day"
It does, actually. From the UI Medcom link: "symptoms that preclude patient from attending work, school or perform their typical daily activities"
The fact that a confirmed natural infection confers immunity equal to or greater than the vaccines is well established at this point. There are something like 80 documented reinfections worldwide.
There is definitely a lot more than 80. My impression is that the mRNA vaccines are more effective than natural immunity.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Page 9, “A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions”
VAERS forms sometimes have more wording for that category: https://medcom.uiowa.edu/theloop/covid-19-vaccination-requir...
That 0.4% category includes simply taking a sick day from work/school. I would hardly call that life-threatening. You are also using the word “reaction” when it’s not clear that the SAEs were due to the vaccine and not something else.
Norovirus was also decimated last year, and it doesn't infect the same organs/cells as respiratory viruses: https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/reporting/norostat/data.html
Can you explain how you would reconcile this with what the Economist is reporting then?
It's valuing the hard statistics in the article over people asking other people how they are feeling, not cherrypicking. Trying to convince people that suicidal ideation and attempts are up without a corresponding increase in suicides is going to be a hard sell.
I would say that this is "surprising" because the AMA (and many other mental health groups) were predicting a huge increase in suicides, which never happened. Later on, the "people are killing themselves" narrative became the accepted dogma, sans evidence. I don't remember much talk about suicidal ideation, it was mainly (understandably) fixated on the suicide rate.
An increase in actual suicide attempts is different from an increase in self-reported suicide attempts, and I'm not sure how you would reconcile the former with a decrease/stagnation in the suicide rate. If more people are deciding to reach out/ask for help I would expect a similar pattern.
"By now"? Where is the evidence that SARS-CoV2 has decreased its severity through mutation?
My understanding is that these restrictions were only imposed in December of last year (and are in force until at least 30 June), so I would tend to agree with the parent that they definitely changed directions.
Or maybe people are just terrible at judging acute risks? This isn't unique to covid - ask them about flying on an airliner or living next to a nuclear power plant and you would get some equally comical numbers. At any rate risk of hospitalization/death isn't the complete picture since some of those young people are ostensibly doing it to protect the people around them.
...I don’t see the word “cold” in that paper.
No. Colds are upper respiratory tract infections and only affect the nose and throat, as opposed to viral pneumonia. Different coronaviruses have different proteins and corresponding cell receptors (ACE2, DPP4, etc), which result in different organs being infected. Saying that all coronavirus diseases are colds is about as accurate as saying that all coronavirus diseases are SARS.
https://time.com/5929751/childhood-mortality-2020-covid-19/
That Reuters article is speculation from nearly a year ago.