Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Recommended Posts

On this topic, what’s everyone’s opinion on the vaccine? I’d 100% not take this vaccine and just get exposed if that were an option. I have no issues with vaccines, but rushing something out with those earlier referenced fatality numbers seems like a cut off the nose to spite the face thing. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

These horror stories of police arresting people on the beach or dragging people out of church are way overblown.  The media is going to over-report anything that will get views and outrage--similar to

The Crozier situation has sparked many illuminating conversations up and down the chain.  No, we don’t know all details but the core issues ring true to anyone who has experienced mid-level authority

You went from making a reasonable point to saying religious people should all get together and give themselves coronovirus because they’re stupid.  Not sure why or how you made this leap, but maybe yo

Posted Images

On this topic, what’s everyone’s opinion on the vaccine? I’d 100% not take this vaccine and just get exposed if that were an option. I have no issues with vaccines, but rushing something out with those earlier referenced fatality numbers seems like a cut off the nose to spite the face thing. 
This is where it's tough because just because you're fine doesn't mean that you won't infect somebody who isn't. Based on who is transmitting the virus, the 20-40 age group would have the biggest effect on reducing the numbers. But I think the older and health vulnerable populace should be the first ones after health care workers to get it. Who knows though, I'm not in public health.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On this topic, what’s everyone’s opinion on the vaccine? I’d 100% not take this vaccine and just get exposed if that were an option. I have no issues with vaccines, but rushing something out with those earlier referenced fatality numbers seems like a cut off the nose to spite the face thing. 
If getting exposed made you permanently immune like chicken pox, I might agree. But since it doesn't, I don't think I'd purposely expose myself.

I wonder if we will have an option or if this vaccine will be mandatory for everyone in the military.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The long-term effects of this thing are quite nasty in many cases. I wouldn’t want to risk my flying career over something stupid like not wearing a mask and maintaining distance. I also wouldn’t want to risk it over purposely getting infected when there is very little data to support effective herd immunity from this virus.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Homestar said:

,American resistance to pandemic countermeasures is the reason we have 5% of the world’s population but 25% of the world’s COVID cases. 

It’s not that simple. Reasons (not exhaustive) - 

We are far more globally connected than many countries, leading to far more exposure (e.g. No shit Afghanistan’s rates are lower)

- Were the 3rd largest country in the world (a 1/4 the size of China)...but China only has 86k cases...yeah OK. They alone have likely massively skewed the global data, which is a nice segue for...

- It is an invalid assumption that all countries are transparent and truthful of their cases, deaths, hospitalization rates. You think China, Russia, Iran, etc. are all open kimono on their numbers?

- We test more than any other country, so obviously our numbers will have the appearance of being drastically higher compared to all the countries that test at a much lower rate than us. What would our share be if every country had conducted tests equaling 50% of their population?

This is all not to say we’ve perfectly crushed it, but to say that specific talking point is very misleading when used to generalize America’s response vs. outcome regarding COVID. 

Edited by brabus
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, brabus said:

It’s not that simple. Reasons (not exhaustive😞

- We are far more globally connected than many countries, leading to far more exposure (e.g. No shit Afghanistan’s rates are lower)

- Were the 3rd largest country in the world (a 1/4 the size of China)...but China only has 86k cases...yeah OK. They alone have likely massively skewed the global data, which is a nice segue for...

- It is an invalid assumption that all countries are transparent and truthful of their cases, deaths, hospitalization rates. You think China, Russia, Iran, etc. are all open kimono on their numbers?

- We test more than any other country, so obviously our numbers will have the appearance of being drastically higher compared to all the countries that test at a much lower rate than us. What would our share be if every country had conducted tests equaling 50% of their population?

This is all not to say we’ve perfectly crushed it, but to say that specific talking point is very misleading when used to generalize America’s response vs. outcome regarding COVID. 

Those are fair points. It still surprised me, however, how absolutely anti-masker some of my friends are. Like End-of-the-Republic serious about it. 
 

Yeah, I’m sure China and Russia are not fully reporting their cases, but that is not relevant to the failed leadership the USA has demonstrated on the issue in our own country. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, this has already got me thinking and looking up different things.

@Homestar - Infection rates is a known number, it looks like it's expressed as the basic reproduction number, R0. CDC has the current best estimate as 2.5. The wikipedia article has it as 2-6, but the sources are from papers in July, whereas the CDC's page was updated in September. For reference the common cold has an R0 of about 2-3 from the wikipedia page, and seasonal strains of influenza are listed as 0.9-2.1. As far as morbidity, the Swedish doctor I linked to before seems to have concluded that it's about on par with the flu. It seems to me that the tremendous effect on the country comes largely from our response to it. This is an area where I should do more research: the main group at risk of dying from COVID is also at risk from rhinoviruses such as the common cold. In a normal cold and flu season, how is this handled to keep elderly patients safe? And while I lack a linked source right now, from talking to people that I know that work in hospitals it is standard ops for the ICU to be around 80-90% capacity because anything else would not be profitable. Now obviously this gets difficult if you need to keep a separate "COVID ICU," but then again that is our response to the virus.

 

@N730 On the topic of reinfection, I have not seen too many things about that, and the CDC at least seems to think it's rare. I'd like to see more data on this (if you have some that'd be awesome), especially numbers. One of the things that I've noticed surrounding this whole thing is we are given a lot of large numbers with very little context. The town I'm in posts new cases daily and deaths daily on facebook. What if the same were to happen with the flu, or the cold, or even car accidents? Reinfection numbers would shed light on whether it's enough to make herd immunity unlikely.

 

@ThreeHoler on long term effects, again most sources say this is rare (but I haven't really seen numbers), and really the virus hasn't been around too long (someone I know had a bad bout of the flu in January and it took her until March-April to regain her lung capacity), so how much can we really know about this. Further, is it worth keeping a lot of people at home and unemployed? I do want to do more research on where the social distancing thing came from, but if you look into how far a sneeze can travel, I wonder how effective that really is. As far as masks, I'll link that Swedish doctor again (in that article he looks into pre-covid studies about decreasing the spread of raspatory infections), but people seem to regard them as a magical forcefield or something which they do not seem to be.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites





 
[mention=79488]N730[/mention] On the topic of reinfection, I have not seen too many things about that, and the CDC at least seems to think it's rare. I'd like to see more data on this (if you have some that'd be awesome), especially numbers. One of the things that I've noticed surrounding this whole thing is we are given a lot of large numbers with very little context. The town I'm in posts new cases daily and deaths daily on facebook. What if the same were to happen with the flu, or the cold, or even car accidents? Reinfection numbers would shed light on whether it's enough to make herd immunity unlikely.

 



I wish I did, I don't know near enough about this stuff to speak with authority. I'm not smart enough to truly understand immunology. But anecdotally 3 people in my family have had COVID and 2 of them show no antibodies. From what I can find, reinfection isn't likely within a short amount of time. But as with everything else about this damn virus, there's a lot that's unknown.


Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app




Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm almost certain military members will have to get the vaccine. Forcing military members to take vaccines was upheld in court in the late 90s when several officers protested concerns about the anthrax vaccine that was still new. 

A big difference is the anthrax vaccine underwent long term testing so the extended side effects were known. In the case of COVID, it seems like scientist are taking a risk because they believe long term side effects are generally more rare than short term ones. That said, as a country, we have screwed up with rushing vaccines to market before, specifically Gerald Ford in the late 70s who killed several people with a swine flu (H3N2) vaccine that wasn't adequately tested. 

I live in Europe at the moment and generally they are more compliant with public health rules, meaning, if an authority makes a reccomendation they are likely to follow it. They have also accepted lock downs easier because their governments provide huge social benefits systems to people who are unemployed. That said they are starting to get massive protest to additional lockdowns as well. People are plainly getting tired. 

As an American here it's pretty miserable. Still go to work, but nothing to do in your off time. Base closed to social activities and social gatherings; it feels rather isolating. Families are having a hard time. Many want to go visit home for the holidays but are being advised not to because their spouse will be quarantined when the family returns. (Current rules require all members of a household to quarantine even if the member didn't travel). 

The lack of concern for people (and their mental health) in this whole debacle has pushed me 100% ready to get out. I have 1.5 years left and it couldn't come faster. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Homestar said:

, but that is not relevant to the failed leadership the USA has demonstrated on the issue in our own country. 

I get your point, but it is relevant when people throw out stats like this as supporting points for their argument that our response was subpar. Totally in agreement we’ve had, and continue to see, horrific leadership failures. A large portion of them being at the state level (governors). 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, N730 said:



 

 

 


I wish I did, I don't know near enough about this stuff to speak with authority. I'm not smart enough to truly understand immunology. But anecdotally 3 people in my family have had COVID and 2 of them show no antibodies. From what I can find, reinfection isn't likely within a short amount of time. But as with everything else about this damn virus, there's a lot that's unknown.


Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app



 

 

 

So if you can be reinfected, and getting the disease doesn't create antibodies... How would a vaccine work?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, N730 said:



 

 

 


I wish I did, I don't know near enough about this stuff to speak with authority. I'm not smart enough to truly understand immunology. But anecdotally 3 people in my family have had COVID and 2 of them show no antibodies. From what I can find, reinfection isn't likely within a short amount of time. But as with everything else about this damn virus, there's a lot that's unknown.


Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app



 

 

 

You can have immunity without antibodies. The antibodies themselves will go away after a certain amount of time without the virus present, but the T cells will still retain the memory and can make them again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

The long-term effects of this thing are quite nasty in many cases. I wouldn’t want to risk my flying career over something stupid like not wearing a mask and maintaining distance. I also wouldn’t want to risk it over purposely getting infected when there is very little data to support effective herd immunity from this virus.
 

To be fair, I don't think we know what the "long term" effects of this are since it's been around < 1 year. What we "know" is speculation.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
So if you can be reinfected, and getting the disease doesn't create antibodies... How would a vaccine work?
From the little I do know (and that's very little), it does create antibodies. What seems to be variable is how long they last.

As for a vaccine, I don't understand how most of that magic works hahaha.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can have immunity without antibodies. The antibodies themselves will go away after a certain amount of time without the virus present, but the T cells will still retain the memory and can make them again.
Ok, that's good to know. So are the antibody tests just bullshit or is there any benefit to them?

This stuff is way over my head, but definitely still interesting to learn about.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Baseops Network mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, PitchTrimmer said:

Cool, this has already got me thinking and looking up different things.

@Homestar - Infection rates is a known number, it looks like it's expressed as the basic reproduction number, R0. CDC has the current best estimate as 2.5. The wikipedia article has it as 2-6, but the sources are from papers in July, whereas the CDC's page was updated in September. For reference the common cold has an R0 of about 2-3 from the wikipedia page, and seasonal strains of influenza are listed as 0.9-2.1. As far as morbidity, the Swedish doctor I linked to before seems to have concluded that it's about on par with the flu. It seems to me that the tremendous effect on the country comes largely from our response to it. This is an area where I should do more research: the main group at risk of dying from COVID is also at risk from rhinoviruses such as the common cold. In a normal cold and flu season, how is this handled to keep elderly patients safe? And while I lack a linked source right now, from talking to people that I know that work in hospitals it is standard ops for the ICU to be around 80-90% capacity because anything else would not be profitable. Now obviously this gets difficult if you need to keep a separate "COVID ICU," but then again that is our response to the virus.

 

2 Questions on this:

What's the source/logic behind having the ICU at 80-90% all time, when now the hospital administrators, state health director and doctors across my whole state (UT) are stating utilization rates have exceeded staffing capacity (85%+), and the drive in the early months was to flatten the curve from CDC/Health Dudes?

I've seen the videos on our "less impactful" (can't think of better words) Flu season last year "burning off" the chaff that didn't die.  (I've also followed a swedish doctor who won a Nobel prize for...something data science related, going on about the need for herd immunity, and it only really needing to be around 20%.  I wonder if it was the same as your guy.) However, I believe the current us excess deaths does not account for the normal die off from the prior flu season + extra flu season.  Thoughts on that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

 I believe the current us excess deaths does not account for the normal die off from the prior flu season + extra flu season.  Thoughts on that?

Another angle to help understand the impact of COVID when it comes to death rates is to look at the potential adjustment to the 2020 US life expectancy due to COVID-19. These life expectancy downward adjustments may be heavily localized - "see NYC as an example". Here's some data on this subject:
- "Using data reported by the New York City Health Department through May 14, 2020, we estimated that the excess deaths to date due to COVID-19 caused a drop in life expectancy of 5 years (95% CI: 4.8 – 5.2 years)."

- "Reductions in 2020 US life expectancy due to COVID-19 and the disproportionate impact on the Black and Latino populations": (Source - NIH/long/complicated/etc).   "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7523145/

  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2020 at 6:42 PM, Danger41 said:

On this topic, what’s everyone’s opinion on the vaccine? I’d 100% not take this vaccine and just get exposed if that were an option. I have no issues with vaccines, but rushing something out with those earlier referenced fatality numbers seems like a cut off the nose to spite the face thing. 

I'm going to do it. After I left AD earlier this year I started working at a hospital and have been involved in COVID surge planning since the beginning. I would have been hesitant to get it if only political leaders gave it a thumbs up but with multiple sets of experts giving the go ahead getting it I feel ok about it. I expect my health system to receive one of the first rounds of the vaccine and my family will be authorized to get it then. 

I'm with @ThreeHoler in wanting to reduce my risk to COVID. Though the death rate for 35 year old healthy-ish men is low the randomness of the long term impacts and deaths concern me. 538, through their Podcast "PODCAST-19", did a great job explaining what we know about long COVID. Basically 20% of people who got SARS in 2013 still weren't at 100% two years later. We don't know if the same will hold for COVID but I really don't want to personally find out. 

My family has also canceled Thanksgiving. We moved across the country post AD to be closer to family but with my in-laws comorbidities and age if one of us has COVID they will probably catch it and die. It doesn't help that in Nebraska right now if you put 10 people in a room there is a 40% chance somebody has an active case of COVID. I feel comfortable managing risk but this juice doesn't seem worth the squeeze. 

 

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2020 at 6:42 PM, Danger41 said:

On this topic, what’s everyone’s opinion on the vaccine? I’d 100% not take this vaccine and just get exposed if that were an option. I have no issues with vaccines, but rushing something out with those earlier referenced fatality numbers seems like a cut off the nose to spite the face thing. 

Understand your concern but that math doesn't follow your logic.I read an interesting study yesterday...short version = of the 238,000 U.S. deaths 9300 were normal healthy people that had no underlying health issues. 

The two most common causes of death due to a flu shot are anaphylaxis and Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and from the information given by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) it is possible to work out an approximate number.

The CDC reports 1.31 cases of anaphylaxis per million flu shots given, so that would be about 183 cases per year in the US (on average, around 140 million Americans a year receive a flu shot). Anaphylaxis has a fatality rate of between 0.25% and 0.33%, so on average that would be one death every two or three years.

Guillain-Barre Syndrome is a reaction of the central nervous system to bacterial or viral infection, most commonly food poisoning. It causes paralysis, usually temporary, and may result in a hospital stay of up to six weeks. A small number of people are permanently impaired, and approximately 3% -5% die. According to the CDC, only one or two people in a million will develop GBS as a result of the flu shot. That gives a range of between 4 (140 x 3%) and 14 (280 x 5%) deaths a year from flu-shot related GBS.

Based on these calculations, the number of people dying from the flu shot in the US each year would be between 4 and 15, so probably an average of about 9, out of 140 million vaccines given, while anywhere from 12,000 to 56,000 die as a result of catching the flu, and the vast majority of flu-related deaths occur in people who are not vaccinated (CDC figures from 2010–11 through 2013–14).  Compare that against a known 9300 COVID-19 deaths from a healthy population using social distancing, masks and lockdowns....seems like easy math even for a knucklehead gunship dude like me.

Given all this I will 100% get it, especially the Moderna version that just finished Phase III Trials.  As others have noted vaccination is not just about preventing you from getting the disease, it is also about protecting the herd.  The U.S. government does have a specious record when it comes to experimenting on unknowing Americas but given the engagement by the entire scientific community on this problem, I seriously doubt anything nefarious has happened.  Like a dork I read the Phase III report on the Monsanto vaccine and there were no fatalities or serious side effects in the 30,000 recipients.  I believe there were 5 fatalities and 1 other serious illness in the test subjects, but all deaths were among people that received the placebo. 

Just my .02

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites



What's the source/logic behind having the ICU at 80-90% all time, when now the hospital administrators, state health director and doctors across my whole state (UT) are stating utilization rates have exceeded staffing capacity (85%+), and the drive in the early months was to flatten the curve from CDC/Health Dudes?


Pretty sure this is driven by business decisions. Hospitals don't want to be way overstaffed, or purchase (expensive) equipment they won't use. This goes for for-profit and non-profit hospitals. So they forecast out demand, and staff and purchase equipment according to the capability they plan to provide.

It doesn't make business sense to operate an ICU at only 10-20% capacity routinely. Who pays for the extra staff and unused equipment sitting on a shelf? To do that, you'd have to either pass on the costs to subsidize the unused ICU capacity elsewhere, like routine appointments/procedures, get subsidized from outside the hospital (local/state/federal taxes?), or charge crazy amounts for emergency care based on demand at time of service (insurance companies probably would negotiate an upper limit here, but if you're uninsured, sucks to be you).

Operating at 80-ish% probably gives you a reasonable buffer to absorb spikes in demand while getting a good return on the investment on staff and equipment, and allow for vacations, training, etc. It's like a line flying squadron, if the squadron was manned exactly for the mission demand (100% utilization of crews for missions), you wouldn't have time for leave or upgrades; you need slack in the taskings to take care of your people (leave, dnif, etc) and organization (upgrades, training/development, schools).

But when hospitals have a spike that keeps going upward (like a pandemic), they start having to surge, and potentially offload patients to other hospitals that have excess capacity.

Flattening the curve was to help keep the demand for beds below the number of beds available (locally or regionally), especially for a virus that had a lot of unknowns with it while meeting routine demands, and given a long lead time to increase capacity (medical staff, equipment, physical space). Though those routine demands may change given COVID mitigations (for example, I'm guessing there have been less car accidents requiring ICU care since lockdowns and telework have gone into effect, freeing up some capacity at hospitals to deal with COVID). We're also probably better now at triaging COVID patients and meeting their needs as well. All this leads to a moving picture on demand and capacity, but with a long tail to significantly increase capacity if needed.

Hospitals can surge (do more with less... sound familiar?), but who knows for how long. They are accepting more risk (more patients per provider/nurse than typical, longer days, having COVID positive but asymptomatic healthcare workers continue working until they physically can't). Just like the AF and the pilot shortage, there's been a shortage of doctors and nurses, and both have a long lead time to add to the workforce, and their management probably isn't much better than ours. So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...