COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[Greg Bernhardt]

"Likely kill many" is way, way, way too strong; it is an example of exactly the sort of demonizing of other people who hold different opinions that I said we should not be doing in my previous post just now.

I reject your analogy with a person driving a car who causes a fatal accident. An unvaccinated person who always wears a mask in public, social distances, and takes the other common sense precautions does not pose a significant threat to others, any more than a driver who practices safe driving techniques.

So if I am driving like a maniac, my excuse to the police is that I am not likely to kill anyone, "why are you trying to demonize me Mr. police officer for my opinion"? There are many required vaccines for children to get enrolled in schools. Is that a mistake? Are we violating their rights to protect our greater good?

 

[PeterDonis]

Certain socio-geo-economic areas are predisposed to accept misinformation. We should just shrug our shoulders? Sucks for them?

If you want to help such people, by all means point them at information that you consider more reliable. And help them to learn the skills they need to make up their own minds. You could even point them at my Insights article that I referenced before, as an example of how to judge conflicting claims. You are free to take whatever actions you choose to take. That's part of freedom.

Misinformation is not just bad information, but it implies intent.

Then I reject your claim that "many" people who are hesitant to get vaccinated are the victims of misinformation. (Actually, "many" is ambiguous; I suspect you meant "the vast majority". If you didn't, then your claim is not precise enough for me to say much about it.) They may be acting on unreliable information (though even there you are assuming that there is no reliable information that could make a person hesitant about getting vaccinated), but that is not the same as information spread with the intent to mislead. Proving intent is a much higher bar to clear than just showing that information is unreliable. And making accusations of bad intent when you cannot possibly prove it is, again, the sort of demonizing that I think we would be much better off not doing.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

If you want to help such people, by all means point them at information that you consider more reliable. And help them to learn the skills they need to make up their own minds. You could even point them at my Insights article that I referenced before, as an example of how to judge conflicting claims. You are free to take whatever actions you choose to take. That's part of freedom.

Not trying to commit to many logical fallacies, but would that tactic be possible for the North Korean people? Propaganda and indoctrination damage is just a matter of scale. Somehow you are okay with it at a smaller scale?

Then I reject your claim that "many" people who are hesitant to get vaccinated are the victims of misinformation. (Actually, "many" is ambiguous; I suspect you meant "the vast majority". If you didn't, then your claim is not precise enough for me to say much about it.) They may be acting on unreliable information (though even there you are assuming that there is no reliable information that could make a person hesitant about getting vaccinated), but that is not the same as information spread with the intent to mislead. Proving intent is a much higher bar to clear than just showing that information is unreliable. And making accusations of bad intent when you cannot possibly prove it is, again, the sort of demonizing that I think we would be much better off not doing.

Fair enough, but, I can also imagine a scenario where those with a pristine and admirable adherence to logical ideals will find themselves someday alive but alone in a graveyard of the world. Dramatic? Of course, but my creative point is made :)

 

[WWGD]

I remember being in conversations about most pressing problems of humanity. Most would bring up the likes of terrorism, the environment, etc., which are indeed pressing. I brought up the inability of so many of us to disagree in reasonable, civil , constructive ways, which creates a serious barrier to the solution of many problems.

 

[WWGD]

Changing (sub)topic direction, now India seems to have somewhat controlled its situation in terms of deaths and number of cases but Indonesia has been having 1,000+ deaths for some 5 days in a row.

 

[PeterDonis]

would that tactic be possible for the North Korean people?

No, because North Korea is not a free country. People can't act on their own judgment. They have to do whatever the central government dictates.

Propaganda and indoctrination damage is just a matter of scale. Somehow you are okay with it at a smaller scale?

It's not a matter of being "okay" with anything. In a free country, people are free to choose to propagate misinformation. They are also free to choose to propagate accurate information (or at least information they believe to be accurate), and to be up front about the level of confidence they have in whatever information they are propagating. They are also free to choose to rebut information from other sources that they think is mistaken.

What they are not free to do in a free country is to stop free speech--to prevent other people from propagating information.

Again, unreliable information being propagated is a fact of life. It's part of the human condition. That doesn't mean anyone has to be "okay" with it--I'm not "okay" with being bound to the Earth's surface by gravity, but that doesn't mean I can avoid it.

I can also imagine a scenario where those with a pristine and admirable adherence to logical ideals will find themselves someday alive but alone in a graveyard of the world.

The rules I am implicitly proposing are not "logical ideals". They are pragmatic rules proposed in view of the facts that (a) we humans are all fallible, we all make mistakes, we all believe wrong things, and (b) no human being can be trusted with the power to dictate to other human beings what they should think. I think both of those facts are amply demonstrated by human history, so I am quite comfortable basing pragmatic rules of conduct on them. I am certainly not claiming that these rules of conduct will produce a wonderful world where all information that is propagated is true, at least not any time soon. I am simply proposing them as less bad than any of the alternatives presently open to us.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

No, because North Korea is not a free country. People can't act on their own judgment. They have to do whatever the central government dictates.

I'm afraid I can't address the rest of your post until tomorrow as I am leaving for the night, but I've been to North Korea. I've also been to the rural bible belt. I would argue in some ways freedom there is a technicality when it comes to social conformity and indoctrination.

 

[PeroK]

As far as I can see this thread has got far too political. There's stuff on here that ought to be challenged but this is not a political forum and it really shouldn't be posted in the first place.

 

[nsaspook]

This is where personal freedom of the west is over-rated and Chinese-style authoritarianism seems to work better. And this from a little-l libertarian.

It's works better until it doesn't.https://www.france24.com/en/live-ne...success-under-threat-as-delta-variant-spreads

https://nationalpost.com/news/world...wuhan-after-delta-variant-outbreak-at-airport

China sees 'most extensive COVID-19 outbreak since Wuhan' after Delta variant outbreak at airport​

New infections are rising by the dozens and seeding subsequent clusters around China despite well-honed systems of mass testing and stringent quarantines

The outbreak began when airport workers at the eastern Chinese city who had cleaned a plane that arrived from Russia tested positive. It has since escaped the countries tight border closures, spreading to at least ten cities across five provinces and has tested the country’s zero-tolerance measures, which are some of the most sweeping and comprehensive in the world.

​

The new infections are rising by the dozens and seeding subsequent clusters around China despite well-honed systems of mass testing and stringent quarantines. The rise of the highly-contagious delta variant has challenged even the most aggressive COVID-19 containment regimes, an ominous sign as economies look to open up and return to pre-pandemic life.

 

[WWGD]

It's works better until it doesn't.https://www.france24.com/en/live-ne...success-under-threat-as-delta-variant-spreads

https://nationalpost.com/news/world...wuhan-after-delta-variant-outbreak-at-airportThe outbreak began when airport workers at the eastern Chinese city who had cleaned a plane that arrived from Russia tested positive. It has since escaped the countries tight border closures, spreading to at least ten cities across five provinces and has tested the country’s zero-tolerance measures, which are some of the most sweeping and comprehensive in the world.

​

I was thinking more in terms of the case in 3rd world countries. Some have risen through dictators, e.g., Singapore, South Korea and after reaching a point they became democratic. Similar for Philippines and its out of control crime rate. Easy for me, us to condemn harsh measures that violate rights when we're not the ones suffering. Believe me, I am not an authoritarian by far.

 

[WWGD]

It's works better until it doesn't.https://www.france24.com/en/live-ne...success-under-threat-as-delta-variant-spreads

https://nationalpost.com/news/world...wuhan-after-delta-variant-outbreak-at-airportThe outbreak began when airport workers at the eastern Chinese city who had cleaned a plane that arrived from Russia tested positive. It has since escaped the countries tight border closures, spreading to at least ten cities across five provinces and has tested the country’s zero-tolerance measures, which are some of the most sweeping and comprehensive in the world.

​

I was referring more to extreme situations not the run of the mill ones. Notice both South Korea and Singapore thrived under dictatorships after which they transitioned to freer systems. Believe me, I am neither a traditionalist nor an authoritarian by default.

 

[atyy]

I was thinking more in terms of the case in 3rd world countries. Some have risen through dictators, e.g., Singapore, South Korea and after reaching a point they became democratic. Similar for Philippines and its out of control crime rate. Easy for me, us to condemn harsh measures that violate rights when we're not the ones suffering. Believe me, I am not an authoritarian by far.

In the case of Singapore, which period of its history are you referring to as it having "risen though dictators"?

 

[WWGD]

As far as I can see this thread has got far too political. There's stuff on here that ought to be challenged but this is not a political forum and it really shouldn't be posted in the first place.

I don't see how you can separate

In the case of Singapore, which period of its history are you referring to as it having "risen though dictators"?

Wasn't Lee Kwan Yew a dictator?

 

[atyy]

Wasn't Lee Kwan Yew a dictator?

Most Singaporeans would not consider him a dictator. He was very popularly elected and re-elected many times.

 

[WWGD]

Most Singaporeans would not consider him a dictator. He was very popularly elected and re-elected many times.

I have to admit I am not an expert on the topic but the two are not necessarily independent. If a leader is seen to do what's needed they will likely be given leeway. EDIT: I mean, did he have to go through, deal with an opposition party and negotiate with them?

 

[jack action]

Somehow we have the personal freedom to drive a car and kill someone, but get prosecuted, but we also have the personal freedom to reject a vaccine and likely kill many and be praised for it.

I really don't understand how we can blame a person when another one gets sick, especially when that person just goes by his day, especially when that person is not sick.

• If you are NOT vaccinated and you DON'T have covid, you will NOT "likely" kill anyone. (So how can you be blamed?)
• If you are vaccinated and you get covid, you MAY "likely" kill someone. (So you are a mass murderer but you shouldn't be blamed for it?)

How is the fact of being vaccinated or not could give you responsibility for "many deaths"?

Which brings me to the more general point: Who is responsible for propagating a pathogen?

If you get covid, is it the fault of the person who gave it to you? Does it make a difference if that person was vaccinated or not, or if that person was practicing social distancing or wearing a mask or not? Does that person's responsibility vary with how that person acted?

And who is responsible for the first person getting sick? Does his or her conduct have anything to do with it?

And if you transmitted in turn Covid to someone else before you learned you were sick, are you to blame, or is it still the first person's responsibility? Or is it the fault of the third person for not protecting himself appropriately? (Which would mean anyone is responsible for his condition, including you and the first person.)

I really don't understand how some people can so easily assign the blame of Covid transmission to certain people based on their actions when it is not that clear how the virus is transmitted. And by that, I mean no actions give the same result in every case. Pathogens are very good - and sneaky - at finding a way to go from place to another.

Personally, I like the "you are responsible for your condition" philosophy. This ends the blame game. This ends the frustrated people like @Borg . It might not be your fault - as in "you did everything correctly" - but you are still responsible for your condition. Even if you are responsible, it also doesn't mean others shouldn't help you.

And frankly, it should be like that for pretty much everything, unless you can prove malicious intent.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Which brings me to the more general point: Who is responsible for propagating a pathogen?

The responsibility is for failing to take action to protect yourself from the pathogen, thereby endangering other people.

 

[collinsmark]

Also, if the rhetoric we are hearing is true, the people who are getting COVID-19 and becoming seriously ill or dying are the unvaccinated, so the people who you say are ignorant are paying the price for their ignorance. Which is exactly how freedom is supposed to work.

Which brings me to the more general point: Who is responsible for propagating a pathogen?

This issue is deeper than just protecting the ignorant and misinformed.

This is worthy of being repeated: The chances of new variants forming, at any given time, is directly proportional to the number of functioning virus particles in existence, in our world. And that is approximately proportional, at any given time, to the number of people currently infected with Covid-19.

In conversations I've had with others (not necessarily here, but maybe), there is this untrue sentiment that variants are inevitable, and just pop into existence out of the blue. They don't. Rats don't spontaneously pop into existence out of bags of grain, and frogs don't spontaneously manifest out of the mud. And similarly, new Covid variants don't pop up out of nowhere.

And there is a real and present danger that SARS-CoV-2 might, via new variants, evolve into a vaccine resistant strain, and/or become endemic. And that's assuming that it's not too late already.

If we, as a worldwide population, want to reduce the chances of vaccine resistant variants, and reduce the chances of Covid-19 becoming endemic, our best hope is to reduce the number of people infected with Covid-19.

Failure to do so not only affects me, it affects you, your children, your children's children, you neighbor, your neighbor's children, your neighbor's children's children, and so on and so on.

The responsibility is on us. Right here. Right now.

 

[bhobba]

Isn't that required to get full protection?

Yes. It was only discovered by accident, and I do not think it has been subjected yet to a rigorous statistical analysis. In an emergency like NSW, the Government took a punt and changed it to 8 weeks. Time will tell if it was a wise punt or not.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Keith_McClary]

leeway

 

[bhobba]

The responsibility is for failing to take action to protect yourself from the pathogen, thereby endangering other people.

The legal basis is reckless endangerment. However, I do not think anyone has yet taken it to court. Many just do not get it even though from the beginning, it was obvious. It's the reason you can't go into a crowded theatre and shout fire. Free speech allows you to say virtually anything you like, even if it is objectively provable not to be true, e.g. flat earthers. The reason things like the crowded theatre override free speech is other laws like reckless endangerment and liable. Laws can often conflict, and it is up to a judge to decide which takes precedence. It happened here in Aus. Our constitution guarantees free travel between states. But states closed their borders when Covid was in other states - against our constitution. It went to our High Court (the equivalent of the US Supreme Court), and they ruled the states obligation to protect citizens (e.g. the constitution makes policing a state responsibility) overrides free movement between states. It was a shock to many so-called 'armchair' lawyers who said - they can't do that, the Consitution forbids it. The High Court interprets the Constitution, and they decide on what applies in what situation.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Keith_McClary]

The chances of new variants forming, at any given time, is directly proportional to the number of functioning virus particles in existence, in our world.

I ran across this today:

a counterintuitive result of our analysis is that the highest risk of resistant strain establishment occurs when a large fraction of the population has already been vaccinated but the transmission is not controlled

 

[PeterDonis]

I would argue in some ways freedom there is a technicality when it comes to social conformity and indoctrination.

I'm not trying to argue that social conformity and indoctrination don't exist. Nor am I trying to argue that everyone's choices are perfectly informed. Obviously that's not the case.

What I stated about North Korea was a fact about its political system, which makes the tactic you asked me about not feasible in that country.

 

[bhobba]

I ran across this today:

I would like to see the peer-reviewed paper on that. But assuming it is correct, it is just another reason why we will likely need shots every year, just like the Flu. I have read where researchers are working on a combined mRNA vaccine for both the Flu and Covid.

I think it has become obvious the only way out of this pandemic is vaccination. Already Australia has ordered 85 million doses of Pfizer for next year as a booster shot:
https://abc7chicago.com/pfizer-booster-shot-3rd-dose-covid-vaccine-vaccines-coronavirus/10914062/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07...ons-of-pfizer-covid19-booster-shots/100321632

I guess it is precautionary because we are working on our own mRNA vaccine manufacturing facility, as well as a vaccine:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06...trials-in-australia-variant-booster/100229294

Our government has released an ambitious 4 phase plan to get us back to 'normal':
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/national-cabinet-agrees-in-principle-to-pathway-to

80% vaccinated - we will see. Very few countries have managed anywhere near that to the best of my knowledge. Although it must be said in NSW, where Delta is running wild, people are changing their minds very quickly about getting vaccinated - they even are willing to get the AZ vaccine which you could not get anyone to take before. I got AZ and am getting the second shot in two weeks, but I seem to be in a tiny minority. My sister refuses to get it. It seems a 1 in a million risk of dying is too much for her despite just getting out of the bed of a morning carries a 2.5 in a million risk of dying.

Thanks
Bill

 

[PeterDonis]

The responsibility is for failing to take action to protect yourself from the pathogen, thereby endangering other people.

The legal basis is reckless endangerment.

Failing to get vaccinated, in and of itself, is not a good legal basis for a reckless endangerment suit.

Failing to take precautions such as wearing a mask and social distancing, if you are not certain that you are not capable of infecting others, would be such a basis. But that would apply even if you have been vaccinated, since vaccinated people can still acquire the virus and spread it. The proper test to be sure that you can't infect others, as I understand it, would be a recent enough negative test for the virus in your bloodstream. (A negative nasal swab test might not be sufficient since you could still be shedding virus particles by other pathways.) So if we're going to properly apply the legal standard you suggest, we should all be wearing masks and social distancing all the time, unless we are not in the company of anyone that is not part of our own household, except for the small minority of us who do in fact have a recent enough negative blood test. (And btw, the precautions I've just stated are exactly the ones I and my wife practice, and have been practicing since the beginning of March 2020.)

 

[WWGD]

I would like to see the peer-reviewed paper on that. But assuming it is correct, it is just another reason why we will likely need shots every year, just like the Flu. I have read where researchers are working on a combined mRNA vaccine for both the Fu and Covid.

I think it has become obvious the only way out of this pandemic is vaccination. Already Australia has ordered 85 million doses of Pfizer for next year as a booster shot:
https://abc7chicago.com/pfizer-booster-shot-3rd-dose-covid-vaccine-vaccines-coronavirus/10914062/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07...ons-of-pfizer-covid19-booster-shots/100321632

I guess it is precautionary because we are working on our own mRNA vaccine manufacturing facility, as well as a vaccine:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06...trials-in-australia-variant-booster/100229294

Our government has released an ambitious 4 phase plan to get us back to 'normal':
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/national-cabinet-agrees-in-principle-to-pathway-to

80% vaccinated - we will see. Very few countries have managed anywhere near that to the best of my knowledge. Although it must be said in NSW, where Delta is running wild, people are changing their minds very quickly about getting vaccinated - they even are willing to get the AZ vaccine which you could not get anyone to take before. I got AZ and am getting the second shot in two weeks, but I seem to be in a tiny minority. My sister refuses to get it. It seems a 1 in a million risk of dying is too much for her despite just getting out of the bed of a morning carries a 2.5 in a million risk of dying.

Thanks
Bill

No wonder risk analysts and statisticians make good money. Neither skill seems to come naturally to a great majority of the people.

 

[PeterDonis]

our best hope is to reduce the number of people infected with Covid-19.

If that is the goal, then there are at least three obvious things to do that are not being done:

(1) We should stop all international travel. Every country's borders should be closed. There is no reason to keep transporting possible carriers of the virus between countries and continents.

(2) We should all be wearing masks and social distancing, all the time, as I described in my previous post just now. We should never have stopped doing that, since, as I noted in my previous post, vaccinated people can still acquire and spread the virus.

(3) We should not have any large gatherings of people, particularly indoors with recirculated air, unless it's for a necessary purpose, where "necessary" meaning "necessary to maintaining life and health". So going to the grocery store or the drugstore is necessary, but eating out at a restaurant or going to a sports event is not.

In other words, the whole world would have to be in a hard lockdown indefinitely. I don't think any country or any significant number of people are willing to do that.

 

[PeterDonis]

a 1 in a million risk of dying

I'm not sure the risk from the vaccines is really that low. That number would be typical for a vaccine that has been around for a long time, like the vaccines I and probably most posters here got as kids. But it's not typical for a new vaccine that is still in the trial stage, which all of the COVID vaccines are.

 

[PeterDonis]

I think it has become obvious the only way out of this pandemic is vaccination.

The reference Keith McClary gave says even that's not enough. You have to control transmission. You can't do that just by vaccinating, since vaccinated people can still acquire and spread the virus. (In fact, if you can control transmission, it's not even clear that you need to vaccinate all or most of the population.)

 

[bhobba]

No wonder risk analysts and statisticians make good money. Neither skill seems to come naturally to a great majority of the people.

You bet. That's why Actuaries get the big bucks, and the probability exam you must pass has a reputation for being hard. I tried one for kicks - glug glug. Interestingly early on in the pandemic Actuaries showed in South Africa, long term lockdowns were much riskier than no lockdown:
https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/is-lockdown-working-south-africa-deadly-disease

I have no idea what the view is now. But here in Aus, after the NSW debacle, short, sharp, hard lockdowns seems to be what is now being tried. We just started one where I live:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07...ne-south-east-lockdown-4pm-saturday/100339092

That was my old HS, and I lived just opposite it. I now live in Redlands way over the other side of the city, halfway to the Gold Coast - and we are locked down.

It is thought that NSW is so bad because it did not act early enough. Its Premier was lauded for taking a more proportionate response than other states. When the Delta variant came along, it was shown to be inadequate.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

The reference Keith McClary gave says even that's not enough. You have to control transmission. You can't do that just by vaccinating, since vaccinated people can still acquire and spread the virus. (In fact, if you can control transmission, it's not even clear that you need to vaccinate all or most of the population.)

Thanks for pointing that out. Very true. If you read Australia's 4 phase plan, even at 80% vaccination other measures are still required.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

I'm not sure the risk from the vaccines is really that low. That number would be typical for a vaccine that has been around for a long time, like the vaccines I and probably most posters here got as kids. But it's not typical for a new vaccine that is still in the trial stage, which all of the COVID vaccines are.

Again Peter, thanks for pointing that out. Indeed it is too early to say for sure. This is based on data in Aus, where there have been 6.1 million doses of AZ and 6 have died. But even that has changed over time. Originally when it was limited to those over 50, it was .5 in a million chance. But on changing it to anybody over 16, it jumped to 1 in a million. We will need much more time to assess the real death rate. However, I am not sure in Aus we will find it out. Australia is swiftly moving to the Pfizer Vaccine, but because we have stockpiles of AZ, people still get the choice. We also have Novavax likely comming online towards years end. We are working on our own mRNA vaccine and manufacturing facility in Melbourne. Also, it needs to be taken into account that is the death rate - you can get non-fatal complications, some quite serious, at a much higher frequency:
https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-22-07-2021

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

I think the difference is many of these people are victims of nefarious misinformation schemes under the guise of advocating for "freedom".

That is where we can help. People can trust what is said here. If it is wrong, it is soon corrected.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

What is happening in Sydney is sobering reading:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-31/nsw-covid-19-update-210-new-cases-recorded/100339662

One can only hope the prevailing theory that NSW did not lockdown early enough because they did not realize how bad Delta was, correct. Where I am, we are locking down after 6 cases associated with my old HS and preying.

The good news is no intensive care cases for anyone fully vaccinated, and a much smaller number for those with one shot. I get my second shot in two weeks - but if things get terrible, I may get a phone call to get it straight away.

Thanks
Bill

 

[atyy]

The reference Keith McClary gave says even that's not enough. You have to control transmission. You can't do that just by vaccinating, since vaccinated people can still acquire and spread the virus. (In fact, if you can control transmission, it's not even clear that you need to vaccinate all or most of the population.)

If you vaccinate everyone, and transmission is not controlled, things can still be fine as long as not many people get severe disease. Currently, against Delta, vaccines give about 90% protection against severe disease. We would really like it to be in the 99% region, which a third shot for some vulnerable populations may help. In this point of view where we don't have to control transmission, vaccination is the way out of this pandemic.