Coronavirus general discussion and chit-chat

The Quarantine Zone
1245

Because that’s what I see. Because I see measures that are indefinite and go on a lot longer than first promised. Other people see this too and start to take it into account.

Our schools were virtual for over a year. This was too long IMO for the good it did. We complied, we did it, but we could have gone back masked earlier than we actually did.

Same with our mask order. I’m fine with it continuing, have no problems with it. But it has been extended multiple times now. The last time they did it, they even said we really think this is the last time. Guess what, it got extended again. Now it is helping. Cases are lower here per capita, in a higher density environment, than they are in more rural areas of the state.

But when the orders are indefinite and long lasting, then yes, you lose some flexibility with then. If schools get shut down again, unless it’s an obvious case of Covid or something else being far worse than what we’ve seen, yes, people are going to start to think that it’s going to be forever. Because of what happened before. If you want more flexibility, you have to lift the orders when cases fall below a certain point. Powers that be have not been doing that, which limits the ability to reimplement restrictions.

1246

The “THEY” who are issuing these directives are only slightly less in the dark than the rest of us. THEY are issuing directives that THEY think most people can tolerate at the time THEY are issuing them. Guess what? Most people can, but lots of angry, vociferous, clueless people cannot tolerate even mask-wearing, let alone vaccination.

THEY (and there are multiple heads to this Hydra) are steering the ship (excuse the mixed metaphors) through dark, fathomless waters infested with sharks, icebergs, and the wrecks of other ships. I think forbearance is called for from the mature, level-headed passengers. The screwballs? Them I can’t speak for.

1247

Where I live, Wisconsin, we endured MONTHS where schools were closed and bars and restaurants were wide open, no restrictions. This is backwards to how it should have been. Schools are far more important, and Covid has never spread MORE among children than it has among adults. Plus, we can do masks in schools, and bars and restaurants are largely unmasked (except for staff) because of eating and drinking.

Yet bars and restaurants were the first to open here, because the Tavern League is powerful here, and they got their way. That’s the world I live in. If we do partial lockdown again, again it’s going to be the schools, again for indefinite/long period, while the bars and restaurants remain untouched. It’s not going to change, it’s not going to get better. These are the instruments I will see wielded in my life. Given that context, I have to make my decisions accordingly when people make statements to the effect of “ah, cases are ticking up nationally, shouldn’t we all do something?”

1248

I think each of us has to make decisions based on the info that’s available at the time PLUS hindsight, i.e., “Damn! That’s what we should have done!” accompanied by appropriate headslap.

1249

Given the numbers of unvaxxed and unmasked that are preventing us from getting to herd immunity, I also feel like it’s a situation where a bad guy is pointing a gun at an innocent third party and saying I have to stay in my house and wear a mask in public, or they will kill the innocent person. I mean, I don’t want them to kill anyone, but if they do, it isn’t my fault. It’s the killer’s fault.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m still masking (and have upgraded the whole family’s masks to N95 equivalents) and we don’t go to large gatherings, or see people unmasked. We all are vaccinated/getting vaccinated/getting boosters. We are currently doing our part. But it’s at an enormous cost, and we can’t just keep doing it indefinitely. I have two 8-year-olds, and this is taking a big toll on them. A quarter of their lives now has been spent in at least semi-lockdown. Last year, I saw a four-year-old run away screaming from my kids at the park when my (masked) kids got within about 10 feet of her. She was terrified of other kids getting too close to her. It’s heartbreaking. This is an enormous cost. There are other huge social costs, including certainly deaths caused by these restrictions. It’s not just, are you against covid killing people or not.

It isn’t such a simple, if you are against deaths, you are happy to do indefinite lockdown/masking/etc.

If there is not sufficient political will to require every non-medically exempt person to get vaccinated (and I don’t think there is) how long can those people essentially hold the rest of us hostage on the threat of killing people? It’s not my fault, or the fault of anyone I know, that we can’t achieve herd immunity. And I would support a universal vaccination requirement, so I’m for the thing that would let us all get back to (relatively) normal.

At this point, I am hoping that omicron will be very very mild and will run through the unvaccinated, and will produce decent immunity from further infection, and that then we can get back to something resembling normal, but with a few new-normal changes. I know that people will die when that happens, and a) I’m doing what I personally can to prevent deaths, and b) it is going to happen regardless of exactly how it happens – the unvaccinated/unprotected will eventually get it. I know that it happening fast is bad due to hospitals being overwhelmed, but that’s already happening with delta. Assuming omicron is more mild than delta, even if it is more contagious, it could wind up being beneficial to have it become the dominant variant.

Again, I’m still doing all the things. I just am not on board with doing them indefinitely when the reason it’s indefinite is a group of people I have no control over, basically holding the rest of us hostage.

1250

This article from The Atlantic on dealing with an omicron breakthrough case is a mishmash. Question: is head spinning a symptom of omicron? Or just of being bombarded with contradictory advice on dealing with omicron?

(This share link should be accessible to all.)

1251

I don’t think she ever says she had omicron specifically. She had a breakthrough case, and says with Omicron being so contagious, people should think about what to do if it happens, because lots of people will get breakthroughs.

I agree it’s a little all over the place, as well.

I will say that I’m glad I didn’t follow the specific (nonsensical, to me) advice I was given on isolating. When my vaccinated spouse and my daughter had covid, but I tested negative, I was told that they should isolate from me and my other kid, but because I was vaccinated and had no symptoms, I didn’t need to isolate in terms of going out to the store, etc. I thought that seemed crazy, so I isolated anyway, except for one trip to a drive-through drugstore to pick up a prescription. I think it was two days later that I had symptoms and tested positive. I was really glad that I second guessed the advice.

1252

But that’s the thing. You haven’t. COVID-19 has only existed for slightly more than two years, and the mitigation efforts have been going on for less than that. I know it feels like it’s been forever, but it hasn’t. I know it sometimes feels like nothing is actually changing or getting better, but it is.

I’m sympathetic to how hard it’s been for everyone, even when they’ve faced things I haven’t. But I don’t think it’s helpful or accurate to think in terms of this lasing forever. I think that framing is exactly what leads to people giving up early. They’ve decided there never will be an end, and have given up hope.

But there will be an end. Progress has been made. We are close to the end than ever before. Even if there are setbacks, we will never be back to ground zero, and we can always keep pushing forward.

I say none of this as admonishment, but as an attempt to inspire hope.

1253

For quick context, I’m double-vaxed and will be boosted soon, and at this point I find masking around anybody outside my household is now an internalized norm for me. My area is both highly vaxed and highly mask-compliant. (Presenting this as my not-anti-restriction bona fides.)

There will absolutely come a point where we give up on restrictions. Most likely having to do with hospital capacity, but regardless, everywhere will eventually get back to normal whether it’s wise to when they do or not.

The closer we get to that day, the more the anti-restriction side will become the side that’s “on the right side of history,” while the side that urges continued masking and distancing will find ourselves themselves on the wrong side of history.

There is no way to know when that cutoff will be; when that shift happens. At least not until hindsight tells us. In my personal opinion, that cutoff is coming sooner rather than later. As in a matter of months, not years.

1254

…my concern is that the cutoff will be before next November, and that Democrats will find themselves on the wrong side of history during a critical midterm election.

1255

I try so much not to be rude now, but I have to say that framing is awful. We won’t “give up” on restrictions, and those who advocate giving them up before the science says it is appropriate before it is ready will never be “on the right side of history.” Such “giving up” would or will kill people who didn’t need to die, always tainting them as being wrong.

What will happen is that we will decide as a society when the harms of the restrictions will outweigh the benefits. There will be actual health experts leading the charge, ideally. But, even if not, it will be a society-wide decision to declare victory, not give up. And, if it was the wrong decision, then there will be a spike in deaths and thus everyone will be on the wrong side.

You’re also framing those of us against lifting restrictions as immovable stones, as if we’re the ones ignoring the science and can’t be reasoned with. No, if it actually starts to look like lifting restrictions is a good idea, that’s the side we’ll be on.

The Democrats are on the side of the CDC, which is the entity that removed mask restrictions before having to put them back. So, no, we’re not going to be on the wrong side if reducing restrictions is good.

The only thing I can see your framing accomplishing is rehabilitating those who wanted to end restrictions early. And that should not happen. The governors who lifted restrictions early were not on the right side of history. The states where people have already given up and got hit with new waves are not on the right side of history.

And those who refuse to get vaccinated will never be on the right side of history. As long as the disease still is out there, we will have to be vaccinated, and those who stand against it will be like those who stood against all the other vaccines. That restriction is 1000% not going away. That would like MMR shots becoming obsolete.

1256

That seems to be a very definitive statement. I don’t see how it’s a given.

What if a tidal wave of anti-restriction sentiment ushers in an all-republican government starting in 2022, which then proceeds to dismantle all covid restrictions? If that actually happens, then your quoted statement above would be completely wrong then, would it not?

1257

Also, I’m not entirely sure you understand what the right side of history means. It doesn’t mean you did the right thing. It means you were on the side of the issue that won.

1258

When Covid numbers are down to a level that doesn’t crush our healthcare system?

1259

I more meant compelling to others, rather than a personal level. Like, during the early days of the pandemic, before vaccines, it was very easy to morally judge people who went on a vacation or ate out, but it seems to me that it’s getting more difficult to do. It’s one thing to make a personal choice to hunker down, but what I’m wondering is when it will become plainly wrong/improper to castigate someone going to the mall as dangerously selfish and toying with people’s lives. I’m not sure that that point isn’t before hospitalization numbers go down to that degree. That’s what I’m musing about.

1260

No. If society has a strong anti-restriction sentiimmentt andd nvotes for the Republicans who run on ending restrictions, then they are making the decision that they want it to end sooner than later. I already allowed for the idea that society’s decision may be wrong. What I reject is your framing of this as “giving up,” i.e. letting the virus win. That’s giving up is–it means saying “you win.”

No, it means the side that people in the future will look back at and say was the right decision. It’s perfectly possible that the wrong side will win temporarily. It’s perfectly possible we lift restrictions early, more people die, and then people in the future judge that decision as wrong.

As I said, I reject your framing. You are mostly describing real things. But the way you are framing them is really bad. You’re framing it as those of us who are currently for restrictions losing, acting as if we can never change our positions. You’re framing it as the people who are against restrictions winning, even if they have been against restrictions the entire time.

The only real factual point I disagree with is that you didn’t seem to consider vaccine requirements as part of the restrictions. There is no sign whatsoever that those will go away before the 2022 election. There is little reason to think they’d go away even if Republicans take power, since the businesses want them. And because history shows that vaccine requirements don’t tend to go away until the disease is essentially eradicated.

But the rest is me rejecting your pessimistic framing. We will not “give up.” And those who were against restrictions will not be the ones declared to be in the right. It will be those who decide to end the restrictions at the right time. Or it will be those looking back saying “I told you so.”

1261

If it’s an absolute no brainer to remove restrictions, they will be removed, sure.

If it’s not a no brainer, they are going to be removed anyway. It’s not going to be decided on science much.

In Wisconsin, tavern restrictions were removed because the businesses wanted the taverns open and because they had a powerful lobby. No real science there.

With the school, in my city the teachers are unionized and they fought to keep them virtual. They more or less went back in April 2021 because it was going to be too much of a PR hit to the district to stay home the entire year. It wasn’t politically possible. People would just start going private in the fall, figuring we can’t rely upon the publics to open again ever. Maybe you don’t think it’s going to be forever, but the people living there aren’t going to live forever either, nor will their kids be in school forever. So they are going to react as if time is an issue, which it is. So they opened in April 2021. Also because of politics.

Things will open up based on the amount of time it takes and the tolerance of the local populace. It really has nothing to do with the hospitalization and death rate in a particular place. Just how much the local people are willing to do. AKA politics.

1262

What’s “the end” to you?

Part of what makes it seem endless is that there is no real end condition, as far as I know. At least, no victory condition. We either lose quickly or slowly. There are drawbacks to both scenarios. We on the science side need to start factoring in all the costs and benefits. And looking at who has the power to mitigate their own costs.

1263

How was it determined that the 1918 pandemic was at an end?

Don’t we consider that the treatment and prognosis of AIDS today to be radically different enough from the 1980s so as to be considered “over” as an epidemic?

1264

There were three waves of Spanish flu. They came about six months apart, and lasted about 2 months each. Waves varied in intensity due to locality. A city that got hit hard in wave 1 could have it easier in wave 2 and vice versa. There simply was no fourth or subsequent wave for unknown reasons. Either the virus mutated to something less deadly, or enough people built up immunity. But no fourth wave, so whatever prep work they had done went unused. In between the waves, deaths went down to almost nothing, so presumably restrictions were relaxed at those times.

So despite being deadlier, Spanish flu was more predictable and arguably easier to deal with from a policy standpoint. The whole sequence took about 14 months from start of first wave to the end of the third wave.

AIDS never affected most people’s daily behavior due to how it’s transmitted.