T28 wrote:
Pfizer’s drug cuts Covid related hospitalisations by 90% if administered at symptom onset.
The “if” unfortunately is the catch in your sentence that renders the drug less useful than it might look like: Early symptoms of Covid are exactly the same as for common cold, the flu and many other infections diseases of the respiratory system. If we would really administer Paxlovid at early symptoms, basically every person would take it 3-4 times each winter. It gets a bit better if we consider that the trials have been done based on “within 5 days of first symptoms”, but even this is far from trivial: Many people some form of mild cold symptoms basically constantly from November to February.
Graham wrote:
No free population is going to tolerate rolling lockdowns as the way of the world for the foreseeable future.
If by “lockdown” we really mean closing shops and school, mandating people to stay at home, etc. I fully agree. For other measures, however, I actually see larger support in many populations, e.g:
- We are all used of the “tyranny” to wear some clothing around our hips when in public – and in most places for the female part of the population the same is true for clothing around the chest. I would not see a fundamental difference for a mandate to also wear clothing around mouth and nose (aka: mask) when in public
- A mandate for specific vaccinations when visiting school or kindergarten is also not unheard of: We had it in many countries for TBC in the past (and still have it in some) and we also have it for other diseases in some countries (e.g. measles in Germany). Also mandating this for Covid would not be a revolution but rather a gradual change
.LeSving wrote:
Every single person I speak with has since long been finished with the whole Corona situation. Nobody cares anymore.
This is exactly the reason why across so many countries we again see infection number that are close to the peak in Jan – despite the fact that a larger share of most populations (but not a large enough share) is already vaccinated. People are giving away the advantage we could have had over last winter by careless behavior.
It will be interesting to see if that results in a significant increased number of people choosing to get vaccinated. I imagine that would make a lot of people who are ‘hesitant’, make the decision to go get vaccinated. I imagine it would, but these things can be hard to predict!
I really hope this will happen. Some increase has been noticed last two days… we’ll see. I believe limitations in activities will bring more results – for government employees, municipality employees and all medical personnel the certificate (vaccinated or overcame) will be mandatory to be able to work.
If we would really administer Paxlovid at early symptoms, basically every person would take it 3-4 times each winter.
So basically avoiding both flu and Covid-related admissions?
Apart, 90% vaccination does not exist anywhere really.
The UK is around 90%. If it wasn’t for the reduction of the denominator over time, due to reducing the min age (18 then 16 and now 12) it would be past 90% now. But the remaining 10% are absolutely hard-core anti-vaccers (Bill Gates / nanoparticles / 5G / Rockefeller / the whole works) and due to the correlation between poor education, low IQ, etc, and job types, many of them work in positions where they have a lot of contact. Also some similar % is people who still get ill enough despite vaccination.
However, there is an acceptance of 200 deaths/day as “ok” and at that level the measurable excess mortality is negligible.
I still won’t go skiing (by airline, and the packed and stuffy shuttle bus) until I’ve had the booster – due anytime now. Of course I have a 100% safe option but need to convince Justine of that one, for the 3hr run Shoreham to Aosta… need some ideas 
For the mass transport and for enclosed ski lifts I have some FFP3 masks.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Me, personally, I’d throw out a government which refuses to lead. We don’t need anyone who is just hanging in there trying to piss off the least amout of people, that is not leadership.
I guess we differ in what we look for in our governments.
I don’t look for ‘leadership’ from my government, I want it to take care of basic functions of the state such as taxation, infrastructure, defence, etc. in as quiet and as unobtrusive a manner as possible. Beyond that, I want them to stay out of my life. I certainly don’t want them to manage risk on my behalf through wide-reaching restrictive interventions when it comes to natural phenomena such as infectious disease.
Malibuflyer wrote:
- We are all used of the “tyranny” to wear some clothing around our hips when in public – and in most places for the female part of the population the same is true for clothing around the chest. I would not see a fundamental difference for a mandate to also wear clothing around mouth and nose (aka: mask) when in public
You cannot compare it. Certainly in this country, there is no law that says you must cover up particular parts of the body. People who are persistently naked in public tend to get prosecuted (as a very last resort) for a quaint offence called ‘outraging public decency’. Whether anyone is actually outraged is another matter, but the precedent is there that being naked tends to qualify.
The majority of the population goes about dressed in clothes as a matter of common consent, not least due to the climate. Laws to enforce it are neither necessary nor desirable – a person is not hurting anyone else by being naked.
Wearing a face mask for any non-trivial period of time is overly warm and uncomfortable. People who wear spectacles struggle to avoid them steaming up.
Mask wearing in the UK is now largely symbolic. The degree to which they are worn correlates strongly with how keen people are to be seen as doing the right thing by the people around them. I was doing the shopping in the supermarket at lunchtime and only saw one or two.
Its symbolism and irrational fear, in many cases. I still see kids wearing masks when walking alone in empty streets, a block from the nearest other person. Two this morning. God help them and whoever is telling them what to do – life does not go well when you’ve lost the ability to think rationally.
I haven’t worn one since returning from Europe where it was still obligatory in many places, in September.
@Graham, I think it is a common European tendency to confuse leadership with coercion. The two are actually opposites. Having said that, my life is most definitely not a joint venture between equal partners with government or its bureaucracy, I’m their employer.
I find a lot of things about “society” quite sad.
The sheer number of people who are wearing masks in wide open spaces, or when driving a car on the motorway (you can understand it for a delivery driver who is in/out all the time). Some may be virtue signalling but most is just being dumb or totally uneducated (illiterate).
I also find it really sad to see somebody who is massively obese. Today, having a soup in a countryside cafe which – like most – specialises in stodge, including dozens of different cakes, I’d say 1/3 of the clientele were 2x to 3x the weight they should be. Not kidding; a girl of 20 being probably 150kg. Her prognosis if she catches this thing would be poor. She had a child, and what are that child’s chances in life? With the mother being alive, or dead?
The biggest puzzle are the TV programmes about doctors. Somebody the size of a house, and with multiple serious health issues, walks in and the doctor asks loads of questions, prescribes some pills, but never comments on the obvious.
Nothing we can do about this, on any reasonable timescale. Can’t fix the whole world.
On the flip side, if people choose to wear a mask, they should not be attacked for it (verbally or physically). Many of those who would attack a mask wearer, when asked, say it’s “freedom” not to wear a mask. By the same token, it is freedom to be able to wear a mask and not be attacked for it. Similarly, it’s disingenuous to argue that businesses should be free to admit or deny whatever customers they want (usually in the context of denying service to kinds of people that the individual concerned doesn’t like) and then get upset when the same business exercises its freedom to require a mask, any more than if the business says “No shirt, no shoes, no service” (a common sign in the conservative south US). If a person doesn’t like it, they are free not to patronise that business. Making physical or verbal attacks against the business/owner is not on.
I don’t know why people must be anti-mask to the extent they will actually attack others for choosing to wear one. In fact I don’t know why people are anti any piece of clothing someone wants to wear to be comfortable.
The sheer number of people who are wearing masks in wide open spaces, or when driving a car on the motorway (you can understand it for a delivery driver who is in/out all the time
I prefer those to the lot who demonstratively will not wear one anywhere and hit others in the face or spit at them who do.
