Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[vikesfan89]

Once they start vaccinating at risk people is there going to be priority given to people who have more years left? 

That sounds bad but they are going to have to ration the vaccine somehow until it is more readily available.  I'm just glad I don't have to make those decisions or turn people away

[Tk3]

2 hours ago, Xenos said:

The main con is the financial limits of schools. If you can’t provide the necessary mitigation tools, then it wouldn’t be wise to open.

This

We are given the false choice of "shutting down schools" versus "opening up schools" - when increased gov spending in the classroom would make that decision easier.

Just like we are given the false choice of "locking down the economy" versus "keeping businesses open"

There are ways to keep things open and afloat while still maintaining as much safety as possible - but it takes gov spending, a cognizant plan, and coordinated efforts. It all also takes a culture of inclusion and shared desire for the common good.

Those things have been utterly lacking in the soon to be previous administration. 

[Xenos]

4 hours ago, Tk3 said:

This

We are given the false choice of "shutting down schools" versus "opening up schools" - when increased gov spending in the classroom would make that decision easier.

Just like we are given the false choice of "locking down the economy" versus "keeping businesses open"

There are ways to keep things open and afloat while still maintaining as much safety as possible - but it takes gov spending, a cognizant plan, and coordinated efforts. It all also takes a culture of inclusion and shared desire for the common good.

Those things have been utterly lacking in the soon to be previous administration. 

[TVScout]

I woulda thunk us.mil had better control of the crisis:

[mission27]

9 hours ago, vikesfan89 said:

Once they start vaccinating at risk people is there going to be priority given to people who have more years left? 

That sounds bad but they are going to have to ration the vaccine somehow until it is more readily available.  I'm just glad I don't have to make those decisions or turn people away

Once they vaccinate the at risk people, the people left all have a lot of years left, right?

[mission27]

10 hours ago, Xenos said:

Roughly 18 million healthcare professionals in the US. So with luck, we’ll take care of them all by December’s end.

Safe to say the MoL will be on that list as well? Essential pandemic response personnel 

[vikesfan89]

4 hours ago, mission27 said:

Once they vaccinate the at risk people, the people left all have a lot of years left, right?

Even if they are 95?

[MWil23]

Word from a guy claiming to be an investigative journalist says that DeWine at his next presser is going to shut down Ohio for 4-6 weeks. 

[mission27]

5 hours ago, vikesfan89 said:

Even if they are 95?

Someone who is 95 would be in a highly at risk population 

[vikesfan89]

1 minute ago, mission27 said:

Someone who is 95 would be in a highly at risk population 

Obviously.  I'm wondering if a 70 year old would get a vaccine first or if it would be first come first serve for anyone that's high risk once they get to that point.

Basically I'm just wondering if they'll have some sort of triage other than health care workers and at risk people will get it first

[vikesfan89]

Maybe I'm just heartless for thinking that's a possibility 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

I need help.

My Fiancee and I have been quarantining for the past 8 months in our home. My family (my mom, sister, and brother) are all staunchly against all COVID orders from not only the governor in my state (Kate Brown), but also in their state (Jay Inslee). My Fiancee's family have been completely understanding of us and have been also quarantining themselves the whole year and have not asked us or gotten mad when we said we can't make it to family stuff this year.

Because of COVID, I've had arguments with them about having to skip 4th of July and my Mom's birthday because we didn't feel comfortable traveling.

Now, with both Oregon and Washington introducing new orders saying no inter-household indoor gatherings without quarantining, my Fiancee and I are trying to find a way to tell my familiy we're not comfortable coming home for Christmas. I asked my family if the new orders would impact anything and the universal response was "Inslee can kick rocks. He's a dictator and I won't be controlled by him". Quite frankly, I'm just at a complete loss of how to NOT get into another argument with my family over this...Anyone have any advice?

[ramssuperbowl99]

48 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

I need help.

My Fiancee and I have been quarantining for the past 8 months in our home. My family (my mom, sister, and brother) are all staunchly against all COVID orders from not only the governor in my state (Kate Brown), but also in their state (Jay Inslee). My Fiancee's family have been completely understanding of us and have been also quarantining themselves the whole year and have not asked us or gotten mad when we said we can't make it to family stuff this year.

Because of COVID, I've had arguments with them about having to skip 4th of July and my Mom's birthday because we didn't feel comfortable traveling.

Now, with both Oregon and Washington introducing new orders saying no inter-household indoor gatherings without quarantining, my Fiancee and I are trying to find a way to tell my familiy we're not comfortable coming home for Christmas. I asked my family if the new orders would impact anything and the universal response was "Inslee can kick rocks. He's a dictator and I won't be controlled by him". Quite frankly, I'm just at a complete loss of how to NOT get into another argument with my family over this...Anyone have any advice?

I just had this conversation with my family, who aren't much different than yours. I was mentally treating it like a breakup beforehand in that I was 100% committed to not getting into any type of argument, all I was going to do was state the facts and not react no matter what. "Hey we need to let you know that as much as this pains us, in the interest of everyone's safety, we can't come to any in-person family things until the pandemic is over, including Thanksgiving and Christmas. We love you, can't wait to see you when this is over, and are sorry that the circumstances don't allow us to come." The whole call start to finish was 5 minutes, and they weren't happy, but accepted it. Granted, they haven't called since and that was a few weeks ago, but I'd rather have that then either of them saying something regrettable in the moment. 

It's one of those situations where there's only one thing you can do, and how they react to it isn't in your control. If they start crying, let them. If they start questioning you or trying to argue say that the decision has been made so that it's clear this is a boundary. If they keep bringing it up, respond exactly the same way. If they don't respect that this is a boundary of yours, that's a separate thing, but I'd treat it as the hard no that it is while trying to limit chances for people to take things personally. 

[Xenos]

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/15/935180522/biden-covid-advisor-says-restrictions-should-be-more-of-a-dial-less-of-a-switch

Quote

Different parts of the country are dealing with the pandemic in their own ways, and that lack of uniformity in restrictions isn't helpful, the former surgeon general said. For instance, "We don't have a uniform national alert system that tells communities at what level to start implementing restrictions based on important indicators," Murthy said.

What is clear, he said, is that strict lockdowns aren't always necessary if people comply with less restrictive measures. 

"I think the more important way for us to think about restrictions is not as a switch that we flip up and down, but more as a dial that we increase and decrease as the situation dictates."

The severe lockdowns that much of the country faced in the spring were essentially a "blunt axe," Murthy said. "We did that in part because we didn't know a lot about the virus in the spring that we know now."

Overly severe restrictions not only lead to weakened compliance, Murthy said, but also disrupt schooling, work and actually lead to "very little public health gain."

 

[BobbyPhil1781]

Moderna looks great!

Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate Meets its Primary Efficacy Endpoint in the First Interim Analysis of the Phase 3 COVE Study

https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/modernas-covid-19-vaccine-candidate-meets-its-primary-efficacy

First interim analysis included 95 participants with confirmed cases of COVID-19

Phase 3 study met statistical criteria with a vaccine efficacy of 94.5% (p <0.0001)

Moderna intends to submit for an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) with U.S. FDA in the coming weeks and expects the EUA to be based on the final analysis of 151 cases and a median follow-up of more than 2 months