COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[AlexCaledin]

- careless people are in danger because of the careless behavior which is indicated by getting no vaccine.

 

[Jarvis323]

I think this graph, and a careful analysis of what was happening throughout this timeline can help to understand why CT's CFR might be so high and whether peoples attitudes towards science and trust in health officials might have affected covid's impact. Key events are when testing became available and widespread, when people realized that masks were useful, when people realized that asymptomatic transmission was a concern, when people realized that airborn transmission was a concern, the availability of medical supplies, when breakthroughs were made in treatment protocols, when vaccines became available, when the population became vaccinated in large numbers. A useful plot to make would be this one superimposed with the number of people vaccinated over time.

Most state's graphs look similar to the US average.

 

[mfb]

The plots show what we already knew. Vaccines work, and everyone would benefit from higher vaccination rates.

What the news report showed, what I was not aware of, is how fanatic the anti-vaccination sentiment can be in some communities.

 

[Borg]

Maybe someone could invent a vaccine that's exhaled by those who have been vaccinated with it resulting in the vaccination of the unvaccinated. After all, if they think that it's OK for them to spew pathogens...

 

[PeroK]

Maybe someone could invent a vaccine that's exhaled by those who have been vaccinated with it resulting in the vaccination of the unvaccinated. After all, if they think that it's OK for them to spew pathogens...

That would get the anti-vaxxers wearing a mask!

 

[atyy]

Maybe someone could invent a vaccine that's exhaled by those who have been vaccinated with it resulting in the vaccination of the unvaccinated. After all, if they think that it's OK for them to spew pathogens...

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/cansinobio-inhaled-covid-19-vaccine-trigger-immune-response-15317564
Not quite what you are looking for, but ...

 

[Borg]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/cansinobio-inhaled-covid-19-vaccine-trigger-immune-response-15317564
Not quite what you are looking for, but ...

My thoughts came from a similar article in Scientific American last month. I was thinking at the time that companies could install machines to automatically mist people with the vaccine as they came in. I know that it violates a ton of personal freedoms but I'm getting less and less concerned with the freedoms of the ignorant these days.

 

[Borg]

That would get the anti-vaxxers wearing a mask!

I was thinking more in line with the conspiracies it would generate but that sounds better.

 

[Borg]

Maybe someone could invent a vaccine that's exhaled by those who have been vaccinated with it resulting in the vaccination of the unvaccinated. After all, if they think that it's OK for them to spew pathogens...

I just realized the perfect argument if they think that it's wrong to do that - my body, my choice.

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...-19-lockdown-enforcement-20210729-p58e5e.html

Defence Force called into help with Sydney COVID-19 lockdown enforcement​

The Australian Defence Force will assist with enforcement of Sydney’s lockdown following a formal request to Prime Minister Scott Morrison from NSW Police.

While NSW has previously declined an offer for military assistance with the operation to enforce COVID-19 public health orders, police said an escalation of efforts over the coming days justified the request.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-30/adf-soldiers-to-arrive-in-sydney-covid19-lockdown/100336124

"They don't come with powers and they won't be carrying firearms but they come with an enormous amount of training, very disciplined, they understand the task."

They wouldn't be deployed if the implied force of military action wasn't projected.

 

[Astronuc]

Meanwhile in Florida, cases are increasing to levels approaching those of last summer.

Florida hospitals reported more than 8,900 patients with COVID-19 on Thursday, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Florida Hospital Association said the state peaked at 10,179 cases last July.

The patient number on Thursday was five times higher than a month ago, and it quickly climbed from about 5,500 in just one week.

https://apnews.com/article/business...rus-pandemic-95de3c470432eb61ee7450cf99ba7aef

AdventHealth said Thursday it had reached a new high on Thursday since the pandemic began with about 1,000 COVID-19 hospitalized patients across its system in central Florida. Twelve hospitals in the state are reporting critical staffing shortages to the federal government.

The rapid rise in hospitalizations and cases has prompted officials in Miami-Dade and Orlando to issue new orders requiring masks at indoor county buildings. The mayor of Orange County, home to Walt Disney World, is forcing all nonunion county employees to get vaccinated by August.

And Walt Disney World also announced this week that it would again be requiring the use of masks indoors.

The AP article also reports that last month, June, Florida stopped providing daily figures of cases and deaths, switching to weekly reports. The number of vaccinations are reported, but hospitalizations for COVID-19 aren't so readily available.

 

[gleem]

The CDC estimates that the R0 for the Delta variant is 8-9 as infectable as chickenpox.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/politics/cdc-masks-covid-19-infections/index.html

 

[Bystander]

for the Delta variant is 8-9 as infectable as chickenpox.

Tangential question: do parents still conduct/organize "chickenpox parties" for their children, conferring immunity to smallpox?

 

[PeterDonis]

I know that it violates a ton of personal freedoms but I'm getting less and less concerned with the freedoms of the ignorant these days.

A government that can violate the freedom of those you consider ignorant today can just as easily consider you ignorant tomorrow and violate yours.

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.

 

[Borg]

A government that can violate the freedom of those you consider ignorant today can just as easily consider you ignorant tomorrow and violate yours.

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.

Agree 100%. It's hard to properly express certain emotions online but I'm mainly very frustrated with these people - some of whom I'm related to.

 

[jack action]

but I'm mainly very frustrated with these people

Why?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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.

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

 

[WWGD]

A government that can violate the freedom of those you consider ignorant today can just as easily consider you ignorant tomorrow and violate yours.

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.

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.

 

[WWGD]

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.

All I mean is that there are no clear answers as in one of the two choices is best as a blanket statement. At least I don't see one.

 

[PeterDonis]

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

Freedom does not mean there is no misinformation. It means it's up to each individual person to choose what information they will act on. Yes, there will be people that choose to act on unreliable information. That's a fact of life. And curtailing people's freedoms does not solve that problem, because first, no authority, whether it's government or anyone else, can control all of the people all of the time, and second, authorities propagate and act on unreliable information too.

I also don't think all misinformation is "nefarious". People can have plenty of honest reasons for spreading or acting on information that turns out to be unreliable. I think we would all be a lot better off if everybody would stop demonizing people who have different opinions and stop trying to insist that any source of information should be taken as authoritative. In terms of my Insights article on "Is Science an Authority", I think a lot of the information that is being put out in the name of "Science" does not meet the requirements I gave in that article. I stress that this, in itself, is not a "failure" of "Science"--it is what we should expect in a field that is still in the early stages of development and in the midst of a situation that is rapidly changing. I think it would be better if everyone would just admit that no, "Science" cannot give us reliable guidance about a lot of what is going on in this situation, and we need to fall back on common sense, what scientific knowledge we do have (which can still help guide our common sense even if it can't give us authoritative guidance), and individual freedom and responsibility.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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.

 

[PeterDonis]

we also have the personal freedom to reject a vaccine and likely kill many

"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.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Freedom does not mean there is no misinformation. It means it's up to each individual person to choose what information they will act on. Yes, there will be people that choose to act on unreliable information. That's a fact of life. And curtailing people's freedoms does not solve that problem, because first, no authority, whether it's government or anyone else, can control all of the people all of the time, and second, authorities propagate and act on unreliable information too.

I also don't think all misinformation is "nefarious". People can have plenty of honest reasons for spreading or acting on information that turns out to be unreliable. I think we would all be a lot better off if everybody would stop demonizing people who have different opinions and stop trying to insist that any source of information should be taken as authoritative. In terms of my Insights article on "Is Science an Authority", I think a lot of the information that is being put out in the name of "Science" does not meet the requirements I gave in that article. I stress that this, in itself, is not a "failure" of "Science"--it is what we should expect in a field that is still in the early stages of development and in the midst of a situation that is rapidly changing. I think it would be better if everyone would just admit that no, "Science" cannot give us reliable guidance about a lot of what is going on in this situation, and we need to fall back on common sense, what scientific knowledge we do have (which can still help guide our common sense even if it can't give us authoritative guidance), and individual freedom and responsibility.

And this ends up highlighting inequality. Certain socio-geo-economic areas are predisposed to accept misinformation. We should just shrug our shoulders? Sucks for them? Bad cards in life mate. Misinformation is not just bad information, but it implies intent. The intent of bad information is nefarious.

 

[gleem]

Tangential question: do parents still conduct/organize "chickenpox parties" for their children, conferring immunity to smallpox?

CDC warns against this practice because of possible life-threatening consequences of an infection.

 

[WWGD]

"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.

But do you extend this to differences of opinions re the effectiveness of vaccinations? Evidence for its benefits seems overwhelming and uncontroversial.

 

[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.)