Covid-19 Politics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Interesting stat - 85% of all Covid cases recorded in Australia so far have occurred in the past 4 weeks.
https://www.worldometers.info/corona...try/australia/
The real figure is certainly even higher because testing capacity has been overwhelmed and people are now being told to get a PCR test only if they have symptoms or a positive rapid antigen test. The problem is that RATs are in very short supply (and increasingly expensive). Apparently it never occurred to anyone that removing most restrictions at the same time omicron emerged would lead to a huge upsurge in cases.

---

I just saw that you guys have 92.6% of the population over 16 at least double jabbed. That should help a lot in the long run. The transmissibility of omicron must be off the charts given what is happening everywhere. Probably a combination of that and lower appetite for caution given that it's less deadly (whether bc of prior immunity or intrinsically). Clearly a lot of lives have been saved by your public health measures.

I was just trying to figure out the case fatality rate in the US knowing that we probably are not detecting a large percent of cases. If death lags three weeks, the denominator is about 300,000 and the numerator about 1700. That's a cfr of about .55%. If only one third of cases are picked up it could be an ifr of .17%....and ifr obviously varies a lot based on comorbities and amount of prior immunity. I know this is very rough math (for instance I completely made up one third but we know ifr is probably a significant multiple lower than cfr).

I don't think 1700 deaths in the US is trivial but when you have 1700 deaths on lots of infections it does mean lots of people are getting some immunity. The problem is that immunity doesn't last forever and new variants could reduce the significance of that. It also means that if the cfr holds then in three weeks we might be seeing about 4000 deaths a day here (against 800,000 current infections per day). So even while cfr and ifr are lower there's still a huge toll of death!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

.and ifr obviously varies a lot based on comorbities and amount of prior immunity. I know this is very rough math (for instance I completely made up one third but we know ifr is probably a significant multiple lower than cfr).

---

This doesn't make perfect sense. I know ifr is an average calculated among a population with a variety of different risk factors. At the very least though the ifr could be broken into two groups. Those with some immunity and those with none. But that's tricky because age is correlated with both vaccination status and risk of death. So anyway I wouldn't be the one doing the calculating but it can be done:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The problem is that immunity doesn't last forever and new variants could reduce the significance of that.

---

This article suggests that even though antibodies decline over time there are other ways by which the body can learn to strengthen its immune response over time. If this process and new vaccines can outpace the development of new variants we may be able to achieve the elusive herd immunity.
https://www.vox.com/22878133/omicron...bodies-vaccine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

This article suggests that even though antibodies decline over time there are other ways by which the body can learn to strengthen its immune response over time. If this process and new vaccines can outpace the development of new variants we may be able to achieve the elusive herd immunity.
https://www.vox.com/22878133/omicron...bodies-vaccine

---

There's been some really good science writing since this pandemic started. This is a great article, thanks. Not to be annoying but I recommend anyone interested in understanding how our immune system works and where the pandemic might be headed take a look.

Boris Johnson has announced significant relaxations in the rules. Desperate to save his job, he seems to think 'we' are at the tail end of the Pandemic and that such relaxations are not going to lead to another spike in infections, of either Covid-19 and/or its known variants, the assumption being there won't be any new ones. He could be doing the right, thing, or he could as he usually does, be gambling with the health of England, we have to wait and see.

"Boris Johnson has announced the end of all Covid measures introduced to combat the Omicron variant – compulsory mask-wearing on public transport and in shops, guidance to work from home and vaccine certificates – from next week.
The prime minister also told the Commons that the legal requirement on people with coronavirus to self-isolate would be allowed to lapse when the regulations expired on 24 March, and that date could be brought forward.
To cheers from some on the Conservative benches, Johnson announced an immediate end to the need for pupils to wear masks at secondary schools.
...
A director of public health at a city in the north of England said they were also concerned at the move. “This feels like more of a political decision than a decision based on the evidence and the science, and it could be quite London-centric,” they said.
“We’re seeing a reduction in cases, but they’re still incredibly high. Taking out all these measures does feel risky. And if our focus is keeping kids in schools as much as possible, this may result in more disruption to education. I worry the decision has not been made for the right reasons.”
The changes apply only to England, as Covid restrictions, as part of health policy, are a devolved matter. "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ons-in-england

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

This article suggests that even though antibodies decline over time there are other ways by which the body can learn to strengthen its immune response over time. If this process and new vaccines can outpace the development of new variants we may be able to achieve the elusive herd immunity.
https://www.vox.com/22878133/omicron...bodies-vaccine

---

I agree with Broncofan so thanks for linking this clearly written and informative article. Other than the clinical aspects of this and any potential new viruses, it is clear to me that we -and I don't just mean the UK- need to have more robust systems in place that can go into action when something like Covid arrives in the population. In the UK it means both better funding for the NHS, but also better prepared contingency planning which was so clearly lacking in January-March 2020. In the US it means the time has come for the country to accept that it needs to overhaul the health sector.

What we also need is the intelligence that is in short supply, from the anti-Vaxx idiots we have in the UK, to their American 'cousins' and the truly nasty, stupid, ignorant and dangerous lunatics like Rand Paul who place a higher value on some fantasy they call 'freedom' than on human life.

We might get the practical stuff organized, it seems we need an intellectual revolution to save Science from the Cretins who think they know better. Looks like a log-term struggle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Other than the clinical aspects of this and any potential new viruses, it is clear to me that we -and I don't just mean the UK- need to have more robust systems in place that can go into action when something like Covid arrives in the population. In the UK it means both better funding for the NHS, but also better prepared contingency planning which was so clearly lacking in January-March 2020. In the US it means the time has come for the country to accept that it needs to overhaul the health sector.

---

Don't hold your breath. Our political systems seem to have lost any capacity for contingency planning. Even in Australia, which dealt with this pandemic better than most countries, there has been little evidence of planning for the surge in cases that followed inevitably the removal of most restrictions. https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/f...m-alan-kohler/

This can be attributed in part to the continuing influence of neo-liberalism and the idea that things should be left to the market. Even conservative governments are willing to set this aside in a crisis - the prospect of losing the next election tends to concentrate the mind wonderfully - but the prevailing assumption is that this should be temporary. Ignoring pessimistic scenarios is easier than expending resources now to avoid problems that may emerge only after you've left office.

In addition, most politicians these days are people whose experience and skills relate largely to politics, rather than running things in the 'real world'. This used to be offset to a degree by the expertise of the permanent public service, but this has been degraded over a long period. I don't know how it is in the UK but in Australia public servants are now told that their job is to do the government's bidding rather than any long term thinking of their own. Not surprisingly, they have learnt not to provide unsolicited advice and, in any case, staffing cuts have reduced their capacity to do more than the government demands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

In the US it means the time has come for the country to accept that it needs to overhaul the health sector.

---

Here's an example of how inefficient the US system is: in the year 2022 many people still have to submit reimbursement forms by post or fax. I assume the health funds do this deliberately to discourage claims. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-reimbursement

I remember seeing Governor Phil Murphy (NJ) on Meet the Press shortly after it was confirmed that he had won his reelection bid. The feeling I took away from his appearance was that he was someone who realized that even though he had won, the slim margin told him that he was going to have to make some changes during his second term in office.

http://https://www.nytimes.com/2022/...k-mandate.html

Dropping Indoor Mask Mandate, New York Joins Blue States Easing Covid Rules

After a scare in November, New Jersey’s governor and other Democratic leaders held back-channel talks over lifting mandates and helping voters impatient with restrictions reclaim a sense of normalcy.

Gov. Kathy Hochul will drop New York’s stringent indoor mask mandate on Wednesday, ending a requirement that businesses ask customers for proof of full vaccination or require mask wearing at all times, and marking a turning point in the state’s coronavirus response, according to three people briefed on her decision.

The decision will eliminate a rule that prompted legal and interpersonal clashes over mask wearing, especially in conservative parts of New York. It was set to expire on Thursday and would have required renewing.

Ms. Hochul’s decision will let the mask mandate lapse just as a crushing winter surge in coronavirus cases is finally receding. But it was not yet clear whether the governor would renew or drop a separate mask mandate in New York schools that is set to expire in two weeks.

The easing of New York’s pandemic restrictions on businesses comes as Democratic-led states from New Jersey to California have announced similar moves this week, in a loosely coordinated effort that is the result of months of public-health planning, back-channel discussions and political focus groups that began in the weeks after the November election.

It was Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey who began the effort last fall, weeks after he was stunned by the energy of right-wing voters in his blue state, who nearly ousted him from office in what was widely expected to be an easy re-election campaign. Arranging a series of focus groups across the state to see what they had missed, Mr. Murphy’s advisers were struck by the findings: Across the board, voters shared frustrations over public health measures, a sense of pessimism about the future and a deep desire to return to some sense of normalcy.

Then, Omicron hit, delaying any easing of restrictions.

But slowly, as case rates began to fall again in January, conversations between Mr. Murphy’s aides and senior officials in other states began to pick back up. No actions could be taken until the virus eased its grip, the officials acknowledged.

But even Democratic voters, they agreed, were wearying of the toughest restrictions, growing increasingly impatient with mandates and feeling ready to live with the risk that remained. As cases plummeted, the public health dynamics were shifting, too, giving the governors the opportunity to figure out how to arrive at a new sense of normal.

Last week, they took their concerns to the White House. As members of the National Governors Association gathered for a meeting in the East Room, several asked President Biden to provide clear guidelines for their states to move from the crisis footing of a pandemic to a recognition that the virus was here to stay — and that it could be managed without completely upending daily life.

“What does the road from pandemic to endemic look like, and how do we keep score?” Mr. Murphy, the association’s vice chairman, later told reporters, describing the discussion. “There was broad agreement that that’s the task before us.”

The administration’s guidance didn’t come quickly enough for Mr. Murphy, however. On Monday, he acted — without White House support — by announcing that New Jersey would no longer require students and school employees to wear masks, in defiance of the current recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rest of the article:

With that, a dam had broken. Within hours, Democratic governors in California, Connecticut, Delaware and Oregon moved to lift some mask mandates, and other states and cities indicated that mandates may be ending soon. In Boston, Mayor Michelle Wu laid out benchmarks on Tuesday for when the city would lift proof-of-vaccine requirements if hospitalizations and case numbers continued to fall.

Even in Virginia, where an executive order making masks optional in schools, by Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, is tied up in legal challenges from liberal school districts, 10 out of 21 Democratic state Senators joined with Republicans on Tuesday to advance legislation that would do just that.

While the specific steps vary by state, the message was the same: It’s time to move on.

In New York, the lifting of the mandate on businesses would have far-reaching effects on many public settings, including retail shops, restaurants and malls as well as workplaces — a boon for companies struggling to attract workers back to their offices.

Ms. Hochul’s move would not affect the mask mandate in New York schools, which expires on Feb. 21 and has become increasingly contentious, sparking heated feuds among parents, teachers and students over public health and individual liberties.

Ms. Hochul said this week that she hoped to ease mask rules in schools eventually, but that the state first needed to scrutinize public health metrics. “I am optimistic that we’re trending in that direction, but I still need the time,” she said on Monday.

Her decision also would not appear to affect certain local, federal and other requirements around masking in specific settings, meaning masks would still be required on trains, airplanes and buses and in health care facilities like hospitals and nursing homes.

It is unclear if some localities with their own strict mask and vaccination rules might follow Ms. Hochul’s lead and potentially lift their restrictions, too.

In New York City, for example, proof of vaccination is required to dine indoors, attend events at arenas, work out at gyms and go to the movies. That requirement has been in place through a program known as “Key to NYC,” which was implemented through an executive order from the mayor and must be renewed every five days. City officials said Tuesday that the order was being renewed.

While the movement to loosen pandemic restrictions began in swing states like Colorado, Pennsylvania and Michigan, its spread to some of the bluest states reflects a country entering a new political phase in the nearly two-year-long pandemic. After years of urging their voters to follow the science, Democrats in the states are moving more quickly to lift restrictions than the Biden administration, which remains scarred after all but declaring victory against the virus last summer only to greet the Delta variant.

Driving these decisions are the growing numbers of voters signaling that they are prepared to live with the virus as it is now, and political calculations about looming midterm elections that already have Democrats on the defensive.

Democrats used their “trust the science” mantra in the pandemic’s early days to project competence and skewer Republicans who were flouting public health guidance, but even the White House now acknowledges the growing gap between public opinion and the advice of the president’s public health advisers.

Moreover, some health experts warn that daylight on Covid restrictions between the Democratic administration and Democratic governors could undermine the already weakened federal public health authorities.

It’s a serious problem when most of the country is actively defying C.D.C. recommendations,” said Dr. Leana Wen, a public health professor at George Washington University. “Governors and local officials are seeing the sentiments of the people they’re serving. And public health has to meet people where they are.”

In a new wave of national polls, growing numbers of Americans have expressed a willingness to move on from the strictest mandates. Seven in 10 respondents to a recent poll by Monmouth University agreed that “it’s time we accept Covid is here to stay and we just need to get on with our lives.”

The rush to turn the page also risks missing an opportunity for Democrats to claim credit for successfully managing the pandemic at a moment when they sorely need to be able to point to major accomplishments, party strategists say.

“We should be pointing to the fact that these successes are because of things that we did,” said Brian Stryker, a partner at the polling firm ALG Research, pointing to vaccination rates and the expected release of vaccines for young children in the next several weeks. “Democrats need to take the win on how far we’ve come.”

Mr. Stryker, whose work on Virginia’s elections last year indicated that school closures hurt Democrats, said that moving past the crisis point of the pandemic would allow Democrats to focus more heavily on the economy and personal finances — issues that he said were increasingly overshadowing concerns about the pandemic.

“This is a moment for us to say that this phase of the pandemic, where you as a vaccinated person need to be scared all the time, is over and it is time to live again,” he said. “It will be well received by voters and also gives us the space to talk about other things voters are really concerned about.”

At the same time, Democrats at the state and local level face a more pressing political challenge than the White House. In midterm races, Republicans are eager to shame and name liberal opponents over the tough restrictions they imposed — and over instances in which they personally appear to flout them.

Republicans excoriated Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles after they were photographed without masks at an N.F.L. playoff game on Jan. 30. (Mr. Garcetti said he held his breath during the photo, creating a “zero percent chance of infection.”)

On Monday, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, called Representative Elissa Slotkin of Michigan “another Democrat hypocrite” after Ms. Slotkin posted a photo of herself unmasked at an indoor campaign event.

And over the weekend, Stacey Abrams, the Georgia Democrat running for governor, deleted a photograph she had tweeted that showed her smiling, mask-free, in front of a classroom full of children wearing masks at a Georgia school.

“This is the Georgia Stacey Abrams wants,” warned a digital ad with which the campaign of former Senator David Perdue, a Republican running for governor, sought to capitalize on the misstep. “Unmask our kids.”

Tuesday night, Ms. Abrams said she had erred by taking the photograph. “Protocols matter,” she said on CNN. “And protecting our kids is the most important thing. And anything that can be perceived as undermining that is a mistake, and I apologize.”