Corona Virus: It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint

[Smoove_B]

Is there a shortage? Is it a regional thing? I was in the Walgreens here outside of Portland yesterday, and there were like 200 of them stacked up in the front of the store. I asked why they were all there, and they told me they ran out of room for them in the back.

It might be, yes. Rapid tests seem to fluctuate in availability around me. I am constantly seeing people on my regional social media asking where to find kits at retail.

However, as mentioned before, there's been lots of discussion over how useful the rapid tests are for asymptomatic cases (in short, not very). There was someone on Twitter yesterday that posted a series of rapid tests he'd taken over the course of 24 hours with the first 3 being negative and the final one positive. He had no symptoms.

So ideally you're able to travel somewhere or take a PCR test before attending an event and then isolate yourself until then. And hope the PCR is run in time to clear you for visitation - this is where the failure is.

What about all the people that dutifully wear their masks as required but would really rather not? Having just traveled for business last week, wearing that mask for six+ hours on the plane fucking sucked.

I've given 3 hour lectures in a KN94 and completed a heart stress test on treadmill wearing the same. I would love to sit somewhere quietly for 6 hours and wear a mask.

Again, I think everyone is focused on the plane. Assuming you have 100% compliance with mask wearing on the plane, that's one thing. But add in walking around the airport, shuttle/cab service, waiting for luggage, boarding procedures, etc... and risk increases. Do you grab something to eat? The risk isn't just the flight but everything associated with it. That's where this all breaks down.

Also, now that we know vaccinated people can absolutely still spread the virus, masking has become critically important to lower circulation of the virus. The idea that we would encourage now (or did back in May) vaccinated people to resume activities while unmasked is insane.

[Max Peck]

IIUC, it's something like:

Vaccinated + Booster - pretty well protected

Previously infected (protection from infection is ~40%, although it could depend on *which* strain you got before. )

Vaccinated (Protection from infection is ~33%, protection from serious illness is ~70%)

Unvaccinated.

Where are you getting the information that "natural immunity" from a previous infection is somehow better than being vaccinated? That flies in the face of anything from a reliable source that I've read.

For example: New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection

In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus. These data further indicate that COVID-19 vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity alone and that vaccines, even after prior infection, help prevent reinfections.

“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. The findings suggest that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection.

I'd suspect that previous infection with any variant that isn't Omicron is going to be pretty ineffective now that Omicron is ascendent.

[Kurth]

I don’t know if it’s insane or not. I’m no expert, but the idea that we should go unmasked on a plane doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

All I’m just suggesting is that it’s stupid to ascribe political leanings to people not wanting to wear masks or to airline CEOs who suggest that masks aren’t necessary.

[Isgrimnur]

CNBC

Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly has tested positive for Covid-19, the company said Friday. The news came after a Senate hearing in which he and other airline chiefs and lawmakers weren’t wearing masks.

Kelly, along with the CEOs of United Airlines and American Airlines, Delta Air Lines’ chief of operations, and the president of the country’s largest flight attendant union testified for more than three hours at the Senate Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday afternoon about $54 billion in federal payroll support airlines took to weather the pandemic.

“Although testing negative multiple times prior to the Senate Commerce Committee Hearing, Gary tested positive for COVID-19 after returning home, experiencing mild symptoms, and taking a PCR test,” a Southwest spokeswoman said in a statement. “Gary is doing well and currently resting at home, he has been fully vaccinated and received the booster earlier this year. Gary’s symptoms continue to be mild, and each day he is moving closer to a full recovery.”

[LawBeefaroni]

I don’t know if it’s insane or not. I’m no expert, but the idea that we should go unmasked on a plane doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

All I’m just suggesting is that it’s stupid to ascribe political leanings to people not wanting to wear masks or to airline CEOs who suggest that masks aren’t necessary.

I'm not ascribing political leanings to the CEOs, I'm ascribing a profit motive. They want to open up the doors to anyone who doesn't want to fly with a mask.

As for mask wearing/not wearing being a political statement, not sure where you've been but in the Midwest is is most definitely a signifier of political leanings.

[Kurth]

I don’t know if it’s insane or not. I’m no expert, but the idea that we should go unmasked on a plane doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

All I’m just suggesting is that it’s stupid to ascribe political leanings to people not wanting to wear masks or to airline CEOs who suggest that masks aren’t necessary.

I'm not ascribing political leanings to the CEOs, I'm ascribing a profit motive. They want to open up the doors to anyone who doesn't want to fly with a mask.

As for mask wearing/not wearing being a political statement, not sure where you've been but in the Midwest is is most definitely a signifier of political leanings.

I get it. I'm just saying that there are lots of people who would like to fly without a mask who are not MAGA trolls, me included.

[malchior]

I don’t know if it’s insane or not. I’m no expert, but the idea that we should go unmasked on a plane doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

All I’m just suggesting is that it’s stupid to ascribe political leanings to people not wanting to wear masks or to airline CEOs who suggest that masks aren’t necessary.

I'm not ascribing political leanings to the CEOs, I'm ascribing a profit motive. They want to open up the doors to anyone who doesn't want to fly with a mask.

As for mask wearing/not wearing being a political statement, not sure where you've been but in the Midwest is is most definitely a signifier of political leanings.

I get it. I'm just saying that there are lots of people who would like to fly without a mask who are not MAGA trolls, me included.

I hear that. I've done 5 coast-to-coast trips and having someone jump down your throat because you took too long to fix your mask after a sip of water gets old quick. It's especially hard because from entry into the airport airtrain or bus to exit on the other side in a rental car and back you're expected to wear it nearly 100% of the time. I wore one for 11 hours once on one of these trips. It sucked eggs.

[YellowKing]

Can one of the medical experts here describe why this pandemic seemingly has no end vs the 1918 Flu which wound up lasting a couple of years and then was done?

I'm assuming the 1918 flu finally disappeared because it killed a ridiculous amount of people, but from a numbers perspectives we've already had more US deaths than that flu caused and there's still no end in sight.

On paper, it seems a pandemic with no vaccines vs one with vaccines - even if those vaccines are applied unevenly - would ultimately dwindle.

[Smoove_B]

Not an expert, but no one really knows why the 1918 flu virus disappeared. It could be a function of the family of viruses they belong to. Or it could be related to the highly interconnected society we're living in - it's easy for SARS-CoV-2 to keep circulating around the globe, endlessly because we're constantly traveling everywhere. There's been suggestions that the immunity from survivors of the 1918 suppressed circulation whereas SARS-CoV-2 seems to have figure out now how to evade immunity protections.

We more or less were caught with our pants down. After the 2003 SARS outbreak resolved (i.e. disappeared), research on a a vaccination pretty much stopped.

The core issue here is that the virus hasn't stopped circulating since March (at least) of 2020. And as long as it keeps circulating somewhere on the planet, this is the treadmill we're all on. If SARS-CoV-2 emerged in 1918 it might have had a very similar path as the 1918 influenza. But our modern world enables easy spread.

[Kurth]

Is it also possible that the pandemic seems to have no end because our responses have all been half measures? We have a vaccine, but not enough people take it. We wear masks and socially distance, but it's a patchwork system of rules that vary from state to state and even from town to town. We're going to continue to work remotely, half of the time.

I'm left wondering if, long term, the half measures we've taken are worse than if we had taken none at all. I hope not.

[Smoove_B]

I'm left wondering if, long term, the half measures we've taken are worse than if we had taken none at all. I hope not.

Yes, also true. We are absolutely half-assing our way through this. People that are wealthy can survive disconnected from society where as marginalized populations are forced to work in jobs that put them at increased risk. I am absolutely privileged in this equation and I fully acknowledge my decisions come from that. However, I will never stop advocating for resolutions that acknowledge disparities - like universal mandatory masking. Or paying restaurants and restaurant workers to do take-out only. There are still people that haven't been vaccinated because they live paycheck to paycheck and their employers have told them they can't have time off to recover if needed or if they call out they're not getting paid. I read something earlier this week about a doctor that vaccinated two homeless people. When she asked them why they weren't vaccinated she expected to hear it was politics or ignorance over what the vaccines do. Instead they told it is because no one asked them. We're 2+ years into this and they haven't been asked yet if they want a vaccine??

Regardless, we wait and see if any variants emerge from the UK based on what's happening there now and whatever variants emerge from what's about to happen here in the US. And we hope it's not worse.

[LawBeefaroni]

Could also be that we're not yet at 2 years. The 1918 pandemic was longer than where we are now and it was during a world war. It's possible it was longer and just not detected early on the front end.

If this is a 4 year thing, is it really that long?

[malchior]

Cases in NY double over three days. Highest number of cases recorded today *in the pandemic* period.

Almost exactly one month after Mayor Bill de Blasio triumphantly announced tens of thousands of fully vaccinated people could return to Times Square to celebrate New Year's Eve in person this year, the state saw it's highest single-day reporting of new COVID infections.

The previous record, set 11 months ago on Jan. 14, crumbled when Gov. Kathy Hochul announced 21,027 new positive cases statewide Friday. The old record for most reported cases in a single day was 19,942, when reported hospitalizations were on the brink of 9,000. Now, the number of people admitted is down by more than half.

New York reported close to the same number of tests taken last Friday, but of that batch (over 260,000), there were 10,000 less positive cases one week ago. Also, when you compare hospitalizations to one week ago, the number of people in hospitals for COVID-19 has risen by about 300, reflecting an increase of 8%.

And in New York City, where testing lines have wrapped around blocks and people report wait times well over an hour, 10,286 positive cases were reported Friday. That total is up 20% from the previous day, and 100% from two days earlier. It's also the highest reported testing day for the city since the beginning of the pandemic, and the first time the city saw more than 10,000 cases in a single day.

[Smoove_B]

And remember here in NJ, everything is on the table. What are we actually doing? Nothing - just more boosters. But we could do more at any time - so just keep that in mind.

We have learned nothing.

[Defiant]

Where are you getting the information that "natural immunity" from a previous infection is somehow better than being vaccinated? That flies in the face of anything from a reliable source that I've read.

From a South Africa study that was released a few days ago (although the exact numbers, depending on which variant they had before, is 27%, 40% or 60% protection):

People infected in South Africa's first wave early last year, have a 73% chance of reinfection, while those infected with the beta variant have a 60% chance of reinfection and those infected in its most recent delta wave face a 40% risk of reinfection with omicron, the new study showed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 502201001/

[Alefroth]

I get it. I'm just saying that there are lots of people who would like to fly without a mask who are not MAGA trolls, me included.

Well duh. You and everyone else would like to fly without a mask.

[LawBeefaroni]

Are you telling me I shouldn't go on the annual Christmas booze crawl with 20 or so fellows from the neighborhood? Can I go to the private club and drink a bottle of scotch alone in the corner?






Again?

Moot. Got cancelled. Because...COVID. Positive tests among some of the attendees' kids. I'm bailing in solidarity.


We're back to the times of lots of cases among friends and acquaintances. And we're not even getting started.

ICU at work is slowly filling up too.

[RunningMn9]

Is it also possible that the pandemic seems to have no end because our responses have all been half measures? We have a vaccine, but not enough people take it. We wear masks and socially distance, but it's a patchwork system of rules that vary from state to state and even from town to town. We're going to continue to work remotely, half of the time.

I'm left wondering if, long term, the half measures we've taken are worse than if we had taken none at all. I hope not.

The most frustrating part of this ordeal is that nearly everyone who talks about risk assessment is focused entirely on the risk to themselves, or their close loved ones. That’s certainly part of the equation - but it ignores the real problem.

This isn’t a pandemic that is trying to infect YOU (the royal you, not the Kurth you). Deciding that it’s ok if I get infected, or it’s ok if I infect and kill my grandparents because how many holidays do they have left anyway - misses the entire point of the problem and why we are still here today, nearly two years later.

IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.

You accept the risk and get infected, but you don’t know it. And you then proceed to infect people around you that had no idea the risk that you signed them up for.

It’s about limiting community transmission, which cannot happen in a world where too many people have decided that they are ok helping the virus spread, because they’ve decided that it’s ok if they personally get it.

There’s no awareness that we aren’t a frontier people anymore.

[Max Peck]

Where are you getting the information that "natural immunity" from a previous infection is somehow better than being vaccinated? That flies in the face of anything from a reliable source that I've read.

From a South Africa study that was released a few days ago (although the exact numbers, depending on which variant they had before, is 27%, 40% or 60% protection):

People infected in South Africa's first wave early last year, have a 73% chance of reinfection, while those infected with the beta variant have a 60% chance of reinfection and those infected in its most recent delta wave face a 40% risk of reinfection with omicron, the new study showed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 502201001/

Interesting. I wish they had done a more direct comparison though. They describe the Pfizer vaccine in terms of efficacy against Omicron, but give a reinfection rate for cases with prior infection, so on the surface it seems a little apples-to-oranges to me. It would also be interesting to see how the vaccines compare to prior infection over comparable intervals -- e.g. how does a 2-dose course of Pfizer administered during the Delta wave compare to a Delta infection during the same time-frame in terms of protection from an Omicron reinfection/breakthrough infection?

[Defiant]

Another study (from the Imperial College London) suggests that both vaccination and previous infection offer very low (~19-20%) protection against symptomatic cases of Omicron:

Having had Covid probably only offers 19% protection against omicron, the study showed on Friday. That was roughly in line with two doses of vaccine, which the team estimated were as much as 20% effective against omicron. Adding a booster dose helped dramatically, blocking an estimated 55% to 80% of symptomatic cases.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tudy-warns

(Usual warning: Early days, expect information to potentially change with more info, etc)

[Unagi]

I don’t know if it’s insane or not. I’m no expert, but the idea that we should go unmasked on a plane doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

All I’m just suggesting is that it’s stupid to ascribe political leanings to people not wanting to wear masks or to airline CEOs who suggest that masks aren’t necessary.

I'm not ascribing political leanings to the CEOs, I'm ascribing a profit motive. They want to open up the doors to anyone who doesn't want to fly with a mask.

As for mask wearing/not wearing being a political statement, not sure where you've been but in the Midwest is is most definitely a signifier of political leanings.

I get it. I'm just saying that there are lots of people who would like to fly without a mask who are not MAGA trolls, me included.

Aren’t there 2 types of ‘who would like to’ ?

There is the ‘omg, fuck this bullshit already, I’m not wearing a mask’ , and then there is ‘oh man, I long for the days where we didn’t need to do this’.

[Defiant]

Interesting. I wish they had done a more direct comparison though. They describe the Pfizer vaccine in terms of efficacy against Omicron, but give a reinfection rate for cases with prior infection, so on the surface it seems a little apples-to-oranges to me.

Just to be clear, it's reinfection rates for getting Omicron for those who've had previously had other variants and recovered, (Maybe you understood that, but your text was a little ambiguous).

[Smoove_B]

I'm waiting for more commentary on a study out of Germany that has concluded monoclonal antibodies are useless against Omicron. If that is truly the case, states that have been promoting Regeneron as the solution are potentially in for a world of pain.

Regardless, I do think this Tweet encapsulates the best of Ed Yong's piece from earlier this week:

https://twitter.com/nxthompson/status/1 ... 1647140871

"Self-interest is self=defeating, and as long as its hosts ignore that lesson, the virus will keep teaching it."

[Max Peck]

FWIW, if I had to spend a long time in an airport and on a plane, I would be masked up but it would be with one of the elastomeric respirators that Smoove recommended rather than a disposable medical mask or N95 respirator.

I bought the GVS SPR644 P100 source control respirator that Amazon is stocking, and while I haven't subjected myself to a 12-hour torture test or anything, I did find that it is much more comfortable to wear than a disposable mask, largely because it doesn't press against my nose or mouth. It's also easier to breathe while wearing it, presumable because of the relatively large surface area of the pleated filters.

My only real nitpicks with it are that it uses the same face-piece as their vented product line, so it looks like it has an exhalation vent even though it doesn't, so there is a chance that it would be challenged as inappropriate in some venues. Also, I'm a little concerned that the plastic filter cover might not hold up well to winter temperatures. My work-around for both issues is to wear a cloth mask as a respirator cover -- it hides the not-vent and should offer some protection from the elements, and doesn't seem to increase resistance to breathing by a significant amount.

[Max Peck]

Interesting. I wish they had done a more direct comparison though. They describe the Pfizer vaccine in terms of efficacy against Omicron, but give a reinfection rate for cases with prior infection, so on the surface it seems a little apples-to-oranges to me.

Just to be clear, it's reinfection rates for getting Omicron for those who've had previously had other variants and recovered, (Maybe you understood that, but your text was a little ambiguous).

I understand that. I'm just saying that if the root issue is that resistance to infection by Omicron decreases over time depending on when a person was either previously infected or vaccinated, which seems to be the case, then comparing resistance to Omicron resulting from a Delta infection a couple of months ago to resistance from vaccinations that occurred as much as a year ago doesn't really provide a clear idea as to whether natural immunity provides comparable protection to vaccination. The article breaks down how the protection from natural immunity weakens over time, but doesn't do the same for vaccination. It just gives a single effectiveness rating with no accounting for the difference in whether the vaccination happened in Dec 2020 or Nov 2021. I'd like to see a breakdown of how effective a vaccination is, depending on the time since the person is vaccinated, and in the same terms as they are describing the effectiveness of prior infection. Additionally, saying that a Pfizer vaccine is x% protective (I'm presuming that refers to efficacy) doesn't seem to be the same as saying that a Delta infection survivor has a y% risk of reinfection. Maybe they are just using two different terms to mean the same thing, but it would be clearer (to me, ymmv) if they simply used the same terms if that is the case.

[Defiant]

Interesting. I wish they had done a more direct comparison though. They describe the Pfizer vaccine in terms of efficacy against Omicron, but give a reinfection rate for cases with prior infection, so on the surface it seems a little apples-to-oranges to me.

Just to be clear, it's reinfection rates for getting Omicron for those who've had previously had other variants and recovered, (Maybe you understood that, but your text was a little ambiguous).

I understand that. I'm just saying that if the root issue is that resistance to infection by Omicron decreases over time depending on when a person was either previously infected or vaccinated, which seems to be the case, then comparing resistance to Omicron resulting from a Delta infection a couple of months ago to resistance from vaccinations that occurred as much as a year ago doesn't really provide a clear idea as to whether natural immunity provides comparable protection to vaccination. The article breaks down how the protection from natural immunity weakens over time, but doesn't do the same for vaccination. It just gives a single effectiveness rating with no accounting for the difference in whether the vaccination happened in Dec 2020 or Nov 2021. I'd like to see a breakdown of how effective a vaccination is, depending on the time since the person is vaccinated, and in the same terms as they are describing the effectiveness of prior infection. Additionally, saying that a Pfizer vaccine is x% protective (I'm presuming that refers to efficacy) doesn't seem to be the same as saying that a Delta infection survivor has a y% risk of reinfection. Maybe they are just using two different terms to mean the same thing, but it would be clearer (to me, ymmv) if they simply used the same terms if that is the case.

I tried to find the actual study, in case it broke it down, but I couldn't find the study itself, just references to it.

However, I did find that of the almost all of fully vaccinated South Africans got their second shot in July or later, so they're almost all within six months.

[Defiant]

Found a presentation of the study. From slide 25, vaccine effectiveness over time:

2-4 weeks after 2nd dose: 56%
1-2 months after 2nd dose 37%
3-4 months after 2nd dose: 25%

https://www.mynewsdesk.com/za/discovery ... pdf-417949

Also, slide 28 shows how the chances of getting reinfected if you had covid previously jumped significantly in the last couple of months for two of the previous variants.

[Max Peck]

Found a presentation of the study. From slide 25, vaccine effectiveness over time:

2-4 weeks after 2nd dose: 56%
1-2 months after 2nd dose 37%
3-4 months after 2nd dose: 25%

https://www.mynewsdesk.com/za/discovery ... pdf-417949

Also, slide 28 shows how the chances of getting reinfected if you had covid previously jumped significantly in the last couple of months for two of the previous variants.

Cool, thanks for running that down.

[Isgrimnur]

+1

[Smoove_B]

It's a long thread, but there's good visuals. He covers the difficulty in trying to compare the U.S. to South Africa or even the U.S. to the U.K. There are too many variables in the populations to say for certain what the future holds, but it seems pretty clear Omicron is going to wash over over us here in the NE over the next week.

https://twitter.com/DrTomFrieden/status ... 3394499585

Of note:

Even if Omicron is less severe, unless it’s LOTS less severe, it could double the current already-high US death rate to 2,000/day or more by mid-February. There’s a major risk that hospitals will be overwhelmed in the next two months.

and:

Think of it this way. Omicron is 2-3x more infectious than Delta. 80% of people in the US have NOT received a booster dose—more than 250 million people. There are likely to be tens of millions of Omicron infections in the coming months in the US.

Remember:

Look out for people around you—especially those who are older or more vulnerable. Covid can be spread by people with no symptoms. Even if you feel fine, you could spread the virus to someone who dies from it. Consider testing before gathering indoors with friends/family you don’t live with. It can take days after exposure to become infectious. You can test negative in the morning and positive in the afternoon. Test immediately before your gathering & consider multiple day testing.

[Alefroth]

FWIW, if I had to spend a long time in an airport and on a plane, I would be masked up but it would be with one of the elastomeric respirators that Smoove recommended rather than a disposable medical mask or N95 respirator.

I bought the GVS SPR644 P100 source control respirator that Amazon is stocking, and while I haven't subjected myself to a 12-hour torture test or anything, I did find that it is much more comfortable to wear than a disposable mask, largely because it doesn't press against my nose or mouth. It's also easier to breathe while wearing it, presumable because of the relatively large surface area of the pleated filters.

My only real nitpicks with it are that it uses the same face-piece as their vented product line, so it looks like it has an exhalation vent even though it doesn't, so there is a chance that it would be challenged as inappropriate in some venues. Also, I'm a little concerned that the plastic filter cover might not hold up well to winter temperatures. My work-around for both issues is to wear a cloth mask as a respirator cover -- it hides the not-vent and should offer some protection from the elements, and doesn't seem to increase resistance to breathing by a significant amount.

Is it this one? I picked up two of these. It explicitly states no exhalation valve.

GVS mask.

[Max Peck]

Is it this one? I picked up two of these. It explicitly states no exhalation valve.

GVS mask.

Yes, that's the same respirator. The SPR643 is size S/M while the SPR644 is size M/L. Amazon also sells the SPR321 replacement filters. I bought a couple of sets at the same time that I ordered the respirator, just in case they become hard to come by down the road.

The manufacturer's site is here, for anyone that wants more information: Elipse® P100 with Source Control NIOSH Respirator

[YellowKing]

If we get our response right, Covid won't dominate our lives in 2022.

Narrator: "But we wouldn't get our response right."

[Blackhawk]

If we get our response right, Covid won't dominate our lives in 2022.

Narrator: "But we wouldn't get our response right."

I'll be honest - I get tired of these comments by experts that are perfectly true - but irrelevant. We keep hearing about what we should do (at the widespread state/federal level) to stop it. It doesn't matter. It's idealism, and it's bouncing off the wall of reality. We are not going to do those things. They are not happening. Writing alternate-history sci-fi about what we should do doesn't achieve much of anything. Any real plan has to work within the bounds of what we're actually going to be able to get people/governments/business to do. Any real plan has to focus on what these groups actually care about and are willing to act on, not on would/should/could.

We see this same kind of idealism when it comes to US politics right now. Yeah, there are all sorts of things that we could be doing, and all sorts of things that we should be doing. But we're not, and we're not gonna, so what can we do with what we've got?

[Smoove_B]

Is there a shortage? Is it a regional thing? I was in the Walgreens here outside of Portland yesterday, and there were like 200 of them stacked up in the front of the store. I asked why they were all there, and they told me they ran out of room for them in the back.

More on the availability of test in my area:

Easy access to coronavirus tests — both rapid at-home kits and PCR tests analyzed in labs — is uneven across the United States as the nation faces the prospect of explosive outbreaks linked to holiday travel and the highly transmissible omicron variant, connected to sharp surges in cases globally. Government officials and public health experts have urged Americans to get tested before they attend big events like holiday parties and gather for Christmas. It’s a way to break chains of transmission by nipping outbreaks at the bud, especially in places declining to reinstate mask mandates or social distancing measures.

But some Americans trying to be good pandemic citizens are having a hard time finding tests. Some are turning to Facebook or group chats for leads on which stores still have rapid tests in stock. Some are waiting in their cars for hours for PCR tests. New York City, again emerging as an epicenter with infections skyrocketing, announced plans Thursday to distribute 500,000 at-home tests and expand testing sites as residents report waiting in line for hours to get tested.

What's strange is that our state-level data here in NJ is reporting for the 3rd straight day that we're at ~6300 new cases. It's like our testing is somehow hitting a reporting ceiling. If that's true and they're scrambling behind the scenes to get more tests processed, then it's going to jump significantly next week. Or we're going to be at this magical ~6300 positive test reporting plateau for a long time while reality is telling a very different story.

[Kurth]

Is it also possible that the pandemic seems to have no end because our responses have all been half measures? We have a vaccine, but not enough people take it. We wear masks and socially distance, but it's a patchwork system of rules that vary from state to state and even from town to town. We're going to continue to work remotely, half of the time.

I'm left wondering if, long term, the half measures we've taken are worse than if we had taken none at all. I hope not.

The most frustrating part of this ordeal is that nearly everyone who talks about risk assessment is focused entirely on the risk to themselves, or their close loved ones. That’s certainly part of the equation - but it ignores the real problem.

This isn’t a pandemic that is trying to infect YOU (the royal you, not the Kurth you). Deciding that it’s ok if I get infected, or it’s ok if I infect and kill my grandparents because how many holidays do they have left anyway - misses the entire point of the problem and why we are still here today, nearly two years later.

IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU.

You accept the risk and get infected, but you don’t know it. And you then proceed to infect people around you that had no idea the risk that you signed them up for.

It’s about limiting community transmission, which cannot happen in a world where too many people have decided that they are ok helping the virus spread, because they’ve decided that it’s ok if they personally get it.

There’s no awareness that we aren’t a frontier people anymore.

I don’t disagree with anything you say here. This is all true and then some.

But I echo Blackhawk’s comments: It’s irrelevant and useless. Arguing that “we could find a way out of this pandemic if only people weren’t self-interested” is like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Who cares? That’s just not how people are generally wired, and, deep down, we all know that.

From my layman’s perspective, a good, smart pandemic response would be based on the fundamental premise that people are, in fact, self-interested. It can’t ignore that fact or wish it to be otherwise. It also would take into account that most people aren’t that smart and/or are woefully ill-informed, and, generally, they are terrible at doing their own risk analysis, let alone risk analyses that apply to populations bigger than themselves or their immediate families.

For all those reasons, it seems that an effective pandemic response in this country would have to be driven from the top down. It would involve Federal mandates (for everything - vaccines, masks, closures, you name it) with significant incentives for compliance and meaningful penalties for non-compliance.

But then again, hoping for that kind of coordinated, impactful response from our government is about as Quixotic as railing against the self-interest of the people that put that government in place.

So, in the end, I’m left with the conclusion that the inevitable result of all of this is endemic COVID. We’re not ever going to “win” this battle against COVID.

[Smoove_B]

So, in the end, I’m left with the conclusion that the inevitable result of all of this is endemic COVID. We’re not ever going to “win” this battle against COVID.

This is the current defeatist mantra that's permeating the national discussion - and it mirrors what's going on with climate change. "This is all inevitable so why bother doing anything?"

Quite frankly, it's enraging.

[Daehawk]

Lets start with net neutrality and make steps from there

[Smoove_B]

Look at what those communists in the Netherlands are doing!

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1472271513436889091

Lockdown in the Netherlands:

- From tomorrow until January 14
- All non-essential stores, restaurants, cinemas, and schools are closed
- Events are banned, including Christmas markets
- Only 2 people can be outside together, unless they live at the same address. 4 on holidays

Cannot even imagine what would happen here if even a fraction of those ideas were even suggested.

[Blackhawk]

So, in the end, I’m left with the conclusion that the inevitable result of all of this is endemic COVID. We’re not ever going to “win” this battle against COVID.

This is the current defeatist mantra that's permeating the national discussion - and it mirrors what's going on with climate change. "This is all inevitable so why bother doing anything?"

Quite frankly, it's enraging.

And yet the woulda/shoulda/coulda that doesn't work with reality is self-defeating. I don't think it's inevitable, but until we have public health officials stopping the 'think of the people!' message and starting to manipulate people like an advertising agency (or a political party), leading them around by their own greed and selfishness, it's the most likely outcome.

People aren't going to inconvenience themselves to help others. They're only going to inconvenience themselves when the (clear, understandable, not 'potential') result is even more inconvenient.