Page 700 of 810 FirstFirst ... 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 ... LastLast
Results 17,476 to 17,500 of 20243
  1. #17476
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    inpdx
    Posts
    16,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    We only really started surveillance in the US at the end of 2020 and it was a modest start. We expanded capacity significantly during 2021.
    …something about that timing…can’t put my finger on it…what is it?

  2. #17477
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Keep Tacoma Feared
    Posts
    2,940
    Quote Originally Posted by abraham
    I honestly an starting to doubt seatbelts or airbags could be introduced to the US in the present environment. Because they don't prevent all deaths. I hope I'm wrong and just being too pessimistic.
    Quote Originally Posted by ::: ::: View Post
    You are not wrong
    It’s tribalism first, thoughtfulness/common sense later
    You are insane to compare someone opposing travel bans with someone opposing a seat belt. There are very legitimate arguments against travel bans (for fucks sake, the WHO is still against them). There are no arguments against wearing a seat belt.

    The variant has prompted several countries to impose restrictions such as travel bans on several southern African countries, against the advice of the World Health Organization
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/...l-restrictions

  3. #17478
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    19,323
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    Ashish Jha
    Knows or should know exactly what I said in my post about the reality of SA vs the rest of Africa. SA reached an apparent endemic state and wasn't interested in mass vaccination on the individual level.

    it certainly deters countries from being honest with their data.
    Just like there is absolutely a consequence, cost, and deterrence for an individual deciding to stay home if sick, get tested, potentially being put in isolation if positive?

    The alternative is being a goddamned motherfucking selfish asshole, like the People's Republic of China.

    South Africa did the right thing. They aren't being punished. This is PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY, not behaviorism applied to nation states. And Ashish understands that.

    Rather than a ban, why can you not require a 14 day quarantine? I wouldn't oppose proof of vaccination and a quarantine (the Belgium chick was not vaccinated).
    That's a policy question. You can do what you want but you have to incur the cost and political will. New Zealand could corall all foreign arrivals into busses and escort them in military guarded convoys to commandeered hotels guarded by soldiers with rifles and supplied with food. That is expensive, time consuming, and a bad look in America. So you can pick one. Bans or real quarantine paid for by the taxpayer.

    Experts have been saying from the beginning that this is not possible.
    No, they have only said your strawman is not possible. Your strawman is that a travel ban will be completely effective. No expert thinks that. You then conclude that travel bans therefor don't work at all. Experts don't think that either.

    So let's agree:
    1. Poorly executed travel bans don't work.
    2. Well executed travel bands buy some time in the short term but should not be sustained.

    You can cannot wall off the problem,
    You literally can, temporarily, to an extent.

    you need to address the problem where it lies (i.e. vaccinating poor countries with effective vaccines).
    The time for that was in the past and is in the future, but right now, you have an emergent outbreak of a VOC. You can buy time to act, or you can say fuck it and take on the chin so that you feel morally warm and fuzzy in some other respect. Fuck that.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  4. #17479
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    inpdx
    Posts
    16,432

    To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    You are insane to compare someone opposing travel bans with someone opposing a seat belt. There are very legitimate arguments against travel bans (for fucks sake, the WHO is still against them). There are no arguments against wearing a seat belt.
    Really?
    A large slice of the public don’t use logic anymore

    Pizza parlor pedophile rings

    Space lasers

    Invading the Capitol

    People screaming in PTA meetings about CRT; school boards dismissing good administrators for not following the bullshit fear-mongering hype machine

    Politicians voting against their constituencies’ best interest to not fund the government or an infrastructure bill or stop a pandemic

    Pure partisan insanity

    [ETA]I think we’re addressing diverging thoughts about the original statement

  5. #17480
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by altasnob View Post
    What I really dislike about travel bans is people assume they work and when they realize they don't work, they blame the government (which further deters people's faith in their government). From the beginning of this pandemic, every country has had a me first, insular reaction. vaccines).
    I don't know anything so I don't have an educated opinion on travel bans. That said, pre-Covid, a pandemic simulation was run as part of a preparedness exercise (John Hopkins 2018 in DC, CladeX ). One of the things that stood out to me was that certain measures, despite being known to be ineffective or counter productive, would have to be enacted because of 'demand' and perception of taking action. Not logical and demonstrated need, rather appetite for perceived 'action' (politics / optics). One of those actions was travel bans. Also worth noting, many of the missteps of the former guy were forecasted and cautioned against; even our public reactions were prescient.

    https://www.centerforhealthsecurity....de_x_exercise/

    https://www.globalhealthnow.org/2018...sible-pandemic

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31593508/

    The assembled experts quickly mapped out the case against travel bans. Julie Gerberding, MD, MPH, playing the role of the CDC director (a role she held in real life from 2002-2009), pointed out that Frankfurt is a major airport hub, so banning just one leg of the journey wouldn’t work. Travel bans, she explained, are simply “…not effective, impractical and potentially harmful.”

    The White House National Security Advisor, played by Tom Inglesby, MD, director of the Center for Health Security, pushed the Council to consider whether there could be any circumstances under which travel would be banned? And, if not, he asked, how should that be explained to Americans, given bans by other countries? The discussion underscored the importance of education and communication surrounding sensitive issues that might seem counterintuitive to people outside the public health community.
    Here are some opinions on travel bans during Ebola (yes I know different disease and all that): https://blogs.cdc.gov/global/2014/10...bola-outbreak/

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...el-ban/381577/

    Again, while these diseases (and circumstances) are very different some of the same arguments would seem to apply to COVID. I dunno. There's all sorts of differences.

    The first case of Ebola diagnosed in the United States has caused some to call on the United States to ban travel for anyone from the countries in West Africa facing the worst of the Ebola epidemic.

    That response is understandable. It’s only human to want to protect ourselves and our families. We want to defend ourselves, so isn’t the fastest, easiest solution to put up a wall around the problem?

    A travel ban is not the right answer. It’s simply not feasible to build a wall – virtual or real – around a community, city, or country. A travel ban would essentially quarantine the more than 22 million people that make up the combined populations of Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea.

    We don't want to isolate parts of the world, or people who aren't sick, because that's going to drive patients with Ebola underground, making it infinitely more difficult to address the outbreak.When a wildfire breaks out we don’t fence it off. We go in to extinguish it before one of the random sparks sets off another outbreak somewhere else.

    We don’t want to isolate parts of the world, or people who aren’t sick, because that’s going to drive patients with Ebola underground, making it infinitely more difficult to address the outbreak.

    It could even cause these countries to stop working with the international community as they refuse to report cases because they fear the consequences of a border closing.

    Stopping planes from flying from West Africa would severely limit the ability of Americans to return to the United States or of people with dual citizenship to get home, wherever that may be.

    In addition to not stopping the spread of Ebola, isolating countries will make it harder to respond to Ebola, creating an even greater humanitarian and health care emergency.

    Importantly, isolating countries won’t keep Ebola contained and away from American shores. Paradoxically, it will increase the risk that Ebola will spread in those countries and to other countries, and that we will have more patients who develop Ebola in the U.S.

    People will move between countries, even when governments restrict travel and trade. And that kind of travel becomes almost impossible to track.

    Isolating communities also increases people’s distrust of government, making them less likely to cooperate to help stop the spread of Ebola.

    Isolating communities and regions within countries will also backfire. Restricting travel or trade to and from a community makes the disease spread more rapidly in the isolated area, eventually putting the rest of the country at even greater risk.

    To provide relief to West Africa, borders must remain open and commercial flights must continue.

    There is no more effective way to protect the United States against additional Ebola cases than to address this outbreak at the source in West Africa. That’s what our international response—including the stepped-up measures the president announced last month—will do.

    What works most effectively for quelling disease outbreaks like Ebola is not quarantining huge populations.

    What works is focusing on and isolating the sick and those in direct contact with them as they are at highest risk of infection. This strategy worked with SARS and it worked during the H1N1 flu pandemic. Casting too wide a net, such as invoking travel bans, would only provide an illusion of security and would lead to prejudice and stigma around those in West Africa.

    Americans can be reassured we are taking measures to protect citizens here.

    Today, all outbound passengers from Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone are screened for Ebola symptoms before they board an airplane.

    Staff from CDC and the Department of Homeland Security’s Customers & Border Protection will begin new layers of entry screening, first at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York this Saturday, and in the following week at four additional airports — Dulles International Airport outside of Washington, D.C.; Newark Liberty International Airport; Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport; and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

    Combined, these U.S. airports receive almost 95 percent of the American-bound travelers from the Ebola-affected countries.

    Travelers from those countries will be escorted to an area of the airport set aside for screening. There they will be observed for signs of illness, asked a series of health and exposure questions, and given information on Ebola and information on monitoring themselves for symptoms for 21 days. Their temperature will be checked, and if there’s any concern about their health, they’ll be referred to the local public health authority for further evaluation or monitoring.

    Controlling Ebola at its source – in West Africa – is how we will win this battle. When countries are isolated, we cannot get medical supplies and personnel efficiently to where they’re needed – making it impossible to fight the virus in West Africa.

    As the WHO’s Gregory Hartl said recently, “Travel restrictions don’t stop a virus. If airlines stop flying to West Africa, we can’t get the people that we need to combat this outbreak, and we can’t get the food and the fuel and other supplies that people there need to survive.”

    We know how to stop Ebola: by isolating and treating patients, tracing and monitoring their contacts, and breaking the chains of transmission.

    Until Ebola is controlled in West Africa, we cannot get the risk to zero here in the United States.

  6. #17481
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    6,847
    I was referring to this idea that if some action is not completely effective at eliminating something then it's not worth doing.

    Summit gave you an idea of why some type of travel ban/limit/surveillance is a useful tool. New Zealand had no covid for a long time, yes eventually it got in, and yes it might have been expensive. But they made that choice and it looked to me like it made the quality of life pretty good while they had time to prepare.

    I've had the same discussion with a friend about masks. It seems clear there's some benefit, but there are always contrarians. Some question masks in general, some say they aren't completely effective. And they aren't completely effective, but that's not their role. We still have dipshits saying that because you can get covid post vaccination you shouldn't get vaccinated. And again, there's truth that people can still get sick. But when you look at numbers like the ones posted from Wenatchee, there's a clear improvement in quality of life by being vaccinated. So sure there's no magic bullet to eliminate your chance of getting covid, short of eating a bullet, but there are things and actions that seem to make a difference in reducing your risk. And still there's a chorus of: It's not good enough, it doesn't prevent everything. Maybe those people are addicted to outrage or fear, I don't understand it.


    When this all started last year I went back and read this article I remembered from the BBC, it seemed like a chance to think about the times I'd read about disease running through communities in the past. I've never really had to deal with the existential threat of communicable diseases, technology is amazing. But this is and was a chance to understand and empathize with how people can't with disease in the past.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35064071
    On 1 November 1666 farm worker Abraham Morten gasped his final breath - the last of 260 people to die from bubonic plague in the remote Derbyshire village of Eyam. Their fate had been sealed four months earlier when the entire village made the remarkable decision to quarantine itself in an heroic attempt to halt the spread of the Great Plague. This is the story of the villagers who refused to run.

    Abraham was in his late 20s when he died. He was one of 18 Mortens listed as plague victims on the parish register.

    But the story of the plague in Eyam had begun 14 months earlier, with the arrival of a bale of cloth sent from London, where the disease had already killed thousands of inhabitants.

    Contained in the bale of damp cloth were fleas carrying the plague.

  7. #17482
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    10,802
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl_Mega View Post
    I don't know anything so I don't have an educated opinion on travel bans. That said, pre-Covid, a pandemic simulation was run as part of a preparedness exercise (John Hopkins 2018 in DC, CladeX ). One of the things that stood out to me was that certain measures, despite being known to be ineffective or counter productive, would have to be enacted because of 'demand' and perception of taking action. Not logical and demonstrated need, rather appetite for perceived 'action' (politics / optics). One of those actions was travel bans. Also worth noting, many of the missteps of the former guy were forecasted and cautioned against; even our public reactions were prescient.

    https://www.centerforhealthsecurity....de_x_exercise/

    https://www.globalhealthnow.org/2018...sible-pandemic



    Here are some opinions on travel bans during Ebola (yes I know different disease and all that): https://blogs.cdc.gov/global/2014/10...bola-outbreak/

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...el-ban/381577/

    Again, while these diseases (and circumstances) are very different some of the same arguments would seem to apply to COVID. I dunno. There's all sorts of differences.
    He lost me with the wildfire analogy. Containment, walling off, is the primary strategy for wildfires. It’s not black and white. If you use different words like “travel restrictions and quarantine”, people are more receptive than using the word “ban” for anything.

    In altaslob’s world, quarantines would be useless and harmful too. I think he worries too much about personal freedom rather than the survival of society. Maybe I’m wrong but in every thread that’s how he comes across.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  8. #17483
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    6,847
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    I think he worries too much about personal freedom rather than the survival of society. Maybe I’m wrong but in every thread that’s how he comes across.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Well except where he thought people shouldn't be allowed to live in the woods because of fires, and they really should all live in cities because providing services to rural Americans was a waste of resources. Or something like that, at some point the inane arguments cease to be worth remembering.

  9. #17484
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    25,916
    Quote Originally Posted by old_newguy View Post
    So why did you respond to my clearly sarcastic post as if I needed to be educated on how disease moves via international air travel?
    I must have missed your sarcasm
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  10. #17485
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    7,660
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    are you still fucking little boys is the more pressing question
    Some of the boomers in here need to literally take a lap (step away from the computer and walk around the block)

  11. #17486
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    关你屁事
    Posts
    4,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    I agree what we did was a joke in January 2020, sadly, and we paid for it. It was by Chinese design and American incompetence. We weren't testing and we weren't even symptom screening. Quarantine should have been the order of the day and it wasn't.

    I'm advocating for better: anyone transiting or originating from the region banned or quarantined. Probably it needs to last about 120 days, evaluate every 30 days. If Omicron becomes widespread in the US, end the ban. If Omicron is deemed a non-threat, end the ban. Govs don't follow this. Look at Canada, they only lifted the US travel ban in August.

    Unlike 2020, there is at least a blanket testing requirement, which will catch the majority.
    I don’t disagree with that - it sounds reasonable, if perhaps not implementable in our current environment. I’m not against travel bans, per se, just the way they’ve been implemented in the us which penalizes the hoi polloi indefinitely but allows the rich and famous superspreaders to flit about. and I’m against repeating that mistake at this point

  12. #17487
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    7,369
    Quote Originally Posted by dunfree View Post
    I don’t disagree with that - it sounds reasonable, if perhaps not implementable in our current environment. I’m not against travel bans, per se, just the way they’ve been implemented in the us which penalizes the hoi polloi indefinitely but allows the rich and famous superspreaders to flit about. and I’m against repeating that mistake at this point
    Yep.. Enacting bans based on WHERE folks are coming from and vet everyone coming from there the same..... opposed to banning/vetting/allowing based on status. The latter is racist as fuck..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  13. #17488
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    I must have missed your sarcasm
    Like I said. You can go fuck yourself.

  14. #17489
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Depends on the time of year
    Posts
    176
    I mentioned it a few pages ago, and Summit's said the same thing, but viewing travel bans as having a binary elimination/no elimination outcome doesn't work with COVID.

    Travel bans buy time for the medical science and medical treatment fields to respond effectively and knowledgeably. That's what you're buying. The policy question is how much you have to pay for what you're buying - that much hasn't changed no matter how long the pandemic has gone on.

    If your society finds the ban unjust and protests the controls (which become superspreader events in themselves), or mental health or the economy goes in the shitter, or the travel ban ineffectively targets a cohort, or citizens/PRs are effectively banned from returning home for an extended period (which consequently causes immigration and border issues in whatever country they're now stuck in) or there's poor or no attempts made to assist the origin region that you're banning (e.g. access to vaccines, treatments, and medical/PPE/testing resources in developing countries), or the travel ban fosters general mistrust between countries that spills over to other policy issues...

  15. #17490
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    25,916
    Quote Originally Posted by old_newguy View Post
    Like I said. You can go fuck yourself.
    Ah ha well maybe you did get my sarcasm ?
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  16. #17491
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    关你屁事
    Posts
    4,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Summer View Post
    I mentioned it a few pages ago, and Summit's said the same thing, but viewing travel bans as having a binary elimination/no elimination outcome doesn't work with COVID.

    Travel bans buy time for the medical science and medical treatment fields to respond effectively and knowledgeably. That's what you're buying. The policy question is how much you have to pay for what you're buying - that much hasn't changed no matter how long the pandemic has gone on.

    If your society finds the ban unjust and protests the controls (which become superspreader events in themselves), or mental health or the economy goes in the shitter, or the travel ban ineffectively targets a cohort, or citizens/PRs are effectively banned from returning home for an extended period (which consequently causes immigration and border issues in whatever country they're now stuck in) or there's poor or no attempts made to assist the origin region that you're banning (e.g. access to vaccines, treatments, and medical/PPE/testing resources in developing countries), or the travel ban fosters general mistrust between countries that spills over to other policy issues...
    Well of course they aren’t binary. Neither are “lockdowns”. The outcomes are dependent on the details of the policy and the time of implementation. US policy has usually been trailing. “Lockdowns” and “travel bans” followed collapse of demand.

  17. #17492
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    valley of the heart's delight
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    Worried about dirt immigrants 1400 miles away taking their white collar college grad job...

    Worried about same dirt poor immigrants giving them COVID but won't wear a mask or get the vaccine...

    Did I miss something??
    Close. You missed they can't count. Else they'd notice that >99% of visitors are not dirt poor immigrants. And maybe that Covid can't tell income status or nationality (Biden's travel ban will fail as badly as Trump's).

    If we cared about variants, the right travel ban would be to close the airports, implement Australia's quarantine system, then reopen airports to vital travel with quarantine. But we don't really care, and that won't happen.

  18. #17493
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    Ah ha well maybe you did get my sarcasm ?
    Wasn't sarcasm. Like I said, you can go fuck yourself. Double go fuck yourself for not owning it.

  19. #17494
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    关你屁事
    Posts
    4,583
    Quote Originally Posted by LongShortLong View Post
    Close. You missed they can't count. Else they'd notice that >99% of visitors are not dirt poor immigrants. And maybe that Covid can't tell income status or nationality (Biden's travel ban will fail as badly as Trump's).
    It didn’t get to us ski towns early in the pandemic because of the poors. But it killed the poors there. That is to say globe trotting global “elitists” are great at spreading the disease they may not fall too. It does care about income, because income is a proxy.

  20. #17495
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    17,479
    Quote Originally Posted by LongShortLong View Post
    If we cared about variants, the right travel ban would be to close the airports, implement Australia's quarantine system, then reopen airports to vital travel with quarantine. But we don't really care, and that won't happen.
    Case in point, I had to talk my sister out of a visit next weekend. She is now freaked that if Omicron becomes a threat we won't see each other for a while. Then she starts whining that its not fair that she and her husband have retired but can't really travel right now. I was the asshole to remind her that 800K Americans have less to worry about now cause they are dead.

    We care as long as it isn't inconvenient.
    I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.

  21. #17496
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Depends on the time of year
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by dunfree View Post
    Well of course they aren’t binary. Neither are “lockdowns”. The outcomes are dependent on the details of the policy and the time of implementation. US policy has usually been trailing. “Lockdowns” and “travel bans” followed collapse of demand.
    Yep, agree. Unfortunately the overwhelmingly majority of the population, no matter what country, generally can't be bothered getting across the policy details because that takes time, research and understanding, or just take a shortcut to ignorance by fundamentally disagreeing with the policy because it's "government telling them what to do and how to think", so the default assumption is that if a measure isn't plainly 100% effective then it must be useless. Hence, the binary.

  22. #17497
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wenatchee
    Posts
    10,802
    Quote Originally Posted by dunfree View Post
    Well of course they aren’t binary. Neither are “lockdowns”. The outcomes are dependent on the details of the policy and the time of implementation. US policy has usually been trailing. “Lockdowns” and “travel bans” followed collapse of demand.
    We never had lockdowns or travel bans


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  23. #17498
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    997
    If all get vaccinated omnicron might be no problem.
    We have a problem and there is a solution.

    Lets watch portugal all together and then make a conclusion.

    If we go with freedom or freedom.


    Get poked!

  24. #17499
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    Knows or should know exactly what I said in my post about the reality of SA vs the rest of Africa. SA reached an apparent endemic state and wasn't interested in mass vaccination on the individual level.


    Just like there is absolutely a consequence, cost, and deterrence for an individual deciding to stay home if sick, get tested, potentially being put in isolation if positive?

    The alternative is being a goddamned motherfucking selfish asshole, like the People's Republic of China.

    South Africa did the right thing. They aren't being punished. This is PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY, not behaviorism applied to nation states. And Ashish understands that.


    That's a policy question. You can do what you want but you have to incur the cost and political will. New Zealand could corall all foreign arrivals into busses and escort them in military guarded convoys to commandeered hotels guarded by soldiers with rifles and supplied with food. That is expensive, time consuming, and a bad look in America. So you can pick one. Bans or real quarantine paid for by the taxpayer.


    No, they have only said your strawman is not possible. Your strawman is that a travel ban will be completely effective. No expert thinks that. You then conclude that travel bans therefor don't work at all. Experts don't think that either.

    So let's agree:
    1. Poorly executed travel bans don't work.
    2. Well executed travel bands buy some time in the short term but should not be sustained.


    You literally can, temporarily, to an extent.


    The time for that was in the past and is in the future, but right now, you have an emergent outbreak of a VOC. You can buy time to act, or you can say fuck it and take on the chin so that you feel morally warm and fuzzy in some other respect. Fuck that.

    I Like a lot of the information in this post - Thank you. You have addressed some hard issues, head-on.

    some of what has been addressed, is some of what I thought there is value in being careful not to argue semantics -
    we can call it 'travel restrictions' or we can call it 'travel ban' ; it is a 'devil-in-the-details' situation, where the terminology is a lot less important than the implementation...

    I understand the idea that US citizens shall not be ,,, infringed from returning home. I say forget that. travel internationally during a pandemic, serve quarantine.
    ( someone up-thread cited a negative test that developed clinical signs four days later ; That would not be a problem if the person was serving a fourteen-day quarantine. )

    some of the angst does feel like prior criticism of vaccination : If a measure does not provide absolute protection, some of the critics claim it is without merit, while offering no alternatives.
    ( I am uneasy to see the idea of post-infection immunity still being promoted by some. my friends who have chosen not to vaccinate for covid, have fundamentally changed our friendships. )

    again, Thank you for the information in this ^^^ post.


    Thank you. tj

  25. #17500
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    valley of the heart's delight
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by dunfree View Post
    It didn’t get to us ski towns early in the pandemic because of the poors. But it killed the poors there. That is to say globe trotting global “elitists” are great at spreading the disease they may not fall too. It does care about income, because income is a proxy.
    Yup

    Quote Originally Posted by nordekette View Post
    If all get vaccinated omnicron might be no problem.
    We have a problem and there is a solution.

    Lets watch portugal all together and then make a conclusion.

    If we go with freedom or freedom.


    Get poked!
    And get the booster when eligible. Somatic hypermutation is your friend. Almost certainly grants good protection from all Covid variants, and likely SARS-1 and maybe some other coronaviruses too. Somatic hypermutation is how your immune system adapts to variants it hasn't seen. Turns out viruses have been mutating since life began, and our immune systems "expect this" and have a good counter for anything repeatedly seen.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •