• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Covidiots thread

Page 114 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

manly

Diamond Member
Jan 25, 2000
9,233
677
126
Yes. I think we also need to keep in mind the definition of eradicated (eg smallpox.)

We won't be able to eradicate COVID most likely, but the virus still needs chains of transmission to keep going.

Vaccinated are far far less to be infected, so even if some are, the virus may be left to very small pockets, but largely absent from the larger population. As close enough to normal as we're likely to get anytime soon.
Actually, what Sir Pollard is saying is different. He's saying delta is so efficient that everybody, including the vaccinated, will eventually be exposed to the virus and likely get infected. So because transmission is impossible to prevent (short of a New Zealand-style zero COVID strategy), there is no such thing as strict herd immunity (against any infection).

But the current data shows that the vaccinated who do get cases are largely in the mild category, and seldom in the severe COVID category. The vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed and tested to do. In other words, you and I may ultimately get infected by the virus but it will likely be an asymptomatic or mild case. Once enough of a population is vaccinated and/or post-infection, the pandemic shifts to endemic. You're beginning to see a consensus that wealthy nations with successful vaccination programs will reach this next spring. Some may even reach it sooner, such as Denmark.

The key thing is that the end goal is to reach a lower level of viral transmission, and a much lower level of severe cases. It's very hard to get there without good vaccines. Anybody claiming Sir Pollard is claiming otherwise misrepresents his statements IMO. The Brits are absolutely not arguing to end vaccinations at this point.

The problem for the U.S. is when you drill into the data, you'll find that we're basically two wholly separate tribes across a large geography. The Northeast and a few western states have a high vaccination rate, and relatively low levels of severe COVID. But look at red states (or counties) and you see pathetic vaccination rates that barely move up over time. I know it's a cliche by now, but referring to it as a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" certainly fits the evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse, RY62 and pmv

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,364
14,616
136
Actually, what Sir Pollard is saying is different. He's saying delta is so efficient that everybody, including the vaccinated, will eventually be exposed to the virus and likely get infected. So because transmission is impossible to prevent (short of a New Zealand-style zero COVID strategy), there is no such thing as strict herd immunity (against any infection).

But the current data shows that the vaccinated who do get cases are largely in the mild category, and seldom in the severe COVID category. The vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed and tested to do. In other words, you and I may ultimately get infected by the virus but it will likely be an asymptomatic or mild case. Once enough of a population is vaccinated and/or post-infection, the pandemic shifts to endemic. You're beginning to see a consensus that wealthy nations with successful vaccination programs will reach this next spring. Some may even reach it sooner, such as Denmark.

The key thing is that the end goal is to reach a lower level of viral transmission, and a much lower level of severe cases. It's very hard to get there without good vaccines. Anybody claiming Sir Pollard is claiming otherwise misrepresents his statements IMO. The Brits are absolutely not arguing to end vaccinations at this point.

The problem for the U.S. is when you drill into the data, you'll find that we're basically two wholly separate tribes across a large geography. The Northeast and a few western states have a high vaccination rate, and relatively low levels of severe COVID. But look at red states (or counties) and you see pathetic vaccination rates that barely move up over time. I know it's a cliche by now, but referring to it as a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" certainly fits the evidence.
And in Tennessee the people who are creating the problem get preferential treatment with monoclonal antibodies, even though the chances of successful therapy are much less.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
9,148
3,992
136
I'm not an epidemiologist but I think you're misinterepreting Sir Pollard. Even in the absence of a vaccine, pandemics do end when the population acquires natural immunity or dies trying (realistically, a combination of both). See 1918 Spanish influenza for a prominent example. What Pollard and other Brits are saying is that COVID vaccines do not prevent transmission of the virus, so it's impossible to achieve total herd immunity against mild cases. What the Brits are also saying is that the vaccines are still very effective at preventing severe disease. Ultimately, the pandemic ends when SARS-CoV-2 still circulates at lower levels, but isn't resulting in heavy hospitalizations and deaths.

Just because Pollard is saying "herd immunity" isn't achievable isn't an argument against vaccinations. Quite the contrary actually.

It is quite apparent that in the U.S., you will likely never reach 90% vaccination of the population. But the pandemic will end; the only question is how long that will take. We will eventually have a significant portion of the population vaccinated with good immunity against severe disease; and the unvaccinated will have acquired natural immunity the hard way. The UK is in a somewhat better place than the U.S. so they will likely reach this endemic steady state before the U.S. does. Other countries, Denmark in particular, believe they are nearly or already there. Denmark never reaches this point without a successful COVID vaccination program.

This is basically a semantic argument about what "herd immunity" means. So the conclusion to move away from vaccination programs is a crock, and does not mesh with what Pollard and British experts are saying.
That makes sense to me.

However what I find dispiriting is the fear that even if fully vaccinated, those who are particularly vulnerable, like the very elderly or some categories of the chronically ill, will remain at significant risk of death from Covid if they contract it. Thus Covid will continue as an endemic disease, like flu, I guess, slightly reducing overall life expectancy by bringing forward deaths of the vulnerable and periodically culling the old.

Probably I find that thought depressing because it emphasizes what I already know - that life is finite and my elderly relatives aren't going to be around forever (and nor am I). Just that now, vaccines or no vaccines, it seems like there's a good chance the final end will come in the form of Covid (albeit not much sooner than it would have come in the form of something else).

Really this whole pandemic has really concentrated one's mind on the inevitability of death.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,051
10,554
136
And in Tennessee the people who are creating the problem get preferential treatment with monoclonal antibodies, even though the chances of successful therapy are much less.
I have been saying for several years now that the underlying mentality behind anti-vaxxing is more or less the same as someone who drives uninsured because everyone else has full coverage. All the coverage, none of the costs. Except auto insurers won't let anyone get away with that shit but for preventable diseases it's supposed to be socially acceptable.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,051
10,554
136
That's unhinged even for that clown. Mandatory vaccinations have been part of the US military since the revolution. It's been a running gag in the military for generations about the sheer outrageous number of vaccines against literally everything that they can be required to take. To complain now is clearly political.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and pmv

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,793
12,518
136
I don't know if it's been posted in here but there is a subreddit related to this called r/HermanCainAward where people who posted crazy things about the virus on social media then die from it are shown.

Slate recently did a piece on it basically calling it depraved and cruel while faulting it for not being persuasive to refusers. I don't think that I agree. This is the natural culmination of the culture and information war conservatives and Trump stoked to nuclear intensity for their own advantages. There is little to nothing that can persuade the remaining holdouts beyond strict requirements. I don't feel amusement nor sadness at these people dying, maybe some pity. The compassion reserves of most of the country have been depleted by what they've chosen to inflict themselves and us. The people who have acted responsibly are done coddling and the consequences of each persons actions and choices are going to play out as they will.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,747
3,899
136
Actually, what Sir Pollard is saying is different. He's saying delta is so efficient that everybody, including the vaccinated, will eventually be exposed to the virus and likely get infected. So because transmission is impossible to prevent (short of a New Zealand-style zero COVID strategy), there is no such thing as strict herd immunity (against any infection).

But the current data shows that the vaccinated who do get cases are largely in the mild category, and seldom in the severe COVID category. The vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed and tested to do. In other words, you and I may ultimately get infected by the virus but it will likely be an asymptomatic or mild case. Once enough of a population is vaccinated and/or post-infection, the pandemic shifts to endemic. You're beginning to see a consensus that wealthy nations with successful vaccination programs will reach this next spring. Some may even reach it sooner, such as Denmark.

The key thing is that the end goal is to reach a lower level of viral transmission, and a much lower level of severe cases. It's very hard to get there without good vaccines. Anybody claiming Sir Pollard is claiming otherwise misrepresents his statements IMO. The Brits are absolutely not arguing to end vaccinations at this point.

The problem for the U.S. is when you drill into the data, you'll find that we're basically two wholly separate tribes across a large geography. The Northeast and a few western states have a high vaccination rate, and relatively low levels of severe COVID. But look at red states (or counties) and you see pathetic vaccination rates that barely move up over time. I know it's a cliche by now, but referring to it as a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" certainly fits the evidence.
I'm not sure what we are saying is necessarily different, but getting hung up on "herd immunity". Really comes down to how effective covid can be spread in a community that has nearly completely gained immunity, either though vaccination or previous infection.

Delta readily infects the vulnerable (eg unvaccinated), but can it really continue to thrive when there is no one left that's easy to infect?

This is where I think it's still around in small pockets (reservoirs), but have doubts of widespread circulation that can get to everyone. I would want to see evidence that even in the highly vaccinated/immune communities there is still a widespread, but perhaps undetected circulation of delta.

Could you provide a link to the statement from Pollard you are specifically referring to the clarification?
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
831
64
91
Actually, what Sir Pollard is saying is different. He's saying delta is so efficient that everybody, including the vaccinated, will eventually be exposed to the virus and likely get infected. So because transmission is impossible to prevent (short of a New Zealand-style zero COVID strategy), there is no such thing as strict herd immunity (against any infection).

But the current data shows that the vaccinated who do get cases are largely in the mild category, and seldom in the severe COVID category. The vaccines are doing exactly what they were designed and tested to do. In other words, you and I may ultimately get infected by the virus but it will likely be an asymptomatic or mild ca se. Once enough of a population is vaccinated and/or post-infection, the pandemic shifts to endemic. You're beginning to see a consensus that wealthy nations with successful vaccination programs will reach this next spring. Some may even reach it sooner, such as Denmark.

The key thing is that the end goal is to reach a lower level of viral transmission, and a much lower level of severe cases. It's very hard to get there without good vaccines. Anybody claiming Sir Pollard is claiming otherwise misrepresents his statements IMO. The Brits are absolutely not arguing to end vaccinations at this point.

The problem for the U.S. is when you drill into the data, you'll find that we're basically two wholly separate tribes across a large geography. The Northeast and a few western states have a high vaccination rate, and relatively low levels of severe COVID. But look at red states (or counties) and you see pathetic vaccination rates that barely move up over time. I know it's a cliche by now, but referring to it as a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" certainly fits the evidence.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Aggressive vaccination campaigns need to continue but, in my lowly opinion, the current crop of vaccines are not the final answer. I agree that the the current vaccines are doing as designed to help control the severity of pandemic but the efficacy wanes quickly. Vaccinated or not, there will be transmissions, infections, deaths and mutations.

I've seen estimates that somewhere around half of the unvaccinated have natural immunity from prior infection. Vaccines combined with natural immunities will eventually bring us to an endemic phase where we'll then need intense focus on more effective vaccines, alternative preventions and treatments. I have read of some promising new treatment options in trials we just need to do our parts to get through the rough patches until they're readily available.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,503
3,889
136

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,670
25,723
136
DeSantis constantly talking up monoclonal antibodies. He puts in very little effort promoting vaccines. I wonder why people hesitant to take the vaccine because it was approved "too fast" how is it they are willing to take something even more experimental?
Ron DeSantis Says Monoclonal Antibody Brought Florida COVID ER Visits Down 70 Percent (msn.com)
Because DeSantis is laser focused on the 2024 Republican primary. He will do exactly what the Republican base wants and nothing but it until then.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,747
3,899
136
DeSantis constantly talking up monoclonal antibodies. He puts in very little effort promoting vaccines. I wonder why people hesitant to take the vaccine because it was approved "too fast" how is it they are willing to take something even more experimental?
Ron DeSantis Says Monoclonal Antibody Brought Florida COVID ER Visits Down 70 Percent (msn.com)
Remdesivir costs $3120 for a typical course.
This does not include any dr/hospital fees

Vaccine costs $25-30, and you don't end up in the hospital.

Only Pfizer's vaccine is fully approved. Remdesivir is only approved for emergency use (EUA, herp, derp experimental...)

Bill Gates puts microchips in Remdesivir as well, that's why there are no microchips for new trucks.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pmv and hal2kilo

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,370
10,032
136
Because DeSantis is laser focused on the 2024 Republican primary. He will do exactly what the Republican base wants and nothing but it until then.
What is DeSantis going to do if/when Trump decides to run? Drop out? Stay in and criticize Trump? Over what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,670
25,723
136
What is DeSantis going to do if/when Trump decides to run? Drop out? Stay in and criticize Trump? Over what?
I think he's betting that Trump won't run and if he does he'll shoot to be his VP or whatever. (he is probably correct that Trump will not run, at least not in a way that's designed to actually win the presidency)
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,670
25,723
136
And VP would be particularly important in that situation because if Trump does somehow become president again they are looking for that to be the last real election the US ever has so being in the dynastic line of succession will be important.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,370
10,032
136
I think he's betting that Trump won't run and if he does he'll shoot to be his VP or whatever. (he is probably correct that Trump will not run, at least not in a way that's designed to actually win the presidency)
I think the weight of the evidence at this point is that Trump will run.

Bucking for VP is probably the best theory here.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,670
25,723
136
I think the weight of the evidence at this point is that Trump will run.

Bucking for VP is probably the best theory here.
We'll see, but my money would be heavily on no. After all at this time in 2009 everyone was certain Sarah Palin would be running in 2012 and nobody thought she would be under indictment, haha. Add on to that the erosion of Trump's support even within the Republican Party and I think that adds up to him trying to be some sort of kingmaker instead of enduring the humiliation of another loss or even worse, a potential loss in the primary.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY