COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

  • Thread starter baldgye
  • 13,234 comments
  • 551,219 views
TexRex


Iowa joins Texas and North Dakota (with Utah seemingly close) in prohibiting mask mandates by cities and counties, and school districts. The bill signed by Iowa's governor extends the ban to accredited private schools.

An earlier version of the bill that would eventually be vetoed by North Dakota's governor but was then upheld in a subsequent vote by the state legislature was so roughshod and broad that it would have prohibited businesses from requiring masks be worn by employees and anyone entering buildings owned by businesses, as pointed out by critics and concerned businesses in the state, such as AT&T.

"Property rights unless we don't agree with you."

These people are not right normal.
Click to expand...


I'm kind of torn about it. I still think wearing a mask into a place of business like a grocery store is a good thing but I don't want it misunderstood as I'm wearing a mask because I haven't been vaccinated. I would like to flaunt the fact that I've done the right thing and have gotten vaccinated so now I don't have to wear a mask but at the same time I'm having to mingle with impostors and phonies that haven't been and won't get vaccinated because "it's agin my freeeddduuuumm!!!". So I guess I feel like these anti-science, anti-mask people are stealing my freedom.

Regarding these bills coming from conservative legislatures about banning any further mask requirements in the future, I said back when the first mask mandates came out and these conservatives started objecting to them that this was probably going to be a one time thing. In the future regardless of what the situation is, regardless of how many people get sick or die, regardless of the incredible strain the healthcare system comes under, THEY WILL NOT WEAR A MASK or take any other preventative measures. Bodies could be piling up in the streets like firewood but cities won't be able to issue a mask mandate because their idiotic conservative state legislature and the moron conservative governor they had at the time, passed a bill banning mask mandates.
 
TB
I have to say, it was pretty nice walking around Costco yesterday without a mask on.
Click to expand...
I just went into a Target and Walmart without one because they have signs saying you didn't have to. I'm in Tennessee for work. Felt weird.
 
TB
It does.

Not wearing one now feels as strange as the first time I wore one at Costco after not leaving the house for two months.
Click to expand...
I walked into the gym today and it felt very weird seeing about half of the people there not wearing masks. It felt even more weird because the signs stating people need to wear masks were still up AND my state hasn't relaxed mask laws indoors.

The kicker?
We've gone a whole year and people still never learned how to effectively wear a mask and yet somehow got lucky and didn't get sick from the disease.
 
I just found a cool little function on Excel that lets you 'forecast' where a curve will go based on the existing data...

Figures on exactly how many cases of a specific variant are occuring in the UK each day are hard to find, but I've cobbled together some data from recent news reports dating back to April 15th 2021, and have plotted the figures on a graph and fitted them to an exponential curve.

Boris Johnson's current plan is to effectively lift all remaining lockdown restrictions by 21st June 2021.

However, based on the current numbers and my back-of-an-envelope maths based on exponential growth, I'm projecting case numbers of the new variant to hit around 10000 a day by June 21st.

Of course, this doesn't take into account any reimposition of lockdown restrictions, as well as the new strategy of 'surge vaccination' (setting up on-the-spot mass vaccination centres in outbreak regions), but I reckon that even with vaccinations being in an advanced state in the UK, there will still be a new 'wave' of cases, but it remains to be seen how the hospitalisation rate compares to the 2nd wave. I believe that PM Boris Johnson is betting that the hospitalisation rate is a fair bit lower this time around, and hence lockdown restrictions to combat the next wave(s) may not need to be so tight... let's hope he's right.
 
@Touring Mars - I've been trying to understand this prediction of hospitalisations by Warwick University since I saw it in a BBC article, but so far failed to find any info on what their assumptions were when making it (e.g. for how protective the vaccines are). This version of it is with going ahead with the Step 3 derestrictions but not the Step 4:

_118562416_transmission_modelling_640_2x_v1-nc-2.png


It should also be noted that the error shading has been removed from it, making it look a lot more definitive than it really is. A better version of it, along with predictions for staying in Step 2 and going ahead with Step 4 are in this PDF on page 7. (There's also some stats on Indian variant case numbers in the PDF, info on how and where testing for it is taking place, etc). Here's the predictions for if we go ahead with the Step 4 opening up on 21st June:

VoC upto Step4.png


What consensus there is seems to be pointing at 20% to 30% more transmissible, but with only relatively small clusters so far it's extremely hard to know. Should it turn out to be 30% or more then 21st June could well see a return to the Step 2 restrictions (or more). At 20% or less it's debatable, but even without restrictions a rise in hospitalisations would be economically damaging (if people have any sense at all).

I assume the reason that all the curves end at about the same point is down to vaccination rates; I can't think of any other reason for the lower transmissibility curves not lasting longer.

Overall a lot more unknown than known. Even the 'default' has an error margin that could mean there's a peak in hospitalisations almost as big as the first wave (if all restrictions are dropped on 21st June, or half the size if we don't). Conversely the 30% scenario could amount to not a lot. Any decision in a pandemic is a gamble, and I can't say chosing to go ahead with Step 3 was a bad decision, certainly not in the same way as the string of bad decisions in the Autumn (that I criticised at the time).
 
Just got back home from my second Moderna shot. My only side effects from the last shot were a sore arm that went away after a day and night sweats for the night after my shot, but I’m bracing for the worst. I’d take the worst side effects over getting COVID though.

I’d also like to take this post to thank @Touring Mars and @Joey D for posting reliable, unbiased articles and data from medical journals throughout all of this. The info helped me stay sane throughout this nearly a year and a half of constant uncertainty of what the future holds and misleading headlines. This thread has produced better and more nuanced and informed discussion than most social media platforms, and it’s been a pleasure participating in this.
 
Last edited:
Here in the Netherlands the vaccination program is somewhat picking up speed, inviting everyone born up until 1968 to make an appointment. That includes me, and I'll get my first (and only) Johnson jab next Friday.
 
Got my first shot of Moderna last night around 7PM. So far I've experienced a shoulder that hurts like a bastard and what appears to be light cold symptoms. I woke up much earlier than normal today, but otherwise don't feel too bad so far.
 
This is the sign I saw at a Tennessee Walmart and now in AZ, so probably company wide.

Edit: Chipotle and my local Circle K have similar signs up.

20210522_145716.jpg
 
Last edited:
A study I read said that workouts with masks don't significantly raise your heart rate. I did a workout without a mask and my heart rate was noticeably lower, so not sure about that.
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
A study I read said that workouts with masks don't significantly raise your heart rate. I did a workout without a mask and my heart rate was noticeably lower, so not sure about that.
Click to expand...
Depends on the intensity of the workout. I've had ones with high heart rates and ones with low heart rates since I've been masked up. That being said, I will consider not using a mask if it's quite empty at my gym (mask mandates for those vaccinated will be removed come this Friday).
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
A study I read said that workouts with masks don't significantly raise your heart rate. I did a workout without a mask and my heart rate was noticeably lower, so not sure about that.
Click to expand...

I've done a ton of bike riding with and without mask in the past year, nearly always with my bike computer and HRM. I can't say I've noticed any difference to HR with the mask, although above 170BPM and especially at or above V02 Max I find it really hard to continue without taking the mask off. :lol:
 
Woooooooooo!!! My daughter just sent me a picture of her CDC COVID-19 vax card updated with second dose info. Two weeks and that'll be my entire immediate family unit fully vaccinated, barring any boosters advised in the future. She's happy and I'm relieved.
 
What are the odds of those who have vilified Fauci and rejected everything he has said throughout all of this suddenly holding this up as being in support of their narrative? Is it less than a 100% chance?
 
Someone at my old work has tested positive for COVID, and they have sent round a list of all the places they used in the last week, which unfortunately includes the open-plan, communal social area/study space where people go for coffee and lunch.

Indeed, almost every environment in that building is 'communal' to some extent. IIRC, there's only a handful (around 10-12) 'offices' for individual use (senior academic staff), while everyone else is in open-plan office space and, of course, the labs are all communal too. Even the 'private' offices require you to walk through the communal office space, so there's a lot of potential for spread of a virus, which is kind of ironic since it is the Centre for Virus Research - you would think it might have been a bit more cleverly designed, but hey...
 
Last edited:
Northstar
Seems Fauci has softened his stance that the origins of Covid are completely natural.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/24/politics/fauci-donald-trump-coronavirus/index.html
Click to expand...

Well his previous position one notch short of outright rebuttal of lab involvement was becoming rather untenable, certainly less fashionable now we don't have Trump in office espousing the lab leak theory.

I'm not sure which is worse - the unfounded claims that it was definitely a lab leak (Trump, right wing media), the unfounded rebuttals that it definitely wasn't (Daszak, left wing media), or the slavish partisan repeaters of each stance. All very harmful to any rational discussion.

Somehow though, it took a while for rationality to return. It wasn't until after the WHO team returned from their guided tour of China that the rebuttal side started to soften, notably with Dr Tedros' remarks (BBC 31st March):
However the theory that the virus might have come from a leak in a laboratory "requires further investigation, potential with additional missions involving specialist experts," Dr Tedros said on Tuesday.

"Let me say clearly that as far as WHO is concerned, all hypothesis remain on the table," he added.
Click to expand...

Belatedly, Politifact has withdrawn its so-called fact-check on the claim that "The virus ... is a man-made virus created in the lab" which ended with "The claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire!". Of course that means that their article now sits there without any effort made to rebut the secondary - far more ridiculous - claim, that the virus was deliberately released. D'oh!
 
Last edited:
Outspacer
I'm not sure which is worse - the unfounded claims that it was definitely a lab leak (Trump, right wing media), the unfounded rebuttals that it definitely wasn't (Daszak, left wing media), or the slavish partisan repeaters of each stance. All very harmful to any rational discussion.
Click to expand...
The first two are bad, but the third is the most tiresome and harmful in my opinion.
 
got my first shot of Pfizer today, although we can't choose what vaccine we get, we can choose place where we get the vaccine and big vaccination centers do Pfizer only.
Wait for the second shot will be 6 weeks, I would like to take second shot after recommended 3 weeks but they want to get more people vaccinated with at least one shot.
 
novcze
Wait for the second shot will be 6 weeks, I would like to take second shot after recommended 3 weeks but they want to get more people vaccinated with at least one shot.
Click to expand...

Here (in Quebec) it's 12 weeks between the first and second shot. That's why 55% of the population had their first shot, but only 4% had both.
 
novcze
got my first shot of Pfizer today, although we can't choose what vaccine we get, we can choose place where we get the vaccine and big vaccination centers do Pfizer only.
Wait for the second shot will be 6 weeks, I would like to take second shot after recommended 3 weeks but they want to get more people vaccinated with at least one shot.
Click to expand...

The 3 week time period is based on keeping the trial period short but getting a good result, not based on the optimal length of time to get the best immunity. Some studies are suggesting immunity may be better from waiting longer. Regardless, in the short term, the 1st Pfizer shot gives good immunity results. In some studies, very good.
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
That UK thing I posted before said that 12 weeks led to more antibodies than 3 weeks.
Click to expand...
Indeed.... though the UK Government didn't know that at the time, they just wanted more people to have 1 shot more quickly so they pushed back the 2nd shots by as much as they could.

Ironically, now they know that a 12 week gap is better, but are faced with a potential new wave of infections, they are now pushing to get as many people fully vaccinated as quickly as possible and so are now pulling 2nd shots forward again! Genius.
 
Touring Mars
Indeed.... though the UK Government didn't know that at the time, they just wanted more people to have 1 shot more quickly so they pushed back the 2nd shots by as much as they could.

Ironically, now they know that a 12 week gap is better, but are faced with a potential new wave of infections, they are now pushing to get as many people fully vaccinated as quickly as possible and so are now pulling 2nd shots forward again! Genius.
Click to expand...

Aw, c'mon man, that's a cheap shot! ;)

Got my 2nd today, maybe a week or so earlier than I'd expected, so not sure that in practice they've changed the schedule much at all. I reckon some of it is down to supply - we're coming up to having to give 2nd doses to people who had the 1st during that big surge that peaked at 1 million doses in a day, and likely they can't match that again so are having to spread those out.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
The 3 week time period is based on keeping the trial period short but getting a good result, not based on the optimal length of time to get the best immunity. Some studies are suggesting immunity may be better from waiting longer. Regardless, in the short term, the 1st Pfizer shot gives good immunity results. In some studies, very good.
Click to expand...

I wanted to be done with it asap but I don't mind waiting longer, because it extends immunity more into fall/winter season.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back