Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I'm not sure there is a solution honestly - there are no good solutions with Covid. But there's more going on than just Covid because of Covid restrictions and guidelines. Kids are falling behind in school, mental health issues are on the rise, violence seems to be on the rise (though that probably can't be completely laid at the feet of Covid) etc. Maybe we need to isolate our most at risk and then try easing restrictions and see what happens - certainly don't want anyone to die, but suicides are on the rise so...
And are you really saying that because I say something others don't like and I can't offer a concrete solution to the problem that I deserve people being mean to me? That's just wrong and emblematic of the issues of our current society.
No, I'm saying that people aren't being mean to you--they disagree with you as you disagree with them. I don't think you're mean, but you go round and round in circles--kids in school, mental health, violence...... You admit that there's no good solution. So, I take it you think vunerable people should isolate themselves and everyone else just pretends COVID doesn't exist? Is that correct?
And what counts as a vulnerable person? I know someone who is 50, only health issue was acid reflux, he just got out of 3 weeks in hospital with covid. Now he is home on oxygen, has to use a walker and lots of new medications for his heart problem. Native Americans are getting hit hard with this; should they all have to isolate?
Another person lost their sense of smell. The FIRST thing they did was run to Walgreens for vitamins...while symptomatic with a highly contagious disease. Is it any wonder this isn't controlled?
Regarding California: I wonder how wide-spread the UK variant is there and if that is contributing to the surge in cases?
Hope your friend gets better.
I'm a bit confused with your post though. You say your friend's only health issue was acid reflux. Now he has a lot of new medications for his heart problem. Did he develop a heart problem while he was in the hospital with Covid? It sounds like he had a heart problem before Covid which by definition would be a comorbidity that from your post he was on medication for prior to contracting Covid. Now on additional meds.
Many recovered COVID patients are showing heart damage that wasn't there before. The last time I looked, they were finding myocardial inflammation in about 60% of recovered patients. This happened to my former boss...super fit guy with no underlying conditions...he had COVID back in late August/early Sept and he's still having issues with myocardial inflammation
I haven't been screened for heart problems since I was sick last spring. I have no idea if mine was damaged, but I hope not! It has been 10 months now, and I still need an inhaler (that I didn't have before covid.) It might be permanent. I know my running performance is still suffering...and I'm young, fit and healthy. You just don't know how you'll respond to covid19 until you get it.22 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I don't understand why the vaccine rollout is so terrible. Sounds like some places have extra doses while other places don't have enough. I feel like the phased approach is holding things back in places with extra doses. Those places where they have enough vaccine, but can't give it to anyone because they haven't been told to go on to the next phase yet. Someone needs to take inventory and just get these shots to people. Maybe deploy the national guards and train them to give injections. 100K soildiers working 12 hrs per day would have these vaccines done much sooner. Only question is supply to do that.
Just my opinion but I think the problem is this needed to be organized from the top down and it wasn't. And I'd bet some states assumed it would be and we're caught unprepared when it wasn't.
The doctor who gives updates on This Week in Virology works at one of the larger NYC hospitals (I forget which one). He said they were notified back in Nov that they were on the list to get a certain amount of vials for staff vaccinations. So they put a plan together and waited to get more info on timing. And waited. And then 1200 doses of vaccine just showed up on their loading dock one Tues morning in Jan. They had to scramble to look at staff schedules and dept occupancy to come up with a schedule right there on the spot. Luckily they were well organized and they banged out the jabs, but a less well prepared organization might not have been ready.
I agree,they need to get creative getting in trained personnel to administer the shots and less picky about who their giving them to.
(This is not a disagreement, rather more just quoting you to continue this subtopic.)
I agree that some level of central coordination is missing, but I also think that fully-centralized planning might not be ideal, for two general reasons. (BTW, I recognize that I'm oversimplifying, as I go on with this thought.)
One is that some localities have handled the distribution so far pretty well (within the constraints of supply and such), while others have not. Where would a fully-centralized plan fall on the effectiveness scale? I feel like many people saying "we ought to have a strong central plan" are assuming it would be a *good* plan. Well, maybe. It's challenging to make a good plan, quickly, for a novel situation; and the larger the scale, the harder it gets, IMO.
The other is that I think more localized governmental entities have a better handle on local constraints and conditions. What will work well for spread-out rural populations with limited big hospitals is probably different than what works in a dense major city with similarly scaled big health-care facilities, for example.
Now, in reality, it's possible to have central coordination to some degree, with local flexibility within that framework. There's no question in my mind that the federal piece of this, in the US, has been handled poorly.
The novelty of the situation is very relevant. We don't have some planning luxuries we might in a less urgent scenario.
I think one of the strengths of the US's multi-tier governmental systems, as a generality, is this: When different approaches to solving problems are tried in different localities, we have an opportunity to review the results, and learn from the best models, over time. In the current situation, the novelty of the needs, and the urgency of getting solutions, isn't really benefiting from that idea of trying multiple approaches in different places and comparing results.
No one has a moment's time to do a lot of consulting with peers in different localities, as might be the norm in less urgent situations. (That sort of consultation is one of the things that professional associations, etc., are useful for, in many situations. In my professional life, if we needed to do new-thing X, we'd be talking with other similar organizations to see who'd done X, and learning from their experience. This train is just rolling faster than that, at the moment; and no one's done this before. We haven't had time for "pilot projects".) I assume more of that review/consultation/adjustment will happen, over time, since this crisis/process will be going on for a while.
There's a tendency amongst the public, I think, to expect things to work well right out of the gate (they pretty much never do, IME, but the stakes aren't usually this high, or the results this visible). In other situations new processes sometimes look to the general public like they work well at the start, because trials/pilots were not very well publicized, but were helpful in working out kinks before going full-scale. (In a way, this is similar to the way some people saw the learning process by scientists early on, with findings and results changing the experts' minds, as flip-flopping or wishy-washiness.)
There's also a tendency to believe that a strong central authority (like a national pandemic czar) and strict authority structures with rigid rules are going to be the best way to get things done. I think that's mostly not true, either.
I keep reminding myself that all (well, most) of the health systems, governmental entities, etc., are just collections of regular people like me, doing the best they can in these difficult circumstances, and that in most cases they're aware of factors and considerations that I as a non-specialist have no expertise about. It's always pretty easy to second-guess how someone else should be doing a job I'd have no idea how to do myself, if I were challenged to try. 😆8 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I'm not sure there is a solution honestly - there are no good solutions with Covid. But there's more going on than just Covid because of Covid restrictions and guidelines. Kids are falling behind in school, mental health issues are on the rise, violence seems to be on the rise (though that probably can't be completely laid at the feet of Covid) etc. Maybe we need to isolate our most at risk and then try easing restrictions and see what happens - certainly don't want anyone to die, but suicides are on the rise so...
And are you really saying that because I say something others don't like and I can't offer a concrete solution to the problem that I deserve people being mean to me? That's just wrong and emblematic of the issues of our current society.
No, I'm saying that people aren't being mean to you--they disagree with you as you disagree with them. I don't think you're mean, but you go round and round in circles--kids in school, mental health, violence...... You admit that there's no good solution. So, I take it you think vunerable people should isolate themselves and everyone else just pretends COVID doesn't exist? Is that correct?
And what counts as a vulnerable person? I know someone who is 50, only health issue was acid reflux, he just got out of 3 weeks in hospital with covid. Now he is home on oxygen, has to use a walker and lots of new medications for his heart problem. Native Americans are getting hit hard with this; should they all have to isolate?
Another person lost their sense of smell. The FIRST thing they did was run to Walgreens for vitamins...while symptomatic with a highly contagious disease. Is it any wonder this isn't controlled?
Regarding California: I wonder how wide-spread the UK variant is there and if that is contributing to the surge in cases?
Hope your friend gets better.
I'm a bit confused with your post though. You say your friend's only health issue was acid reflux. Now he has a lot of new medications for his heart problem. Did he develop a heart problem while he was in the hospital with Covid? It sounds like he had a heart problem before Covid which by definition would be a comorbidity that from your post he was on medication for prior to contracting Covid. Now on additional meds.
He developed heart problems after being hospitalized.
Thanks for the clarification. Again hope your friend makes a quick, complete recovery.3 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I'm not sure there is a solution honestly - there are no good solutions with Covid. But there's more going on than just Covid because of Covid restrictions and guidelines. Kids are falling behind in school, mental health issues are on the rise, violence seems to be on the rise (though that probably can't be completely laid at the feet of Covid) etc. Maybe we need to isolate our most at risk and then try easing restrictions and see what happens - certainly don't want anyone to die, but suicides are on the rise so...
And are you really saying that because I say something others don't like and I can't offer a concrete solution to the problem that I deserve people being mean to me? That's just wrong and emblematic of the issues of our current society.
No, I'm saying that people aren't being mean to you--they disagree with you as you disagree with them. I don't think you're mean, but you go round and round in circles--kids in school, mental health, violence...... You admit that there's no good solution. So, I take it you think vunerable people should isolate themselves and everyone else just pretends COVID doesn't exist? Is that correct?
And what counts as a vulnerable person? I know someone who is 50, only health issue was acid reflux, he just got out of 3 weeks in hospital with covid. Now he is home on oxygen, has to use a walker and lots of new medications for his heart problem. Native Americans are getting hit hard with this; should they all have to isolate?
Another person lost their sense of smell. The FIRST thing they did was run to Walgreens for vitamins...while symptomatic with a highly contagious disease. Is it any wonder this isn't controlled?
Regarding California: I wonder how wide-spread the UK variant is there and if that is contributing to the surge in cases?
Do the numbers really support that more native Americans are getting it, having it worse, dying in greater numbers?
I’m originally from an area of Oklahoma that has a lot of Indians, and it has hit them HARD! I don’t live there now so
I don’t really know how sick they are when they have it, or how long they have it, but the number of deaths is astounding.
(I still read the paper)
My friend who had it for 10 weeks last summer is still having heart problems and seeing a specialist, who doesn’t really
Know how to treat her or how long it will last. She is 1/2 Native American, 38, and WAS very active.7 -
Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Lining up for a repeat vaccine every 12 months would be no different to annual flu vaccine.
I don't see that as a big deal.
From what I've heard that's what it's going to be. May as well get used to it.
It'll be a big deal if we have to wear masks and/or continue to social distance in addition to getting a vaccine every 6-12 months. And since we are still being told we need to do those things in addition to getting the vaccine I find this very likely.
Plus how many people don't get the flu vaccine? Most of the people I know who work for companies who do not require it don't bother with it. Plus you can still get the flu even if you do take it since it's a virus and they mutate.
In general we were told that a vaccine would get us back to "normal" but people are realizing that is not the case and is unlikely to be the case. Maybe we can't get back to "normal" ever again, but we aren't even going to be close to normal and for many this isn't acceptable.
I currently don't have a plan to get the vaccine. I'm all for those who wanting it to get it, but for me there's too much unknown about it and I'd rather wait until we actually know the long term effects and efficiency before committing to it. Though as I work in healthcare, though not front lines, I have a feeling work will require it as they do the annual flu shot.
To the person who posted about California - California has some of the strictest restrictions in the US so what's the explanation for why there is such a severe breakout there? Here in IN we seem to have gone through an outbreak, but when the pt's are questioned they all say they are compliant. Physicians are commenting on the fact that anecdotally they are not seeing non-compliant people getting Covid. My sister in law's mom was hospitalized for Covid after Thanksgiving - she social distanced, wore a mask when leaving the house, and washed her hands all the time but her son brought it home from work (they live together). And he's hugely into following all the restrictions so he wore his mask, washed his hands etc and so did the person who spread the Covid. If we are following the guidelines and still getting Covid which is going to make continuing to follow these guidelines very difficult for some people as why are they going through this and losing their livihood for nothing?
We (currently) have to do these things in addition to getting vaccinated because there are still so many unvaccinated people. If you're right and people don't bother to take basic precautionary steps like getting vaccinated, then this may be more drawn out.
If things aren't going "back to normal" due to low vaccination rates and that's unacceptable, what's the alternate plan being proposed? There are people who are complaining about things like wearing masks AND they're complaining about the unknowns of vaccinations. What's the alternative exactly?
Just turn unknowns into knowns by testing and peer reviews.0 -
https://www.kcra.com/article/covid-19-long-hauler-treated-in-sacramento-uc-davis-health/35192445
Long-Hauler is a new pandemic term I guess.0 -
In Indiana at the start the whole thing was 2 weeks to slow the spread - and then they kept extending it. When I go out places here everyone I see is wearing a mask and physicians are reporting both to pts and in their progress notes that the pt is compliant with the current guidelines. My sister in law's mother said when she was in the hospital her doctor said all his patients had reported following guidelines. Around here we have a few families who would normally have full driveways and cars on the street around the holidays which were completely absent this year - I'm not convinced that this new surge in cases is because of non-compliant people but instead that these measures don't really work as advertised and only serve to make us feel better and like we are doing something.
Regardless this isn't sustainable since we are in month 9-10 with no end in sight.
Have you ever seen the medical drama "House"? Patients lie.20 -
In Indiana at the start the whole thing was 2 weeks to slow the spread - and then they kept extending it. When I go out places here everyone I see is wearing a mask and physicians are reporting both to pts and in their progress notes that the pt is compliant with the current guidelines. My sister in law's mother said when she was in the hospital her doctor said all his patients had reported following guidelines. Around here we have a few families who would normally have full driveways and cars on the street around the holidays which were completely absent this year - I'm not convinced that this new surge in cases is because of non-compliant people but instead that these measures don't really work as advertised and only serve to make us feel better and like we are doing something.
Regardless this isn't sustainable since we are in month 9-10 with no end in sight.
How many threads do you see on this site where people can't lose weight while eating 1200 calories. And generally the answer is that they are not eating 1200 calories. People are not good at self reporting behavior. My mother will tell you she is compliant, and she believes it. But she isn't.
It's still possible to get Covid even though you wear a mask and try to social distance. It's not 100 percent effective. But if you're saying only compliant people are getting it, that's ridiculous.
Exactly this. That's why gold-standard medical research does not depend on self-reporting by patients.17 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I don't understand why the vaccine rollout is so terrible. Sounds like some places have extra doses while other places don't have enough. I feel like the phased approach is holding things back in places with extra doses. Those places where they have enough vaccine, but can't give it to anyone because they haven't been told to go on to the next phase yet. Someone needs to take inventory and just get these shots to people. Maybe deploy the national guards and train them to give injections. 100K soildiers working 12 hrs per day would have these vaccines done much sooner. Only question is supply to do that.
Kind of makes one wonder.... who is coordinating supply for the second doses in 3 or 4 weeks (depending on brand)? Will second dose patients be competing with first dose patients?
When my mom got her first dose they gave her an appointment card for the second dose.
However, it’s my understanding that the second dose can be delayed without lowering the effectiveness when it’s finally given. And since in studies the first dose by itself prevented the illness from becoming severe enough to lead to death, they are thinking that more people not dying is a better priority than fewer people not getting it at all. It’s hard to say whether I agree since even mild cases can have lingering effects, but it makes sense in theory.3 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I don't understand why the vaccine rollout is so terrible. Sounds like some places have extra doses while other places don't have enough. I feel like the phased approach is holding things back in places with extra doses. Those places where they have enough vaccine, but can't give it to anyone because they haven't been told to go on to the next phase yet. Someone needs to take inventory and just get these shots to people. Maybe deploy the national guards and train them to give injections. 100K soildiers working 12 hrs per day would have these vaccines done much sooner. Only question is supply to do that.
Just my opinion but I think the problem is this needed to be organized from the top down and it wasn't. And I'd bet some states assumed it would be and we're caught unprepared when it wasn't.
The doctor who gives updates on This Week in Virology works at one of the larger NYC hospitals (I forget which one). He said they were notified back in Nov that they were on the list to get a certain amount of vials for staff vaccinations. So they put a plan together and waited to get more info on timing. And waited. And then 1200 doses of vaccine just showed up on their loading dock one Tues morning in Jan. They had to scramble to look at staff schedules and dept occupancy to come up with a schedule right there on the spot. Luckily they were well organized and they banged out the jabs, but a less well prepared organization might not have been ready.
I agree,they need to get creative getting in trained personnel to administer the shots and less picky about who their giving them to.
(This is not a disagreement, rather more just quoting you to continue this subtopic.)
I agree that some level of central coordination is missing, but I also think that fully-centralized planning might not be ideal, for two general reasons. (BTW, I recognize that I'm oversimplifying, as I go on with this thought.)
One is that some localities have handled the distribution so far pretty well (within the constraints of supply and such), while others have not. Where would a fully-centralized plan fall on the effectiveness scale? I feel like many people saying "we ought to have a strong central plan" are assuming it would be a *good* plan. Well, maybe. It's challenging to make a good plan, quickly, for a novel situation; and the larger the scale, the harder it gets, IMO.
The other is that I think more localized governmental entities have a better handle on local constraints and conditions. What will work well for spread-out rural populations with limited big hospitals is probably different than what works in a dense major city with similarly scaled big health-care facilities, for example.
Now, in reality, it's possible to have central coordination to some degree, with local flexibility within that framework. There's no question in my mind that the federal piece of this, in the US, has been handled poorly.
The novelty of the situation is very relevant. We don't have some planning luxuries we might in a less urgent scenario.
I think one of the strengths of the US's multi-tier governmental systems, as a generality, is this: When different approaches to solving problems are tried in different localities, we have an opportunity to review the results, and learn from the best models, over time. In the current situation, the novelty of the needs, and the urgency of getting solutions, isn't really benefiting from that idea of trying multiple approaches in different places and comparing results.
No one has a moment's time to do a lot of consulting with peers in different localities, as might be the norm in less urgent situations. (That sort of consultation is one of the things that professional associations, etc., are useful for, in many situations. In my professional life, if we needed to do new-thing X, we'd be talking with other similar organizations to see who'd done X, and learning from their experience. This train is just rolling faster than that, at the moment; and no one's done this before. We haven't had time for "pilot projects".) I assume more of that review/consultation/adjustment will happen, over time, since this crisis/process will be going on for a while.
There's a tendency amongst the public, I think, to expect things to work well right out of the gate (they pretty much never do, IME, but the stakes aren't usually this high, or the results this visible). In other situations new processes sometimes look to the general public like they work well at the start, because trials/pilots were not very well publicized, but were helpful in working out kinks before going full-scale. (In a way, this is similar to the way some people saw the learning process by scientists early on, with findings and results changing the experts' minds, as flip-flopping or wishy-washiness.)
There's also a tendency to believe that a strong central authority (like a national pandemic czar) and strict authority structures with rigid rules are going to be the best way to get things done. I think that's mostly not true, either.
I keep reminding myself that all (well, most) of the health systems, governmental entities, etc., are just collections of regular people like me, doing the best they can in these difficult circumstances, and that in most cases they're aware of factors and considerations that I as a non-specialist have no expertise about. It's always pretty easy to second-guess how someone else should be doing a job I'd have no idea how to do myself, if I were challenged to try. 😆
Good points. I don't think a centralized plan needed to get too granular. More like guidance of how to organize, figure out how many doses they'd need and when, supply pacing, a framework and some kind of platform for communication and scheduling. And a shared database with statistics so areas that are struggling with the roll out could see where it was going more smoothly and maybe see how they were doing it.
I guess what bothers me is there are people who know how to do this, and in an organized federal system, that know how could be shared with everyone easier. I know that's asking a lot though
5 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I don't understand why the vaccine rollout is so terrible. Sounds like some places have extra doses while other places don't have enough. I feel like the phased approach is holding things back in places with extra doses. Those places where they have enough vaccine, but can't give it to anyone because they haven't been told to go on to the next phase yet. Someone needs to take inventory and just get these shots to people. Maybe deploy the national guards and train them to give injections. 100K soildiers working 12 hrs per day would have these vaccines done much sooner. Only question is supply to do that.
Just my opinion but I think the problem is this needed to be organized from the top down and it wasn't. And I'd bet some states assumed it would be and we're caught unprepared when it wasn't.
The doctor who gives updates on This Week in Virology works at one of the larger NYC hospitals (I forget which one). He said they were notified back in Nov that they were on the list to get a certain amount of vials for staff vaccinations. So they put a plan together and waited to get more info on timing. And waited. And then 1200 doses of vaccine just showed up on their loading dock one Tues morning in Jan. They had to scramble to look at staff schedules and dept occupancy to come up with a schedule right there on the spot. Luckily they were well organized and they banged out the jabs, but a less well prepared organization might not have been ready.
I agree,they need to get creative getting in trained personnel to administer the shots and less picky about who their giving them to.
(This is not a disagreement, rather more just quoting you to continue this subtopic.)
I agree that some level of central coordination is missing, but I also think that fully-centralized planning might not be ideal, for two general reasons. (BTW, I recognize that I'm oversimplifying, as I go on with this thought.)
One is that some localities have handled the distribution so far pretty well (within the constraints of supply and such), while others have not. Where would a fully-centralized plan fall on the effectiveness scale? I feel like many people saying "we ought to have a strong central plan" are assuming it would be a *good* plan. Well, maybe. It's challenging to make a good plan, quickly, for a novel situation; and the larger the scale, the harder it gets, IMO.
The other is that I think more localized governmental entities have a better handle on local constraints and conditions. What will work well for spread-out rural populations with limited big hospitals is probably different than what works in a dense major city with similarly scaled big health-care facilities, for example.
Now, in reality, it's possible to have central coordination to some degree, with local flexibility within that framework. There's no question in my mind that the federal piece of this, in the US, has been handled poorly.
The novelty of the situation is very relevant. We don't have some planning luxuries we might in a less urgent scenario.
I think one of the strengths of the US's multi-tier governmental systems, as a generality, is this: When different approaches to solving problems are tried in different localities, we have an opportunity to review the results, and learn from the best models, over time. In the current situation, the novelty of the needs, and the urgency of getting solutions, isn't really benefiting from that idea of trying multiple approaches in different places and comparing results.
No one has a moment's time to do a lot of consulting with peers in different localities, as might be the norm in less urgent situations. (That sort of consultation is one of the things that professional associations, etc., are useful for, in many situations. In my professional life, if we needed to do new-thing X, we'd be talking with other similar organizations to see who'd done X, and learning from their experience. This train is just rolling faster than that, at the moment; and no one's done this before. We haven't had time for "pilot projects".) I assume more of that review/consultation/adjustment will happen, over time, since this crisis/process will be going on for a while.
There's a tendency amongst the public, I think, to expect things to work well right out of the gate (they pretty much never do, IME, but the stakes aren't usually this high, or the results this visible). In other situations new processes sometimes look to the general public like they work well at the start, because trials/pilots were not very well publicized, but were helpful in working out kinks before going full-scale. (In a way, this is similar to the way some people saw the learning process by scientists early on, with findings and results changing the experts' minds, as flip-flopping or wishy-washiness.)
There's also a tendency to believe that a strong central authority (like a national pandemic czar) and strict authority structures with rigid rules are going to be the best way to get things done. I think that's mostly not true, either.
I keep reminding myself that all (well, most) of the health systems, governmental entities, etc., are just collections of regular people like me, doing the best they can in these difficult circumstances, and that in most cases they're aware of factors and considerations that I as a non-specialist have no expertise about. It's always pretty easy to second-guess how someone else should be doing a job I'd have no idea how to do myself, if I were challenged to try. 😆
Good points. I don't think a centralized plan needed to get too granular. More like guidance of how to organize, figure out how many doses they'd need and when, supply pacing, a framework and some kind of platform for communication and scheduling. And a shared database with statistics so areas that are struggling with the roll out could see where it was going more smoothly and maybe see how they were doing it.
I guess what bothers me is there are people who know how to do this, and in an organized federal system, that know how could be shared with everyone easier. I know that's asking a lot though
I know one of the problems with just giving the extra doses to anyone available is that people were using it as a way to skip the line. This is why we can’t have nice things! I don’t remember the details but they were actually discussing prosecuting one doctor who intentionally didn’t schedule enough qualified people, then called in a bunch of big money donors to fill the extra slots. Of course knowing that someone is getting prosecuted for giving the vaccine to the wrong people is going to make other doctors reluctant to do the common sense thing and use all the doses available rather than wasting them.4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I don't understand why the vaccine rollout is so terrible. Sounds like some places have extra doses while other places don't have enough. I feel like the phased approach is holding things back in places with extra doses. Those places where they have enough vaccine, but can't give it to anyone because they haven't been told to go on to the next phase yet. Someone needs to take inventory and just get these shots to people. Maybe deploy the national guards and train them to give injections. 100K soildiers working 12 hrs per day would have these vaccines done much sooner. Only question is supply to do that.
Just my opinion but I think the problem is this needed to be organized from the top down and it wasn't. And I'd bet some states assumed it would be and we're caught unprepared when it wasn't.
The doctor who gives updates on This Week in Virology works at one of the larger NYC hospitals (I forget which one). He said they were notified back in Nov that they were on the list to get a certain amount of vials for staff vaccinations. So they put a plan together and waited to get more info on timing. And waited. And then 1200 doses of vaccine just showed up on their loading dock one Tues morning in Jan. They had to scramble to look at staff schedules and dept occupancy to come up with a schedule right there on the spot. Luckily they were well organized and they banged out the jabs, but a less well prepared organization might not have been ready.
I agree,they need to get creative getting in trained personnel to administer the shots and less picky about who their giving them to.
(This is not a disagreement, rather more just quoting you to continue this subtopic.)
I agree that some level of central coordination is missing, but I also think that fully-centralized planning might not be ideal, for two general reasons. (BTW, I recognize that I'm oversimplifying, as I go on with this thought.)
One is that some localities have handled the distribution so far pretty well (within the constraints of supply and such), while others have not. Where would a fully-centralized plan fall on the effectiveness scale? I feel like many people saying "we ought to have a strong central plan" are assuming it would be a *good* plan. Well, maybe. It's challenging to make a good plan, quickly, for a novel situation; and the larger the scale, the harder it gets, IMO.
The other is that I think more localized governmental entities have a better handle on local constraints and conditions. What will work well for spread-out rural populations with limited big hospitals is probably different than what works in a dense major city with similarly scaled big health-care facilities, for example.
Now, in reality, it's possible to have central coordination to some degree, with local flexibility within that framework. There's no question in my mind that the federal piece of this, in the US, has been handled poorly.
The novelty of the situation is very relevant. We don't have some planning luxuries we might in a less urgent scenario.
I think one of the strengths of the US's multi-tier governmental systems, as a generality, is this: When different approaches to solving problems are tried in different localities, we have an opportunity to review the results, and learn from the best models, over time. In the current situation, the novelty of the needs, and the urgency of getting solutions, isn't really benefiting from that idea of trying multiple approaches in different places and comparing results.
No one has a moment's time to do a lot of consulting with peers in different localities, as might be the norm in less urgent situations. (That sort of consultation is one of the things that professional associations, etc., are useful for, in many situations. In my professional life, if we needed to do new-thing X, we'd be talking with other similar organizations to see who'd done X, and learning from their experience. This train is just rolling faster than that, at the moment; and no one's done this before. We haven't had time for "pilot projects".) I assume more of that review/consultation/adjustment will happen, over time, since this crisis/process will be going on for a while.
There's a tendency amongst the public, I think, to expect things to work well right out of the gate (they pretty much never do, IME, but the stakes aren't usually this high, or the results this visible). In other situations new processes sometimes look to the general public like they work well at the start, because trials/pilots were not very well publicized, but were helpful in working out kinks before going full-scale. (In a way, this is similar to the way some people saw the learning process by scientists early on, with findings and results changing the experts' minds, as flip-flopping or wishy-washiness.)
There's also a tendency to believe that a strong central authority (like a national pandemic czar) and strict authority structures with rigid rules are going to be the best way to get things done. I think that's mostly not true, either.
I keep reminding myself that all (well, most) of the health systems, governmental entities, etc., are just collections of regular people like me, doing the best they can in these difficult circumstances, and that in most cases they're aware of factors and considerations that I as a non-specialist have no expertise about. It's always pretty easy to second-guess how someone else should be doing a job I'd have no idea how to do myself, if I were challenged to try. 😆
Good points. I don't think a centralized plan needed to get too granular. More like guidance of how to organize, figure out how many doses they'd need and when, supply pacing, a framework and some kind of platform for communication and scheduling. And a shared database with statistics so areas that are struggling with the roll out could see where it was going more smoothly and maybe see how they were doing it.
I guess what bothers me is there are people who know how to do this, and in an organized federal system, that know how could be shared with everyone easier. I know that's asking a lot though
I know one of the problems with just giving the extra doses to anyone available is that people were using it as a way to skip the line. This is why we can’t have nice things! I don’t remember the details but they were actually discussing prosecuting one doctor who intentionally didn’t schedule enough qualified people, then called in a bunch of big money donors to fill the extra slots. Of course knowing that someone is getting prosecuted for giving the vaccine to the wrong people is going to make other doctors reluctant to do the common sense thing and use all the doses available rather than wasting them.
Yep. And then we get stuck in that philosophical trap where we're so busy trying to keep people from cutting the line that we slow down a process that needs to be fast and hurt everyone. If we knew for sure the vaccines were sterilizing, I'd say screw it just vaccinate whoever shows up because jabbing all the line cutters will still protect me. But since we're not sure and it could just be protecting the person getting vaxed, it makes fairness an issue. Oh well. Like Ann said, hopefully they will learn as they go.4 -
snowflake954 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Lining up for a repeat vaccine every 12 months would be no different to annual flu vaccine.
I don't see that as a big deal.
From what I've heard that's what it's going to be. May as well get used to it.
From what I've heard none of the variants so far have been shown to make the vaccines ineffective.
Better to wait and see rather than speculate or assume.
For example not seen any reliable source say that the new variant that emerged in England currently causing horrendous infection rates in the UK requires any change to the vaccines currently being rolled out.
Some good news.....
Vaccination is proceeding at a good pace in the UK, 2.4 million doses received by 2 million people. We don't seem to have the widespread fear of vaccination that are troubling others countries.
The article I linked to above and another one I read last night indicates the South African variant has initially shown some resistance to the antibodies produced by the vaccines. Lots more research is needed. The South African variant is known to be in 12 countries (according to the articles).7 -
0
-
In California we initially did a great job of flattening the curve. But after six weeks, people were fed up with the restrictions and demanded to be able to reopen. Some just did it and continue to do so in spite of the regulations.
Our state and local governments were damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I feel bad for them.
We’re in a mess now because people have been ignoring health guidelines since mid-November. Either with small gatherings or large ones. And with so many asymptomatic people, they don’t know they have it and can make others sick.
There was a heart wrenching article in the LA Times yesterday about children and grandchildren apologizing to dying parents and grandparents for bringing the virus home to them.
I work on a college campus and we have mandatory testing of everyone once a week and we’re moving to twice weekly. Only a couple of my positives have had symptoms. When I call to place them In isolation, they say “but I feel fine.” And I tell them I hope they stay that way—that it’s an inconvenience for them and not an illness. And then everyone in their suite/wing is put into mandatory quarantine to prevent spread.
We were humming along just fine with a couple positive cases (in traditional residence halls with shared bathrooms) until after Thanksgiving. Holy crap! Our students really work hard to follow all the strict COVID policies. No in-person programming, only 4-6 allowed in the lounge at a time. And not any now, since things have gotten worse in the state. Not real college life, but they each have their own room, plenty of food, and great internet. For some, living on campus is the only way they can be in college when it’s online. All our classes are online. No campus life at all this year. The bunnies have completely taken over. It’s kinda cute!
We were told to make the lounge furniture inaccessible so people don’t congregate a few days before move in. We couldn’t relocate it all, so we saranwrapped it all together. They’ve made a game out of decorating the giant mounds of furniture and have had hall to hall competitions they voted for online. They’re so awesome!
And last week wasn’t fun either after the tests started coming back in—everyone needed to test within 48 hours of returning to campus. They didn’t get it on campus, they brought it back. Things will settle down. Likely until the week after spring break. 😬16 -
Let's face it; compliance will never be 100%, especially considering some of the role models we've had.
And even with limiting numbers of occupants anywhere, all it takes is that 1 person to be in denial or asymptomatic and there ya go with another spread. Then those people share and share....
All we can each personally do is the very best we can and be patient; pray the system will work along with the science. I see most people trying(maybe 90 %)and that 10% still want to do what they've always done.
I was talking with a daycare provider at the grocery store and we talked about Christmas. I told her how it was just dh and myself this year. She said she got together with her parents; my reply was 'yeh but you probably see them all the time'. 'Nope' she said, 'but I didn't reopen for a couple days after we got together.' And there you have another possible crack in the system.
15 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I don't understand why the vaccine rollout is so terrible. Sounds like some places have extra doses while other places don't have enough. I feel like the phased approach is holding things back in places with extra doses. Those places where they have enough vaccine, but can't give it to anyone because they haven't been told to go on to the next phase yet. Someone needs to take inventory and just get these shots to people. Maybe deploy the national guards and train them to give injections. 100K soildiers working 12 hrs per day would have these vaccines done much sooner. Only question is supply to do that.
Just my opinion but I think the problem is this needed to be organized from the top down and it wasn't. And I'd bet some states assumed it would be and we're caught unprepared when it wasn't.
The doctor who gives updates on This Week in Virology works at one of the larger NYC hospitals (I forget which one). He said they were notified back in Nov that they were on the list to get a certain amount of vials for staff vaccinations. So they put a plan together and waited to get more info on timing. And waited. And then 1200 doses of vaccine just showed up on their loading dock one Tues morning in Jan. They had to scramble to look at staff schedules and dept occupancy to come up with a schedule right there on the spot. Luckily they were well organized and they banged out the jabs, but a less well prepared organization might not have been ready.
I agree,they need to get creative getting in trained personnel to administer the shots and less picky about who their giving them to.
Agreed. I think some entire states were caught unprepared. Definitely local county health departments and hospitals / EMS agencies, etc. were not ready. One thing that frustrates me is that first responders are given priority, but only through agencies. Those of us who have certifications as emergency medical responders and volunteer/unpaid are left off those lists.10 -
https://theconversation.com/americans-have-unrealistic-expectations-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-152745
This shares some vaccine expectations.1 -
https://www.studyfinds.org/depression-stress-weaken-covid-vaccine-effectiveness/
I had read the concerns over alcohol use but not this concern.1 -
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/13/moderna-ceo-says-the-world-will-have-to-live-with-the-coronavirus-forever.html
I guess we need to consider the source.2 -
Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The plan wasn't followed though. Even at the time, it was obvious that many people were unwilling to comply, so I'm not sure why anyone would have thought it was just going to be two weeks.
And what's the proposal here? Even if some people did genuinely think that some people giving an effort for two weeks would be enough, do we just throw up our hands and refuse to do anything else when it became obviously that community spread was happening across the country?
What exactly are you asking for here?8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Lining up for a repeat vaccine every 12 months would be no different to annual flu vaccine.
I don't see that as a big deal.
From what I've heard that's what it's going to be. May as well get used to it.
It'll be a big deal if we have to wear masks and/or continue to social distance in addition to getting a vaccine every 6-12 months. And since we are still being told we need to do those things in addition to getting the vaccine I find this very likely.
Plus how many people don't get the flu vaccine? Most of the people I know who work for companies who do not require it don't bother with it. Plus you can still get the flu even if you do take it since it's a virus and they mutate.
In general we were told that a vaccine would get us back to "normal" but people are realizing that is not the case and is unlikely to be the case. Maybe we can't get back to "normal" ever again, but we aren't even going to be close to normal and for many this isn't acceptable.
I currently don't have a plan to get the vaccine. I'm all for those who wanting it to get it, but for me there's too much unknown about it and I'd rather wait until we actually know the long term effects and efficiency before committing to it. Though as I work in healthcare, though not front lines, I have a feeling work will require it as they do the annual flu shot.
To the person who posted about California - California has some of the strictest restrictions in the US so what's the explanation for why there is such a severe breakout there? Here in IN we seem to have gone through an outbreak, but when the pt's are questioned they all say they are compliant. Physicians are commenting on the fact that anecdotally they are not seeing non-compliant people getting Covid. My sister in law's mom was hospitalized for Covid after Thanksgiving - she social distanced, wore a mask when leaving the house, and washed her hands all the time but her son brought it home from work (they live together). And he's hugely into following all the restrictions so he wore his mask, washed his hands etc and so did the person who spread the Covid. If we are following the guidelines and still getting Covid which is going to make continuing to follow these guidelines very difficult for some people as why are they going through this and losing their livihood for nothing?
We (currently) have to do these things in addition to getting vaccinated because there are still so many unvaccinated people. If you're right and people don't bother to take basic precautionary steps like getting vaccinated, then this may be more drawn out.
If things aren't going "back to normal" due to low vaccination rates and that's unacceptable, what's the alternate plan being proposed? There are people who are complaining about things like wearing masks AND they're complaining about the unknowns of vaccinations. What's the alternative exactly?
Just turn unknowns into knowns by testing and peer reviews.
I don't know how this addresses people who insist that we get somehow get back to normal by ignoring the virus.7 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I don't understand why the vaccine rollout is so terrible. Sounds like some places have extra doses while other places don't have enough. I feel like the phased approach is holding things back in places with extra doses. Those places where they have enough vaccine, but can't give it to anyone because they haven't been told to go on to the next phase yet. Someone needs to take inventory and just get these shots to people. Maybe deploy the national guards and train them to give injections. 100K soildiers working 12 hrs per day would have these vaccines done much sooner. Only question is supply to do that.
Just my opinion but I think the problem is this needed to be organized from the top down and it wasn't. And I'd bet some states assumed it would be and we're caught unprepared when it wasn't.
The doctor who gives updates on This Week in Virology works at one of the larger NYC hospitals (I forget which one). He said they were notified back in Nov that they were on the list to get a certain amount of vials for staff vaccinations. So they put a plan together and waited to get more info on timing. And waited. And then 1200 doses of vaccine just showed up on their loading dock one Tues morning in Jan. They had to scramble to look at staff schedules and dept occupancy to come up with a schedule right there on the spot. Luckily they were well organized and they banged out the jabs, but a less well prepared organization might not have been ready.
I agree,they need to get creative getting in trained personnel to administer the shots and less picky about who their giving them to.
(This is not a disagreement, rather more just quoting you to continue this subtopic.)
I agree that some level of central coordination is missing, but I also think that fully-centralized planning might not be ideal, for two general reasons. (BTW, I recognize that I'm oversimplifying, as I go on with this thought.)
One is that some localities have handled the distribution so far pretty well (within the constraints of supply and such), while others have not. Where would a fully-centralized plan fall on the effectiveness scale? I feel like many people saying "we ought to have a strong central plan" are assuming it would be a *good* plan. Well, maybe. It's challenging to make a good plan, quickly, for a novel situation; and the larger the scale, the harder it gets, IMO.
The other is that I think more localized governmental entities have a better handle on local constraints and conditions. What will work well for spread-out rural populations with limited big hospitals is probably different than what works in a dense major city with similarly scaled big health-care facilities, for example.
Now, in reality, it's possible to have central coordination to some degree, with local flexibility within that framework. There's no question in my mind that the federal piece of this, in the US, has been handled poorly.
The novelty of the situation is very relevant. We don't have some planning luxuries we might in a less urgent scenario.
I think one of the strengths of the US's multi-tier governmental systems, as a generality, is this: When different approaches to solving problems are tried in different localities, we have an opportunity to review the results, and learn from the best models, over time. In the current situation, the novelty of the needs, and the urgency of getting solutions, isn't really benefiting from that idea of trying multiple approaches in different places and comparing results.
No one has a moment's time to do a lot of consulting with peers in different localities, as might be the norm in less urgent situations. (That sort of consultation is one of the things that professional associations, etc., are useful for, in many situations. In my professional life, if we needed to do new-thing X, we'd be talking with other similar organizations to see who'd done X, and learning from their experience. This train is just rolling faster than that, at the moment; and no one's done this before. We haven't had time for "pilot projects".) I assume more of that review/consultation/adjustment will happen, over time, since this crisis/process will be going on for a while.
There's a tendency amongst the public, I think, to expect things to work well right out of the gate (they pretty much never do, IME, but the stakes aren't usually this high, or the results this visible). In other situations new processes sometimes look to the general public like they work well at the start, because trials/pilots were not very well publicized, but were helpful in working out kinks before going full-scale. (In a way, this is similar to the way some people saw the learning process by scientists early on, with findings and results changing the experts' minds, as flip-flopping or wishy-washiness.)
There's also a tendency to believe that a strong central authority (like a national pandemic czar) and strict authority structures with rigid rules are going to be the best way to get things done. I think that's mostly not true, either.
I keep reminding myself that all (well, most) of the health systems, governmental entities, etc., are just collections of regular people like me, doing the best they can in these difficult circumstances, and that in most cases they're aware of factors and considerations that I as a non-specialist have no expertise about. It's always pretty easy to second-guess how someone else should be doing a job I'd have no idea how to do myself, if I were challenged to try. 😆
I agree with this post. I used to think government coordination would have stopped this thing, and it might have had a plan been ready for this type of disaster. I remember as a kid in school being told what we would do if there were an atomic attack (this in rural Minnesota). We also had fire drills. There used to be the idea of prevention and a plan--preparedness. The federal government would have had to have centers, and stockpiles, and dry runs at every level to make it work.
Once COVID hit it was too late. In Italy we're under central government control and COVID is still here and going strong. The regions do not like the government mandates and either issue stricter controls or want more opening. This is a much smaller country than the US.
As Ann said, we can just do our best as citizens, and it's just not easy to understand what it takes to get everything moving.5 -
In Indiana at the start the whole thing was 2 weeks to slow the spread - and then they kept extending it. When I go out places here everyone I see is wearing a mask and physicians are reporting both to pts and in their progress notes that the pt is compliant with the current guidelines. My sister in law's mother said when she was in the hospital her doctor said all his patients had reported following guidelines. Around here we have a few families who would normally have full driveways and cars on the street around the holidays which were completely absent this year - I'm not convinced that this new surge in cases is because of non-compliant people but instead that these measures don't really work as advertised and only serve to make us feel better and like we are doing something.
Regardless this isn't sustainable since we are in month 9-10 with no end in sight.
How many threads do you see on this site where people can't lose weight while eating 1200 calories. And generally the answer is that they are not eating 1200 calories. People are not good at self reporting behavior. My mother will tell you she is compliant, and she believes it. But she isn't.
It's still possible to get Covid even though you wear a mask and try to social distance. It's not 100 percent effective. But if you're saying only compliant people are getting it, that's ridiculous.
My mother also thinks she's compliant but isn't.- Her mask slips down under her nose and she doesn't realize it and doesn't pull it back up. I bought her one that has adjustable ear elastics.
- She is just terrible with staying 6' away from people.
On the plus side, for her doctor's appointments - they have stopped overbooking and now she can get in and out. But now I'm aware of the issue of medical overbooking and will be very annoyed by it when it starts happening again. I've been really enjoying all these mostly empty waiting rooms for my own medical issues.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The plan wasn't followed though. Even at the time, it was obvious that many people were unwilling to comply, so I'm not sure why anyone would have thought it was just going to be two weeks.
And what's the proposal here? Even if some people did genuinely think that some people giving an effort for two weeks would be enough, do we just throw up our hands and refuse to do anything else when it became obviously that community spread was happening across the country?
What exactly are you asking for here?
It sure sounded like it was going to be 2 weeks. The governor of my state repeatedly said 2 weeks to slow the spread - right up to the 2 week deadline and then he extended it, over and over and over again. Maybe you are right and that it would never have worked (though most people I know stayed home during that time, only going to the store and home and/or having things delivered. After the constant extensions in the spring, and the wishy-washing that many in state and local government had in regards to what was acceptable and what was not (for instance not condemning protesting, but not allowing a gym to open with a very limited capacity, either gathering is fine or it's not). So now of course it's going to be harder to convince people to continue complying. If they did what was asked and it was never enough and they kept moving the bar many people are rightfully frustrated.
It's a virus, it will spread, it will mutate. I don't know what the answer is, but many people are reaching the end of their ropes with all these restrictions. I've been accused of not having a suggestion since I don't think these restrictions are sustainable and that's true. I just don't know. But all the people saying we have to keep doing this...what are your suggestions on the fact that kids are falling behind in school (especially those who lack parental supervision or ability to help and primarily low income kids), mental health issues including suicide attemtps are on the rise and the job losses that have been suffered are hurting people immensely. What do you think we can do to support these issues if you insist we must continue the restrictions?7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The plan wasn't followed though. Even at the time, it was obvious that many people were unwilling to comply, so I'm not sure why anyone would have thought it was just going to be two weeks.
And what's the proposal here? Even if some people did genuinely think that some people giving an effort for two weeks would be enough, do we just throw up our hands and refuse to do anything else when it became obviously that community spread was happening across the country?
What exactly are you asking for here?
It sure sounded like it was going to be 2 weeks. The governor of my state repeatedly said 2 weeks to slow the spread - right up to the 2 week deadline and then he extended it, over and over and over again. Maybe you are right and that it would never have worked (though most people I know stayed home during that time, only going to the store and home and/or having things delivered. After the constant extensions in the spring, and the wishy-washing that many in state and local government had in regards to what was acceptable and what was not (for instance not condemning protesting, but not allowing a gym to open with a very limited capacity, either gathering is fine or it's not). So now of course it's going to be harder to convince people to continue complying. If they did what was asked and it was never enough and they kept moving the bar many people are rightfully frustrated.
It's a virus, it will spread, it will mutate. I don't know what the answer is, but many people are reaching the end of their ropes with all these restrictions. I've been accused of not having a suggestion since I don't think these restrictions are sustainable and that's true. I just don't know. But all the people saying we have to keep doing this...what are your suggestions on the fact that kids are falling behind in school (especially those who lack parental supervision or ability to help and primarily low income kids), mental health issues including suicide attemtps are on the rise and the job losses that have been suffered are hurting people immensely. What do you think we can do to support these issues if you insist we must continue the restrictions?
I have no doubt that many of us personally experience the people around us doing the right things (at least the parts of their behavior we can observe), but in reality we know from many people are minimally compliant or not at all compliant. People are going to gyms and indoor dining when they can, they gather for holidays, they're having parties, some students had no option to do anything but in-person classes, and large gatherings were still happening in places where they were allowed.
I can't think of any problem impacting people that is made BETTER by hundreds of thousands of new cases and a couple thousand deaths every day. These people dying isn't going to help anyone with mental health issues. It appears we may be about to begin a situation with the government taking this actually seriously and also considering what steps we need to take to help people navigate the challenges of this situation, which will be a welcome change.19 -
snowflake954 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I don't understand why the vaccine rollout is so terrible. Sounds like some places have extra doses while other places don't have enough. I feel like the phased approach is holding things back in places with extra doses. Those places where they have enough vaccine, but can't give it to anyone because they haven't been told to go on to the next phase yet. Someone needs to take inventory and just get these shots to people. Maybe deploy the national guards and train them to give injections. 100K soildiers working 12 hrs per day would have these vaccines done much sooner. Only question is supply to do that.
Just my opinion but I think the problem is this needed to be organized from the top down and it wasn't. And I'd bet some states assumed it would be and we're caught unprepared when it wasn't.
The doctor who gives updates on This Week in Virology works at one of the larger NYC hospitals (I forget which one). He said they were notified back in Nov that they were on the list to get a certain amount of vials for staff vaccinations. So they put a plan together and waited to get more info on timing. And waited. And then 1200 doses of vaccine just showed up on their loading dock one Tues morning in Jan. They had to scramble to look at staff schedules and dept occupancy to come up with a schedule right there on the spot. Luckily they were well organized and they banged out the jabs, but a less well prepared organization might not have been ready.
I agree,they need to get creative getting in trained personnel to administer the shots and less picky about who their giving them to.
(This is not a disagreement, rather more just quoting you to continue this subtopic.)
I agree that some level of central coordination is missing, but I also think that fully-centralized planning might not be ideal, for two general reasons. (BTW, I recognize that I'm oversimplifying, as I go on with this thought.)
One is that some localities have handled the distribution so far pretty well (within the constraints of supply and such), while others have not. Where would a fully-centralized plan fall on the effectiveness scale? I feel like many people saying "we ought to have a strong central plan" are assuming it would be a *good* plan. Well, maybe. It's challenging to make a good plan, quickly, for a novel situation; and the larger the scale, the harder it gets, IMO.
The other is that I think more localized governmental entities have a better handle on local constraints and conditions. What will work well for spread-out rural populations with limited big hospitals is probably different than what works in a dense major city with similarly scaled big health-care facilities, for example.
Now, in reality, it's possible to have central coordination to some degree, with local flexibility within that framework. There's no question in my mind that the federal piece of this, in the US, has been handled poorly.
The novelty of the situation is very relevant. We don't have some planning luxuries we might in a less urgent scenario.
I think one of the strengths of the US's multi-tier governmental systems, as a generality, is this: When different approaches to solving problems are tried in different localities, we have an opportunity to review the results, and learn from the best models, over time. In the current situation, the novelty of the needs, and the urgency of getting solutions, isn't really benefiting from that idea of trying multiple approaches in different places and comparing results.
No one has a moment's time to do a lot of consulting with peers in different localities, as might be the norm in less urgent situations. (That sort of consultation is one of the things that professional associations, etc., are useful for, in many situations. In my professional life, if we needed to do new-thing X, we'd be talking with other similar organizations to see who'd done X, and learning from their experience. This train is just rolling faster than that, at the moment; and no one's done this before. We haven't had time for "pilot projects".) I assume more of that review/consultation/adjustment will happen, over time, since this crisis/process will be going on for a while.
There's a tendency amongst the public, I think, to expect things to work well right out of the gate (they pretty much never do, IME, but the stakes aren't usually this high, or the results this visible). In other situations new processes sometimes look to the general public like they work well at the start, because trials/pilots were not very well publicized, but were helpful in working out kinks before going full-scale. (In a way, this is similar to the way some people saw the learning process by scientists early on, with findings and results changing the experts' minds, as flip-flopping or wishy-washiness.)
There's also a tendency to believe that a strong central authority (like a national pandemic czar) and strict authority structures with rigid rules are going to be the best way to get things done. I think that's mostly not true, either.
I keep reminding myself that all (well, most) of the health systems, governmental entities, etc., are just collections of regular people like me, doing the best they can in these difficult circumstances, and that in most cases they're aware of factors and considerations that I as a non-specialist have no expertise about. It's always pretty easy to second-guess how someone else should be doing a job I'd have no idea how to do myself, if I were challenged to try. 😆
I agree with this post. I used to think government coordination would have stopped this thing, and it might have had a plan been ready for this type of disaster. I remember as a kid in school being told what we would do if there were an atomic attack (this in rural Minnesota). We also had fire drills. There used to be the idea of prevention and a plan--preparedness. The federal government would have had to have centers, and stockpiles, and dry runs at every level to make it work.
Once COVID hit it was too late. In Italy we're under central government control and COVID is still here and going strong. The regions do not like the government mandates and either issue stricter controls or want more opening. This is a much smaller country than the US.
As Ann said, we can just do our best as citizens, and it's just not easy to understand what it takes to get everything moving.
I remember this too, suburban Minneapolis, elementary school. We crouched down in the halls covering our heads with our arms during drills 😳 They also talked about loading us into boxcars to get us away from the city. Wouldn’t fly today. No school psychologists then. This was during the Cuban missile crisis.
Also they had massive polio vaccinating at the public schools.
There’s definitely no easy solution to covid. It would be nice if everyone took this seriously, and did the basics that slow down the spread. One young girl interviewed the other day about holiday partying, traveling, and socializing, said she has to live her life, and have fun🤷🏻♀️8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Catching up on the discussion.
Anyhow, I too had forgotten about the original 2 week action plan until @kushie1 had mentioned it. But I am surprised that @JaneJellyRoll didn’t have a flashback and remember the “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative. If anyone else wants a reminder of where we were at last March, here is the surgeon general:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK2ypT2xweA
I occasionally appreciate going back and listening to what various people had to say in those early days and each iteration since.
@DNARules I totally agree with your comment about people stating or believing they are compliant when they are not. I can make a list of a few people right off the bat. I wonder if I technically should be on the list, though in my estimation I am making sincere efforts to follow guidelines.
@ahoy_m8 Good question about second doses. The plus is, if I heard correctly, the second doses are not exact on timing. They cannot be done early, but can be delayed.
@annpt77 Always said better than I can!
The plan wasn't followed though. Even at the time, it was obvious that many people were unwilling to comply, so I'm not sure why anyone would have thought it was just going to be two weeks.
And what's the proposal here? Even if some people did genuinely think that some people giving an effort for two weeks would be enough, do we just throw up our hands and refuse to do anything else when it became obviously that community spread was happening across the country?
What exactly are you asking for here?
It sure sounded like it was going to be 2 weeks. The governor of my state repeatedly said 2 weeks to slow the spread - right up to the 2 week deadline and then he extended it, over and over and over again. Maybe you are right and that it would never have worked (though most people I know stayed home during that time, only going to the store and home and/or having things delivered. After the constant extensions in the spring, and the wishy-washing that many in state and local government had in regards to what was acceptable and what was not (for instance not condemning protesting, but not allowing a gym to open with a very limited capacity, either gathering is fine or it's not). So now of course it's going to be harder to convince people to continue complying. If they did what was asked and it was never enough and they kept moving the bar many people are rightfully frustrated.
It's a virus, it will spread, it will mutate. I don't know what the answer is, but many people are reaching the end of their ropes with all these restrictions. I've been accused of not having a suggestion since I don't think these restrictions are sustainable and that's true. I just don't know. But all the people saying we have to keep doing this...what are your suggestions on the fact that kids are falling behind in school (especially those who lack parental supervision or ability to help and primarily low income kids), mental health issues including suicide attemtps are on the rise and the job losses that have been suffered are hurting people immensely. What do you think we can do to support these issues if you insist we must continue the restrictions?
I have no doubt that many of us personally experience the people around us doing the right things (at least the parts of their behavior we can observe), but in reality we know from many people are minimally compliant or not at all compliant. People are going to gyms and indoor dining when they can, they gather for holidays, they're having parties, some students had no option to do anything but in-person classes, and large gatherings were still happening in places where they were allowed.
I can't think of any problem impacting people that is made BETTER by hundreds of thousands of new cases and a couple thousand deaths every day. These people dying isn't going to help anyone with mental health issues. It appears we may be about to begin a situation with the government taking this actually seriously and also considering what steps we need to take to help people navigate the challenges of this situation, which will be a welcome change.
If gyms and indoor dining, as examples, are allowed in your area by state and/or local government and you go, following the rules in place for these businesses, aren't people being compliant?8 -
missysippy930 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »I don't understand why the vaccine rollout is so terrible. Sounds like some places have extra doses while other places don't have enough. I feel like the phased approach is holding things back in places with extra doses. Those places where they have enough vaccine, but can't give it to anyone because they haven't been told to go on to the next phase yet. Someone needs to take inventory and just get these shots to people. Maybe deploy the national guards and train them to give injections. 100K soildiers working 12 hrs per day would have these vaccines done much sooner. Only question is supply to do that.
Just my opinion but I think the problem is this needed to be organized from the top down and it wasn't. And I'd bet some states assumed it would be and we're caught unprepared when it wasn't.
The doctor who gives updates on This Week in Virology works at one of the larger NYC hospitals (I forget which one). He said they were notified back in Nov that they were on the list to get a certain amount of vials for staff vaccinations. So they put a plan together and waited to get more info on timing. And waited. And then 1200 doses of vaccine just showed up on their loading dock one Tues morning in Jan. They had to scramble to look at staff schedules and dept occupancy to come up with a schedule right there on the spot. Luckily they were well organized and they banged out the jabs, but a less well prepared organization might not have been ready.
I agree,they need to get creative getting in trained personnel to administer the shots and less picky about who their giving them to.
(This is not a disagreement, rather more just quoting you to continue this subtopic.)
I agree that some level of central coordination is missing, but I also think that fully-centralized planning might not be ideal, for two general reasons. (BTW, I recognize that I'm oversimplifying, as I go on with this thought.)
One is that some localities have handled the distribution so far pretty well (within the constraints of supply and such), while others have not. Where would a fully-centralized plan fall on the effectiveness scale? I feel like many people saying "we ought to have a strong central plan" are assuming it would be a *good* plan. Well, maybe. It's challenging to make a good plan, quickly, for a novel situation; and the larger the scale, the harder it gets, IMO.
The other is that I think more localized governmental entities have a better handle on local constraints and conditions. What will work well for spread-out rural populations with limited big hospitals is probably different than what works in a dense major city with similarly scaled big health-care facilities, for example.
Now, in reality, it's possible to have central coordination to some degree, with local flexibility within that framework. There's no question in my mind that the federal piece of this, in the US, has been handled poorly.
The novelty of the situation is very relevant. We don't have some planning luxuries we might in a less urgent scenario.
I think one of the strengths of the US's multi-tier governmental systems, as a generality, is this: When different approaches to solving problems are tried in different localities, we have an opportunity to review the results, and learn from the best models, over time. In the current situation, the novelty of the needs, and the urgency of getting solutions, isn't really benefiting from that idea of trying multiple approaches in different places and comparing results.
No one has a moment's time to do a lot of consulting with peers in different localities, as might be the norm in less urgent situations. (That sort of consultation is one of the things that professional associations, etc., are useful for, in many situations. In my professional life, if we needed to do new-thing X, we'd be talking with other similar organizations to see who'd done X, and learning from their experience. This train is just rolling faster than that, at the moment; and no one's done this before. We haven't had time for "pilot projects".) I assume more of that review/consultation/adjustment will happen, over time, since this crisis/process will be going on for a while.
There's a tendency amongst the public, I think, to expect things to work well right out of the gate (they pretty much never do, IME, but the stakes aren't usually this high, or the results this visible). In other situations new processes sometimes look to the general public like they work well at the start, because trials/pilots were not very well publicized, but were helpful in working out kinks before going full-scale. (In a way, this is similar to the way some people saw the learning process by scientists early on, with findings and results changing the experts' minds, as flip-flopping or wishy-washiness.)
There's also a tendency to believe that a strong central authority (like a national pandemic czar) and strict authority structures with rigid rules are going to be the best way to get things done. I think that's mostly not true, either.
I keep reminding myself that all (well, most) of the health systems, governmental entities, etc., are just collections of regular people like me, doing the best they can in these difficult circumstances, and that in most cases they're aware of factors and considerations that I as a non-specialist have no expertise about. It's always pretty easy to second-guess how someone else should be doing a job I'd have no idea how to do myself, if I were challenged to try. 😆
I agree with this post. I used to think government coordination would have stopped this thing, and it might have had a plan been ready for this type of disaster. I remember as a kid in school being told what we would do if there were an atomic attack (this in rural Minnesota). We also had fire drills. There used to be the idea of prevention and a plan--preparedness. The federal government would have had to have centers, and stockpiles, and dry runs at every level to make it work.
Once COVID hit it was too late. In Italy we're under central government control and COVID is still here and going strong. The regions do not like the government mandates and either issue stricter controls or want more opening. This is a much smaller country than the US.
As Ann said, we can just do our best as citizens, and it's just not easy to understand what it takes to get everything moving.
I remember this too, suburban Minneapolis, elementary school. We crouched down in the halls covering our heads with our arms during drills 😳 They also talked about loading us into boxcars to get us away from the city. Wouldn’t fly today. No school psychologists then. This was during the Cuban missile crisis.
There’s definitely no easy solution to covid. It would be nice if everyone took this seriously, and did the basics that slow down the spread. One young girl interviewed the other day about holiday partying, traveling, and socializing, said she has to live her life, and have fun🤷🏻♀️
I remember practicing going under our desks, like that was really going to make a difference. This was likely early 1970's given the classroom I am picturing in my mind? Am I hallucinating? I have no idea what we would have been hiding from.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions