Manic of a panic is geopolitical

[Nick]

"Intranasal fusion inhibitory lipopeptide prevents direct-contact SARS-CoV-2 transmission in ferrets"
Article: https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...f4896.full.pdf

[retina]

https://gov.fm/index.php/component/c...further-notice

The crew have been strictly confined to the ship since September 22nd, 2020. On January 7th, twelve (12) crew were tested for COVID-19. One (1) individual was tested twice and, on both occasions, positive for COVID-19.

Maybe a four-month quarantine period is in order?

[The Carnivore]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

And it's rich, coming from someone who presumes to declare people useless, or unworthy of receiving the COVID vaccine - people with existing health problems likely made bad decisions. Old people aren't going to live long anyway. Screw 'em. Just hand the vaccine out at random.

What a misrepresentation of my position. I'm saying a life is a life and that no group of people is more important than any other group.

People who've likely made bad decisions about their health or who may not have much longer to live deserve to get the vaccine just as much as people who likely took care of their health and/or have many decades left to live. No more, no less. If I really declared smokers, the obese, the elderly, etc., useless or unworthy of getting the vaccine, I would have moved them to the back of the line or denied them altogether.

By eliminating vaccine priority requirements, you get rid of a lot of the paperwork and bureaucracy and can therefore vaccinate people at a faster rate. If a whole bunch of people are drowning, you don't debate who is more worthy of being rescued first. You just start from the people closest to you regardless of their age or whether or not it was their fault for going into the water.

MODERATOR NOTE: Moved from "Peak Oil" thread along with some response posts, including one of mine

[retina]

Originally Posted by The Carnivore

By eliminating vaccine priority requirements, you get rid of a lot of the paperwork and bureaucracy and can therefore vaccinate people at a faster rate. If a whole bunch of people are drowning, you don't debate who is more worthy of being rescued first. You just start from the people closest to you regardless of their age or whether or not it was their fault for going into the water.

Bad analogy. Not everyone is drowning.

Younger people either have no symptoms, or very light symptoms, at rates far higher than other groups. So it could be argued that they don't need any vaccine (not yet anyway). Whereas "older" or "poor health" people often have high rates of severe difficulties dealing with the virus, so it could be argued that not prioritising the more needful group, and instead giving vaccines to those other groups that have no immediate need, is effectively saying "sucks to be you".

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by retina

Bad analogy. Not everyone is drowning.

Younger people either have no symptoms, or very light symptoms, at rates far higher than other groups. So it could be argued that they don't need any vaccine (not yet anyway). Whereas "older" or "poor health" people often have high rates of severe difficulties dealing with the virus, so it could be argued that not prioritising the more needful group, and instead giving vaccines to those other groups that have no immediate need, is effectively saying "sucks to be you".

Exactamundo.

Saying "vaccinating at random is (or might be) faster" is fatuous. Absent a large stockpile, vaccinations can't be given faster than vaccine can be made.

[retina]

A young man and his grandmother, arrive at the clinic to get vaccinated.

Man (to nurse): We're here to get vaccinated
Nurse: Great. We have one dose left in this shipment. I'll toss a coin to see who gets it
Man: No, don't use a coin. Give it my my granny
Nurse: Nope. We have to be fair. Can't play favourites. But good news, you won the toss
<Nurse, not swayed by his pleas, proceeds to give the man the vaccine>
Man: When is the next shipment
Nurse: Six weeks. We'll call to remind you
<Three weeks pass, granny gets infected and dies>
<Three more weeks pass>
Nurse (on the phone, to the man): Hi. The shipment has arrived. Bring in your granny
Man: Nevermind.

Alternative version:

Man (to nurse): We're here to get vaccinated
Nurse: Great. We have one dose left in this shipment. Granny goes first
Man: Cool, let's do it
<Nurse proceeds to give granny the vaccine>
Man: When is the next shipment
Nurse: Six weeks. We'll call to remind you
<Three weeks pass, granny gets infected and gets a mild headache>
<Granny goes on to discover a cure for cancer, end world hunger, and prove RH and P=NP>

[The Carnivore]

Originally Posted by retina

Bad analogy. Not everyone is drowning.

Younger people either have no symptoms, or very light symptoms, at rates far higher than other groups. So it could be argued that they don't need any vaccine (not yet anyway). Whereas "older" or "poor health" people often have high rates of severe difficulties dealing with the virus, so it could be argued that not prioritising the more needful group, and instead giving vaccines to those other groups that have no immediate need, is effectively saying "sucks to be you".

Fine, I'll use another one based on this week's news:

A large number of homeless people are freezing. Shelter is available, but you can only fit a small number of people in your van to transport them there. You will then have to come back to load the next group of people onto the van. Do you:

A. - Keep driving around the neighborhood in search of the most poorly dressed vulnerable people who're least likely to survive without shelter

or

B. - Load the first people you see into your van and quickly come back for more?

I'm just saying that option B makes more sense.

[retina]

Originally Posted by The Carnivore

Fine, I'll use another one based on this week's news:

A large number of homeless people are freezing. Shelter is available, but you can only fit a small number of people in your van to transport them there. You will then have to come back to load the next group of people onto the van. Do you:

A. - Keep driving around the neighborhood in search of the most poorly dressed vulnerable people who're least likely to survive without shelter

or

B. - Load the first people you see into your van and quickly come back for more?

I'm just saying that option B makes more sense.

Just as bad. Not everyone is freezing. Only a certain class of people are freezing. In this case people in one location.

To fulfil your analogy you would have people in all places being herded into vans and taken to shelter because parts of Texas have no electricity. We have to be "fair" right? Even though the other places don't need it, well, we can't let them miss out, that would be unfair. So everyone gets a turn in the van.

[The Carnivore]

Originally Posted by retina

A young man and his grandmother, arrive at the clinic to get vaccinated.

Man (to nurse): We're here to get vaccinated
Nurse: Great. We have one dose left in this shipment. I'll toss a coin to see who gets it
Man: No, don't use a coin. Give it my my granny
Nurse: Nope. We have to be fair. Can't play favourites. But good news, you won the toss
<Nurse, not swayed by his pleas, proceeds to give the man the vaccine>
Man: When is the next shipment
Nurse: Six weeks. We'll call to remind you
<Three weeks pass, granny gets infected and dies>
<Three more weeks pass>
Nurse (on the phone, to the man): Hi. The shipment has arrived. Bring in your granny
Man: Nevermind.

Alternative version:

Man (to nurse): We're here to get vaccinated
Nurse: Great. We have one dose left in this shipment. Granny goes first
Man: Cool, let's do it
<Nurse proceeds to give granny the vaccine>
Man: When is the next shipment
Nurse: Six weeks. We'll call to remind you
<Three weeks pass, granny gets infected and gets a mild headache>
<Granny goes on to discover a cure for cancer, end world hunger, and prove RH and P=NP>

This scenario is just as likely:

A young man and his grandmother, arrive at the clinic to get vaccinated.

Man (to nurse): We're here to get vaccinated
Nurse: Great. We have one dose left in this shipment. I'll toss a coin to see who gets it
Man: No, don't use a coin. Give it to my granny
Nurse: Nope. We have to be fair. Can't play favourites. But good news, you won the toss
<Nurse, not swayed by his pleas, proceeds to give the man the vaccine>
Man: When is the next shipment
Nurse: Six weeks. We'll call to remind you
<Three weeks pass, granny stays at home since she's retired. But she still gets infected on her rare trip to the grocery store and dies>
<Three more weeks pass>
Nurse (on the phone, to the man): Hi. The shipment has arrived. Bring in your granny
Man: Nevermind.

Alternative version:

Man (to nurse): We're here to get vaccinated
Nurse: Great. We have one dose left in this shipment. Granny goes first
Man: Cool, let's do it
<Nurse proceeds to give granny the vaccine>
Man: When is the next shipment
Nurse: Six weeks. We'll call to remind you
<Three weeks pass, granny gets infected and gets a mild headache. The man gets infected, has minimal or no symptoms, and proceeds to infect hundreds of other people while working as a cashier at the grocery store.>
<One of those people infected by the man would have gone on to discover a cure for cancer, end world hunger, and prove RH and P=NP. But he dies before getting that opportunity.>

[masser]

Originally Posted by The Carnivore

[B]The man gets infected, has minimal or no symptoms, and proceeds to infect hundreds of other people

There's your mistake.

[The Carnivore]

Originally Posted by masser

There's your mistake.

What mistake? Most transmission is caused by people who have no or very minimal symptoms:
https://consumer.healthday.com/amp/a...als-2649765579

Vaccinated people are less likely to transmit the virus, so vaccinating a young healthy worker who's frequently in contact with others at his/her job could save more lives than vaccinating an elderly retired person:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/03/healt...ntl/index.html