Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[mongers]

So if the H5N1 Bird flu  develops sustained human-human* transmission, do we start a new thread or make it a continuation of this one?



* which could make it as big a deal as Covid-19.

New thread.

The next pandemic will be a rough one as I think people are really over it at this point. Getting people to shut down again so soon after the last one just isn't going to happen.

At least we had several decades after the last one, to point most people didn't even remember the 1957 flu pandemic.

OK, and I'll probably leave it to Timmay to start one if the stuff does hit the fan.

Though Tim has been a bit absent of late, RL??

[Tonitrus]

Felt wonky, and just took an at-home test for COVID.

My first time...so far, it sucks. 

[mongers]

Felt wonky, and just took an at-home test for COVID.

My first time...so far, it sucks. 

How far out are you from your last booster?

I had my first time with it about 10-11 weeks ago, only 6 weeks after my 2nd booster and noticed no effects other than a mild dry cough.

My brother however got a bit earlier, but that was just before his booster and he felt terrible, presumably because his previous booster had 'worn off'

[Syt]

[DGuller]

It's been 3.5 years since Covid was a thing.  Time sure flies.

Looking back, now that we're somewhat removed from the time when Covid was actively on our minds all the time, what does everyone think about how right or wrong they got it during the crisis?

One of the things I will admit to getting wrong at the time was the Swedish approach, or more generally the right level of restrictions.  I spent big parts of the thread being a devil's advocate against arguments I considered poorly reasoned out, but intuitively I still believed that the aggressive action to contain the pandemic was the right policy.  I now think that at the very least it wasn't clearcut at all.

[Tamas]

It's hard to say re. Sweden. That approach might work with a disciplined and closely knit society but I want our leaders to err on the side of caution, and I still think the Swedish approach would have been very bad if applied globally.

The UK approach started terrible (I don't care what Sheilbh says it was clear Johnson and his experts wanted the "wash through controlled via Excel sheet" approach initially) but then became reasonably good in terms of overall approach. Exact strictness of rules can be debated in hindsight of course, but that's easy.

[crazy canuck]

Felt wonky, and just took an at-home test for COVID.

My first time...so far, it sucks. 

It is hitting hard here again.  Multiple people at our offices, opposing counsel, witnesses getting COVID.

Boosters are not available here until the PHO indicates a new round is required.  And no testing is going on, other than waste water testing (which shows there is an increase).  So we don't have good data on how prevalent it really is.

DGuller, to your point, I think before vaccines were available, lockdowns were justified on the basis that there wasn't a good understanding of the virus (remember it took some time to recognize it was airborne).  There was also a lack of knowledge as to how it might mutate.  We know a lot more about that now.  And vaccines are available.  So I wonder of public health officials are making the difficult call that we can expect a slightly higher mortality rate without restrictions but that reimposing restrictions would be a net societal negative.

Take for example wearing masks.  It is still recommended by our PHO for indoor group settings.  But next to no one does it. Should that be imposed now?  That would likely be a net societal negative - even if it is a best practice. 

[Legbiter]

Local response was sluggish to say the least at first, direct flights from North Italian and Austrian hotspots carried on without any checks for weeks. You have to remember we didn't know at the time what the R0 was nor the total fatality rate of the virus, initial reports from China in the first couple of weeks were closer to a Spanish Flu catastrophe. Once we got our ass in gear we did ok, slightly stricter than Sweden on mass gatherings but never any formal nation-wide lockdowns, schools remained open and we did very impressive contact tracing and quarantine and semi-effective border screenings. Our oldies were dispersed and sheltered mostly successfully, the greatest mortality came after the vaccination cycle was complete and we let Darwin take control. Seems a lot of the elderly who would have died in a normal year from a respiratory illnesses passed in the first 6 months of all covid measures ceasing.

Since we never did lockdowns, never closed schools and actually managed to carry out a successful counter-cyclical economic policy in living memory there was a lot less domestic political rancor. 

I still see someone about once a week all masked up when shopping. They kinda give off Japanese 1970's holdouts vibes IMO. 

[Barrister]

One of the things I will admit to getting wrong at the time was the Swedish approach, or more generally the right level of restrictions.  I spent big parts of the thread being a devil's advocate against arguments I considered poorly reasoned out, but intuitively I still believed that the aggressive action to contain the pandemic was the right policy.  I now think that at the very least it wasn't clearcut at all.

From what I remember the Swedish model wound up not being all that different from other countries - it certainly wasn't a "let 'er rip" approach.

What almost all governments and scientists got wrong about Covid was that it wasn't spread by water droplets, but it was a true air-borne disease.  So the whole "stay 6 feet apart" thing was wrong - it's much more about how the air is moving.  It really isn't spread by surfaces either so all of the cleaning and disinfecting  But it's hard to get too upset at the mis-steps - it was a new virus we'd never dealt with before.

I do think extended school closures harmed kids.  It wasn't too bad here in Alberta - schools switched to online-only in March 2020 for the rest of the year, but by September 2020 kids could return to the classroom (although with an option to continue online as well).  But I think other jurisdictions stuck with online-only for the entire 2020-2021 year, if not further?

[Valmy]

Yeah my kids were back in the classroom by October 2020.

[DGuller]

The biggest reason I'm still not sure is precisely the safety margin issue.  It's not enough to have hindsight studies showing how the measures against the Covid the way it turned out to be were not worth the cost.  That's like saying that insurance company overcharged you for car insurance, because you paid $5000 over the last five years for it, but only had one $1000 claim.  Protecting against existential disaster (financial one in the insurance analogy) has a cost, and it cannot be proven to be unjustified based on a sample of one.

[Barrister]

Oh I almost forgot - the one thing Canada really screwed up was our vaccine policy.  Remember how we were going to use this Chinese vaccine but then the Chinese never actually gave us any, and the government tried to pretend there was nothing wrong for months?

I mean we did get there in the end, but we were months behind the US in getting jabs in arms.

[Legbiter]

Also we never legally required anyone to get vaccinated. It was very much encouraged but not legally mandated.  

[crazy canuck]

Also we never legally required anyone to get vaccinated. It was very much encouraged but not legally mandated.  

Here is was not legally mandated, but to do certain things proof of vaccination was required. That created a large percentage of compliance.

For some things it was a legal requirement and still is, for example working in health care.

[Sheilbh]

The UK approach started terrible (I don't care what Sheilbh says it was clear Johnson and his experts wanted the "wash through controlled via Excel sheet" approach initially) but then became reasonably good in terms of overall approach. Exact strictness of rules can be debated in hindsight of course, but that's easy.

You're right - although my point on Johnson is that he wasn't overruling the experts, but what the experts in the UK were saying. I thought they were right and they weren't so neither was I. One of the big causes - which again you got right and I got wrong - apparently was the wildly incorrect assumptions from behavioural scientists. So the effect of lockdown wasn't even modelled until the week it was implemented because their working assumption was about 50% non-compliance (basically, only China can lockdown) - which was very wrong. Brits gleefully locked down and taped up their park benches/reported people in parks to the police

I often think of that moment on Jeremy Vine's show where former glamour model Jodie Marsh was asking why we weren't locking down now and was being patronisingly told that would be wrong approach by a doctor; or the techbro on Newsnight arguing with the epidemiologist. I said at the time it reminded me of climate change or Brexit debates where you had an expert who knew their stuff v someone with an opinion and while it might make for good TV it wasn't responsible broadcasting - except, this time, the glamour model and the techbro were right.

Similarly I also often think about the ASA fining a company for advertising masks as helpful for preventing covid (AR rightly called that out at the time - again I was wrong) and I really remember the stuff about how masks were more harmful actually because they'd cause a false sense of security and might cause people to touch their face more which would encourage spread. Again, wrong.

Also we never legally required anyone to get vaccinated. It was very much encouraged but not legally mandated.  

Same - never did vaccine passports either (internally). But pretty high compliance because public trust in the NHS etc.

It's another area where I think our discourse was a problem and very inspired by the US. In the UK the lowest vaccinated rates were among minority communities and young people and were, I think, caused by material factors/accessibility/reach of public health/NHS comms. But the discourse focused on the tiny minority of politically anti-vaxx inspired by the US, not the far larger group of unvaccinated but not hostile.

I do think extended school closures harmed kids.  It wasn't too bad here in Alberta - schools switched to online-only in March 2020 for the rest of the year, but by September 2020 kids could return to the classroom (although with an option to continue online as well).  But I think other jurisdictions stuck with online-only for the entire 2020-2021 year, if not further?

I got the impression this became a North America/Euro distinction too with European countries re-opening schools earlier and keeping them open.

There's evidence it has had an impact on learning, especially, for the poorest. In the UK the rate of persistent absence has also more than doubled since covid (I think it was under 5% pre covid and is now about 10%). It's not fully clear why but it's a big social policy issue I think because it's just going to bed in that educational inequality even longer. I think the education impact is one it will take a long time to unravel.