SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   How Is Covid-19 Impacting Life in Your City? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=242036)

JManc May 18, 2021 9:05 PM

I think it's more awareness (or lack thereof) of the concept of herd immunity. I dragged my feet getting a flu vaccine until last year after years of my mom and grandmother harpiong me about it. I am healthy, never had the flu so I never bothered getting it.

chris08876 May 18, 2021 10:49 PM

Target, Home Depot, CVS and other stores drop face mask requirements

Quote:

More stores announced this week they are easing their mask requirements, joining a growing number of top chains changing their policies in the wake of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's updated guidance on masks.

These retailers' new policies vary slightly from each other, but all represent a shift from their previous policies that required shoppers to wear masks across stores. Each of the retailers said they will continue to require masks at stores where local or state ordinances require facial coverings.

The change was prompted by the CDC on Thursday announcing that fully vaccinated people don't have to wear masks or practice social distancing indoors or outdoors, except when in healthcare settings, on public transportation, or in other areas where governments require mask.

Target

Target (TGT) won't require fully vaccinated shoppers and workers to wear masks, the company said in an announcement Monday.
"Face coverings will continue to be strongly recommended for guests and team members who are not fully vaccinated and we'll continue our increased safety and cleaning measures, including social distancing, throughout our stores," Target said.

Home Depot

Home Depot (HD) will not require masks for vaccinated customers and employees," a spokesperson said Monday.
=================
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/18/busin...ate/index.html

SIGSEGV May 19, 2021 2:40 AM

I am not worried about people who refuse to get vaccinated, but many people who wanted to get vaccinated didn't really have a chance until a month ago and it might not have been easy to get an appointment until a few weeks ago, which is probably resulting in a lot of anxious people who are just now starting to get to partial immunity.

I also have a friend who waited until today to get her first shot because she is pregnant and her doctor advised her against taking the shot during the first trimester.

xzmattzx May 19, 2021 3:28 AM

I'm not an anti-vaxxer and I think that everyone should get the vaccine. I got the vaccine myself three days after it was available to people under 50 in my state, and I didn't do it sooner because I couldn't get an appointment earlier.

But there have been some rumblings about requiring people to have a vaccine to do things. Airlines have talked about it, and some schools have actually done it (the University of Delaware said that students must be fully vaccinated in order to be on campus for the Fall 2021 semester, for instance).

So what about people who cannot get the vaccine? For instance, SIGSEGV's pregnant friend was advised by her doctor to not get the vaccine (yet). My sister is pregnant with twins, and I think she is waiting until she has the babies, since this is her first pregnancy. Apparently there are some people with medical conditions that make getting the vaccine not feasible. Do people with legitimate medical reasons for not getting the vaccine, or not getting the vaccine yet, really get shut out of some day-to-day activities? Do people forget about this in a few years, and those people are treated like everyone else? Are people kind of forgetting about that now?

SIGSEGV May 19, 2021 3:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xzmattzx (Post 9284755)
I'm not an anti-vaxxer and I think that everyone should get the vaccine. I got the vaccine myself three days after it was available to people under 50 in my state, and I didn't do it sooner because I couldn't get an appointment earlier.

But there have been some rumblings about requiring people to have a vaccine to do things. Airlines have talked about it, and some schools have actually done it (the University of Delaware said that students must be fully vaccinated in order to be on campus for the Fall 2021 semester, for instance).

So what about people who cannot get the vaccine? For instance, SIGSEGV's pregnant friend was advised by her doctor to not get the vaccine (yet). My sister is pregnant with twins, and I think she is waiting until she has the babies, since this is her first pregnancy. Apparently there are some people with medical conditions that make getting the vaccine not feasible. Do people with legitimate medical reasons for not getting the vaccine, or not getting the vaccine yet, really get shut out of some day-to-day activities? Do people forget about this in a few years, and those people are treated like everyone else? Are people kind of forgetting about that now?

Eventually, the virus will hopefully mostly go away and the risk to them will be small. But we are not there yet. So for now, my friend's husband is doing all the errands...

mrnyc May 19, 2021 5:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9284148)
^ I think it’s a good idea

I’ve got my laminated “vaccine passport” ready


ha yeah and speaking of i got mine laminated too. i dk why they tell you not to do that because if we need a booster later they will just take it and write you a new card. that's what they did for my second shot because my card was all bent up.

i do think they have card holders available for them now though, so you dont have to laminate them.

Pedestrian May 19, 2021 7:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnyc (Post 9284832)
ha yeah and speaking of i got mine laminated too. i dk why they tell you not to do that because if we need a booster later they will just take it and write you a new card. that's what they did for my second shot because my card was all bent up.

i do think they have card holders available for them now though, so you dont have to laminate them.

I photocopied mine and laminated the copy. I keep the original with my passport in a passport wallet.

I also downloaded a copy of the hospital record of my vaccines from MyChart which is a system many hospitals are using now to give patients access to their own records, test results and so on.

Pedestrian May 19, 2021 7:34 AM

San Francisco is now approaching the range that experts once told us we needed to reach for "herd immunity": 70+% vaccinated.

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...408587/enhance
https://data.sfgov.org/stories/s/COV...ess/7mye-zncy/

The result so far is an average of 19 new cases/day in the entire city, mostly asymptomatic (found in testing). That's 2.2/100,000 population (source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...vid-cases.html ).

But, of course we have only begun vaccinating those 12-15. And to the percentages of those vaccinated should be added some number with natural immunity due to past infection. I'd conservatively guess maybe 5% since the city was never hit very hard, probably due to the fact it was among the first and tightest to "lock down" (which never meant people coundn't leave their homes but did mean most places they might want to go were closed).

So it seems likely that over 80% of the city's adults have some level of immunity or some percentage in the low 70s of the entire population (67% of the entire population have received at least one dose of vaccine).

Pedestrian May 19, 2021 8:07 AM

Quote:

How will historians remember the coronavirus pandemic in San Francisco?
Peter Hartlaub
May 12, 2021
Updated: May 12, 2021 4 a.m.

For a few weeks, at least, San Franciscans spent the 1918-19 influenza looking out for each other. They closed businesses. They masked. They followed the rules. And then they quickly lost their minds.

In November 1918, San Francisco public health officials declared premature victory over the pandemic and residents tossed their masks in the gutter, only to watch the flu return the following year and kill nearly twice as many citizens. With more than 3,200 influenza victims, the so-called Spanish Flu of 1918-19 was responsible for more dead San Franciscans than the 1906 earthquake and fire.

As we continue to look back and wince at the city’s hubris and negligence, we’ve reached the point in the COVID-19 pandemic where we can dare to look forward. A century from now, when almost all of us are gone, what will Bay Area residents have to say about our actions?

The pandemic is still far from over, with worrying variants circulating and continued tragedy unfolding in other parts of the U.S. and the world. But it is also increasingly clear that when the story is told, San Francisco will be noted for its successes, not its blunders. Officials say it has the lowest rate of deaths per 100,000 of any major U.S. city.

The number of people hospitalized with COVID-19 in San Francisco recently dipped into the teens.
(We’re close to the point where there are more members in the band Tower of Power than people in S.F. with an inpatient-worthy COVID-19 diagnosis.) If we can’t formally declare victory, we can see it on the horizon . . . .

When the second life-upending pandemic in San Francisco history arrived last year, it brought to light how atrociously the city handled the first one.

Like COVID-19, the 1918-19 flu hit the East Coast hard first before making San Francisco headlines in September 1918. City leaders closed theaters, dance halls, schools and churches as hospitals filled, and hustled out a mask ordinance, but they sent mixed messages from the start. Mayor Sunny Jim Rolph was fined $50 by the police chief for lowering his mask at a boxing match.

Weeks later infection numbers started to rise quickly again, with San Francisco’s political strife resembling Trump-era Michigan or Florida. S.F. citizens started culture wars, refused to wear their masks and claimed dubious miracle cures. A local “Anti-Mask League” was formed and drew thousands of science-disbelieving citizens. At least 1,400 San Franciscans died of influenza in 1919 — after officials had declared the danger past.

Over the last 14 months, San Francisco has seen 538 deaths due to COVID-19 at a rate of about 62 deaths per 100,000 residents. That’s well below the current national average of 175, and less than one-tenth S.F.’s 643 per 100,000 mortality rate in 1918-1919. Dr. Bob Wachter, chair of the UCSF Department of Medicine, has noted that if San Francisco’s rate of COVID mortality was mirrored across the nation, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved.

“There are some reasons that are intrinsic to San Francisco,” Wachter said in a March interview. “Yes it’s a reasonably wealthy city, yes a lot of people work in tech and can work at home. A lot of people have the privilege — including me — to spend a lot days on Zoom and a lot of nights on Netflix. And yet there are other places that have economic advantages and got creamed.”

(In New York City, which started its shelter-in-place later than the Bay Area, the population has suffered nearly 400 deaths per 100,000 residents.)

San Francisco Mayor London Breed predicted that the post-COVID city “is going to be the Roaring ’20s all over again,” with excitement slowly building up until New Year’s Eve.

That happened in 1919 too. Even after the virus catastrophe early in the year, every downtown San Francisco hotel and live theater sold out on New Year’s Eve.

But the difference is, that when we go to concerts, movies and dive bars in 2021 and 2022, we’ll be shoulder-to-shoulder with people who looked out for each other. When anniversaries are marked at Giants and A’s games, we’ll be cheering in ballparks filled with citizens who were united, not divided. When gatherings in other parts of the nation are filled with conflicted emotions, our community will swell with pride at the memory of the Moscone Center and Oakland Coliseum vaccination hubs, porch concerts, courageous essential workers, near-consensus mask adherence and all the sacrifices we made as a group.

“The city did this and they served the public and the public listened,” Carroll said. “And in a time when science wasn’t valued very much, San Francisco followed the science.”

And 100 years from now, when this world-changing moment is all but lost in history and someone digs through an archive to remember, they won’t see a blunder in the Bay Area. They’ll see a group of politicians and health care workers and community members who rose together to confront one of the city’s greatest challenges, from beginning to end.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/oursf/ar...s-16169923.php

10023 May 19, 2021 8:31 AM

^ Hopefully as a massive overreaction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9284295)
Yet again, you are thinking only of yourself and advocating that other people think only of themselves. People of all ages who can be vaccinated "need to be vaccinated" to reduce the prevalence of this virus in our society (and the world) as much as possible which prevents its mutation, possibly into a strain that has a predilection for younger people. Any significant unvaccinated population serves as a reservoir of infection and a breeding ground for mutant strains and the self-centeredness of people like you could ultimately turn on you.

Even if it can't be "taken out of circulation", the amount of it circulating can be vastly reduced just as has been done with numerous other viruses and that's almost as useful.

Frankly, you are pathetic.

There will always be substantial “reservoirs of infection”. It’s an endemic virus. And it’s unlikely to ever mutate sufficiently to be dangerous to the young, especially if the young all get the virus at some point. The virus won’t mutate faster than the body can modify previous antibodies to defeat the new strains.

Funny that boomers want the young to do so much on their behalf after literally fucking everything up for them.

10023 May 19, 2021 10:16 AM

Big events without masks are no riskier than shopping, Covid trials show

Quote:

Holding mass events without masks and social distancing can be as safe as going to a restaurant or shopping centre, government trials suggest.

Preliminary data from the events research programme is understood to have found that with screening, improved ventilation and other mitigating factors the risk of virus transmission can be significantly reduced, reducing fears that sports matches and concerts could cause big outbreaks.

...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...show-fb0msxgsl


This is on the basis of test events that the U.K. government has been holding.

Again, allowing or at least encouraging older people to go shopping was a bigger problem than letting young people go to bars and clubs, let alone restaurants or gyms.

Camelback May 19, 2021 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 9284502)
Target, Home Depot, CVS and other stores drop face mask requirements


=================
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/18/busin...ate/index.html

Good to see they're following the science!

Pedestrian May 19, 2021 5:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9284894)
^ Hopefully as a massive overreaction.


There will always be substantial “reservoirs of infection”. It’s an endemic virus. And it’s unlikely to ever mutate sufficiently to be dangerous to the young, especially if the young all get the virus at some point. The virus won’t mutate faster than the body can modify previous antibodies to defeat the new strains.

You clearly don’t know anything about how genetics and immunology work. This thinking isn’t worth comment.

Quote:

Funny that boomers want the young to do so much on their behalf after literally fucking everything up for them.
Poor baby has had it so tough lounging on his $15000 couch.

Pedestrian May 19, 2021 5:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camelback (Post 9284937)
Good to see they're following the science!

This issue is more about human nature than science. There’s no incentive for vax resisters not to lie and flood into stores without the masks they’ve also been refusing to wear for a year. “Science” has been correctly telling us that wearing masks is more about protecting others than protecting yourself. Those emotionally opposed to getting vaccinated and wearing masks don’t care about others (as they display here daily) and will not follow either “science” or CDC guidance when they enter stores both unvaccinated and unmasked.

photoLith May 19, 2021 5:12 PM

^
Well, now the anti vaccine crowd will just be giving a mostly non deadly virus to each other, screw em. I love being able to walk into businesses now without a mask and I got my last vaccine three months ago now.

Camelback May 19, 2021 7:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9285323)
This issue is more about human nature than science. There’s no incentive for vax resisters not to lie and flood into stores without the masks they’ve also been refusing to wear for a year. “Science” has been correctly telling us that wearing masks is more about protecting others than protecting yourself. Those emotionally opposed to getting vaccinated and wearing masks don’t care about others (as they display here daily) and will not follow either “science” or CDC guidance when they enter stores both unvaccinated and unmasked.

Who cares if they have made a personal decision not to get vaccinated? If you're vaccinated then there's nothing to be afraid of. There's no reason to wear a mask if you're fully vaccinated, that's the point of the vaccine and we've given all those at risk people plenty of time to schedule a vaccination appointment if they want it.

SIGSEGV May 19, 2021 7:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camelback (Post 9285486)
Who cares if they have made a personal decision not to get vaccinated? If you're vaccinated then there's nothing to be afraid of. There's no reason to wear a mask if you're fully vaccinated, that's the point of the vaccine and we've given all those at risk people plenty of time to schedule a vaccination appointment if they want it.

Because as I said a few posts ago:
1) Vaccines only became generally available to everyone a month ago and it was not easy to get appointments at first. Many people have not had their second doses yet. Yes they're partially protected, but can't we wait a week or two so this is not an issue?
2) Many people can't get the vaccine for various reasons. For example, apparently many pregnant women are advised not to take the vaccine in the first trimester (or more). Now they can't go to the store safely because some antivaxxers are probably not wearing masks.

Camelback May 19, 2021 7:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 9285497)
Because as I said a few posts ago:
1) Vaccines only became generally available to everyone a month ago and it was not easy to get appointments at first. Many people have not had their second doses yet. Yes they're partially protected, but can't we wait a week or two so this is not an issue?
2) Many people can't get the vaccine for various reasons. For example, apparently many pregnant women are advised not to take the vaccine in the first trimester (or more). Now they can't go to the store safely because some antivaxxers are probably not wearing masks.

The at risk population has had access to vaccinations since January. If they're not fully vaccinated by now, that's on them.

Pregnant women aren't at risk because they fall within the 15-40 age group and also, they made the choice to get pregnant in a pandemic. They weren't safe going to the store in the last 9 months, yet they still had sex with a partner that probably goes out in public (risking exposure).

Also, I am fully vaccinated and all of my siblings, both parents and everybody's spouse, significant other has been fully vaccinated. (One is going through the symptoms of the second shot of Moderna today, but in 2 weeks they're good to go!). Not a 1 person is an anti-vaxxer in this family.

JManc May 19, 2021 7:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 9285497)
Because as I said a few posts ago:
1) Vaccines only became generally available to everyone a month ago and it was not easy to get appointments at first. Many people have not had their second doses yet. Yes they're partially protected, but can't we wait a week or two so this is not an issue?
2) Many people can't get the vaccine for various reasons. For example, apparently many pregnant women are advised not to take the vaccine in the first trimester (or more). Now they can't go to the store safely because some antivaxxers are probably not wearing masks.

There's been plenty of time for people to get vaccinated if they want to. We can't keep kicking the can up the road waiting for unrealistic goals. Pregnant women and those with compromised immunity can and are being cautious. My mother in law was vaccinated but her immune system is shot due to chemo last year so she is proactive in her surroundings and will probably always wear a mask in certain situations.

homebucket May 19, 2021 8:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 9285497)
Because as I said a few posts ago:
1) Vaccines only became generally available to everyone a month ago and it was not easy to get appointments at first. Many people have not had their second doses yet. Yes they're partially protected, but can't we wait a week or two so this is not an issue?
2) Many people can't get the vaccine for various reasons. For example, apparently many pregnant women are advised not to take the vaccine in the first trimester (or more). Now they can't go to the store safely because some antivaxxers are probably not wearing masks.

Would someone please think of the children? I wouldn't want my nieces and nephews to get potentially hospitalized because one of their classmates parents are anti-vaxxers.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.