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)

Pedestrian Apr 13, 2021 7:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej (Post 9247090)
From the Los Angeles Times:

. . . The autumn-and-winter surge in California tore through many lower-income and heavily Latino communities, leaving behind a high death toll. These communities were particularly hit hard because many residents live in crowded homes and have jobs requiring them to leave home, exposing them to a higher risk of infection.

The intensity of the autumn-and-winter wave, however, has resulted in a large number of survivors who now have protection against coronavirus infections and COVID-19.

Officials estimate about 38% of L.A. County residents have been infected with the coronavirus since the start of the pandemic. And Rutherford said he suspects there are parts of L.A., such as in Boyle Heights and South L.A., in which half of residents have been infected.

Rutherford said it’s possible that California could reach something approaching herd immunity by June 15.

This is true but it doesn't explain the difference between urban California and the NY/NJ/PA area which has been repeatedly devastated by the virus and must have as high a percentage of survivors with some level of immunity as LA County as well as a relatively high percentage of people vaccinated.

If anyplace in the country should be approaching "herd immunity" by now it should be that part of the east coast which was struck early and hard and is again being hit hard.

This is what I find puzzling. I wish there were a serious and thorough report available as to whether there are a significant number of reinfections or persons infected who have been vaccinated. It worries me that one thing that could explain the situation is a virus mutant escaping the immunity generated either naturally by earlier viral strains or by the vaccines.

Pedestrian Apr 13, 2021 7:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9247501)
Yes and no. Population density itself is not really a factor, but reliance on public transportation, which is linked to population density, certainly is.

Expensive real estate in cities like NYC and London is probably a factor as well. For example indoor dining is inherently more problematic because most restaurants are cramped with lots of tables close together, and more people are likely to live in shared housing with roommates.

I would implicate public transit dependency and multi-person/multigenerational households. I don't think enough cities in either the US or UK have yet opened indoor dining (my understanding is it's closed in the UK and it still is in CA) to implicate that. But especially cities with large numbers of poor and/or immigrant families often have lots of people under one roof and all it takes is one of those people to catch the virus at work or in some other activity in the community like riding transit, bring it home and everybody gets it.

10023 Apr 13, 2021 7:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 9247527)
But aren't restaurants in large cities mandated to have social distancing and capacity limits like anywhere else?

Sure, but that’s much less practical in a tiny restaurant in the West Village than it is in a Cheesecake Factory in suburban Dallas.

Obviously I would much rather eat at the former, but the latter is more able to adapt to this “social distancing” BS.

10023 Apr 13, 2021 7:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9247539)
I would implicate public transit dependency and multi-person/multigenerational households. I don't think enough cities in either the US or UK have yet opened indoor dining (my understanding is it's closed in the UK and it still is in CA) to implicate that. But especially cities with large numbers of poor and/or immigrant families often have lots of people under one roof and all it takes is one of those people to catch the virus at work or in some other activity in the community like riding transit, bring it home and everybody gets it.

In the U.K., the data last fall showed that far more people caught Covid by returning to the office than by going to restaurants, pubs, cafes and gyms combined. But that was without restaurants at anything like full capacity.

In Florida restaurants have been 100% open with no social distancing for like 9 months now and the numbers aren’t really any worse than several states that have had strict lockdowns, so make of that what you will.

sopas ej Apr 13, 2021 8:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9247539)
I don't think enough cities in either the US or UK have yet opened indoor dining (my understanding is it's closed in the UK and it still is in CA) to implicate that.

Depending on what tier the county is in, most of California opened indoor dining on March 15, but at reduced capacity. LA County is in the orange tier, which means restaurants can allow indoor dining at 50% capacity or a maximum 200 people, whichever is fewer. My partner and I have already eaten indoors at restaurants a few times already, but we're still preferring to eat outside, just to be safe, being that we're not fully vaccinated yet.

I'm not sure how updated this map is, but this ABC7 link shows you which California counties are in what tier: https://abc7news.com/california-stay...kdown/6393906/

And of course come June 15, according to Governor Newsom, California will eliminate the tiers and fully reopen the whole state; masks will just still be required to go inside businesses for the time being.

Pedestrian Apr 13, 2021 8:22 PM

Big day: The US today passed the UK (30% to 29.8%) in what Bloomberg defines as vaccine "population coverage"*

*“Population covered” divides the doses administered for each vaccine type by the number of doses required for full vaccination.

The UK is still way ahead in percentage of population given one or more doses and way behind in percentage of population "fully vaccinated".

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/c...-distribution/

homebucket Apr 13, 2021 8:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej (Post 9247614)
Depending on what tier the county is in, most of California opened indoor dining on March 15, but at reduced capacity. LA County is in the orange tier, which means restaurants can allow indoor dining at 50% capacity or a maximum 200 people, whichever is fewer. My partner and I have already eaten indoors at restaurants a few times already, but we're still preferring to eat outside, just to be safe, being that we're not fully vaccinated yet.

I'm not sure how updated this map is, but this ABC7 link shows you which California counties are in what tier: https://abc7news.com/california-stay...kdown/6393906/

And of course come June 15, according to Governor Newsom, California will eliminate the tiers and fully reopen the whole state; masks will just still be required to go inside businesses for the time being.

We've reached the point where dining outdoors is preferable even during pre-pandemic times. The weather is so nice lately. Of course, there will be the threat of wildfires soon, so that might put a damper on outdoor dining.

homebucket Apr 13, 2021 8:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9247501)
Yes and no. Population density itself is not really a factor, but reliance on public transportation, which is linked to population density, certainly is.

Expensive real estate in cities like NYC and London is probably a factor as well. For example indoor dining is inherently more problematic because most restaurants are cramped with lots of tables close together, and more people are likely to live in shared housing with roommates.

So in other words, population density.

10023 Apr 13, 2021 8:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9247638)
So in other words, population density.

Well not really. There is probably a strong correlation with overall population density, but that doesn’t make it a causal relationship as you know.

Pedestrian Apr 13, 2021 8:50 PM

Let's talk about THIS (which hit Wall Street pretty hard early today before the news was tempered a bit) and which is serious if not reversed soon because the one-shot J&J vaccine has been seen as the solution to immunizing hard-to get groups like the homeless, illegal immigrants and so forth. Many such people will not show up for second doses.

Quote:

U.S. Seeks to Pause J&J Covid-19 Vaccine Use After Rare Blood-Clot Cases
By Peter Loftus and Thomas M. Burton
Updated April 13, 2021 1:27 pm ET

U.S. health authorities recommended a pause in the use of Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine in order to investigate rare but severe cases of blood clots, a setback to vaccination efforts racing against virus variants.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the move Tuesday, after finding that six women between the ages of 18 and 48 years who got the vaccine had developed blood clots and one died. More than 6.8 million doses have been administered in the U.S., the agencies said.

The decision prompted the U.S. government to suspend at its vaccination sites administration of J&J’s vaccine, a federal health official said, while states and other authorities scrambled to adjust.

The government’s review may only take a few days, health authorities said. A panel of outside experts will meet Wednesday to review the matter for the CDC, while the FDA will also conduct an investigation.

J&J said Tuesday it is aware of an extremely rare disorder involving people with blood clots in combination with low platelets in a small number of people who received its vaccine. J&J said it is working with health authorities and medical experts.

The company also said it has decided to delay the rollout of its vaccine in Europe, which had been planned for later this month . . . .

J&J’s vaccine “makes up less than 5% of the recorded shots in arms in the United States to date,” . . . .
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-see...d=hp_lead_pos1

Quote:

For each of the six clotting cases, symptoms occurred six to 13 days post-vaccination . . . . The six cases all occurred among women between 18 and 48 years, suggesting younger women might be at higher risk. A similar pattern was seen with clotting side effects among people given AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine . . . .

The J&J vaccine, like the shot from AstraZeneca, uses a new technology to help people’s immune systems mobilize against the new coronavirus. The two viral-vector vaccines contain a virus that causes the common cold, but which has been rendered harmless. That virus is engineered to include genetic instructions that trigger a protective immune response.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different technology . . . .
https://www.wsj.com/articles/j-j-ast...article_inline

The condition in question is called "thrombotic thrombocytopenia" (platelets are also called "thrombocytes" so the name means "clots with a reduced number of platelets" which can occur basically when the platelets are used up forming clots.

An article published in the New England Journal of Medicine discusses the situation:

Quote:

Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination
April 9, 2021
Andreas Greinacher, M.D., Thomas Thiele, M.D., Theodore E. Warkentin, M.D., Karin Weisser, Ph.D., Paul A. Kyrle, M.D., and Sabine Eichinger, M.D.

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Several cases of unusual thrombotic events and thrombocytopenia have developed after vaccination with the recombinant adenoviral vector encoding the spike protein antigen of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (ChAdOx1 nCov-19, AstraZeneca). More data were needed on the pathogenesis of this unusual clotting disorder.

METHODS
We assessed the clinical and laboratory features of 11 patients in Germany and Austria in whom thrombosis or thrombocytopenia had developed after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19. We used a standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect platelet factor 4 (PF4)–heparin antibodies and a modified (PF4-enhanced) platelet-activation test to detect platelet-activating antibodies under various reaction conditions. Included in this testing were samples from patients who had blood samples referred for investigation of vaccine-associated thrombotic events, with 28 testing positive on a screening PF4–heparin immunoassay.

RESULTS
Of the 11 original patients, 9 were women, with a median age of 36 years (range, 22 to 49). Beginning 5 to 16 days after vaccination, the patients presented with one or more thrombotic events, with the exception of 1 patient, who presented with fatal intracranial hemorrhage. Of the patients with one or more thrombotic events, 9 had cerebral venous thrombosis, 3 had splanchnic-vein thrombosis, 3 had pulmonary embolism, and 4 had other thromboses; of these patients, 6 died. Five patients had disseminated intravascular coagulation. None of the patients had received heparin before symptom onset. All 28 patients who tested positive for antibodies against PF4–heparin tested positive on the platelet-activation assay in the presence of PF4 independent of heparin. Platelet activation was inhibited by high levels of heparin, Fc receptor–blocking monoclonal antibody, and immune globulin (10 mg per milliliter). Additional studies with PF4 or PF4–heparin affinity purified antibodies in 2 patients confirmed PF4-dependent platelet activation.

CONCLUSIONS
Vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 can result in the rare development of immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia mediated by platelet-activating antibodies against PF4, which clinically mimics autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. (Funded by the German Research Foundation.)
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840

When people talk about other than immediate allergic reactions to vaccines, what is usually feared is some type of auto-immune phenomenon. According to the German research, these recombinant adenovirus vector vaccines from J&J and AstraZeneca seem to be causing the development of platelet-activating antibodies against platelet factor 4 in rare individuals, for some reason all younger women (so far).

The situation may ultimately come down to deciding whether 6 cases out of 6.8 million doses is sufficient to suspend use of the vaccine or, perhaps, limit its use to men over a certain age.

jtown,man Apr 13, 2021 8:56 PM

6 out of 6.8 million.

Horrible for those six people, obviously, but this is the government being overly cautious and nothing more.

Pedestrian Apr 13, 2021 8:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9247680)
Well not really. There is probably a strong correlation with overall population density, but that doesn’t make it a causal relationship as you know.

Agreed. The case in CA's Central and Imperial Valleys is an example. These are areas with overall low population densities but they are also places where immigrant agricultural workers live in crowded, shared housing. There are similar though less extreme examples in French "suburbs" or other places where various factors cause people to share housing with many others but not necessarily in places with overall dense populations.

the urban politician Apr 13, 2021 8:59 PM

^ Yes, exactly, I think pausing for a few days to analyze may be prudent, but this is in no way enough to stop its use altogether.

Pedestrian Apr 13, 2021 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 9247693)
6 out of 6.8 million.

Horrible for those six people, obviously, but this is the government being overly cautious and nothing more.

Yes, but if we do continue using the J&J vaccine on the populations I mentioned--the homeless, undocumented immigrants and so on (anyone who may be difficult to get back for a second dose)--will we be seen (and accused by the media) of giving these less fortunate people a "second best" or inferior shot? I think you can bet on it.

iheartthed Apr 13, 2021 9:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9247501)
Yes and no. Population density itself is not really a factor, but reliance on public transportation, which is linked to population density, certainly is.

Expensive real estate in cities like NYC and London is probably a factor as well. For example indoor dining is inherently more problematic because most restaurants are cramped with lots of tables close together, and more people are likely to live in shared housing with roommates.

The worst outbreaks in the U.S. have occurred in states that are among the least urbanized.

jtown,man Apr 13, 2021 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9247709)
Yes, but if we do continue using the J&J vaccine on the populations I mentioned--the homeless, undocumented immigrants and so on (anyone who may be difficult to get back for a second dose)--will we be seen (and accused by the media) of giving these less fortunate people a "second best" or inferior shot? I think you can bet on it.

True. I don't know how to get around that but I know for sure I was disappointed when I found out I wasn't getting the JJ shot.

So plenty of people will still take that tiny risk even when they have the facts, I sure would have.

SIGSEGV Apr 13, 2021 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 9246984)
That's because "cases" are EXTREMELY dependent on how much a given state is testing.

covid deaths give a much clearer picture of the extent of an outbreak in a given area.



Alabama doesn't test. It has the 4th LOWEST testing rate in the nation.

Yet it has is the 10th HIGHEST covid death rate in the nation.



If you don't test your population, you're not gonna find much covid.

but if the people are still dying at higher than average rates, then you've got a lot of covid going around,

it just ain't being discovered at the same rate it is in other places that are all-in on testing.

testing notwithstanding, it's completely possible that more contagious variants simply haven't made it there yet. with some luck, they might be able to beat them by vaccinating quickly enough.

Pedestrian Apr 13, 2021 10:42 PM

Quote:

Covid: Younger Brazilians fall ill as cases explode

Concern is growing in Brazil about the rising number of young people who are critically ill in hospital with Covid-19.

Research suggests more than half of patients being treated in intensive care last month were under 40 . . . .
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-la...erica-56723439

Will we ever get past the idea that only old people get really sick with COVID?

jtown,man Apr 13, 2021 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9247839)
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-la...erica-56723439

Will we ever get past the idea that only old people get really sick with COVID?

Has Brazil vaccinated their old yet? If so, this is not and should not be surprising. Of course, young people will make up a larger portion of those hospitalized if the old are vaccinated. This makes complete sense.

iheartthed Apr 13, 2021 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 9247911)
Has Brazil vaccinated their old yet? If so, this is not and should not be surprising. Of course, young people will make up a larger portion of those hospitalized if the old are vaccinated. This makes complete sense.

It's significant because Brazil is in the midst of its worst spike in deaths of the entire pandemic.

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 12:01 AM

Covid is....Dude.....like never going to end

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9247839)
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-la...erica-56723439

Will we ever get past the idea that only old people get really sick with COVID?

No, because the old are overwhelmingly more likely to get very ill and die of Covid. That will always be the case.

The question is whether more of them were vaccinated in Brazil. I don’t know because that article doesn’t reveal that info

10023 Apr 14, 2021 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9247839)
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-la...erica-56723439

Will we ever get past the idea that only old people get really sick with COVID?

No one has ever said this.

What many of us are saying is that the risk from Covid is many orders of magnitude higher for older people, that younger people rarely have life-threatening illness, and that the risk to young people in itself does not justify lockdowns or any of these restrictions, only the risk to older people. All of this (barring the last point which is inherently subjective) has been well established fact since at last May 2020 and borne out by mounds of statistical data.

As you know I am of the view that governments, even if they couldn’t legally make different rules for older people, should have had clear and strong messaging to the effect that if you are over 70, you should continue to stay at home, avoid social contact, and avoid close contact with family even as things opened up. If this had been done and somewhat adhered to, then everywhere could have been like Florida and gone back to some degree of normalcy by June of last year.

As for your article, there are over 200 million people in Brazil and the population skews younger than the US, let alone Europe, so of course the raw numbers of young people with “severe” Covid will sound like a big number. That doesn’t mean the risk justifies the disruption to life. I risk my health or even life every day I go snowboarding than I do going out to bars during Covid.

pip Apr 14, 2021 1:39 AM

Anyway lol. Per previous discussion. It is not Illinois allocating doses to Chicago. It is the Federal government. Chicago receives its supply of vaccine from the federal government allocated separately from the state. As such, the city operates on its own framework and timetable. One third of the doses administered in Chicago have gone to non residents. It is what it is, whatever. But that is why it is hard to get a shot here in Chicago - doses received based on population but administered based to a larger population.

Anyway managed to get my first dose today of Pfizer in Forest Park though Cook County!

SlidellWx Apr 14, 2021 4:22 AM

25% of metro New Orleans has been fully vaccinated as of Monday. https://ladhh.maps.arcgis.com/apps/o...f9046c213331ed

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 5:46 AM

In case you were wondering:

Quote:

Americans Have Too Much Toilet Paper. Finally, Sales Slow.
By Sharon Terlep
Updated April 13, 2021 6:43 pm ET

After a year in which toilet-tissue shortages left consumers scrambling for squares, sales are plummeting to below pre-pandemic levels.

Bath-tissue sales in January fell more than 4% from the same period a year earlier, before the spread of Covid-19 spurred Americans to load up on staples from toilet paper to sanitary wipes, according to figures from NielsenIQ. The decline, which comes even though legions of Americans continue to work and attend school from home, indicates last year’s stockpiling is starting to have an effect on sales . . . .
https://www.wsj.com/articles/america...=hp_lead_pos12

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 6:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip (Post 9248049)
Anyway lol. Per previous discussion. It is not Illinois allocating doses to Chicago. It is the Federal government. Chicago receives its supply of vaccine from the federal government allocated separately from the state. As such, the city operates on its own framework and timetable. One third of the doses administered in Chicago have gone to non residents. It is what it is, whatever. But that is why it is hard to get a shot here in Chicago - doses received based on population but administered based to a larger population.

Anyway managed to get my first dose today of Pfizer in Forest Park though Cook County!

According to this - https://data.cdc.gov/Vaccinations/Na...ions/sxbq-3sid - Chicago, Philadelphia and New York are unique as the only cities getting their own allocations from the feds. But if the state accepts their argument that they are vaccinating non-residents, there’s nothing to prevent it from giving them additional supplies. I guess special treatment has a downside. Too bad.

Anyway you went and stole your shot from outside the city and I bet you aren’t alone.

CaliNative Apr 14, 2021 6:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9247839)
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-la...erica-56723439

Will we ever get past the idea that only old people get really sick with COVID?

The old "cytokine storm" problem. Active immune systens can be a problem. Just like the 1918 pandemic. Young people were not spared. Looks like covid variants are getting more troublesome for the young.

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 6:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9247948)
No, because the old are overwhelmingly more likely to get very ill and die of Covid. That will always be the case.

The question is whether more of them were vaccinated in Brazil. I don’t know because that article doesn’t reveal that info

Apparently that is no longer true in Brazil for whatever reason. Before vaccination of large numbers the very sick young were swamped by the very sick old but now the old are protected and its obvious that the Brazilian variant, at least, can make even the young very sick if they refuse to act prudently.

CaliNative Apr 14, 2021 6:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9248225)
According to this - https://data.cdc.gov/Vaccinations/Na...ions/sxbq-3sid - Chicago, Philadelphia and New York are unique as the only cities getting their own allocations from the feds. But if the state accepts their argument that they are vaccinating non-residents, there’s nothing to prevent it from giving them additional supplies. I guess special treatment has a downside. Too bad.

Anyway you went and stole your shot from outside the city and I bet you aren’t alone.

Pedestrian, if you could choose between Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, which would you pick? Some data I've seen seem to show the moderna vaccine can have slightly tougher side effects, especially after the second dose. My elderly mom has to have the vaccine, and can pick either one. Both vaccines do seem to be effective. Any thoughts? When you had the vaccine, how bad were the side effects if any? Pfizer or Mod.,?

pip Apr 14, 2021 2:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9248225)
According to this - https://data.cdc.gov/Vaccinations/Na...ions/sxbq-3sid - Chicago, Philadelphia and New York are unique as the only cities getting their own allocations from the feds. But if the state accepts their argument that they are vaccinating non-residents, there’s nothing to prevent it from giving them additional supplies. I guess special treatment has a downside. Too bad.

Anyway you went and stole your shot from outside the city and I bet you aren’t alone.

No matter how much it bothers you how Chicago administers it's shots the fact of the matter is you are being ridiculous and obtuse. Why this bothers you is beyond me. Boredom? And I did not steal any shots. That's a hell of an accusation. Why would you do that? You are in your mid 70's. I have nothing in common with you. Move on and enjoy retirement instead of accusing and debating with people several decades younger than you about them getting a vaccine shot. I am a resident of Cook County thus am able to get shots from Cook County. They even recommend it.

iheartthed Apr 14, 2021 3:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9248225)
According to this - https://data.cdc.gov/Vaccinations/Na...ions/sxbq-3sid - Chicago, Philadelphia and New York are unique as the only cities getting their own allocations from the feds. But if the state accepts their argument that they are vaccinating non-residents, there’s nothing to prevent it from giving them additional supplies. I guess special treatment has a downside. Too bad.

Anyway you went and stole your shot from outside the city and I bet you aren’t alone.

NYC has its own public health system with the capacity to administer vaccines at scale. That's probably why NY's doses are split between the city and state (also nearly half the state's population lives in the five boroughs). NYC also allows non-residents who work in the city to get vaccinated at an NYC run site.

When I was booking my own appointment in NY, it was very hard to find vaccine appointments anywhere near the NY Metro area on the state portal, but there were plenty of appointments available if you drove 200 miles upstate. I ended up finding a last minute slot on the city's hospitals website.

Also, I believe that if you go to one of the pharmacies that are permitted to administer vaccines (Walgreens, Rite-Aid, etc.), there is no residency requirement at all.

10023 Apr 14, 2021 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9248237)
Apparently that is no longer true in Brazil for whatever reason. Before vaccination of large numbers the very sick young were swamped by the very sick old but now the old are protected and its obvious that the Brazilian variant, at least, can make even the young very sick if they refuse to act prudently.

I know you’re obsessed with the idea that it’s “not just us old folks” who are at risk from Covid, but statistically that is the case. Give it a rest.

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 4:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliNative (Post 9248236)
The old "cytokine storm" problem. Active immune systens can be a problem. Just like the 1918 pandemic. Young people were not spared. Looks like covid variants are getting more troublesome for the young.

Ugh.... so much nonsense being spewed in this thread....

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 4:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9248574)
I know you’re obsessed with the idea that it’s “not just us old folks” who are at risk from Covid, but statistically that is the case. Give it a rest.

Yep

There is zero evidence anywhere that COVID is suddenly changing into something it is not (and never will be) and becoming more deadly for young people.

If anything is happening, the cases are skewing younger because the elderly have been vaccinated, and hence the proportion of people dying is younger simply for the same reason. Any simple understanding of math and statistics will reveal that.

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 4:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9248237)
Apparently that is no longer true in Brazil for whatever reason. Before vaccination of large numbers the very sick young were swamped by the very sick old but now the old are protected and its obvious that the Brazilian variant, at least, can make even the young very sick if they refuse to act prudently.

You really are getting confused.

I'm saying the same thing that you are.

Sorry, I know that being scared of COVID is becoming a rather fun pet project for you, but COVID is NOT EVOLVING into something that is more deadly for the young.

When you save the older people from dying, then the only people left to die are younger people. So even though younger people are still REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY unlikely to die, they are the only people left getting Covid, and when the virus is spreading to tens/hundreds of millions of them, they are like 90% of the deaths now. Simple common sense and grasping of statistics reveals this.

sopas ej Apr 14, 2021 4:43 PM

From NBC Los Angeles:

LA County Will Allow Indoor Events, Sports Fan Attendance Starting Thursday

By City News Service • Published April 13, 2021 • Updated on April 13, 2021 at 6:19 pm

Los Angeles County on Thursday will begin allowing attendance at indoor sporting events, theater performances, concerts and conferences, but the county will impose a stricter capacity limit at large event venues -- such as Staples Center -- than the state guidelines.

The state announced earlier this month that it will ease its COVID-19 restrictions, effective Thursday, allowing a return to indoor events, but individual counties are always permitted to imposer stricter regulations than the state authorizes.

County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said Monday the county will largely adopt the state rules, but it will impose a stricter capacity limit on indoor venues with 1,501 seats or more.

The state's guidelines for larger arenas allow for attendance of 10% of the venue's capacity, or 2,000 people, whichever is smaller. If all attendees are fully vaccinated or have proof of a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of the event, the state allows attendance to increase to 35% of capacity.

Los Angeles County, however, will limit attendance at larger venues to 25% of capacity when all guests are vaccinated or tested. That means all sporting events at Staples Center -- home to the Lakers, Clippers and Kings -- will be limited to 25% capacity instead of the 35% allowed by the state.

Staples Center will require all fans to provide proof of vaccination or a negative COVID test to be admitted.

The state and county rules will restrict attendance at large and small arenas to in-state residents only, and attendees must have pre-purchased, digital admission tickets. Masks are required at all times, except when people are eating in designated dining areas, and six feet of physical distancing between groups must be maintained. All venues must have a weekly worker testing program, and all suites are limited to 25% capacity.

For smaller indoor venues that hold up to 1,500 people, capacity is limited to a maximum of 15%, or 200 people. The capacity can increase to 35% if everyone has proof of a negative COVID test or of being fully vaccinated.

For private events such as meetings, receptions or conferences, outdoor gatherings can be held with 100 people, or up to 300 if everyone is vaccinated/tested. Indoor activities are permitted only if all guests are vaccinated or tested, and attendance is limited to a maximum of 150 people.

For informal private social gatherings, the new rules will allow outdoor gatherings of up to 50 people, with required masking and physical distancing. Indoor social gatherings are "strongly discouraged,'' but can be held with a maximum of 25 people or 25% of the venue's capacity, whichever is lower, with required masks and no eating or drinking unless everyone attending has been vaccinated.

Link: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...virus/2572562/

TWAK Apr 14, 2021 4:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9248574)
I know you’re obsessed with the idea that it’s “not just us old folks” who are at risk from Covid, but statistically that is the case. Give it a rest.

Everybody is at risk for PASC though, as well as 1/3 of covid patients will have neuropsychiatric conditions. If people don't feel they are at risk, they should volunteer at hospitals and participate in forced injections (of covid) for scientific research. Then if possible, mass produce vaccines from these special humans.

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 4:46 PM

Thank you LA, for finally doing something reasonable.

Now if only the rest of the "lock down first, fuck everyone's feelings, think about it later" States will follow

Masking and shots should literally be the only thing we are doing now. No other policies are necessary. All COVID measures should immediately be halted as being burdensome and damaging.

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 5:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip (Post 9248445)
No matter how much it bothers you how Chicago administers it's shots the fact of the matter is you are being ridiculous and obtuse. Why this bothers you is beyond me. Boredom? And I did not steal any shots. That's a hell of an accusation. Why would you do that? You are in your mid 70's. I have nothing in common with you. Move on and enjoy retirement instead of accusing and debating with people several decades younger than you about them getting a vaccine shot. I am a resident of Cook County thus am able to get shots from Cook County. They even recommend it.

My point was that residency requirements are absurd. You are the one disagreeing. It looks to me as if Chicago (city) has painted itself into a corner by getting a separate allocation of vaccine which limits it to that amount. But still it could ask for some vaccine from Illinois to provide to non-city residents if it chose to and it should do that it is vaccinating them.

Your agism doesn't become you and I think the mods should instruct you that there's no policy here that people of any age can't debate issues. Is it because you recognize how limited your perspective is that you are trying to intimidate me?

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 5:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9248677)
Thank you LA, for finally doing something reasonable.

Now if only the rest of the "lock down first, fuck everyone's feelings, think about it later" States will follow

Masking and shots should literally be the only thing we are doing now. No other policies are necessary. All COVID measures should immediately be halted as being burdensome and damaging.

This isn't so much something LA is doing on its own.

It's actually very complicated. CA has a fairly complex and regulated statewide system of policies on when counties can open to what degree based on criteria too complex to explain. As the article sopas ej posted states, the state is allowing LA to do what it is doing as it is allowing other counties to do similar things.

But it is even more Byzantine than that. Gov. Gavin Newsom is fighting a recall election. A part of the criticism of him has been the complexity and rigidity of the lockdown policies he imposed. As is happening all over the country, COVID fatigue has got people angry at governments that are too restrictive and California has been one of the most restrictive. So the current relaxation and even abandonment of previous policies is something Newsom is being forced into to stay in office. He will probably succeed--unlike when Gov. Davis was recalled and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger, there's no big name, popular candidate selling Newsom's job. But still he seems to be running a little scared and loosening COVID restrictions is part of his strategy.

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 5:21 PM

Interesting idea:

Quote:

Breed challenges San Franciscans to only patronize city's pandemic-battered small businesses
Heather Knight
April 14, 2021
Updated: April 14, 2021 8:51 a.m.

Could you go an entire month without ordering anything from Amazon? Could you ditch Safeway in favor of your corner market? Could you skip ordering food from McDonald’s and bypass Target, Costco and Walgreens?

Mayor London Breed wants you to try. On Wednesday, she’ll announce San Francisco’s Small Business 30-Day Challenge. Starting May 1, she’ll encourage city residents to patronize only small businesses and restaurants and to avoid big chains and corporations.

Get your quarter-pounder at Beep’s instead of Burger King. Buy your pie from Pizzeria Delfina instead of Pizza Hut. Pay Bookshop West Portal, not Jeff Bezos, when you want to tear through the latest bestseller.

The challenge is geared toward making city residents think twice when spending their money, and to spotlight our beloved, character-filled local shops and restaurants. These businesses have suffered greatly during the COVID-19 pandemic and need all the customers they can get if they’re going to survive.

The Opportunity Insights Economic Tracker, a project of Harvard and Brown universities and the Gates Foundation, found that small businesses nationwide have seen their revenue drop 32.5% since January 2020. By comparison, San Francisco small businesses lost 56% of revenue, with only small businesses in a few cities, including Boston and New York, losing more. It is likely that San Francisco’s early shutdown and continued business restrictions saved many lives, but also harmed the local economy more than in cities without widespread restrictions.

The same tracker found there are 50.3% fewer small businesses in San Francisco open now compared to January 2020, though it’s unclear how many of those closures are permanent. That was also among the worst of American cities.

“We’ve done a lot, but of course it’s not nearly enough to keep everyone in business,” Breed said, noting she’s pledged $75 million in small business relief through grants, loans and fee waivers. She said she’s also ecstatic about the prospect of parklets outside businesses lasting permanently . . . .
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/he...y-16098770.php

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 5:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9248671)
You really are getting confused.

I'm saying the same thing that you are.

Sorry, I know that being scared of COVID is becoming a rather fun pet project for you, but COVID is NOT EVOLVING into something that is more deadly for the young.

When you save the older people from dying, then the only people left to die are younger people. So even though younger people are still REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY unlikely to die, they are the only people left getting Covid, and when the virus is spreading to tens/hundreds of millions of them, they are like 90% of the deaths now. Simple common sense and grasping of statistics reveals this.

There seems to be a certain desperation setting in here over hearing what people don't want to hear and their only response is agism and ad hominem attacks.

The fact is that there is considerable speculation, and I admit it IS speculation so far, that certain of the newer virus variants do have more of predilection to infecting younger people and making them sicker.

Quote:

The CDC says this COVID variant is now the most dominant. And it hits younger people.
BY
DAVID Z. MORRIS AND SY MUKHERJEE
April 7, 2021 3:55 PM MST

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Wednesday pointed to the so-called U.K. variant of the coronavirus as the leading cause of new COVID cases in the U.S. And it's hitting younger Americans, including those in their 30s and 40s, the hardest.

"The B.1.1.7 variant is now the most common lineage circulating in the United States," said CDC director Rochelle Walensky during a briefing this afternoon, referring to the scientific name for that particular strain of the coronavirus.

"Trends are increasing in both case numbers and hospitalizations," Walensky said, citing day care centers and youth sports as the progenitors of newly reported outbreaks.

. . . this variant of the coronavirus appears to be hitting people who may be too young to be eligible for a vaccine dose yet.

It's unclear exactly what the age breakdown is when it comes to this variant strain, since the situation is in flux and information is still trickling in. But there have been more than 16,000 confirmed cases of this particular variant, according to the CDC, which led Walensky to urge caution and distancing measures when it comes to youth sports and indoor gatherings . . . .
https://fortune.com/2021/04/07/the-c...ounger-people/

Quote:

Covid-19: Brazil’s spiralling crisis is increasingly affecting young people
BMJ 2021; 373 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n879 (Published 01 April 2021)

. . . experts have warned that covid-19 is now affecting young Brazilians worse than ever before. Doctors treating covid-19 patients have reported that more young people are being admitted to their hospitals in the current wave of cases. Their observations are being corroborated by a series of new studies looking at infection and mortality rates in Brazil.

Covid-19 cases among people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s are up by 565%, 626%, and 525% respectively since the beginning of January, says the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz),3 a research institute attached to Brazil’s Ministry of Health. The comparatively lower increase in the overall population “suggests a shift to younger age groups,” it concluded in a bulletin published on 26 March.

Raphael Guimarães, an epidemiologist at Fiocruz, has said that cases in the younger population have likely increased because they are less able to practice social distancing and thus run a higher risk of getting infected when the virus is prevalent.

More transmissible
Covid-19 cases have soared throughout Brazil in the past month and have been attributed to the spread of P.1, which is estimated to be 1.4-2.2 times more transmissible than previous variants.4

Growing evidence shows that young people are not only more likely to get infected with P.1 but also to die from it, some experts have warned. The Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine said that the number of 18-45 year olds requiring intensive care for covid-19 in February to March this year was three times greater than in September to November 2020,5 and coronavirus related deaths in that age group have almost doubled.

Maragareth Portela, a senior researcher at Fiocruz, said that Brazil’s saturated hospitals could partly explain the higher mortality rates, as patients were less likely to survive if beds and equipment were short and staff were overwhelmed.

Yet the increase is higher in regions where P.1 is more prevalent, suggesting that it is not only more transmissible but also more lethal. “It is very likely that the P.1 variant is more severe among young adults,” said Portela.

The case of Manaus, the capital of Brazil’s Amazonas region where the P.1 variant first emerged in November 2020—causing hospitals to collapse and moralities to soar—also points to P.1 being more lethal.

A preliminary study, which compared case fatality rates in Manaus’s first wave of cases in April to May 2020 with the second wave in January 2021, found that deaths among people aged 20-39 were 2.7 times higher in the second wave than in the first. In the general population they were only 1.15 times higher.

“If overload was the reason for the increase in the case fatality rate, it would be reasonable to expect that the increase would be similar for different ages and genders,” said André Ricardo, epidemiologist at the Leopoldo Mandic School of Medicine in São Paulo and one of the study’s authors. “P.1 appears to be more lethal among young men and women than the original strain.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n879

Now urban political and the rest who are in denial that this virus may be evolving in ways they aren't happy to see should probably start looking at research and facts rather than inside their own stubborn heads.

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 9248574)
I know you’re obsessed with the idea that it’s “not just us old folks” who are at risk from Covid, but statistically that is the case. Give it a rest.

When you stop pretending you are invulnerable and governments should let people like you do as you wish no matter whom it puts at risk.

What I posted just above doesn't compare Brazil to other countries so it's relatively young population is irrelevant. It compares what's happening now with the new virus variant with what happened previously in Brazil. And Brazil hasn't vaccinated enough residents old or young to explain the difference either. It's Brazilian scientists who are saying they believe the new variant is more dangerous to younger people but you and the rest of the COVID fatigue brigade seem in denial as much as ever.

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 5:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9248779)
There seems to be a certain desperation setting in here over hearing what people don't want to hear and their only response is agism and ad hominem attacks.

The fact is that there is considerable speculation, and I admit it IS speculation so far, that certain of the newer virus variants do have more of predilection to infecting younger people and making them sicker.


https://fortune.com/2021/04/07/the-c...ounger-people/


https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n879

Now urban political and the rest who are in denial that this virus may be evolving in ways they aren't happy to see should probably start looking at research and facts rather than inside their own stubborn heads.

^ Nothing you are posting suggests anything that even remotely hints that new variants of the COVID are suddenly taking a "chill pill" on the 65 and older crowd and are now becoming more deadly for younger people.

It's not the case, and you will never find such evidence. In your own words, you are "speculating", and your speculation is way off.

What is happening is:

1. The elderly are isolating themselves more (here and in Brazil) and thus spreading and getting the virus less
2. The elderly are getting far more vaccine than younger people
3. Brazil's population skews young
4. The variants spread more rapidly, and because of #1-3 above, you are seeing a higher proportion of hospitalized and dying people being younger.

This is so easy to comprehend, give me a break, Pedestrian.... Nothing to see here, lets move on....

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 5:52 PM

Data:

People over 65: Majority vaccinated
People under 65: Only a small proportion vaccinated

Therefore, deaths and hospitalizations from COVID are gradually skewing younger

How a silly person who isn't thinking interprets this:

Gosh, George....lookee here, it seems like dat dere virus is starting to kill us young folk, gosh it must be dem new variants!

How anybody with a noggin on their shoulders interprets this:

Hmmmm, the vaccine is working. The variants are spreading faster and through younger people, and killing some of them. Fewer old people getting ill and dying. Thank God for the vaccine! Lets get those young people vaccinated!

iheartthed Apr 14, 2021 5:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9248811)
Data:

People over 65: Majority vaccinated
People under 65: Only a small proportion vaccinated

Therefore, deaths and hospitalizations from COVID are gradually skewing younger

How a silly person who isn't thinking interprets this:

Gosh, George....lookee here, it seems like dat dere virus is starting to kill us young folk, gosh it must be dem new variants!

How anybody with a noggin on their shoulders interprets this:

Hmmmm, the vaccine is working. The variants are spreading faster and through younger people, and killing some of them. Fewer old people getting ill and dying. Thank God for the vaccine! Lets get those young people vaccinated!

More young people dying obviously means the virus has run out of old people to infect, lol. Got it.

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 5:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9248793)
^ Nothing you are posting suggests anything that even remotely hints that new variants of the COVID are suddenly taking a "chill pill" on the 65 and older crowd and are now becoming more deadly for younger people.

It's not the case, and you will never find such evidence. In your own words, you are "speculating", and your speculation is way off.
.

Tell it to the Brazilian scientists and the CDC who are saying just the opposite. It's you who lack evidence. I keep posting the opinions of others and you keep trying to refuse me with your own which are clearly just your own.

Pedestrian Apr 14, 2021 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9248811)
Data:

People over 65: Majority vaccinated
People under 65: Only a small proportion vaccinated

Therefore, deaths and hospitalizations from COVID are gradually skewing younger

How a silly person who isn't thinking interprets this:

Gosh, George....lookee here, it seems like dat dere virus is starting to kill us young folk, gosh it must be dem new variants!

How anybody with a noggin on their shoulders interprets this:

Hmmmm, the vaccine is working. The variants are spreading faster and through younger people, and killing some of them. Fewer old people getting ill and dying. Thank God for the vaccine! Lets get those young people vaccinated!

The majority of the old are NOT vaccinated in other than the US and UK and a few other small countries like Israel. They are not in Brazil where I am citing research.

I think you've made your unwillingness to listen to anyone but yourself clear enough.

the urban politician Apr 14, 2021 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9248822)
More young people dying obviously means the virus has run out of old people to infect, lol. Got it.

I don't get what's funny about that. In a nutshell, it's evidence that the vaccine WORKS.

What we are observing is exactly what we would expect to happen if we targeted the over 65 crowd and vaccinated them first, all while a new and highly contagious variant is spreading through the population.

The elderly are relatively spared, while the new variant is rapidly spreading though a relatively unvaccinated and younger population.

Cases will rise and death rates will skew younger.

Everything that you'd expect to happen with a working vaccine is exactly what we are observing. What about that do you have a problem with?


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:19 AM.

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