Covid cases, hospitalizations, death trends and other touchy subjects…

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It seems like Pres. Nelson may well be an effective messenger after all:

Thanks,

-Smac

Seems to be a pretty mixed bag, and predictably follows political lines.   But overall, I am happy to see that it made some improvement, generally speaking.

Vancouver (mostly blue) - near perfect compliance

Wichita (54% red) - "barely a third" compliance

Park City (mostly blue) - 80% compliance.

Montana (red) - Didn't change a thing. Zero compliance.  No masks anywhere (except for visitors).

Utah County (red)- only 20% compliance.

Houston (red) - 5 adults out of 50 wore masks, and no one in the bishopric was wearing masks.

Stafford, Va. (mostly blue) 100% compliance, but not at youth activities, due to "anti-mask bishopric member.
 

Edited August 18, 2021 by pogi

[Calm]

Some might find this article interesting about misinformation and Covid…could perhaps be applied to other topics easily enough 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2103798?query=TOC&cid=NEJM+eToc%2C+August+19%2C+2021+DM226921_NEJM_Non_Subscriber&bid=584577094

It does use what will seem like political examples to many, so I am iffy about putting it up, but it was recommended by a medical friend and I like it, so…

Edited August 19, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

A couple of new info sites I learned about from the above:

https://dearpandemic.org

https://www.poynter.org/covid-19-poynter-resources/

And this one of course is recommended in the article:

https://www.factcheck.org/scicheck/
 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

For those interested in history:

https://omny.fm/shows/church-news-podcast/following-the-recent-first-presidency-message-on-m
 

(remember the experimental treatment that saved Joseph’s leg?)

[Tacenda]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

A couple of new info sites I learned about from the above:

https://dearpandemic.org

https://www.poynter.org/covid-19-poynter-resources/

And this one of course is recommended in the article:

https://www.factcheck.org/scicheck/
 

 

I love this, thanks!

[Calm]

Perhaps this can be helpful for some members who are having some concerns:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/08/17/96-of-us-physicians-have-done-something-to-stay-healthy-only-57-of-us-adults-have-followed-their-lead

[Calm]

In the comments, Jeff answers the issue of the alleged danger of spike proteins that came up the other day as someone asked for more detail. 

Quote

The muscle cells in your arm take up the messenger RNA and produce the spike protein. They stop producing it once the mRNA that was injected breaks down (within a few days). The proteins stay around for a few weeks, giving your body time to react to them and train your immune system to recognize and destroy them.

There is no long-term affect on the cells from making the spike protein — all cells are constantly making proteins depending on their tissue type, and the immune system is constantly checking what is going on to look for foreign antigen.

This article gives a little more detail if you’re interested: https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/where-mrna-vaccines-and-spike-proteins-go

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Mods hoping this is ok to post this interview with a current ICU doctor discussing the current situation. So much good information, I really wish it was on another domain so i could share with everyone on FB.

https://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/5/5/a/55a2cc7f0ff8cb1a/MormonStories-1461-CovidVaccineICUDoc.mp3?c_id=109533191&cs_id=109533191&expiration=1629388164&hwt=89e784da7b712fe29776ddb7835bc5a4

Edited August 19, 2021 by Tacenda

[bsjkki]

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

 

I'm still seeing people "sanitizing" everything in sight, and requiring the use of hand sanitizer, even though the CDC said that it doesn't help anything.  Sanitation theater is real and people struggle to let that kind of stuff go.  I think it gives them a small sense of control, even if it's all an illusion. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by bluebell

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps this can be helpful for some members who are having some concerns:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2021/08/17/96-of-us-physicians-have-done-something-to-stay-healthy-only-57-of-us-adults-have-followed-their-lead

Here's another resource to help persuade, authored by Jeff Lindsay: How to Talk to Concerned Church Members Who Are "COVID Policy Doubters" (CPDs)

Quote

Some Latter-day Saints, probably only a minority, were frustrated with a recent request from Church leaders. Some of the frustration might be lessened after carefully considering the wording of the very brief First Presidency message of Aug. 12, 2021, with the title "The First Presidency Urges Latter-day Saints to Wear Face Masks When Needed and Get Vaccinated Against COVID-19." As a vaccinated and pro-vaccine member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, today I want to share some thoughts from the surprisingly diverse community of Latter-day Saints who struggle with some COVID policies and who may be struggling with the Aug. 12 First Presidency Message. In today's society,  COVID Policy Doubters (CPDs) are widely dismissed, even ridiculed, and assumed to be selfish or ignorant in their views and their unwillingness to comply with policies from vaunted experts. I feel they deserve to be understood a little better. My aim is to help those who are puzzled by CPDs to recognize that their concerns may be driven by something other than ignorance, immaturity, stubbornness, or a foolish fear of all vaccines. I am not asking you to accept any of their perspectives, but to be able to talk to them by first understanding how seemingly faithful and intelligent people can also be mistrustful of government and be COVID policy doubters.

I have seen a fair amount of anger, condescension, etc. against folks who are hesitant to be vaccinated.  Rather than attempt to shame or humiliate or coerce these folks, I think we need to work harder and persuading.

Quote

First, to my CPD friends, please understand that this Aug. 12 First Presidency Statement is a good-faith effort to help us navigate temporary risks that are around us. Let's exercise patience and understanding in  response.  And you may also be grateful to see that the statement did not call for endless lockdowns, vaccine passports, mandatory vaccinations, mandatory masking, further forfeiture of property rights of landlords, shutting down schools again, the closure of churches and synagogues, or trillions of dollars of spending with shady 3,000-page laws packed with corrupt pork that could impoverish the country -- all issues that are concerns to some CPDs. There truly have been some terrible abuses of power that have occurred in the name of "standing together" against COVID. 

This is a pretty good point.  There are many folks who have long-term or overarching political issues/concerns. 

Politically conservative folks don't trust the Biden Administration, and/or distrust the federal government due to various suspicions and prior instances of intrusion and overreach.  I get it.  

Per this article, "Black people are more hesitant about getting the COVID-19 than white people for a variety of reasons ... opposition in the Black community in and around Augusta [Georgia} is highest in younger adults and those who have struggled to pay rent or a mortgage because of the pandemic."

Per this article, "a significant number of Evangelical Christians are opposed to getting vaccinated for Covid-19. The anti-Covid vaccine sentiment among Evangelicals is fed by a mixture of distrust in government, ignorance about how vaccines work, misinformation and political identity, experts say. A disproportionate number of White rural Americans have also refused to get the vaccine."

Per this article:

Quote

About 90 million Americans are eligible for the vaccine now but have not gotten it. While some of these still unvaccinated people may actually be hesitant -- that is, they have serious questions about the safety or effectiveness of the vaccines -- many just outright refuse to get vaccinated. Even now, experts are looking at approaches that may change minds. 
...
In general, COVID vaccine hesitancy was higher among those ages 18 to 24 than older people and non-Asian populations, says study senior author Robin Mejia, PhD, an assistant research professor of statistics and data at Carnegie Mellon.
...
Other findings:

• About 50% of people in all categories of hesitancy were concerned about side effects.
• Those who said they would ''definitely not" get a vaccine were more likely to say they didn't trust the vaccine or didn’t trust the government.
• Those who said a lack of trust was a reason they haven’t been vaccinated only appeared to have doubts about the COVID-19 vaccine, not those for other diseases.
• Many said they were hesitant because they wanted to wait ''to see if it's safe" or they were waiting on ''full" FDA approval, beyond the emergency use authorization the FDA has given the vaccines so far.

More Trends: Impact of Politics, Financial Struggles

New York University researchers surveyed 3,000 people in April, when vaccines had become available. They found that politics and personal finances impacted the decision to get vaccinated. Their study is due to be published as a preprint and is not yet peer-reviewed.

"We found Democrats far and away the most likely to be vaccinated," says Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, an associate research scientist at the New York University School of Global Public Health.
...

Changing Minds: Faith-Based Persuasion

So, what else reduces hesitancy?

Hearing about the benefits of the coronavirus vaccine from religious leaders can sway people, experts say.

"Clergy are often trusted voices, and houses of worship are trusted sites," says Rabbi David Saperstein, director emeritus of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington, DC. He is one of the core group involved in Faiths4vaccines, a multifaith movement launched in January. It includes religious leaders and medical professionals devoted to increasing vaccination rates. Its goals are to combat hesitancy and advance equitable distribution of vaccines.

Back to Lindsay's article:

Quote

The gist of the First Presidency Statement was simple and reasonable: "To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible. To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated." So in public meetings, if people will necessarily be very close to each other, our leaders will urge masking. Individuals are urged to be vaccinated for their own protection. This is really just asking us to reduce risk appropriately. In fact, with the currently increase in cases and hospitalizations in many parts of the country, this may be the right time to increase our guard for a while. I hope it's a brief period, but let's be patient and faithful through this. 

The First Presidency's short, positive message should not be interpreted to override the personal health issues that may make vaccines or even mask wearing inappropriate for some, including infants and young children, pregnant women, those with certain heart or kidney conditions, some with severe asthma or other respiratory problems, those with certain allergies or skin conditions, etc. See the WHO's guidelines on who should be vaccinated (I apologize if this WHO document does not align with some CDC guidelines or government goals pushing for vaccination of teenagers and ultimately younger children). In any case, it's still your choice, something that may be discussed between you and your doctor but not with the whole ward, and personally I believe that we should respect the medical privacy of others in this matter.

I like this approach.  Persuasion and information and encouragement.  

Quote

One Slur Won't Fit All: The Diversity of CPDs

First I must explain that CPDs in the Church and in our communities are surprisingly diverse. Some loud voices make it sound like the CPDs and the unvaccinated (two related by not identical groups) are all less-educated white Republicans from the lowest caste in our society known as the "deplorables." Here I would urge you to consider the data or at least talk to some of the CPDs in your congregation and understand who they are and why they are concerned. The stereotype that the "resistance" is only from the less educated is based on propaganda, not data, in my opinion. A new study from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh gives us some insight into who the unvaccinated are. It's only a pre-print that has not yet gone through peer review, so be cautious, but the survey data may still be helpful and resonates with what I've seen. See Wendy C. King, Max Rubinstein, Alex Reinhart, and Robin J. Mejia, "Time trends and factors related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy from January-May 2021 among US adults: Findings from a large-scale national survey," MedRxiv.org, July 23, 2021, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1, with the full-text PDF at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full.pdf. One view of the data related to education is provided at Unherd.com, showing that the group most likely to be vaccine-hesitant are those with Ph.D.s. But it's a u-shaped curve, with high hesitancy among the least educated and also among the most-educated. In my experience, regardless of education, the CPDs I've talked to are typically able to articulate reasonable explanations for their views. (Distrust and fear of adverse side effects are not groundless, in my opinion, though I may disagree with how they are weighing risks.)

Read the whole thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I'm curious as to your take on this point from a CNN article:

Quote

The Biden administration has also expressed frustration with media coverage around breakthrough infections saying outlets have wrongly suggested that vaccinated Americans are just as likely to spread the disease as unvaccinated Americans. Vaccinated Americans actually have a far lower chance of becoming infected with the coronavirus and, thus, they are responsible for far less spread of the disease.

If the vaccinated "have a far lower chance of becoming infected with the coronavirus and {} are responsible for far less spread of the disease," then why is there seemingly no differentiation in terms of recommendations about masks and social distancing?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm still seeing people "sanitizing" everything in sight, and requiring the use of hand sanitizer, even though the CDC said that it doesn't help anything.  Sanitation theater is real and people struggle to let that kind of stuff go.  I think it gives them a small sense of control, even if it's all an illusion. 

My favorite was in Mexico when they made us sanitize the bottom of our feet…

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

If the vaccinated "have a far lower chance of becoming infected with the coronavirus and {} are responsible for far less spread of the disease," then why is there seemingly no differentiation in terms of recommendations about masks and social distancing?

Thanks,

Because there is still enough of the possibility of infection and spread by the vaccinated…for example, my brother and a few others in my family were both vaccinated and tested positive. Only my brother was sick though and fewer of the vaccinated in the group tested positive, I believe. 
 

Given the lower likelihood of the vaccinated feeling sick when infected, smart to have the mask habit imo rather than waiting until they think they are infected. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm still seeing people "sanitizing" everything in sight, and requiring the use of hand sanitizer, even though the CDC said that it doesn't help anything.  Sanitation theater is real and people struggle to let that kind of stuff go.  I think it gives them a small sense of control, even if it's all an illusion. 

I wonder how much impact it is having on other diseases though. 
 

I think improving ventilation is a big thing, but hand sanitizer seems like not a bad thing when other illnesses might lead to more vulnerability to Covid.  Obsessively sanitizing all surfaces, otoh, I think adds excessive stress and wears out those who don’t need that additional stress (thinking of my sister the grade 5 teacher who had a ton of extra work with adapting lessons, changing rooms already).

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Obsessively sanitizing all surfaces, otoh, I think adds excessive stress and wears out those who don’t need that additional stress (thinking of my sister the grade 5 teacher who had a ton of extra work with adapting lessons, changing rooms already).

Hand sanitizer definitely has a place, but we also need to remember that our immune systems need to be exposed to germs in order to be able to fight them off.  

Plus, everything is now slathered in chemicals that probably aren't that great for us, especially little kids in school.  

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

If the vaccinated "have a far lower chance of becoming infected with the coronavirus and {} are responsible for far less spread of the disease," then why is there seemingly no differentiation in terms of recommendations about masks and social distancing?

Because there is still enough of the possibility of infection and spread by the vaccinated…

"Enough of the possibility of infection" seems sort of incompatible with "{vaccinated persons} are responsible for far less spread of the disease."

This is, I think, part of the concern out there.  That we have shifted as a society, such that the government can tell us to do, well, pretty much anything. 

We were told to lockdown a few weeks to flatten the curve, so we did.  Then the goalposts moved, and the lockdowns lasted for months.

We were told to mask up and socially distance until the vaccinations get distributed and administered, so we did.  Then the goalposts moved, as even vaccinated people are being told to do the same things they were told to do before being vaccinated.

We were told to get the vaccine, so we did.  Then "{vaccinated persons} are responsible for far less spread of the disease" is still treated as "enought of the possibility of infection."  

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

for example, my brother and a few others in my family were both vaccinated and tested positive.

But what about viral loads?  What about the "far less spread of the disease" thing?

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Only my brother was sick though and fewer of the vaccinated in the group tested positive, I believe. 

Given the lower likelihood of the vaccinated feeling sick when infected, smart to have the mask habit imo rather than waiting until they think they are infected. 

Seems like an endless series of moving the goalposts.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Enough of the possibility of infection" seems sort of incompatible with "{vaccinated persons} are responsible for far less spread of the disease."

This is, I think, part of the concern out there.  That we have shifted as a society, such that the government can tell us to do, well, pretty much anything. 

We were told to lockdown a few weeks to flatten the curve, so we did.  Then the goalposts moved, and the lockdowns lasted for months.

We were told to mask up and socially distance until the vaccinations get distributed and administered, so we did.  Then the goalposts moved, as even vaccinated people are being told to do the same things they were told to do before being vaccinated.

We were told to get the vaccine, so we did.  Then "{vaccinated persons} are responsible for far less spread of the disease" is still treated as "enought of the possibility of infection."  

But what about viral loads?  What about the "far less spread of the disease" thing?

Seems like an endless series of moving the goalposts.  

Thanks,

-Smac

We are dealing with a previously unknown version of a virulent biological organism which is in a near constant state of change and adaptation.  Our societal expectations of precision and finality just do not work here.

[Metis_LDS]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

We are dealing with a previously unknown version of a virulent biological organism which is in a near constant state of change and adaptation.  Our societal expectations of precision and finality just do not work here.

I wish I could write like you.  My version of the above is "We are in a bad place".  Infections in the UK seem to be rising slowly also people in hospital rising slowly,  too early to tell if it's a trend.  Any direction but down is bad.  

Edited August 19, 2021 by Metis_LDS
addition

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Enough of the possibility of infection" seems sort of incompatible with "{vaccinated persons} are responsible for far less spread of the disease."

I think they are perfectly compatible. 

Far less is still enough to warrant preventative measures to reduce the overall burden of disease even further, especially on hospitals. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

We were told to lockdown a few weeks to flatten the curve, so we did.  Then the goalposts moved, and the lockdowns lasted for months.

That varied widely based on location, local politics, and case rates.  Every state had a different response. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is, I think, part of the concern out there.  That we have shifted as a society, such that the government can tell us to do, well, pretty much anything. 

I don't think we have shifted at all in terms of mandating lockdowns, masks, or vaccines during public health emergencies/pandemics.  There is ample historical precedence for all of these things. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Seems like an endless series of moving the goalposts.  

Dang mutating viruses! 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Seems like an endless series of moving the goalposts.  

Seems like life to me…nothing is constant but change.

Can you imagine approaching business by taking an early marketing survey, refining a new product based on that survey, and then never changing one’s product afterwards as if the market never changes.

If I insisted on treating my daughter the same at 13 years old as I did when she was 11, she would have been dead by 14 I am guessing.

If my husband only was willing to be married to the woman he married and not the woman I became…divorced with 3 years rather than married tomorrow for 31, make that 41 years.

Covid is a being…can’t remember if a virus is said to be living or not, but it certainly reproduces and changes when that happens…kind of like a human community.  Throw one complicated living interaction into a massively more complicated living community of communities (the global world).. I would be doubting the ability of our experts if goalposts hadn’t changed…or at least the minor stuff.  The actual goalpost has always been “save our people to the best of our ability from this damn virus” in my view.  How to manage that changed as we learned how it acted and how we acted under pressure (lots of fracturing, but some miracle holding it together to produce vaccines and get them available quickly), and then the virus finds a new way to survive, so we have to alter tactics again.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Far less is still enough to warrant preventative measures to reduce the overall burden of disease even further, especially on hospitals. 
 

Especially when you consider that even if the unvaccinated might have a larger impact, the chance that they are going to follow cdc guidelines on masking approaches zero. Much easier to convince those that have shown some amount of care towards their fellow humans when your hospitals are overflowing. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

his is, I think, part of the concern out there.  That we have shifted as a society, such that the government can tell us to do, well, pretty much anything. 

We were told to lockdown a few weeks to flatten the curve, so we did.  Then the goalposts moved, and the lockdowns lasted for months.

We were told to mask up and socially distance until the vaccinations get distributed and administered, so we did.  Then the goalposts moved, as even vaccinated people are being told to do the same things they were told to do before being vaccinated.

We were told to get the vaccine, so we did.  Then "{vaccinated persons} are responsible for far less spread of the disease" is still treated as "enought of the possibility of infection."  

So when your kids were growing up from infants to toddlers and such, did you expect your life to be relatively consistent from the first with no major upheavals, modifying of goals and sometimes just having total scratching of plans and going back to square one for a fresh start or did you manage to have a detailed plan from the beginning and stick with it?

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

What about the "far less spread of the disease" thing?

What about it?  
 

If .I eat a quarter of a bowl of ice cream every day, I am likely to not spread as much around my belly as I would if I ate a quart of ice cream a day…but I would still be gaining some weight and it would still be intelligent to skip the quarter of a bowl just like the quart…or I could shift my approach and choose to exercise an equivalent calorie amount, which would take a bit of effort to figure out because not everyone metabolizes food in identical ways.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Can you imagine how much more complicated series of interactions and changes God must deal with?  I wonder if he ever complains about shifting goalposts.

The scientific view of what viruses are changed a lot over the years.  This is from 2008, so likely out of date in some ways but has the interesting history of change:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/

Edited August 20, 2021 by Calm