Thoughts on Covid 19

[Ferrariman]

Yes I should've been more clear.  16 and up here in Canada too.  It's a good thing! 

[Christine]

There is now discussion here about trying to vaccinate 12 to 16 year olds as well. However, since the vaccine can in no way be given to those even younger, the thinking goes further that parents of children under 12 should be vaccinated before childless couples. 

[vicegirl85]

Interesting!  I know Pfizer has been doing studies (maybe have even completed the studies?) on vaccinating children aged 12-16, and are planning (possibly already started?) studies on children age 5-11.  My sister-in-law recently retired from a medical practice that participates in vaccine trials (studies), and the group has participated in the Pfizer studies.

I need to check into what studies are being done by the other manufacturers!

Previously I haven't seen any information on vaccinating parents vs childless couples, so that will be another piece to watch for.

[Christine]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb vicegirl85:

Previously I haven't seen any information on vaccinating parents vs childless couples, so that will be another piece to watch for.

They say that it is currently not possible to vaccinate children because appropriate studies are lacking in terms of side effects and efficacy. In the meantime, however, more and more children are contracting severe covid. The thinking goes that the children might be more protected if the parents are vaccinated, which of course does not fit with the statement that vaccinated people can still get the virus and pass it on.
Sometimes I think the government itself doesn't know what exactly to say or do. The problem is that there has never been a pandemic before, so there is no body of experience for them to draw from.

[vicegirl85]

Very true, we are all learning as we go.

Yes, some studies are currently in progress on vaccination of children in different age groups against COVID-19.  I don't know if it's only certain manufacturers or not, and as you say, the studies haven't reached a point of those vaccines being submitted for approval in younger groups. 

It is a scary time to be living in--but I am thankful that medical science has been able to respond as quickly as it has so far. 

[Christine]

Above all, we can be glad that this disease has struck us only at a time when we are so technologized. Imagine if it had appeared in the 80s. Computers were available, but not everyone owned one. There were no cell phones yet. Quarantine would have meant being able to talk on the phone with one or the other, but nothing more. The loneliness in isolation would have been much greater than it is today. 

 

[Ferrariman]

Makes you wonder how they got through the pandemic in the early 1900's.   No computers, no vaccines and I doubt many had a phone (if phones even existed yet).   

On the flip side, the population was much smaller and there was no air travel.  The few that owned a car didn't even have interstate highways for travel.  Film footage of the time did however show everyone wearing a mask. 

 As bad as things are today, we're still much better off.

[pahonu]

1 hour ago, Ferrariman said:

Makes you wonder how they got through the pandemic in the early 1900's.   No computers, no vaccines and I doubt many had a phone (if phones even existed yet).   

On the flip side, the population was much smaller and there was no air travel.  The few that owned a car didn't even have interstate highways for travel.  Film footage of the time did however show everyone wearing a mask. 

 As bad as things are today, we're still much better off.

Just some random thoughts since I’ve taught US History for the last 25 years.

There was certainly no commercial air travel and far fewer automobiles then, but WWI meant millions of people moving globally via ship and nationally by rail, which was more conducive to spread than individuals or families in cars.  

Though most of the fighting took place in Europe, their empires brought millions from around the globe together and after the Armistice, back home.  It likely would have remained a regional pandemic if not for the war.

The real game changer today versus then is likely not the lack of a vaccine, but the simple lack of antibiotics then.  The vast majority of deaths then were from secondary bacterial infections that were untreatable, including many otherwise healthy and young individuals.  Today that would translate to most COVID hospitalization ending in death.

I read a fascinating article in the LA Times very early on during the lockdown that compared the two different mask strategies of San Francisco and LA in 1918/19.  It included various waves of infection, loosening of masking and subsequent spikes.  It sounds very familiar now.

As a teacher, I was intrigued to learn that teachers and schools resorted to publishing lessons in local newspapers to try and provide their students with some learning as schools closed.  It was Zoom version 1918.  

Very random, I know, but I thought I’d share.  

[Ferrariman]

Great info, thanks! 

Now, as I sit here and watch the news I see:

This weekend 45,000 people will attend the Kentucky Derby.

NASCAR will have 100% fan capacity for a race in July.

Tens of thousands attend a religious festival in Israel.  (where 45 people were trampled to death in a stampede )

In February the Prime Minister of India claimed that they had beaten the virus and opened up rallys to celebrate! We all know how that worked out.

And the Mayor of New York City has said that it will open 100% on July 1st!  He claims New Yorkers have been following the rules and they are ready!   My question to the Mayor would be "what about all the people from everywhere else that will flock to the city because it is open?"

ARE WE F-ING STUPID OR WHAT?!   I think of the phrase "Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it!"

[Robbie C.]

Which begs the question...how long do you keep everything shut down hoping for a perfect solution? How many businesses do you want to go under? How many victims of domestic abuse do you want to trap with their abusers? How many overdoses do you want to accept? There's a cost for everything.

[vicegirl85]

1 hour ago, Ferrariman said:

I think of the phrase "Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it!"

 

23 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

Which begs the question...how long do you keep everything shut down hoping for a perfect solution? How many businesses do you want to go under? How many victims of domestic abuse do you want to trap with their abusers? How many overdoses do you want to accept? There's a cost for everything.

I think both of you are correct--it's certainly a difficult balancing act.  As RobbieC says, surely there is a point (less than perfection) where we begin to resume some form of normal activity.  Hopefully we have absorbed some lessons in the past year and will take the recommended actions to protect ourselves and our neighbors:  being vaccinated when possible, socially distancing (remaining 6 feet from persons who don't live in our household), masking especially when we can't socially distance, and frequently washing our hands. 

If sufficient numbers of the population have been vaccinated to the point where we can be said to have reached "herd immunity"--usually quantified as around 75% or more--or have achieved at least temporary immunity through having been sick with COVID-19, we may not see a surge in cases after the upcoming events.  That is one difference (in the US) compared to previous surges and also compared to the present situation in India. 

The US has not yet achieved 75% vaccination among adults, but currently it's estimated that a bit over 50% have been vaccinated and additional unvaccinated persons have had COVID-19 so most likely have some degree of immunity.  We still need to amp up the numbers of vaccinated people in the US, but now it has reached the point that healthcare providers need to seek out the people who have access issues or hesitancy, and work with them directly.  The supply and distribution problems we had initially are no longer the problem and it seems that the majority of people who are able to get out aren't having any problems getting an appointment. 

The supply of vaccine in India is currently quite a bit lower than the demand/ need, and months of decreasing cases had led to a complacent attitude and relaxation of control measures recently.  Large mass gatherings for religious and other festivals have been super-spreader events.  Variants have broken out that can spread more efficiently.  Although India is one of the largest vaccine producers, it is now running short of the raw ingredients.  Thankfully President Biden has now announced the US will send a large amount of AZ vaccine (and other aid) to India to help deal with the crisis.

I'm worried it is too soon to have a Kentucky Derby with 45,000 people in attendance, but did you know that the "normal" capacity at Churchill Downs for the Derby is 165,000?  So this is quite a diminished number from the usual.  Temps will be taken upon entry and track employees will enforce masking if a person is not actively eating or drinking (or at least that's what Churchill Downs has promised).  We will see.  I am crossing my fingers that the Derby doesn't become a super-spreader event!  

[vicegirl85]

2 hours ago, pahonu said:

Just some random thoughts since I’ve taught US History for the last 25 years. (snipped)

I read a fascinating article in the LA Times very early on during the lockdown that compared the two different mask strategies of San Francisco and LA in 1918/19.  It included various waves of infection, loosening of masking and subsequent spikes.  It sounds very familiar now.

Fascinating, pahonu!  There was also the interesting graph of St. Louis and Philadelphia flu cases during the 1918 epidemic.  St. Louis quickly moved to close schools, churches and playgrounds, and cancel public gatherings, while Philadelphia was much slower to take similar measures.  At its height, the death rate for St. Louis was 1/8 of the death rate for Philadelphia.  

This was heavily reported last spring, but if anyone missed it and wanted to check it out, here's an article I was able to access just now:  https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-how-st-louis-vs-philadelphia-treated-1918-flu-pandemic-2020-4

 

[pahonu]

21 minutes ago, vicegirl85 said:

Fascinating, pahonu!  There was also the interesting graph of St. Louis and Philadelphia flu cases during the 1918 epidemic.  St. Louis quickly moved to close schools, churches and playgrounds, and cancel public gatherings, while Philadelphia was much slower to take similar measures.  At its height, the death rate for St. Louis was 1/8 of the death rate for Philadelphia.  

This was heavily reported last spring, but if anyone missed it and wanted to check it out, here's an article I was able to access just now:  https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-how-st-louis-vs-philadelphia-treated-1918-flu-pandemic-2020-4

 

That article is eerily similar to the one I mentioned.

Here it is:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-19/coronavirus-lessons-from-great-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic%3f_amp=true
 

Edited April 30, 2021 by pahonu

[pahonu]

1 hour ago, Robbie C. said:

Which begs the question...how long do you keep everything shut down hoping for a perfect solution? How many businesses do you want to go under? How many victims of domestic abuse do you want to trap with their abusers? How many overdoses do you want to accept? There's a cost for everything.

There’s certainly a cost for everything.  You can add educational setbacks to that list and mental health issues.  As a teacher, I’m dealing with both of these with my students and my colleagues.  Any public policy decision has to weigh these variables.

I think perhaps like many things, the best but by no means perfect answer, is somewhere between complete shutdown as in March/April 2020 and complete reopening.  There have clearly been vocal critics arguing from both extremes.  The variable I keep returning to is the fact that setbacks in education or business or mental and physical health are possible to overcome, though difficult, while death simply is not.  

Those who have had the pandemic hit close to home are understandably more cautious.  As I mentioned before, the Latino community here in the LA area was hit very hard.  I understand why the number of Latino students returning for in-person instruction in my classes is lower than for other groups.  I’m sure there will still be hesitancy in the fall.

[Christine]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb Ferrariman:

Makes you wonder how they got through the pandemic in the early 1900's.   No computers, no vaccines and I doubt many had a phone (if phones even existed yet).   

On the flip side, the population was much smaller and there was no air travel.  The few that owned a car didn't even have interstate highways for travel.  Film footage of the time did however show everyone wearing a mask. 

 As bad as things are today, we're still much better off.

eople were different back then. As you said, they did not travel by air. People stayed in the immediate vicinity because traveling was not sooo convenient either.
During the Asian flu (1957/58) and also during the last cholera pandemic (1961/62), people were probably still more frugal in terms of communication than they are today. Often, there was only one telephone in the villages. Even my parents, who were always at the forefront of technical innovations, did not get their first telephone until the early 1970s.
Today, however, people are used to being reachable anywhere and at any time thanks to cell phones and the Internet, and to being able to travel from A to B within a short time. That's why the restrictions hit them much harder than people in earlier decades or centuries. At least I think so.

 

[Christine]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb pahonu:

It likely would have remained a regional pandemic if not for the war.

*smart mode on*: If a disease spreads only regionally, it is not a pandemic, but an epidemic. *smart mode off*.

vor 14 Stunden schrieb pahonu:

I read a fascinating article in the LA Times very early on during the lockdown that compared the two different mask strategies of San Francisco and LA in 1918/19.  It included various waves of infection, loosening of masking and subsequent spikes.  It sounds very familiar now.

Again, comic images have already been posted on the Internet from newspapers that were around during the Spanish flu. They show what we have again today: Mandatory masks, hand washing and spacing rules. But you don't read anywhere that people would have resisted it then as they do today. 
On the radio yesterday, it was said that within one day, more than 200 people had filed a criminal complaint because the restrictions because of the pandemic would violate basic rights.

vor 14 Stunden schrieb pahonu:

As a teacher, I was intrigued to learn that teachers and schools resorted to publishing lessons in local newspapers to try and provide their students with some learning as schools closed.  It was Zoom version 1918.  

Very random, I know, but I thought I’d share.  

Of course, I also find that very fascinating because it's new to me. But it shows that even back then, people tried everything possible to get on top of the pandemic. And they succeeded, even though they had far fewer resources at their disposal than we do today. 

I find it great that you´ve shared this with us. To know about these things from the past gives me the feeling that we will succeed at the end to win against the pandemic.

[Christine]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb pahonu:

I think perhaps like many things, the best but by no means perfect answer, is somewhere between complete shutdown as in March/April 2020 and complete reopening.

Something that I have never understood in this context is that the grocery store, where there were sometimes fifty, sixty customers at the same time, who obviously had never heard of spacing rules before, was allowed to remain open in part without restrictions, while the clothing store, where there were maybe three customers at the same time, had to close.
Of course, we need the grocery stores, while we can also buy clothes on the Internet, but it has been emphasized again and again in the media that the main sources of contagion are not the supermarkets, but the private sector. That always makes me wonder: why are the smaller stores closing? 
This year, for a short time, there was an opportunity here to make an appointment to shop in clothing stores, shoe stores and the like. The idea itself was good, the implementation unfortunately didn't work out so well because those willing to shop were given a whole 15 minutes to look around, try something on and possibly buy it. That was too hectic for people (me too).
What I'm getting at is that all these store closures ultimately just lead to a lot of store owners going out of business and having to shut down for good. 

vor 11 Stunden schrieb pahonu:

Those who have had the pandemic hit close to home are understandably more cautious.  As I mentioned before, the Latino community here in the LA area was hit very hard.  I understand why the number of Latino students returning for in-person instruction in my classes is lower than for other groups.  I’m sure there will still be hesitancy in the fall.

I too know people who have survived the disease but are still struggling with the after-effects. I understand their caution, which is also my own. Wherever possible, I try to follow the rules and since our patients also have to wear mouth-nose protection when receiving care, I discuss with the same people over and over again that they should please put the thing on when I come in. Sometimes I get really tired of having to say and listen to things like that over and over again: "I'm just at home. Other than my daughter who comes every afternoon, my cleaning lady who comes once a week, and my neighbor who goes shopping for me every week, I don't see anybody."
And yet, every day, I argue anew because people need to be taken care of and we can only fight the pandemic if we insist on following all the rules.

[Ferrariman]

1 hour ago, Christine said:

Again, comic images have already been posted on the Internet from newspapers that were around during the Spanish flu. They show what we have again today: Mandatory masks, hand washing and spacing rules. But you don't read anywhere that people would have resisted it then as they do today. 

I blame the resistance today on TV, the internet and social media platforms.   Back then these things were just a fantasy but today the glut of misinformation available at your finger tips (or your TV remote)  makes it hard to know the difference between lies and the truth.  It also leads people to believe they know more than the experts and that arrogant attitude often leads to stupid and harmful behavior.   

[pahonu]

2 hours ago, Ferrariman said:

I blame the resistance today on TV, the internet and social media platforms.   Back then these things were just a fantasy but today the glut of misinformation available at your finger tips (or your TV remote)  makes it hard to know the difference between lies and the truth.  It also leads people to believe they know more than the experts and that arrogant attitude often leads to stupid and harmful behavior.   

I think you nailed it Ferrariman.  When I started my teaching career, the challenge in learning was actually finding information.  Doing research was time consuming and difficult.  Today we have to teach students how to parse the incredible volume of information that is available through all the platforms you mentioned.  We spend quite a bit of time teaching about reliable resources and scholarly articles that are peer-reviewed.  Unfortunately many people, mostly older adults actually, are not very good with these skills online.  It’s understandable as this wasn’t necessary in our youth, but it can lead to some big misconceptions.

I also agree that the above stated has lead to many believing they somehow know more than experts on a topic because they have done “research”.  In reality, this is generally just a Google search of the topic that can easily lead down a rabbit hole.  One helpful tool that has been created more recently is Google Scholar.  https://scholar.google.com  There are others like it.  It does much of the parsing for you, providing access to only peer-reviewed journals and the like.

I always start my lessons on the topic of scholarly research by explaining to my students how ignorant I am of so much knowledge in this world.  I have my areas of expertise from a career of study, but the vast majority of what is possible to know in the world, I don’t know.  I tell them that a truly intelligent person knows the severe limitations of their intelligence.  Knowing more than the next guy doesn’t mean you know a lot.

Sorry if that got a little philosophical at the end!

 

[Robbie C.]

Context is also incredible important in research, something tools like Google Scholar don't really help teach. Historical research in particular is especially dependent on context and source evaluation, again something an automated tool doesn't really teach. A true expert is willing to admit they don't know something...and that seems to be a rare event these days.

But working in healthcare now, one thing I find especially disturbing is the readiness to ignore the mental health costs of lockdowns. Domestic abuse is rising, along with ODs and other markers of this kind of thing. But it's not discussed. In my workplace, burnout is dismissed or only given lip service. On one hand they continue to require masking and contagion paranoia, but on the other there is huge internal pressure to resume face to face meetings because the higher-ups "want to see peoples' faces."

Edited May 1, 2021 by Robbie C.

[vicegirl85]

38 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

But working in healthcare now, one thing I find especially disturbing is the readiness to ignore the mental health costs of lockdowns. Domestic abuse is rising, along with ODs and other markers of this kind of thing.

You're so right about the costs in terms of mental health.  I wasn't seeing that the mental health issues were brushed aside in my role--but of course I also wasn't dealing directly with patients.  Those costs have actually received quite a bit of attention in the medically oriented online press articles I've read, but certainly the emphasis has been on physical illness and its prevention.  In addition to the issues you mentioned, child abuse (OK, an aspect of domestic abuse) and hunger issues are difficult to spot and assess when everyone is supposed to avoid getting out and seeing a variety of people every day.  Multifaceted approaches are really needed, and difficult to put into place.

I truly hope that everyone who qualifies to get vaccinated will make the choice to do so ASAP.  That is one thing that will really help to reduce these issues associated with isolation--without endangering ourselves or others.

[pahonu]

1 hour ago, Robbie C. said:

Context is also incredible important in research, something tools like Google Scholar don't really help teach. Historical research in particular is especially dependent on context and source evaluation, again something an automated tool doesn't really teach. A true expert is willing to admit they don't know something...and that seems to be a rare event these days.

But working in healthcare now, one thing I find especially disturbing is the readiness to ignore the mental health costs of lockdowns. Domestic abuse is rising, along with ODs and other markers of this kind of thing. But it's not discussed. In my workplace, burnout is dismissed or only given lip service. On one hand they continue to require masking and contagion paranoia, but on the other there is huge internal pressure to resume face to face meetings because the higher-ups "want to see peoples' faces."

I agree, context is critical in historical research, and of course primary and contemporaneous sources are the gold standard.  These research tools are just a starting point in many cases and prove more or less useful depending on the topic.  Regarding this thread topic, it immediately displays JAMA, Lancet, the CDC, The New England Journal of Medicine, etc...  Again, these are great starting points.  Still, many people seem not to even understand the basic differences in sources.

Sadly, mental health does get short shrift in our society.  It still seems to carry a sizable stigma, though it is improving I feel.  I was pleased that my school district placed considerable emphasis on student mental health during distance learning.  We received  training and guidance and I ultimately got two of my students some help from our psychologist and wellness center.  Some of my colleagues have been really struggling as well.  It is being discussed, at least in education.  We’re also all mandated reporters and received guidance in looking for signs via distance learning.  I really can’t speak to private sector circumstances.  

My district which is a union high school district also became the center of food distribution for students and families with nutritional needs.  With money from the state it eventually opened up meals to every child in the district boundary regardless of age or need.  There are definitely programs in place to help in this unprecedented set of circumstances.  Still, the educational losses will be considerable.

[Robbie C.]

Having worked in a university setting, I understand the mandated reporter concept quite well. Where I see gaps now, sadly, is in the amount of attention my current employer plays to staff needs as opposed to patient needs. There's a great deal of concern for patients, which does not translate to staff in many cases.

Primary sources have their own set of limitations depending on context, but that's a different discussion. I've been involved on the history side going on thirty years now, and I've seen a marked decline in the ability (or willingness) of people to teach actual historiography and research methods correctly.

[pahonu]

55 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

Having worked in a university setting, I understand the mandated reporter concept quite well. Where I see gaps now, sadly, is in the amount of attention my current employer plays to staff needs as opposed to patient needs. There's a great deal of concern for patients, which does not translate to staff in many cases.

Primary sources have their own set of limitations depending on context, but that's a different discussion. I've been involved on the history side going on thirty years now, and I've seen a marked decline in the ability (or willingness) of people to teach actual historiography and research methods correctly.

I’m sorry to hear the staff needs are not being addressed adequately.  In K-12 the students are obviously the primary focus but I feel like there has been a pretty high level of outreach regarding the faculty and staff needs, at least in my district.  My wife’s district has done so also, but I can’t  speak for all, of course.

I’m almost 25 years from my postgrad so can’t speak to recent trends in teaching historiography and research methods specific to my field.  It’s a subject most will never encounter just as most individuals won’t parse original scientific research data, rather relying on expert interpretation and evaluation.  

The intent of my original post was that a sizable portion of the population can’t seem to make even the basic distinction between peer-reviewed data and other sources lacking similar reliability.  I stated it earlier, but I’m also surprised by how few can distinguish between news, analysis, and op-ed when they provide evidence or examples for their arguments in our discussions.

[Robbie C.]

14 hours ago, pahonu said:

I’m sorry to hear the staff needs are not being addressed adequately.  In K-12 the students are obviously the primary focus but I feel like there has been a pretty high level of outreach regarding the faculty and staff needs, at least in my district.  My wife’s district has done so also, but I can’t  speak for all, of course.

I’m almost 25 years from my postgrad so can’t speak to recent trends in teaching historiography and research methods specific to my field.  It’s a subject most will never encounter just as most individuals won’t parse original scientific research data, rather relying on expert interpretation and evaluation.  

The intent of my original post was that a sizable portion of the population can’t seem to make even the basic distinction between peer-reviewed data and other sources lacking similar reliability.  I stated it earlier, but I’m also surprised by how few can distinguish between news, analysis, and op-ed when they provide evidence or examples for their arguments in our discussions.

This isn't helped by the general shift toward more activist media outlets and the blurring between news and op-ed in many cases. Sometimes I think the people doing it now have a hard time distinguishing, and that certainly doesn't help anyone outside their realm.