Reply With Quote
Yeah no one here ever said that...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/omicron...ne-11641153969
It’s far less lethal than previous versions, and its fast spread may finally push us to herd immunity.
Should I try to catch the Omicron variant of Covid to advance the cause of herd immunity?
I’ve had Covid and recovered, had the Regeneron monoclonal antibody infusion, and had the double-jab vaccine—my antibodies are off the charts. With triple protection, I probably won’t catch Omicron. Yet it is spreading like wildfire. Many people with ample antibodies are catching this variant. Importantly, it seldom leads to hospitalization or death.
The prudent response to Omicron might be to encourage vaccinated people and even unvaccinated young adults to catch it, while protecting the at-risk population. One measure of a pathogen’s lethality is the case fatality rate—the ratio of the death toll to the known cases. The 28-day average case fatality rate in South Africa, the likely origin of the Omicron variant, tumbled in the past six weeks from 8% to 0.2%, barely higher than for the flu. Omicron will assuredly confer new, complementary antibodies on its victims, providing an additional measure of immunity to more lethal Covid variants.
Omicron takes lives. So does the flu. If antibodies to the Omicron variant are even 50% effective in reducing the risk of death from more-lethal variants, those antibodies could save far more lives than the virus costs. From a personal perspective, which is more likely, dying if I catch the Omicron variant, or dying from another, more lethal variant of Covid because I lack the Omicron antibodies? The answer isn’t as simple as our policy elite might suggest.
No politician will do this sort of cost-benefit analysis. Europe and Latin America are in various stages of renewed lockdowns. As usual, they began long after cases were already soaring. Sometimes, as in the Netherlands last week, the lockdowns were initiated after daily case and death counts were already receding. For the European Union, the U.S. and Latin America, the latest case fatality rate is 0.5%, 0.4% and 0.3%, respectively, down from a high of 4% to 7% during the Delta wave in June. If we add in the legions of asymptomatic, mild and untested cases, the true Omicron mortality is likely around 0.2%, roughly in line with seasonal flu.
Bureaucrats in Europe, Latin America and some U.S. states seem to be saying: Let’s wait for cases to soar, then wait a little longer until the crisis is subsiding, then let’s blow up the economy after it’s too late to save any lives.
Lockdowns also cost lives. This is the underreported collateral damage from Covid. In an October study for the Reason Foundation, my colleagues and I found that in the U.S., excess deaths (fatalities above historical norms) from homicide, suicide, overdose or accident had amounted to some 82,000 between March 2020 and August 2021. During that period, the murder rate roughly doubled, and overdose deaths rose more than 50%. Accidental deaths are also elevated; after all, more fatal accidents happen at home than in the office. Meanwhile, supply-chain disruptions, fear of hospitals, and delayed diagnoses collectively led to an additional 86,000 excess deaths from cancer, heart and lung disease and stroke. In 15 weeks, through Dec. 18, these excess deaths—none from Covid—have risen by another 56,000.
Every death is a tragedy. Yet we all die eventually, so it is sensible to examine death from a cost-benefit perspective. We keep hearing the mantra “follow the science.” True scientific method involves airing opinions and vetting hypotheses, not stifling debate. Beyond the hard sciences, it also involves asking tough cost-benefit questions while anticipating unintended consequences.
Let’s explore unconventional answers to end this protracted nightmare. I am not trying to catch Omicron. But I am not afraid: catching it may very well reduce, not increase, my risk of dying from some future Covid variant.
Yeah no one here ever said that...
Yeah, no one here ever said that masks were placebos, or vaccines were useless…
"I am not trying to catch Omicron. But I am not afraid:"
I'll just bet you're not.
The prevalence of weasel words gives this article away as wishcasting and pandering to the confirmation bias of dedicated COVID minimizers like the OP. Hoping that Omicron will be beneficial and ignoring the social impact of mass infection in favor of a more or less hypothetical cost benefit analysis is democide, more or less.
Too bad infection by Beta and Delta did not "assuredly confer beneficial antibodies" that are currently protecting us from Omicron, not sure I see what underpins the assumption that Omicron will protect us from "future, more dangerous "variants rather than incubating them.
I wonder what DMC thinks of his own OP.
It's written in conditional and subjunctive tenses. 100% fact-free speculation, an argumentative COVID op-ed.
Where's the science?
The hysteria over Omicron is pretty re ed. If you're vaccinated and boosted the chances of you getting hospitalized from it are microscopic. It's insane that people are talking about going back to locking down again over it.
I'm vaccinated and boosted, but millions are immunocompromised, otherwise vulnerable or too young to get the jab.
em, I guess.
Pretending there are no options between lockdowns and let er rip is dishonest. There are lots of things that could and should be done short of shelter in place orders.
Masking, social distancing, rapid testing, paid sick leave, genetic sequencing, ventilation/filtration/air quality monitoring still make sense. So would a Warp Speed 2.0 for next generation vaccines and treatments.
COVID is shutting down schools and businesses all on its own without any government mandates. Letting it do so is a social and political choice. There's costs attached to skipping mitigation too.
at this point conservatism is a subset of the immunocompromised group
While we're playing the "perhaps" game, perhaps lots of of people are dying post-infection from vascular, cardiac and renal issues that getting COVID more or less caused or exacerbated.
If it's not COVID, what's causing excess mortality 400% worse than a once in 200-year disaster in the 18-64 cohort?
https://www.thecentersquare.com/indi...c06725e2c.html
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-03-2022 at 11:02 AM.
I sort of don't get the hysteria/living in fear narrative. Infrastructure stress and failure have nothing to do with individual risk tolerance.
Hospitals are getting rekt right now.
I’m mostly with you, if unvaxxed MAGA s wanna die, then cool, let em die. But the issue is the hospitals being stuck with all the unvaxxed re s, and not having enough space to treat other patients. There’s already plenty of stories of people who have a non-COVID issue dying while waiting for a hospital bed.
If hospitals could start refusing to treat unvaccinated COVID patients I’d be 100% for completely removing all COVID restrictions.
IMO hospitals should be sequestering an area for unvaccinated people and to the extent that area is filled up, other anti-vaxxers have to wait.
I think, if HC workers can't work if they aren't vaccinated, then non-vaxxed people also should not be accepted. Maybe someone should build an unvaxxed hospital where the workers and patients can all be unvaxxed.
We could solve the problem by returning to a free market healthcare system. No cash, No Credit, Bad Credit, GTFOH. This would also lower the cost of healthcare like it does in veterinary medicine.
Hopefully this was sarcasm, tbh
So, a death sentence for the poor or unemployed if they require care.
Bleeding out? Better cough up an insurance card if you want some sutures, sorry.
heart attack? Meds don't grow on trees, you better spend the next few minutes writing a check with your good arm, hopefully you aren't left handed.
Withholding life saving medicine because of an inability to pay is a morally and intellectually bankrupt idea.
"free market" health care, like dozens of other countries haven't already figured out something better.
We could solve the problem if we all make offerings to the magic fairy king.
That is what I hear when free market cultists use it as the end-all, be-all of solutions. Like the free market is some unerring diety that just automatically does good, and never, ever does anything bad.
I say cult very specifically, because when you point out free market failures, it is like blasphemy to them. "shut up, lib !" tends to be where it ends, like it does with any religious zealot. Same tenor of arguments, generally.
Case in point:
Functioning free markets require the ability to forgo a good or service, or to subs ute one service for another. This is what makes it sensitive to supply and demand (i.e."elasticity")
If you are suffering from cancer, or a heart attack, or 3rd degree burns, can you realistically forgo medical care? Or subs ute a cardiologist for something cheaper, like say... a podiatrist or an aroma therapist?
That is where I stop getting honest answers. They understand instinctively the answer is " no", but know that admitting that means their free market diety has a flaw, and that they cannot abide.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
