Coronavirus / COVID-19

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So if they hadn't been vaccinated they wouldn't have died?

Well, if we are going to be COMPLETELY accurate in that vein the answer is, of course, no. Life has been fatal in all confirmable instances thus far.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Given the resource is so limited I have no idea why it is being wasted on the elderly and frail. Give to all key workers first (of which I am not one) and this lot can continue to isolate - as can I.

I think "wasted" is a bit harsh, but agree that essential workers like medical personnel and anyone in contact with the general public should be at the top of the list.

100% of all patients who receive vaccine will die.

Oh no! QAnon has come to The Org.........

[Idaho]

Israel has like 1/3 of its population dosed already.

If you exclude all those that Israel deems non human. There are large swathes of the population that haven't been vaccinated, and probably never will be.

[Furunculus]

A friend of mine who works as a manager at the hospital got one. He wasn't going to as he thought the priority (rightly) should go to medics, even though his office was next to the corridor where the covid patients were wheeled in (and alas sometimes out). However he found out that they kept throwing away unused vaccines each day, and that the IT department who set up the schedule had put themselves at the top of the list...

i had first dose of the phizer vaccine yesterday.

not because I'm any kind of health prioity, or work in any frontline profession, but rather becuase my wife works in the nhs and was basically invited to apply for unused vaccination slots that would otherwise be wasted.

[ReluctantSamurai]

A bit of detailed information on the three new SARS-2 variants:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...-world/617721/

In addition to sharing certain mutations, though, these variants simply have a large number of mutations, some unique to each variant. Gaining a whole suite of mutations quickly should be a very uncommon event. But with the virus so widespread right now, very uncommon events will happen—and will happen more than once. The usual two-per-month mutation rate may undersell how the coronavirus can mutate in unusual situations.

What is unusual about these three variants is that they also have an additional constellation of other mutations in other parts of the virus. A change in a variant’s behavior, such as increased transmissibility, is probably “due to not just one mutation, but multiple mutations,” says Emma Hodcroft, a molecular epidemiologist at the University of Bern.

But the South Africa and Brazil variants might have an additional advantage. A recent study suggests that viruses with the E484K mutation might be better at evading antibodies from the blood plasma of recovered COVID-19 patients. Some viruses with this mutation could become a little better at reinfecting people or even infecting vaccinated people.

An interesting way of putting it:

The variants may have evolved in immunocompromised patients who were infected with the virus for months. Normally, Hodcroft says, “your immune system is going to town on it. It’s really trying to beat it up.” But immunocompromised patients mount weaker immune responses. “It becomes almost like a training course for how to live with the human immune system,” she says. That may be why these variants have so many new mutations at once, as if a year or two of evolution has been compressed into months. This is probably quite rare, but with tens of millions of infections around the globe, rare things will show up.

What happens when variants graduate from their "training course"?....

[ReluctantSamurai]

The number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States, this past year, has now surpassed the number of American deaths that occurred during WWII over the course of four years.....

[Hooahguy]

Bad news on the government response front:

Sources with direct knowledge of the new administration's Covid-related work told CNN one of the biggest shocks that the Biden team had to digest during the transition period was what they saw as a complete lack of a vaccine distribution strategy under former President Donald Trump, even weeks after multiple vaccines were approved for use in the United States.
"There is nothing for us to rework. We are going to have to build everything from scratch," one source said.

Another source described the moment that it became clear the Biden administration would have to essentially start from "square one" because there simply was no plan as: "Wow, just further affirmation of complete incompetence."

[rory_20_uk]

The number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States, this past year, has now surpassed the number of American deaths that occurred during WWII over the course of four years.....

Wow you guys were late for that one!

Bad news on the government response front:

With Mike "Prayer solves AIDS" Pence in charge I doubt many are surprised... and to play devil's advocate if things were this bad with a good Federal plan there's no hope. Now with Faucci et al able to do their jobs and a boss prepared to back them things hopefully will start to improve quickly (vaccinations if not the death rate).

Who knows? This disaster might require long term Federal medical assistance available to all... Welcome to the 20th Century and the Developed world!

[edyzmedieval]

On the 9th of March I will personally mark first year since we got into lockdown, and at the current rate of transmission and how things are shaping up, even with vaccines, I do not expect this to be over by the end of 2021.

There's too many cases, transmission is going rampant even with lockdowns - UK what in the world is going on? - it's a bit amiss for me on how we're going to solve this in 2021.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Wow you guys were late for that one!

Not sure what that means The total death toll for America in WWII was 405,399 (number varies slightly depending on source). The day I posted, the number of recorded deaths due to COVID-19, surpassed that....

Welcome to the 20th Century and the Developed world!

The 20th Century?

[Furunculus]

Seems that the EU is getting knickers a'twist over the Astra-Zeneca vaccine deliveries:

To-wit, they are are not fast enough.
Pfizer-Biontech also slowed deliveries last week, but apparently there is something especially badly this time, such as to merit super drastic response...

**Ponders on exactly how much of the institutional/managerial/technical expertise employed by the EMA(UK) decided to take up an exciting new opportunity in the EMA(NL)...?**

Remember, this crisis comes down to a:
a) delayed vaccine rollout following late approval
b) vaccine EMA hasn't even certified yet

Me suspects this is more political camoflage for what is very evident on the our world in data graph on vaccine rollout.

[Pannonian]

Seems that the EU is getting knickers a'twist over the Astra-Zeneca vaccine deliveries:

To-wit, they are are not fast enough.
Pfizer-Biontech also slowed deliveries last week, but apparently there is something especially badly this time, such as to merit super drastic response...

**Ponders on exactly how much of the institutional/managerial/technical expertise employed by the EMA(UK) decided to take up an exciting new opportunity in the EMA(NL)...?**

Remember, this crisis comes down to a:
a) delayed vaccine rollout following late approval
b) vaccine EMA hasn't even certified yet

Me suspects this is more political camoflage for what is very evident on the our world in data graph on vaccine rollout.

Are you suggesting that this is one of the benefits of Brexit?

[Furunculus]

More precisely - I'd suggest this might be an accidental dis-benefit of brexit, insomuch as I have always suspected that neither the finance or the medicines authority (spain and netherlands respectively), will have been operating at %100 of previous capacity/capability since their move from the UK. "UK cannot have the benefits of EU membership without the responsibilities!"...

The question is: How much less than %100?

But certainly - over and above this - the physical/emotional/political remove of the EU leaves it in a poor place to:
a) coordinate emergency responses to pubic health issues.
b) take the flak for a bungled response in a politically sustainable way.

Legitimacy = Accountability + Representation

[edit]
or in the words of someone more notable than my humble self:
https://twitter.com/James7Holland/st...55518413639680
[/edit]

[Furunculus]

https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/20...nes-284349628/

#ClassicDom ? :D

[rory_20_uk]

More precisely - I'd suggest this might be an accidental dis-benefit of brexit, insomuch as I have always suspected that neither the finance or the medicines authority (spain and netherlands respectively), will have been operating at %100 of previous capacity/capability since their move from the UK. "UK cannot have the benefits of EU membership without the responsibilities!"...

The question is: How much less than %100?

But certainly - over and above this - the physical/emotional/political remove of the EU leaves it in a poor place to:
a) coordinate emergency responses to pubic health issues.
b) take the flak for a bungled response in a politically sustainable way.

Legitimacy = Accountability + Representation

Most national Regulatory agencies have grown since the EMA was created. Oh yes, all were to shrink with efficiencies from centralisation but some how the numbers increased with liaison officers added to help the process. And as to the process, there's one country chosen as the rapporteur and another as the co-rapporteur who review all the data and report to the others. Given this system has been going for years they should be used to reviewing the data. Having said that, some counties are known as being better or worse than others, and some have more experience with certain therapy areas or types of products. Whilst moving offices might have caused issue, the Oxford/AZ vaccine has now been given to millions of people and the real world data is probably greater than than in the data packages - yet still the EMA dithers! The FDA stated that any vaccine that works over 50% of the time is one that they'd licence so I am increasingly amazed at how much time they are wasting. No, the vaccine is not a silver bullet but will definitely help.

If the EU appears to be the theoretical, bureaucratic, idealistic ivory tower, Israel is their usual bunch of selfish bastards - starting to vaccinate teenagers whilst stating they've no obligation to help do anything over the lands they've illegally taken. At least they're consistent.

[Furunculus]

Most national Regulatory agencies have grown since the EMA was created. Oh yes, all were to shrink with efficiencies from centralisation but some how the numbers increased with liaison officers added to help the process. And as to the process, there's one country chosen as the rapporteur and another as the co-rapporteur who review all the data and report to the others. Given this system has been going for years they should be used to reviewing the data. Having said that, some counties are known as being better or worse than others, and some have more experience with certain therapy areas or types of products. Whilst moving offices might have caused issue, the Oxford/AZ vaccine has now been given to millions of people and the real world data is probably greater than than in the data packages - yet still the EMA dithers! The FDA stated that any vaccine that works over 50% of the time is one that they'd licence so I am increasingly amazed at how much time they are wasting. No, the vaccine is not a silver bullet but will definitely help.

thank you for explaining.

just to confirm:
you're suggesting that regardless of how many did or didn't choose to relocate to EMA(NL) - rather than take up an exciting new opportunity at the newly minted BMA(UK) - the expertise and competence exists at the state level to assess efficacy and manage integration into national health systems?

fine if so (happy to accept that), but one is compelled to ask: what does the EMA do then - other than get in the way?

[rory_20_uk]

thank you for explaining.

just to confirm:
you're suggesting that regardless of how many did or didn't choose to relocate to EMA(NL) - rather than take up an exciting new opportunity at the newly minted BMA(UK) - the expertise and competence exists at the state level to assess efficacy and manage integration into national health systems?

fine if so (happy to accept that), but one is compelled to ask: what does the EMA do then - other than get in the way?

The MHRA was there before the EMA, and continues to be there afterwards. Working in the UK in Pharma we always interacted with the MHRA for all matters; when I was last involved in the registering of a new drug in Europe we again had dealings with the country regulatory authorities rather than the EMA.

The EMA doubtlessly caused a drop in efficiency (you can't move a massive department without any change) but there are 27 bodies that have continued to have independent function.

I think that there are useful functions the EMA does - such as having a unified licence - but what role the staff have beyond some ways of working I do not know. bureaucracies can always create meetings, KPIs, and other things that frankly could be done without. But then I work in Medical Affairs and so might not see all the added value that all the EMA staff add.

[Montmorency]

I should have done this before, but Samurai, here are some harsh expert criticisms of the NYMag piece on potential artificial origins of the virus. Notable points being the author's lack of self-admitted subject-matter knowledge, serious errors in scientific fact, and overall absence of evidence toward any of his points or an accounting of competing theories that hold the consensus.
https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/...32195430510592
https://twitter.com/MoNscience/statu...17198381797379

[ReluctantSamurai]

I wouldn't be qualified to speak on scientific fact. That there were errors in the article isn't surprising to me. What I am surprised at is the "how dare you" attitude of scientists when someone outside the field attempts criticism even if some of it is misguided or contains errors. I only took the piece to mean that it was possible for SARS-CoV-2 to have escaped a lab, not probable. And no scientific study that I am aware of (and admittedly that isn't saying much) has proved that it hasn't.

In any case, my main takeaway from the article had nothing to do with the origins of SARS-CoV-2, but the mega-money involved in scientific research, both from government and industry (which BTW, neither of the sources you quoted, addressed). That the prospect of making millions/billions of dollars from research is as large a driving force (or larger) than scientific curiosity/need, is almost not arguable, IMHO. At least with Big Pharma, the research being done is going to have some practical application, though many times that turns out to be a self-serving path to profit regardless the human cost.

Three key statements from the article that scientists are loathe to discuss, IMHO:

-“It is unethical to place so many members of the public at risk and then consult only scientists — or, even worse, just a small subset of scientists — and exclude others from the decision-making and oversight process.”

-Gain-of-function experiments “have done almost nothing to improve our preparedness for pandemics,” he said, “yet they risked creating an accidental pandemic.” [Mark Lipsitch, epidemiologist and Professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health]

-Daszak [British zoologist and president of EcoHealth Alliance] was outraged (“I am not trained as a private detective”), and again he fought back. He was reluctant to give up his own secrets, too. “Conspiracy-theory outlets and politically motivated organizations have made Freedom of Information Act requests on our grants and all of our letters and emails to the NIH,” he told Nature. “We don’t think it’s fair that we should have to reveal everything we do.”

If that last statement doesn't give you pause for some deep thought, I don't know what will. Experiments that have the potential to exterminate the human race, at the worst, but "it's not fair that we should have to reveal everything we do." Jeezus....

As unethical as Big Pharma can be, what about the scientific community themselves? Any rational person, I think, would consider the reconstitution of the H1N1 that caused the 1918 pandemic, for any purpose, as insanity...

Lab accidents do happen despite the significant protocols in place to prevent them. The virus for the 1918 pandemic was the product of a "perfect storm" of micro-biology. It had characteristics never before seen, and never seen since....that's why 50 million people or more died. What possible scientific benefits are to be gained from recreating it (exactly as it was in 1918) in the lab? Are they worth the risk, no matter how small, that an accident could cause a recurrence of the most deadly pandemic in modern history? Which, BTW, given that our global connectivity today is so much higher than it was then, that the expected death toll would be significantly higher than in 1918.

So...those two scientists may very well be correct in their scientific analysis of the article, but they exhibit short-comings of their own.

[Montmorency]

Like I said, I can potentially see both sides of an argument around GOF research, but in this case a writer with no scientific training wrote a longform essay on how their intuition told them, based on no evidence and without examining counter-evidence, that SARS-2 was a GOF experiment, that GOF scientists are shady and self-interested. After all, there is a widespread scientific consensus that there is no reason to believe SARS-2 is artificial in any way, and there are expert takedowns of this particular article as not just factually wrong on basic and important matters, but also dishonestly framed...

I don't think it's indignation at a non-scientist poking their noses in, which after all is almost the entirety of science journalism, and I think we should defer to the criticisms of this one writer/article.

If you're looking for question-raising about GOF, there are perhaps more credible explorations to be found, such as this one from an author/researcher referenced in the NYMag piece.

[Montmorency]

9 Top N.Y. Health Officials Have Quit as Cuomo Scorns Expertise
“When I say ‘experts’ in air quotes, it sounds like I’m saying I don’t really trust the experts,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo said of pandemic policies. “Because I don’t.”

The troubled rollout came after Mr. Cuomo declined to use the longstanding vaccination plans that the State Department of Health had developed in recent years in coordination with local health departments. Mr. Cuomo instead adopted an approach that relied on large hospital systems to coordinate vaccinations not only of their own staffs, but also of much of the population.

In recent weeks, the governor has repeatedly made it clear that he believed he had no choice but to seize more control over pandemic policy from state and local public health officials, who he said had no understanding of how to conduct a real-world, large-scale operation like vaccinations. After early problems, in which relatively few doses were being administered, the pace of vaccinations has picked up and New York is now roughly 20th in the nation in percentage of residents who have received at least one vaccine dose.

“When I say ‘experts’ in air quotes, it sounds like I’m saying I don’t really trust the experts,” Mr. Cuomo said at a news conference on Friday, referring to scientific expertise at all levels of government during the pandemic. “Because I don’t. Because I don’t.”

In the fall, Mr. Cuomo shelved vaccine distribution plans that top state health officials had been drawing up, one person with knowledge of the decision said. The plans had relied in part on years of preparations at the local level — an outgrowth of bioterrorism fears following Sept. 11 — and on experience dispensing vaccine through county health departments during the H1N1 pandemic in 2009. As a result, local officials across the state complained that their efforts to vaccinate were undercut by the Cuomo plan.
[...]
But elements of the state’s approach hindered the rollout, New York City officials contended.

“Extensive red tape and unnecessary rigidity over who we could vaccinate and when — all with the looming threat of millions of dollars in punitive fines — made an extraordinarily difficult task all the more challenging in those first initial weeks of the rollout,” said Avery Cohen, a spokeswoman for Mayor de Blasio.

In his own planning for the vaccine rollout, Mr. Cuomo spoke with hospital executives, outside consultants and a top hospital lobbyist in closed-door meetings. In December, Mr. Cuomo announced that the state would rely on large hospital systems as “hubs” to coordinate vaccinations, not simply for their own staff but also for ordinary New Yorkers.

The state designated as a regional vaccination hub in New York City not the city’s 6,000-person Health Department, but rather the Greater New York Hospital Association, a trade group with a multimillion-dollar lobbying arm that had been a major donor to the governor’s causes.

The approach included narrow eligibility rules and suffered from a lack of urgency by some hospitals. That led to fewer doses being administered in the early weeks, followed by abrupt shifts in policy that created a kind of free-for-all among those searching for vaccine appointments, according to interviews with more than two dozen current and former health officials, county leaders, vaccination experts and elected officials.

After opening eligibility to many more people, New York now quickly uses its weekly shipments of vaccine, not including doses sent to the state through a federal program for nursing homes, state data shows.

“We put together an operation where we used all the levers at our disposal to as quickly as possible vaccinate as many people as possible,” said Melissa DeRosa, the governor’s top aide, “and it obviously worked since we’re now oversubscribed and out of vaccine.”

Still, Dr. Denis Nash, a professor of epidemiology at the City University of New York and a former senior city health official, said that giving such a large share of doses directly to hospitals meant that the government lost control of the pace of vaccinations during the program’s first month.

“That was the bottleneck,” Dr. Nash said. “To put hospitals in charge of a public health initiative — for which they have no public health mandate, or the skills, experience or perspective to manage one — was a huge mistake, and I have no doubt that’s what introduced the delays.”

In terms of the actual public-facing policy, still probably not as bad as Newsom.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In terms of the actual public-facing policy, still probably not as bad as Newsom.

Cuomo has his issues but imo the extreme wonky policies of California are what have made it one of the worst long term responses. You can't ask public health officials to have final say over policy.

CA was fucked the moment we were told there were 5 levels of restrictions, check daily so you can calculate if you need 25% of chairs ready for indoor seating or 50% or if they all need to be outdoors which is no longer allowed because outdoor seating became eating in a closed tent with gas heaters. Is purple worse than red? It doesn't matter cause any increase in the rate necessitates a lockdown until it goes back down, then we go into purple phase again unless it goes back up again, then back into another arbitrary long lockdown.

Merge Cuomo and Newsom and maybe you would get the perfect response. Stay the fuck home, practice these measures according to the experts and we will tell you when to reopen once we get enough people vaccinated.

[Montmorency]

Cuomo has his issues but imo the extreme wonky policies of California are what have made it one of the worst long term responses. You can't ask public health officials to have final say over policy.

CA was fucked the moment we were told there were 5 levels of restrictions, check daily so you can calculate if you need 25% of chairs ready for indoor seating or 50% or if they all need to be outdoors which is no longer allowed because outdoor seating became eating in a closed tent with gas heaters. Is purple worse than red? It doesn't matter cause any increase in the rate necessitates a lockdown until it goes back down, then we go into purple phase again unless it goes back up again, then back into another arbitrary long lockdown.

Merge Cuomo and Newsom and maybe you would get the perfect response. Stay the fuck home, practice these measures according to the experts and we will tell you when to reopen once we get enough people vaccinated.

I mean, I don't want to talk too much about Cuomo, like how he badly screwed the bed in March in the first place, how his cluster-targeting program in the fall was haphazard (compared to e.g. Japan's) and eventually given up on from what I can tell, how he's sleazy and self-interested and in bed with all types of lobbying groups, how his vendetta against de Blasio has consistently caused a mutual degradation in state and city responses from the beginning (including school openings), how we've only fully vaccinated like a half a million people out of 20 million...

Both Newsom and Cuomo went in hard on rigid and narrow priority lanes for vaccination, coupled with onerous regulations and fines against providers for not perfectly adhering to them, when other states tried to balance vulnerable groups and rapid administration.


They say states like Washington, Oregon, and Vermont have been best-governed, in terms of consistency and scientific rigor, and in terms of results, almost always keeping their indicators far below national averages.



Good thing national indicators are plummeting post-holidays; that should keep up, right?

[a completely inoffensive name]

They say states like Washington, Oregon, and Vermont have been best-governed, in terms of consistency and scientific rigor, and in terms of results, almost always keeping their indicators far below national averages.
Good thing national indicators are plummeting post-holidays; that should keep up, right?

Ca and NY really need better mechanisms for selecting politicians.

Watch out for the spike from SUper Bowl super-spreader events.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Good thing national indicators are plummeting post-holidays; that should keep up, right?

Maybe not:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ariant/617891/

Data seemed to support the idea that herd immunity in Manaus was near. In Science this month, researchers mapped the virus’s takeover last year: In April, blood tests found that 4.8 percent of the city’s population had antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. By June, the number was up to 52.5 percent. Since people who get infected do not always test positive for antibodies, the researchers estimated that by June about two-thirds of the city had been infected. By November, the estimate was about 76 percent. In The Lancet this week, a team of Brazilian researchers noted that even if these estimates were off by a large margin, infection on this scale “should confer important population immunity to avoid a larger outbreak.” Indeed, it seemed to. The city was able to largely reopen and remain open throughout its winter with low levels of COVID-19 cases.

Yet now, the nightmare scenario is happening a second time. The situation defies expert expectations about how immunity would help protect the hardest-hit populations. By estimates of leading infectious-disease specialists, such as Anthony Fauci, when roughly 70 to 75 percent of the population is immune, there can still be clusters of cases, but sustaining a large-scale outbreak becomes mathematically impossible. Still somehow, according to The Washington Post, hospitals in Manaus that had thought they were well prepared are now overwhelmed.

Several newsworthy variants exist, including those in the U.K., South Africa, and California. (So it’s easy to lose track, as much alarm has been raised over their various mutations.) But the variant in Brazil, known as the P.1 (or B.1.1.248) lineage, has a potent combination of mutations. Not only does this variant seem to be more transmissible; its lineage carries mutations that help it escape the antibodies that we develop in response to older lineages of the coronavirus. That is, it at least has a capacity to infect people who have already recovered from COVID-19, even if their defenses protect them against other versions of the virus. One case of reinfection with this new lineage has already been documented, even though very little genomic sequencing is being done.

The coming year could be a story of two worlds undermining each other. Certain countries will approach herd immunity by vaccinating almost every citizen. Other countries could see mass casualties and catastrophic waves of reinfection—potentially with variants that evolved in response to the immunity conferred by the very vaccines to which these populations do not have access. In the process, these hot spots themselves will facilitate rapid evolution, giving rise to even more variants that could make the vaccinated populations susceptible to disease once again. In a recursive loop, the virus could come back to haunt the vaccinated, leading to new surges and lockdowns in coming years. The countries that hoard the vaccine without a plan to help others do so at their own peril.

And it's already present in the US:

https://www.koco.com/article/ap-braz...ahoma/35435104

[a completely inoffensive name]

Maybe not:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ariant/617891/



And it's already present in the US:

https://www.koco.com/article/ap-braz...ahoma/35435104

Good news is that current vaccines also seem to be highly effective against the new variants as well.

[ReluctantSamurai]

From what I can see, "highly effective" may be overstating things a bit. Granted, a reduction from 90-95% efficacy initially claimed is still a huge plus, but if the pandemic isn't brought under control world-wide, vaccines may very well contribute to the emergence of new SARS-2 variants by stressing the virus to counter them, while rampant pandemic is still happening.

There's still a lot to be understood yet, and information is completely in flux, but this gives a good general overview of the various vaccines:

https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/202...sion/#variants

The biggest concern, as far as I can see, is the Brazilian variant ( P.1 or B.1.1.248) which is showing, in studies to this point, not only increased transmissability, but the ability to re-infect those who've already had a previous SARS-2 infection from a different variant (which the Atlantic article above highlights).

The vaccines are the way forward, but we aren't there yet, especially if we don't start getting the populations of the poorer countries done.

[rory_20_uk]

In the UK there seems to be a large number in the BAME "community" that don't want to take it and of course their rights are more important than the fact if they're not treated parts of the country won't get herd immunity.

Treating everyone is a laudable end goal, but failing that better quarantine rules are required - such as in-airport testing and refusing boarding to anyone who isn't found to be negative. After all the list of diseases we have merely excluded from the developed world is much longer than those we have completely eradicated.

[Montmorency]

In the UK there seems to be a large number in the BAME "community" that don't want to take it and of course their rights are more important than the fact if they're not treated parts of the country won't get herd immunity.

Skepticism about the medical establishment among marginalized groups is at least understandable - less so are the similar or even lower polling results I can find for vaccine hesitancy among the Czech, Polish, or Dutch.

Admittedly, I do have a higher degree of trust in pharmaceuticals when it comes to vaccines than might be strictly justified by my personal level of inquiry into any given platform, but I'm satisfied resting on the track record in the domain; the success or failure of a vaccine is almost certain to be a very visible thing, at scale.

Glass half full, most expressed vaccine hesitancy is probably soft and reflexive, liable to erode over the months. I think we've already been seeing this effect in American polling since December.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Well, it seems the media darling from April/May of last year, turns out to be a political whore after all:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-nursing-homes

And he's doubling down in an effort to stay in control of the situation:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/polit...ome/index.html

It will be interesting to see how Democrats respond to skullduggery from one of their own.....