Hi Martin,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply (Nilima also)!
"Bonnie Henry's
aim of preventing serious illness and death does not seem so unreasonable"
Nobody would say that's a bad goal, but I think it can't be the only goal. At least not until we're at the point where:
1) children have had a chance to get vaccinated;
2) we have a strong scientific understanding of how long immunity from vaccination or infection persists. Right now, there's serious concern based on Israeli data that it fades after a few months, especially in elderly people;
3) we have a strong scientific understanding of how many people, especially after breakthrough cases that
look just like sniffles, develop long-term sequelae, and how we might treat those;
4) testing positive doesn't mean one has to isolate for 2 weeks anymore, i.e. the risk of passing on the disease to someone vulnerable is acceptably minimized.
At this point, being vaccinated, I don't personally feel at risk of death at all. (Long Covid is a more significant risk, conditional on infection - hope y'all are keeping that in mind.) But I continue to advocate for a strict suppression strategy because
(a) children won't be vaccinated until best-case the end of the year; (b) the 3% of people who are
immunocompromised matter too, and our current strategy excludes them from participating in society, in addition to elders who must take fading immune protection into account; (c) I find it a rather big inconvenience and threat to our way of life
if after a superspreader midterm, 200+ students and faculty have to be confined to their rooms for 2 weeks (even assuming all stay healthy). A much bigger inconvenience than 20000+ students and faculty wearing masks in indoor areas whenever cases rise beyond
some low bar.
I think that there is very little indication that Bonnie Henry and Adrian Dix get this. If they did, the only other explanation would be that they don't give a crap.
So I would be extremely wary about declaring Covid has become like the cold, measles, influenza, or sniffles, until we have
at least a year of solid evidence in that regard. I'm definitely looking forward to that day as much as you are.
All that said, I would also like to hear from an epidemiologist or two before setting numbers or masking levels. Any on this list?
Lucas
From: Martin Hahn <mhahn@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 14, 2021 13:09
To: Lucas Herrenbrueck; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: what's an appropriate yardstick of pandemic suppression?
I guess my "ideal point" is for almost all of the population to get vaccinated and for us to use whatever public health measure are necessary to get to very few cases. Then, once we reach that point, we need to see what the situations
is.
I don't really care about how many people get Covid, if all the cases are asymptomatic or mild (the common cold model)
And if there are sporadic localized outbreaks of symptomatic-to-serious cases, even reasonably large ones, but we can trace and quarantine, there really is no need for masks (the measles model)
But what if vaccines manage to make Covid be like seasonal influenza: there are cases. some years quite a few of them, and some of them lead to hospitalization and death. Clearly, there is a cost-benefit analysis to be done on what measures
to take. I would not be in principle opposed to some level of mandatory masking, but would like to hear from an epidemiologist or two before setting numbers or masking levels.
By the way, Bonnie Henry's aim of preventing serious illness and death does not seem so unreasonable. If vaccines get us down to the point where getting Covid means a week in bed with the sniffles, it really is not clear we need dramatic
public health measures. What is questionable is the idea that vaccines will get us there if we don't manage to fully vaccinate 90+% of the eligible population and, eventually, the kids too. And while her keep-keep-calm-and-get people-to-cooperate approach
has worked quite well until now, it does not look like she can get those last 15-20% to vaccinate without at least a little bit of coercion. But there is every indication that she and Adrian Dix, now get this.
On 8/14/2021 10:55 AM, Lucas Herrenbrueck wrote:
CBC: "The level of action that we need to take to prevent severe illness and deaths is different in different settings," [Bonnie Henry] said on Thursday, announcing a vaccine mandate for workers in
long-term care settings.
She has made it abundantly clear that she only sees her role as " prevent severe illness and deaths". Zero interest in going beyond that.
I assume this is different from those most of us in this conversation: we want the province's goal to be much more ambitious than "prevent severe illness and death". Even if it's not literal #CovidZero.
I think we need to be much more vocal about this, but also explicit. To SFU leaders and also provincial and federal leaders. For too long there has been too much assuming we are sorta kinda all on the same page with respect to goals. Maybe Dr Henry
and Pres Johnson haven't been sticking their heads in the sand, it's just that they look at all this and really do think everything is fine as long as long-term care deaths are kept to some acceptable amount.
Here's my personal 'ideal point', something like: "do whatever it takes to get BC cases down to 10/day, then open up carefully, and slam back on the brakes once we get to 25/day". Obviously, the more vaccinations the less brake-slamming (masks, closures)
will be needed. But we don't just vaccinate and then say everything else is a personal choice. The vaccines are good, but they're not
that good (for instance, the efficacy has now been shown to fade after a few months).
I'm curious to also hear what everyone else's 'ideal point' is...
If you have the energy to craft a petition asking the province to set an
explicit and ambitious goal, please do. If you know any pollsters (or are one), please urge them to poll the provincial voters on this too. If most BC residents really do think "prevent severe illness and death, only" is the appropriate yardstick, then
so be it and I can focus on my "personal responsibility" rather than be frustrated with what we're getting.
Lucas
PS: for context, plenty of jurisdictions have adopted explicit suppression targets, and even automated some responses (rather than crafting various "4 step plans" that don't survive the next wave). In Germany, for example, things like public mask mandates
come in at the BC-equivalent of 250 cases/day, and gathering restrictions come in at the BC-equivalent of 350/day. Regionally stratified. Of course, my personal preference would be much stricter than this.
From: Christopher Pavsek
<cpavsek@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 14, 2021 10:22
To: Lucas Herrenbrueck
Subject: Re: UBC pres on vaccines and masks
FYI, from the CBC today:
"Over the past 10 days, in a series of announcements and news conferences, you can see the strategy Dr. Henry is hoping to take.
It involves putting targeted restrictions in areas with large outbreaks, and will likely involve a host of vaccine and masking requirements in spaces under provincial control where large amounts of people gather.
"The level of action that we need to take to prevent severe illness and deaths is different in different settings," she said on Thursday, announcing a vaccine mandate for workers in
long-term care settings.
Henry also said an announcement on post-secondary educational institutions is planned for next week.
The next day, the federal government announced a vaccine mandate for
plane and interprovincial rail travel. "
Let's keep our powder dry, maybe for the case that we find out that the inevitable policy isn't implemented properly. This will now happen without us, and quickly.
I would support an open letter congratulating SFU on being the last university of note to hold firm
to the sacred principle of "if we do nothing, it will be someone else's problem". Unlike all those flip floppers! And maybe suggest we revert back to our old motto:
<SFU_Logo_World.png>
... until we earn the "engaging" back.
Lucas
From: Cynthia Patton <cindy_patton@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 13, 2021 12:52:31 PM
To: Christopher Pavsek; sfufa forum
Subject: Re: UBC pres on vaccines and masks
Why is the ‘Berkeley of the North’ always holding up the rear guard?? Anyone up for a General Strike?
I can’t tell if I am joking or not ….
Cindy Patton
Professor of Sociology and Anthropology
The lands on which we live and work are the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) and Kwikwetlem (kʷikʷəƛ̓əm) Nations.
From: Christopher Pavsek <cpavsek@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 13, 2021 12:17:55 PM
To: sfufa forum
Subject: UBC pres on vaccines and masks
|