Covid-19 Outbreak of new SARS-like coronavirus (Covid-19)

[JGrimez]

Stupid people exist in all professions. It is known.

I know, imagine getting an untested, experimental mRNA vaccine developed in less than year, which hasn't gone through strict animal and human safety trials, from a company that has no liability if you get injured by their product....

....for a virus with a 99.97% recovery rate.

Then others rambling on with the "masks aren't effective" and "its got a 99% survival rate" and "the covid death stats are a lie" type of nonsense imparts a sense of rage in me given what I've seen first hand.

That's because you're believing lies through gaslighting. It's at the point where people invoke science, refuse to look at science that you've presented and then continue to claim the science is on their side without doing any investigation themselves.

What's happening to many people is a type of Stockholm Syndrome. Their governments are terrorizing them and the people are supporting and defending it. They're even attacking other people for pointing out that they are being abused or pointing out the massive inconsistencies in the official story from the 'trustworthy' authorities. The level of deception and delusion is pretty amazing and demoralizing to see.

So I just googled and came up with these easily. There are many, many others, too, I am not going to waste my time coming up with a huge list when they are easily found. My point stands, it is not scientific consensus just because you found some studies suggesting masks don't work.

From your first link:

"Guidelines from the CDC and the WHO recommend the wearing of face masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the protective efficiency of such masks against airborne transmission of infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2) droplets/aerosols is unknown." Here, we developed an airborne transmission simulator (they also said the masks were not completely effective, but they didn't even list how ineffective they were, It doesn't tell us anything with regards to justifying mask mandates.)

So you think posting one link of a simulator study beats all of the laboratory/HCW studies that covered thousands of people for over a decade?
The fact is that you didn't review the studies, you're simply lying by saying that there's a consensus but you really have no idea.
This is the type of authoritarian-parroting that is so dangerous.

Correction. First we were told it came from the wet markets.

That's it. There has never been any other suggestion that's been taken seriously by the scientific community or world leaders (which for the record trump is not )

The scientific community has had a general consensus of a natural origin since pretty early on.

You need to update your information. How could covid be found in these places before the alleged first outbreak in China? It's incredibly obvious by now that the official story is poppycock.

Covid was circulating in Italy in September 2019, new study shows
French patients were sick with Covid-19 in mid-November and before China - researchers
‘Earlier signs of coronavirus’ in sewage samples in Brazil

just because the authorities have reversed their positions (initially they thought masks and isolation were not strictly necessary, probably working under the assumption that the us pandemic response team was not hamstrung) doesn't mean they are not authorities still. the mark of a good scientist is publishing retractions or updates when new data may change your results.

Sure, give the authorities free reign to completely flip their stances, continually shift the goalposts, and ignore decades of medical and scientific research in order to convince people to follow bullshit directives which are destroying their societies.

The level of blind trust some people have in authorities (with terrible track records) is seriously frightening.

 

[cduggles]

Let’s keep this discussion civil. It’s getting interesting with less pseudoscience (less, not none ).

 

[sekio]

Sure, give the authorities free reign to completely flip their stances, continually shift the goalposts, and ignore decades of medical and scientific research in order to convince people to follow bullshit directives which are destroying their societies.

There is precedence for lockdowns, social isolation, mask-wearing on a large scale: there was this little disease called the Spanish Flu. People were even prevented from going to church. Schools closed. Yet somehow life went on.
Sure, it was bad they did not come out advising a lockdown and mandating masks from day 1, but hindsight is 20/20. At the time it was unknown just how badly the virus was going to effect the USA.
You say flipping stances and moving goalposts, I see a public health authority making policy decisions based on the data available at the time. It's not like they have gone back and forth on the issue either, for the last couple of months at least, the message has consistently been that masks are good and travel/contact bad.

I think that if people had acted like reasonable human beings and adhered to a policy of masking and isolation the US wouldn't have the equivalent of 9/11 reoccurring every 2 days.

....for a virus with a 99.97% recovery rate.

I'm sure the experience isn't exactly what you'd call pleasurable. And the 0.03% that die don't matter at all...

 

[JGrimez]

There is precedence for lockdowns, social isolation, mask-wearing on a large scale: there was this little disease called the Spanish Flu. People were even prevented from going to church.
Sure, it was bad they did not come out advising a lockdown and mandating masks from day 1, but hindsight is 20/20. At the time it was unknown just how badly the virus was going to effect the USA.
You say flipping stances and moving goalposts, I see a public health authority making policy decisions based on the data available at the time. It's not like they have gone back and forth on the issue either, for the last couple of months at least, the message has consistently been that masks are good and travel/contact bad.

Originally the justification for the lockdowns was because they estimated a 3.4% death rate (which is huge).
Now we know it's closer to 0.26%, deaths are decreasing but the lockdowns remain. We've got new data available at this time so why aren't governments acting in line with what we now know?

Covid pandemic could push more than a BILLION people worldwide into extreme poverty, UN warns. <it's not the virus that caused this, it's the government response.

Masks are good for preventing some bacteria but in terms of mandating masks for healthy people in order to prevent asymptomatic transmission of a respiratory virus - that has no scientific backing.

Actual science: University of Florida researchers find no asymptomatic or presymptomatic spread of Coronavirus

A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission. (20 November 2020)

 

[cduggles]

Interesting information about the morbidity and mortality of the Spanish flu:

The first wave of the 1918 pandemic occurred in the spring and was generally mild. The sick, who experienced such typical flu symptoms as chills, fever and fatigue, usually recovered after several days, and the number of reported deaths was low.

However, a second, highly contagious wave of influenza appeared with a vengeance in the fall of that same year. Victims died within hours or days of developing symptoms, their skin turning blue and their lungs filling with fluid that caused them to suffocate. In just one year, 1918, the average life expectancy in America plummeted by a dozen years.

Obviously the longer period of hospitalization due to COVID is what is severely straining the medical system.

Let’s just hope that as the virus mutates to become more infectious, the death rate doesn’t increase the way it did with the Spanish flu.

Spanish Flu

The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, the deadliest in history, infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide—about one-third of the planet’s population—and

www.history.com

 

[sekio]

Originally the justification for the lockdowns was because they estimated a 3.4% death rate (which is huge).
Now we know it's closer to 0.26%, deaths are decreasing but the lockdowns remain.

The 3.4% death rate was based on the assumption that nobody would do anything different than usual. Yes, it's a prediction based on data, but in reality the coronavirus was already speculated to be a Big Fucking Hairy Deal.
There were all sorts of measures put in place, with varying efficacy, and also more cases. Treatment became more streamlined and emergency wards constructed, drugs were trialed, convalescent serum, etc.

I expect the lockdowns will continue until there is a significant portion of the population vaccinated. (Ooh, nefarious, you can't enjoy freedom unless you aren't a public health threat!)
I can say for sure they will not open back up while deaths per day are trending upwards.

Masks are good for preventing some bacteria but in terms of mandating masks for healthy people in order to prevent asymptomatic transmission of a respiratory virus - that has no scientific backing.

I think it's the symptomatic people that present more of a concern... like, condoms are useless at preventing HIV spread from people who don't have HIV. But that's no reason to not encourage condom usage, for those other cases where there is viral shedding.
At the end of the day a paper mask isn't going to harm you.

oh also

from a company that has no liability if you get injured by their product....

At least in Canada, the government has a fund set up for any vaccine side effects to dispense compensation to anyone harmed by the vaccine.

 

[novaveritas]

There is precedence for lockdowns, social isolation, mask-wearing on a large scale: there was this little disease called the Spanish Flu. People were even prevented from going to church.
Sure, it was bad they did not come out advising a lockdown and mandating masks from day 1, but hindsight is 20/20. At the time it was unknown just how badly the virus was going to effect the USA.
You say flipping stances and moving goalposts, I see a public health authority making policy decisions based on the data available at the time. It's not like they have gone back and forth on the issue either, for the last couple of months at least, the message has consistently been that masks are good and travel/contact bad.

there is also precedence for not locking down.. 57 asian flu, 68 Hong Kong flu etc.

It is a matter of risk perception, but part of a bigger problem. Because of the degeneration of institutional sceince and the death of academic scientific scrutiny, scientists are not trusted to tell the truth. Science has blown what limited credibility it had.

The no mask stance was a blatant expedient lie told by CDC and others to preserve masks for HCPs and they admit it. Yet you still trust the authorities to act in good faith.
Shipping positives out of hospitals into the LTCFs, was guaranteed to infect the most vulnerable and the very same people who should have been protected, the authorities were well aware that nursing homes were not capable of infection control but they chose to ignore it and told the expedient lie to clear hospitals. Yet you still trust the authorities to act in good faith.
Now we have Fauci manipulating the narrative regarding herd immunity, we have the WHO changing the definition of herd immunity Fauci admitting to lying about herd immunity thresholds to manipulate the perception and you still trust them to act in good faith?

Death totals associated with COVID include significant numbers of people who died of other conditions and with a positive coronavirus test, but these are default assigned as COVID deaths because that fits the narrative and you still trust them to act in good faith?

Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me, fool me a hundred times then fuck it I deserve it.

Give people the information and allow them to make their own choices, this making decisions for other people as if they are incapable of making their own decisions is plain wrong. Experts are wrong just as frequently as everyone else and they tend to fall into group think traps. The person most qualified to make judgements about their own situation is the person themselves, not some ivory tower academic or officious bureaucrat.

The right questions are simply not being asked. The scientific establishment who should be asking questions and putting the science to proof are simply not doing this, instead they are profiting hugely.

I will give you an example, Neil Ferguson is a useful expert because he has a very consistent track record. He is wrong and badly wrong 100% of the time. Therefore if you dismiss anything he says, because he is wrong 100% of the time then that is a good start. Ferguson and the IC model drove the lockdowns back gave alarmist dogma a scientific wrapper, the model had fatal flaws that have not been addressed. but it is not as if Ferguson hadn't been spectacularly wrong before.
Neil Fergusons record:
2001 Neil Ferguson’s foot-and-mouth modelling preferred culling over vaccination and was responsible for the slaughter of 6m animals and severed damage to the industry.
2002 his model for BSE gave a worst-case scenario of 150,000 UK deaths from vCJD (actual deaths< 177) which led to another mass cull.
In 2005 he stated the worst-case scenario for global H5N1 bird flu deaths was 200m (actual deaths 282);
In 2009 he initially forecast a worst-case scenario of 65 thousand UK deaths from H1N1 swine flu (actual deaths 457).
I could go on.

Yet you claim that public health authorities are examining the scientific evidence most of which is not peer reviewed but is preprint junk and coming to reasonable conclusions regarding policy, They are not.
Government employed public health scientists usually inhabit a stagnant scientific backwater, full of group think and low quality science, anyone with any talent leaves very quickly. Kinda like Darwinian selection leaving behind the mediocre and the mendacious.

They as a rule are mediocre consensus thinkers, then when something like Coronavirus appears the get to emerge into the limelight, but they do not have the ability to asses the evidence instead they defer to consensus or to whichever character bullshits the most convincingly. which results in people like Ferguson or Fauci or Albert Osterhaus and their lunatic extreme predictions getting traction, the thinking is it's important to be cautious, better to be safe than sorry. but "safe from coronavirus" comes at an extremely high price.

This is merely an observation.

 

[novaveritas]

The 3.4% death rate was based on the assumption that nobody would do anything different than usual. Yes, it's a prediction based on data, but in reality the coronavirus was already speculated to be a Big Fucking Hairy Deal.
There were all sorts of measures put in place, with varying efficacy, and also more cases. Treatment became more streamlined and emergency wards constructed, drugs were trialed, convalescent serum, etc.

no it was a high estimate for IFR on the basis of the observed CFR for a subset of the population, multiplied by the susceptible population without adjusting for demographics and was compounded by a huge mis-estimate of average R0. It was also erroneous because it assumed homogenous and instantaneous mixing and didn't match any historical precedent for any real disease ever. It violated the classic epidemiological rule of 10 and the rule of 3.

All these assumptions are provably false and are only valid inside the minds of mathematical modelling epidemiologists. You may want to read the original papers and supplemental info if you get really bored look at the source code for the model....there are no prizes for finding errors because finding serious errors is easy.

IFR is the death rate of those infected and the measures which you refer to mainly reduce the numbers infected. therefore measures that reduce prevalence should result in IFR remaining the same just n is reduced.

If good treatment was the reason for declining IFR and CFR, why does the USA with the most expensive most advanced healthcare in the world have a higher case fatality rate CFR than practically any other country?

Herd mentality is very dangerous, nobody sensible is going to stand in the way of the stampede of fearful idiocy. The same mindset brought every war.

https://www.kenyatraveltips.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/wildebeest-migration.jpg

 

[novaveritas]

I expect the lockdowns will continue until there is a significant portion of the population vaccinated. (Ooh, nefarious, you can't enjoy freedom unless you aren't a public health threat!)
I can say for sure they will not open back up while deaths per day are trending upwards.




People who do not have the virus are not a public health threat period.

Utilitarian totalitarian nonsense.

People who are not infected with coronavirus are not a public health threat period.

Vaccinated people carrying the virus are a public health threat.

Asymptomatic carrying the virus are less of a public health threat than symptomatic people but we do not know if that relationship holds true if the only reason infected people are asymptomatic is due to vaccination.

If the disease prevalence is 1% then 99% do not have the virus. therefore more than 99% of people are not in anyway a public health threat and infringing their liberty is disproportionate.

The purpose of vaccination is to individually protect the vulnerable, in the case of coronavirus this is a small proportion of the population.

 

[sekio]

The no mask stance was a blatant expedient lie told by CDC and others to preserve masks for HCPs and they admit it. Yet you still trust the authorities to act in good faith.

A mask is more likely to do good on the face of someone 'in the trenches' than on me, sitting on my ass at home.

Death totals associated with COVID include significant numbers of people who died of other conditions and with a positive coronavirus test, but these are default assigned as COVID deaths

There can be multiple causative factors listed on the death certificate, apparently something like 6% of cases are COVID exclusively, the remainder have additional factors.
Still, estimates are that the COVID deaths are undercounted, some known cases were put as bronchopneumonia, etc.

The person most qualified to make judgements about their own situation is the person themselves, not some ivory tower academic or officious bureaucrat.

I'm still going to defer to their expertise. None of the suggestions made are too crazy, in my eyes.
Also, measures like mask-wearing and distancing become more effective if everyone does them.
Maybe they should have tried a carrot rather than a stick. A COVID PPE benefit maybe?

Government employed public health scientists usually inhabit a stagnant scientific backwater, full of group think and low quality science, anyone with any talent leaves very quickly. Kinda like Darwinian selection leaving behind the mediocre and the mendacious.

They as a rule are mediocre consensus thinkers, then when something like Coronavirus appears the get to emerge into the limelight, but they do not have the ability to asses the evidence instead they defer to consensus or to whichever character bullshits the most convincingly. which results in people like Ferguson or Fauci or Albert Osterhaus and their lunatic extreme predictions getting traction, the thinking is it's important to be cautious, better to be safe than sorry. but "safe from coronavirus" comes at an extremely high price.

So who would you recommend provide data and counsel to the public then? Or is everyone just expected to hit the books on their won and come up with a disease mitigation plan, overnight, from whole cloth?

People who are not infected with coronavirus are not a public health threat period.

Vaccinated people carrying the virus are a public health threat.

Your point?
People who are not infected with coronavirus, and have undergone the full course of vaccinations, are much less susceptible to infection than the unvaccinated.
And hopefully, the percentage of people who are vaccinated yet still become sick will be smaller than if we didn't vaccinate anyone.

If the disease prevalence is 1% then 99% do not have the virus. therefore more than 99% of people are not in anyway a public health threat and infringing their liberty is disproportionate.

This is where we'll "agree to disagree". I do not mind incurring some minor burdens if it means I can make things safer for myself and those around me.

The purpose of vaccination is to individually protect the vulnerable, in the case of coronavirus this is a small proportion of the population.

Um, last I checked, the susceptible population is basically everyone with a set of lungs.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Vaccinated people carrying the virus are a public health threat.

can you please provide a reputable source for this claim? i'm not even sure what it means. can you please clarify how a vaccinated person can carry the virus? (excluding the presumably minute proportion who are infected at the time of vaccination) the vaccine does not infect people with the virus, but it enables their immune systems to respond appropriately should the virus attempt to take hold in their body.

 

[sekio]

The vaccine is only ~90% effective at preventing seroconversion, (and after only 1 of the 2 doses it's less so), meaning it's entirely possible to receive the vaccine and still contract SARS-COV-2.
Just means you should stay vigilant and practice good hygeine anyway.

 

[novaveritas]

People who are not infected with coronavirus, and have undergone the full course of vaccinations, are much less susceptible to infection than the unvaccinated.
And hopefully, the percentage of people who are vaccinated yet still become sick will be smaller than if we didn't vaccinate anyone.

Rubbish. you are throwing around terms that you don't understand the meaning of. People with the full course of vaccinations are just as likely to get infected...look up sterilising immunity then get back to me, whilst you are at it explain how humoral immunity in the wrong compartment can prevent mucosal infection in the lungs and throats

the current vaccines have only to be shown to reduce the incidence and severity of symptoms post infection and so primarily represent an individual benefit.

Um, last I checked, the susceptible population is basically everyone with a set of lungs.

not proven. Not likely to be true. There is an important subset of the population, clue it lies at the bottom of the demographic pyramid, who have vastly reduced susceptability.

 

[novaveritas]

The vaccine is only ~90% effective at preventing seroconversion, (and after only 1 of the 2 doses it's less so), meaning it's entirely possible to receive the vaccine and still contract SARS-COV-2.
Just means you should stay vigilant and practice good hygeine anyway.

get the terms right, the vaccine I guess you are talking about pfizer, the vaccine is 90% effective at preventing syptomatic infection with coronavirus. key word symptomatic. Symptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 is defined as COVID-19. Nothing to do with preventing seroconversion.

seroconversion ie antibodies to spike are caused by the vaccine and likely almost 100% of vacinees will seroconvert at 1 week and have antibodies to spike whether or not they got infected or not. It is reasonable to assume that these neutralzing antibodies will prevent severe disease and symptoms on infection with wild coronavirus for a while.

Insiders are saying however that the efficacy is not going to remain at 95% for long, and it is not waning immunity

 

[JGrimez]

can you please provide a reputable source for this claim? i'm not even sure what it means. can you please clarify how a vaccinated person can carry the virus? (excluding the presumably minute proportion who are infected at the time of vaccination) the vaccine does not infect people with the virus, but it enables their immune systems to respond appropriately should the virus attempt to take hold in their body.

Vaccine-strain diseases aren't uncommon. There are more cases of vaccine-strain polio than wild polio cases

The vaccine is only ~90% effective at preventing seroconversion, (and after only 1 of the 2 doses it's less so), meaning it's entirely possible to receive the vaccine and still contract SARS-COV-2.
Just means you should stay vigilant and practice good hygeine anyway.

I believe most vaccines are around 40-50% effective. It's amazing that this new experimental vaccine was completed in less than a year and is 90% effective. I wonder if they've released their data proving 90%+ effectiveness for the public scientists to scrutinize. What, they didn't?

The 3.4% death rate was based on the assumption that nobody would do anything different than usual. Yes, it's a prediction based on data, but in reality the coronavirus was already speculated to be a Big Fucking Hairy Deal.
There were all sorts of measures put in place, with varying efficacy, and also more cases. Treatment became more streamlined and emergency wards constructed, drugs were trialed, convalescent serum, etc.

Novaveritas already mentioned Neil Ferguson from Imperial College before I could. Look at the errors in the modeling which was used by governments to scare people and institute lockdowns. Would you care if the justification for lockdowns was based on a lie?

At the end of the day a paper mask isn't going to harm you.

It's not going to do anything with regards to the pandemic either. So there's no point. All we're doing is psychologically distressing children and traumatizing them into being fearful of normal, human interactions.

At least in Canada, the government has a fund set up for any vaccine side effects to dispense compensation to anyone harmed by the vaccine.

So the taxpayers need to fork out the payments and victims have to go up against government lawyers to get any compensation?
If these companies are not held liable for any injuries then they have no incentive to increase safety standards of their products. In fact the more people they injure with vaccines, the more profits they'll make by having said victim potentially dependent on medication for the rest of their lives. "Making people healthier" through vaccinations runs directly counter to their own interests.

 

[Jabberwocky]

The vaccine is only ~90% effective at preventing seroconversion, (and after only 1 of the 2 doses it's less so), meaning it's entirely possible to receive the vaccine and still contract SARS-COV-2.
Just means you should stay vigilant and practice good hygeine anyway

thank you.

@JGrimez the polio vaccine is a completely different type of vaccine to the COVID one so there would be no mechanism to get a vaccine strain version of SARS-COV-2.

there are masks with coatings that kill viruses, and even the standard ones have been shown to make a difference. there absolutely is a point. i think the psychological distress of children losing their parents would be far greater than that of having to wear a mask and take basic safety measures.

 

[JGrimez]

@JGrimez the polio vaccine is a completely different type of vaccine to the COVID one so there would be no mechanism to get a vaccine strain version of SARS-COV-2.

Do you know anything about mRNA vaccines and what makes this covid vaccine different?
Apparently this type of vaccine was considered "theoretical and experimental" up until very recently

 

[w01fg4ng]

I'm disappointed in how the initial vaccines are being rolled out. Some states are putting the common elderly person at the end of the waiting list behind healthy young adults.

Other states, like Florida, that are recognizing the common elderly person as someone who should be higher on the waiting list (just behind nurses) to get vaccinated are doing a really shit job at distributing it properly. The distribution sites in Florida not only are making people wait in a long line (literally for days) but the amount of vaccines being given right now are laughably low. There will only be a small percentage of elderly who can actually get the vaccine in the next week or so. Most will wait in a line for hours only to be turned away and told that they have already run out. It's like a super depressing black friday sale.

They've had a year to figure out an exit strategy and it's clear that we will be dealing with this issue all year due to incompetence from both the American people and our government.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Insiders are saying

lol. always the hallmark of a trustworthy claim!


@JGrimez i have worked in biomedical (pre clinical) research for a long time, vaccines are not my area of speciality but due to COVID i have suddenly had to learn a lot in new areas. my day to day work is viral genomics and i've done a lot of transcriptomics so i suspect i am more knowledgeable in this area than you.

you may find the following useful: https://biology.stackexchange.com/q...the-sudden-feasibility-of-mrna-vaccines-in-20 its well explained and referenced

 

[sekio]

I believe most vaccines are around 40-50% effective

The flu virus tends to be about that, but there are definitely diseases with more effective vaccines out there.

I wonder if they've released their data proving 90%+ effectiveness for the public scientists to scrutinize. What, they didn't?

No data here. I'm sure the authors would give you more in depth data if you asked nicely, (within HIPPA rules)

Would you care if the justification for lockdowns was based on a lie?

The way I see it is simple. Wear a mask, because it helps prevent disease transmission. Don't go out, because it helps prevent disease transmission.

Apparently this type of vaccine was considered "theoretical and experimental" up until very recently

It is indeed a novel piece of molecular biology, it's quite cool. They are using modified messenger RNA molecules which code for the viral spike protein; these enter cells and the mRNA is translated by the ribosome into the antigenic spike protein, which results in cell lysis and release of the antigen to promote immune system activity. These mRNA molecules are super fragile so they are packaged in lipid bilayers, like little mini-cells.

It's not going to do anything with regards to the pandemic either. So there's no point. All we're doing is psychologically distressing children and traumatizing them into being fearful of normal, human interactions.

It's demonstrated that masks reduce transmission. I don't know what world you're in. And if this experience leads to your children being traumatized you aren't being a very good parent. If anything it should be a learning experience, that sometimes we need to wear PPE to stay safe.

So the taxpayers need to fork out the payments and victims have to go up against government lawyers to get any compensation?
If these companies are not held liable for any injuries then they have no incentive to increase safety standards of their products. In fact the more people they injure with vaccines, the more profits they'll make by having said victim potentially dependent on medication for the rest of their lives. "Making people healthier" through vaccinations runs directly counter to their own interests.

I'm pretty sure the vaccine relief fund in Canada is no-fault. It's better than being left with no recourse at all.
And besides, vaccines are some of the safest medications out there... the statistics show that serious adverse reactions are less than 1 per million cases.

It seems your position is just denial across the board. SARS-COV-2 is not a big deal. It's basically nonlethal. Nothing works to prevent the spread, so don't bother. The government put lockdowns/restrictions in place just because they felt it would be a good time to crank the oppression dial up a notch. If we just went back to normal day-to-day life we would be better off.

Yeah, uh, I wish I lived in such a world.

I'm disappointed in how the initial vaccines are being rolled out. Some states are putting the common elderly person at the end of the waiting list behind healthy young adults.

Me too, here we have the elderly in care homes being vaccinated before the nurses that serve them (or nurses/drs on the front lines).
Probably a minor nitpick, but I would put doctors first, seeing as they're the most likely to be exposed.