Originally Posted by rickair7777

I'm talking about some nuisances which might linger for another year or two... if they think it makes customers feel safer stores (or maybe local governments) will keep the mask requirement. Also if it makes the business owners feel safer from lawyers

Originally Posted by rickair7777

I agree with that. Once I'm vaccinated I'm happy to hang out with anyone because I probably won't get the bug, and if I do it will be mild enough that my odds of having FAA aeromedical issues is slim to none. I wasn't concerned about getting covid in the first place, until I started to hear about guys having issues with their 1C. Not scared of covid, but am scared of the FAA haha.

The potential hangup is if either a lot of people are afraid to hang with un-vaccinated people, or governments maintain onerous limits on businesses... that could drive businesses to require vaccination for employees and/or patrons. I do support a businesses' right to be open, with customers, at full capacity. I'm not willing to maintain masks, social D, and economic catastrophe indefinitely just to avoid hurting the feelings of anti-vaxxers. People who are vaccinated do have the right to not associate with those who aren't.

Hopefully enough people will get vaccinated that the whole thing will just blow over later this year anyhow. Worst case there will still be plenty of covid-friendly businesses, depending on the state. Some states might still maintain harsh restrictions which could force businesses down the vaccine road, but you already know which ones those are. The good news is plenty of states will not do that, as long as you live in TX, MT, UT, etc you should be fine... assuming you don't commute to SFO.

Won't get into international vaccine requirements for crew, that's already been discussed plenty.

At the rate we're going with vaccines, I can't see this lasting more than 2-3 years, absolute worst case.

Originally Posted by skywatch

At some point does some logic take over and do we realize that the actual IFR of the virus is not "ten times that of flu" but actually more in line with flu, using all the available data we have? That we are talking about adding restrictions on movement and commerce to make sure we are all vaccinated against a bad flu? At one point does this get extended to the flu then? This is just crazy.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

I'm looking forward to a couple years down the read when we can see what the data actually looks like, after the political dust settles and methodical, rigorous studies can be conducted, analyzed, and peer-reviewed.

Originally Posted by Nantonaku

If they can develop/test/distribute a vaccine in 1/10 the time of a normal vaccine then why would it take that long to get the data? This is the most studied disease/virus in history. They have to have a good idea of these numbers right now and just don't want to release them.

Originally Posted by Nantonaku

If they can develop/test/distribute a vaccine in 1/10 the time of a normal vaccine then why would it take that long to get the data? This is the most studied disease/virus in history. They have to have a good idea of these numbers right now and just don't want to release them.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

No.

The problem is the "They" that always gets referred to...

There is no "They". The data in question was sort of collected (or maybe not in some cases) at a variety of state, local, public, private, and university healthcare organizations. Most were more focused on care and treatment than accurate data collection, and some were committing fraud to boost their numbers to justify more funding, etc.

The old GIGO axiom applies. It's going to take some careful and detailed analysis of the base data they do have to get it right. Otherwise you're going to have to make some subjective calls (which is what's happened so far), and then of course personal, professional, or political bias poisons the results.

They may even need new randomized surveys and testing, basically generate new, clean-sheet data that's acquired in a manner that lends itself to scientific rigor. The vaccination programs complicates that but it doesn't preclude it... if nothing else the anti-vaxxers could be a useful pool for raw data that's not influenced by vaccination.

The existing data I'm certain contains a subset of rigorous, accurate data (depends on who collected it, methodology, and discipline) The trick is separating the wheat from the chaff.

Originally Posted by Nantonaku

Maybe the $1.9 trillion will help to light a fire. If it takes them two years to separate the wheat from the chaff it probably won't matter anymore. Anyone paying attention knows the true case count is at least 2-3 times higher than cases reported.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

It will be mostly of academic interest by the time they get it all sorted it out. Might be informative for future epidemics, but a different bug will of course behave in a different manner.

Originally Posted by skywatch

Will it though? Humans have been on the planet for 3,000,000 years and have lived side-by-side with viruses that have behaved basically the same way since we have known they existed. Why all the sudden do we act like we have no idea how they will behave?