The Corona Virus

[sihnfahl]

Further, the RNA vaccines must be kept much colder than ordinary vaccines (-70C/-94F) because, at higher temperatures , the RNA deteriorates quickly, becoming ineffective.

Not necessarily. The Moderna vaccine is mRNA-1273, which maintains its stability for up to 6 months at -4F. The Pfizer one needs a different temperature thanks to its composition for delivery and protection. Since the specifics are still not out there, it's mostly supposition as to why.

2) Why were we able to develop an RNA vaccine so much more quickly than a traditional vaccine?

Because you're not relying on the steps of inactivating / weakening the virus for delivery and ensuring that the vaccine won't result in an active case.

Take polio. One of the problems of oral polio vaccines is that if not enough of the vaccine is inactivated ... Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis.

mRNA is easier since it can't infect - it only results in markers being generated.

3) Does this have implications for other diseases in the future? Not just for new virii, which will probably become ever more frequent as globalization spreads and taps more and more previously isolated virus reservoirs. What about legacy virii as well? Does this enable us to make a rapid response against known diseases such as Ebola?

Yes, and if people are willing to fund it, probably change the current vaccines as well.

Oh, such as Ebola?

Look up - Ervebo.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

OK, the Oxford vaccine results are back - 70% effectiveness, climbing to 90% if you use a two step (first step is a half-dose*, which I'm thinking of as "priming" the immune system, even though it probably doesn't actually work that way). Seriously cheaper than the other two, and doesn't need anywhere near the refrigeration, so we may actually have here something that will be of use to most of humanity instead of just rich people.

So Cheddar discusses RNA vaccines.

Let me see if I understand this correctly: An RNA vaccine is different from a traditional vaccine in that, rather than injecting inactivated disease material into the body, it instead injects an RNA which mimics a virus, causing the cells it infects to trigger materials much like those the virus would produce. This provokes the immune system to build a defense against it, so that when the virus really comes around, the body is ready for it.

Close, but not quite all the details you need. The crucial thing is that you are duplicating the messenger RNA, specifically the "outer shell" proteins that the virus uses to interact with other cells and, thus, what antibodies will latch onto to stop the virus from being able to interact. So you are effectively training the immune system in the exact way it will interact with the real virus but, crucially, without involving the actual DNA of the virus.

(Also, there is no such thing as a single "traditional" vaccine. Even before RNA manipulation, there were several approaches, from the actual original "find a similar disease which isn't as dangerous but confers immunity and inject them with that" to various forms of dead or deactivated actual virus, to just injecting the appropriate proteins directly. Vaccines come in a lot of shapes)

Those are logistical details, to my mind, though. We know how to solve logistics problems.

Not really we don't. We know how to sidestep it in rich countries by throwing money at it but those logistical problems are NOT solved when money and/or infrastructure are missing - and thus Africa and rural India are unlikely to have access to the "fancy" vaccines. I'm glad Oxford found a different approach.

2) Why were we able to develop an RNA vaccine so much more quickly than a traditional vaccine?

It wasn't that much faster; honestly, it was probably just down to a smidge more resources, but there are reports of just how many issues were solved by governments throwing their weight around (an example being a machine was needed in a lab, and it was in slow transit on a train, and government agents literally caught up to the train, rummaged in the wagon till they found the box, and flew it to its destination - that's the kind of kink removal most labs don't usually get access to, and it can really speed things up).

Grey Wolf

*Immunity gain is really counter-intuitive:

The AstraZeneca trial looked at two different dosing regimens. A half-dose of the vaccine followed by a full dose at least one month later was 90% effective. Another approach, giving patients two full doses one month apart, was 62% effective. The combined results showed an average efficacy rate of 70%.

[sihnfahl]

OK, the Oxford vaccine results are back - 70% effectiveness, climbing to 90% if you use a two step (first step is a half-dose, which I'm thinking of as "priming" the immune system, even though it probably doesn't actually work that way). Seriously cheaper than the other two, and doesn't need anywhere near the refrigeration, so we may actually have here something that will be of use to most of humanity instead of just rich people.

Well, a little more forgivable. Regular fridge temperature vs regular freezer temperature. A Magic Chef home chest freezer can reach -24C, which is fine for the Moderna vaccine.

The crucial thing is that you are duplicating the messenger RNA, specifically the "outer shell" proteins that the virus uses to interact with other cells and, thus, what antibodies will latch onto to stop the virus from being able to interact. So you are effectively training the immune system in the exact way it will interact with the real virus but, crucially, without involving the actual DNA of the virus.

Well, to be pedantic, the mRNA sequence for the spike proteins that COVID uses to latch to cells.

(Also, there is no such thing as a single "traditional" vaccine. Even before RNA manipulation, there were several approaches, from the actual original "find a similar disease which isn't as dangerous but confers immunity and inject them with that" to various forms of dead or deactivated actual virus, to just injecting the appropriate proteins directly. Vaccines come in a lot of shapes)

Back to Smallpox / Cowpox again.

Not really we don't. We know how to sidestep it in rich countries by throwing money at it but those logistical problems are NOT solved when money and/or infrastructure are missing - and thus Africa and rural India are unlikely to have access to the "fancy" vaccines. I'm glad Oxford found a different approach.

That's where hopefully the WHO steps in. They inoculate poor nations for polio, after all, and they even were part of the recent 'ring' inoculation for Ebola during the last outbreak.

And with the more tolerant temperature ranges of the Moderna vaccine (it only requires a bog-standard freezer), the question is just getting the refrigerated trucks, or one with the ability to carry a portable freezer and its power supply.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

just getting the refrigerated trucks, or one with the ability to carry a portable freezer and its power supply.

See again the lack of infrastructure issues. There are plenty of places with a lot of people and no roads capable of supporting even smallish trucks. Donkeys are magical and I love them, but you can't ask them to carry a working fridge.

GW

[pendell]

Update: This just showed up as an advert on my youtube channel. Wow, that didn't take long. Although at -46 that isn't adequate for the Pfizer variant. Should work for Moderna and Oxford , though.

See again the lack of infrastructure issues. There are plenty of places with a lot of people and no roads capable of supporting even smallish trucks. Donkeys are magical and I love them, but you can't ask them to carry a working fridge.

I would assume that delivery will be made through the local hospital, which pretty much requires SOME road as a supply line.

If roads are inadequate, sounds like a job for a VTOL aircraft like the MV-22 Osprey or perhaps a helicopter. If there's a body of water nearby, such as a lake, perhaps a seaplane could make delivery.

All of this is going to be reaally expensive, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if we had to raise money to pay for it. This is a war; the first real global war in a century. A war fought against a virus rather than other human beings , thankfully. Maybe it's time for Victory bonds to make a comeback?

- and thus Africa and rural India are unlikely to have access to the "fancy" vaccines. I'm glad Oxford found a different approach.

As am I . Nonetheless, I think we need to build out infrastructure so Rural India and Africa can use the RNA vaccines as well. It's a toy for rich people now, but what was rich people only in one generation is a mass product the next, if there's demand. See: Automobiles, airplanes, cell phones, computer tablets, etc. etc.

COVID-19 won't be the first disease we face of this sort, I think. Which means we need to have all the tools in the box to address them. If RNA vaccines are going to be a permanent solution, then we need it to be something available to everyone.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[sihnfahl]

See again the lack of infrastructure issues. There are plenty of places with a lot of people and no roads capable of supporting even smallish trucks. Donkeys are magical and I love them, but you can't ask them to carry a working fridge.

And yet, they still deliver vaccines to those areas. There are means other than donkeys and trucks, after all.

The biggest problem isn't so much the transportation, really. It's the blackouts that can occur at the vaccination sites, which they've been working on because of events years ago that have resulted in vaccine spoilage.

[Xyril]

Donkeys are magical and I love them, but you can't ask them to carry a working fridge.

GW

Although that image would be the inspiration for some amazing post-apocalyptic fiction.

And yet, they still deliver vaccines to those areas. There are means other than donkeys and trucks, after all.

But do they do so with the same stringent storage requirements, in the amounts we envision?

I see two broad vaccination outcomes. One, the endemic outcome where COVID never leaves entirely, but regular vaccinations keep the death rates under control. One big push, perhaps with government backing, might be financially feasible, and would save many lives, but if immunity is as ephemeral as people seem to expect, the virus would simply resurge in a year or two. Regular vaccination pushes would be much more of an economic and logistically challenge.

Two, the eradication outcome where vaccinations and near herd-immunity work in concert with other measures to reduce the caseload to zero and to ensure no viable virus remains dormant anywhere. This would require only one or two massive vaccination pushes, but that push would be substantial, and it would have to take place over a short time-scale largely constrained by how long immunity lasts. Now, if you're talking about bringing polio or MMR vaccines to impoverished regions, you can make a targeted effort focusing on vulnerable age groups and communities, and with relatively few doses you can make a huge impact on mortality. Immunity lasts for years, and eradicating the disease isn't an immediate goal of the effort, so it's okay that they miss a lot of people. To get rid of COVID long-term, we'd need to eliminate pockets of active disease that could be transmitted to other communities once immunity fades. On a global level, we might get away with staggering our efforts if we have very stringent and effective border countries. However, in any single country or region with substantial internal freedom of movement, we'd effectively need to vaccinate everyone at once.

[Chen]

OK, the Oxford vaccine results are back - 70% effectiveness, climbing to 90% if you use a two step (first step is a half-dose*, which I'm thinking of as "priming" the immune system, even though it probably doesn't actually work that way). Seriously cheaper than the other two, and doesn't need anywhere near the refrigeration, so we may actually have here something that will be of use to most of humanity instead of just rich people.

There’s something iffy for on those results. A half dose followed by full dose 1 month later is 90% effective but a full dose followed by another full dose 1 month later was only 62% effective. That sounds like a small sample size problem to me.

[Tvtyrant]

Although that image would be the inspiration for some amazing post-apocalyptic fiction.



But do they do so with the same stringent storage requirements, in the amounts we envision?

I see two broad vaccination outcomes. One, the endemic outcome where COVID never leaves entirely, but regular vaccinations keep the death rates under control. One big push, perhaps with government backing, might be financially feasible, and would save many lives, but if immunity is as ephemeral as people seem to expect, the virus would simply resurge in a year or two. Regular vaccination pushes would be much more of an economic and logistically challenge.

Two, the eradication outcome where vaccinations and near herd-immunity work in concert with other measures to reduce the caseload to zero and to ensure no viable virus remains dormant anywhere. This would require only one or two massive vaccination pushes, but that push would be substantial, and it would have to take place over a short time-scale largely constrained by how long immunity lasts. Now, if you're talking about bringing polio or MMR vaccines to impoverished regions, you can make a targeted effort focusing on vulnerable age groups and communities, and with relatively few doses you can make a huge impact on mortality. Immunity lasts for years, and eradicating the disease isn't an immediate goal of the effort, so it's okay that they miss a lot of people. To get rid of COVID long-term, we'd need to eliminate pockets of active disease that could be transmitted to other communities once immunity fades. On a global level, we might get away with staggering our efforts if we have very stringent and effective border countries. However, in any single country or region with substantial internal freedom of movement, we'd effectively need to vaccinate everyone at once.

It's also important to remember that we evolve to resist new viruses and they evolve to be less lethal over time, as continued success is dependent on transmission and lethality inhibits that. Pushing the virus down long enough will serve to reduce it to another strain of flu, it's just a matter of "how long is long enough."

[sktarq]

There’s something iffy for on those results. A half dose followed by full dose 1 month later is 90% effective but a full dose followed by another full dose 1 month later was only 62% effective. That sounds like a small sample size problem to me.

There is a classic line.

Immunology is where logic goes to die.

[veti]

That's where hopefully the WHO steps in. They inoculate poor nations for polio, after all, and they even were part of the recent 'ring' inoculation for Ebola during the last outbreak.

The Pfizer vaccine will cost several hundred dollars per dose, once you factor in the costs of distribution. The Moderna one, something in the ballpark of $50. If the WHO devoted its entire budget exclusively to this, it'd take over ten years just to work their way through Africa, never mind the rest of the world. And that's assuming you only need one dose per person for life, which seems implausibly optimistic.

That's why the Oxford vaccine is so important - it's a decent option that's an order of magnitude cheaper, which puts it within range of most of the world.

[Xyril]

It's also important to remember that we evolve to resist new viruses and they evolve to be less lethal over time, as continued success is dependent on transmission and lethality inhibits that. Pushing the virus down long enough will serve to reduce it to another strain of flu, it's just a matter of "how long is long enough."

That's a really good point I didn't consider. My worry is that "long enough" would still be well beyond our means (or at least, our willingness.) In terms of human evolution, the time scales are simply too high (and wouldn't reducing lethality through vaccination, treatment, and prevention slow that rate?) In terms of viral evolution, even timescales of "two or three rounds of total vaccination" would be incredibly taxing, based on the numbers Veti stated. Not beyond global economic capacity, but certainly straining the willingness of society and institutions to support such efforts--particularly if after the first few rounds, scientists can't give any more certain predictions beyond "if we keep doing this, things will eventually get better and we won't need to keep doing this."

[Tvtyrant]

That's a really good point I didn't consider. My worry is that "long enough" would still be well beyond our means (or at least, our willingness.) In terms of human evolution, the time scales are simply too high (and wouldn't reducing lethality through vaccination, treatment, and prevention slow that rate?) In terms of viral evolution, even timescales of "two or three rounds of total vaccination" would be incredibly taxing, based on the numbers Veti stated. Not beyond global economic capacity, but certainly straining the willingness of society and institutions to support such efforts--particularly if after the first few rounds, scientists can't give any more certain predictions beyond "if we keep doing this, things will eventually get better and we won't need to keep doing this."

This is a good point. Artificial and natural forms of resistance are kind of opposed here, and I'm not certain I have the stomach for "let it circulate until it becomes less lethal."

The process is sound in the long run, as the less deadly strains will spread more easily and lead to the population being resistant to the more deadly strains. How long that takes IDK.

[burpbot]

When this is all over, and it is - once again - not a big deal, just remember I said: It's just the flu.

Just like the other giant flu scares, SARS, MERS, pig flu, chicken flu, whatever flu - this one also isn't anything at all to get worked up about. It's just ... the flu.

That's not to say that the legendary A-PRIME flu (the one Stephen King describes wiping out humanity in The Stand) isn't an actual possibility. It's just not this one.

Wow, didn't this comment, and others like it, age like vinegar?

[Tyndmyr]

Be that as it may, we are also testing 10 times as many people now as we were in April. In general people who are sick enough to need treatment are going to end up at the hospital no matter how much testing we do, but people who are asymptomatic only show up in the case numbers if we have a wide enough net in the testing to catch them. My objections flat out aren't "we shouldn't worry because the higher case numbers are fake", they are "comparing case loads now to case loads in April doesn't work".

Unfortunately, while nothing is ever apples to apples perfectly...best available data does point to this being worse than April. Hospitalization rates are rough, positivity rates on tests are rough.

If it were the same number of positives with increased testing, that'd be a good sign, but it's a higher RATE of positives. That's unambiguously negative, even if overall test numbers have changed.

Preventative measures are....wildly inconsistent where I'm at. More stuff is being shut down, kind of, though still less than the first wave. Some of the measures I have doubts about. Keeping bars and resteraunts open, but limiting hours may, for instance, concentrate customers into a smaller time window, potentially increasing exposure risk. I believe the hope is that bars closing at ten will keep the drunks home altogether, but, uh, very social drunks who give zero craps about covid are not known for long term planning.

Had a fambly member get it, and wasn't told until post recovery, but she's good, nobody caught it from her. Other cases around me here and there. Probably no personal exposure yet, so far as I know, but, uh, who knows, right?

Some places are requiring folks to show back up at work even if they have known exposure and haven't gotten a test result back. Other places are requiring people to not work if they have tested for any reason, even purely elective.

Toilet paper is, at this point, largely gone from all areas again, as stockpiling started back up a week or two ago. Fortunately, I'm good on that. Perhaps there is some single ply left, if you are not picky. I am still cheerfully seeing movies, on the basis of literally zero other people showing up in the theater. On that note, Freaky is sadly, kind of a not great film.

It's kind of odd that everyone's internalized theaters as being dangerous(and as a result, nobody is there, making them...not dangerous?) but there are literally crowds at resteraunts. Something about the risk assessment there seems off to me.

[Bartmanhomer]

A Facebook friend of mine told me that they going to released the vaccine next month and everything is going back to normal until May.

[warty goblin]

Movies are, at this point, more work to go see than the enormous number of in-home options a person has available. It's a thing that's fun to do once and a while, but not doing it for a while doesn't make life discernably worse. The risk may or may not be low, but the reward is definitely small.

Not eating out requires a person to do annoying things like cook. Every single night. If you're working from home, food prep is up to 3 times a day, and you might be cooking for multiple people in the household. That's actual work. Sure there's takeout, but lots of foods don't take out all that gracefully - cold french fries are just not the same - and you can't meet up with friends for takeout the same way you can just meet up at the restaurant. Plus, you get to see places that aren't your living room*! Lack of restaurants actually does make life worse for a lot of people.

And that's without getting into the weirdoid motivated I'm-a-good-person anti-thought that we as a species are so good at. After all, if I'm being safe and not going to the movies or Disney World or a cruise ship, I'm safe. So it's ok if I go out to eat, not like I mean any harm by it, and I've been good so I deserve a treat. Truly the road to unrestrained exponential disease growth is paved with good intentions.

*I vaguely remember that such places exist.

[NichG]

Just keep in mind that a 90% effective vaccine is like living in a world with infection numbers 1/10th what they actually are, not 'I don't need to worry period'. If everyone is vaccinated and immediately rushes to the restaurants daily, overall cases will still decrease because taking transmission to 1/10 lowers R0 enough to go below 1. But their net personal risk would still likely be higher during the month or so before that brings infection counts down.

It also means that if you personally get vaccinated but everyone around you doesn't, you're still going to be at risk in the long run if you go out.

[Xyril]

Wow, didn't this comment, and others like it, age like vinegar?

To be fair, he did repeatedly admonish us not to give any credence to assertions and opinions offered by non-medical professionals, and also disclosed that he was not a medical professional before/while offering his assertions and opinions.

It's kind of like the undercover cop repeatedly telling you that in fact no, cops aren't required to admit they're cops in those situations even if you ask them directly. Sure, you probably aren't going to be ecstatic about going to prison for trying to buy a bootleg copy of Mulan, but you've gotta respect the honesty.

[sktarq]

Eh. Kinda.

The issue is if the vaccine is community wide 80% effective (between unvaccinated and ineffective vaccinations) then the R0 will drop by basically the same amount. And if it drops below one ....then the whole thing dies out pretty sharpish. In areas with decent vaccine coverage there just won't be the exposure...you won't be exposed to 20% of exposure because few and few people will carry it.

[Strigon]

Just keep in mind that a 90% effective vaccine is like living in a world with infection numbers 1/10th what they actually are, not 'I don't need to worry period'. If everyone is vaccinated and immediately rushes to the restaurants daily, overall cases will still decrease because taking transmission to 1/10 lowers R0 enough to go below 1. But their net personal risk would still likely be higher during the month or so before that brings infection counts down.

It also means that if you personally get vaccinated but everyone around you doesn't, you're still going to be at risk in the long run if you go out.

In a vacuum, yes, but there are 2 major problems with that math.

The first is that there's no data (AFAIK) on the severity of the disease in the vaccinated population. It's possible that the vaccine prevents 90% of infections, and renders the remaining 10% no more than a nuisance. Technically, it's also possible that the remaining 10% have a worse reaction due to some weird immune overreaction, too.

The second is that it's probably not a flat 90% reduction. My understanding is that the phase 3 trials select from the broadest possible range of subjects - young and old, healthy and infirm. We're constantly told to get flu shots because the elderly and those with compromised immune systems don't get the full benefit from them. If this follows a similar trend, your personal risk of vaccine failure could be far less than 10% (if you're young and healthy), or far greater if you're compromised.

[NichG]

In a vacuum, yes, but there are 2 major problems with that math.

The first is that there's no data (AFAIK) on the severity of the disease in the vaccinated population. It's possible that the vaccine prevents 90% of infections, and renders the remaining 10% no more than a nuisance. Technically, it's also possible that the remaining 10% have a worse reaction due to some weird immune overreaction, too.

The second is that it's probably not a flat 90% reduction. My understanding is that the phase 3 trials select from the broadest possible range of subjects - young and old, healthy and infirm. We're constantly told to get flu shots because the elderly and those with compromised immune systems don't get the full benefit from them. If this follows a similar trend, your personal risk of vaccine failure could be far less than 10% (if you're young and healthy), or far greater if you're compromised.

The problem with both of those is that you have no way of measuring or inferring ahead of time whether you're in the lucky 90% or the unlucky 10%. So if you say 'I'm younger, that's probably good right?' or 'I'm male, that's probably good right?' or whatever demographic factor you want to consider, it's just wishful thinking until the numbers come out with enough statistical power to let you actually check that.

So if you're in a place where say 1% of the population are still actively carrying Covid and just got your second shot, I still wouldn't rush out to the restaurants because you think you're safe now that you had the shot. It's true that the numbers should decrease as the vaccine becomes generally available, but the point is that the thing that protects you more is the decrease in numbers in the area rather than personal immunity. If for whatever reason the numbers don't decrease (for example, if people can't afford, don't have access to, or refuse the vaccine in large numbers; or if people go rushing out into high risk activities after they get the jab), then in terms of the personal decision of 'what am I willing to risk?' it's important to quantify things. Especially since the relief of thinking 'now I don't have to worry about Covid!' is tempting.

In terms of personal risk, for example, going out around other people un-vaccinated in Vermont right now would have about the same immediate personal risk as having had one of the 90% vaccines and going out around other people in North Dakota (which has ~10x the case density), holding constant other factors like differences in ventilation, mask usage, group size, etc.

[snowblizz]

A Facebook friend of mine told me that they going to released the vaccine next month and everything is going back to normal until May.

Unfortunately that is *not* going to happen. This will be a long slow process of normalization. And "normal" isn't what you remember as normal from May 2019, and is never going to be. By May, *maybe* a significant portion of populations in the West are vaccinated. Except that there's a strong current of distrust (I'm completely discounting the ra ra antivaxxers here, they add to the total too) based on previous "emergency vaccines" like the swineflu one.

That still leaves holdouts and others who can't be vaccianted, and people will remain vary. You'll get new local outbreaks spiking panic about covid-19 variant strains, some already exist, and they might not work with current vaccine. Even though the RNA based ones in theory can be quickly modified it means everytime it happens people's trust in it will go down further, more peopel chosing not to take it.

So no, May will not be normal.

[Strigon]

The problem with both of those is that you have no way of measuring or inferring ahead of time whether you're in the lucky 90% or the unlucky 10%. So if you say 'I'm younger, that's probably good right?' or 'I'm male, that's probably good right?' or whatever demographic factor you want to consider, it's just wishful thinking until the numbers come out with enough statistical power to let you actually check that.

First off, it's not wishful thinking, it's an educated guess based on past diseases.
Second, for all the reasons I listed, it's not as simple as "90% lucky, 10% unlucky". We don't know exactly how the numbers work out, but we can be pretty confident it isn't as simple as rolling a 10% chance for each individual person.
Third, you are correct that we don't have the numbers yet, but they are out there. That's part of what the study is for. By the time people are getting vaccinated en masse, we will have a pretty good handle on who it tends to fail for.

Managing your personal risk is important, but that's not what generalized numbers like this are for. They're for predicting the spread of the virus in a vaccinated population, where people are mixed up enough to make taking the average useful.

[Bartmanhomer]

Unfortunately that is *not* going to happen. This will be a long slow process of normalization. And "normal" isn't what you remember as normal from May 2019, and is never going to be. By May, *maybe* a significant portion of populations in the West are vaccinated. Except that there's a strong current of distrust (I'm completely discounting the ra ra antivaxxers here, they add to the total too) based on previous "emergency vaccines" like the swineflu one.

That still leaves holdouts and others who can't be vaccianted, and people will remain vary. You'll get new local outbreaks spiking panic about covid-19 variant strains, some already exist, and they might not work with current vaccine. Even though the RNA based ones in theory can be quickly modified it means everytime it happens people's trust in it will go down further, more peopel chosing not to take it.

So no, May will not be normal.

Aww...when will it be normal again?

[Keltest]

Aww...when will it be normal again?

Depends on what you consider to be normal and where you live. If you live out in the country of the US somewhere with a relatively low infection rate but still have access to the vaccine, normalcy by april might actually be feasible. If you live in, say, New York City were probably looking at years or decades before things totally return to the way they were before the pandemic, if they ever do.

[Bartmanhomer]

Depends on what you consider to be normal and where you live. If you live out in the country of the US somewhere with a relatively low infection rate but still have access to the vaccine, normalcy by April might be feasible. If you live in, say, New York City were probably looking at years or decades before things return to the way they were before the pandemic if they ever do.

Well, I live in New York City so I fit that criterion.

[Rogar Demonblud]

As one of the people living 'in the country', I am confident NYC will be back to normal long before we are. We still have a significant chunk of the population thinking COVID doesn't actually exist.

[Tyndmyr]

Movies are, at this point, more work to go see than the enormous number of in-home options a person has available. It's a thing that's fun to do once and a while, but not doing it for a while doesn't make life discernably worse. The risk may or may not be low, but the reward is definitely small.

There's also fairly few good films coming out. This summer has been the most lackluster release schedule I've ever seen, almost everything with a lot of anticipation was canceled.

I do sympathize with folks wanting to eat out. Hell, I want to do all the normal things again. And everybody staying inside for ages isn't realistic, it seems. No matter what rules happen, there will always be at least some people deciding to go out anyways. Mostly, I'm just sort of idly wondering how, taking those things as a given, you could improve things a bit.

As for the vaccine, I believe it's a two shot affair, so immunizing everyone will take some time. I don't know exactly how much the first shot attenuates risk, but I figure there is probably a reason for the second shot, so there will probably be at least some adjustment time before the artificial herd immunity kicks in. Normalization will probably also depend on where you are. Places with widespread modern medical care are likely to acheive widespread immunization more rapidly than developing areas. Even if your area is good and everything is pretty much open, travel may be something to be cautious about for some time.

[Bartmanhomer]

There are also fairly few good films coming out. This summer has been the most lackluster release schedule I've ever seen, almost everything with a lot of anticipation was canceled.

I do sympathize with folks wanting to eat out. Hell, I want to do all the normal things again. And everybody staying inside for ages isn't realistic, it seems. No matter what rules happen, there will always be at least some people deciding to go out anyway. Mostly, I'm just sort of idly wondering how taking those things as a given, you could improve things a bit.

As for the vaccine, I believe it's a two-shot affair, so immunizing everyone will take some time. I don't know exactly how much the first shot attenuates risk, but I figure there is probably a reason for the second shot, so there will probably be at least some adjustment time before the artificial herd immunity kicks in. Normalization will probably also depend on where you are. Places with widespread modern medical care are likely to achieve widespread immunization more rapidly than developing areas. Even if your area is good and everything is pretty much open, travel may be something to be cautious about for some time.

You're not the only one who wants to do outside activities. I want to go to the movie theater again so I can post my movie reviews for the movies I watch in this forum.