Covid vaccination status?

[webny99]

To extend the comparison even further, maybe we could say the US system is more like a turnpike, while other countries' systems are more like a regular freeway or expressway.

It's worth noting that it's not all peaches and roses when things become more affordable. Canada, for example, has free healthcare, but their delays and wait times are ridiculous. You'll likely be on a waiting list for years unless you're in a life-or-death situation. Their system might be more like a 6-lane urban arterial.

[Roadgeekteen]

Maybe we need a new healthcare thread.

[Rothman]

To extend the comparison even further, maybe we could say the US system is more like a turnpike, while other countries' systems are more like a regular freeway or expressway.

It's worth noting that it's not all peaches and roses when things become more affordable. Canada, for example, has free healthcare, but their delays and wait times are ridiculous. You'll likely be on a waiting list for years unless you're in a life-or-death situation. Their system might be more like a 6-lane urban arterial.

*citation needed*

[Roadgeekteen]

To extend the comparison even further, maybe we could say the US system is more like a turnpike, while other countries' systems are more like a regular freeway or expressway.

It's worth noting that it's not all peaches and roses when things become more affordable. Canada, for example, has free healthcare, but their delays and wait times are ridiculous. You'll likely be on a waiting list for years unless you're in a life-or-death situation. Their system might be more like a 6-lane urban arterial.

*citation needed*

Do we need to source everything on this forum?

[Rothman]

To extend the comparison even further, maybe we could say the US system is more like a turnpike, while other countries' systems are more like a regular freeway or expressway.

It's worth noting that it's not all peaches and roses when things become more affordable. Canada, for example, has free healthcare, but their delays and wait times are ridiculous. You'll likely be on a waiting list for years unless you're in a life-or-death situation. Their system might be more like a 6-lane urban arterial.

*citation needed*

Do we need to source everything on this forum?

If becoming hyperbolic, yes.

[Roadgeekteen]

To extend the comparison even further, maybe we could say the US system is more like a turnpike, while other countries' systems are more like a regular freeway or expressway.

It's worth noting that it's not all peaches and roses when things become more affordable. Canada, for example, has free healthcare, but their delays and wait times are ridiculous. You'll likely be on a waiting list for years unless you're in a life-or-death situation. Their system might be more like a 6-lane urban arterial.

*citation needed*

Do we need to source everything on this forum?

If becoming hyperbolic, yes.

I do know that Canada's healthcare can have long waits.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2020#:~:text=The%20waiting%20time%20in%20this%20segment%20increased%20from%2010.8%20weeks,reasonable%E2%80%9D%20(7.8%20weeks).

[NE2]

But that isn't necessarily a commentary on our country's health care system.  Perhaps people simply are unable or unwilling to take advantage of that system.

It's a bit (but not exactly) like saying a city's schools are crap because graduation rates are low.

Nope, it's like saying that a city's education system as a whole is crap. The education system includes getting people to want to learn and funding all schools according to what they need.

[Roadgeekteen]

But that isn't necessarily a commentary on our country's health care system.  Perhaps people simply are unable or unwilling to take advantage of that system.

It's a bit (but not exactly) like saying a city's schools are crap because graduation rates are low.

Nope, it's like saying that a city's education system as a whole is crap. The education system includes getting people to want to learn and funding all schools according to what they need.

It's a two-way street. Parental engagement has a lot to do with student success.

[NE2]

Helping parents with their kids or providing an adequate substitute is also part of the education system.

[Roadgeekteen]

Helping parents with their kids or providing an adequate substitute is also part of the education system.

Yes, but it can't solve all problems.

[hbelkins]

Someone else mentioned it, but I'm curious about the others who voted they aren't taking the shot but haven't commented about it. Are they afraid they're going to be piled on like what has happened to me?

I'm also curious as to how many people will continue to wear masks when governmental mandates expire or are lifted, and how many people will continue to avoid activities such as eating in restaurants or attending events like movies, concerts, or ballgames. I know we have at least one person who has expressed an extreme reluctance to stay in a hotel/motel.

[hotdogPi]

I'm also curious as to how many people will continue to wear masks when governmental mandates expire or are lifted, and how many people will continue to avoid activities such as eating in restaurants or attending events like movies, concerts, or ballgames. I know we have at least one person who has expressed an extreme reluctance to stay in a hotel/motel.

My guess is that it will stop near-suddenly when we pass the herd immunity threshold. (Passing the threshold means the virus will fade away even with normal daily life. It's not instant, but it does mean that going back to normal won't be a problem anymore.)

Increased work from home might be permanent.

[NWI_Irish96]

But that isn't necessarily a commentary on our country's health care system.  Perhaps people simply are unable or unwilling to take advantage of that system.

It's a bit (but not exactly) like saying a city's schools are crap because graduation rates are low.

Nope, it's like saying that a city's education system as a whole is crap. The education system includes getting people to want to learn and funding all schools according to what they need.

It's a two-way street. Parental engagement has a lot to do with student success.

That's true 100%, but in single-family homes (which are much more prevalent in impoverished areas), the parent often has to choose between working and being more involved with the kids. This is a no-win. If the parent doesn't work, (s)he is accused of freeloading off the government. If the parent does work, which is often evening/night work because that's what's more available in poor areas, then the kids is much more unsupervised and more susceptible to bad influences like gangs/drugs/etc.

Would this be a better country if people didn't have kids out of wedlock and didn't get divorced so much? Of course, but you can't legislate that. A real poverty-busting program must not only give poor kids the same quality schools as middle and upper class kids, but also give parents support so that they can both earn money at a job and have support in raising their kids. If we really committed to this, poverty would go down drastically within 20 years, with a corresponding decrease in crime, drugs and dependence on government support. The money you spend gets paid back down the road via decreased need for police/courts/public assistance plus the corresponding increase in taxpayers who would otherwise be either dead or making a living illegally and not paying taxes.

[Roadgeekteen]

But that isn't necessarily a commentary on our country's health care system.  Perhaps people simply are unable or unwilling to take advantage of that system.

It's a bit (but not exactly) like saying a city's schools are crap because graduation rates are low.

Nope, it's like saying that a city's education system as a whole is crap. The education system includes getting people to want to learn and funding all schools according to what they need.

It's a two-way street. Parental engagement has a lot to do with student success.

That's true 100%, but in single-family homes (which are much more prevalent in impoverished areas), the parent often has to choose between working and being more involved with the kids. This is a no-win. If the parent doesn't work, (s)he is accused of freeloading off the government. If the parent does work, which is often evening/night work because that's what's more available in poor areas, then the kids is much more unsupervised and more susceptible to bad influences like gangs/drugs/etc.

Would this be a better country if people didn't have kids out of wedlock and didn't get divorced so much? Of course, but you can't legislate that. A real poverty-busting program must not only give poor kids the same quality schools as middle and upper class kids, but also give parents support so that they can both earn money at a job and have support in raising their kids. If we really committed to this, poverty would go down drastically within 20 years, with a corresponding decrease in crime, drugs and dependence on government support. The money you spend gets paid back down the road via decreased need for police/courts/public assistance plus the corresponding increase in taxpayers who would otherwise be either dead or making a living illegally and not paying taxes.

What would we do about single-parent homes?

[kkt]

First dose of Pfizer done.

One more to go in three weeks.

Yay!

[NWI_Irish96]

But that isn't necessarily a commentary on our country's health care system.  Perhaps people simply are unable or unwilling to take advantage of that system.

It's a bit (but not exactly) like saying a city's schools are crap because graduation rates are low.

Nope, it's like saying that a city's education system as a whole is crap. The education system includes getting people to want to learn and funding all schools according to what they need.

It's a two-way street. Parental engagement has a lot to do with student success.

That's true 100%, but in single-family homes (which are much more prevalent in impoverished areas), the parent often has to choose between working and being more involved with the kids. This is a no-win. If the parent doesn't work, (s)he is accused of freeloading off the government. If the parent does work, which is often evening/night work because that's what's more available in poor areas, then the kids is much more unsupervised and more susceptible to bad influences like gangs/drugs/etc.

Would this be a better country if people didn't have kids out of wedlock and didn't get divorced so much? Of course, but you can't legislate that. A real poverty-busting program must not only give poor kids the same quality schools as middle and upper class kids, but also give parents support so that they can both earn money at a job and have support in raising their kids. If we really committed to this, poverty would go down drastically within 20 years, with a corresponding decrease in crime, drugs and dependence on government support. The money you spend gets paid back down the road via decreased need for police/courts/public assistance plus the corresponding increase in taxpayers who would otherwise be either dead or making a living illegally and not paying taxes.

What would we do about single-parent homes?

There need to be school-based (yet separate personnel from the schools) community centers where kids who have working parents can spend time being tutored/mentored while the parent is at work. Get the kids interested in something positive from an early age + keep them away from drugs and gangs.

[J N Winkler]

I'm also curious as to how many people will continue to wear masks when governmental mandates expire or are lifted, and how many people will continue to avoid activities such as eating in restaurants or attending events like movies, concerts, or ballgames. I know we have at least one person who has expressed an extreme reluctance to stay in a hotel/motel.

I have now had a full course of shots and live in a jurisdiction with no general mask mandate, yet I still wear a mask.  I don't intend to do that on a permanent basis, but am waiting to see what happens with herd immunity and the covid variants that are in circulation.

I've actually toyed with the idea of booking flights to and from Mexico City for the autumn, but feel that would be premature at this point.  I feel comfortable taking multi-day trips out of town right now, but as visiting museums is a major travel focus for me, I think I'd find them more enjoyable once cultural facilities feel safe dropping indoors mask requirements on their premises.  I think we would need an all-clear from the CDC in order for that to happen.  (I'm happy to go to our local art museum with a mask, since my visits are typically both brief and frequent.  For a yearly visit to the Nelson-Atkins in Kansas City or a once-in-several-years visit to the Art Institute in Chicago, I'd like to be able to spend a few hours without my glasses fogging up.)

[vdeane]

But that isn't necessarily a commentary on our country's health care system.  Perhaps people simply are unable or unwilling to take advantage of that system.

It's a bit (but not exactly) like saying a city's schools are crap because graduation rates are low.

Nope, it's like saying that a city's education system as a whole is crap. The education system includes getting people to want to learn and funding all schools according to what they need.

It's a two-way street. Parental engagement has a lot to do with student success.

That's true 100%, but in single-family homes (which are much more prevalent in impoverished areas), the parent often has to choose between working and being more involved with the kids. This is a no-win. If the parent doesn't work, (s)he is accused of freeloading off the government. If the parent does work, which is often evening/night work because that's what's more available in poor areas, then the kids is much more unsupervised and more susceptible to bad influences like gangs/drugs/etc.

Would this be a better country if people didn't have kids out of wedlock and didn't get divorced so much? Of course, but you can't legislate that. A real poverty-busting program must not only give poor kids the same quality schools as middle and upper class kids, but also give parents support so that they can both earn money at a job and have support in raising their kids. If we really committed to this, poverty would go down drastically within 20 years, with a corresponding decrease in crime, drugs and dependence on government support. The money you spend gets paid back down the road via decreased need for police/courts/public assistance plus the corresponding increase in taxpayers who would otherwise be either dead or making a living illegally and not paying taxes.

What would we do about single-parent homes?

I don't know about single-parent homes, but the post said single-family homes, and there's an easy solution to that: zoning.

[Roadgeekteen]

But that isn't necessarily a commentary on our country's health care system.  Perhaps people simply are unable or unwilling to take advantage of that system.

It's a bit (but not exactly) like saying a city's schools are crap because graduation rates are low.

Nope, it's like saying that a city's education system as a whole is crap. The education system includes getting people to want to learn and funding all schools according to what they need.

It's a two-way street. Parental engagement has a lot to do with student success.

That's true 100%, but in single-family homes (which are much more prevalent in impoverished areas), the parent often has to choose between working and being more involved with the kids. This is a no-win. If the parent doesn't work, (s)he is accused of freeloading off the government. If the parent does work, which is often evening/night work because that's what's more available in poor areas, then the kids is much more unsupervised and more susceptible to bad influences like gangs/drugs/etc.

Would this be a better country if people didn't have kids out of wedlock and didn't get divorced so much? Of course, but you can't legislate that. A real poverty-busting program must not only give poor kids the same quality schools as middle and upper class kids, but also give parents support so that they can both earn money at a job and have support in raising their kids. If we really committed to this, poverty would go down drastically within 20 years, with a corresponding decrease in crime, drugs and dependence on government support. The money you spend gets paid back down the road via decreased need for police/courts/public assistance plus the corresponding increase in taxpayers who would otherwise be either dead or making a living illegally and not paying taxes.

What would we do about single-parent homes?

I don't know about single-parent homes, but the post said single-family homes, and there's an easy solution to that: zoning.

What would zoning do?

[vdeane]

But that isn't necessarily a commentary on our country's health care system.  Perhaps people simply are unable or unwilling to take advantage of that system.

It's a bit (but not exactly) like saying a city's schools are crap because graduation rates are low.

Nope, it's like saying that a city's education system as a whole is crap. The education system includes getting people to want to learn and funding all schools according to what they need.

It's a two-way street. Parental engagement has a lot to do with student success.

That's true 100%, but in single-family homes (which are much more prevalent in impoverished areas), the parent often has to choose between working and being more involved with the kids. This is a no-win. If the parent doesn't work, (s)he is accused of freeloading off the government. If the parent does work, which is often evening/night work because that's what's more available in poor areas, then the kids is much more unsupervised and more susceptible to bad influences like gangs/drugs/etc.

Would this be a better country if people didn't have kids out of wedlock and didn't get divorced so much? Of course, but you can't legislate that. A real poverty-busting program must not only give poor kids the same quality schools as middle and upper class kids, but also give parents support so that they can both earn money at a job and have support in raising their kids. If we really committed to this, poverty would go down drastically within 20 years, with a corresponding decrease in crime, drugs and dependence on government support. The money you spend gets paid back down the road via decreased need for police/courts/public assistance plus the corresponding increase in taxpayers who would otherwise be either dead or making a living illegally and not paying taxes.

What would we do about single-parent homes?

I don't know about single-parent homes, but the post said single-family homes, and there's an easy solution to that: zoning.

What would zoning do?

Require developers build multi-family housing (ie, apartments).

[webny99]

To extend the comparison even further, maybe we could say the US system is more like a turnpike, while other countries' systems are more like a regular freeway or expressway.

It's worth noting that it's not all peaches and roses when things become more affordable. Canada, for example, has free healthcare, but their delays and wait times are ridiculous. You'll likely be on a waiting list for years unless you're in a life-or-death situation. Their system might be more like a 6-lane urban arterial.

*citation needed*

Do we need to source everything on this forum?

If becoming hyperbolic, yes.

I do know that Canada's healthcare can have long waits.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2020#:~:text=The%20waiting%20time%20in%20this%20segment%20increased%20from%2010.8%20weeks,reasonable%E2%80%9D%20(7.8%20weeks).

Good source. That's the one I was going to link to as well.

Yes, "years" might be hyperbole, but not by much. PEI reports waits of 46.5 weeks, so basically a year. And I also have friends in Ontario that have shared experiences of 6+ months of wait time.

[US 89]

Got my second dose of Pfizer today.

Hopefully I don't get any side effects.

[Roadgeekteen]

Got my second dose of Pfizer today.

Hopefully I don't get any side effects.

Almost everyone gets them (my grandmother didn't for some reason). I think that stronger side effects means the vaccine was more effective, but I could be wrong.

[Max Rockatansky]

Someone else mentioned it, but I'm curious about the others who voted they aren't taking the shot but haven't commented about it. Are they afraid they're going to be piled on like what has happened to me?

I'm also curious as to how many people will continue to wear masks when governmental mandates expire or are lifted, and how many people will continue to avoid activities such as eating in restaurants or attending events like movies, concerts, or ballgames. I know we have at least one person who has expressed an extreme reluctance to stay in a hotel/motel.

Really I haven't been afraid to do much of anything normalized for probably at least half a year.  My own conclusion was that I likely caught COVID in December of 2019 which was followed up by my wife catching it for sure during the summer of 2020.  I was apparently too essential to work from home at any point last year which kind of made me question how much more dangerous things like going to the gym, staying at hotel or going somewhere to eat was by comparison (I have a very public job which has me interact with dozens of people daily).  I was seeing movies up until the theaters shut down and probably would be now if they actually had anything worth seeing.

In the case of the gym, that was a highly contentious issue for me personally given that I wasn't willing to sacrifice my health and stop weight lifting.  I built a pandemic gym in the garage when I didn't have any other options but once my gym reopened in defiance of California's purple tier restrictions I decided to return.  Considering my gym required masks and equipment to be cleaned I saw it as low risk.

If/when the mask mandate goes away, I have no inclination to wear one anymore.  I kind of feel like they have given people a false sense of security and there isn't much that can be truly done to prevent exposure in an enclosed space.  I'll probably carry a mask around just in case some private business requires it, I just prefer to avoid the headache of getting into debates with people when the time comes. 

So with all that said, I refer several pages back to what I said regarding a vaccination being a means to an ends for me towards resuming normalcy.  I don't want a lack of a vaccination to become a potential barrier which prevents me from doing the things I want to do in life.  Yeah, I don't think it is a particularly big deal for people to get a vaccine (meaning they ought to along with using a mask until it's not required) but I also know full well some are just never going to do so.  All the same I have no interest of trying to convince others who won't get a vaccine, I don't see that burden that is a worthwhile use of my time. 

[Ketchup99]

Why do you think you had it in December of 2019? We probably had fewer than 100 US cases by then.