Corona Vaccine - Anyone getting it?

This is a kindof off-vaccine-related comment, but what the hell, this whole thread's been derailed, I haven't read most of it, and it's bound to be locked any day now when someone shows up and starts spewing shinyhappy stuff...

As a society, we've been advancing towards more and more people living in cities or dense suburban areas.  And on top of that, even more people are all packing into trains, buses, and cars to drive into large urban areas for work.  Or 1000 student schools/ colleges.  All this is doing is creating a society where diseases like this are going to be more and more likely to ravage populations.  COVID has a survivability rate of around 99%, but is highly transmissible.  What happens when some virus happens to commingle high fatality rates along with high transmissibility? 

I've been working from home since, no E36 M3, March.  Since then I've had to go into an office/ shop at work maybe two or three days out of every month.  I've been busier than fire ants in South Carolina during mid-August, too.  Many of my friends have relayed similar accounts.  Interestingly, there seems to be a wide variation in what corporate plans are going forward- some, like Amazon, have said they intend to go back to a more traditional office setting.  Others, like many of the places my friends work for, have said they'll be cutting office space leases by 75-90%.  

Long term, do we keep piling into higher density living/ working situations and hope that our immune systems can keep up, or do we start to back off and decentralize?  I read somewhere that if we evenly distributed the population of this country, every man, woman, and child would have like 7 acres of land.  Obviously that's unrealistic, but it hints at just how huge this country is and how questionable it might be to cram millions of people into areas of a few square miles- if the technology to permit people to live/ work remotely becomes environmentally and economically viable.  Obviously, a brick layer and a surgeon can't work remotely, but an engineer can work at least partly remotely, and an accountant or a writer can be almost completely remote.  Listen to the radio lately- eventually you'll hear the DJ mention they're broadcasting from their basement or garage. 

As for social situations...as much as I love a good meal out, or a few drinks at the pub, perhaps we don't need hundreds of restaurants and bars in every city.  Maybe we eat and drink at home more?  Spend more time with our families, and less with strangers?  Maybe we create stronger bonds with a few people, and not casual relationships with dozens?

This conversation has drifted into some very questionable territory and some self control needs to be exercised. It is deeply disturbing to see the holocaust trivialized. I am sure there are many people on this forum whose experience of those events is not distant. Please refrain.

Don't be a dick. 

volvoclearinghouse said:

This is a kindof off-vaccine-related comment, but what the hell, this whole thread's been derailed, I haven't read most of it, and it's bound to be locked any day now when someone shows up and starts spewing shinyhappy stuff...

As a society, we've been advancing towards more and more people living in cities or dense suburban areas.  And on top of that, even more people are all packing into trains, buses, and cars to drive into large urban areas for work.  Or 1000 student schools/ colleges.  All this is doing is creating a society where diseases like this are going to be more and more likely to ravage populations.  COVID has a survivability rate of around 99%, but is highly transmissible.  What happens when some virus happens to commingle high fatality rates along with high transmissibility? 

I've been working from home since, no E36 M3, March.  Since then I've had to go into an office/ shop at work maybe two or three days out of every month.  I've been busier than fire ants in South Carolina during mid-August, too.  Many of my friends have relayed similar accounts.  Interestingly, there seems to be a wide variation in what corporate plans are going forward- some, like Amazon, have said they intend to go back to a more traditional office setting.  Others, like many of the places my friends work for, have said they'll be cutting office space leases by 75-90%.  

Long term, do we keep piling into higher density living/ working situations and hope that our immune systems can keep up, or do we start to back off and decentralize?  I read somewhere that if we evenly distributed the population of this country, every man, woman, and child would have like 7 acres of land.  Obviously that's unrealistic, but it hints at just how huge this country is and how questionable it might be to cram millions of people into areas of a few square miles- if the technology to permit people to live/ work remotely becomes environmentally and economically viable.  Obviously, a brick layer and a surgeon can't work remotely, but an engineer can work at least partly remotely, and an accountant or a writer can be almost completely remote.  Listen to the radio lately- eventually you'll hear the DJ mention they're broadcasting from their basement or garage. 

As for social situations...as much as I love a good meal out, or a few drinks at the pub, perhaps we don't need hundreds of restaurants and bars in every city.  Maybe we eat and drink at home more?  Spend more time with our families, and less with strangers?  Maybe we create stronger bonds with a few people, and not casual relationships with dozens?

The urban living you are concerned about has more benefits than disadvantages, I'd say.  Purely from a pandemic view, it's hard to argue against you.  From an environmental point, the best thing we could do is jam everyone into buildings built wall to wall, to save energy, and leave as much room as possible for food production.  Instead of many individuals, or small towns having to deal with waste or effluent, a single large facility is better than a thousand garbage dumps and poorly funded sewage treatment plants.  Instead of having to drive an hour for your supplies or medical care, you can walk a block, or take a train or bus.

As to working from home, while I'm sure there are people with the mindset to make that work, I'm not one of those people.  Work is at work, my recliner is at home.  I've tried it, and it did not work for me.

Appleseed said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

I agree that understanding science and the scientific method is important....

...but EVERYONE believes in something. 

Except nihilists . They believe in nothing. 

The problem with believing in nothing is you will believe anything.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

I totally agree, denser population is more efficient population in almost every way. 

There are the 'corncob' buildings in downtown chicago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_City) that I absolutely love the idea of. Condos, parking, restaurants, entertainment, and marina all in one structure. 

I love the idea of it. I'd love to build one at a race track - which I actually hear they may be doing in some places. But there still needs to be a balance. Not everyone (including maybe me) wants to live like that full time. 

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

Never said I WANTED to live like that...

jharry3 said:

Appleseed said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

I agree that understanding science and the scientific method is important....

...but EVERYONE believes in something. 

Except nihilists . They believe in nothing. 

The problem with believing in nothing is you will believe anything.

Actually it is quite the opposite. Nihilists will not follow anybody's ideology. 

I haven't been in this thread for a while, and from reading the last couple pages I'd say it was probably a safe choice. But the discussion of increased population density is an interesting discussion.

There are certainly efficiency advantages to that model, and if it's done well I imagine it can be a pleasant life enough life albeit one radically different from the one most of us Americans are comfortable with. There are certainly myriad technical challenges to making it functional (much less making it enjoyable.) Things like food production and delivery, sewage management, transportation, and so on. These are all things that science, technology, and good planning can address and handle. I see the health risks, especially pandemics, as a similar issue. The technology is available to minimize the impact of illnesses, and the technology to get out in front of a pandemic is improving and getting faster every day. With proper funding and motivation we could develop ways to speed it up even further. But the tech means nothing without good procedures and planning around it. Solving the human factor is the hardest, maybe impossible, part of it. 

I'm not going to argue about wether or not the US populations response has been right or wrong. It has been very different than the ways in which it was handled in other countries. Some of those have much higher population densities than the US while having notably lower per capita infection rates. As always, you have what a government dictates versus what a population actually does - and those are very different things for many, many reasons. 

What we knew about how to respond to a pandemic at the beginning of 2020 was almost completely based on historical data from the Spanish Flu. In the future you can bet that all the different responses we've seen to COVID-19 will be studied even more closely and best or correct practices will be identified. That sort of learning is part of what could save us as a species in the future. The question will always be, how do you make a population understand the importance of following those practices. 

ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) said:....  COVID-19 will be studied even more closely and best or correct practices will be identified. That sort of learning is part of what could save us as a species in the future. The question will always be, how do you make a population understand the importance of following those practices. 

Clearly you are not a military thinker. It will be studied even more closely, but not all for what you may see as benefit.

AAZCD (Forum Supporter) said:

ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) said:....  COVID-19 will be studied even more closely and best or correct practices will be identified. That sort of learning is part of what could save us as a species in the future. The question will always be, how do you make a population understand the importance of following those practices. 

Clearly you are not a military thinker. It will be studied even more closely, but not all for what you may see as benefit.

Ehh. The knowledge on how to wipe out all human life on earth with an engineered virus has been around for years. They don't need to study this one. 

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

Perhaps, but humans simply are social creatures. If you remove the social connections, eventually the "family" part stops occurring or becomes even more segmented and isolated than it already is.  

Do we need all of the various gathering places? Hard to say... A restaurant in a good location will survive, even if it has to close and then reopen under new ownership. Some locations will close forever, but new ones will open in new locations. 

But I do not see a wholesale shift in how people get together after all of this is over.  People just aren't wired that way. 

When all of this started back in March, my social life really didn't change that much.  But my social life generally centered around outdoor activities, which is something that could more or less be done under "social distancing" guidelines.  I'd ride with my friends 2-3 times per week and I'd work from home otherwise. Not being away from home and in NH actually improved my social life as a few new folks entered the fold.  Getting injured back in October has completely changed that. I have hardly seen anyone in person for over two months now.  And while I'm generally an introverted type who can survive on his own, the long stretches of isolation has become trying even for me. I get by through Facebook, some occasional Zoom gatherings, a Teams B.S.ing with co-workers now and then and simply this forum.  But online will never truly replace face to face interactions. 

While I do believe the WFH thing will become more permanent for me and my job, if the vaccinations can help return social gatherings to something resembling normality, I am all for it and will get it ASAFP.

Sooo.... back to the COVID.   In new news, they are reporting that those with cosmetic fillers may experience swelling from the Moderna vaccine.

https://abc13.com/moderna-vaccine-side-effects-covid-19-fda-dr-shirley-chi/9083838/

In a recent interview, one of the Kardashians said:

In reply to aircooled :

So you're saying there are fringe benefits to the Moderna vaccine?

Streetwiseguy said:

The urban living you are concerned about has more benefits than disadvantages, I'd say.  Purely from a pandemic view, it's hard to argue against you.  From an environmental point, the best thing we could do is jam everyone into buildings built wall to wall, to save energy, and leave as much room as possible for food production.  Instead of many individuals, or small towns having to deal with waste or effluent, a single large facility is better than a thousand garbage dumps and poorly funded sewage treatment plants.  Instead of having to drive an hour for your supplies or medical care, you can walk a block, or take a train or bus.

As to working from home, while I'm sure there are people with the mindset to make that work, I'm not one of those people.  Work is at work, my recliner is at home.  I've tried it, and it did not work for me.

I'm not sure he was saying we should all live in rural areas on septic systems with no hospital or grocery store within an hour. The way I read "decentralizing society", I think more of small villages where everything you need is available locally; food and livestock are grown, harvested, prepared, and sold locally or used in local pubs; a small medical practice serves the community; a small K-12 school is within walking distance; etc. Sure, at this point there is no going back to a completely agrarian society, but there are lots of benefits from maximizing local production and minimizing the amount of crap trucked in from halfway across the country. You don't need a huge garbage dump for every small town if everything you consume no longer comes packaged in several layers of cellophane and cardboard and giant plastic containers.

In reply to newrider3 :

I grew up seven miles form my home town, population 700.  All those small things you talk about used to exist, until it became impossible to find a doctor, the grocery store wen south because a Costco opened 60 miles away, they had to close the dump because it wasn't up to modern standards, the population was too low to sustain a school without shutting down several other small town schools and bussing...

The big city is far better from every standpoint other than the ability to live in a quiet place with nature two minutes away from your door.

"The urban living you are concerned about has more benefits than disadvantages"

Until a "perfect" virus comes along and wipes out half the population of a city.  Or some nutjob parks an RV full of explosives in a city center and _doesn't_ play a warning announcement.  Yes, there are more structural advantages in day-to-day life.  It's just those one-off events that come back to bite you in the ass.  How does one weigh them?

Mrs. VCH and I were having a discussion along these lines the other day, after the Nashville tragedy.  I pointed out that people still live in big urban areas in the Middle East that have periodic bombings and other incidents.  People still live in high crime neighborhoods.  Where is the tipping point where/when those people finally say "enough" and GTFO?

I get what you're saying; as an engineer I know all about maximizing efficiency.  But is that really the point of life, to live as efficiently as possible, die and be forgotten?  Literally the reason we are talking about this here is because of inefficient hobbies we all share.  There's a real danger when you start talking about "efficient" living to slip into totalitarian/ authoritarian societal planning.  Maybe if humans  keep breeding the way we do and nothing kills us off, we'll be forced into that sort of planning.  But I sure hope not.  Soylent green is nasty E36 M3.  

Yes, we are social creatures, and again, I'm not advocating closing all social venues.  But if any good comes out of this pandemic, it may be that some peoples' relationships with their families have gotten better.  I know lots of couples expecting new children in a few months.  For all the doom about divorces and domestic violence, its likely there's also been less marital infidelity and tightening of family bonds- though those things are tougher to measure.  We still go out to eat- but only once a week, not several times as pre-crazy virus.  Maybe more folks will take up outdoor activities- that will lead to improvements in health, both physical and mental. 

As far as work, commerce, medicine and education, as I pointed out, technology and progress are making those things less and less reliant on physical presence.  Yes, it's still less efficient for the UPS truck to have to deliver my mail-order car parts to my house in the sticks than it would if I lived in town, but it's way more efficient for one truck to deliver to hundreds of houses than for hundreds of people to drive to a store somewhere.  My kids are homeschooling- no need for buses or a school building to heat and maintain.  My office is in the basement- completely separate from my "living" space.  So while I can "go home" whenever I want, it's not like working in my living room or bedroom or wherever.  

Anyway, it's off-topic, to e sure, but I think, and kindof hope, we might be seeing a real societal shift that has staying power long after the crazy virus becomes a page in some virtual history textbook.  

Streetwiseguy said:

In reply to newrider3 :

I grew up seven miles form my home town, population 700.  All those small things you talk about used to exist, until it became impossible to find a doctor, the grocery store wen south because a Costco opened 60 miles away, they had to close the dump because it wasn't up to modern standards, the population was too low to sustain a school without shutting down several other small town schools and bussing...

The big city is far better from every standpoint other than the ability to live in a quiet place with nature two minutes away from your door.

But _why_ did they go away?  Did they have to?  Could they come back?  As far as "better", that's a qualitative statement, and depends completely on what individuals value.  We live in an old farmhouse on a few acres of land about 10 minutes from a small town and around an hour from a major metropolis.  There's lots of benefits to that sort of arrangement- and some drawbacks (septic system, well) but like I said, we all make our own trade-offs.

My wife got her first shot.  So glad it's happening and I look forward to getting it myself along with, eventually, the kids.

I just want this E36 M3 to be over for people to stop dying needlessly and to return to some form of "normalcy" whatever form that takes.

Much like post 9/11 it won't exactly be the same, but it will get better over time.

My sister just got it here in MI.  She's a frontline hospital employee that Ive been worried about for many months.  This made me tear up a bit today.  

One of the things that might make living in decentralized, smaller communities possible are the rural internet initiatives going on around the country. We've proven that a larger percentage of work than we thought can be effectively done remotely - if the infrastructure exists. High speed rural internet allows more opportunities for people to actually have profitable employment in all those little towns. The availability of a viable income immediately has an impact on how many people will live there, and those dollars bring the business, healthcare, schools, etc back with them. 

I hope that one of the outcomes of this E36 M3show is that we start to reevaluate what we need as a society, and how to make those things more important. Of course, finding common ground to work out those compromises may be harder now than it ever has been.

I will NEVER live in a city again. I'm too close now. 

SIL who is a respiratory therapist up in WI finally decided over the break that she would get the vaccine when it was available there- she'd been on the fence about it despite the fact that she works directly with Covid patients because she is a bit too enamored with conspiracy theories. She was finally convinced that she should get it by one of the doctors she works with sitting her down and pointing out that pretty much everything they do & use on a daily basis goes through the same checks and relies on the same science as the vaccine does. Was a big relief for The Dancer as her sister catching it at the hospital and passing it on to her elderly grandmother or her sister's young at-risk son has been a big worry of hers.

volvoclearinghouse said:

"The urban living you are concerned about has more benefits than disadvantages"

Until a "perfect" virus comes along and wipes out half the population of a city.  Or some nutjob parks an RV full of explosives in a city center and _doesn't_ play a warning announcement.  Yes, there are more structural advantages in day-to-day life.  It's just those one-off events that come back to bite you in the ass.  How does one weigh them?

 

 

 

What about when Grandma has a stroke at the kitchen table, and you are two hours from decent health services, so she lingers for a few months and dies, instead of getting treated in the magic hour?  That happens many times, every day in small townville.

The odds of some dude hating country music enough to blow up Nashville... Well, I'll take my chances with that, instead of leaving my daughter at home with only a shotgun to protect her from some of the people who want to live in the country...

I left because there was no future there.  Unless you are willing to pay extorionate levels of taxation to pay for the hospital and schools, or extortionate rates for poor internet service and groceries, you need the city. I like my home town.  I like the
idea of living on the farm.  The reality is, I want to be closer to where stuff happens.

In reply to Streetwiseguy :

And that's your preference. There are millions of us that disagree because that's our preference. You don't live in the only state left that allows forced annexation. You're either in a town or you're going to be forced eventually. It sucks when all you want is peace and quiet and you know the choices you are making and the town decides to gobble up all the property around you and make industrial parks and warehouses. So 2 decades ago when you decided to live the rural life and then it's taken away from you with no input or recourse. 
 

yeah. berkeley cities right in the ass with a splintery baseball bat.