Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

The coronavirus

1534535537539540545

Comments

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 25,558
    some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense. 
    Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier.  Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it.  Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?

    Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
    you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that. 

    I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy. 

    but doing nothing is absurd. 
    Thanks Hugh for the response!

    Honestly, I have "heard" of some of the harsh lockdown measures that New Zealand had, but I do not truly know what they have done.  I was hoping for a broader explanation than "lockdown and good leadership".  I guess California was missing the "good leadership" since they locked down pretty hard?  

    I googled New Zealand and a few points stick out, the first being the population.  The population there according to the google is 4.9 million.  My home state of Tennessee is 6.8 million.  Secondly, the location.  Obviously an island nation secluded from the rest of the world to a degree.  Climate does vary it appears so you cannot point to a warmer year round climate.  The death rates for New Zealand and the US are the exact same.  

    I did look at case count too.  Did you know that they reported their largest case count in the past 4 months yesterday?  So have they successfully managed the virus?  Is Covid Zero your strategy?  Because it seems like no matter what any of these countries do, covid will still be around.

    As far as your strategy to defeating the virus, sounds great.  What province are you in?  

    the population size of NZ is brought up time and again by anti-lockdowners as being non-comparable. why is that? Because as far as I know, every successful society in the first world has the same infrastructure in place relative to their population size. so what makes NZ different from the US? so population SIZE shouldn't matter theoretically. 


    sure, there are geographical differences and culture differences. But when you have the POTUS telling people to NOT mask, to NOT worry about how it will magically disappear, that means something. people listen to their leaders, for better or worse. had trump acted like a responsible leader, even an adult for that matter, I believe the situation would be much worse. 
    I don't know why that is as far as bringing up population and I damn sure do not know what makes New Zealand different from the US, but I do know if I am herding cattle, I would certainly rather herd 1 cow opposed to 65 cattle (5 mil vs 330 mil).  While their covid cases are currently low, they just posted their biggest number since January of active cases, so again, was anything accomplished by hard lockdowns?  Virus gonna virus.

    Not to derail this thing cause every time I bring up Fauci everyone loses their minds, but our very own lead doctor in this was telling people not to mask up back in March of last year.  While Trump certainly had his blunders during this, I do not put it all on him.  He had a team, in my best Trump voice, "The best doctor and medical team a pandemic has ever faced" so to blame solely him is a bit disingenuous.  
    I don't think anyone is blaming Trump solely at all. There was a lot that was unknown at the time, and of course a lot that the leaders in the medical community got wrong, through no fault of their own. It was a brand new virus. The same was said by Dr. Tam in Canada, and of course, after she said "don't bother masking up" and then did a 180 when more information was known, the right went absolutely nuts. 

    Science is constantly evolving in this. Science gonna science. 

    The problem with Trump, is that he kept giving bad advice to the country AFTER new knowledge came to light. 

    Lockdowns work, but obviously you can only do that for so long. And it accomplishes the death toll not getting out of control, while we wait for full vaccine roll out. But I fear we'll never get to herd immunity because of so much vaccine hesitancy. not just in the US, but around the world. 

    we'll be dealing with this virus for a long fucking time. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 27,308
    That someone is okay with approximately 5,700,000 dead +/- 'Muricans so they can live normally? WTF? Nobody is stopping you from going about your life. Go to a ball game, refuse to wear a mask, don't wash your hands or socially distance, find a job and go to work, the economy is booming, find an underground rave or restaurant scene, hell go to Flo Rida. What are you scared? Staying in your basement? Stop being controlled. Fuck man, live.

    There is no hope for someone who can't discern the differences and the reasons for them. Only Q knows.
    I am sure the first line is a typo with the 5 million dead Americans so I will leave that alone.  

    Are you ok with the lives that are destroyed that are still on this Earth?  

    Nobody has really stopped me from going about my life.  Since last May my daughter has been playing softball.  She had one "outbreak" at school around Thanksgiving that kept her out for two weeks but other than that, my life hasn't been interrupted.  Is it not ok to look around me and the state of the country and not question what is going on?
    Yay you, you go on with your life. You get vaccinated yet? Or you skipping it?

    I extrapolated the percentage of the WaPo dead to confirmed cases and came up with a percentage death rate and applied it to the US population of 320M. Not an exact methodology but it seems to hold and helps an idiot in math like me understand shit. If all 558,000 dead 'Muricans have at least 10 friends, family or acquaintances, would that be 5 million lives thus "destroyed?" Have we not taken care of the living via the PPP, stimulus, rent freeze, etc.? Or are those inconvenient truths? And how about all of those covid survivors? You know the ones, one third who will have, perhaps, a lifetime of adverse effects? Or do they not count in your calculus of harm/benefit analysis? How many deaths are you comfortable with? Seems your "do nothing herd mentality" approach would have clearly resulted in more deaths than we have now, inclusive of cascading impacts on our healthcare delivery systems. Give me a number, how many is enough, or worth it, or indicates a failure, or a success?

    Perhaps you might explain why NYC, MA, RI and NJ, all blue states with dem governors, except MA, with a dem legislature lead the pack? What commonality do they share? What were the approaches? How did they differ? And maybe most importantly, what level of compliance did they have? Did they storm the capitol to oppose mask mandates? Have you seen Michigan's numbers lately? Thoughts?

    That you voted for POOTWH after 4 years of his incompetence and still don't see the light? More than I need to know. Sure, question what's going on but don't pretend you know the answers. Or provide them with links to bullshit artists out to make a buck. I'll continue to listen to the science, review history and live my life in such a way so as to keep me as safe as possible, during a global pandemic, no less. Do you look both ways before you cross the street? Why do you do that? Are you controlled?


    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • gvn2fly1421gvn2fly1421 Posts: 612
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 25,558
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    I wish people would stop wishing for the quick fix. This isn't a one-pronged solution. 

    the scientific/medical community is being honest that protection against variants, current and future, is completely unpredictable. That's why we need to continue to be vigilant even after vaccination. otherwise vaccination on its own could end up being a complete fucking waste and we're in wave 6 with 18 new variants that are vaccine resistant. 

    healthy adults should get it to get as close to herd immunity as possible. the vaccine doesn't prevent one getting the virus; it may prevent symptoms, hence preventing further spread to someone who may not be as protected as they are. 

    there is also a lot of data that shows that "healthy adults" can die from this, and if not, have long term negative affects from it. 

    it would nice if we had people who saw "keeping the vulnerable safe" as an incentive, not just their own selfish convenience. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,990
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    I wish people would stop wishing for the quick fix. This isn't a one-pronged solution. 

    the scientific/medical community is being honest that protection against variants, current and future, is completely unpredictable. That's why we need to continue to be vigilant even after vaccination. otherwise vaccination on its own could end up being a complete fucking waste and we're in wave 6 with 18 new variants that are vaccine resistant. 

    healthy adults should get it to get as close to herd immunity as possible. the vaccine doesn't prevent one getting the virus; it may prevent symptoms, hence preventing further spread to someone who may not be as protected as they are. 

    there is also a lot of data that shows that "healthy adults" can die from this, and if not, have long term negative affects from it. 

    it would nice if we had people who saw "keeping the vulnerable safe" as an incentive, not just their own selfish convenience. 
    The vaccine definitely prevents people from
    getting the virus - asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic cases are significantly reduced in those vaccinated compared to those who are not. Newer population based studies are showing that. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • gvn2fly1421gvn2fly1421 Posts: 612
    That someone is okay with approximately 5,700,000 dead +/- 'Muricans so they can live normally? WTF? Nobody is stopping you from going about your life. Go to a ball game, refuse to wear a mask, don't wash your hands or socially distance, find a job and go to work, the economy is booming, find an underground rave or restaurant scene, hell go to Flo Rida. What are you scared? Staying in your basement? Stop being controlled. Fuck man, live.

    There is no hope for someone who can't discern the differences and the reasons for them. Only Q knows.
    I am sure the first line is a typo with the 5 million dead Americans so I will leave that alone.  

    Are you ok with the lives that are destroyed that are still on this Earth?  

    Nobody has really stopped me from going about my life.  Since last May my daughter has been playing softball.  She had one "outbreak" at school around Thanksgiving that kept her out for two weeks but other than that, my life hasn't been interrupted.  Is it not ok to look around me and the state of the country and not question what is going on?
    Yay you, you go on with your life. You get vaccinated yet? Or you skipping it?

    I extrapolated the percentage of the WaPo dead to confirmed cases and came up with a percentage death rate and applied it to the US population of 320M. Not an exact methodology but it seems to hold and helps an idiot in math like me understand shit. If all 558,000 dead 'Muricans have at least 10 friends, family or acquaintances, would that be 5 million lives thus "destroyed?" Have we not taken care of the living via the PPP, stimulus, rent freeze, etc.? Or are those inconvenient truths? And how about all of those covid survivors? You know the ones, one third who will have, perhaps, a lifetime of adverse effects? Or do they not count in your calculus of harm/benefit analysis? How many deaths are you comfortable with? Seems your "do nothing herd mentality" approach would have clearly resulted in more deaths than we have now, inclusive of cascading impacts on our healthcare delivery systems. Give me a number, how many is enough, or worth it, or indicates a failure, or a success?

    Perhaps you might explain why NYC, MA, RI and NJ, all blue states with dem governors, except MA, with a dem legislature lead the pack? What commonality do they share? What were the approaches? How did they differ? And maybe most importantly, what level of compliance did they have? Did they storm the capitol to oppose mask mandates? Have you seen Michigan's numbers lately? Thoughts?

    That you voted for POOTWH after 4 years of his incompetence and still don't see the light? More than I need to know. Sure, question what's going on but don't pretend you know the answers. Or provide them with links to bullshit artists out to make a buck. I'll continue to listen to the science, review history and live my life in such a way so as to keep me as safe as possible, during a global pandemic, no less. Do you look both ways before you cross the street? Why do you do that? Are you controlled?


    I will be skipping the vaccine.  See my post above, what incentive do I have to get the vaccine.  I am a healthy, 38 year old man, who by government standards is "overweight" but reality is I am 6' and weigh 195.  Visit the gym frequently.  I feel like looking at the data from around the globe, I will take my chances with the virus.  Hell, I may have already had the virus and might never know.  I have never been tested.  And to be totally honest, the vaccine scares me more than the virus.  What are the long term effects of the vaccine?  No one knows.  Even the short term effects scare me a bit.  I have posted several things in here of people getting the vaccine and passing away a couple of weeks later.  Is the vaccine truly effective for getting back to normal?  Again, see my post above.  What's my incentive?  

    I still do not understand the math analogy you are trying to make.  Not saying you are dumb, moreso the opposite.

    Do you want me to explain why the blue states lead in deaths per or what?  I am not pointing at them saying Dems are dumb, my point looking at blue and red states is that they handled covid differently and ultimately ended in the same spot.  Blue states seem to be harsher with lockdowns and masks, whereas red states seemed to care more about freedumb (did I do it right?!)!  But again, we all ended in the same place.

    I am assuming POOTWH means Trump?  Imagine being so bothered by someone that you go out of your way to type that as much as you do.  Trump is much easier and much shorter thus saving more time.  Tell me, how did his 4 years in office directly affect you?  What soured you on him?  Maybe send a personal message or put it in the Trump thread, as I truly do not want to derail some good discussions in here.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,765
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy.  Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized.  If you tell people, once you are vaccinated, no need to do anything different, you'll have people who are NOT vaccinated start doing the same.  So it's a safety first approach.  

    But you continue to avoid other points that I have raised and go onto something else.  Everyone see the goal posts moving consistently here.  Going back to what I believe your core point was, that we should have gone to herd immunity as a strategy.  The one country that had that as a strategy was Sweden, and they had higher infection and mortality rates than neighboring Scandinavian countries.  It has been a failure.  https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-sweden-herd-immunit/fact-check-sweden-has-not-achieved-herd-immunity-is-not-proof-that-lockdowns-are-useless-idUSKBN28C2R7
  • gvn2fly1421gvn2fly1421 Posts: 612
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy.  Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized.  If you tell people, once you are vaccinated, no need to do anything different, you'll have people who are NOT vaccinated start doing the same.  So it's a safety first approach.  

    But you continue to avoid other points that I have raised and go onto something else.  Everyone see the goal posts moving consistently here.  Going back to what I believe your core point was, that we should have gone to herd immunity as a strategy.  The one country that had that as a strategy was Sweden, and they had higher infection and mortality rates than neighboring Scandinavian countries.  It has been a failure.  https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-sweden-herd-immunit/fact-check-sweden-has-not-achieved-herd-immunity-is-not-proof-that-lockdowns-are-useless-idUSKBN28C2R7
    The point you raised in the post I replied to mentioned vaccine effectiveness.  I drew the conclusion that you think the vaccine is the way out.  I replied to that.

    I went and looked at Sweden's numbers on google and they don't look awful.  More people have gotten the virus and more people have died, but the percentage of people who get the virus and survive are close when compared to Norway and Finland.  I have no idea how each country handled the virus, let me just get that out there before I am asked.  Would anyone care to enlighten me?

    What other points can I offer an opinion to that I have missed?  I try to respond to any posts directed me as honest as I can.
  • gvn2fly1421gvn2fly1421 Posts: 612
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy.  Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized.  
    I thought that was science?
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 5,345
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy.  Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized.  If you tell people, once you are vaccinated, no need to do anything different, you'll have people who are NOT vaccinated start doing the same.  So it's a safety first approach.  

    But you continue to avoid other points that I have raised and go onto something else.  Everyone see the goal posts moving consistently here.  Going back to what I believe your core point was, that we should have gone to herd immunity as a strategy.  The one country that had that as a strategy was Sweden, and they had higher infection and mortality rates than neighboring Scandinavian countries.  It has been a failure.  https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-sweden-herd-immunit/fact-check-sweden-has-not-achieved-herd-immunity-is-not-proof-that-lockdowns-are-useless-idUSKBN28C2R7
    Weird that in reviewing coronavirus data from around the globe, the data from New Zealand and Sweden, two of the more noteworthy nations in regards to the pandemic, seems to be conveniently ignored by this individual. 

  • gvn2fly1421gvn2fly1421 Posts: 612
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy.  Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized.  If you tell people, once you are vaccinated, no need to do anything different, you'll have people who are NOT vaccinated start doing the same.  So it's a safety first approach.  

    But you continue to avoid other points that I have raised and go onto something else.  Everyone see the goal posts moving consistently here.  Going back to what I believe your core point was, that we should have gone to herd immunity as a strategy.  The one country that had that as a strategy was Sweden, and they had higher infection and mortality rates than neighboring Scandinavian countries.  It has been a failure.  https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-sweden-herd-immunit/fact-check-sweden-has-not-achieved-herd-immunity-is-not-proof-that-lockdowns-are-useless-idUSKBN28C2R7
    Weird that in reviewing coronavirus data from around the globe, the data from New Zealand and Sweden, two of the more noteworthy nations in regards to the pandemic, seems to be conveniently ignored by this individual. 
    Not trying to beat a horse, but I responded to each.  Look harder.

    Did you see that New Zealand posted their highest number of cases in the past 4 months yesterday?  Tell me about that data!  And tell me please how New Zealand has successfully handled this?  All I have read in here is they locked down and had good leadership.  What did that lockdown look like?  I am sincerely asking.
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,328
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    You just rotate through shitty excuses for your side's pathetic failures.

    Argument 1: "If they had just done nothing, things would've been better!" - aka "virus gonna virus"
    Scientific debunk of moronic statement: high transmissibility + high fatality rate + basic common sense that concentration helps viruses spread = SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING

    Argument 2: "These politicians just want to divide us, there's no problem here" - aka "politicians gonna politic"
    Scientific debunk of moronic statement: high transmissibility + high fatality rate + basic common sense that concentration helps viruses spread + evidence of death with strong mitigations in place = SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING

    Argument 3: "These vaccines are stupid because I still can't live my life completely the way I used to yet" - aka "my happiness is more important than your life"
    No scientific debunk needed - this is just selfish.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,765
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy.  Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized.  
    I thought that was science?
    Are you trying to be intentionally obtuse?  I would be surprised/shocked that once the country reaches a heavy vax level (upwards of 70%) and low active infections, that we will still have mask mandates.   We aren't there today.  So the goal of social health policy is to keep up the vigilance while the vax is rolled out.  Science and health policy are connected, but not the same. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,765
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    There's a difference between the science of virology and social health policy.  Social health policy dictates to continue to distance and mask because a minority of Americans (or maybe just 50%) have been immunized.  If you tell people, once you are vaccinated, no need to do anything different, you'll have people who are NOT vaccinated start doing the same.  So it's a safety first approach.  

    But you continue to avoid other points that I have raised and go onto something else.  Everyone see the goal posts moving consistently here.  Going back to what I believe your core point was, that we should have gone to herd immunity as a strategy.  The one country that had that as a strategy was Sweden, and they had higher infection and mortality rates than neighboring Scandinavian countries.  It has been a failure.  https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-sweden-herd-immunit/fact-check-sweden-has-not-achieved-herd-immunity-is-not-proof-that-lockdowns-are-useless-idUSKBN28C2R7
    The point you raised in the post I replied to mentioned vaccine effectiveness.  I drew the conclusion that you think the vaccine is the way out.  I replied to that.

    I went and looked at Sweden's numbers on google and they don't look awful.  More people have gotten the virus and more people have died, but the percentage of people who get the virus and survive are close when compared to Norway and Finland.  I have no idea how each country handled the virus, let me just get that out there before I am asked.  Would anyone care to enlighten me?

    What other points can I offer an opinion to that I have missed?  I try to respond to any posts directed me as honest as I can.
    Sweden's infection rates are far worse than their Scandinavian counterparts.  Death rates, as I said earlier, are not about masks or social distancing.  Why do you think those things are connected?  Death is an outcome based on co-morbidities, availability of healthcare, and age of the infected.  Why would you expect a dramatically different death rate amongst three Scando countries that have similar demographics and healthcare systems?
  • gvn2fly1421gvn2fly1421 Posts: 612
    benjs said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    You just rotate through shitty excuses for your side's pathetic failures.

    Argument 1: "If they had just done nothing, things would've been better!" - aka "virus gonna virus"
    Scientific debunk of moronic statement: high transmissibility + high fatality rate + basic common sense that concentration helps viruses spread = SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING

    Argument 2: "These politicians just want to divide us, there's no problem here" - aka "politicians gonna politic"
    Scientific debunk of moronic statement: high transmissibility + high fatality rate + basic common sense that concentration helps viruses spread + evidence of death with strong mitigations in place = SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING

    Argument 3: "These vaccines are stupid because I still can't live my life completely the way I used to yet" - aka "my happiness is more important than your life"
    No scientific debunk needed - this is just selfish.
    So I am selfish because I do not take the vaccine?  What if parents are not taking the vaccine either, are they selfish?  They are the only ones I am around that would be endangered by the virus. 

    If you take the vaccine, you are safe, why are you worried about me?
     
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 14,468
    edited April 8
    I wonder what some of you think of this scenario. The CDC says if you're fully-vaccinated, you can gather with others that are fully vaccinated without a mask.  At my place of work, there's eight of us. We've all been offered the vaccine, and seven of us got it and are fully vaccinated. The one who didn't, just simply doesn't want it. Am I under some sort of moral obligation to keep wearing my mask to keep her safe?

    For now, we're still all under orders for higher-ups to wear our masks in hallways and common places. I don't have to wear it in my own office, but have to put it on to go the bathroom. But if that order gets lifted, in your guys' opinions, should the seven of us still wear our masks for the sake of the one person that refused the vaccine?  
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • PoncierPoncier Posts: 12,176
    That someone is okay with approximately 5,700,000 dead +/- 'Muricans so they can live normally? 
    You're off by a factor of 10, its 570K dead 'Muricans, not 5.7Mil
    This weekend we rock Portland
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,765
    I wonder what some of you think of this scenario. The CDC says if you're fully-vaccinated, you can gather with others that are fully vaccinated without a mask.  At my place of work, there's eight of us. We've all been offered the vaccine, and seven of us got it and are fully vaccinated. The one who didn't, just simply doesn't want it. Am I under some sort of moral obligation to keep wearing my mask to keep her safe?

    For now, we're still all under orders for higher-ups to wear our masks in hallways and common places. I don't have to wear it in my own office, but have to put it on to go the bathroom. But if that order gets lifted, in your guys' opinions, should the seven of us still wear our masks for the sake of the one person that refused the vaccine?  
    In my opinion, once the vaccine is generally available, you are not responsible for that person's decision.  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,765
    benjs said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    You just rotate through shitty excuses for your side's pathetic failures.

    Argument 1: "If they had just done nothing, things would've been better!" - aka "virus gonna virus"
    Scientific debunk of moronic statement: high transmissibility + high fatality rate + basic common sense that concentration helps viruses spread = SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING

    Argument 2: "These politicians just want to divide us, there's no problem here" - aka "politicians gonna politic"
    Scientific debunk of moronic statement: high transmissibility + high fatality rate + basic common sense that concentration helps viruses spread + evidence of death with strong mitigations in place = SERIOUS FUCKING PROBLEM WITH DOING NOTHING

    Argument 3: "These vaccines are stupid because I still can't live my life completely the way I used to yet" - aka "my happiness is more important than your life"
    No scientific debunk needed - this is just selfish.
    So I am selfish because I do not take the vaccine?  What if parents are not taking the vaccine either, are they selfish?  They are the only ones I am around that would be endangered by the virus. 

    If you take the vaccine, you are safe, why are you worried about me?
     
    I don't have an issue with you personally not taking it.  I have a problem with people spreading lies or sewing distrust in vaccines.
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 11,546
    Rage Against the Machine just postponed their tour to 2022.....
    Remember the Thomas Nine!! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley #1, Wrigley #2, Boston #1, Boston #2
    2020: Oakland1, Oakland2
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,765
    Rage Against the Machine just postponed their tour to 2022.....
    Yeah just got that email.  And you have a few weeks to decide if you can attend a concert 16 months from now
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 14,468
    mrussel1 said:
    I wonder what some of you think of this scenario. The CDC says if you're fully-vaccinated, you can gather with others that are fully vaccinated without a mask.  At my place of work, there's eight of us. We've all been offered the vaccine, and seven of us got it and are fully vaccinated. The one who didn't, just simply doesn't want it. Am I under some sort of moral obligation to keep wearing my mask to keep her safe?

    For now, we're still all under orders for higher-ups to wear our masks in hallways and common places. I don't have to wear it in my own office, but have to put it on to go the bathroom. But if that order gets lifted, in your guys' opinions, should the seven of us still wear our masks for the sake of the one person that refused the vaccine?  
    In my opinion, once the vaccine is generally available, you are not responsible for that person's decision.  
    I agree. And frankly, so does the person that didn't get the vaccine.

    That said, we know who has and hasn't gotten it in our office, but outside the office, who knows? At this point, I wear the mask in stores because it's mandated, but I don't wear it anywhere else. If I'm walking down the sidewalk, I'm not wearing it. And if someone who isn't vaccinated is walking on the same sidewalk, I feel it's their responsibility to wear the mask for their own protection. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 20,765
    mrussel1 said:
    I wonder what some of you think of this scenario. The CDC says if you're fully-vaccinated, you can gather with others that are fully vaccinated without a mask.  At my place of work, there's eight of us. We've all been offered the vaccine, and seven of us got it and are fully vaccinated. The one who didn't, just simply doesn't want it. Am I under some sort of moral obligation to keep wearing my mask to keep her safe?

    For now, we're still all under orders for higher-ups to wear our masks in hallways and common places. I don't have to wear it in my own office, but have to put it on to go the bathroom. But if that order gets lifted, in your guys' opinions, should the seven of us still wear our masks for the sake of the one person that refused the vaccine?  
    In my opinion, once the vaccine is generally available, you are not responsible for that person's decision.  
    I agree. And frankly, so does the person that didn't get the vaccine.

    That said, we know who has and hasn't gotten it in our office, but outside the office, who knows? At this point, I wear the mask in stores because it's mandated, but I don't wear it anywhere else. If I'm walking down the sidewalk, I'm not wearing it. And if someone who isn't vaccinated is walking on the same sidewalk, I feel it's their responsibility to wear the mask for their own protection. 
    I've had one shot, next one in a few days.  But even after that, I will wear a mask to be a good citizen and set a good example, until such time that vaccines are wide and far.  It's probably technically not necessary, but as I said earlier, social health policy and science are not 100% overlapped.  They are connected.
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 5,345
    mrussel1 said:
    I wonder what some of you think of this scenario. The CDC says if you're fully-vaccinated, you can gather with others that are fully vaccinated without a mask.  At my place of work, there's eight of us. We've all been offered the vaccine, and seven of us got it and are fully vaccinated. The one who didn't, just simply doesn't want it. Am I under some sort of moral obligation to keep wearing my mask to keep her safe?

    For now, we're still all under orders for higher-ups to wear our masks in hallways and common places. I don't have to wear it in my own office, but have to put it on to go the bathroom. But if that order gets lifted, in your guys' opinions, should the seven of us still wear our masks for the sake of the one person that refused the vaccine?  
    In my opinion, once the vaccine is generally available, you are not responsible for that person's decision.  
    I agree. And frankly, so does the person that didn't get the vaccine.

    That said, we know who has and hasn't gotten it in our office, but outside the office, who knows? At this point, I wear the mask in stores because it's mandated, but I don't wear it anywhere else. If I'm walking down the sidewalk, I'm not wearing it. And if someone who isn't vaccinated is walking on the same sidewalk, I feel it's their responsibility to wear the mask for their own protection. 
    As vaccines become more widely available, this will be how I move forward as well.

    Once the mask mandate is lifted, it's lifted. People like your co-worker who refused the vaccine are on their own. 


    I have no problem putting a mask on in stores, or in crowds, they genuinely don't bother me, but I look forward to a day where they aren't needed. 

  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 14,468
    Rage Against the Machine just postponed their tour to 2022.....
    Ugh...this suggests that this will be another summer without concert tours.

    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 24,647
    some people don't like evidence or science. and when you point them to it, they switch gears to conspiracy theories. it's not worth anyone's time to debate such nonsense. 
    Hugh, you mentioned New Zealand earlier.  Like New Brunswick, I know nothing about it.  Can you explain how they have handled covid so well?

    Also, care to give your opinion on how you would have handled it?
    you can't be serious you haven't heard of how New Zealand handled it. if you are, lockdowns + good leadership (which has a big effect on public buy-in) = success. simple as that. 

    I would have handled it similarly to how my province has, and we have a conservative PM, but he also listens to the science. they have made policy mistakes, but they have tried to correct them, (except helping the homeless, but that's another story). it's all about protecting the health care system, while also protecting our most vulnerable. that includes lockdowns when necessary, and when cases subside, open as much as you can to keep the economy going and people sane. it's a balancing act on the head of a pin. it ain't easy. 

    but doing nothing is absurd. 
    It’s not possible that someone interested enough to engage in endless discussions about covid lockdowns has not heard about how New Zealand has dealt with the issue. That’s proof right there that this is all an attempt to wind people up and get them to waste their time. 
    See my post below where I address your vary concern.  Can you give a broader scope of what New Zealand has done and how that would be effective in the US and Canada?

    I am not trying to "wind people up".  I know I came in like a wrecking ball and that was on me.  I guess I lose credibility from the get go.  But honest discussion like the last couple of pages only moves us all forward and hopefully helps us look at things differently.  Whats the old saying, "Believe half of what you see and less of what you hear".

    And to bring up people "wasting their time", seriously?  You have 11,000 posts on a message board, looks like you have plenty of time.
    For me you lost credibility when you wanted to talk about Hunter Biden in April of 2021. 


    That was when I knew everything I needed to know.   
    And that he didn’t vote for the Covidiot in 16 but did so in 2020 lol that’s after 400 thousand Americans were already dead he voted for him 😂😂😂
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 25,558
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    I wish people would stop wishing for the quick fix. This isn't a one-pronged solution. 

    the scientific/medical community is being honest that protection against variants, current and future, is completely unpredictable. That's why we need to continue to be vigilant even after vaccination. otherwise vaccination on its own could end up being a complete fucking waste and we're in wave 6 with 18 new variants that are vaccine resistant. 

    healthy adults should get it to get as close to herd immunity as possible. the vaccine doesn't prevent one getting the virus; it may prevent symptoms, hence preventing further spread to someone who may not be as protected as they are. 

    there is also a lot of data that shows that "healthy adults" can die from this, and if not, have long term negative affects from it. 

    it would nice if we had people who saw "keeping the vulnerable safe" as an incentive, not just their own selfish convenience. 
    The vaccine definitely prevents people from
    getting the virus - asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic cases are significantly reduced in those vaccinated compared to those who are not. Newer population based studies are showing that. 
    interesting. last I read it didn't prevent acquisition of the virus, just symptoms and morbidity. 

    science gonna science. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,990
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    I wish people would stop wishing for the quick fix. This isn't a one-pronged solution. 

    the scientific/medical community is being honest that protection against variants, current and future, is completely unpredictable. That's why we need to continue to be vigilant even after vaccination. otherwise vaccination on its own could end up being a complete fucking waste and we're in wave 6 with 18 new variants that are vaccine resistant. 

    healthy adults should get it to get as close to herd immunity as possible. the vaccine doesn't prevent one getting the virus; it may prevent symptoms, hence preventing further spread to someone who may not be as protected as they are. 

    there is also a lot of data that shows that "healthy adults" can die from this, and if not, have long term negative affects from it. 

    it would nice if we had people who saw "keeping the vulnerable safe" as an incentive, not just their own selfish convenience. 
    The vaccine definitely prevents people from
    getting the virus - asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic cases are significantly reduced in those vaccinated compared to those who are not. Newer population based studies are showing that. 
    interesting. last I read it didn't prevent acquisition of the virus, just symptoms and morbidity. 

    science gonna science. 
    Evolving data. It’s exciting, though the variants not so much. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 25,558
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 
    Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

    At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?
    You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  
    You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

    *For most healthy people.
    For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?
    I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

    As I have stated in the past, I did not vote for that glorious orange bastard in 2016, but I did in 2020.  I try to get information from all sides and form an opinion off of that.  I believe women should be allowed to have an abortion.  I believe in stricter gun laws.  ABSO-FUCKIN-LUTELY!

    One of my broader points throughout coming here is that if you cannot look at BOTH sides of the political landscape in America and laugh at the absurdity, you are too far gone.

    OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...
    You're focused on the throw away line.  The point still stands which you didn't address.  It's true that mortality rate is very low for people that are young and without co-morbidities.  But that's not the whole country as evidenced by the half million dead.  The 95% vaccine effectiveness is a number that plays out across the health spectrum, whereas your 99% number is only for the very healthy.  So focusing on the healthy shows a blatant disregard for a good chunk of our citizens and neighbors. 
    And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

    Several have mentioned the vaccine as the "getting back to normal" point, my only concern with that is the language that the health community and the MSM is using around the vaccine (may not protect against variants, still have to mask, still have to distance, cannot travel, etc.) is a terrible message to send to get people back to normal and want to take the vaccine.  What incentive does a healthy adult have to take the vaccine?


    I wish people would stop wishing for the quick fix. This isn't a one-pronged solution. 

    the scientific/medical community is being honest that protection against variants, current and future, is completely unpredictable. That's why we need to continue to be vigilant even after vaccination. otherwise vaccination on its own could end up being a complete fucking waste and we're in wave 6 with 18 new variants that are vaccine resistant. 

    healthy adults should get it to get as close to herd immunity as possible. the vaccine doesn't prevent one getting the virus; it may prevent symptoms, hence preventing further spread to someone who may not be as protected as they are. 

    there is also a lot of data that shows that "healthy adults" can die from this, and if not, have long term negative affects from it. 

    it would nice if we had people who saw "keeping the vulnerable safe" as an incentive, not just their own selfish convenience. 
    The vaccine definitely prevents people from
    getting the virus - asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic cases are significantly reduced in those vaccinated compared to those who are not. Newer population based studies are showing that. 
    interesting. last I read it didn't prevent acquisition of the virus, just symptoms and morbidity. 

    science gonna science. 
    Evolving data. It’s exciting, though the variants not so much. 
    haha agreed. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 25,558
    however, often, how does a vaccine prevent a virus from entering your system?
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


Sign In or Register to comment.