The coronavirus
Options
Comments
-
Our immune systems deal with probably hundreds of potential pathogens each day successfully. There are many different cells taking different parts of the job. Some work at the point of entry, like the nasal mucosa, preventing the virus from even entering, but the main protection is from the different components that prevent viral particles from entering the cells. If the virus can’t get into the cells, it can’t replicate, and if it can’t replicate then the person will not get sick and also won’t generate a whole bunch of virus to pass along to others. There may still be some virus that gets through this but it’s much less likely to cause a clinically relevant infection or spread.HughFreakingDillon said:however, often, how does a vaccine prevent a virus from entering your system?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
thank you.mrussel1 said:
It's 2%.. but let's extrapolate your theory. Most virologists say you need 70-85% infection rate to achieve herd immunity. So taking the middle, let's take 77.5% of the world had to be infected, and 2% of the cases ended in fatalities. That means for the 7.9 billion humans, we would have 6.1 billion cases. And that would lead to 122 million deaths. That would be compared to the current death count of 2.9 million.gvn2fly1421 said:
The go to number that everyone seems to go to is deaths. That is why I use death rates. All of them are around 1%. So if we have learned anything from looking at New Zealand, Sweden, New Brunswick, the US, etc., we have learned that cases are going to happen, virus gonna virus, no matter what is done. It seems the path we are on now is a path to having this linger for years.mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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
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.
Let that sink in. 122 million deaths under your strategy. As another comparative, a measly 75 million people died in WW2. The Influenza outbreak of 1919/20 was 50 million.
So bottom line, it's hard to agree with your theory or your statement that "virus gonna virus, no matter what".
virus gonna virus indeed.
gvn2fly1421: let's get down to brass tax here. Do you think the virus is better left unchecked so we can make the herd stronger?Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
Not to really muddy the waters, and not to move the goal posts which I know I will get accused of, in the scenario you play out, how many of those deaths do you truly think are caused by Covid? I have posted several articles, videos, etc in the past of how Covid deaths are classified. Here is an example from IL... https://week.com/2020/04/20/idph-director-explains-how-covid-deaths-are-classified/mrussel1 said:
It's 2%.. but let's extrapolate your theory. Most virologists say you need 70-85% infection rate to achieve herd immunity. So taking the middle, let's take 77.5% of the world had to be infected, and 2% of the cases ended in fatalities. That means for the 7.9 billion humans, we would have 6.1 billion cases. And that would lead to 122 million deaths. That would be compared to the current death count of 2.9 million.gvn2fly1421 said:
The go to number that everyone seems to go to is deaths. That is why I use death rates. All of them are around 1%. So if we have learned anything from looking at New Zealand, Sweden, New Brunswick, the US, etc., we have learned that cases are going to happen, virus gonna virus, no matter what is done. It seems the path we are on now is a path to having this linger for years.mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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
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.
Let that sink in. 122 million deaths under your strategy. As another comparative, a measly 75 million people died in WW2. The Influenza outbreak of 1919/20 was 50 million.
So bottom line, it's hard to agree with your theory or your statement that "virus gonna virus, no matter what".
The CDC itself just reviewed tons of death certificates and questioned the true death toll... See for yourself here... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e2.htm
For 6% of the deaths, covid was the only cause listed. Could the true death toll be closer to 30,000 opposed to 500,000?
0 -
I always thought it was brass tacks. Can say I learned something today!HughFreakingDillon said:
thank you.mrussel1 said:
It's 2%.. but let's extrapolate your theory. Most virologists say you need 70-85% infection rate to achieve herd immunity. So taking the middle, let's take 77.5% of the world had to be infected, and 2% of the cases ended in fatalities. That means for the 7.9 billion humans, we would have 6.1 billion cases. And that would lead to 122 million deaths. That would be compared to the current death count of 2.9 million.gvn2fly1421 said:
The go to number that everyone seems to go to is deaths. That is why I use death rates. All of them are around 1%. So if we have learned anything from looking at New Zealand, Sweden, New Brunswick, the US, etc., we have learned that cases are going to happen, virus gonna virus, no matter what is done. It seems the path we are on now is a path to having this linger for years.mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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
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.
Let that sink in. 122 million deaths under your strategy. As another comparative, a measly 75 million people died in WW2. The Influenza outbreak of 1919/20 was 50 million.
So bottom line, it's hard to agree with your theory or your statement that "virus gonna virus, no matter what".
virus gonna virus indeed.
gvn2fly1421: let's get down to brass tax here. Do you think the virus is better left unchecked so we can make the herd stronger?
I will answer your question, with a question.... Do you think IF we didn't even know the coronavirus existed, we would have noticed? I think that answers your question, BTW.
Also, to the group, I am out. Will return later. Maybe. Tomorrow? Next week? I don't know, but I did not want anyone to think I am dodging questions.0 -
as has been mentioned previously, almost all covid deaths have a co-morbidity but without covid, those conditions wouldn't have caused the deaths on their own.gvn2fly1421 said:
Not to really muddy the waters, and not to move the goal posts which I know I will get accused of, in the scenario you play out, how many of those deaths do you truly think are caused by Covid? I have posted several articles, videos, etc in the past of how Covid deaths are classified. Here is an example from IL... https://week.com/2020/04/20/idph-director-explains-how-covid-deaths-are-classified/mrussel1 said:
It's 2%.. but let's extrapolate your theory. Most virologists say you need 70-85% infection rate to achieve herd immunity. So taking the middle, let's take 77.5% of the world had to be infected, and 2% of the cases ended in fatalities. That means for the 7.9 billion humans, we would have 6.1 billion cases. And that would lead to 122 million deaths. That would be compared to the current death count of 2.9 million.gvn2fly1421 said:
The go to number that everyone seems to go to is deaths. That is why I use death rates. All of them are around 1%. So if we have learned anything from looking at New Zealand, Sweden, New Brunswick, the US, etc., we have learned that cases are going to happen, virus gonna virus, no matter what is done. It seems the path we are on now is a path to having this linger for years.mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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
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.
Let that sink in. 122 million deaths under your strategy. As another comparative, a measly 75 million people died in WW2. The Influenza outbreak of 1919/20 was 50 million.
So bottom line, it's hard to agree with your theory or your statement that "virus gonna virus, no matter what".
The CDC itself just reviewed tons of death certificates and questioned the true death toll... See for yourself here... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e2.htm
For 6% of the deaths, covid was the only cause listed. Could the true death toll be closer to 30,000 opposed to 500,000?
if someone is obese, then gets cancer, and dies, you don't say that person died of obesity. they died of cancer. even though their obesity probably contributed to their ability to fight it, it wasn't the sole cause.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
Under the definition that these conspiracy theorists operate, the number of deaths from AIDS would be zero. It's a non fatal disease because no one dies from AIDS on its own.HughFreakingDillon said:
as has been mentioned previously, almost all covid deaths have a co-morbidity but without covid, those conditions wouldn't have caused the deaths on their own.gvn2fly1421 said:
Not to really muddy the waters, and not to move the goal posts which I know I will get accused of, in the scenario you play out, how many of those deaths do you truly think are caused by Covid? I have posted several articles, videos, etc in the past of how Covid deaths are classified. Here is an example from IL... https://week.com/2020/04/20/idph-director-explains-how-covid-deaths-are-classified/mrussel1 said:
It's 2%.. but let's extrapolate your theory. Most virologists say you need 70-85% infection rate to achieve herd immunity. So taking the middle, let's take 77.5% of the world had to be infected, and 2% of the cases ended in fatalities. That means for the 7.9 billion humans, we would have 6.1 billion cases. And that would lead to 122 million deaths. That would be compared to the current death count of 2.9 million.gvn2fly1421 said:
The go to number that everyone seems to go to is deaths. That is why I use death rates. All of them are around 1%. So if we have learned anything from looking at New Zealand, Sweden, New Brunswick, the US, etc., we have learned that cases are going to happen, virus gonna virus, no matter what is done. It seems the path we are on now is a path to having this linger for years.mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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
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.
Let that sink in. 122 million deaths under your strategy. As another comparative, a measly 75 million people died in WW2. The Influenza outbreak of 1919/20 was 50 million.
So bottom line, it's hard to agree with your theory or your statement that "virus gonna virus, no matter what".
The CDC itself just reviewed tons of death certificates and questioned the true death toll... See for yourself here... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e2.htm
For 6% of the deaths, covid was the only cause listed. Could the true death toll be closer to 30,000 opposed to 500,000?
if someone is obese, then gets cancer, and dies, you don't say that person died of obesity. they died of cancer. even though their obesity probably contributed to their ability to fight it, it wasn't the sole cause.0 -
Weird, two teachers in my school hadoftenreading said:
The vaccine definitely prevents people fromHughFreakingDillon said:
I wish people would stop wishing for the quick fix. This isn't a one-pronged solution.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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.
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.
Their second shot and have just tested positive for covid. No clue if they are showing symptoms.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Just stop. It takes two seconds to google excess deaths.gvn2fly1421 said:
Not to really muddy the waters, and not to move the goal posts which I know I will get accused of, in the scenario you play out, how many of those deaths do you truly think are caused by Covid? I have posted several articles, videos, etc in the past of how Covid deaths are classified. Here is an example from IL... https://week.com/2020/04/20/idph-director-explains-how-covid-deaths-are-classified/mrussel1 said:
It's 2%.. but let's extrapolate your theory. Most virologists say you need 70-85% infection rate to achieve herd immunity. So taking the middle, let's take 77.5% of the world had to be infected, and 2% of the cases ended in fatalities. That means for the 7.9 billion humans, we would have 6.1 billion cases. And that would lead to 122 million deaths. That would be compared to the current death count of 2.9 million.gvn2fly1421 said:
The go to number that everyone seems to go to is deaths. That is why I use death rates. All of them are around 1%. So if we have learned anything from looking at New Zealand, Sweden, New Brunswick, the US, etc., we have learned that cases are going to happen, virus gonna virus, no matter what is done. It seems the path we are on now is a path to having this linger for years.mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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
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.
Let that sink in. 122 million deaths under your strategy. As another comparative, a measly 75 million people died in WW2. The Influenza outbreak of 1919/20 was 50 million.
So bottom line, it's hard to agree with your theory or your statement that "virus gonna virus, no matter what".
The CDC itself just reviewed tons of death certificates and questioned the true death toll... See for yourself here... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e2.htm
For 6% of the deaths, covid was the only cause listed. Could the true death toll be closer to 30,000 opposed to 500,000?
0 -
Excess deaths in the US jumped 23% last year, but sure.... it's possible no one would have even noticed.0 -
Would they have gotten tested if they were not showing symptoms? Anything I have read says you can still catch it, but it won’t be as severe or as transmittable.mcgruff10 said:
Weird, two teachers in my school hadoftenreading said:
The vaccine definitely prevents people fromHughFreakingDillon said:
I wish people would stop wishing for the quick fix. This isn't a one-pronged solution.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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.
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.
Their second shot and have just tested positive for covid. No clue if they are showing symptoms.Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
You're not muddying the waters, you are defending a terrible social policy with a conspiracy theory. According to the CDC, age adjusted death rates rose by 15.9% in 2020, compared to 2019. Do you think that's 30,000 deaths in a country of 328 million?gvn2fly1421 said:
Not to really muddy the waters, and not to move the goal posts which I know I will get accused of, in the scenario you play out, how many of those deaths do you truly think are caused by Covid? I have posted several articles, videos, etc in the past of how Covid deaths are classified. Here is an example from IL... https://week.com/2020/04/20/idph-director-explains-how-covid-deaths-are-classified/mrussel1 said:
It's 2%.. but let's extrapolate your theory. Most virologists say you need 70-85% infection rate to achieve herd immunity. So taking the middle, let's take 77.5% of the world had to be infected, and 2% of the cases ended in fatalities. That means for the 7.9 billion humans, we would have 6.1 billion cases. And that would lead to 122 million deaths. That would be compared to the current death count of 2.9 million.gvn2fly1421 said:
The go to number that everyone seems to go to is deaths. That is why I use death rates. All of them are around 1%. So if we have learned anything from looking at New Zealand, Sweden, New Brunswick, the US, etc., we have learned that cases are going to happen, virus gonna virus, no matter what is done. It seems the path we are on now is a path to having this linger for years.mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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
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.
Let that sink in. 122 million deaths under your strategy. As another comparative, a measly 75 million people died in WW2. The Influenza outbreak of 1919/20 was 50 million.
So bottom line, it's hard to agree with your theory or your statement that "virus gonna virus, no matter what".
The CDC itself just reviewed tons of death certificates and questioned the true death toll... See for yourself here... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e2.htm
For 6% of the deaths, covid was the only cause listed. Could the true death toll be closer to 30,000 opposed to 500,000?
So let's just get one final 'decision' by you, Mr. President. If 122 million world wide deaths (and 5 million US deaths) were teh result of your herd immunity strategy, would you still believe that is better than where we are today of 2.8MM worldwide and 500k US deaths? In other words, since you are not disputing my math, would you be good with 122 million and 5 million US deaths?0 -
Got a lot of replies on my way out.
The motorcycle covid death... https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/man-who-died-in-motorcycle-crash-counted-as-covid-19-death-in-florida-report-07-18-2020
The quote from the story, "Dr. Pino tells FOX 35 that one "could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash." Seriously?
The Washington gunshot victims... https://mynorthwest.com/1889564/rantz-gun-shot-victims-washington-coronavirus-deaths/?
"It seems obvious that their data is not accurate. They imply as much: “Our dashboard numbers do include any death to a person that has tested positive to COVID-19.”That means, if a COVID-19 patient dies of a gun shot wound or in a car crash, the data lists that patient as a coronavirus death. If a tree falls on a coronavirus patient and kills them? It’s listed as a coronavirus death."
How are any of those deaths right? And as I brought up before, if we count covid deaths like this, can we not count vaccine deaths the same way? Where do we draw the line? Got the vaccine, got shot, vaccine death. Sounds so stupid but that is how covid deaths are counted.
Weird too that no one is reporting on the vaccine deaths.... Crickets....
Peace out and stay safe out there!
0 -
Good point, I m not sure.PJPOWER said:
Would they have gotten tested if they were not showing symptoms? Anything I have read says you can still catch it, but it won’t be as severe or as transmittable.mcgruff10 said:
Weird, two teachers in my school hadoftenreading said:
The vaccine definitely prevents people fromHughFreakingDillon said:
I wish people would stop wishing for the quick fix. This isn't a one-pronged solution.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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.
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.
Their second shot and have just tested positive for covid. No clue if they are showing symptoms.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
and cancer deaths should often be officially marked as radiation poisoning.mrussel1 said:
Under the definition that these conspiracy theorists operate, the number of deaths from AIDS would be zero. It's a non fatal disease because no one dies from AIDS on its own.HughFreakingDillon said:
as has been mentioned previously, almost all covid deaths have a co-morbidity but without covid, those conditions wouldn't have caused the deaths on their own.gvn2fly1421 said:
Not to really muddy the waters, and not to move the goal posts which I know I will get accused of, in the scenario you play out, how many of those deaths do you truly think are caused by Covid? I have posted several articles, videos, etc in the past of how Covid deaths are classified. Here is an example from IL... https://week.com/2020/04/20/idph-director-explains-how-covid-deaths-are-classified/mrussel1 said:
It's 2%.. but let's extrapolate your theory. Most virologists say you need 70-85% infection rate to achieve herd immunity. So taking the middle, let's take 77.5% of the world had to be infected, and 2% of the cases ended in fatalities. That means for the 7.9 billion humans, we would have 6.1 billion cases. And that would lead to 122 million deaths. That would be compared to the current death count of 2.9 million.gvn2fly1421 said:
The go to number that everyone seems to go to is deaths. That is why I use death rates. All of them are around 1%. So if we have learned anything from looking at New Zealand, Sweden, New Brunswick, the US, etc., we have learned that cases are going to happen, virus gonna virus, no matter what is done. It seems the path we are on now is a path to having this linger for years.mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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
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.
Let that sink in. 122 million deaths under your strategy. As another comparative, a measly 75 million people died in WW2. The Influenza outbreak of 1919/20 was 50 million.
So bottom line, it's hard to agree with your theory or your statement that "virus gonna virus, no matter what".
The CDC itself just reviewed tons of death certificates and questioned the true death toll... See for yourself here... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e2.htm
For 6% of the deaths, covid was the only cause listed. Could the true death toll be closer to 30,000 opposed to 500,000?
if someone is obese, then gets cancer, and dies, you don't say that person died of obesity. they died of cancer. even though their obesity probably contributed to their ability to fight it, it wasn't the sole cause.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
Excess deaths. Crickets...gvn2fly1421 said:Got a lot of replies on my way out.
The motorcycle covid death... https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/man-who-died-in-motorcycle-crash-counted-as-covid-19-death-in-florida-report-07-18-2020
The quote from the story, "Dr. Pino tells FOX 35 that one "could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash." Seriously?
The Washington gunshot victims... https://mynorthwest.com/1889564/rantz-gun-shot-victims-washington-coronavirus-deaths/?
"It seems obvious that their data is not accurate. They imply as much: “Our dashboard numbers do include any death to a person that has tested positive to COVID-19.”That means, if a COVID-19 patient dies of a gun shot wound or in a car crash, the data lists that patient as a coronavirus death. If a tree falls on a coronavirus patient and kills them? It’s listed as a coronavirus death."
How are any of those deaths right? And as I brought up before, if we count covid deaths like this, can we not count vaccine deaths the same way? Where do we draw the line? Got the vaccine, got shot, vaccine death. Sounds so stupid but that is how covid deaths are counted.
Weird too that no one is reporting on the vaccine deaths.... Crickets....
Peace out and stay safe out there!
0 -
Thanks for moving the goal posts. Were you asleep for 4 years? What does Desantis have to do with anything POOTWH related? Deranged? You mean like posting bullshit twits and calling people "controlled?"gvn2fly1421 said:
Maxi, buddy, that shit you just posted is borderline deranged. Seriously, seek help man.Halifax2TheMax said:
Responding to the bold in order:gvn2fly1421 said:
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?Halifax2TheMax said:
Yay you, you go on with your life. You get vaccinated yet? Or you skipping it?gvn2fly1421 said:
I am sure the first line is a typo with the 5 million dead Americans so I will leave that alone.Halifax2TheMax said: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.
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?
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 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.
Yea you, see? You're not controlled and you're living your life. Why do you assume the rest of us are not?
Try again. I thought I explained it: # of dead 'Muricans/# of known cases = % death rate. Assume all 320M 'Muricans get covid, apply death % rate. That's if "do nothing herd mentality" were applied and that rate applied. Like I said, maybe its simple, maybe its stupid. But do it for TN and you get a rate of .014 versus nationally .018.
But that's to assume that they're all the same to begin with, no? They are not. They're vastly different to begin with. Populations, regions, average ages, relative health metrics, etc. And, who's the control group? Right, nobody. Yea, it certainly is freedumb, on so many levels.
Imagine respecting POOTWH enough to type his name? After four years and then voting for that POS. He's set this country back several generations on so many levels. What soured him on me? Maybe it was the Central Park 5? Maybe it was his scam of a university? Maybe it was his multiple bankruptcies? Maybe it it was his grab 'em by the pussy? Do you hope your daughter grows up to work with man like that? How do you explain POOTWH to your daughter? Shut up and take it? Maybe it was, "good people on both sides?" Maybe it was the 25K+ documented lies and mistruths spewed by a clueless man who got elected with putin on the ritz's interference? Need I go on? I'm embarrassed to be a 'Murican and have to explain that POS to foreigners. Good to know that you're not. Read the POOTWH thread if you really want to know how I feel about that POS. I've got 27K+ posts, I've got plenty of time for typing P-O-O-T-W-H, but thanks for your concern regarding my time management skills.
Are you still with the repub party? If so, can you tell me what they stand for and what their policies are regarding the major issues of the day? Thank you.
I don't expect answers from you, just another shift of the goal posts.
As I mentioned, all that math is over my head. I look at number with Covid vs the number who died from/with covid to get my death rate. Truth is it is probably much lower due to people who never knew they had the virus.
If I didn't know any better, I would think you have been reading the BlueAnon message boards.
That Russian thing, show me again where that was proven? Turns out that was just a BlueAnon conspiracy after all.
"Good people on both sides" - Did you see the 60 minutes piece on Desantis? The media would never edit something for their own narrative would they? Nah, never. Seek the full quote from DJT.
His bankruptcies hurt you? Geez man, seriously, seek help.
Grab em by the pussy - A decades old quote. Thank God they were not in the locker room when I was a kid. Could never defend this to my daughter and never would, but my daughter would also be ashamed of some of the stuff I have done.
The 25K+ documented lies and mistruths - Do you find it funny that the media has gone silent on fact checking Biden? Biased maybe? I believe so.
I have no clue what the Central Park 5 and his scam of a university even are, but I go back to my original question, how has any of the things you listed personally affected you? Because you get embarrassed sitting around explaining Trump to foreigners?
Depending on what media you follow, they haven't given up on "fact checking Biden," but I wouldn't expect you to know that.
January 6th didn't affect you? Good to know. Where you there? Did Q send you?
You're kidding right? You don't know what his scam of a university is or know about the Central Park 5? But you know about Covid-19, huh?
"Very fine people on both sides." One side of "very fine people" marched with the "Jews will not replace us" crowd and the other side of "very fine people" marched with those who opposed the "Jews will not replace us" very fine people. Yup, and we all knew what POOTWH meant because he has no past history of racist animosity, right? Google, "Central Park 5" and get back to me. And you voted for this guy after 4 years? Wow.
Do you still call it the war of Northern Aggression?
TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
Full quote of press conference below. Again, you voted for that?
Full text: Trump’s comments on white supremacists, ‘alt-left’ in Charlottesville - POLITICOBack ButtonSearch IconFilter Icon
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Significantly reduced is not zero. Yes, some people will still get infected, and a very small percentage will have symptomatic cases. It’s just a much smaller number than non-vaccinated people.mcgruff10 said:
Weird, two teachers in my school hadoftenreading said:
The vaccine definitely prevents people fromHughFreakingDillon said:
I wish people would stop wishing for the quick fix. This isn't a one-pronged solution.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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.
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.
Their second shot and have just tested positive for covid. No clue if they are showing symptoms.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
The Art of the Dodge.gvn2fly1421 said:
I always thought it was brass tacks. Can say I learned something today!HughFreakingDillon said:
thank you.mrussel1 said:
It's 2%.. but let's extrapolate your theory. Most virologists say you need 70-85% infection rate to achieve herd immunity. So taking the middle, let's take 77.5% of the world had to be infected, and 2% of the cases ended in fatalities. That means for the 7.9 billion humans, we would have 6.1 billion cases. And that would lead to 122 million deaths. That would be compared to the current death count of 2.9 million.gvn2fly1421 said:
The go to number that everyone seems to go to is deaths. That is why I use death rates. All of them are around 1%. So if we have learned anything from looking at New Zealand, Sweden, New Brunswick, the US, etc., we have learned that cases are going to happen, virus gonna virus, no matter what is done. It seems the path we are on now is a path to having this linger for years.mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.mrussel1 said:
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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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?gvn2fly1421 said:
You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.mrussel1 said:
You may not have heard, but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.gvn2fly1421 said:
Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases. Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable. The virus is gonna virus.oftenreading 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.gvn2fly1421 said:
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?
*For most healthy people.
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...
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?
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
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.
Let that sink in. 122 million deaths under your strategy. As another comparative, a measly 75 million people died in WW2. The Influenza outbreak of 1919/20 was 50 million.
So bottom line, it's hard to agree with your theory or your statement that "virus gonna virus, no matter what".
virus gonna virus indeed.
gvn2fly1421: let's get down to brass tax here. Do you think the virus is better left unchecked so we can make the herd stronger?
I will answer your question, with a question.... Do you think IF we didn't even know the coronavirus existed, we would have noticed? I think that answers your question, BTW.
Also, to the group, I am out. Will return later. Maybe. Tomorrow? Next week? I don't know, but I did not want anyone to think I am dodging questions.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, 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; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, 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; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
What we have here is a bad case of the the Dunning–Kruger effect.
I admire (or feel sorry for) anyone who engages with the effected party.0 -
At least we have not yet proven Godwin’s Law.dignin said:What we have here is a bad case of the the Dunning–Kruger effect.
I admire (or feel sorry for) anyone who engages with the effected party.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help