The coronavirus

dignin

oftenreading said:

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. 

At least we have not yet proven Godwin’s Law. 

I had to look that one up. I could have sworn we've gone there, but that could have been another thread.

I know here in Alberta the restrictions have been compared to fascism often.

oftenreading

dignin said:

oftenreading said:

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. 

At least we have not yet proven Godwin’s Law. 

I had to look that one up. I could have sworn we've gone there, but that could have been another thread.

I know here in Alberta the restrictions have been compared to fascism often.

Oh, we’ve been there on many threads, but I don’t recall it on this one. I could be wrong though  

benjs

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

oftenreading said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

Any comments on this?  

https://twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/1380134029765263360

Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 

Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?

You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  

You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

*For most healthy people.

For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?

I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

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

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

OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...

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

And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

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

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

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

The point you raised in the post I replied to mentioned vaccine effectiveness.  I drew the conclusion that you think the vaccine is the way out.  I replied to that.

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

What other points can I offer an opinion to that I have missed?  I try to respond to any posts directed me as honest as I can.

Sweden's infection rates are far worse than their Scandinavian counterparts.  Death rates, as I said earlier, are not about masks or social distancing.  Why do you think those things are connected?  Death is an outcome based on co-morbidities, availability of healthcare, and age of the infected.  Why would you expect a dramatically different death rate amongst three Scando countries that have similar demographics and healthcare systems?

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.

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.

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".  

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/

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?  

From the article from the CDC you just posted, in the summary section:

 "Among 378,048 death certificates from 2020 listing COVID-19, 5.5% listed COVID-19 without codes for any other conditions. Among 357,133 death certificates with at least one other condition, 97% had a co-occurring diagnosis of a plausible chain-of-event condition (e.g., pneumonia or respiratory failure), or a significant contributing condition (e.g., hypertension or diabetes), or both." 

That's not "questioning the true death toll" - the above paragraph doesn't suggest at all what you're stating. What has been said about this virus from day one is that immunocompromised individuals are at substantially heightened risk. It should be fairly obvious based on that fact (shared over a year ago now) that you'd expect more fatalities to be linked with contributing conditions - and it certainly doesn't mean any fatalities with co-morbidities are somehow 'invalid' CoVID-19 deaths. Show some meaningful numbers instead of bullshit anecdotes if you intend to convince anyone here. If your claim is that the CDC has overstated the fatalities by 94% because co-morbidities are a myth - I truly don't know what to say other than that's moronic.

static111

Ledbetterman10 said:

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

For now, we're still all under orders for higher-ups to wear our masks in hallways and common places. I don't have to wear it in my own office, but have to put it on to go the bathroom. But if that order gets lifted, in your guys' opinions, should the seven of us still wear our masks for the sake of the one person that refused the vaccine?  

No seriously fuck that person

23scidoo

I can see a smile on Hitler's, Himmler's and Goebbels's faces..


https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-04-07/venezuelan-mayor-marks-homes-of-covid-patients-with-red-symbol

mickeyrat

  https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/health/2021/04/08/covid-1-3-survivors-diagnosed-brain-mental-health-disorder/7121104002/

dignin

23scidoo said:

I can see a smile on Hitler's, Himmler's and Goebbels's faces..


https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-04-07/venezuelan-mayor-marks-homes-of-covid-patients-with-red-symbol

@oftenreading

mrussel1

23scidoo said:

I can see a smile on Hitler's, Himmler's and Goebbels's faces..


https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-04-07/venezuelan-mayor-marks-homes-of-covid-patients-with-red-symbol

Good thing none of us live in Venezuela.  

Halifax2TheMax

Now, that's leadership, efficiency and caring about the "Murican people. But POOTWH getting elected didn't do anything to me, personally.

Trump officials celebrated efforts to change CDC reports on coronavirus

Even as career government scientists worked to combat the virus, a cadre of Trump appointees was trying to blunt the scientists’ messages, edit their findings and equip the president with alternate talking points, according to material obtained by the House’s select subcommittee on the outbreak.

Emails show Trump officials celebrate efforts to change CDC reports on coronavirus - The Washington Post

HughFreakingDillon

gvn2fly1421 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

oftenreading said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

Any comments on this?  

https://twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/1380134029765263360

Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 

Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?

You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  

You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

*For most healthy people.

For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?

I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

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

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

OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...

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

And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

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

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

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

The point you raised in the post I replied to mentioned vaccine effectiveness.  I drew the conclusion that you think the vaccine is the way out.  I replied to that.

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

What other points can I offer an opinion to that I have missed?  I try to respond to any posts directed me as honest as I can.

Sweden's infection rates are far worse than their Scandinavian counterparts.  Death rates, as I said earlier, are not about masks or social distancing.  Why do you think those things are connected?  Death is an outcome based on co-morbidities, availability of healthcare, and age of the infected.  Why would you expect a dramatically different death rate amongst three Scando countries that have similar demographics and healthcare systems?

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.

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.

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".  

thank you. 

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 always thought it was brass tacks.  Can say I learned something today!

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.

No, I got it wrong. it is brass tacks. I knew the meaning, just didn't know the etymology. 

lastexitlondon

Done me with etymology

HughFreakingDillon

lastexitlondon said:

Done me with etymology

haha, I only know that word because I'm dumb. I have to look up a lot of meanings, and that word always pops up, referring to the origin of a term/phrase. 

23scidoo

AstraZeneca update..
Germany and Spain, only over 60 y
England, only under 30 y
Australia, not under 50y
Belgium and France, not under 55y
Greece, only over 30y..

Poncier

Ledbetterman10 said:

Gern Blansten said:

Rage Against the Machine just postponed their tour to 2022.....

Ugh...this suggests that this will be another summer without concert tours.

I think best we can hope for this summer is smaller shows, doubt you'll see 20,000 strong crowds till either fall or 2022.

jerparker20

Been hunting around for a shot here in the Twin Cities. Nothing. Out of curiosity, I checked some of the rural areas. You know the places where people pissed and moaned about their “freedoms” being taken away and the governor being a dictator, and refusing to wear masks. Those areas all have shots available. Like a lot. Like you can pick and choose appointment day/times a lot. Fuckers.

josevolution

jerparker20 said:

Been hunting around for a shot here in the Twin Cities. Nothing. Out of curiosity, I checked some of the rural areas. You know the places where people pissed and moaned about their “freedoms” being taken away and the governor being a dictator, and refusing to wear masks. Those areas all have shots available. Like a lot. Like you can pick and choose appointment day/times a lot. Fuckers.

You can’t make it up the shots are in abundance in areas where those folks are refusing the vaccine because they believe the government will keep track of them as if they are so important or are afraid they won’t be able to have kids even though they can’t afford a dentist visit 🤣🤣🤣

Bentleyspop

josevolution said:

jerparker20 said:

Been hunting around for a shot here in the Twin Cities. Nothing. Out of curiosity, I checked some of the rural areas. You know the places where people pissed and moaned about their “freedoms” being taken away and the governor being a dictator, and refusing to wear masks. Those areas all have shots available. Like a lot. Like you can pick and choose appointment day/times a lot. Fuckers.

You can’t make it up the shots are in abundance in areas where those folks are refusing the vaccine because they believe the government will keep track of them as if they are so important or are afraid they won’t be able to have kids even though they can’t afford a dentist visit 🤣🤣🤣

This is true.
In western Nebraska there is an over abundance of avaliable vaccines with some going to waste. In Eastern Nebraska there is a shortage. 

Lerxst1992

benjs said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

mrussel1 said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

oftenreading said:

gvn2fly1421 said:

Any comments on this?  

https://twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/1380134029765263360

Looking at cases at any single point in time to argue against lockdowns is pointless, given the time lag between when lockdowns and reopenings start and when we see cases go down or up. What matters is the trends over time related to these activities, and we have good evidence that lockdowns are effective to reduce cases where they are properly implemented  and where people obey them. 

Lockdowns are effective to reduce cases.  Lockdowns are also effective at delaying the inevitable.  The virus is gonna virus.

At one point do you end the lockdown?  If you told every person in America that if you locked down for a month the virus would be gone and life would be back to normal, every single person would jump at that.  I know I would.  The problem is, viruses are not on that same schedule.  So at what point does the costs of lockdowns outweight the costs of reaching herd immunity?

You may not have heard,  but there's a 94% effective vaccine out there.  

You may not have heard, there is a 99%* survivable virus out there.

*For most healthy people.

For most healthy people... we have an aging population and co morbidity. That's why there are a half million dead.  Stop minimizing that very important fact.  All lives matter... remember?

I hesitate to even respond because I do not want to derail what I feel like has been good discussion, but do not lump me in with other Republicans that you see on tv or other stuff.  The All Live Matter jab at the end was unnecessary.  When did I ever say that? 

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

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

OK, please do not derail off of that post...  Back to covid...

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

And that's where this whole thing gets really, really difficult to deal with.  

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

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

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

The point you raised in the post I replied to mentioned vaccine effectiveness.  I drew the conclusion that you think the vaccine is the way out.  I replied to that.

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

What other points can I offer an opinion to that I have missed?  I try to respond to any posts directed me as honest as I can.

Sweden's infection rates are far worse than their Scandinavian counterparts.  Death rates, as I said earlier, are not about masks or social distancing.  Why do you think those things are connected?  Death is an outcome based on co-morbidities, availability of healthcare, and age of the infected.  Why would you expect a dramatically different death rate amongst three Scando countries that have similar demographics and healthcare systems?

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.

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.

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".  

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/

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?  

From the article from the CDC you just posted, in the summary section:

 "Among 378,048 death certificates from 2020 listing COVID-19, 5.5% listed COVID-19 without codes for any other conditions. Among 357,133 death certificates with at least one other condition, 97% had a co-occurring diagnosis of a plausible chain-of-event condition (e.g., pneumonia or respiratory failure), or a significant contributing condition (e.g., hypertension or diabetes), or both." 

That's not "questioning the true death toll" - the above paragraph doesn't suggest at all what you're stating. What has been said about this virus from day one is that immunocompromised individuals are at substantially heightened risk. It should be fairly obvious based on that fact (shared over a year ago now) that you'd expect more fatalities to be linked with contributing conditions - and it certainly doesn't mean any fatalities with co-morbidities are somehow 'invalid' CoVID-19 deaths. Show some meaningful numbers instead of bullshit anecdotes if you intend to convince anyone here. If your claim is that the CDC has overstated the fatalities by 94% because co-morbidities are a myth - I truly don't know what to say other than that's moronic.

I give you credit for trying. The problem is Trump kicked a rock, and all the crazy people who hid beneath it and kept to themselves in the dark are now emboldened, and they ain’t going away

The dude literally said no matter what is done the virus is gonna virus, and PUT THE USA IN THE SAME BUCKET AS NZ.

NZ LITERALLY HAS ZERO DOMESTIC CASES. ZERO.

What does NZ do when there is community spread? They lock down immediately for a few days to eradicate the virus as science says should be done AND THEN THEY GO BACK TO LIVING THEIR NORMAL LIVES WITH EVERYTHING OPEN.

Sorry for shouting, but with these people it’s the same thing with everything with these trumpsters, the trump terrorists didn’t invade the capitol and kill a cop, trump didn’t collide with Russia or Ukraine, and either covid ain’t deadly or if it is, nothing can be done about it.

Murica is screwed. Enjoy normal life, New Zelanders!

gvn2fly1421

jerparker20 said:

Been hunting around for a shot here in the Twin Cities. Nothing. Out of curiosity, I checked some of the rural areas. You know the places where people pissed and moaned about their “freedoms” being taken away and the governor being a dictator, and refusing to wear masks. Those areas all have shots available. Like a lot. Like you can pick and choose appointment day/times a lot. Fuckers.

I was called selfish cause I refused the shot.  Seems like I have left more for each of you, so remind me again how I am selfish?

gvn2fly1421

josevolution said:

jerparker20 said:

Been hunting around for a shot here in the Twin Cities. Nothing. Out of curiosity, I checked some of the rural areas. You know the places where people pissed and moaned about their “freedoms” being taken away and the governor being a dictator, and refusing to wear masks. Those areas all have shots available. Like a lot. Like you can pick and choose appointment day/times a lot. Fuckers.

You can’t make it up the shots are in abundance in areas where those folks are refusing the vaccine because they believe the government will keep track of them as if they are so important or are afraid they won’t be able to have kids even though they can’t afford a dentist visit 🤣🤣🤣

When I have ever said anything about the government tracking me?  I have never seen anything like that, period.  Do you guys just make this stuff up?  I feel like the only sane one in here questioning a rushed vaccine that no one has any idea what it will do to you for a virus that is very survivable.