“But for now, he still won't eat indoors at a restaurant or go to a movie theater.
"I don't think I would — even if I'm vaccinated — go into an indoor, crowded place where people are not wearing masks," Fauci said.
He's not planning any travel, either: "I don't really see myself going on any fun trips for a while," he said.“
So did you read the whole article or just the couple of quotes you cherry picked to try and make your argument? He clearly says he has increased some of his activity, like gathering indoors with other vaccinated friends/family. He also makes it clear his avoidance of indoor dining and such is due to waiting for enough folks to get vaxxed to achieve herd immunity (herd mentality according to Mr. Trump), and not wanting to do anything to slow that goal down. Something we should all focus on.. Also says he isn't traveling because he's too busy currently.
So if you read and comprehend everything he says, its not "I'm vaccinated but still afraid and staying in lock down", it's "I'm vaccinated, gathering in small groups with others who are also vaccinated, and being patient till enough of the rest of the population is vaccinated so its safe for everyone to resume the activities we all miss".
“But for now, he still won't eat indoors at a restaurant or go to a movie theater.
"I don't think I would — even if I'm vaccinated — go into an indoor, crowded place where people are not wearing masks," Fauci said.
He's not planning any travel, either: "I don't really see myself going on any fun trips for a while," he said.“
So did you read the whole article or just the couple of quotes you cherry picked to try and make your argument? He clearly says he has increased some of his activity, like gathering indoors with other vaccinated friends/family. He also makes it clear his avoidance of indoor dining and such is due to waiting for enough folks to get vaxxed to achieve herd immunity (herd mentality according to Mr. Trump), and not wanting to do anything to slow that goal down. Something we should all focus on.. Also says he isn't traveling because he's too busy currently.
So if you read and comprehend everything he says, its not "I'm vaccinated but still afraid and staying in lock down", it's "I'm vaccinated, gathering in small groups with others who are also vaccinated, and being patient till enough of the rest of the population is vaccinated so its safe for everyone to resume the activities we all miss".
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
I do remember in the months leading up to the election a lot of people openly expressed distrust in any vaccine, acting as of Trump himself was mixing chemicals in the whitehouse basement.
Many people on this board? Like who?
I didn’t say this board, although there probably were some. No one remembers people being anxious about a vaccine back in September/October?
I personally was concerned about his pressure on the vaccine makers and the FDA to just get it out there, without proper trials/approvals.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.
So using your 40% number and calling it unreported, the math still works out to 91 million. And that's without the inevitable surge of deaths because of lack of available care.
So explain to me, using math, how my number is wrong. And give me your number. If you declared my number wrong, you must have a more accurate one.
Go.
JC, man. The 2% mortality rate you used was determined using reported infections and reported deaths. The herd immunity theory was introduced and you ran the numbers. Your math was fine but it did not include a way of determining the most important factor of knowing how many people have truly been infected. That information is key in determining the ACTUAL mortality rate and a more accurate estimate of deaths. I am not claiming to know what that number is but just knowing that up to 45% of infections are estimated to be asymptomatic and testing was/is a clusterfuck, it is likely that the actual number of infections is much higher than what has been documented. Are you seriously denying this? When you decided to then try and factor in the unknown infections the number fell to 91 million. Last time I checked 91 was less than 122 but I still wouldn’t try to pass either off as fact. Again, I was not the one claiming I knew what the herd immunity toll would be, I simply pointed out a flaw in your claim.
Stop.
Using your 45% under counted rate, it reduced the mortality rate from 2% to 1.5%. That's how it went from 122 to 91. You have called this 45%asymptomatic, clearly mixing that up with unreported. I have conceded the point of 45% , even though you've failed to provide any evidence or link of that.
And last, most importantly, I didn't try to pass it off as "fact". How can a hypothetical number be a "fact"? It's an argument about whether herd immunity should have been undertaken. I used CDC and WHO numbers to calculate a possible death number for herd. That's why I don't care if it's 122, 91 or 50 million. These are all unacceptable numbers. So unless you come up with a number that's acceptable under herd immunity, why are you wasting my time?
It appears there are other nut jobs like me who feel trying to factor in total infections (not just known) is how to determine a more accurate death rate. Nowactually explain to me for once why you wouldn’t? 1.15% is not 2% so for the last fucking time, your calculation of herd immunity deaths was easy to dispute and just by telling you that you have run in circles trying to defend your calculation. I have given you not only a means of trying to factor in those unknown cases (because they matter) but also data suggesting that the 2% that you are hung up on is not a true indication. If you can’t answer the one question I have asked then don’t bother.
Holy shit dude, you're still going on about this. Okay, I'll bullet it out AGAIN so you understand:
1. You ask why I didn't use 1.15%? Well a few reasons: A. - the link you provided was from OCTOBER, not today. B - it's a study from a college and an estimate. C- If you go back to my original post, I simply took the number of confirmed deaths/confirmed cases. And guess what that math is? 2.15%. Here's the link, do the fucking division yourself. https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-US&mid=/m/02j71&gl=US&ceid=US:en
So then you went on about "asymptomatic cases" which has nothing to do with unreported cases, which I think your point may have been, but you cant' keep those terms straight. So you threw out 40-45%. So I increased the number of cases to 189MM FOR YOU, and kept the deaths the same (which would not be accurate, they would be higher but WTF, my point was about herd). That made the infection death rate 1.5%.
Now you're talking about the rate being 1.15% citing some study from seven fucking months ago. So why not look at this contemporaneous data (we'll wait while you look up that big word) and tell me which countries have an rate above 1.15 and below 1.15 and tell me if you still think that's the number. And last, here's a screen shot from yet ANOTHER source, by country. I'm making this easy on you.. how many of these first world countries are below the 1.15% number you cited? Hint.. it's one. NZ https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#the-case-fatality-rate
And finally, let me ask you one more time since you won't stfu about this. You tell me what the estimated cost in lives would be for herd immunity... because that's THE FUCKING POINT. Not whether the rate is 2%, 1.5% or 1.15% CAN YOU PLEASE DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE?
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.
So using your 40% number and calling it unreported, the math still works out to 91 million. And that's without the inevitable surge of deaths because of lack of available care.
So explain to me, using math, how my number is wrong. And give me your number. If you declared my number wrong, you must have a more accurate one.
Go.
JC, man. The 2% mortality rate you used was determined using reported infections and reported deaths. The herd immunity theory was introduced and you ran the numbers. Your math was fine but it did not include a way of determining the most important factor of knowing how many people have truly been infected. That information is key in determining the ACTUAL mortality rate and a more accurate estimate of deaths. I am not claiming to know what that number is but just knowing that up to 45% of infections are estimated to be asymptomatic and testing was/is a clusterfuck, it is likely that the actual number of infections is much higher than what has been documented. Are you seriously denying this? When you decided to then try and factor in the unknown infections the number fell to 91 million. Last time I checked 91 was less than 122 but I still wouldn’t try to pass either off as fact. Again, I was not the one claiming I knew what the herd immunity toll would be, I simply pointed out a flaw in your claim.
Stop.
JC man. The actual mortality rate is 2%, period. You may have theories that the factual reported cases are understated, and someone else has a theory the fatalities are underreported. Speculation either way is not fact.
Your theories are fine for speculation, but the fact remains the mortality rate is factually TWO PERCENT.
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.
So using your 40% number and calling it unreported, the math still works out to 91 million. And that's without the inevitable surge of deaths because of lack of available care.
So explain to me, using math, how my number is wrong. And give me your number. If you declared my number wrong, you must have a more accurate one.
Go.
JC, man. The 2% mortality rate you used was determined using reported infections and reported deaths. The herd immunity theory was introduced and you ran the numbers. Your math was fine but it did not include a way of determining the most important factor of knowing how many people have truly been infected. That information is key in determining the ACTUAL mortality rate and a more accurate estimate of deaths. I am not claiming to know what that number is but just knowing that up to 45% of infections are estimated to be asymptomatic and testing was/is a clusterfuck, it is likely that the actual number of infections is much higher than what has been documented. Are you seriously denying this? When you decided to then try and factor in the unknown infections the number fell to 91 million. Last time I checked 91 was less than 122 but I still wouldn’t try to pass either off as fact. Again, I was not the one claiming I knew what the herd immunity toll would be, I simply pointed out a flaw in your claim.
Stop.
Using your 45% under counted rate, it reduced the mortality rate from 2% to 1.5%. That's how it went from 122 to 91. You have called this 45%asymptomatic, clearly mixing that up with unreported. I have conceded the point of 45% , even though you've failed to provide any evidence or link of that.
And last, most importantly, I didn't try to pass it off as "fact". How can a hypothetical number be a "fact"? It's an argument about whether herd immunity should have been undertaken. I used CDC and WHO numbers to calculate a possible death number for herd. That's why I don't care if it's 122, 91 or 50 million. These are all unacceptable numbers. So unless you come up with a number that's acceptable under herd immunity, why are you wasting my time?
It appears there are other nut jobs like me who feel trying to factor in total infections (not just known) is how to determine a more accurate death rate. Nowactually explain to me for once why you wouldn’t? 1.15% is not 2% so for the last fucking time, your calculation of herd immunity deaths was easy to dispute and just by telling you that you have run in circles trying to defend your calculation. I have given you not only a means of trying to factor in those unknown cases (because they matter) but also data suggesting that the 2% that you are hung up on is not a true indication. If you can’t answer the one question I have asked then don’t bother.
Holy shit dude, you're still going on about this. Okay, I'll bullet it out AGAIN so you understand:
1. You ask why I didn't use 1.15%? Well a few reasons: A. - the link you provided was from OCTOBER, not today. B - it's a study from a college and an estimate. C- If you go back to my original post, I simply took the number of confirmed deaths/confirmed cases. And guess what that math is? 2.15%. Here's the link, do the fucking division yourself. https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-US&mid=/m/02j71&gl=US&ceid=US:en
So then you went on about "asymptomatic cases" which has nothing to do with unreported cases, which I think your point may have been, but you cant' keep those terms straight. So you threw out 40-45%. So I increased the number of cases to 189MM FOR YOU, and kept the deaths the same (which would not be accurate, they would be higher but WTF, my point was about herd). That made the infection death rate 1.5%.
Now you're talking about the rate being 1.15% citing some study from seven fucking months ago. So why not look at this contemporaneous data (we'll wait while you look up that big word) and tell me which countries have an rate above 1.15 and below 1.15 and tell me if you still think that's the number. And last, here's a screen shot from yet ANOTHER source, by country. I'm making this easy on you.. how many of these first world countries are below the 1.15% number you cited? Hint.. it's one. NZ https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#the-case-fatality-rate
And finally, let me ask you one more time since you won't stfu about this. You tell me what the estimated cost in lives would be for herd immunity... because that's THE FUCKING POINT. Not whether the rate is 2%, 1.5% or 1.15% CAN YOU PLEASE DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE?
If you go back and actually read what I have written you would see I agreed with your math, but felt it was not the best way to determine the herd theory because it did not include a factor for unknown infections. Thanks to @benjs he introduced (IFR) which is what I was trying to explain without knowing what it was called. This is very important in determining a more accurate mortality rate (MY ENTIRE FUCKING POINT). If you still don’t understand that for every unknown infection (whether due to the carrier being asymptomatic, testing not being deemed necessary or testing being unavailable) the true mortality rate decreases, you really shouldn’t be questioning my intelligence. I figured you would understand that the numbers I provided only supported my thoughts of how not factoring in unknown infections hurt your claim. Pointing that out must have really hurt your ego, I’ll make note of your sensitivity.
If Donald John Trump was still in office and was touting his “warp speed, big and beautiful vaccine”, I have to think this thread would have a different tone based on most of the responses here. I feel like most, not all, are so blinded by your politics you cannot think critically.
You would think wrong. All of us are smart enough to know that Trump didn't actually make the vaccine, nor test it.
122 million dead under herd strategy. That's what you're advocating. And you advocate it AFTER knowing the death toll and that we have multiple vaccines.
Sorry, but this is as ridiculous as some of the tweets that get shared. Do you honestly believe that there hasn’t been a single undocumented case of covid? The 2% mortality rate that you are using is determined from known cases. It is estimated that 40 to 45% of cases are asymptomatic, add to that all of those who may have had light symptoms but never got tested and everyone else in the world that live in a place where testing isn’t as accessible. Testing has not exactly been a bright spot during the pandemic, especially early on and now as testing sites have transitioned to administering vaccines. Either way, herd immunity is obviously not the answer for saving lives but neither is continuing to bring up a rebuttal formed from heavily flawed data.
It's the only data available, (known cases * mortality rate). So where answer these questions:
- Asymptomatic cases are in the numbers I estimated. If you're saying "undocumented cases", where are you coming up with those 40-45% number of COVID cases that are undocumented?
-If you were president, what data would you have used to determine whether herd immunity is the right strategy?
- using your validated numbers (link please), how many deaths would you calculate from herd immunity?
And what number would be your inflection point to determine the number of acceptable human deaths?
If you can’t understand how potentially flawed the data is based on knowing the rate of asymptomatic cases, there is no point. I don’t pretend to play president because I am not a member of either fraternity. Logic points to a much lower number than your 122 million, but I will not pretend to know because the data is not accurate as to how many people have actually had covid. There isn’t an acceptable number of human deaths. If you want to play politics you are talking to the wrong person.
Your statement makes no sense. You said we know the number of asymptomatic cases. By definition, those would be in the worldwide case numbers, therefore accounted for in my calculations.
Now to be sure, there's an MOE in the numbers I provided, but what is that margin? Is it +/- 5%? 10? Or are you saying it's orders of magnitude off,
Edit - if if you're right that cases are understated by 40%, which you've provided no evidence, that would bring the mortality rate down to 1.5%. And therefore the number of deaths would be 91.5 million.
I am not making claims that 122 million is the cost of herd immunity. I am simply pointing out that it is not accurate based on what we do know. If you are standing by 122 million then I’ll answer the question I asked you. You believe that there have been 0 undocumented cases of covid.
I literally just factored your 40% number into it for 91.5 million. Now where did you get that number and are you now saying the number is again too high? I would argue that the mortality rate would increase due to mass over crowding at hospitals.
If my number is wrong, even using your data, then show me your calculations.
Per Fauci the estimated percentage of asymptomatic infections is 40-45%. Roughly half of those who have contracted the virus would only know they had covid by getting tested. Who gets tested without a reason to do so? Now that we have determined a large percentage of people who are infected have no reason to get tested we know that the true number of those infected is vastly unknown. Now back to my point, using a mortality rate from only known cases will never be an accurate way of determining what the cost of herd immunity would actually look like. Let me be clear, I am not for herd immunity but after the third or fourth time you spread a number that was easy to dispute, that’s what I did. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/937297
I already factored in your 40% rate of "unreported", not asymptomatic. You keep conflating those two concepts.
So using your 40% number and calling it unreported, the math still works out to 91 million. And that's without the inevitable surge of deaths because of lack of available care.
So explain to me, using math, how my number is wrong. And give me your number. If you declared my number wrong, you must have a more accurate one.
Go.
JC, man. The 2% mortality rate you used was determined using reported infections and reported deaths. The herd immunity theory was introduced and you ran the numbers. Your math was fine but it did not include a way of determining the most important factor of knowing how many people have truly been infected. That information is key in determining the ACTUAL mortality rate and a more accurate estimate of deaths. I am not claiming to know what that number is but just knowing that up to 45% of infections are estimated to be asymptomatic and testing was/is a clusterfuck, it is likely that the actual number of infections is much higher than what has been documented. Are you seriously denying this? When you decided to then try and factor in the unknown infections the number fell to 91 million. Last time I checked 91 was less than 122 but I still wouldn’t try to pass either off as fact. Again, I was not the one claiming I knew what the herd immunity toll would be, I simply pointed out a flaw in your claim.
Stop.
Using your 45% under counted rate, it reduced the mortality rate from 2% to 1.5%. That's how it went from 122 to 91. You have called this 45%asymptomatic, clearly mixing that up with unreported. I have conceded the point of 45% , even though you've failed to provide any evidence or link of that.
And last, most importantly, I didn't try to pass it off as "fact". How can a hypothetical number be a "fact"? It's an argument about whether herd immunity should have been undertaken. I used CDC and WHO numbers to calculate a possible death number for herd. That's why I don't care if it's 122, 91 or 50 million. These are all unacceptable numbers. So unless you come up with a number that's acceptable under herd immunity, why are you wasting my time?
It appears there are other nut jobs like me who feel trying to factor in total infections (not just known) is how to determine a more accurate death rate. Nowactually explain to me for once why you wouldn’t? 1.15% is not 2% so for the last fucking time, your calculation of herd immunity deaths was easy to dispute and just by telling you that you have run in circles trying to defend your calculation. I have given you not only a means of trying to factor in those unknown cases (because they matter) but also data suggesting that the 2% that you are hung up on is not a true indication. If you can’t answer the one question I have asked then don’t bother.
Holy shit dude, you're still going on about this. Okay, I'll bullet it out AGAIN so you understand:
1. You ask why I didn't use 1.15%? Well a few reasons: A. - the link you provided was from OCTOBER, not today. B - it's a study from a college and an estimate. C- If you go back to my original post, I simply took the number of confirmed deaths/confirmed cases. And guess what that math is? 2.15%. Here's the link, do the fucking division yourself. https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-US&mid=/m/02j71&gl=US&ceid=US:en
So then you went on about "asymptomatic cases" which has nothing to do with unreported cases, which I think your point may have been, but you cant' keep those terms straight. So you threw out 40-45%. So I increased the number of cases to 189MM FOR YOU, and kept the deaths the same (which would not be accurate, they would be higher but WTF, my point was about herd). That made the infection death rate 1.5%.
Now you're talking about the rate being 1.15% citing some study from seven fucking months ago. So why not look at this contemporaneous data (we'll wait while you look up that big word) and tell me which countries have an rate above 1.15 and below 1.15 and tell me if you still think that's the number. And last, here's a screen shot from yet ANOTHER source, by country. I'm making this easy on you.. how many of these first world countries are below the 1.15% number you cited? Hint.. it's one. NZ https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#the-case-fatality-rate
And finally, let me ask you one more time since you won't stfu about this. You tell me what the estimated cost in lives would be for herd immunity... because that's THE FUCKING POINT. Not whether the rate is 2%, 1.5% or 1.15% CAN YOU PLEASE DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE?
If you go back and actually read what I have written you would see I agreed with your math, but felt it was not the best way to determine the herd theory because it did not include a factor for unknown infections. This is very important in determining a more accurate mortality rate (MY ENTIRE FUCKING POINT). If you still don’t understand that for every unknown infection (whether due to the carrier being asymptomatic, testing not being deemed necessary or testing being unavailable) the true mortality rate decreases, you really shouldn’t be questioning my intelligence. I figured you would understand that the numbers I provided only supported my thoughts of how not factoring in unknown infections hurt your claim. Pointing that out must have really hurt your ego, I’ll make note of your sensitivity.
Derp... you said 40'45%. I said fine, here's the new number. You keep going on about it. Endlessly... for no reason. That was 10 posts ago. And repeated. Over and over.
The 2% death rate is only as accurate as the positive case count. And hasn’t even the cdc confirmed there could be many unreported cases? I thought it was accepted by everyone we don’t have a really accurate count on the total numbers. But even at 1% is too high to just hope for herd immunity. And I think that’s what FiveBelow was saying. The 2% doesnt account for unreported cases, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter, 1% is still too high.
DEATHS CAN BE UNDERREPORTED JUST LIKE CASES MIGHT BE.
ITS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR THE FIRST TYPE OF ERROR TO NOT EXIST IF THE SECOND EXISTS
The most likely scenario is both do. And mild covid cases are nearly irrelevant in considering the true danger to the vulnerable. So let’s stop pretending that mild cases make covid less deadly.
DEATHS CAN BE UNDERREPORTED JUST LIKE CASES MIGHT BE.
ITS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR THE FIRST TYPE OF ERROR TO NOT EXIST IF THE SECOND EXISTS
The most likely scenario is both do. And mild covid cases are nearly irrelevant in considering the true danger to the vulnerable. So let’s stop pretending that mild cases make covid less deadly.
yes, that report is from 5 months ago. But show me a more recent CDC report or other reliable source that says it’s not drastically under reported. Thats not pretending this isn’t deadly or that we should just hope for here immunity. It’s just facts.
It's been interesting reading the back and forth. I don't see the point in the opposing side arguing the amount of deaths since it's clear we'd have tens of millions of dead if nothing had been done and we just let it run it's course unabated. Weirdest argument ever. Who cares if it would be 120 million or 22 million, both are insanely unacceptable.
It's been interesting reading the back and forth. I don't see the point in the opposing side arguing the amount of deaths since it's clear we'd have tens of millions of dead if nothing had been done and we just let it run it's course unabated. Weirdest argument ever. Who cares if it would be 120 million or 22 million, both are insanely unacceptable.
Yes, that is it exactly. That was the whole argument to the person who said that we should have just gone herd.
It's been interesting reading the back and forth. I don't see the point in the opposing side arguing the amount of deaths since it's clear we'd have tens of millions of dead if nothing had been done and we just let it run it's course unabated. Weirdest argument ever. Who cares if it would be 120 million or 22 million, both are insanely unacceptable.
Yes, that is it exactly. That was the whole argument to the person who said that we should have just gone herd.
It's been interesting reading the back and forth. I don't see the point in the opposing side arguing the amount of deaths since it's clear we'd have tens of millions of dead if nothing had been done and we just let it run it's course unabated. Weirdest argument ever. Who cares if it would be 120 million or 22 million, both are insanely unacceptable.
DEATHS CAN BE UNDERREPORTED JUST LIKE CASES MIGHT BE.
ITS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR THE FIRST TYPE OF ERROR TO NOT EXIST IF THE SECOND EXISTS
The most likely scenario is both do. And mild covid cases are nearly irrelevant in considering the true danger to the vulnerable. So let’s stop pretending that mild cases make covid less deadly.
yes, that report is from 5 months ago. But show me a more recent CDC report or other reliable source that says it’s not drastically under reported. Thats not pretending this isn’t deadly or that we should just hope for here immunity. It’s just facts.
Mace - you've got half the story right. As I said I used straight math to calculate the death rate, 2%+. Five below objected saying 40-45% of cases are not in the numbers. I said, fine, let's up the total cases to 189MM (known cases *1.40), so the death rate goes to 1.5%, I recalculated the approximate deaths from herd or "do nothing". And then it just kept going, and going and going. For what reason, I'm not sure. No one is disputing that the number of actual cases are higher than reported. I wasn't trying to make a precise case, only the point that the total deaths from herd would be enormous.
DEATHS CAN BE UNDERREPORTED JUST LIKE CASES MIGHT BE.
ITS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR THE FIRST TYPE OF ERROR TO NOT EXIST IF THE SECOND EXISTS
The most likely scenario is both do. And mild covid cases are nearly irrelevant in considering the true danger to the vulnerable. So let’s stop pretending that mild cases make covid less deadly.
yes, that report is from 5 months ago. But show me a more recent CDC report or other reliable source that says it’s not drastically under reported. Thats not pretending this isn’t deadly or that we should just hope for here immunity. It’s just facts.
Mace - you've got half the story right. As I said I used straight math to calculate the death rate, 2%+. Five below objected saying 40-45% of cases are not in the numbers. I said, fine, let's up the total cases to 189MM (known cases *1.40), so the death rate goes to 1.5%, I recalculated the approximate deaths from herd or "do nothing". And then it just kept going, and going and going. For what reason, I'm not sure. No one is disputing that the number of actual cases are higher than reported. I wasn't trying to make a precise case, only the point that the total deaths from herd would be enormous.
Even if the actual death rate for the US is below 1%, which I believe it to be, I would agree with that.
Seems the resident clown shoe and self admitted idiot with regards to math and science, all things really, was closest in their prediction. An update on our Swedish friends too, although somewhat dated being from October 2020. Buh, buh, buh my freedumb and virus gonna virus. Hey, who knows, one or two million dead 'Muricans is no biggie. To some, apparently.
Many researchers say pursuing herd immunity is a bad idea. “Attempting to reach herd immunity via targeted infections is simply ludicrous,” Andersen says. “In the US, probably one to two million people would die.”
Earlier in the pandemic, media reports claimed that Sweden was pursuing a herd immunity strategy by essentially letting people live their lives as normal, but that idea is a “misunderstanding”, according to the country’s minister for health and social affairs, Lena Hallengren. Herd immunity “is a potential consequence of how the spread of the virus develops, in Sweden or in any other country”, she told Nature in a written statement, but it is “not a part of our strategy”. Sweden’s approach, she said, uses similar tools to most other countries: “Promoting social distancing, protecting vulnerable people, carrying out testing and contact tracing, and reinforcing our health system to cope with the pandemic.” Despite this, Sweden is hardly a model of success — statistics from Johns Hopkins University show the country has seen more than ten times the number of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people seen in neighbouring Norway (58.12 per 100,000, compared with 5.23 per 100,000 in Norway). Sweden’s case fatality rate, which is based on the number of known infections, is also at least three times those of Norway and nearby Denmark.
DEATHS CAN BE UNDERREPORTED JUST LIKE CASES MIGHT BE.
ITS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR THE FIRST TYPE OF ERROR TO NOT EXIST IF THE SECOND EXISTS
The most likely scenario is both do. And mild covid cases are nearly irrelevant in considering the true danger to the vulnerable. So let’s stop pretending that mild cases make covid less deadly.
yes, that report is from 5 months ago. But show me a more recent CDC report or other reliable source that says it’s not drastically under reported. Thats not pretending this isn’t deadly or that we should just hope for here immunity. It’s just facts.
Mace - you've got half the story right. As I said I used straight math to calculate the death rate, 2%+. Five below objected saying 40-45% of cases are not in the numbers. I said, fine, let's up the total cases to 189MM (known cases *1.40), so the death rate goes to 1.5%, I recalculated the approximate deaths from herd or "do nothing". And then it just kept going, and going and going. For what reason, I'm not sure. No one is disputing that the number of actual cases are higher than reported. I wasn't trying to make a precise case, only the point that the total deaths from herd would be enormous.
If this had been your initial response things would have been much easier. I also made it clear that I was not for herd immunity and no amount of death is acceptable. Moving on, no hard feelings.
Post edited by FiveBelow on
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,597
edited April 2021
Update: After getting Moderna shot #2 Saturday morning, we went for our daily one our of
brisk walking (#141 consecutive days walking!) By the end of the day, I
feeling a bit tired but no big deal. But then I woke up early Sunday
morning with extreme pain in my lower back and a killer headache. My
background pain level was and 8 1/2 out of ten with constant recurring
cyclical waves a pain and nausea hitting 9 1/2, close to 10. Walk day
#142 did not happen.
Yesterday was utter misery. I began to ask myself if this was worth
doing. I'm retired, I stay away from people, don't go out much and have
survived COVID for over a year just fine. I only did it because of
some peer pressure from a few people close to me.
Now it's Monday and my lower back pain is off the charts. I'm icing it
as I type this wonder when I will be functional again. I'm not exactly
what you would call in the best space right now.
Sending you a smile, Bboy. Hang in there. I'm so happy to hear about your fantastic health habit!
Post edited by Spunkie on
I was swimming in the Great Barrier Reef Animals were hiding behind the Coral Except for little Turtle I could swear he's trying to talk to me Gurgle Gurgle
Update: After getting Moderna shot #2 Saturday morning, we went for our daily one our of
brisk walking (#141 consecutive days walking!) By the end of the day, I
feeling a bit tired but no big deal. But then I woke up early Sunday
morning with extreme pain in my lower back and a killer headache. My
background pain level was and 8 1/2 out of ten with constant recurring
cyclical waves a pain and nausea hitting 9 1/2, close to 10. Walk day
#142 did not happen.
Yesterday was utter misery. I began to ask myself if this was worth
doing. I'm retired, I stay away from people, don't go out much and have
survived COVID for over a year just fine. I only did it because of
some peer pressure from a few people close to me.
Now it's Monday and my lower back pain is off the charts. I'm icing it
as I type this wonder when I will be functional again. I'm not exactly
what you would call in the best space right now.
I'm almost 72 hours out from my 2nd Moderna (1:15, Friday afternoon) and feeling much better than I did on Saturday & yesterday morning. Yesterday afternoon was hit or miss, while Saturday I barely got off the couch. Tylenol helped a lot.
Hang in there man, you should be better later today or in the morning.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,597
Update: After getting Moderna shot #2 Saturday morning, we went for our daily one our of
brisk walking (#141 consecutive days walking!) By the end of the day, I
feeling a bit tired but no big deal. But then I woke up early Sunday
morning with extreme pain in my lower back and a killer headache. My
background pain level was and 8 1/2 out of ten with constant recurring
cyclical waves a pain and nausea hitting 9 1/2, close to 10. Walk day
#142 did not happen.
Yesterday was utter misery. I began to ask myself if this was worth
doing. I'm retired, I stay away from people, don't go out much and have
survived COVID for over a year just fine. I only did it because of
some peer pressure from a few people close to me.
Now it's Monday and my lower back pain is off the charts. I'm icing it
as I type this wonder when I will be functional again. I'm not exactly
what you would call in the best space right now.
I'm almost 72 hours out from my 2nd Moderna (1:15, Friday afternoon) and feeling much better than I did on Saturday & yesterday morning. Yesterday afternoon was hit or miss, while Saturday I barely got off the couch. Tylenol helped a lot.
Hang in there man, you should be better later today or in the morning.
Glad your doing better, Merk!
I read that it is a bad idea to take either Tylenol or Ibuprofen before the vaccination (I did neither) and that afterwords it is OK to take Tylenol but not Ibuprofen because Ibuprofen is an NSAID (non-steroidal anti inflammatory drug), and it is better not to use it. Unfortunately, Tylenol has never helped me with pain but Ibuprofen works great for me. I'm pretty sure I would feel better if I could take Ibuprofen. I'm concerned now that being in bed for a day and a half has put my back out- something that is already an on-going issue.
Well, I hope in the next day or two I am doing better. Some people (like my sister) have almost no reaction. For me, this vaccine has been an ass-kicker!
Update: After getting Moderna shot #2 Saturday morning, we went for our daily one our of
brisk walking (#141 consecutive days walking!) By the end of the day, I
feeling a bit tired but no big deal. But then I woke up early Sunday
morning with extreme pain in my lower back and a killer headache. My
background pain level was and 8 1/2 out of ten with constant recurring
cyclical waves a pain and nausea hitting 9 1/2, close to 10. Walk day
#142 did not happen.
Yesterday was utter misery. I began to ask myself if this was worth
doing. I'm retired, I stay away from people, don't go out much and have
survived COVID for over a year just fine. I only did it because of
some peer pressure from a few people close to me.
Now it's Monday and my lower back pain is off the charts. I'm icing it
as I type this wonder when I will be functional again. I'm not exactly
what you would call in the best space right now.
I'm almost 72 hours out from my 2nd Moderna (1:15, Friday afternoon) and feeling much better than I did on Saturday & yesterday morning. Yesterday afternoon was hit or miss, while Saturday I barely got off the couch. Tylenol helped a lot.
Hang in there man, you should be better later today or in the morning.
Glad your doing better, Merk!
I read that it is a bad idea to take either Tylenol or Ibuprofen before the vaccination (I did neither) and that afterwords it is OK to take Tylenol but not Ibuprofen because Ibuprofen is an NSAID (non-steroidal anti inflammatory drug), and it is better not to use it. Unfortunately, Tylenol has never helped me with pain but Ibuprofen works great for me. I'm pretty sure I would feel better if I could take Ibuprofen. I'm concerned now that being in bed for a day and a half has put my back out- something that is already an on-going issue.
Well, I hope in the next day or two I am doing better. Some people (like my sister) have almost no reaction. For me, this vaccine has been an ass-kicker!
I won't lie, I'm still not 100% & have some lingering soreness, but it's nothing compared to 2 days ago.
Taking paracetamol based products will stop the body raising its temp to fight the intruder. So it's a bad idea. Ride it out is the best way. Easy to say I know,AZ first dose was nasty. I held out though. Just
brixton 93
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
So, bars and restaurants are close for five months, caush are high level risk,right??.. But not here yeah??..haha..
Well, public transit is kind of an essential service and it appears there is it least a mask mandate. Even so, you can't compare people packed in bars and sitting in restaurants maskless noshing on food for an hour to someone riding a bus with a mask on for what, 15 minutes on average? You can see the difference, right?
So, bars and restaurants are close for five months, caush are high level risk,right??.. But not here yeah??..haha..
Well, public transit is kind of an essential service and it appears there is it least a mask mandate. Even so, you can't compare people packed in bars and sitting in restaurants maskless noshing on food for an hour to someone riding a bus with a mask on for what, 15 minutes on average? You can see the difference, right?
Well if people get the luxury of riding a public bus to work, school, grocery store, then why can't I get smashed in a bar 5 days a week. It makes no sense.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,597
So, bars and restaurants are close for five months, caush are high level risk,right??.. But not here yeah??..haha..
Well, public transit is kind of an essential service and it appears there is it least a mask mandate. Even so, you can't compare people packed in bars and sitting in restaurants maskless noshing on food for an hour to someone riding a bus with a mask on for what, 15 minutes on average? You can see the difference, right?
Well if people get the luxury of riding a public bus to work, school, grocery store, then why can't I get smashed in a bar 5 days a week. It makes no sense.
Riding public transit is a luxury? Whoa! Man, where you live? I wanna be there!
Ontario is considering moving all school boards to online learning and introducing a curfew?
These are the days of our lives in Ontario...we have a fat ass premier running this province like a reality show. They can not not just get their act together...
Don’t come to Ontario if you do not have to.
just to be clear, there is no need for online learning in most of the province, or is there a need for a curfew...just in the hotspots. I am not in a hotspot...
but Toronto is the centre of the universe, so we all have to suffer in fucking lockdown....GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER TORONTO!!!
Comments
He clearly says he has increased some of his activity, like gathering indoors with other vaccinated friends/family. He also makes it clear his avoidance of indoor dining and such is due to waiting for enough folks to get vaxxed to achieve herd immunity (herd mentality according to Mr. Trump), and not wanting to do anything to slow that goal down. Something we should all focus on..
Also says he isn't traveling because he's too busy currently.
So if you read and comprehend everything he says, its not "I'm vaccinated but still afraid and staying in lock down", it's "I'm vaccinated, gathering in small groups with others who are also vaccinated, and being patient till enough of the rest of the population is vaccinated so its safe for everyone to resume the activities we all miss".
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
1. You ask why I didn't use 1.15%? Well a few reasons:
A. - the link you provided was from OCTOBER, not today.
B - it's a study from a college and an estimate.
C- If you go back to my original post, I simply took the number of confirmed deaths/confirmed cases. And guess what that math is? 2.15%. Here's the link, do the fucking division yourself. https://news.google.com/covid19/map?hl=en-US&mid=/m/02j71&gl=US&ceid=US:en
So then you went on about "asymptomatic cases" which has nothing to do with unreported cases, which I think your point may have been, but you cant' keep those terms straight. So you threw out 40-45%. So I increased the number of cases to 189MM FOR YOU, and kept the deaths the same (which would not be accurate, they would be higher but WTF, my point was about herd). That made the infection death rate 1.5%.
Now you're talking about the rate being 1.15% citing some study from seven fucking months ago. So why not look at this contemporaneous data (we'll wait while you look up that big word) and tell me which countries have an rate above 1.15 and below 1.15 and tell me if you still think that's the number. And last, here's a screen shot from yet ANOTHER source, by country. I'm making this easy on you.. how many of these first world countries are below the 1.15% number you cited? Hint.. it's one. NZ https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#the-case-fatality-rate
And finally, let me ask you one more time since you won't stfu about this. You tell me what the estimated cost in lives would be for herd immunity... because that's THE FUCKING POINT. Not whether the rate is 2%, 1.5% or 1.15% CAN YOU PLEASE DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE?
ITS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR THE FIRST TYPE OF ERROR TO NOT EXIST IF THE SECOND EXISTS
The most likely scenario is both do. And mild covid cases are nearly irrelevant in considering the true danger to the vulnerable. So let’s stop pretending that mild cases make covid less deadly.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/11/26/939365087/government-model-suggests-u-s-covid-19-cases-could-be-approaching-100-million
yes, that report is from 5 months ago. But show me a more recent CDC report or other reliable source that says it’s not drastically under reported.
Thats not pretending this isn’t deadly or that we should just hope for here immunity. It’s just facts.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Many researchers say pursuing herd immunity is a bad idea. “Attempting to reach herd immunity via targeted infections is simply ludicrous,” Andersen says. “In the US, probably one to two million people would die.”
Earlier in the pandemic, media reports claimed that Sweden was pursuing a herd immunity strategy by essentially letting people live their lives as normal, but that idea is a “misunderstanding”, according to the country’s minister for health and social affairs, Lena Hallengren. Herd immunity “is a potential consequence of how the spread of the virus develops, in Sweden or in any other country”, she told Nature in a written statement, but it is “not a part of our strategy”. Sweden’s approach, she said, uses similar tools to most other countries: “Promoting social distancing, protecting vulnerable people, carrying out testing and contact tracing, and reinforcing our health system to cope with the pandemic.” Despite this, Sweden is hardly a model of success — statistics from Johns Hopkins University show the country has seen more than ten times the number of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people seen in neighbouring Norway (58.12 per 100,000, compared with 5.23 per 100,000 in Norway). Sweden’s case fatality rate, which is based on the number of known infections, is also at least three times those of Norway and nearby Denmark.
The false promise of herd immunity for COVID-19 (nature.com)
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Yesterday was utter misery. I began to ask myself if this was worth doing. I'm retired, I stay away from people, don't go out much and have survived COVID for over a year just fine. I only did it because of some peer pressure from a few people close to me.
Now it's Monday and my lower back pain is off the charts. I'm icing it as I type this wonder when I will be functional again. I'm not exactly what you would call in the best space right now.
Animals were hiding behind the Coral
Except for little Turtle
I could swear he's trying to talk to me
Gurgle Gurgle
I'm almost 72 hours out from my 2nd Moderna (1:15, Friday afternoon) and feeling much better than I did on Saturday & yesterday morning. Yesterday afternoon was hit or miss, while Saturday I barely got off the couch. Tylenol helped a lot.
Hang in there man, you should be better later today or in the morning.
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
But not here yeah??..haha..
Prague Krakow Berlin 2018. Berlin 2022
EV, Taormina 1+2 2017.
I wish i was the souvenir you kept your house key on..
Riding public transit is a luxury? Whoa! Man, where you live? I wanna be there!
These are the days of our lives in Ontario...we have a fat ass premier running this province like a reality show. They can not not just get their act together...
Don’t come to Ontario if you do not have to.
just to be clear, there is no need for online learning in most of the province, or is there a need for a curfew...just in the hotspots. I am not in a hotspot...
but Toronto is the centre of the universe, so we all have to suffer in fucking lockdown....GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER TORONTO!!!