Jump to content

Covid stats


Recommended Posts

On 9/26/2021 at 3:18 PM, smac97 said:

  Q

Just a quick response to that "crib" sheet. Tyler Durden should stick to Fight Club...

Statement of fact #2 is not reporting what was actually stated in a fair way. I deal with stats and visualizations all the time, I can usually find a way to make anything fit a given narrative, exactly what was done here, trying to discredit a statement I believe originated from the BBC. Here is the original article.  

 

Smac, do you believe there was in unexpected uptick in 2020 deaths in UK? In the US? 

Screen Shot 2021-09-28 at 8.23.48 AM.png

Link to comment
11 hours ago, pogi said:

https://coronavirus-dashboard.utah.gov/hosp.html

It shows 471/519 ICU beds occupied. 

When you suggest that hospitals are not full and that the numbers are exaggerated, then all of those people I listed would have to be lying for that to be true.  

Here is an interpretation of the numbers UDOH lists in terms of capacity:

I am interested in what the bold section means.  It certainly seems unclear what they are reporting and you may be correct that it is based on staffing capacity.  Either way you look at it they are beyond functional capacity a.k.a "full", which is basically 69% - beyond that care starts to diminish.  That is what they are telling us in the news.  I don't think they are lying.  Do you?

I did look up the number being reported on the US Department of Health web site.  It looks like it is not John Hopkin's error.  They are accurately reporting the numbers reported there:

https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/hospital-utilization

What do you think of Idaho and other states implementing crisis standards of care (a first in Idaho history)?  Is that an exaggeration? 

 

Hire more staff, right?  Is that what they are doing?  If not, why not?

Link to comment
13 hours ago, mburgess1982 said:

Rather than "googling" it, why not seek out doctors who are actually treating patients with it and see what they have to say. Get some real boots on the ground information 

 

Announcing Pfizermectin:

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/pfizer-launches-final-study-covid-drug-thats-suspiciously-similar-ivermectin

I'm sure investors are pleased, especially if this turns out to be a maintenance drug, just like the vaccine makers have hopes of doing with the vaccines.

image.jpeg.3df1598cd25ba592882c9eb454f45cfa.jpeg

Edited by Harry T. Clark
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I know, right? Obviously there is a large pool of unemployed ICU nurses out there just begging for jobs that the hospitals are just too lazy to hire.

Well, CA Steve, what is the reality and why? 

https://www.propublica.org/article/overwhelmed-hospitals-face-a-new-crisis-staffing-firms-are-cutting-their-doctors-hours-and-pay

https://theintercept.com/2020/12/20/covid-hospital-ceos-nurses/

https://www.wpr.org/cuts-wisconsin-hospitals-push-nurses-limit

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/hospitals-cutting-jobs-across-nation

At this time, should we exacerbate the problem due to vaccine compliance?

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/new-york-hospitals-face-staff-shortages-as-vaccine-mandate-kicks-in-2021-09-27

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I will answer this question as soon as I can find my binoculars so I can locate your goal posts.

My goal is finding out what is going on and why.  Do you think that is a good goal?  Perhaps get out of having to reach a particular conclusion thinking would help you see the goal?  This type of thinking only works in a certain narrow area.  Otherwise, we should take the evidence where it leads, keeping in mind that profit motive is a powerful one. 

In this case, if there is a true crisis (hospitals get crowded every so often during flu season and this could be what is happening here - and the numbers seem to be getting better), it looks as though the cause has roots in managers/wall street ceo's cutting staff to save on costs.

Also, is this a crisis of hospital ceo's refusing to adequately staff their icu's and then crying about a "crisis?"  I don't know the answer to this, but, shut up and get in line for your booster shot already? 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Hire more staff, right?  Is that what they are doing?  If not, why not?

Oh, yes since ICU nurses are so easy to come by and so eager to jump into hell.  I don't think you realize how specialized ICU nurses are.  You can't just take some new grad off the street and throw them in the ICU.  It requires at least a couple years experience in intensive care.  Most nurses don't have that and would not even qualify.  With all of the years of experience I have in nursing, I couldn't get a job as an ICU nurse if I wanted one - which I don't.   Hiring under-qualified staff is no different than just sticking the patient in a med-surg unit.  Sub-par care - they will not get the care they need, and neither will the nurse.  They won't last (both the nurse and the patients). 

157 job opening for ICU staff at IHC

https://intermountain-healthcare.dejobs.org/jobs/?q=ICU

Looking at some of these job listings, it looks like they are desperate enough to hire new grads after all in a residency program under other ICU nurses.

It is impossible to both attract and keep employees in an unsustainable work environment. 

Hospitals are in a dire financial situation right now due to the unvaccinated in the pandemic.   When you combine financial losses and employee fatigue/burnout, dismal morale, and emotional distress to the point of PTSD for many ICU staff, things don't look so good.  Add to that fact a critical nursing shortage that existed in the US before the pandemic even began, and an even more critical ICU nursing shortage, the solution is not as easy and evident as you make it seem.  The unvaccinated have really created a massive steaming pile of mess for the health-care system and continue to hurt our economy, putting us all at risk of sub-par medical care, increased health-care costs, and economic harm.  But it only affects them, right?

https://www.aha.org/guidesreports/2020-05-05-hospitals-and-health-systems-face-unprecedented-financial-pressures-due

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/23/843012119/u-s-hospitals-hit-by-financial-triple-whammy-during-coronavirus-pandemic

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765698

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/05/hospitals-losing-millions-of-dollars-per-day-in-covid-19-pandemic.html

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/us-hospitals-are-suffering-financial-damage-due-covid-19-pandemic-kaufman-hall-finds

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
19 hours ago, pogi said:

How so?  Is it because that if we can conclude the virus is not that serious, then there is no justification for government interventions?  Isn't that exactly what I was suggesting was being played?  Are you just acknowledging that then? 

I agree.  Why aren't you giving it real attention then?  They have been scrutinized and found wanting.  You have no answers to our responses...ever.  You run away from any attempt of serious scrutiny and attention to detail.  We answer every jot and tittle and you just come back with more Covid downplaying post without acknowledging the error of your previous links.  If you even care if they factual or not, it is not evident to me.  If you really want to get to the bottom of it, it is not evident to me.  You seem to just be throwing stuff at us rapid fire, make us do the dirty work, never acknowledge when there is error in your sources, and keep repeating until you find something that sticks - as if that will somehow makeup for all the junk you posted.   We answer all your questions and you NEVER have a response.  No engagement whatsoever that one would expect from a person interested in "real scrutiny and attention".  No getting to the bottom of it.  No admitting that your sources and their conclusions are wrong when it is clearly debunked.   You are not asking serious questions in response...why not?  Why don't you dig deeper with us?  Why such shallow posts without deep dive investigations with us?  How many times do we need to go through this pattern before we tire of your rapid fire superficial posts/questions without any evidence of actual engagement/interest in discovering the answers to your questions? 

 

 

You and Calm have made some fair points.  I will give them some consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

A further indication of keeping an eye on government:

Quote

Despite worker shortages across the economy, including in the health care industry, Joe Biden says Americans working in “some industries and some schools” must reach a vaccination rate of either 97% or 98% in remarks he made while getting his third Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine dose, now described as a booster.

Immediately after Biden received the vaccine, a reporter asked the 78-year-old, “How many Americans need to be vaccinated for us to go back to normal?” Biden offered a meandering supply that some have interpreted as a declaration that 98% of the population must become vaccinated, though it seems as though Biden may have been referring to industries like healthcare as well as an unspecified subsection of “schools.”

This is the exact transcription of Biden’s statement: “Well I think, look, I think we get the vast majority at this point on, some of the, some industries and some schools, 97, 98%, I think we’ll get awful close, and uh, but I’m not the scientist, but one thing for sure, a quarter of the country can’t go unvaccinated. That’s not, continue to have a problem.”

A response from Yale Epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch:

Quote

CLAY: All right. So, Dr. Risch, I appreciate you joining us. Right now, around 77% of adults are vaccinated or have at least received their first shot. Your reaction to the president saying that 98 or 99% of people need to be vaccinated to get back to normal.

DR. RISCH: Well, it’s great to be with you. I’m glad the president said that he’s not a scientist, because when he said isn’t scientific. And what we need is a very high amount of natural, post-infection immunity. The vaccines contribute to immunity but not in the way that one would think about it. What we need is people who have gotten the immunity from having had the illness. About 70% of Americans so far already have this, and they do not need to be vaccinated. They have much stronger immunity.

CLAY: Sorry to cut you off, Doctor, but you think around 70% of Americans — based on the data that you’ve looked at — have already been exposed to covid and/or recovered from it?

DR. RISCH: Yes. It’s very clear that the CDC has done surveys of antibodies to covid in the blood of people and what they found is that almost fivefold numbers of people have had covid, mostly asymptomatically, as the numbers of registered cases. So this means that approximately close to or over 70% across the country as a whole have had covid and have wide immunity to not just the Delta variant, but more or less any variant that comes along over the next six months to a year. They’re protected.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A further indication of keeping an eye on government:

A response from Yale Epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch:

Thanks,

-Smac

You sure can pick them. Dr. Harvey Risch has developed a bit of a reputation for being in agreement with the group of grifters “America’s Frontline Doctors”. He has been an unabashed supporter of the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid and cites discredited studies to support this view.

His colleagues at Yale have pointed out he is outside his lifelong study of cancer epidemiology.

Here is a good summary of what he was up to last year: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87844

His colleagues at Yale disagreeing with his conclusions and pointing out the dangers of his advocacy: https://medium.com/@gregggonsalves/statement-from-yale-faculty-on-hydroxychloroquine-and-its-use-in-covid-19-47d0dee7b2b0

A criticism of his opinion piece on Covid treatment: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/190/4/491/5898696

The Doctor’s support appears to be politically motivated. He has appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room (yes, that Steve Bannon), where he either lied about the number of vaccinated being hospitalized or was spreading anecdotal information recklessly and possibly deliberately.

He has also spread unfounded concerns about the dangers of Covid vaccines.

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You and Calm have made some fair points.  I will give them some consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

That didn’t last long.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A response from Yale Epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch:

Quote

About 70% of Americans so far already have this, and they do not need to be vaccinated. They have much stronger immunity.

It has also been demonstrated that vaccination after natural infection decreases risk of repeat infection by around 2.5 times.  Why would that not be a good thing and recommended? 

 Other things that have been debunked already that Dr Risch said:

Quote

 

talking about some of the early interventions, you mentioned early interventions. What are the best ones right now?

DR. RISCH: Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin are very strong medications that work...

 

Is that a FACT doctor?  Those are some of the "best ones"?  Either the medical field is incapable and incompetent of reviewing and comprehending the studies/data for themselves, or he is being careless in that statement of fact:unknw: 

Quote

So I’m very optimistic, as I said. What we need now is more natural immunity. So the breakthrough infections that occur in vaccinated people who are not at high risk are actually good because it gives them permanent immunity, essentially permanent immunity.

"Permanent immunity".  I wish I could CFR him.  How could anybody know that about a virus that has only been around a year and a half?  Hmmm....  More careless statements not backed by science. 

Quote

In my opinion, the only children who need to be vaccinated are ones who have chronic conditions like diabetes, obesity, maybe ones with organ transplants or other reason for reduced immune function. They’re the ones at risk of a bad outcome from covid. Everybody else, the illness is extremely mild if it’s even noticed in children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Academic Pediatric association, and basically all other medical associations disagree with you.  At least he cushioned this as his "opinion" this time and not another careless statement of fact not backed by science. 

Quote

Children in general do not spread the illness.

Oh really doctor???

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210121/kids-highly-likely-to-transmit-covid-to-others#1

https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/coronavirus-outbreak-and-kids

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/transmission_k_12_schools.html

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/younger-children-may-be-more-likely-to-transmit-sars-cov-2-than-adolescents

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210817/youngest-kids-more-likely-spread-covid-to-family

Now, what was your question exactly Smac?  

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, pogi said:

It has also been demonstrated that vaccination after natural infection decreases risk of repeat infection by around 2.5 times.  Why would that not be a good thing and recommended? 

 Other things that have been debunked already that Dr Risch said:

Is that a FACT doctor?  Those are some of the "best ones"?  Either the medical field is incapable and incompetent of reviewing and comprehending the studies/data for themselves, or he is being careless in that statement of fact:unknw: 

"Permanent immunity".  I wish I could CFR him.  How could anybody know that about a virus that has only been around a year and a half?  Hmmm....  More careless statements not backed by science. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Academic Pediatric association, and basically all other medical associations disagree with you.  At least he cushioned this as his "opinion" this time and not another careless statement of fact not backed by science. 

Oh really doctor???

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210121/kids-highly-likely-to-transmit-covid-to-others#1

https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/coronavirus-outbreak-and-kids

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/transmission_k_12_schools.html

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/younger-children-may-be-more-likely-to-transmit-sars-cov-2-than-adolescents

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210817/youngest-kids-more-likely-spread-covid-to-family

Now, what was your question exactly Smac?  

I didn't really have a question.  I was more interested in the epidemiologist's response to Pres. Biden's comment.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You sure can pick them. Dr. Harvey Risch has developed a bit of a reputation for being in agreement with the group of grifters “America’s Frontline Doctors”. He has been an unabashed supporter of the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid and cites discredited studies to support this view.

I've never heard of him before.  I googled Pres. Biden's statement and looked for responses to it.  Dr. Risch's statement was the only one I found.  

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

His colleagues at Yale have pointed out he is outside his lifelong study of cancer epidemiology.

Here is a good summary of what he was up to last year: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87844

His colleagues at Yale disagreeing with his conclusions and pointing out the dangers of his advocacy: https://medium.com/@gregggonsalves/statement-from-yale-faculty-on-hydroxychloroquine-and-its-use-in-covid-19-47d0dee7b2b0

A criticism of his opinion piece on Covid treatment: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/190/4/491/5898696

The Doctor’s support appears to be politically motivated. He has appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room (yes, that Steve Bannon), where he either lied about the number of vaccinated being hospitalized or was spreading anecdotal information recklessly and possibly deliberately.

He has also spread unfounded concerns about the dangers of Covid vaccines.

That didn’t last long.

Huh.  Good to know.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I didn't really have a question.  I was more interested in the epidemiologist's response to Pres. Biden's comment.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have no idea what Biden meant to say, and have no idea how the doctors comments relate to Biden's words.  What do you think of the cancer epidemiologists statements now that they have been addressed here?  How well does it hold up to scrutiny and detail? What measure of scrutiny will you give to it?  Do you agree with him, or disagree with him?  Why or why not?  Show to me that you really care about this stuff and are not just throwing more superficial links out there and running away with no response or attention to detail after we carefully address it. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

@Harry T. Clark @mburgess1982 @CelestialSeething

Hi,

As someone who is not LDS, I have a couple of questions for you.

Are you LDS (it appears you are, but I just want to double-check)?

If so, how you do you reconcile your stance concerning the vaccine, masks, and covid with that of your prophets and apostles? Restricting access to your temples unless you are wearing a mask seems to put a pretty high importance on masking, doesn't it? I'm going with the assumption that your temples are the most sacred sites for your religion. Your prophet calling the vaccine a miracle from God seems to be a strong statement, too.

Also, for those of you who believe that a Satanic secret combination (a phrase I recently learned in the LDS context) is behind all of this, do you believe that your prophet is deceived or that your prophet is part of the conspiracy?

If you believe your prophet is deceived by something so huge and so important, what use is a prophet? I mean, he is telling you to do what the Satanic secret combination wants you to do, so he is telling you to follow Satan. Doesn't seem like a prophet of God would make such a huge blunder.

If you believe your prophet is in on it, why are you still LDS?

Finally, if you say personal revelation tells you the truth, I will ask the same question above: What good is a prophet if he leads God's people to follow a Satanic conspiracy? It would be like Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai and telling everyone that yeah, that gold calf is pretty cool and maybe they should build another.

I hope you don't ignore my questions. This is an LDS board after all, not a covid board, and these questions are striking at the heart of some of the LDS church's most important claims (modern day revelation through a prophet of God to guide God's people).

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have no idea what Biden meant to say,

Well, from the article:

Quote

Immediately after Biden received the vaccine, a reporter asked the 78-year-old, “How many Americans need to be vaccinated for us to go back to normal?” Biden offered a meandering supply that some have interpreted as a declaration that 98% of the population must become vaccinated, though it seems as though Biden may have been referring to industries like healthcare as well as an unspecified subsection of “schools.”

This is the exact transcription of Biden’s statement: “Well I think, look, I think we get the vast majority at this point on, some of the, some industries and some schools, 97, 98%, I think we’ll get awful close, and uh, but I’m not the scientist, but one thing for sure, a quarter of the country can’t go unvaccinated. That’s not, continue to have a problem.”

He was responding to a question about vaccinations levels the government anticipates will be required "for us to go back to normal."

He referenced "some industries and some schools," so this may not be an across-the-board sort of thing.

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

and have no idea how the doctors comments relate to Biden's words. 

Seems pretty direct.  From the second link:

Quote

CLAY: We bring in now an expert in much of the covid-related discussion from a medical perspective. He is Dr. Harvey Risch. He is an MD and a PhD professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health. You can read much of his opinions on EarlyCovidCare.org. That is EarlyCovidCare.org.

Dr. Risch, I appreciate you joining us right now. I want to play for you Joe Biden talking — as he was getting his vaccine — about what’s necessary for enormous to return in this country. He says that we need 97 or 98% vaccination rate in this country. Let’s play cut 28.

REPORTER: How many Americans need to be vaccinated for us to go back to normal? What is the percentage of the total vaccinations that have to be in place before getting back to normal?

BIDEN: Well, I think… Look… I think we get the vast majority, like, that’s going on in some of these — some industries, 97%, 98%. I think we’re getting awful close, and… But I’m not the scientist. Uh… Uh, I think one thing for certain: A quarter of the country can’t go unvaccinated.

CLAY: All right. So, Dr. Risch, I appreciate you joining us. Right now, around 77% of adults are vaccinated or have at least received their first shot. Your reaction to the president saying that 98 or 99% of people need to be vaccinated to get back to normal.

DR. RISCH: Well, it’s great to be with you...

I'd like to see further responses from the medical community to Pres. Biden's statement.

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

What do you think of the cancer epidemiologists statements now that they have been addressed here? 

Well, his credibility seems to be fairly suspect.  I am glad to be more aware of that.

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

How well does it hold up to scrutiny and detail?

As to his response to Pres. Biden?  I don't know.  I haven't seen any countervailing commentary.  I've found several references to Pres. Biden's statement in news stories, but so far I have not seen any other medical professional, apart from Dr. Risch, weigh in.

Having done a bit more digging, here is what I have found:

  • USA Today - Quotes Pres. Biden in part, but omits the "97%, 98%" figure, and does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • CBS News - Quotes Pres. Biden in part, but omits the "97%, 98%" figure, and does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • Mercury News - Quotes Pres. Biden in part, but omits the "97%, 98%" figure, and does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • Portland Mercury - Quotes Pres. Biden in part, but omits the "97%, 98%" figure, and does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • ETOnline - Quotes Pres. Biden in part, but omits the "97%, 98%" figure, and does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • AA.com - Quotes Pres. Biden in part, but omits the "97%, 98%" figure, and does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • JSOnline.com - Quotes Pres. Biden in part, but omits the "97%, 98%" figure, and does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • Yahoo News - Quotes Pres. Biden in part, but omits the "97%, 98%" figure, and does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • Courthouse News - Quotes Pres. Biden in part, but omits the "97%, 98%" figure, and does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • Las Cruces Sun News - Quotes Pres. Biden in part, but omits the "97%, 98%" figure, and does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • TheDailyBeast - Quotes Pres. Biden in part, paraphrases the journalist's question posed to Pres. Biden, omits Pres. Biden's response (the "97%, 98%" figure), and does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.

There were quite a few outlets that, unlike those above, do reference or quote the "97%, 98%" figure stated by Pres. Biden, but then do not address it in any meaningful way:

  • Outkick.com - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, but does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • TheWrap.com - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, but does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • WJNO News Radio - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, but does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • Mirage News - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, but does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • Independant Journal Review - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, but does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • CNS News - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, but does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • NTD - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, but does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.
  • Emea Tribune - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, but does not include any input about that figure from medical professionals.

A few news outlets did make a point of reviewing Pres. Biden's statement and attempting to contextualize it and/or provide more information pertinent to it:

Biznewspost - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, and appears to include some citations to medical references that, though not directly responsive to Pres. Biden's statement, are nevertheless seemingly relevant to it:

Quote

President Joe Biden said Monday he wanted to get up to 98 percent of Americans vaccinated before the country could go back to normal.

The president was asked by reporters at the White House about what the vaccination rate had to be before the country could return to normal.

“Look, I think we get the vast majority — like is going on in so many – some industries and some schools — 96, 97, 98 percent,” Biden said.
...

Biden’s goal is a much higher estimate than those previously voiced by federal health officials.

In February, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, said that about 70 percent to 85 percent of the population should be fully vaccinated before the country could go back to normal.

After the Delta variant of the virus emerged, Fauci and other federal officials have resisted setting a percentage goal, instead urging more Americans to get vaccinated.

“This is a very wily virus,” Fauci said in August. “If we keep lingering without getting those people vaccinated that should be vaccinated, this thing could linger on, leading to the development of another variant which could complicate things.“

Biden’s rate estimation is also sharply higher than vaccinations in Europe, where in some countries, restrictions have been lifted.

In Norway, officials lifted coronavirus restrictions last week after 76 percent of Norwegians have received at least one dose of a vaccine.

Duty to America News - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, and appears to include some citations to medical references that, though not directly responsive to Pres. Biden's statement, are nevertheless seemingly relevant to it:

Quote

While Biden was getting his COVID booster shot — which is recommended for the 78-year-old president — at the White House, a reporter asked him what percentage of Americans must get vaccinated before normal life returns.

Biden responded by saying as much as 98% of the country — but said it certainly can’t be 75%.

“Well, look, I think we get the vast majority– like is going on in so many — some industries and some schools — 96, 97, 98%,” Biden said. “I think we’re getting awful close. But I’m not the scientist.”

“But one thing for certain: A quarter of the country can’t go unvaccinated and us not continue to have a problem,” the president declared.

What is the actual number?

The herd immunity threshold — the percentage of immunity in a population to stop community spread of a certain disease or virus — for COVID-19 is not known.

The unknown, however, has not stopped public health leaders, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, from revising the threshold.

In fact, Fauci has admitted to increasing his public prediction of the COVID herd immunity threshold to coerce more Americans to get vaccinated.

For example, Fauci first estimated last year that 60%-70% of the population would need vaccination to achieve herd immunity. He revised that forecast several times, eventually telling the New York Times that as much as 90% of the population needs vaccination.

The Times reported that Fauci admitted to revising his estimate to deceive the public. “Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks,” the paper said.

Calculating the herd immunity threshold, of course, should also take into consideration the percentage of a population that gained immunity naturally through infection.

For his part, Fauci has said he doesn’t have a “really firm answer” on why individuals who have been infected with COVID-19 should be subject to vaccine mandates.

Becker News - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, and appears to include some citations to medical references that, though not directly responsive to Pres. Biden's statement, are nevertheless seemingly relevant to it:

Quote
Quote

REPORTER: “How many Americans need to be vaccinated for us to get back to normal?”

BIDEN: “97%, 98%. I think we’ll get awful close. But I’m not the scientist. I think one thing is for certain. A quarter of the country can’t go unvaccinated and us not continue to have a problem.”

This is a near-totalitarian level of vaccination that ignores the role of natural immunity. The CDC in May, months before the Delta variant exploded into a ‘casedemic,’ estimated that 120 million Americans had already been infected by Covid. This number is certain to be much higher now. The U.S. also has 186 million Americans who are now considered to be “fully vaccinated.”

That means that potentially the U.S. has nearly half natural immunity, and over half protected via vaccination, but is now under a government that is imposing coercive vaccine mandates to reach goals considered unnecessary in every other pandemic in human history, including ones much deadlier than Covid. The Covid survival rate is currently still at 99.7%.

In March, Dr. Anthony Fauci gave the estimated herd immunity level that would bring Covid under control. It was between 70 and 85 percent.

“We anticipate, and again it’s purely a speculation, that the herd immunity level will be about 70-85 percent,” Fauci said in March. “That’s the time that we believe, if you look at the planned rollout of the vaccines, that we would hopefully get to that point somewhere by the end of the summer and the early fall.”

The statistics bear out that Covid risk is not uniform across the entire population. Over 80% of all COVID-related deaths are over age 65. Additionally, 94% of all COVID-related deaths have severe comorbidities, according to the CDC.

Young, healthy persons have a COVID survival rate of 99.99%, regardless of vaccination. The FDA’s VAERS data also show thousands of cases of heart inflammation in the age 12-29 age group.

The Federalist - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, and appears to include some citations to medical references that, though not directly responsive to Pres. Biden's statement, are nevertheless seemingly relevant to it:

Quote

President Joe Biden indicated that it will take 97 to 98 percent of Americans receiving the COVID-19 jab before he lets the nation move on from the pandemic. The moment came during a White House event on Monday, where the president was receiving his COVID-19 booster shot.

“I think we get the vast majority … 97 percent, 98 percent. I think we’ll get awful close,” he said. “But I’m not the scientist. I think one thing is for certain. A quarter of the country can’t go unvaccinated and us not continue to have a problem.”
...
The comments from Biden outwardly dismiss mounting evidence of the role natural immunity plays in protecting previously infected COVID patients that have recovered from the respiratory virus. According to a recent Israeli study conducted by researchers at Tel Aviv University, individuals previously infected with COVID-19 could be 13 times less likely to contract the virus than those who were solely vaccinated against the disease.

Moreover, studies from Emory University, the Cleveland Clinic, and the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis have also shown that recovered COVID patients possess robust, natural immunity long after infection.

DailyCaller - Quotes Pres. Biden, including the "97%, 98%" figure, and - much to its credit - solicited input from medical professionals to address it:

Quote

Biden claimed that 97% to 98% of Americans need to be vaccinated. “I think we’ll get awful close. But I’m not the scientist,” he said. “I think one thing is for certain. A quarter of the country can’t go unvaccinated and us not continue to have a problem.”

 

It is unclear where Biden pulled those numbers from, and medical experts who spoke with the Daily Caller said they aren’t sure either.

“I would be surprised if the right one were as high as 97-98%. I’m not sure where that estimate is coming from, or which advisor/agency is coming up with it,” Dr. John Moore, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Cornell University told the Daily Caller. “We will never get to 97-98% vaccination in the USA, even if we’re only talking about adults. So wherever the president’s number comes from, it’s purely aspirational.”

“The estimates [for the necessary vaccination rate] are about 85%, which means that almost all eligible for the vaccine now need to take it,” said Dr. Ali Mokdad, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Washington.

The Biden administration has placed a heavy emphasis on increasing America’s vaccination rate in recent weeks and announced a forthcoming vaccine mandate for all companies with 100 or more employees.

But Biden’s top medical advisor, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci, has never cited a need to vaccinate nearly every single American either.

Fauci initially said a vaccination rate of 60-70% was needed to reach a sufficient level of herd immunity, before admitting that he had lowballed the number because he didn’t want to overwhelm the American people. Even then, Fauci’s number for herd immunity has wavered between 70% and 85%.

The total vaccination rate may not necessarily be the exact metric to even focus on, Dr. Amesh Adalja, Senior Scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told the Daily Caller. “Herd immunity is not necessary for control to be achieved. The goal is not to eradicate or eliminate cases, but to shift cases to a mild spectrum of illness through vaccination. If high risk people are protected against severe disease, I think the most meaningful goal has been achieved.”

“Achieving the highest vaccination rate possible should be something we strive for, but the most important people to be vaccinated in terms of decreasing the morbidity and mortality of the infection are those at high risk for serious disease,” he added.

Adalja believes it’s still important that more Americans get vaccinated in order for the U.S. to put the COVID-19 pandemic in the rearview mirror for good. “Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, not enough high risk people are immune and that is why hospital capacity concerns again arose,” Adalja said.

Moore added that COVID-19 has been far more under control in recent months in areas with higher vaccination rates, which tend to be politically liberal areas. Even those highly-vaccinated places aren’t anywhere near Biden’s number of 97%, though. “The point is that the kind of vaccination rates achieved in some of the blue states clearly have a major impact on the pandemic in those states/counties.”

“Those rates are nowhere near the high 90s. But if red states had the same rates as in those high-rate blue states, the pandemic would be under a great deal more control than is presently the case,” Moore continued. “Even getting the red states up to the blue state average would make a huge difference.”

No country in the world has achieved a 97% or higher vaccination rate, and yet some of them have successfully returned to a fairly normal mode of operation, Dr. Monica Gandhi, Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of California San Francisco, pointed out. “Every country or region is going to have a different definition of endemicity. Denmark decided at a 74% vaccination rate and low cases (80% for those over 12) when this country dropped all restrictions on September 10 and Norway (who dropped restrictions on September 25) at a 67% full vaccination rate.”

“Yes, there is no evidence that we need that high of a vaccination rate to get back to normal,” Gandhi added. “Therefore, the country has to decide for itself what this number is to accept endemicity in terms of vaccination rates and cases, with the latter also being driven by higher rates of natural immunity in the U.S. than other countries with high access to the vaccines.”

Only three countries currently have full vaccination rates above 80%: Portugal, the United Arab Emirates, and Malta. None are above 84%, but all three have seen drastic drops in COVID-19 deaths compared to pre-vaccine levels, even when cases have increased due to the delta variant.

The U.S. has also successfully eliminated other pathogens with lower vaccination rates, including those which are often required for children to attend school. The nationwide MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccination rate among adolescents is 91.9%, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Vaccination coverage during the 2019-2020 school year for varicella (chicken pox) was 94.8%, according to the CDC. Just 92% of Americans are inoculated against polio. It is unclear how the Biden administration intends to increase the COVID-19 vaccination rate above that of any other vaccine in America.

So . . . that's what I think so far.

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

What measure of scrutiny will you give to it? 

See above.

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you agree with him, or disagree with him?  Why or why not? 

Based on the information above, his cited vaccination figures seem pretty unrealistic.  And medically unnecessary.  

What do you think?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Based on the information above, his cited vaccination figures seem pretty unrealistic.  And medically unnecessary.  

What do you think?

I think it is all just pointless speculation as to what he meant but, here is the takeaway that I got out of his comment:

Quote

Well I think, look, I think we get the vast majority at this point on

I interpret this to mean that he hopes to vaccinate the "vast majority".  Pretty vague and a sign that he doesn't really know.

Quote

some of the, some industries and some schools, 97, 98%, I think we’ll get awful close

I don't know if he is suggesting this is the needed threshold for herd immunity (doubtful since it was only directed at certain industries and not the general population) or if he is projecting what his hopes are for vaccination rates in these industries.  It sounds more like a goal and a hope as he said - "I think we'll get awful close".  The fact that it only focused on a couple industries and not the entire population suggests he was likely not talking about herd immunity as that requires the entire population. 

The only statement of certainty that we can hold him accountable for is this (and I think most in medicine would agree with it):

Quote

“But one thing for certain: A quarter of the country can’t go unvaccinated and us not continue to have a problem,” the president declared.

I think most would agree with this statement of certainty too:

Quote

 I’m not the scientist

The response by Dr. Risch is based on the assumption and interpretation that Biden was suggesting that 97-98% of all Americans need to be vaccinated.  I don't think that is a fair assumption.  Dr. Risch then went on to completely discredit himself further and never gave a figure himself of what he thinks would be needed to reach herd immunity.  Hmmm....   I don't think we can or should hold Biden to that interpretation.  He made it seem abundantly clear to me that he is not sure and that he is not a scientist and was seemingly yielding such calculations up to them with that statement.  The only thing he stated as fact is that it needs to be more than 3/4 of the population before we reach herd immunity.  I think we all probably agree with that.  I don't think anybody really knows what level of vaccination is required to reach herd immunity.   

I think a lot of talking heads are taking great liberty at addressing their interpretation of one tiny segment of his words, out of context, and making much ado about nothing.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Calm said:

These are indeed tragic.  Nevertheless, this still does not support The Nehor's statement.  All of these teachers got the virus before school started and the shutdowns were only for a few days.  In one case, it was only two days.  None of them closed due to a teacher shortage.  The Nehor said,  "The news is full of schools closing because teacher hospitalizations and fatalities make it impossible to continue operating."

The parts of this statement that need to be shown are as follows:

1 - The news is full of these stories.

2 - It is impossible for school districts to operate due to teacher hospitalizations and deaths.

As tragic as they are, none of these stories satisfy the CFR regarding his statement.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think it is all just pointless speculation as to what he meant

Speculation, maybe.  But how on earth is it "pointless?"  The most powerful man in the world just publicly told the country, in a response to a question about vaccination rates: "Look, I think we get the vast majority — like is going on in so many – some industries and some schools — 96, 97, 98 percent..."

This is not important?  To you, of all people?  You've been chastising me for weeks about what you see as irresponsible and/or uninformed commentary on Covid, but when the President of the United States is talking about "96, 97, 98 percent" vaccination rates as a precondition to our country getting "back to normal," you are okay with that?  

Oh.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

but, here is the takeaway that I got out of his comment:

Quote

Well I think, look, I think we get the vast majority at this point on

I interpret this to mean that he hopes to vaccinate the "vast majority".  Pretty vague and a sign that he doesn't really know.

"96, 97, 98 percent" doesn't seem "pretty vague."

And holy cow, after all the vitriol you've thrown at me, you are giving the most powerful man in the world a pass on failing to effectively and responsibly communicate about Covid?  

Why is that?  I suspect it's probably about shared political affiliation/ideology.  Perhaps you can start to see why people like me have a hard time with people like you.  Your selective wrath about talking about Covid comes across as politically convenient/necessary.  This is a big part of the problem overall.  The role of government.  The shifting of goalposts, possibly for political reasons.  The ever-increasing authoritarianism of the government.  At the expense of individual liberties and autonomy.

I think these are real and salient concerns.  And I think the merits of those concerns become more apparent in instances where a politician goes off-script.  Here, the politician happens to the POTUS.  He and his cabinent and untold numbers of bureaucratic functionaries have insane amounts of power at their disposal.  Power over our lives.  Our individual liberties.  And not just in an abstract sense.  The right to associate, to worship, to shop, to congregate, to walk outside.  These most fundamental rights have been profoundly infringed upon for many, many months.  Draconian measures all over the place.  Australia is turning into an totalitarian state.  Some cities and states here have moved towards that as well.  

And now Pres. Biden is throwing out "96, 97, 98 percent" vaccination figures before he and his cronies let the proles get "back to normal."  I think that's a pretty alarming development. 

For you, though, it's . . . a Tuesday.

Got it.  Earlier this morning I ate a bit of crow because I thought - and still do - that you had made some fair points about my posts about Covid.  But your response here makes me think you are fairly unserious in your treatment of the sociopolitical aspects of Covid.

1 hour ago, pogi said:
Quote

some of the, some industries and some schools, 97, 98%, I think we’ll get awful close

I don't know if he is suggesting this is the needed threshold for herd immunity (doubtful since it was only directed at certain industries and not the general population) or if he is projecting what his hopes are for vaccination rates in these industries.  It sounds more like a goal and a hope as he said - "I think we'll get awful close".  The fact that it only focused on a couple industries and not the entire population suggests he was likely not talking about herd immunity as that requires the entire population. 

The only statement of certainty that we can hold him accountable for is this (and I think most in medicine would agree with it):

Quote

“But one thing for certain: A quarter of the country can’t go unvaccinated and us not continue to have a problem,” the president declared.

You've spent weeks reaming a neophyte with no medical training, and no power or authority over anyone else, for not sufficiently vetting news items about Covid.  But when the President of the United States starts talking about  "96, 97, 98 percent" vaccination figures as a prerequisite for the government allowing our lives to "get back to normal" you blithely decline to "hold him accountable" for his published-to-the-world statements.

Got it.

This is one of the reasons I am so concerned about the specter of governmental overreach.  There are too many instances of political considerations unduly influencing public policy.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think most would agree with this statement of certainty too:

Quote

I’m not the scientist

The response by Dr. Risch is based on the assumption and interpretation that Biden was suggesting that 97-98% of all Americans need to be vaccinated.  I don't think that is a fair assumption.  Dr. Risch then went on to completely discredit himself further and never gave a figure himself of what he thinks would be needed to reach herd immunity.  Hmmm....   I don't think we can or should hold Biden to that interpretation.  He made it seem abundantly clear to me that he is not sure and that he is not a scientist and was seemingly yielding such calculations up to them with that statement.  The only thing he stated as fact is that it needs to be more than 3/4 of the population before we reach herd immunity.  I think we all probably agree with that.  I don't think anybody really knows what level of vaccination is required to reach herd immunity.   

Sure, Dr. Risch seems to be an outlier.  But then...

Biznewspost:

Quote

Biden’s goal is a much higher estimate than those previously voiced by federal health officials.

In February, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, said that about 70 percent to 85 percent of the population should be fully vaccinated before the country could go back to normal.

Huh.  We haven't even reached Fauci's proposed "back to normal" numbers (70-85%) cited in February before Pres. Biden moved the goalposts to "96, 97, 98 percent."

And you don't care about this.

Got it.

Quote

After the Delta variant of the virus emerged, Fauci and other federal officials have resisted setting a percentage goal, instead urging more Americans to get vaccinated.

“This is a very wily virus,” Fauci said in August. “If we keep lingering without getting those people vaccinated that should be vaccinated, this thing could linger on, leading to the development of another variant which could complicate things.“

Biden’s rate estimation is also sharply higher than vaccinations in Europe, where in some countries, restrictions have been lifted.

In Norway, officials lifted coronavirus restrictions last week after 76 percent of Norwegians have received at least one dose of a vaccine.

Duty to America News:

Quote

The herd immunity threshold — the percentage of immunity in a population to stop community spread of a certain disease or virus — for COVID-19 is not known.

The unknown, however, has not stopped public health leaders, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, from revising the threshold.

In fact, Fauci has admitted to increasing his public prediction of the COVID herd immunity threshold to coerce more Americans to get vaccinated.

For example, Fauci first estimated last year that 60%-70% of the population would need vaccination to achieve herd immunity. He revised that forecast several times, eventually telling the New York Times that as much as 90% of the population needs vaccination.

The Times reported that Fauci admitted to revising his estimate to deceive the public. “Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks,” the paper said.

Calculating the herd immunity threshold, of course, should also take into consideration the percentage of a population that gained immunity naturally through infection.

For his part, Fauci has said he doesn’t have a “really firm answer” on why individuals who have been infected with COVID-19 should be subject to vaccine mandates.

DailyCaller:

Quote

It is unclear where Biden pulled those numbers from, and medical experts who spoke with the Daily Caller said they aren’t sure either.

“I would be surprised if the right one were as high as 97-98%. I’m not sure where that estimate is coming from, or which advisor/agency is coming up with it,” Dr. John Moore, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Cornell University told the Daily Caller. “We will never get to 97-98% vaccination in the USA, even if we’re only talking about adults. So wherever the president’s number comes from, it’s purely aspirational.”

And here (same link) :

Quote

“The estimates [for the necessary vaccination rate] are about 85%, which means that almost all eligible for the vaccine now need to take it,” said Dr. Ali Mokdad, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Washington.

And here:

Quote

Biden’s top medical advisor, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci, has never cited a need to vaccinate nearly every single American either.

Fauci initially said a vaccination rate of 60-70% was needed to reach a sufficient level of herd immunity, before admitting that he had lowballed the number because he didn’t want to overwhelm the American people. Even then, Fauci’s number for herd immunity has wavered between 70% and 85%.

And here:

Quote

The total vaccination rate may not necessarily be the exact metric to even focus on, Dr. Amesh Adalja, Senior Scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told the Daily Caller. “Herd immunity is not necessary for control to be achieved. The goal is not to eradicate or eliminate cases, but to shift cases to a mild spectrum of illness through vaccination. If high risk people are protected against severe disease, I think the most meaningful goal has been achieved.”

“Achieving the highest vaccination rate possible should be something we strive for, but the most important people to be vaccinated in terms of decreasing the morbidity and mortality of the infection are those at high risk for serious disease,” he added.

Adalja believes it’s still important that more Americans get vaccinated in order for the U.S. to put the COVID-19 pandemic in the rearview mirror for good. “Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, not enough high risk people are immune and that is why hospital capacity concerns again arose,” Adalja said.

Moore added that COVID-19 has been far more under control in recent months in areas with higher vaccination rates, which tend to be politically liberal areas. Even those highly-vaccinated places aren’t anywhere near Biden’s number of 97%, though. “The point is that the kind of vaccination rates achieved in some of the blue states clearly have a major impact on the pandemic in those states/counties.”

“Those rates are nowhere near the high 90s. But if red states had the same rates as in those high-rate blue states, the pandemic would be under a great deal more control than is presently the case,” Moore continued. “Even getting the red states up to the blue state average would make a huge difference.”

And here:

Quote

No country in the world has achieved a 97% or higher vaccination rate, and yet some of them have successfully returned to a fairly normal mode of operation, Dr. Monica Gandhi, Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of California San Francisco, pointed out. “Every country or region is going to have a different definition of endemicity. Denmark decided at a 74% vaccination rate and low cases (80% for those over 12) when this country dropped all restrictions on September 10 and Norway (who dropped restrictions on September 25) at a 67% full vaccination rate.”

“Yes, there is no evidence that we need that high of a vaccination rate to get back to normal,” Gandhi added. “Therefore, the country has to decide for itself what this number is to accept endemicity in terms of vaccination rates and cases, with the latter also being driven by higher rates of natural immunity in the U.S. than other countries with high access to the vaccines.”

And here:

Quote

Only three countries currently have full vaccination rates above 80%: Portugal, the United Arab Emirates, and Malta. None are above 84%, but all three have seen drastic drops in COVID-19 deaths compared to pre-vaccine levels, even when cases have increased due to the delta variant.

And here:

Quote

The U.S. has also successfully eliminated other pathogens with lower vaccination rates, including those which are often required for children to attend school. The nationwide MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccination rate among adolescents is 91.9%, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

And here:

Quote

Vaccination coverage during the 2019-2020 school year for varicella (chicken pox) was 94.8%, according to the CDC. Just 92% of Americans are inoculated against polio. It is unclear how the Biden administration intends to increase the COVID-19 vaccination rate above that of any other vaccine in America.

POTUS talking about "96, 97, 98 percent" vaccination figures as a prerequisite for the government allowing our lives to "get back to normal" is pretty disturbing.

And you don't care about it.

Got it.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think a lot of talking heads are taking great liberty at addressing their interpretation of one tiny segment of his words, out of context, and making much ado about nothing.

You are running defense for a favored politician ("one tiny segment of his words" ... "out of context" ... "much ado about nothing").

Got it.

I feel pretty strongly about this stuff, but I also recognize that I am way out of my wheelhouse in terms of grasping the medical side of things.  So I had come to appreciate your pushback.  But then there's my wheelhouse, with is the legal side of things, the ramifications of governmental policy and decision-making re: Covid.  That's what I am concerned about most.  I had really started to take you seriously as a voice of reason in these discussions.  As regarding purely medical issues, I still will.  Otherwise, though, you've blown it.  People like you are a big part of why people like me are worried about governmental overreach and authoritarianism.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

None of them closed due to a teacher shortage. 

There are a number of schools closing because of teacher shortages. While illness (both having been ill before and concern about exposure) is reported as a contributor to the choice to take early retirement or just quit, teachers are deciding it isn’t worth it.  They don’t have the substitutes to fill in. In some cases, they have gone to distance learning or closed part of the school. The vaccine mandate has increased the shortage as well.   At the doctors so research later. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are schools closing because of teacher shortages. While illness (both having been ill before and concern about exposure) is reported as a contributor to the choice to take early retirement or just quit, teachers are deciding it isn’t worth it. 

I understand that.  Covid has created a lot of stress on teachers and many are retiring early or even quitting.  That is not what The Nehor said.  He said specifically that schools were closing because of teacher hospitalizations and deaths making it impossible to continue.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I understand that.  Covid has created a lot of stress on teachers and many are retiring early or even quitting.  That is not what The Nehor said.  He said specifically that schools were closing because of teacher hospitalizations and deaths making it impossible to continue.

Are you willing to accept examples from outside the US? I can’t remember if Nehor’s comment was about the US or general. 

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Speculation, maybe.  But how on earth is it "pointless?" 

It is pointless in that it is just speculation.  I don't think he was suggesting that 97%-98% of the population needs to be vaccinated before herd immunity is reached.  I think he was saying that we should leave that up to the scientists.  So, unless you have some proof of what he meant, there is nothing left to discuss.  I don't want to waste my time with speculation. 

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is not important?  To you, of all people?  You've been chastising me for weeks about what you see as irresponsible and/or uninformed commentary on Covid, but when the President of the United States is talking about "96, 97, 98 percent" vaccination rates as a precondition to our country getting "back to normal," you are okay with that?  

How is this not just more "uninformed commentary"?  Do you know what he really meant?  I think there is more than enough from the rest of the context to suggest that he was implying he doesn't really know and will leave that up to the scientists to decide. 

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And holy cow, after all the vitriol you've thrown at me, you are giving the most powerful man in the world a pass on failing to effectively and responsibly communicate about Covid?  

He fumbled through his words.  He has a speech impediment.  I agree that it would be helpful for him to clarify his comments, but he gave no indication whatsoever that this would somehow influence policy even if he did think herd immunity would require 98% immunity.  So, we are just speculating upon speculation here.  Really pointless to get all worked up about it (without even knowing what it is).  

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And now Pres. Biden is throwing out "96, 97, 98 percent" vaccination figures before he and his cronies let the proles get "back to normal."  I think that's a pretty alarming development. 

For you, though, it's . . . a Tuesday.

More speculation upon speculation.  You simply assume that he was suggesting that 98% of the entire population needs to be vaccinated before herd immunity is reached.  He wasn't talking about the whole population though, was he.  It seems pretty evident to me that he wasn't talking about herd immunity at all in that context as that requires the ENTIRE POPULATION and not a couple industries.  I already told you what I think.  You can't refute that I am wrong.  So what is the point? 

I don't remember saying anything about "his cronies" letting the "proles get back to normal".  Nothing about "letting" things get back to normal at all.  He could have very well been talking about feeling safe in public again - aka back to normal - for all you now.   Admit that you are letting yourself get all cross about an assumption.  Why is that?  Why pick fights over this?  Why make this your battle?  Where is the beef?  Give me something to at least chew on.

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

POTUS talking about "96, 97, 98 percent" vaccination figures as a prerequisite for the government allowing our lives to "get back to normal" is pretty disturbing.

And you don't care about it.

Got it.

POTUS talking about "96, 97, 98 percent" vaccination figures as a prerequisite for the government allowing our lives to "get back to normal" is pretty disturbing.

And you don't care about it.

You are running defense for a favored politician ("one tiny segment of his words" ... "out of context" ... "much ado about nothing").

Got it.

Deja vu.  

Why are you stating as fact something that you can't be sure about?  That seems careless.  You seem to be getting pretty worked up about this.  Why?  Do you know something that I don't know about his comments?  Please share.

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I feel pretty strongly about this stuff, but I also recognize that I am way out of my wheelhouse in terms of grasping the medical side of things.  So I had come to appreciate your pushback.  But then there's my wheelhouse, with is the legal side of things, the ramifications of governmental policy and decision-making re: Covid.  That's what I am concerned about most.  I had really started to take you seriously as a voice of reason in these discussions.  As regarding purely medical issues, I still will.  

Legally you should recognize then that your arguments are entirely speculative and based on a single garbled mess of words in a single sentence, that I think was taken out of context of him leaving such caluclations up to the scientists.  You should recognize that nothing was said about "government policy and decision-making re: Covid".  You should recognize that is looking beyond what was actually said. 

Quote

Otherwise, though, you've blown it.  People like you are a big part of why people like me are worried about governmental overreach and authoritarianism.

What am I missing here?  You seem to know some facts that I am not aware of.  What did I blow exactly?  Because I refuse to entertain unfair judgments based on speculation upon speculation of entire unclear remarks, I have blown it?  In my mind, you have blown it by your careless conclusions and judgments without solid evidence of anything.   

I really seemed to have triggered something in you here (not exactly sure why or how), and we were playing so nice...

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...