So are the nursing home residents in the +65 group in the model or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Anyway, this is a stupid debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Printable View
So are the nursing home residents in the +65 group in the model or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffAnyway, this is a stupid debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickOh dear that's not how exponential growth works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Very simple explanation from wiki...
"Exponential growth is a specific way that a quantity may increase over time. It occurs when the instantaneous rate of change (that is, the derivative) of a quantity with respect to time is proportional to the quantity itself."
...it's just the variation of 1,2,4,8,16,32,64 and so on with a simple 2x multiplier...linear would be variation of 2,4,6,8
That's how exponential growth works from a public health standpoint.
When they talk of exponential growth with disease, it's the introduction of a contagious disease into a population where it didn't previously exist, and the dangers of it exploding into that population if the few infected people aren't quarantined.
They are not talking about its spread within small subgroups, once it's already well established within the entire population.
Sanlmar cited Typhoid Mary, in his typical contrarian fashion. We are way past Typhoid Mary when it comes to COVID.
If you are having a hard time understanding this, look at a COVID spread chart in the US. You won't see exponential growth after the very early stages. You see linear growth, linear regression, and linear growth again.
The way you and others here are describing "exponential growth" of COVID in December 2020 isn't ever used in public health discussions, because that's not how the concept works.
And again, this is a stupid discussion, because the CDC has already conceded that their "vaccinate essential workers" was more for racial justice than anything else.
Additionally, the vaccine is not even said to stop the spread, only to stop the symptoms, so your entire point is bunk anyway.
Are you okay with 3.25% more COVID deaths in January 2021 in order to push woke leftist politics, or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickSo are the nursing home residents in the +65 group in the model or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Because police and firemen save lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffWhy take care of police and firemen? Most of them are young and healthy, with a large portion of them under 40 years old. There hasn't been any talk of police and fire departments breaking down because of COVID.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
You are rewriting the study because you don't want to admit that idiotic woke leftists are willingly letting old people die so they can seek some sort of racial healthcare justice retribution.
You are also assuming that all hospitals will do a great job with fair distribution of the vaccine.
Why leave these decisions in the hands of a few administrators at each distribution facility? Shouldn't the government be leading with good, concrete policy which isn't subject to bias or different interpretations?
I'm not asking you for a "workable" plan. I'm not asking you to play hospital administrator. I'm asking about the CDC guidelines as stated, which list a whole group of essential workers (many of whom, such as teachers, don't come in contact with the elderly) competing for the vaccine with the elderly.
Is that a good or bad idea?
No i'm not rewriting the study or in your case the presentation meant for toddlers that you keep referring to. I did this thing where i read it and then i comprehended what i had read.
I assume a good amount of hospitals will do a pisspoor job at it.
You don't live in China. That's just how your system works. CDC doesn't make guidelines for totalitarian communist regimes. I'm not really sure if China would let you migrate permanently, but it doesn't hurt to try.
And sure CDC could have given a more detailed and optimized version based on more extensive modeling. Once they'd started rolling out vaccines in 2022 it would have been perfect.
The reason why there is no choice between the elderly and essential workers is because the modeling they made churned out a result that favored a mix of both groups.
So are the nursing home residents in the +65 group in the model or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffAre you okay with 3.25% more COVID deaths in January 2021 in order to push woke leftist politics, or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
You made 3 posts saying they are not. I made 3 posts saying they are. Do i have to propose a retarded bet?
I'll answer this when you tell me if it's okay for 3.25% more seniors to die in January so we can feel woke.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickSo are the nursing home residents in the +65 group in the model or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
You made 3 posts saying they are not. I made 3 posts saying they are. Do i have to propose a retarded bet?
"Police and firemen save lives".Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickBecause police and firemen save lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
No i'm not rewriting the study or in your case the presentation meant for toddlers that you keep referring to. I did this thing where i read it and then i comprehended what i had read.
I assume a good amount of hospitals will do a pisspoor job at it.
You don't live in China. That's just how your system works. CDC doesn't make guidelines for totalitarian communist regimes. I'm not really sure if China would let you migrate permanently, but it doesn't hurt to try.
And sure CDC could have given a more detailed and optimized version based on more extensive modeling. Once they'd started rolling out vaccines in 2022 it would have been perfect.
The reason why there is no choice between the elderly and essential workers is because the modeling they made churned out a result that favored a mix of both groups.
WTF does that mean? Police and fire departments haven't been devastated by COVID because most of their public-facing employees are young and healthy, and thus we haven't had a problem.
Police and fire departments HAVE been harmed by the left wing riots of 2020, however. So I'm glad to see that you're suddenly pro-police and pro-fire-department, and thus you finally agree with me that the left greatly harmed these life-saving services this year. Great to see!
Since you conceded that a lot of hospitals will "do a pisspoor job" at proper vaccine distribution, you're pretty much validating my statement that the CDC should have led with proper guidelines, instead of leaving woke administrators to play SJW politics with elderly people's lives.
The CDC only issues guidelines, but they should be scientifically correct guidelines, not woke guidelines. "Racial justice" should not even be a consideration at an organization like the CDC.
The guidelines should have been the ones which would maximize lives saved, with no other consideration.
Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?
The vaccine functions the same way the immune system of people that have had the virus works. And i think your point was that because 20% of population has had it's impossible to see exponential growth. Apparently 20% doesn't do anything to the spread then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffAdditionally, the vaccine is not even said to stop the spread, only to stop the symptoms, so your entire point is bunk anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
My only point was about exponential growth. It's used the same way in every context. I don't really care that most people think it means some variation of fast and big.
Viruses in general never behave in a linear fashion. At times they have low enough reproduction rate that the graph looks "linear".
Sure i don't care. It's swell. I don't think 3.25% more seniors will die because of the guidelines though. And you'd be surprised how little impact my thoughts have on the death rate of your seniors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI'll answer this when you tell me if it's okay for 3.25% more seniors to die in January so we can feel woke.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
ps. the bolded part is the answer. to clarify i'm perfectly fine with + 3.25% dying for the sake of wokeness. if less than + 3.25 die, i will kill them myself
:wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by gimmickThe vaccine functions the same way the immune system of people that have had the virus works. And i think your point was that because 20% of population has had it's impossible to see exponential growth. Apparently 20% doesn't do anything to the spread then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
They haven't determined this yet.
In short, there hasn't been an answer yet if the vaccine is a symptom reducer or an infection blocker: https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/ce...nsmission.html
It is generally believed that COVID is so dangerous because of the way the body reacts to it, not because of the virus itself. If the vaccine is simply helping the body learn to react to it properly, that's not stopping transmission. If the vaccine is actually helping the body fight the infection before it progresses into a transmissible state, then it is stopping transmission.
It is not necessarily a given that the vaccinated human body handles COVID the same way as a previously infected body would.
At this time, it's believed that either one is a realistic possibility.
Yea i know that. Now that you've written it you might accept it's true in some context for the next 2 weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff:wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
They haven't determined this yet.
In short, there hasn't been an answer yet if the vaccine is a symptom reducer or an infection blocker: https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/ce...nsmission.html
It is generally believed that COVID is so dangerous because of the way the body reacts to it, not because of the virus itself. If the vaccine is simply helping the body learn to react to it properly, that's not stopping transmission. If the vaccine is actually helping the body fight the infection before it progresses into a transmissible state, then it is stopping transmission.
It is not necessarily a given that the vaccinated human body handles COVID the same way as a previously infected body would.
At this time, it's believed that either one is a realistic possibility.
So you're saying it's realistic that when a vaccine has an impact on spread this conclusion would be true...
Initially vaccinating age ≥65 in Phase
1b averts approximately 0.5–2% more
deaths, compared to targeting highrisk adults or essential workers
– As before, this difference is
greatest in the scenario where
the vaccine is introduced before
incidence peaks
and
Initially vaccinating high-risk adults or
essential workers in Phase 1b averts
approximately 1–3% more infections,
compared to targeting age ≥65
– This difference is greatest in the
scenario where the vaccine is
introduced before incidence
peaks
...from only sources of science Druff accepts today. Meaning not prioritizing +65, removing nursing homes and adjusting to incidence rate we get about 0.5% more dead elders. And about 1,5% less infections.
Oh and if all you want is saving lives from very specific causes then all sorts of stupid shit is true.
Say if you had to choose between two groups, you focus on gun violence and bulletproof vests as a method of saving lives. The 2 groups you can choose from are police officers and gang members. Should public policy revolve around the fatality rate of the group when making the decision? If you said yes, then i too think that gang members should be given bullet proof vests. It's just science and we have the data to support that.
New York first responder vaccination schedule...
https://abc7ny.com/health/fdny-emts-...ccine/9000198/
"starting December 29th, are firefighters and NYPD officers"
...just to remind that cashiers aren't the only ones that are referred as essential workers.
Anyone up for retarded bets if covid has killed more cops and firefighters than riots this year?
Who told you that covid death numbers weren't being padded? And I'm better at math than you are so yes I know how to average.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusWe agree on the CDC estimates for flu deaths per year. Confirmed flu deaths per year are considerably lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Who told you that car wreck nonsense?
Typical lefty pussies. This adamantium piece of shit is racist scum, posts racist bullshit, along with hurling massive insults at those who aren't socialist bags of shit like him, but can't take it when someone dishes it back to him. The rest of you libtard bastards are the same. You hurl insults left and right, mock and ridicule, make fun of, and overall belittle those that aren't lefties. But when it blows back you go nuts. You're all taken aback. The nerve of someone to insult you back.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamantiumPlease stop quoting this RETARD, thank youQuote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
FRUITLOOP CANDY ASSES
Fuzzy math from our friend here in Finland. "Adjusting to incidence rate" doesn't automatically go to 0.5% just because the vaccine is being introduced right now. We're not even at the peak yet, in all likelihood. Without the introduction of the vaccine, peak would probably hit in late January.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickYea i know that. Now that you've written it you might accept it's true in some context for the next 2 weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
So you're saying it's realistic that when a vaccine has an impact on spread this conclusion would be true...
Initially vaccinating age ≥65 in Phase
1b averts approximately 0.5–2% more
deaths, compared to targeting highrisk adults or essential workers
– As before, this difference is
greatest in the scenario where
the vaccine is introduced before
incidence peaks
and
Initially vaccinating high-risk adults or
essential workers in Phase 1b averts
approximately 1–3% more infections,
compared to targeting age ≥65
– This difference is greatest in the
scenario where the vaccine is
introduced before incidence
peaks
...from only sources of science Druff accepts today. Meaning not prioritizing +65, removing nursing homes and adjusting to incidence rate we get about 0.5% more dead elders. And about 1,5% less infections.
Also, notice that this study is "vaccinating old people" versus "vaccinating high risk adults AND essential workers".
Ah, neat trick! They're throwing in a group which is also dying from COVID (adults 18-64 with preexisting conditions) along with a group NOT dying of COVID (essential workers under 65 with no preexisting conditions).
Notice this study does not include just essential workers compared to old people. That's because it would look much worse, as essential workers who aren't old and aren't sick also aren't dying.
But even with this statistical manipulation, they still weren't able to get the deaths of this woke plan down enough. So they're conceding that we will kill extra old people (including old black people), and are conceding that the incidence rate will not be significantly affected, but we're being woke, and that's what matters now!
Better hope it's not your mom or dad who is part of that extra group of old people to be killed! But if they are, just know that they died so a 25-year-old grocery store worker won't be coughing tomorrow. Totally worth it!
SCIENCE!!
you guys are really fagging up this thread
You think i just randomly chose the smallest number from a very intricate power point presentation? I'm not an idiot. You chose the biggest number 6,5 and just assumed that it must be same for the whole time period before the peak. That's literally what you did and have been parroting that shit for 10 posts now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffFuzzy math from our friend here in Finland. "Adjusting to incidence rate" doesn't automatically go to 0.5% just because the vaccine is being introduced right now. We're not even at the peak yet, in all likelihood. Without the introduction of the vaccine, peak would probably hit in late January.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Also, notice that this study is "vaccinating old people" versus "vaccinating high risk adults AND essential workers".
Ah, neat trick! They're throwing in a group which is also dying from COVID (adults 18-64 with preexisting conditions) along with a group NOT dying of COVID (essential workers under 65 with no preexisting conditions).
Notice this study does not include just essential workers compared to old people. That's because it would look much worse, as essential workers who aren't old and aren't sick also aren't dying.
But even with this statistical manipulation, they still weren't able to get the deaths of this woke plan down enough. So they're conceding that we will kill extra old people (including old black people), and are conceding that the incidence rate will not be significantly affected, but we're being woke, and that's what matters now!
Better hope it's not your mom or dad who is part of that extra group of old people to be killed! But if they are, just know that they died so a 25-year-old grocery store worker won't be coughing tomorrow. Totally worth it!
SCIENCE!!
The above including 9 posts of back and forth because you can't read and comprehend the same amazing presentation.
How i got to 0,5% was by adjusting your likely position relatively to the peak and halving it to account the most vulnerable 3m elders that were covered already. Not 100% are you willing to admit that +65 group still has those 3m for all modeling purposes. I'm sure will get an answer soon to that.
Oh and the 3 groups are still +65, sick and essential. Only ones that are removed from any group are healthcare personnel. There's overlap in all 3 because of it. It's at the start of the presentation.
Oh and i'm obv sending my mother to US for her vaccination. Or you think we give a fuck about CDC guidelines for how we rollout our vaccines.
Minor details about the presentation referred to as DATA...
Limitations
The efficacy and ability of the vaccine candidates to prevent transmission, as well as
the time vaccine may become available, is currently unknown
Modeled epidemic trajectories are only for illustration and are not forecasts
Overall averted burden should be interpreted cautiously:
–
–
–
Sensitive to the future trajectory of the epidemic
Findings reflect an idealized rollout, with minimal delays and 100% uptake
The aim of this study was to demonstrate the relative impact of different initial
vaccine allocation strategies
...this part is from October 30 when a lot of the models were run in the dark to get a rough idea