Printable View
Great post snowy!Quote:
Originally Posted by snowtracks
Easy Druff. Sonatine get's his feelings hurt real easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Remember the "Poker fraud alert Election Special"
Sonatine got butt hurt and left the show early!:facepalm6
Trader is just the same.. Whiney Democrats!
:boom
it's true, tradersky has a huge case of TDS, he's awful on radioQuote:
Originally Posted by snowtracksEasy Druff. Sonatine get's his feelings hurt real easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Remember the "Poker fraud alert Election Special"
Sonatine got butt hurt and left the show early!:facepalm6
Trader is just the same.. Whiney Democrats!
:boom
The Washington Free Beacon is a right-biased site, but they released a good article regarding how the CDC eschewed saving lives in favor of woke politics.
https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/h...rol-went-woke/
Quote:
At the meeting, Sara Oliver, an epidemiologist with the CDC, delivered a presentation on the criteria the government should consider when developing a plan for rolling out a coronavirus vaccine. She began by reviewing three other frameworks—from the World Health Organization, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM)—on which her working group had drawn in formulating its own principles.
"Equity," Oliver emphasized, was a "crosscutting consideration for all three frameworks," suggesting that the CDC would be in good company if it prioritized that value.
But all three frameworks also considered harm reduction to be an important goal. In fact, they tended to prioritize saving lives over reducing disparities, a point Oliver either ignored or overlooked.
For example, although the Hopkins framework includes several throat-clearing paragraphs about the impact of "structural racism," it concludes by suggesting adults 65 and older receive vaccinations before most essential workers—the "primary reason" being that "their prioritization would likely avert the greatest overall harm."
But the CDC's framework adopted different priorities. Of its five proposed principles—maximize benefits and minimize harms, equity, justice, fairness, and transparency—two explicitly mention racial health disparities.
"The equity principle," Oliver said, according to meeting notes, will "make sure that vaccine allocation reduces, rather than increases, health disparities," while the "fairness principle includes a commitment to … not exacerbating existing disparities in health outcomes."
The result was a kind of moral double counting, in which closing disparities promoted two separate values, whereas saving lives promoted just one. As phrased, equity and fairness sound like they are at odds with harm reduction: If vaccinating by age minimized deaths across all racial groups, but widened the gap between racial death rates, the principles seem to rule out that strategy, since it would increase racial disparities overall.
Your science-following left, everyone.
Vaccinate healthy 25-year-old grocery story workers, even though their chance of dying from COVID is almost zero.
Put them in the same priority group as 95-year-olds with preexisting conditions, who will very frequently die if they contract COVID.
Why? Woke politics is why.
SCIENCE!!!!
PFA Radio isn't a right wing show. It's a mostly apolitical show about poker and gambling, where I throw some politics in at the end. While tradershky is a Democrat who hates Trump, he mostly stays quiet during my political segments, and only pipes up occasionally.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwaiit's true, tradersky has a huge case of TDS, he's awful on radioQuote:
Originally Posted by snowtracks
I'm very happy to have him with me on radio each week.
It should also be noted that he's been a good friend to me over the years, especially in 2018 when I suffered through those horrible psychological issues.
good thing California's liberals have been obedient sheep and followed mask mandates and quarantines, some of the most strict lock downs as well, oh wait what?
yeah time to open it up, if you're old and fat shelter in place, otherwise get the wuflu and drink some OJ and relax for a few days
sonatine and JimmyG's favorite yall.
"Nancy literally wanted to give more money!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI agree, that looks pretty bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
That's why I've been extra cautious lately. I'm not even seeing my parents until they get vaccinated.
How did this happen in a locked down blue state?
Hummmm.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmrlS_eqM0A
oh!
Happy Birthday Dr Fauci!!!!!!!!!!!
It is Dr Fauci Day in DC.
Well deserved, we'd be over 500k if Trump let Scott Atlas do his herd immunity BS.
(Do these RW liars, you get your news from, tell you its never been attained, w/out a vaccine?)
26 days and the Trump Era over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyG_415
There is no combining of the groups, nothing is averaged. It's very literally 3 sims where the worst performing is deducted from the best performing. All you need to do is look at the chart from the presentation you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThe comparison was done by combining two groups against one group, in order to avoid getting a number which looks more dramatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Vaccinating the elderly would save the most lives.
Vaccinating the non-elderly with preexisting conditions would save some lives.
Vaccinating the essential workers would save few lives, aside from essential workers who already fall in the above two groups.
By combining groups #2 and #3, and then comparing them to #1, you get a better average lives saved, and thus the percentages look smaller.
You obviously realize this, but aren't arguing in good faith.
You're not going to convince me or anyone sane that vaccinating young, healthy essential workers is going to save anywhere close to the number of lives as vaccinating the elderly. It's not even close.
You realize that the chance of deaths for a healthy person under 40 is almost zero, right? Like, literally almost zero. Why are they being vaccinated in a priority group, if they don't even know if the vaccine will slow the spread?
You are just babbling a lot of nonsense in order to avoid the obvious and common-sense points above.
We also don't know the exact VE (vaccine efficacy) for elderly.
So renegging?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
Will Incel Todd stop using the term "woke" in 2021?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickSo renegging?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I touched on this earlier, if they're using 90-95% efficacy for their sims the elderly deaths will be much higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickThere is no combining of the groups, nothing is averaged. It's very literally 3 sims where the worst performing is deducted from the best performing. All you need to do is look at the chart from the presentation you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
We also don't know the exact VE (vaccine efficacy) for elderly.
I'd be very surprised if it's over 80% for the elderly. Based on historical figures on virus's in general. Sure maybe apples and oranges but there is a lack of proper data on these new vaccines.
And well, old folks that think they're protected will return to Wal-Mart thinking they're now safe, which will compound the issue.
This alone throws a huge spanner into the models.
Realistically if the number is low, druffs master plan spectacularly falls over.
"It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle
Druff always knows better!
IT'S A REAL PANDEMIC OUT THERE PEOPLE!
Some earlier models used 70% for all and they had few with halved efficacy for the elderly. This presentation was amalgamation of those. They don't show much of the work, so it's not really practical to analyze it too much. For instance you can't see the exact values used for 6.5% value that Druff was parading before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusI touched on this earlier, if they're using 90-95% efficacy for their sims the elderly deaths will be much higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
I'd be very surprised if it's over 80% for the elderly. Based on historical figures on virus's in general. Sure maybe apples and oranges but there is a lack of proper data on these new vaccines.
And well, old folks that think they're protected will return to Wal-Mart thinking they're now safe, which will compound the issue.
This alone throws a huge spanner into the models.
Realistically if the number is low, druffs master plan spectacularly falls over.
"It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle
Druff always knows better!
I think his current argument is that they used some random averaging before comparing different results. Something that's never done and is amazingly impractical.
How any sane presentation is done is by showing group A saves 4 lives, group B 2 and C 1. So we can conclude group A saves 3 more lives than alternatives. And you can see they did just that.
Druff either thinks they averaged group B and C to conclude that A saves 2,5 lives or the really retarded version where they did the comparing with averaging before comparing. That would be group A saves +2,5 lives more, group B -0,5 more and C -2 to conclude that group A saves either +4,5 lives more or +3,75 (with averaging). I don't know what version Druff believes, but it doesn't really matter since none of them are true.
Oh and i think the 3,25 number Druff is now using is based on just halving 6,5 figure so he doesn't have to say he was wrong before. For that to be true the vaccination would have to be delivered before the rise in cases, there would be no effect on the spread and likely full efficacy for the elderly.
In other words the vaccine would behave like no other vaccine has worked before and we're still at the end of October.
While we're at it apparently NY is so woke that police and firemen are among the first to receive the vaccine. Vaccine roll out policy that's supposedly first come first serve, if you're a senior or essential, except you won't be served if you're not a first responder.
So no, there is no first come first served or a lottery of any kind. Municipalities will have their own priority schemes. Partly because of federation and partly because they know better what their specific situation is on the ground.
So re: the Covid Relief / Stimulus Bill....
i wonder if Trump will play the pocket veto card, or at least threaten it and make Congress stay in session?
If Congress is in session a bill becomes law when signed or 10 days pass....if vetoed within the 10 days Congress can override with 2/3rds majority in bot houses...if Congress is not in session when the 10 day comes and the bill is unsigned, it is considered vetoed (pocket veto) and congress does not have the option to override with a 2/3rd's majority vote.
so Trump can grinch congress this Christman by making them stay in session to preserve the override option
Obv Trump thinking: "Take that Nancy...tear up my speach, i'll make you work during the time most federal employees, defense contractors and movie studios are on year end shut-down."
Legislative chicken is a fun game to watch.
Wait, are you telling me that New York gave the vaccine first to large public organizations with strong labor unions?Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
SHOCKER!!
I never said that municipalities won't have their own priority schemes. I did say that the CDC recommended a horrible system of distribution based upon "racial justice", and that some municipalities and distribution facilities will be following it.
For some reason you don't seem to have an issue with a large, respected, national office giving out recommendations which will kill old people. Because...umm.... the locals will do the right thing always?
Care to explain from a common-sense standpoint how vaccinating a group of people, which largely has almost no risk of death, could have anywhere near the overall rate of death of vaccinating just the vulnerable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusI touched on this earlier, if they're using 90-95% efficacy for their sims the elderly deaths will be much higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
I'd be very surprised if it's over 80% for the elderly. Based on historical figures on virus's in general. Sure maybe apples and oranges but there is a lack of proper data on these new vaccines.
And well, old folks that think they're protected will return to Wal-Mart thinking they're now safe, which will compound the issue.
This alone throws a huge spanner into the models.
Realistically if the number is low, druffs master plan spectacularly falls over.
"It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle
Druff always knows better!
Even if efficacy is 70% for seniors and 95% for non-seniors, the vaccination of the elderly will be a huge life saver compared to vaccinating the non-elderly.
Do you disagree?
I'm not understanding where these additional non-elderly deaths would be coming from, given that the death rate of non-preexisting-condition people under 35 is nearly nonexistent, and is extremely low for non-preexisting-condition people under 55.