So coronavirus is definitely going to kill a few of us.

[JACKDANIELS]

The problem is that the lockdowns have their own consequences -- some physical, some mental, some economic.

And they're not working, because human beings in free societies like the US aren't compatible with them, and they eventually start straying from them and doing even more dangerous things. (For example, people are visiting each other at home, rather than dining outdoors, which is more dangerous.)

no doubt, im not pro lockdown and like i said in hindsight easy to say they have been too excessive

however thats not to say i dont see the reasoning behind them, they have helped decrease cases/deaths when introduced and cases/deaths rise when they are lifted

how much of an effect they have and if its worth the negative mental health and economic impact thats the hard part

You're just guessing.

obviously but so are you and all the people making policy too lol

its not like we have a bunch of prior experience in similar situations to fall back on

[Salty_Aus]

For mickey.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...es-to-oranges/

[gimmick]

Yea they prioritized care facility residents with healthcare workers. That's 40% of US deaths.

I'm sure there's a 95 year old with pre-existing conditions living outside a care facility somewhere within US. There honestly could be more than one. And i'm sure those 95 year old ladies/gentlemen didn't choose that because they have access to far better healthcare than a care facility could provide. There must be at least one.

Anyways once you cut out the nursing home crowd, you cut out 50% of the above 65 crowd fatalities. Then when you glance at ven-diagram with the old, essential and sick. Compare that to the phase 1b numbers of available vaccinations, the pre-existing condition multipliers and infection rate adjustment you get something that looks a lot like the current plan for vaccination schedule.

Now you would actually have to understand the science and just maybe assume that a powerpointescue presentation of the shit contains less than 1% of everything that goes to the decision making process.

But muh 95 year olds, that are already been taken care of.

Actually, "muh 95 year olds" haven't been taken care of. That's the problem. You seem to think there's some repository of old people in the US where they just all get dropped off when they hit a certain birthday. That's not how it works.

Nursing homes are pretty awful places. They're also expensive. There's also old people who don't want or need them. My girlfriend's grandmother lived to age 99, was independent, and didn't need any shit like that. I met her a year before she died, and can verify. Move her up 8 years (make her 99 today instead of in 2012), and she's in the same priority group as a 25-year-old grocery store checker.

Oh.

All the gimmick eurobabble in the world isn't going to change that absurd fact.

The bottom line is that the CDC already admits that there will be as much as 6.5% more death with their plan, and that it's unlikely to result in fewer deaths -- either long term or short term.

95 year olds with pre-existing conditions, that was your plead for emotion and people from that group are not independent, but don't worry i gave you at least one of those unicorns prancing the fields

[Dan Druff]

Actually, "muh 95 year olds" haven't been taken care of. That's the problem. You seem to think there's some repository of old people in the US where they just all get dropped off when they hit a certain birthday. That's not how it works.

Nursing homes are pretty awful places. They're also expensive. There's also old people who don't want or need them. My girlfriend's grandmother lived to age 99, was independent, and didn't need any shit like that. I met her a year before she died, and can verify. Move her up 8 years (make her 99 today instead of in 2012), and she's in the same priority group as a 25-year-old grocery store checker.

Oh.

All the gimmick eurobabble in the world isn't going to change that absurd fact.

The bottom line is that the CDC already admits that there will be as much as 6.5% more death with their plan, and that it's unlikely to result in fewer deaths -- either long term or short term.

95 year olds with pre-existing conditions, that was your plead for emotion and people from that group are not independent, but don't worry i gave you at least one of those unicorns prancing the fields

I hate to tell you, but almost all 95-year-olds have pre-existing conditions.

That doesn't mean they're in a nursing home.

[gimmick]

Oh and that 6.5% numbers is obv split in half once you've already covered "nursing homes". That's also the number that was valid about 2 months ago. The figure you're looking to split now is closer to 3%. Giving you a 1,5% increased deaths. To cover that with an infection rate decrease depends how long it takes for the rest of the vaccinations to roll out. Don't worry it's a small number. People smarter than me have ran those numbers. And between me and Druff, one us looks very likely to have nailed the number of deaths two months in advance. Just saying.

Your blather about the nursing homes doesn't figure into that 6.5% number. They were calculating deaths during stage 1b -- the stage AFTER the nursing homes are already vaccinated. That presentation was on November 20, not "two months ago".
Nice try, though.

The model they used was just pitting 3 groups against each other in different stages of the spread. It's not tailored for anything else and by that i mean it wasn't for Nov 20 nor did they remove nursing home crowd from the +65 group. The 6.5% figure is for before or early stages of rise. You know like this year when you averaged 700ish death a day for months. Not when you're hitting 3ks and averaging 2s. All this is fairly standard vaccine modelling. They work better when it's not out of control already.

[gimmick]

I don’t feel like reading it as I just woke up. Is the justice shit just PR? Is it simply a byproduct of minorities being disproportionately front line workers and having higher incidence of pre-existing conditions? By PR I mean just to allay concerns that a bunch of country club 50 year olds working from home aren’t getting it before a black UPS driver? I mean minorities work disproportionately on front line jobs, have higher pre-existing condition rates, so a larger percentage were always going to get it earlier. They’re dying more for all those reasons, so logic always dictated they’d get it earlier given health and occupation. Is there anything in there that goes beyond reason to show favoritism?

The CDC is giving guidelines.

The states are recommended to follow these guidelines, and most have agreed to do so. The states then lay out the method of distribution, and the amount of decision power each individual vaccine distributor has.

As usual, though, gimmick is just babbling. The data has already been presented, and it has been conceded that more people will die if essential workers are in the same priority group as old people. No matter who is making the final decision, it's the wrong one.

Hate to tell, but the "DATA" wasn't the 40 pages of pretty pictures you presented to us. It's those small greyish things at the bottom of the pages that leads to parts of available data that were used to make a decision.

[gimmick]

Anyway, looks like gimmick is now pivoting by saying that local hospitals will do the right thing anyway, so nothing to worry about, guyz!!!

We totally shouldn't be concerned that the CDC. who is leading the guidance for the entire nation, is recommending that healthy grocery store workers get the vaccine in the same priority group as 95-year-olds.

Because hospitals are gonna totally disregard that and totally do the right thing, you see.


Anyway, gimmick, it seems that if your point is that hospital admins will overrule the CDC's insanity, that you believe the old people SHOULD get the vaccine before the essential workers?

So you can understand that hospitals are able to assign ICU beds on their own, but handling a vaccination in limited supply is something they have no control for. It must be first come first served, lottery of any kind or have the patients fight for it. Or they do it like they do everything.

It's not about disregarding. It's just standard how hospitals work. CDC doesn't micromanage shit. There's a reason why those are called guidelines.

[gimmick]

95 year olds with pre-existing conditions, that was your plead for emotion and people from that group are not independent, but don't worry i gave you at least one of those unicorns prancing the fields

I hate to tell you, but almost all 95-year-olds have pre-existing conditions.

That doesn't mean they're in a nursing home.

Did your girlfriends grandmother have any that are related to covid?

[Dan Druff]

I hate to tell you, but almost all 95-year-olds have pre-existing conditions.

That doesn't mean they're in a nursing home.

Did your girlfriends grandmother have any that are related to covid?

I don't know what conditions she had. I'm telling you that people that old have a laundry list of health problems, and most of them have something which is considered a pre-existing condition by COVID standards.

Nursing homes are not hospitals or medical facilities. It's where old people go if:

1) They can't take care of themselves AND
2) They or their relatives can afford it AND
3) A family member can't or won't take them in

There are many elderly people who are either living by themselves, living with a spouse (who is sometimes in better condition than they are), or living with younger relatives.

A very old person is not a "unicorn" if they're not in a nursing home, even if they have health problems. Either this is very different in Finland, or you just don't understand how elderly people live.

Anecdotally, very few of the people I've known who were 85+ lived(or ended up living) in nursing homes.

In fact, the multi-generational household is especially dangerous right now to very old people. The 90-year-old living with her 55-year-old son who works indoors could easily catch COVID through him. It's very important to vaccinate these elderly people, and yet the left is worried about 25-year-old grocery store clerks because.... racial justice or something.

SCIENCE!!!

[Dan Druff]

Anyway, looks like gimmick is now pivoting by saying that local hospitals will do the right thing anyway, so nothing to worry about, guyz!!!

We totally shouldn't be concerned that the CDC. who is leading the guidance for the entire nation, is recommending that healthy grocery store workers get the vaccine in the same priority group as 95-year-olds.

Because hospitals are gonna totally disregard that and totally do the right thing, you see.


Anyway, gimmick, it seems that if your point is that hospital admins will overrule the CDC's insanity, that you believe the old people SHOULD get the vaccine before the essential workers?

So you can understand that hospitals are able to assign ICU beds on their own, but handling a vaccination in limited supply is something they have no control for. It must be first come first served, lottery of any kind or have the patients fight for it. Or they do it like they do everything.

It's not about disregarding. It's just standard how hospitals work. CDC doesn't micromanage shit. There's a reason why those are called guidelines.

Do you agree or disagree with the guidelines?

It's a bizarre that you are trying to argue that it's okay that the CDC to be giving bad guidelines, because hospitals supposedly won't follow them.

What?? Shouldn't the CDC be giving the proper guidelines which lead to saving the most lives?

[gimmick]

Other random crap, i think we're at 4k mutations now. Exponential growth can happen with a population size 100. Saying it's impossible because maybe 20% of all Americans can't be infected is retarded.

If for some unknown reasons you have kids, then you're familiar with exponential growth in how they tend to get everything a single kid in their school had a week ago and now every kid has it. It's about speed of spread, nothing else.

[Dan Druff]

Your blather about the nursing homes doesn't figure into that 6.5% number. They were calculating deaths during stage 1b -- the stage AFTER the nursing homes are already vaccinated. That presentation was on November 20, not "two months ago".
Nice try, though.

The model they used was just pitting 3 groups against each other in different stages of the spread. It's not tailored for anything else and by that i mean it wasn't for Nov 20 nor did they remove nursing home crowd from the +65 group. The 6.5% figure is for before or early stages of rise. You know like this year when you averaged 700ish death a day for months. Not when you're hitting 3ks and averaging 2s. All this is fairly standard vaccine modelling. They work better when it's not out of control already.

They did remove the nursing home crowd from the 65+ group. This is why they talked about "Group 1b" instead of "Group 1". Group 1a was the nursing homes and the healthcare workers -- something which was already decided prior to November 20.

The CDC has not changed its conclusions since the spike in deaths -- which was already occurring on November 20th, by the way. There has been a general concession that their recommendations will cause additional deaths, but "racial justice" will be accomplished, so it's all okay.

[gimmick]

So you can understand that hospitals are able to assign ICU beds on their own, but handling a vaccination in limited supply is something they have no control for. It must be first come first served, lottery of any kind or have the patients fight for it. Or they do it like they do everything.

It's not about disregarding. It's just standard how hospitals work. CDC doesn't micromanage shit. There's a reason why those are called guidelines.

Do you agree or disagree with the guidelines?

It's a bizarre that you are trying to argue that it's okay that the CDC to be giving bad guidelines, because hospitals supposedly won't follow them.

What?? Shouldn't the CDC be giving the proper guidelines which lead to saving the most lives?

Yes the guidelines are workable. The groups selected for phase 1b have way more people than they have vaccines. Hospitals make the decisions on who they prioritize within those guidelines.

Say hospital A has 10 vaccines and in their area there are 100 patients that are eligible under the guidelines for that batch. Hospital do their own prioritizing because of a limited supply of vaccines.

[Dan Druff]

Other random crap, i think we're at 4k mutations now. Exponential growth can happen with a population size 100. Saying it's impossible because maybe 20% of all Americans can't be infected is retarded.

If for some unknown reasons you have kids, then you're familiar with exponential growth in how they tend to get everything a single kid in their school had a week ago and now every kid has it. It's about speed of spread, nothing else.

How could you have read this forum for this many years and not know I have a 10-year-old son?

Exponential growth cannot happen when there's a cap on the total number -- in this case the size of the population. With 20% or so infected already, the worst possible growth at this point is a factor of 5. That's not considered exponential.

Sure, if there were to be a mutation so severe that it could reinfect those who already had it, we could have exponential growth again. However, that hasn't happened (aside from some super-rare cases), nor would the current vaccine distribution plan thwart it.

It has not even been determined whether or not the vaccine prevents spread -- only that it holds back symptoms.

You're trying to argue "what-ifs" which have no scientific basis, and which have nothing to do with the vaccine distribution plan anyway.

Even the idiot leftists at the CDC don't claim that their distribution plan is likely to stop the spread or stop "exponential growth", but somehow gimmick of Poker Fraud Alert is sure that's the reason for it.

[Dan Druff]

Do you agree or disagree with the guidelines?

It's a bizarre that you are trying to argue that it's okay that the CDC to be giving bad guidelines, because hospitals supposedly won't follow them.

What?? Shouldn't the CDC be giving the proper guidelines which lead to saving the most lives?

Yes the guidelines are workable. The groups selected for phase 1b have way more people than they have vaccines. Hospitals make the decisions on who they prioritize within those guidelines.

Say hospital A has 10 vaccines and in their area there are 100 patients that are eligible under the guidelines for that batch. Hospital do their own prioritizing because of a limited supply of vaccines.

I'm not asking if they're workable.

I'm asking if you feel they are correct. Why are you dodging this?

If a hospital has 1000 vaccines to give away, and there are 1000 old people and 1000 essential workers who aren't old, who should get the 1000 vaccines?

The idiots at the CDC are recommending that it's first-come, first-served for either of the groups, even if hospitals know that the elderly will snap up every vaccine they have.

What does gimmick reccommend?

[gimmick]

The model they used was just pitting 3 groups against each other in different stages of the spread. It's not tailored for anything else and by that i mean it wasn't for Nov 20 nor did they remove nursing home crowd from the +65 group. The 6.5% figure is for before or early stages of rise. You know like this year when you averaged 700ish death a day for months. Not when you're hitting 3ks and averaging 2s. All this is fairly standard vaccine modelling. They work better when it's not out of control already.

They did remove the nursing home crowd from the 65+ group. This is why they talked about "Group 1b" instead of "Group 1". Group 1a was the nursing homes and the healthcare workers -- something which was already decided prior to November 20.

The CDC has not changed its conclusions since the spike in deaths -- which was already occurring on November 20th, by the way. There has been a general concession that their recommendations will cause additional deaths, but "racial justice" will be accomplished, so it's all okay.

Yea these are their groupings...

August ACIP meeting
Phase 1a:
-Healthcare Personnel
Phase 1b:
-Essential Workers
-High-Risk Med Conditions
-Adults ≥ 65 years old

...these are examples of +65 group...

Community Dwelling
Congregate ~3M4
-Skilled Nursing
Facility (~1.3 M)
-Assisted living
Facilities (~0.8 M)
-Residential care
communities (~0.6 M)
-HUD Senior
Housing (~0.3M)

...it appears they did not remove anyone from the +65 group and phase 1a at the time of the model only had health personnel in it. After modelling they added the single highest risk group to phase 1a. That was about 3million people from the +65 group and that was enough to cut down the fatality rate of the remainder in half.

In case you're wondering why nursing homes have such high fatality rate. Exponential growth.

As a freebie, police and firemen are in the essential workers group. I'm all for fuck the police and ACAB all that, but maybe we save more lives by having them around.

[gimmick]

Yes the guidelines are workable. The groups selected for phase 1b have way more people than they have vaccines. Hospitals make the decisions on who they prioritize within those guidelines.

Say hospital A has 10 vaccines and in their area there are 100 patients that are eligible under the guidelines for that batch. Hospital do their own prioritizing because of a limited supply of vaccines.

I'm not asking if they're workable.

I'm asking if you feel they are correct. Why are you dodging this?

If a hospital has 1000 vaccines to give away, and there are 1000 old people and 1000 essential workers who aren't old, who should get the 1000 vaccines?

The idiots at the CDC are recommending that it's first-come, first-served for either of the groups, even if hospitals know that the elderly will snap up every vaccine they have.

What does gimmick reccommend?

I'm sure you have link for this first-come, first served guideline and practice.

How to administer 1000 doses. Look for overlap between 2 groups. Look for overlap with pre-existing conditions. Take care of police and firemen. Take care of everyone in close contact with elderly and otherwise susceptible in daily capacity. And if you have any doses left, vaccinate the research party that's looking for that 95 year old with pre-existing conditions that just can't find the hospital.

[Dan Druff]

They did remove the nursing home crowd from the 65+ group. This is why they talked about "Group 1b" instead of "Group 1". Group 1a was the nursing homes and the healthcare workers -- something which was already decided prior to November 20.

The CDC has not changed its conclusions since the spike in deaths -- which was already occurring on November 20th, by the way. There has been a general concession that their recommendations will cause additional deaths, but "racial justice" will be accomplished, so it's all okay.

Yea these are their groupings...

August ACIP meeting
Phase 1a:
-Healthcare Personnel
Phase 1b:
-Essential Workers
-High-Risk Med Conditions
-Adults ≥ 65 years old

...these are examples of +65 group...

Community Dwelling
Congregate ~3M4
-Skilled Nursing
Facility (~1.3 M)
-Assisted living
Facilities (~0.8 M)
-Residential care
communities (~0.6 M)
-HUD Senior
Housing (~0.3M)

...it appears they did not remove anyone from the +65 group and phase 1a at the time of the model only had health personnel in it. After modelling they added the single highest risk group to phase 1a. That was about 3million people from the +65 group and that was enough to cut down the fatality rate of the remainder in half.

In case you're wondering why nursing homes have such high fatality rate. Exponential growth.

As a freebie, police and firemen are in the essential workers group. I'm all for fuck the police and ACAB all that, but maybe we save more lives by having them around.

There are 54 million Americans 65+: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-sex-and-age/

13 million of them are over 80.

As you can see, the vast majority don't live in nursing homes. The nursing homes are most COVID-vulnerable, yes. It's not because of your "exponential growth" nonsense, which isn't really possible in what are relatively small, closed communities. It's because these are the oldest and sickest people, and the virus is very contagious indoors. Quick spread of a well-established virus in a closed, small community is not the "exponential growth" referred to in health communities. The exponential growth occurs when a new very contagious virus is introduced to a population which is presently free of it.

Anyway, this is a stupid debate. Whether the additional death rate is 6.5%, 3.25%, or 0.5%, it's still a lot of additional needless deaths, for the purpose of woke politics.

That's why racial justice is cited, not containment of virus expansion, or saving of essential industries. It has been seen from previous outbreaks that these industries basically keep on chugging along, because most people recover in 1-2 weeks, and with most employees in these jobs being under 50, the danger to the employees themselves is relatively low.

When they say, "We are doing this for racial justice" and gimmick hears, "We are doing this to slow the spread of the virus", it looks like someone has a comprehension problem.

[Dan Druff]

I'm not asking if they're workable.

I'm asking if you feel they are correct. Why are you dodging this?

If a hospital has 1000 vaccines to give away, and there are 1000 old people and 1000 essential workers who aren't old, who should get the 1000 vaccines?

The idiots at the CDC are recommending that it's first-come, first-served for either of the groups, even if hospitals know that the elderly will snap up every vaccine they have.

What does gimmick reccommend?

I'm sure you have link for this first-come, first served guideline and practice.

How to administer 1000 doses. Look for overlap between 2 groups. Look for overlap with pre-existing conditions. Take care of police and firemen. Take care of everyone in close contact with elderly and otherwise susceptible in daily capacity. And if you have any doses left, vaccinate the research party that's looking for that 95 year old with pre-existing conditions that just can't find the hospital.

Why 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.

Again, you're just spouting made-up concerns that you pull out of your ass.

They've already studied all of this. They came up with the idiotic "essential workers" list, which includes far more than just people who have close contact with the elderly.

They admitted that this essential workers list was largely based upon racial justice, not saving lies.

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. They won't. There will be plenty of Jimmy_G415 type woke administrators who will simply want to make it available to essential workers at the same or greater priority as seniors, because they want this stupid racial justice the CDC is talking about. There will be others who are lazy or short-staffed, and won't want to put each vaccine seeker through a long questionnaire and review.

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?


Let's do this again.

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?

[gimmick]

Other random crap, i think we're at 4k mutations now. Exponential growth can happen with a population size 100. Saying it's impossible because maybe 20% of all Americans can't be infected is retarded.

If for some unknown reasons you have kids, then you're familiar with exponential growth in how they tend to get everything a single kid in their school had a week ago and now every kid has it. It's about speed of spread, nothing else.

How could you have read this forum for this many years and not know I have a 10-year-old son?

Exponential growth cannot happen when there's a cap on the total number -- in this case the size of the population. With 20% or so infected already, the worst possible growth at this point is a factor of 5. That's not considered exponential.

Sure, if there were to be a mutation so severe that it could reinfect those who already had it, we could have exponential growth again. However, that hasn't happened (aside from some super-rare cases), nor would the current vaccine distribution plan thwart it.

It has not even been determined whether or not the vaccine prevents spread -- only that it holds back symptoms.

You're trying to argue "what-ifs" which have no scientific basis, and which have nothing to do with the vaccine distribution plan anyway.

Even the idiot leftists at the CDC don't claim that their distribution plan is likely to stop the spread or stop "exponential growth", but somehow gimmick of Poker Fraud Alert is sure that's the reason for it.

Oh dear that's not how exponential growth works.

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