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

[Dan Druff]

I agree, that looks pretty bad.

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.....

oh!

So that's the well-informed sonatine answer?

California, a very large geographic area with 40 million people, is having terrible outbreaks because of a few small pockets of lockdown protesters?

Do you think it's possible that lockdowns don't work, or do you refuse to take any position which AOC wouldn't endorse?

[Dan Druff]

Sooo... I looked at the study from the CDC, which before I was just posting numbers from its conclusions, without delving into the numbers very carefully.

Here it is: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/me...iggerstaff.pdf

As gimmick mentioned, this was from October 30, but that doesn't matter, as not much has changed in the context of this study since then.

It splits people into 3 groups, excluding only healthcare workers, which it assumed was vaccinated in the first group.

Group A: Elderly age 65+
Group B: Adults 18-64 with major preexisting conditions
Group C: Essential workers

The first flaw of this study comes from the fact that groups B and C intersect. This allows Group C (essential workers) appear to have more lives saved than it actually does, because most of those dead essential workers were presumably ALSO in group B, and even some in group A.

Since the people involved in the study are accomplished scientists who clearly aren't stupid, I can't imagine this was an accident.

This basically skews the entire study badly, and makes it likely that vaccinating elderly people instead of non-high-risk essential workers would save a LOT of extra lives!

Notice that the study does NOT attempt to study essential workers who do NOT already fit into groups A and B. It is my assertion that almost nobody from Group C would die, if you took out those who also fit into the other two groups.

Essential workers have more exposure. This makes it more likely that they get the coronavirus than seniors who are exposed much less. With a higher percentage of incidence in the essential group, you will have a higher death rate among essential workers than their demographic counterparts. However, if the death rate is tiny in the first place (as it is for healthy under-35 people -- a large chunk of essential workers), then the extra COVID cases among essential workers do not translate into any significant additional essential worker death.

However, if the essential worker group includes "high risk adults 18-64", who are also getting extra exposure due to their type of job, there probably is significant additional death. This explains how the number of deaths saved by vaccinating the essential workers falsely appears to be only a little bit less than vaccinating just the elderly.

This is all fallacious bullshit -- the equivalent of statistical gerrymandering.

The study should have been of the following groups:

Group A: Elderly in nursing homes
Group B: Elderly not in nursing homes
Group C: High risk adults aged 18-64 who are essential workers
Group D: High risk adults aged 18-64 who are NOT essential workers
Group E: Essential workers 16-64 who are NOT high risk adults or elderly

I am certain that vaccinating Group E would prevent very little death, and thus a waste of early vaccines. Why? Because there is a very low rate of death in that group.

In fact, if you break out the essential workers like the above, I think there's a good chance that new group C would have a HIGHER death rate than non-nursing home elderly! So they definitely deserve it.

So if the CDC really wanted to protest essential workers properly, while not screwing over the elderly, they should put groups B and C in the second priority group, put group D in the third priority group, and put group E with everyone else. This would also result in the minimum amount of death.

Why didn't they do that? Because of woke politics.

Do you disagree with any of this, gimmick? If so, how do you explain this from a scientific or data standpoint?

[RealTalk]

So druff wants the group that will likely have the highest exposure plus have the highest crossover of interactions with all other groups to be vaccinated last?

[Dan Druff]

So druff wants the group that will likely have the highest exposure plus have the highest crossover of interactions with all other groups to be vaccinated last?

The vaccine hasn't been shown yet to prevent infection. That hasn't been studied yet. However, even if it does, models still show that the most death will occur if the elderly isn't vaccinated first, given the huge variety of transmission vectors out there.

I want the group to be vaccinated first which is dying at the highest rate. All of the modeling already shows this will save the most lives long term. It seems from this study that these would be the elderly AND high risk non-elderly who work high exposure jobs. That's who should be in group 1b.

The consensus among most modelers is that if the main goal is to slash mortality rates, officials must prioritize vaccinating those who are older, and if they want to slow transmission, they must target younger adults.

“Almost no matter what, you get the same answer,” says Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch. Vaccinate the elderly first to prevent deaths he says, and then move on to other, healthier groups or the general population. One recent study modeled how Covid-19 is likely to spread in six countries—the U.S., India, Spain, Zimbabwe, Brazil, and Belgium—and concluded that if the primary goal is to reduce mortality rates, adults over 60 should be prioritized for direct vaccination. The study, by Daniel Larremore and Kate Bubar of the University of Colorado Boulder, Lipsitch, and their colleagues, has been published as a preprint, meaning it has not yet been peer reviewed. Of course, when considering Covid-19's outsized impact on minorities—especially Black and Latino communities—additional considerations for prioritization come into play.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vaccine-first/

Nate Silver has been tweeting nonstop about this. Do you think he's wrong?

The CDC has already admitted that "racial justice" was a large factor in determining vaccination order, rather than simply preventing long term infection/death.

[RealTalk]

So druff wants the group that will likely have the highest exposure plus have the highest crossover of interactions with all other groups to be vaccinated last?

The vaccine hasn't been shown yet to prevent infection. That hasn't been studied yet. However, even if it does, models still show that the most death will occur if the elderly isn't vaccinated first, given the huge variety of transmission vectors out there.

I want the group to be vaccinated first which is dying at the highest rate. All of the modeling already shows this will save the most lives long term.

Nate Silver has been tweeting nonstop about this. Do you think he's wrong?

The CDC has already admitted that "racial justice" was a large factor in determining vaccination order, rather than simply preventing long term infection/death.

I'd prefer to vaccinate the group that has the highest exposure first. You can't die from covid if you aren't infected. Someone that has the resources and option to limit virtually all exposure to the virus (yourself and/or your parents) should not get vaccinated before the poor bastard that has no choice but to go to work 40+ hours a week at 7/11 or costco while their kids go to daycare. In my opinion anyways.

[Dan Druff]

The vaccine hasn't been shown yet to prevent infection. That hasn't been studied yet. However, even if it does, models still show that the most death will occur if the elderly isn't vaccinated first, given the huge variety of transmission vectors out there.

I want the group to be vaccinated first which is dying at the highest rate. All of the modeling already shows this will save the most lives long term.

Nate Silver has been tweeting nonstop about this. Do you think he's wrong?

The CDC has already admitted that "racial justice" was a large factor in determining vaccination order, rather than simply preventing long term infection/death.

I'd prefer to vaccinate the group that has the highest exposure first. You can't die from covid if you aren't infected. Someone that has the resources and option to limit virtually all exposure to the virus (yourself and/or your parents) should not get vaccinated before the poor bastard that has no choice but to go to work 40+ hours a week at 7/11 or costco while their kids go to daycare. In my opinion anyways.

Obviously you can have your opinion, but this was all modeled, and it was shown that simply vaccinating those likely to die from it is the smartest play. This is because almost all of the death is coming from either the elderly or high-risk non-elderly.

As I said in my long post, I do believe essential workers deemed "high risk adults" should get vaccinated in the 1b priority group with the old people. In fact, they may even be more vulnerable than the elderly, due to the additional exposure.

However, we should not be vaccinating people healthy people under 40 in any high priority group, regardless of their exposure. They simply aren't getting COVID that badly, and almost none of them are dying.

The CDC study was purposely dishonest by simply studying "essential workers", without splitting off a very specific subgroup which likely comprises almost all the deaths. That was no accident.

Will you at least concede that "racial justice" should not be part of any of this, aside from assuring that minority neighborhoods have proper access to it?

[RealTalk]

I'd prefer to vaccinate the group that has the highest exposure first. You can't die from covid if you aren't infected. Someone that has the resources and option to limit virtually all exposure to the virus (yourself and/or your parents) should not get vaccinated before the poor bastard that has no choice but to go to work 40+ hours a week at 7/11 or costco while their kids go to daycare. In my opinion anyways.

Will you at least concede that "racial justice" should not be part of any of this, aside from assuring that minority neighborhoods have proper access to it?

I haven't been paying attention that closely, but has anyone actively been making this argument?

But sure, I'm fine agreeing with you on that.

[big dick]

The vaccine hasn't been shown yet to prevent infection. That hasn't been studied yet. However, even if it does, models still show that the most death will occur if the elderly isn't vaccinated first, given the huge variety of transmission vectors out there.

I want the group to be vaccinated first which is dying at the highest rate. All of the modeling already shows this will save the most lives long term.

Nate Silver has been tweeting nonstop about this. Do you think he's wrong?

The CDC has already admitted that "racial justice" was a large factor in determining vaccination order, rather than simply preventing long term infection/death.

I'd prefer to vaccinate the group that has the highest exposure first. You can't die from covid if you aren't infected. Someone that has the resources and option to limit virtually all exposure to the virus (yourself and/or your parents) should not get vaccinated before the poor bastard that has no choice but to go to work 40+ hours a week at 7/11 or costco while their kids go to daycare. In my opinion anyways.

mine too

of course druff is for fucking the poor working class people over

it's in his political DNA

[Dan Druff]

I'd prefer to vaccinate the group that has the highest exposure first. You can't die from covid if you aren't infected. Someone that has the resources and option to limit virtually all exposure to the virus (yourself and/or your parents) should not get vaccinated before the poor bastard that has no choice but to go to work 40+ hours a week at 7/11 or costco while their kids go to daycare. In my opinion anyways.

mine too

of course druff is for fucking the poor working class people over

it's in his political DNA

No it's not.

I'm for saving lives, and not wasting vaccines on those who are not likely to suffer permanent damage or death from COVID. I actually WANT the vaccine to go to the poor working class who are vulnerable, even if they're under 65.

Notice I am also not advocating the vaccine early for myself, and am okay with waiting months for it.

You know... I'm following the science, like your party keeps supposedly urging everyone to do.

[desertrunner]

A friend received this email from UCI health recently and thought it would be helpful to share the info:

 

Dear Patient,

This holiday season, we have reason to celebrate. Amidst this difficult time, we are seeing a glimmer of hope. I am pleased to share that more than 3,500 of our frontline healthcare providers have already received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. COVID-19 vaccines are expected to be made available to the public in a few months. We will continue to update you as more information becomes available.

Two COVID-19 vaccines have received emergency approval for frontline healthcare workers and residents of long-term care homes. UCI Health infectious disease experts answer questions about these vaccines.

Q. Why should I get the COVID-19 vaccine?

A. In addition to preventing infection and death by reducing your chances of getting sick, the COVID-19 vaccines also will prevent many long-lasting effects reported by COVID-19 patients. These include fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, muscle and joint pain, chest pain, difficulty thinking and concentrating (“brain fog”), depression, headache and fever that comes and goes.

Some people also reported heart, lung, kidney, skin, teeth and nervous system problems.

Q. Can the COVID-19 vaccine give me COVID?

A. None of the currently developed COVID-19 vaccines have the live SARS-CoV-2 virus. These vaccines cannot give you or anyone else COVID-19, nor do they make you contagious.

Q. Will I test positive for COVID-19 after being vaccinated?

A. No. The vaccine will not cause you to test positive on viral tests for COVID-19, such as PCR tests or antigen tests. However, the vaccine likely will cause you to test positive for antibody tests (also called serology) since the vaccine helps build antibodies to COVID-19.

Q. What COVID-19 vaccines are now available?

A. Several companies are developing vaccines that work against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Two have been tested in large-scale clinical trials and have or are likely to be authorized for use in 2020 by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). They include:

Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine

Granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on 12/11/2020
Large-scale trial (44,000 participants) showed 95% protection from disease
Two-dose vaccine, requires ultra-cold storage (–70 Celsius)
First shipments to hospitals that can handle ultra-cold storage
50 million doses to the world by end of 2020 (6.5 million to U.S.)
1.3 billion doses to the world in 2021


Moderna mRNA vaccine

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) expected 12/18/2020
Large-scale trial (30,000 participants) showed 94% protection
Two-dose vaccine, requires standard cold storage (–20 Celsius)
First shipments to hospitals and pharmacies serving long-term care facilities
20 million doses to the world by end of 2020
500 million to 1 billion doses to the world in 2021


Q. Who will get the first vaccines and when?

A. The following two groups have first priority for the COVID-19 vaccine:

Healthcare personnel (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes)
Residents of nursing homes, assisted-living and other long-term care facilities


Combining the availability of both vaccines, 40 million doses are expected to be available in the United States before the end of 2020. This is enough to start two-dose inoculations in 20 million people by the end of December, with millions more to follow in 2021.

Q. When will there be enough vaccine for most people to get the vaccine?

A. Vaccine manufacturing is moving at a very fast pace. Hopefully, COVID-19 vaccines will be widely available for the public by mid-April, 2021.

In addition to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, several others are in current trials that will finish in early 2021. Furthermore, vaccine trials in children under age 12 have also begun.

Q. What is the difference between Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) status and full FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval for a vaccine?

A. When an effective vaccine has been demonstrated in a trial, it can apply for EUA status with two months of post-vaccine safety data. To apply for full approval, six months of post-vaccine safety data must be provided.

The FDA is encouraging companies who receive EUA status to apply for full approval as soon as possible. Both mRNA vaccines have reported outstanding safety data with no serious side effects.

Q. What is an mRNA vaccine?

A. Many types of COVID-19 vaccines are in development. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are both made with mRNA, or messenger ribonucleic acid, that can instruct your body to make a specific protein (the spike protein) found on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

When your body makes this viral protein, it is recognized as not human, and your body develops antibodies to it. These antibodies protect you if you encounter the virus later.

After making the protein, your body destroys the mRNA, which does not mix with your genetic code or stay in the body. mRNA vaccines have been used effectively in the past for flu, rabies, CMV (cytomegalovirus) and Zika viruses.

Q. Should I worry that the vaccine was made so quickly? Were steps skipped?

A. No steps were skipped. All COVID-19 vaccines being submitted for approval must meet high U.S. safety standards. All vaccines to be distributed in the U.S. were helped by funds from the government (e.g., Operation Warp Speed), large companies or both. These funds helped speed three processes:

Trial enrollment — If you can increase the number of staff members who are recruiting patients, you can enroll a lot of people into a clinical trial in a shorter time period. The funds helped the trials quickly enroll tens of thousands of participants.
Manufacturing — Funds help increase the number of available manufacturing plants, warehouses and employees. In addition, the molecular-based mRNA vaccines can be manufactured faster because they do not require growing the virus to produce virus proteins.
Distribution — Funding enables the vaccines to be shipped rapidly around the nation and the world on a regular basis.


Q. How well do the vaccines work?

A. The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have both been tested in large vaccine trials involving more than 70,000 people. Participants were randomly assigned to two study arms, one to receive the vaccine, the other a placebo injection. They were allowed to live their lives and mix with their communities as they normally would. Since the trials are randomized, such large study groups help ensure that the type of human interactions in one study arm are similar in the other.The trials reported a remarkable 94% to 95% efficacy in preventing COVID-19. An efficacy of 95% means that the vaccine group had only 5% of the cases seen in the non-vaccine group. For example, if the placebo group had 100 cases of COVID-19, the vaccine group would have only five. The vaccine not only prevented COVID-19 cases overall, it also prevented severe cases of the disease.

Protection was measured after the second dose for both vaccines. Pfizer measured protection in seven (7) days after the second dose; Moderna measured protection 14 days after the second dose.

Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial (44,000 participants)
95% protection
All COVID-19 cases: 162 total in placebo group vs. 8 in vaccine group
Severe COVID-19 cases: 9 in placebo group vs. 1 in vaccine group
Moderna COVID-19 vaccine trial (30,000 participants)
94% protection
All COVID-19 cases: 185 total in placebo group vs. 11 in vaccine group
Severe COVID-19 cases: 30 total in placebo group vs. 0 in vaccine group

Both vaccines protected well across all ages of adults studied. Both trials used different age groupings when providing summary data to the FDA.

Pfizer
Ages 16 to 55: 96% efficacy
Over age 55: 94% efficacy
Moderna
Ages 18 to 65: 96% efficacy
Over age 65: 86% efficacy *


*The difference between the efficacy of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines in older adults may be due to the cut-off age for the trial. For example, it is possible that the Pfizer vaccine would have a lower protection effect had they reported data for those over age 65.

Q. Were different races and ethnicities included in the vaccine trials?

A. The people in the COVID-19 mRNA trials were of the following race and ethnicity

Pfizer
57% white
26% Hispanic/Latinx
10% Black
4% Asian
3% other racial groups
Moderna
62% white
20% Hispanic/Latinx
10% Black
5% Asian
< 3% other racial groups


Q. How many doses do I need?

A. Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are a two-dose series. This means that you must receive both doses to achieve the 94% and 95% protection levels seen in the trials.

The Pfizer vaccine is two doses given 21 days apart.
The Moderna vaccine is two doses given 28 days apart.


Q. Am I protected as soon as I receive the vaccine? Can I stop wearing a mask?

A. No. The protection provided by the vaccine starts seven (7) days after the second Pfizer dose and 14 days occurs after the second Moderna. Until then, you should assume you have no proven benefit from the vaccine.

Even after you are vaccinated, all policies, protocols and public health orders related to COVID-19 will remain in place until you are notified otherwise.

Q. What side effects do the vaccines have?

A. So far, trials indicate that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly protective and generate a strong immune response. Sometimes when vaccines produce an immune response, there may be side effects that feel like the flu. This does not mean you are infected or contagious. Instead, these symptoms are a signal that your body is successfully generating an immune response to protect you from the virus. Both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines commonly cause mild-to-moderate non-infectious flu-like symptoms. Data are being reviewed by the FDA and more details will become available. Here's what we know so far about side effects:

Pfizer mRNA vaccine
Any symptoms: 59% after first dose, 70% after second dose
Mild to moderate symptom type: fatigue 63%, headache 55%, muscle aches 38%, chills 32%, joint pain 24%, fever 14%
Few grade 3 (severe) side effects: fatigue 4%, headache 2%
Moderna mRNA vaccine
Limited data currently known. More data released when EUA status granted.
Grade 3 (severe) side effects: fatigue 10%, muscle aches 9%, joint pain 5%, headache 5%


Schedule your vaccinations when you do not have anything important planned for the next day or two, including work.

Q. If I have food or medication allergies, should I worry about an allergic reaction to the vaccine?

A. Having a significant allergy to a food or medications does not necessarily mean you are at higher risk for having an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. The risk of an allergic reaction exists for those who have a known allergy to the vaccine (from prior doses) or a known allergy to an ingredient in a vaccine. For example, mRNA vaccines are not made in chicken eggs and there should not be any additional risk for people with known allergies to eggs.

Please consult your doctor before being vaccinated if you have many serious allergies. If you have been told to carry epinephrine (Epipen) for any reason, you should continue to do so, including at the time of vaccination.

All vaccine distribution centers must have emergency allergy medications on site. The CDC also recommends that everyone vaccinated be observed for 15, and for 30 minutes for anyone with a history of anaphylaxis. If you are unable to wait that long, we recommend being around other people for the 15 minutes or are on the phone with someone who is aware that you have just been vaccinated and knows your location.


Q. Should I take Tylenol or Motrin before my vaccination?

A. If you regularly take aspirin, acetaminophen (e.g., Tylenol) and ibuprofen (e.g., Motrin, Advil) for other medical conditions, continue to do so as directed by your physician or as needed. Otherwise, do not pre-medicate.

Taking over-the-counter medications such as acetaminophen and ibuprofen before receiving a vaccine may reduce its ability to work and blunt your immune response to the vaccine. After the vaccination, don’t hesitate to take an over-the-counter medication if you have symptoms that make you uncomfortable.

Q. What if I get the first dose then don’t want the second?

A. The Pfizer and Moderna trials were not designed to assess the effectiveness of a single shot. For example, everyone in the Pfizer vaccine group received two shots, 21 days apart. Even though overall data suggest that benefits may start after the first dose, we don’t know enough to make any conclusions.

The scientific evidence so far shows that two doses are needed to achieve 94% to 95% protection. This is why you should not start the vaccine series unless you intend to complete it.

Q. What if I missed my second dose?

A. Try to get the second dose on time. Data on vaccine benefit was based on a fixed number of weeks between doses (three weeks between Pfizer doses; four between Moderna doses). If you are late, you should still receive the second dose.

Most vaccines have rules for how many weeks you can be late before you should start the vaccine series over. For the COVID-19 vaccines, doses will be given late until the CDC or published clinical data provide guidance on when it is too late to give a second dose.

Q. If I already had COVID-19, do I need the vaccine?

A. Yes. People who have had COVID-19 should still get the vaccine. Natural immunity to COVID-19 after infection is unpredictable. The vaccine ensures you receive the same protection levels found in the trials.

Vaccines should not be given to anyone who is actively infected. After full recovery, you can and should receive the vaccine.

Q. Can pregnant, breastfeeding or immunocompromised persons get the vaccine?

A. Pregnant, breastfeeding and immunocompromised persons were not enrolled in the mRNA vaccine trials so there are no data currently available to make a recommendation.

While awaiting further data and guidance, we understand that pregnant or immunocompromised persons are at higher risk for more serious disease and may make the personal choice to receive the vaccine.

In general, the concern for immunocompromised persons is not for safety, but rather that the vaccine may not generate as strong a protective response as in persons with a healthy immune system. Nevertheless, a partial response may be an important benefit. Discuss your preferences and options with your doctor.

If you are pregnant, breastfeeding or attempting to become pregnant, you should consider your personal risk for COVID-19 based on your interactions with friends, family and the community. Second, concerns for any potential medication effects to a developing fetus are generally during the first trimester when organs are forming. Third, the mRNA in the vaccines does not cross the placenta to reach your baby. But protective antibodies you produce do pass to your baby through the placenta and breastfeeding.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that the COVID-19 vaccine be offered to pregnant and breastfeeding women, and recommends against requiring women of childbearing age to have a pregnancy test before receiving the vaccine.
https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinic...ainst-covid-19

Q. Who pays for the vaccine?

A. At this time, the two mRNA vaccines are free because the U.S. government has purchased millions of doses. In the future, this may change: The government may purchase more doses, your insurance may cover the cost or you may be able to pay out of pocket.

We all want this pandemic to end. By mid-December 2020, the coronavirus pandemic has caused 75 million confirmed cases and 1.7 million deaths worldwide. More than 310,000 Americans have died due to COVID-19, which now exceeds heart disease as the leading cause of U.S. deaths.

During the current winter surge, the virus is claiming about 2,500 U.S. lives every day. But safe and effective vaccines will end the pandemic if, as experts believe, at least 70% of people are vaccinated.

While we wait for the vaccine to be widely distributed, please continue to wash your hands for at least 20 seconds, wear a mask in public and maintain a distance of at least six feet from others who are not in your household.

Wishing you a safe and healthy new year!

Sincerely,

Chad T. Lefteris
CEO, UCI Health

[big dick]

mine too

of course druff is for fucking the poor working class people over

it's in his political DNA

No it's not.

I'm for saving lives, and not wasting vaccines on those who are not likely to suffer permanent damage or death from COVID. I actually WANT the vaccine to go to the poor working class who are vulnerable, even if they're under 65.

Notice I am also not advocating the vaccine early for myself, and am okay with waiting months for it.

You know... I'm following the science, like your party keeps supposedly urging everyone to do.

if the morons you support had of listened to my party all along we wouldn't be in the messs were in


Surely you agree with me right?

your party made it very clear that they aren't in the saving life business when it comes to covid

[Dan Druff]

No it's not.

I'm for saving lives, and not wasting vaccines on those who are not likely to suffer permanent damage or death from COVID. I actually WANT the vaccine to go to the poor working class who are vulnerable, even if they're under 65.

Notice I am also not advocating the vaccine early for myself, and am okay with waiting months for it.

You know... I'm following the science, like your party keeps supposedly urging everyone to do.

if the morons you support had of listened to my party all along we wouldn't be in the messs were in


Surely you agree with me right?

your party made it very clear that they aren't in the saving life business when it comes to covid

Your party hasn't suggested anything which would have significantly helped.

Look at February. They spent the entire month whining about "xenophobia" instead of worrying about COVID.

Look at June. They spent the entire month praising huge protests of 60,000+ people packed shoulder-to-shoulder.

No politician would have stopped this. There were mistakes on both sides, but honestly we'd be in bad shape no matter what. This country just doesn't fall lock-step into direction from authority like many countries in Asia do. It's just the nature of the US and its history.

[gimmick]

Sooo... I looked at the study from the CDC, which before I was just posting numbers from its conclusions, without delving into the numbers very carefully.

Here it is: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/me...iggerstaff.pdf

As gimmick mentioned, this was from October 30, but that doesn't matter, as not much has changed in the context of this study since then.

It splits people into 3 groups, excluding only healthcare workers, which it assumed was vaccinated in the first group.

Group A: Elderly age 65+
Group B: Adults 18-64 with major preexisting conditions
Group C: Essential workers

The first flaw of this study comes from the fact that groups B and C intersect. This allows Group C (essential workers) appear to have more lives saved than it actually does, because most of those dead essential workers were presumably ALSO in group B, and even some in group A.

Since the people involved in the study are accomplished scientists who clearly aren't stupid, I can't imagine this was an accident.

This basically skews the entire study badly, and makes it likely that vaccinating elderly people instead of non-high-risk essential workers would save a LOT of extra lives!

Notice that the study does NOT attempt to study essential workers who do NOT already fit into groups A and B. It is my assertion that almost nobody from Group C would die, if you took out those who also fit into the other two groups.

Essential workers have more exposure. This makes it more likely that they get the coronavirus than seniors who are exposed much less. With a higher percentage of incidence in the essential group, you will have a higher death rate among essential workers than their demographic counterparts. However, if the death rate is tiny in the first place (as it is for healthy under-35 people -- a large chunk of essential workers), then the extra COVID cases among essential workers do not translate into any significant additional essential worker death.

However, if the essential worker group includes "high risk adults 18-64", who are also getting extra exposure due to their type of job, there probably is significant additional death. This explains how the number of deaths saved by vaccinating the essential workers falsely appears to be only a little bit less than vaccinating just the elderly.

This is all fallacious bullshit -- the equivalent of statistical gerrymandering.

The study should have been of the following groups:

Group A: Elderly in nursing homes
Group B: Elderly not in nursing homes
Group C: High risk adults aged 18-64 who are essential workers
Group D: High risk adults aged 18-64 who are NOT essential workers
Group E: Essential workers 16-64 who are NOT high risk adults or elderly

I am certain that vaccinating Group E would prevent very little death, and thus a waste of early vaccines. Why? Because there is a very low rate of death in that group.

In fact, if you break out the essential workers like the above, I think there's a good chance that new group C would have a HIGHER death rate than non-nursing home elderly! So they definitely deserve it.

So if the CDC really wanted to protest essential workers properly, while not screwing over the elderly, they should put groups B and C in the second priority group, put group D in the third priority group, and put group E with everyone else. This would also result in the minimum amount of death.

Why didn't they do that? Because of woke politics.

Do you disagree with any of this, gimmick? If so, how do you explain this from a scientific or data standpoint?

No i don't disagree with anything in general. Like i've said before it's going to be a mix of the elderly and essential. And the way most hospitals are going to do it is by first looking at the overlap with pre-existing conditions. There will be some professions that get priority even if they themselves don't have huge death rate.

Closing down a police precinct is gonna cause issues even if no one dies of covid and the same thing applies to fire departments.

Then there's the part where relatively healthy people from 65-75 group still are not at huge risk. There are plenty of 55-65 year olds that are more likely to die. It's still 3-1 death rate when you compare the groups without removing anyone, but i believe it only took 1 pre-existing condition to make it breakeven. That's in short the reason why some elderly are not vaccinated in phase 1b.

[gimmick]

Will you at least concede that "racial justice" should not be part of any of this, aside from assuring that minority neighborhoods have proper access to it?

I haven't been paying attention that closely, but has anyone actively been making this argument?

But sure, I'm fine agreeing with you on that.

Not really. I'm sure there's some random PR shit, but i haven't seen anything in practice.

I'm sure Pedro will get his vaccine before someone's grandma, but that's not directly because of race. It has more do with Pedro working at a slaughter house and living in a single bedroom apartment with his 17 cousins.

The logic is that if the vaccine has any properties that hinder infection, you get pretty good bang for your buck.

[JohnCommode]

I wonder where we are right now in terms of the timeline of the pandemic now that vaccinations are actually happening?

To steal from Churchill, is this the end, the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning?

I'm going with the latter.

[sonatine]

I wonder where we are right now in terms of the timeline of the pandemic now that vaccinations are actually happening?

To steal from Churchill, is this the end, the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning?

I'm going with the latter.

read a good interview with a pfizer bigwig who said we can expect a solid 10 year fight with covid before its put to bed for good.

in the mean time there will be a lot of vaccines / vaccinations, but life will largely be back to normal by end of summer, albeit with a sense of caution and awareness and responsibility. and by normal i mean no more lockdowns, no more swamped ERs, economy/shipping stable, that sort of shit.

[Daniel72]

LOL crazy leftists...

[zealanddonk]

For anyone new to the site, or who didnt want to waste time reading the last 200 pages:
Druff wants old jews to get the vaccine first, and ideally young blacks never.

[mickeycrimm]

For anyone new to the site, or who didnt want to waste time reading the last 200 pages:
Druff wants old jews to get the vaccine first, and ideally young blacks never.

This group doesn't want any Jews to get the vaccine.

[Bilbodoggins]

it's true, tradersky has a huge case of TDS, he's awful on radio

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.

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.

Not even getting into the debate, I just want to say that tradersky is a great co-host on the show. He often disagrees with Druff in a coherent, thoughtful manner and has a subtle sense of humor. Don't let his mild manner fool you, there's a sharp mind under there.