he doesn't want real stats and figures, he wants doomer stats and "science" from CNN and other msmOriginally Posted by JACKDANIELS
he doesn't want real stats and figures, he wants doomer stats and "science" from CNN and other msm
ebola case fatality rate was something like 50% fortunately waaaaaay less contagious than flu #1 or #2
pretty sure tine is just trying to rustle some jimmies tho
I didn’t want to let this slip by without an “attaboy”.
Typhoid Mary has her eye on you.
If we limit exponential growth and the left scores some racial justice too I guess we both win
You called me out. Said I was comparing apples with oranges.LOL I love when people offer me absurd bets which have a huge downside for me.Let's have a wager.
You pick the vaccine of the 3 that are currently viable.
I'll bet up to $10k that the elderly have a lower efficacy with a standard dosage at even money. (over 65)
Plus or minus 5% is a push.
If you'd like to bet its at least a 20% difference I'm open to haggle about the odds you will offer me.
Peer reviewed of course so might take a few months to decide a winner.
You can hold my money up front.
It is unlikely that elderly people have a better efficacy than non-elderly people. I never even said that they were equal -- only that everyone had 'great results", which the initial studies show. This would basically be a freeroll for you.
In any case, efficacy in real life is going to be a lot more difficult than a study, so it's going to be hard to determine what it actually is, since there's no placebo group in real life.
This result could take a very long time to determine, and even then may be impossible. There's still a lot of debate regarding how effective the flu vaccine is, with numbers varying from 30-70%.
I'm still trying to understand your point. Let's even say efficacy is 75% for the elderly and 95% for younger people. Do you think that justifies giving it to younger people first, when 3/4 of the elderly people who would have died from COVID over the next month could have been protected?
And now you fundamentally agree with me.
As I said above I believe your argument is logical and has merit.... and I'm quite certain its only half baked.
WOW DRUFF HE REALLY SHUT YOU UP BY BRINGING UP A BET.
GOTTA SAY I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED YOU ABANDONED YOUR ARGUMENT SO QUICK
You're 11 months late on that post.I didn’t want to let this slip by without an “attaboy”.
Typhoid Mary has her eye on you.
If we limit exponential growth and the left scores some racial justice too I guess we both win
Exponential growth already occurred.
Even the left isn't trying to make the argument that their policies are going to significantly limit the spread. They're just saying that we can use the opportunity to get some racial justice, so why not do it? Who cares if some extra people have to die, amirite?
I'm asking you again, Sanlmar. Do you believe that this is a good policy, based upon the numbers given by the CDC? They have conceded that extra lives will be lost with their recommended distribution policy -- both short and long term.
Do you think that 6.5% more deaths of the elderly in the next month is worth "racial justice"?
No, I'm not betting on a freeroll against me. I didn't abandon anything.
You were comparing apples to oranges. It looks like the efficacy is far better for old people for the COVID vaccine than other vaccines. It's the first mRNA vaccine, so that might be why.You called me out. Said I was comparing apples with oranges.LOL I love when people offer me absurd bets which have a huge downside for me.
It is unlikely that elderly people have a better efficacy than non-elderly people. I never even said that they were equal -- only that everyone had 'great results", which the initial studies show. This would basically be a freeroll for you.
In any case, efficacy in real life is going to be a lot more difficult than a study, so it's going to be hard to determine what it actually is, since there's no placebo group in real life.
This result could take a very long time to determine, and even then may be impossible. There's still a lot of debate regarding how effective the flu vaccine is, with numbers varying from 30-70%.
I'm still trying to understand your point. Let's even say efficacy is 75% for the elderly and 95% for younger people. Do you think that justifies giving it to younger people first, when 3/4 of the elderly people who would have died from COVID over the next month could have been protected?
And now you fundamentally agree with me.
As I said above I believe your argument is logical and has merit.... and I'm quite certain its only half baked.
I'm glad that you agree with me regarding the remainder of my argument, though.
By the way, I will admit I am disappointed with both the CDC head and Trump himself for not putting a stop to this nonsense. While it was leftists coming up with this stupidity, and the mainstream media pushing the lie that it's totally reasonable, there was some failure to intervene by those who could have done so.
And that's sad.
thats not how it works todger
you do realize people can catch the virus more than once and that 100% of people havent had it already right ?
also preeeeetttty sure the whole vaccination thing is mainly to do with limiting the spread, not sure why that needs to be explicitly stated
Yeah you did.No, I'm not betting on a freeroll against me. I didn't abandon anything.
I simply stated efficacy levels must be considered in your master plan to immunize the elderly, as its certainly a mitigating factor to consider.
You clearly stated I was wrong and implied I was attempting to mislead... nice try.
Apology accepted.
APOLOGY
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
ACCEPTED
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
That is how it works.thats not how it works todger
you do realize people can catch the virus more than once and that 100% of people havent had it already right ?
Exponential growth can only occur at the beginning when almost nobody has had it. About 6% of the US population has tested positive for it, and probably another 14% or so have had it and never formally tested. So if 20% has had it, even the worst-case growth from 20% to 100% isn't "exponential", or anything close.
Catching it twice is also extremely rare. Some of the "I got it twice" people are ones who simply never had the virus fully go away, and get flare-ups months later. There are very few verified cases of people catching it twice: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52446965
We are way past the point to where growth is going to explode. It's already everywhere. Vaccinating the 25-year-old grocery checker instead of the old person actually vulnerable to its effects isn't going to make a significant dent in the problem. That's why all studies by experts point to vaccinating the vulnerable first, then vaccinating everyone else. This is especially true because the wait time is only a matter of months, not years, so there's not likely to be a massive change in that time regarding how the virus is spreading.
That is how it works.
Exponential growth can only occur at the beginning when almost nobody has had it. About 6% of the US population has tested positive for it, and probably another 14% or so have had it and never formally tested. So if 20% has had it, even the worst-case growth from 20% to 100% isn't "exponential", or anything close.
Catching it twice is also extremely rare. Some of the "I got it twice" people are ones who simply never had the virus fully go away, and get flare-ups months later. There are very few verified cases of people catching it twice: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52446965
We are way past the point to where growth is going to explode. It's already everywhere. Vaccinating the 25-year-old grocery checker instead of the old person actually vulnerable to its effects isn't going to make a significant dent in the problem. That's why all studies by experts point to vaccinating the vulnerable first, then vaccinating everyone else. This is especially true because the wait time is only a matter of months, not years, so there's not likely to be a massive change in that time regarding how the virus is spreading.
exponential growth is when 1 infected person infects 2, those 2 infect 4 and so on
i really dont think you need that explaining to you cmon man this can absolutely happen again
like thats the entire reasoning behind the second lockdowns
No, it's about saving lives. Priority #1 is to stop it from killing and harming people. Priority #2 is to stop the spread.
It's not even totally clear if the vaccine limits the spread, or if it just teaches the body to fight it off and basically make everyone who gets it asymptomatic. There is some possibility it also limits the spread, but this hasn't been formally studied yet: https://www.washington.edu/news/2020...till-critical/
The decision to give it to "essential" workers in the same priority group was made for "racial justice". It was NOT made for any scientific reason like "stopping the spread", or out of any belief that more overall lives would be saved that way.
I don't know how many ways I can say this until it sinks in for some of you.
I keep seeing excuses laid out there for why this is a good idea, when none of the actual CDC proponents of this are claiming what you're claiming.
The CDC is honestly telling people that giving it to old people first will save more lives, but they want to be woke and give it to young people of color first instead.
That already happened.
exponential growth is when 1 infected person infects 2, those 2 infect 4 and so on
i really dont think you need that explaining to you cmon man this can absolutely happen again
like thats the entire reasoning behind the second lockdowns
Now we are the point to where the growth cannot be exponential, because it has already spread to every corner of the population, and 20%+ of the people have already had it. It's mathematically impossible.
Yes, it's a very active virus and is still spreading, but there is no "exponential growth" anymore. Those concerns are always at the very beginning. Once it's hit 20% of the population, it's too late for exponential growth concerns.
The vaccine's purpose was and still is to save lives. The difference between COVID (a huge crisis) and the 2009 Swine Flu (everyone collectively yawned) was that the Swine Flu didn't kill many people, and almost everyone was asymptomatic. The goal of the vaccine is basically to turn COVID into the Swine Flu, not to abruptly halt the spread.
The lockdowns are in place because a vaccine wasn't yet available, so they were designed to slow the spread until it would be. I have problems with lockdowns for reasons already stated, but their purpose was to slow the inevitable so we can get the vaccine in place, not to defeat the virus.
its basically the same thing, you stop the spread and less people will catch the virus and be harmed or die
which is why there is an argument for giving the vaccine to front line workers first as they are going to spread the virus to way more people than a vulnerable person who is isolating
any official statemtn from the cdc saying this ?
this sounds like something fps russia would have said lol
BTW, here's the theory of how the vaccines could create herd immunity, even if it doesn't actually prevent transmission (which is very possible):
1) Population takes vaccine.
2) Population mostly resumes daily life as before.
3) COVID hits a ton of people at once, but since they're vaccinated, they're asympomatic and nothing happens.
4) After several months of this, it has burned through most of the population, and can't spread effectively anymore. It dies before it can mutate enough to keep spreading.
This may not be what comes to pass, but the above is the intention. It is unknown how quickly the virus will be able to mutate in order to prevent #4.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Reply With Quote
