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

[adamantium]

yeah modern leftists tend to know dunning kruger when they see it.

hey thats a god damn braclet winner your talking to

[sonatine]

yeah modern leftists tend to know dunning kruger when they see it.

hey thats a god damn braclet winner your talking to

quick someone change the subject to pot odds so he can be right.

[mickeycrimm]

ff you can stammer out the same weird shit as much as you want, its your site, but i think about 95% of the posters here including me know that theres simply no talking to you rationally and hasnt been for a while.

You're busted. Pure out chickenshit libtard. And you hang out with racists like adamantium. I always said lefties are the worst racists.

[gimmick]

Minor details about the presentation referred to as DATA...

Limitations

 The efficacy and ability of the vaccine candidates to prevent transmission, as well as
the time vaccine may become available, is currently unknown
 Modeled epidemic trajectories are only for illustration and are not forecasts
 Overall averted burden should be interpreted cautiously:
–
–
–
Sensitive to the future trajectory of the epidemic
Findings reflect an idealized rollout, with minimal delays and 100% uptake
The aim of this study was to demonstrate the relative impact of different initial
vaccine allocation strategies

...this part is from October 30 when a lot of the models were run in the dark to get a rough idea

Not sure why you're bolding the "may not prevent transmission" part like it's some sort of gotcha, when that's been one of my points for the last several pages. If it can't prevent transmission (which still hasn't been studied), that makes my argument stronger to only vaccinate the most vulnerable to effects of COVID.

The rest of your line here is also bizarre, as your point seems to be, "This study was from 1-2 months ago, so we need to ignore it and assume anything unfavorable to the left has changed, even though there haven't been further studies saying otherwise."

But you've already admitted that you're okay with lots of extra people dying, in order to push crazy left woke ideology, so you kinda already proved my point for me.

Yea i bolded that part just to get to the last part without breaks. The running theme of it was that the whole model was just shotgunned to hit a wide spectrum of possible vaccines and timelines. I think the most relevant bolded part was "this is not a forecast".

I'm fairly sure that my admission of seeing the elderly die slowly and painfully was predicated by you answering a very simple question. Could you possibly do that now. I mean i held my part are you renegging on yours?

On non gay shit and adding random relevance to this thread a fun line popped up also in the links related to the presentation that you generally assume as DATA and SCIENCE. Apparently most municipalities already had plans for vaccination order that included all first responders that were excluded from the first run. Those would be police and firemen. Wonder if CDC had any pressure to have them included as essential workers to phase 1b.

I don't mind. You could say it's favoritism, but it's also pragmatic and it has worked decently. This might be news for you, but first responders tend to have each others backs.

[gimmick]

You also ignored my point that the study is looking at the difference between vaccinating elderly first and vaccinating "elderly, non-elderly with preexisting conditions, and essential workers" together. What they're actually doing is putting elderly with essential workers only, and leaving the non-enderly with preexisting conditions for a lower priority. This is a huge difference, as there will be plenty of under-65 with preexisting lives lost in the next month, but very few healthy essential workers dying. There's not even much overlap in those groups, as people with major preexisting conditions aren't that likely to be working at the jobs they call "essential".

Oh i ignored it because it was retarded. No group was pitted against each other. They simply ran 3 sims. One for group A that saved 35% lives, group B 32% and Group C 30%. Exact numbers are fuckall. Any comparison that was done was after the sims were done. The number that was mentioned in text was simply the biggest % deducted by the smallest %.

[Salty_Aus]

You also ignored my point that the study is looking at the difference between vaccinating elderly first and vaccinating "elderly, non-elderly with preexisting conditions, and essential workers" together. What they're actually doing is putting elderly with essential workers only, and leaving the non-enderly with preexisting conditions for a lower priority. This is a huge difference, as there will be plenty of under-65 with preexisting lives lost in the next month, but very few healthy essential workers dying. There's not even much overlap in those groups, as people with major preexisting conditions aren't that likely to be working at the jobs they call "essential".

Oh i ignored it because it was retarded. No group was pitted against each other. They simply ran 3 sims. One for group A that saved 35% lives, group B 32% and Group C 30%. Exact numbers are fuckall. Any comparison that was done was after the sims were done. The number that was mentioned in text was simply the biggest % deducted by the smallest %.

Am I correct to assume you actually find druffs argument to vaccinate the elderly first reasonably logical, gimmick?

What passes me off is the manner he discredits any alternative as completely dumb, then literally raves about the stupid left being to blame for this outrageous insanity.
Then he spouts bullshit to prove he's right. Like this 3.5% figure that's flimsy at best is a cornerstone of his argument.

Seriously, I don't see any real issues with either approach and I'm comfortable to side with the experts as the difference is marginal. Plus the front-line workers deserve special consideration for their sacrifices over the last year. They've saved so many lives already. IMO

[FRANKRIZZO]

Another strain found, am I too late on that?

[sonatine]

Oh i ignored it because it was retarded. No group was pitted against each other. They simply ran 3 sims. One for group A that saved 35% lives, group B 32% and Group C 30%. Exact numbers are fuckall. Any comparison that was done was after the sims were done. The number that was mentioned in text was simply the biggest % deducted by the smallest %.

Am I correct to assume you actually find druffs argument to vaccinate the elderly first reasonably logical, gimmick?

What passes me off is the manner he discredits any alternative as completely dumb, then literally raves about the stupid left being to blame for this outrageous insanity.
Then he spouts bullshit to prove he's right. Like this 3.5% figure that's flimsy at best is a cornerstone of his argument.

Seriously, I don't see any real issues with either approach and I'm comfortable to side with the experts as the difference is marginal. Plus the front-line workers deserve special consideration for their sacrifices over the last year. They've saved so many lives already. IMO

please lets not forget the part where he asks the same question 7 to 8 times but refuses to acknowledge the previous answers.

or if thats not en vogue we can discuss how he didnt give a shit about any of this until a glorified parler post on drudge accused the CDC of being 'woke'.

[sonatine]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...id-19-pandemic

3000 health workers dead from covid.

but yeah lets vaccinate the people with the absolute lowest r number first to own the libs or something.

[Dan Druff]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...id-19-pandemic

3000 health workers dead from covid.

but yeah lets vaccinate the people with the absolute lowest r number first to own the libs or something.

How many elderly are dead from COVID? A lot more than 3000.

How many of these health workers were over 60 and/or had preexisting conditions?

But don't worry, folks, sonatine wants a 25-year-old black grocery store worker vaccinated before your grandma, so he can pat himself on the back as a good limousine liberal.

[Dan Druff]

You also ignored my point that the study is looking at the difference between vaccinating elderly first and vaccinating "elderly, non-elderly with preexisting conditions, and essential workers" together. What they're actually doing is putting elderly with essential workers only, and leaving the non-enderly with preexisting conditions for a lower priority. This is a huge difference, as there will be plenty of under-65 with preexisting lives lost in the next month, but very few healthy essential workers dying. There's not even much overlap in those groups, as people with major preexisting conditions aren't that likely to be working at the jobs they call "essential".

Oh i ignored it because it was retarded. No group was pitted against each other. They simply ran 3 sims. One for group A that saved 35% lives, group B 32% and Group C 30%. Exact numbers are fuckall. Any comparison that was done was after the sims were done. The number that was mentioned in text was simply the biggest % deducted by the smallest %.

The comparison was done by combining two groups against one group, in order to avoid getting a number which looks more dramatic.

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.

[Dan Druff]

Keep in mind that the right wouldn't have an issue if they chose to only vaccinate essential workers in danger -- such as those over 60, or those with preexisting conditions.

Instead, they're vaccinating healthy 25-year-olds, and holding those same vaccines back from 90-year-old grandma.

sonatine trusts the woke "experts" that the above is okay, even though it's insane and will definitely kill more people.

[Salty_Aus]

Imagine the rant if druff actually had a job that contributed to society, in which he risked being infected..... if he wasn't considered essential enough to get a priority jab.

Hard to imagine I know, doubtful he's ever had a job that contributes to society in a meaningful way.
Not in the last 20 years at least.

[Dan Druff]

BTW, I read that "gotcha" Guardian article sonatine posted about the healthcare workers.

As usual, it's missing essential information, and these omissions clearly aren't oversights.

They cite the number of healthcare workers who died in the US, yet they don't list how many had preexisting conditions, and they don't break it down by age group.

Instead, they spend the entire article listing random individual cases, such as "Mike the 43-year-old", "Sue the 68-year-old", and "Vincent the 39-year-old".

They only two data points they give: 65% were of color, and "more than half" were under 60.

Okay? Of those under 60, how many had preexisting conditions? How many were obese?

Obviously it's tragic that we lost healthcare workers this way, but without vaccines, what were we supposed to do?

I don't think there's anyone who wants to see vulnerable healthcare workers anywhere but the front of the vaccine line. But I guess it's fun to argue with strawmen, right?

Great job as always, sonatine.

[Dan Druff]

Imagine the rant if druff actually had a job that contributed to society, in which he risked being infected..... if he wasn't considered essential enough to get a priority jab.

Hard to imagine I know, doubtful he's ever had a job that contributes to society in a meaningful way.
Not in the last 20 years at least.

If I were 25 years old, or anywhere near it, I wouldn't want to be priority for the vaccine.

Not only would I feel guilty receiving a vaccine which could have gone to old people instead, but I'd also feel the vaccine was more risky to take than simply chancing COVID at that age.

If I worked a public-facing job at this age, of course I'd prefer to get the vaccine ASAP, but I'd understand why it had to go to the old people first. However, the CDC isn't even trying to be reasonable here. It's not like they're making the cutoff 45 years old or something, for the essential workers. They're recommending ALL essential workers get it in the early phases, which is insane.

My last job was in 2003, by the way. I worked regular jobs up through age 31, dating back to the late 1980s. I also reject the notion that you need to work for someone else to "contribute to society", but that's a different discussion for a different time.

[sonatine]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1341938585088364545

[Dan Druff]

99% of COVID deaths are people 35+.

Of that 1% group under 35, almost all had preexisting conditions.

There's about a 0% death rate for people under 35 who have no preexisting conditions.

sonatine and gimmick want them in the #2 priority group for the vaccine, tied with 95-year-olds.

That's where we stand today with extreme left wing politics, folks. Let it sink in.

[snowtracks]

99% of COVID deaths are people 35+.

Of that 1% group under 35, almost all have preexisting conditions.

There's about a 0% death rate for people under 35 who have no preexisting conditions.

sonatine and gimmick want them in the #2 priority group for the vaccine, tied with 95-year-olds.

That's where we stand today with extreme left wing politics, folks. Let it sink in.

Easy Druff. Sonatine get's his feelings hurt real easy.
Remember the "Poker fraud alert Election Special"
Sonatine got butt hurt and left the show early!

Trader is just the same.. Whiney Democrats!

[Dan Druff]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1341938585088364545

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.....

[nightmarefish]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/1341938585088364545

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.....

It’s happening because everyone has fatigue so there isn’t any real lockdown even though the problem is currently 5x worse than it was in March-April.