BradInATX

Yeah, I can get the shot at any point myself, but have been holding off to do the right thing and let people with comorbidities go first. I'm hearing more and more that there's no enforcement of the groups. I'm pretty tempted to just say fuck it. If I get it next week I'll be covid proof before March madness. I'll just grab some cigarettes on my way to get the shot and burn a few. Smoker. 1B. Boom.

Yeah, I mean after all this I'd love to go eat and get drunk with a bunch of my friends for free, even if it involves sitting through a little ceremony. We've also told our friend that went to Vegas to get married that he still owes us a bachelor party some time after Covid.

The best part of the city's compost program is that you can pay $300 and $8/beer to go stand on all of your old household waste and watch Guns and Roses from 1000 yards away. I miss ACL fest.

You could just, uh, not go.

We already did that on the predictit thread. It was a good party.

I got out of two because one of them did a tiny ceremony in the mountains and the other couple YOLO'd it and drove to Vegas. They got extra nice gifts for saving me six hours of my life.

Well, you've got to have coordinated volume to squeeze them, so you've just got to figure out the next one that Reddit is going to put its weight behind. When I was reading the main GME thread, they were already talking about 4-5 other stocks. I'd be concerned about them losing focusness and the advantage of everyone pumping one single company up. But if you can time it right...

I put a spare 500$ in at 38$ been holding ever since...plan on holding until I see the squeeze Wow. Almost 10x return already. Get you some.

I dipped into the Reddit thread, but am not up to speed with the memes. Are any of you guys actually going to play this out through Friday? I don't have the marbles for that I don't think. I read that the Whitehouse is keeping tabs on it. Biden is a corporatist, and when corporatists are in charge (AKA always), they're not going to allow the big institutions to lose money to the little guys. That and the adrenaline overload ran me back to safety.

I bought $10k worth of GME this morning at 295 and sold this afternoon at 338. Going to make a shirt that says "I rode the 2021 Gamestop Ride and survived it intact". My heart can't handle that shit. The swings were insane. I watched it swing 40 points in three minutes at one point in early afternoon. I'm not made for the stonks game. Imma take that $1500 I made and buy some discounted, safe, beautiful $SPY.

They didn't charge me. They told me they only charge extra for a bigger trash bin. This was probably three years ago but I had two blue bins going until we moved out of Austin last year.

Pro tip - you can get more than one blue recycling container. Just call the city and they'll bring one out.

Exactly. In 2023, traditional Republicans will have completely bought into the GOP's jettisoning of Trump and will be back to being super concerned about abortion and a balanced budget. All of the 2024 GOP candidates will be fighting to split that group up at the time. But Cruz and Hawley will go into the fight with the advantage of the 20% of Trump die hards already behind them. It's the right strategy from a realpolitik sense, and it will probably work.

They'd also accept proof of vaccine I would assume and hope. I'll be pissed if I've been vaccinated and I still have to go get my brain swabbed.

A general discussion is fine, but as others have said, you're obviously grinding political axes here. I typically think you catch unwarranted heat, but I think this time you decided NYC was stupid (and they've certainly done a few dumb things) and locked yourself into a bad argument. If we're talking purely theoretical where we're talking 1Bs across the board, then yeah, shots in arms as soon as you get them. But we don't know that. Is it possible what NY is doing is political? Of course it is. But it's also possible if not probable that they see in their data that the people earmarked for the 2nd shots need them more than the people who would receive them as first shots. We just have no idea, and you haven't at all provided enough data to defend a position that NY is doing the wrong thing. We do agree conceptually, if we're talking about giving a 1Bs second shot to another 1B. This good enough?

That's great. I wonder how quickly the new doses will actually be seen in the community. The way the blurb reads it will be pretty quick, but I'm not sure that makes sense.

The people they are holding second shots for would undoubtedly be the 1a group and the highest risk patients, no? Can you confirm that the people in line to cannibalize those second shots for their first shots are the same? You can't. Ergo the entire argument is incomplete and you're yelling at clouds because you don't have the right data to pass judgement on NY's decisions.

Are you purposely avoiding the crux of our conversation? Or are you just not grasping it? "If on the other hand, the outcomes that are driving your vaccine strategy are reducing cases, hospitalizations, and death, covering the high risk population as soon as possible" The point is that with your strategy you're possibly neglecting second shots to a higher risk group, by giving first shots to a lower risk group. And if so, that is not a net positive for reducing deaths and hospitalizations. Like you keep saying the same thing but it's wrong.

But we don't have enough information to know whether or not prioritizing first shots in NYC would remove second shots from the highest risk populations, correct? Because if not, then we don't have enough information to judge what they're doing.

Do you know that or are you guessing?

Yeah, that's what my theoretical above was meant to address. It depends on who we're talking about. Are we talking about shifting 2nd shots for at-risk people over to 1st shots for non-risk groups? And to what extent? That's the data we need to make a real value judgement as to whether or not NY is doing the right thing. Without that data it's a pointless, slanted discussion.

It doesn't account for who is getting the shots. We aren't trying to eliminate cases, we are trying to eliminate deaths. A basic example would be: - If the "give first shots to everyone" model ends up with 50,000 old people getting one shot and 50,000 young people getting one shot and - The "hold 2nd shots back" model ends up with 100,000 old people getting two shots Then even though the first model would probably reduce the infection curve, the second model would save a lot more lives. Looking only at infections is lazy and doesn't capture the problem we're trying to solve.

That model doesn't make any considerations for the severity of illness, though, which is a huge, huge flaw. That's a lazy analysis.

@Anastasis, the modeling that you're referencing, while informative, is pretty basic stuff. I don't think that the model, or you yourself, have all of the data you need to conclude that prioritizing first shots over getting both shots to people is the right move. From what I saw, the model is a pretty straightforward model that assumes a couple of things: - Getting shots in arms faster will bend the curve faster (which is basically undeniable) - The first shot removes ~0.5 people from the risk pool (50% efficacy number), and the second shot removes 0.4 people (90% efficacy for the two shot routine). If you just look at it that way, then yeah, getting shots in arms is going to bend the curve faster, which is what the study showed. Simple math is simple. The problem is that the analysis is also missing some things: - The real-time Israel data shows anywhere from 33-60% effectiveness after the first shot. If It's only 33% vs 90%, then it's a different story. The answer is we just don't know. - It doesn't account for who the shot is going to. Let's use our 50%/90% numbers. When looking at how much risk of death will be removed from the board, giving a second shot to an 85 year old is more than 50 times more impactful than giving a first shot to a 45 year old. So just looking at a dual bar chart that shows first shots bending the curve down faster doesn't tell the whole story. If the goal is to reduce the curve so we can all go to bars and parties sooner, then yeah, definitely just give the first shots out to everyone. If the goal is to reduce death and severe illness, then it's not as clear. I think you probably already know this, but you're making value judgements on what New York is doing without all of the information you need to do it. Which, as others have said, makes the whole thing look political.