Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

[DDD Dad 14,351]

39 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Fair, but I prefer my news be less Pravda. 

Then stop getting your news from OAN.

[smoky 840]

The sunshine-and-lollipop version of that article is "holy shit, look at how few olds are in the hospital!! The vaccines are working! Hospitalizations are way down, but we're still seeing people, even young ones, get admitted. The unhealthy ones are still having a hard time with it. But vaccines are now readily available so get yours today, even if you live a healthy lifestyle."

[washparkhorn 9,939]

53 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Fair, but I prefer my news be less Pravda. 

I see you are not familiar with Kaiser Health News.  On brand.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/kaiser-family-foundation/

LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes).  The reporting is factual and usually sourced.  These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

 

• Overall, we rate Kaiser Family Foundation Least Biased based on pro-
• science reporting and High for factual reporting due to the use of strong credible sourcing.

Edited May 4, 2021 by washparkhorn

[BabaYaga 15,320]

1 hour ago, Cheeseweasel said:

BODIES IN TREES!!!!!!!!

It's very little science,  very much conjecture, and a whole lot of statistical manipulation / doom porn headline

Look at the comorbidity charts - they mirror the vulnerable older population:  obesity, asthma, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and chronic pulmonary issues.  It's almost like we could identify and localize this population and isolate or protect them.  Crazy, I know...

[babysdaddy 2,728]

16 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Well, and Pfizer just started its Phase 1/2/3 study for children under 12 at the end of March, so you have some time before even a decision is necessary.

I think you know I understand and agree with the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.  The reasons for taking it (protection from death, protection from spreading, reducing disease illness) are still not prevalent or supported by data for kids under 12.

[BabaYaga 15,320]

28 minutes ago, The Dog said:

It's no accident the current "hot spots" are college campuses. 

[DDD Dad 14,351]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Look at the comorbidity charts - they mirror the vulnerable older population:  obesity, asthma, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and chronic pulmonary issues.  It's almost like we could identify and localize this population and isolate or protect them.  Crazy, I know...

Or maybe just vaccinate them.

[Armybrat 40,911]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

What’s his Surly handle?

[BabaYaga 15,320]

Just now, Armybrat said:

What’s his Surly handle?

BabaYaga......

[Neonmoon 38,130]

13 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

I think you know I understand and agree with the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.  The reasons for taking it (protection from death, protection from spreading, reducing disease illness) are still not prevalent or supported by data for kids under 12.

Just because there is reduced transmission in schools, doesn’t mean there is zero transmission in schools. None of this matters anyway, the vaccines will be required by schools eventually. Well I’m sure it will be a red state/blue state thing. It will be political as fuck for sure. 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

15 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Or maybe just vaccinate them.

Listen, some healthy people will die. That’s just part of life. My decision only affects me. 

[BabaYaga 15,320]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

doesn’t mean there is zero transmission in schools

Is this really the end goal?  Do we even know with any degree of certainty what it is now?

[Don Johnson 4,755]

24 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Listen, some healthy people will die. That’s just part of life. My decision only affects me. 

We are close to reaching a stage where this will be true for 99.99% of people.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

1 minute ago, Don Johnson said:

We are close to reaching a stage where this will be true for 99.99% of people.

WHAT ABOUT THE .01% YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD!!!!!

[DaysOff 7,974]

Look at the comorbidity charts - they mirror the vulnerable older population:  obesity, asthma, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and chronic pulmonary issues.  It's almost like we could identify and localize this population and isolate or protect them.  Crazy, I know...

So like the bulk of the country, or maybe just vaccinate them.

[Captainant 27,770]

5 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

We are close to reaching a stage where this will be true for 99.99% of people.

 

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

WHAT ABOUT THE .01% YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD!!!!!

Lol we're not even at 50% vaccination yet, and not likely to break 70%. 

[Don Johnson 4,755]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

Lol we're not even at 50% vaccination yet, and not likely to break 70%. 

And those 30% will have made a poor decision that affects them (or other people who have made a similar poor decision).

I don't have a lot of sympathy.  But 99.99% will have the the option make a decision.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Don Johnson

[Dahobbs 17,681]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

The problem is this has been a disease that primarily has affected the old and infirm, but it always could make younger and healthier people very sick. Now that the restrictions are easing or being completely removed, the 20-somethings  are ready to rumble and this is a demographic that just doesn't see the doctor unless they are sick. And even then they go to their local "doc in a box" at CVS or Walgreens. 

They don't get seasonal flu vaccines so they certainly aren't getting this shot unless prodded. 

It's no accident the current "hot spots" are college campuses. 

 

Correct, that is the problem. Apparently @Cheeseweasel and @BabaYaga thinking reporting on that problem is wrong for some reason. 

8 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

And those 30% will have made a poor decision that affects them (or other people who have made a similar poor decision).

I don't have a lot of sympathy.  But 99.99% will have the the option make a decision.

Actually, that 30% have made a decision that will greatly increase the chance the .1% that cannot get the vaccine will get sick and/or die. And that 30% have a made a decision that increases the likelihood that Covid stays with us long term and mutates in some way to decrease the effectiveness of vaccines, thus putting the rest of the of us at risk. In light of that possibility, some sort of vaccination requirement is reasonable in order to protect society as a whole. This really shouldn't be debatable.  

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

thus putting the rest of the of us at risk.

I look forward to the yearly Flu Lockdowns in order to eliminate risks.

[Dahobbs 17,681]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

I look forward to the yearly Flu Lockdowns in order to eliminate risks.

What the fuck are you talking about? Who is talking about lockdowns? 

[gyroprotagonist 2,595]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

What the fuck are you talking about? Who is talking about lockdowns? 

well, saying yearly flu vaccinations to reduce risk is kinda already a thing, so not the impact statement he was going for.

 

[Don Johnson 4,755]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Correct, that is the problem. Apparently @Cheeseweasel and @BabaYaga thinking reporting on that problem is wrong for some reason. 

Actually, that 30% have made a decision that will greatly increase the chance the .1% that cannot get the vaccine will get sick and/or die. And that 30% have a made a decision that increases the likelihood that Covid stays with us long term and mutates in some way to decrease the effectiveness of vaccines, thus putting the rest of the of us at risk. In light of that possibility, some sort of vaccination requirement is reasonable in order to protect society as a whole. This really shouldn't be debatable.  

Isn't that viewing the US in a bit of a vacuum?  As we all know, the rest of the world is much further behind in vaccinations and it will probably be that way for a long while.  They will also have large portions that do not get the vaccine.  If these mutations are going to continue to happen, I would imagine it will continue to happen overseas whether we reach 100% here or not.

 

[BabaYaga 15,320]

4 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

well, saying yearly flu vaccinations to reduce risk is kinda already a thing, so not the impact statement he was going for.

 

Are they mandatory?  Do we contact trace for them?  Shut down schools?  All for a virus that kills kids.  Corona, not so much.  So he's asking why the draconian measures for one, but not the other?

Edited May 4, 2021 by BabaYaga

[Message Board User 12,396]

Like a mickey?

 

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What the fuck are you talking about? Who is talking about lockdowns? 

It's the only way to be 100% sure.

[Dahobbs 17,681]

11 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Are they mandatory?  Do we contact trace for them?  Shut down schools?  All for a virus that kills kids.  Corona, not so much.  So he's asking why the draconian measures for one, but not the other?

Are you opposed to mandatory vaccinations for:

• Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis
• Polio 
• Measles, Mumps, and Rubella
• Hepatitis B
• Varicella 
• Meningococcal 
• Hepatitis A

If not, why is Covid any different? What is inappropriate about instituting a public health measure that will indisputably benefit all of us? 

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/school-requirements.aspx

Edited May 4, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17,681]

8 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Isn't that viewing the US in a bit of a vacuum?  As we all know, the rest of the world is much further behind in vaccinations and it will probably be that way for a long while.  They will also have large portions that do not get the vaccine.  If these mutations are going to continue to happen, I would imagine it will continue to happen overseas whether we reach 100% here or not.

 

Isn't that we should do nothing because maybe doing something will not be 100% effective? Is that a reasonable approach to life? Do treat other public health measures that way? Of course not. But, sure, let's go all prisoner's dilemma in this bitch even though it is indisputable that getting everyone vaccinated is the best approach, both for society and for us individually.  

[BabaYaga 15,320]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Are you opposed to mandatory vaccinations for:

• Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis
• Polio 
• Measles, Mumps, and Rubella
• Hepatitis B
• Varicella 
• Meningococcal 
• Hepatitis A

If not, why is Covid any different? What is inappropriate instituting a public health measure that will indisputably benefit all of us? 

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/school-requirements.aspx

Then why not start with the flu.  MANDATORY.  100% as it actually kills kids.  Zero tolerance.  Lead with that.  And then every other virus shortly after.  Also mandatory.  You know, for the sake of the kids....

[BabaYaga 15,320]

8 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Like a mickey?

 

Jesus, he's like packing for a long hike in a dark cave with a flashlight with old batteries....constant flickering and the unknown on when it's going to just stop working.

 

 

[Dahobbs 17,681]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Then why not start with the flu.  MANDATORY.  100% as it actually kills kids.  Zero tolerance.  Lead with that.  And then every other virus shortly after.  Also mandatory.  You know, for the sake of the kids....

The flu vaccine isn't effective enough and the flu mutates quickly enough that even 100% vaccination rates aren't going to prevent the illness. So, we could do that. I don't think it is necessarily a terrible idea, but it probably isn't an efficient use of resources. 

But, just because we don't require vaccination for the flu, which I think you admit is less severe than Covid, doesn't mean we shouldn't require vaccination for Covid. The vaccines are highly effective. The serious side effects are near non-existent. The virus doesn't yet show the same genetic flexibility that the flu has. So, again, why not require vaccination? We do for other diseases, many less serious than Covid-19.  You've still refused to answer my question: do you oppose those vaccines? 

Edited May 4, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Newdoc 3,453]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

will greatly increase the chance the .1% that cannot get the vaccine will get sick and/or die.

When you talk about wholesale restrictions on travel and the economy and freedom to gather, where do you draw the line? Foremost, I 100% agree that those who can take the vaccine have a responsibility to the rest of their community to take it.   But, at 0.1% who couldn't get the vaccine eventually, how many would actually get sick with serious sequelae or death? Certainly a lot less than 0.1%.

When we start to get a small fraction of the population at risk then we start talking about what else we do in this country that eventually kills our fellow humans indirectly or even directly. Early on, Covid got its own special relative risk bubble and it should have due to the high risk to a population that was naive to it and didn't have acquired immunity but we have lost sight of relative and acceptable risks. We did it with AIDS in the late 80's and 90's. Funding, public awareness and public health shifts away from big ticket items, like gun safety, travel risks, smoking around kids. If we truly care so much about risks to the general public., we should limit all cars to 75 mph, immediately ban smoking and alcohol.  Ignorant public opinion should not drive the public health pendulum. And neither should politicians who don't know jack squat about health care. 

My points have a strawman taste to them, but it's been a very long time since someone in political or public health leadership has made rationale decisions based on reasonably hard data. We are working off worst case scenarios with 6 month old immunity data. See Oregon's recent shut down. How many schools are still virtual?  Why are fully vaccinated people still wearing mask literally everywhere?  

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

3 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

When you talk about wholesale restrictions on travel and the economy and freedom to gather, where do you draw the line? Foremost, I 100% agree that those who can take the vaccine have a responsibility to the rest of their community to take it.   But, at 0.1% who couldn't get the vaccine eventually, how many would actually get sick with serious sequelae or death? Certainly a lot less than 0.1%.

When we start to get a small fraction of the population at risk then we start talking about what else we do in this country that eventually kills our fellow humans indirectly or even directly. Early on, Covid got its own special relative risk bubble and it should have due to the high risk to a population that was naive to it and didn't have acquired immunity but we have lost sight of relative and acceptable risks. We did it with AIDS in the late 80's and 90's. Funding, public awareness and public health shifts away from big ticket items, like gun safety, travel risks, smoking around kids. If we truly care so much about risks to the general public., we should limit all cars to 75 mph, immediately ban smoking and alcohol.  Ignorant public opinion should not drive the public health pendulum. And neither should politicians who don't know jack squat about health care. 

My points have a strawman taste to them, but it's been a very long time since someone in political or public health leadership has made rationale decisions based on reasonably hard data. We are working off worst case scenarios with 6 month old immunity data. See Oregon's recent shut down. How many schools are still virtual?  Why are fully vaccinated people still wearing mask literally everywhere?  

[BabaYaga 15,320]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

The virus doesn't yet show the same genetic flexibility that the flu has.

As we talk about the new strain.  

Side effects?  You mean on the fastest vaccination ever created in the history of modern medicine?  Sure thing sparky.  Considering I've had the virus and fall into the mortality rate of .0006, I think I'll take my chances.....BTW, "other" causes in my demographic are .004.  Where's my vaccination for those.  For the love of God, I have a statistical probability of dying from the the newest strain of "other" that is more than 85% higher!  EIGHTY FIVE percent.  

[BabaYaga 15,320]

5 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

Why are fully vaccinated people still wearing mask literally everywhere?  

LOL, you know why....

[BabaYaga 15,320]

21 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

It's the only way to be 100% sure.

[Newdoc 3,453]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

LOL, you know why....

There's certainly virtue signalling but I really think the general public is confused at this point.  Not enough to fall for the "don't have to wear a mask outside if everyone is vaccinated" bs confused but some rational guidance would be helpful.

[BabaYaga 15,320]

4 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

There's certainly virtue signalling but I really think the general public is confused at this point.  Not enough to fall for the "don't have to wear a mask outside if everyone is vaccinated" bs confused but some rational guidance would be helpful.

[gyroprotagonist 2,595]

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Are they mandatory?  Do we contact trace for them?  Shut down schools?  All for a virus that kills kids.  Corona, not so much.  So he's asking why the draconian measures for one, but not the other?

look, surly would consider me a libtard, but  i was more poking fun at the moving of goal post with yearly lockdowns for flu vs just saying get vaxxed.  As time goes by and the vax is available to just about everyone, i start to lean to the yolo side of covid control.  should people who can get the vax and don't be mocked and made to feel bad?  Sure.  Should the gov require/request mask mandates continue until we reach some magical % of Americans vaxed?  No.

I don't have a strong opinion on vax passport either.  I have the vax.  CVS knows i have the vax and that I like to also purchase chocolate everytime i am in the store.  I am cool with that.  the gov has my name, rank and serial number.  how much i (legally) make.  They could get a warrant for my phone and track me all over the country.  Companies can run a credit check on me and decide whether to or how they do bidness with me.

Why can't businesses ask if i have been vaxed?  People were cool with answering questions like "have you been in contact with a C19 case in the last x days", "have you had a fever lately", "have you tested positive for covid" to do all sorts of stuff like enter buildings, fly, travel, even get a vaccine.  Why were people not refusing to answer those invasive medical questions.  well now there can be one simple question that takes care of all that crap.  Have you been vaxed?  Yes, OK please move to the free and clear VIP line.  No, Well then please prepare anus for swabbing and move to the left with all the other degenerates. 

Is the end game Gattaca for the vax passport?  is that the fear?  I can squint and see that in the future.  Too much money to be made denying insurance to 'genetically predisposed'.  Would the vax passport usher that in...probably not.  I don't get the GOP rush to pass laws banning vax passports.   

[Dahobbs 17,681]

11 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

When you talk about wholesale restrictions on travel and the economy and freedom to gather, where do you draw the line? Foremost, I 100% agree that those who can take the vaccine have a responsibility to the rest of their community to take it.   But, at 0.1% who couldn't get the vaccine eventually, how many would actually get sick with serious sequelae or death? Certainly a lot less than 0.1%.

When we start to get a small fraction of the population at risk then we start talking about what else we do in this country that eventually kills our fellow humans indirectly or even directly. Early on, Covid got its own special relative risk bubble and it should have due to the high risk to a population that was naive to it and didn't have acquired immunity but we have lost sight of relative and acceptable risks. We did it with AIDS in the late 80's and 90's. Funding, public awareness and public health shifts away from big ticket items, like gun safety, travel risks, smoking around kids. If we truly care so much about risks to the general public., we should limit all cars to 75 mph, immediately ban smoking and alcohol.  Ignorant public opinion should not drive the public health pendulum. And neither should politicians who don't know jack squat about health care. 

My points have a strawman taste to them, but it's been a very long time since someone in political or public health leadership has made rationale decisions based on reasonably hard data. We are working off worst case scenarios with 6 month old immunity data. See Oregon's recent shut down. How many schools are still virtual?  Why are fully vaccinated people still wearing mask literally everywhere?  

I have no idea what point your making. I haven't argued for more lock downs or for shutting down schools. I also haven't argued that the vaccinated still need to wear masks. And I haven't argued that we should require masks long term. Those points aren't just a taste of straw, that's all they are. What I've said is that we should make some minimum effort to require vaccinations for participation in certain public activities. Cheesenuts and Russian Grandma have some disagreement with that, but cannot actually express what it is or why. We require vaccinations for other diseases. We should require vaccinations for Covid-19. I don't see the point in arguing otherwise. How best to implement that requirement is a different question and I think one worthy of discussion. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

5 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

I don't get the GOP rush to pass laws banning vax passports. 

Both sides signal to their base. This Is The Way.

[Hate 20,145]

Jesus, he's like packing for a long hike in a dark cave with a flashlight with old batteries....constant flickering and the unknown on when it's going to just stop working.
 
 

[Dahobbs 17,681]

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

As we talk about the new strain.  

Side effects?  You mean on the fastest vaccination ever created in the history of modern medicine?  Sure thing sparky.  Considering I've had the virus and fall into the mortality rate of .0006, I think I'll take my chances.....BTW, "other" causes in my demographic are .004.  Where's my vaccination for those.  For the love of God, I have a statistical probability of dying from the the newest strain of "other" that is more than 85% higher!  EIGHTY FIVE percent.  

This isn't a coherent thought.

That said, yes, there are mutations with the Covid-19 virus. But the vaccines are still effective. The flu is somewhat unique in its ability to not only mutate, but to mutate in a way that voids prior resistance. 

[BabaYaga 15,320]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

This isn't a coherent thought.

That said, yes, there are mutations with the Covid-19 virus. But the vaccines are still effective. The flu is somewhat unique in its ability to not only mutate, but to mutate in a way that voids prior resistance. 

.0006

[Dahobbs 17,681]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

.0006

Are you opposed to all mandatory vaccinations or just this one? 

[BabaYaga 15,320]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Are you opposed to all mandatory vaccinations or just this one? 

No vax are mandatory.  But to clarify - This one, for the reasons given over and over and over.  You have stated that you want mandatory vax for tens upon tens of millions of otherwise healthy people for the sole reason of protecting a few thousand easily identifiable people that have adverse reactions to vaccines in general.

This.  Is.  Fucking.  Stupid.

[Dahobbs 17,681]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

No vax are mandatory.  But to clarify - This one, for the reasons given over and over and over.  You have stated that you want mandatory vax for tens upon tens of millions of otherwise healthy people for the sole reason of protecting a few thousand easily identifiable people that have adverse reactions to vaccines in general.

This.  Is.  Fucking.  Stupid.

That isn't the sole reason. The vaccinated people will be protected too, which is good for all of us. 

Yes, other vaccines are mandatory if one wishes to participate in particular aspects of public life. That's all I mean when I say mandatory. Again, are you opposed to those vaccines requirements for schools? 

It is pretty clear to me at this point that you're just a crazy anti vaxxer but know you can't admit that on this forum. 

[DaysOff 7,974]

This baba yaga clown has never been in the military, never traveled to certain countries, never had children (fingers crossed), and probably vacations in the Brazos Valley. Lots of mandatory vaccines out there.

Your mother vaccinated you. This one will be mandatory for many aspects of civilized society. Your ilk can play in your own sandbox forever. It's not worth arguing with these types anymore.

[Brisketexan 105,336]

44 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

When you talk about wholesale restrictions on travel and the economy and freedom to gather, where do you draw the line? Foremost, I 100% agree that those who can take the vaccine have a responsibility to the rest of their community to take it.   But, at 0.1% who couldn't get the vaccine eventually, how many would actually get sick with serious sequelae or death? Certainly a lot less than 0.1%.

When we start to get a small fraction of the population at risk then we start talking about what else we do in this country that eventually kills our fellow humans indirectly or even directly. Early on, Covid got its own special relative risk bubble and it should have due to the high risk to a population that was naive to it and didn't have acquired immunity but we have lost sight of relative and acceptable risks. We did it with AIDS in the late 80's and 90's. Funding, public awareness and public health shifts away from big ticket items, like gun safety, travel risks, smoking around kids. If we truly care so much about risks to the general public., we should limit all cars to 75 mph, immediately ban smoking and alcohol.  Ignorant public opinion should not drive the public health pendulum. And neither should politicians who don't know jack squat about health care. 

My points have a strawman taste to them, but it's been a very long time since someone in political or public health leadership has made rationale decisions based on reasonably hard data. We are working off worst case scenarios with 6 month old immunity data. See Oregon's recent shut down. How many schools are still virtual?  Why are fully vaccinated people still wearing mask literally everywhere?  

I don't disagree with this at all.  Which is why I think the conversation long ago should have turned to how we will define "acceptable risk" going forward.  The closest analog we have is the flu -- transmitted by similar means (that is, by people living normal life, not engaged in particularly risky behavior, etc. -- you can get it from the person sitting next to you at school, on a plane, at work, etc.).

We know that even under our best efforts, there will be cases.  And people will die.  Thousands of them, even in a good year.  Now, COVID DOES have an extra element -- it sure seems like for every person that it kills, it also "severely injures" several more -- that is, we have over 550k dead in the US, and probably a couple million who have long-term significant injuries/health problems because of its.  So, when discussing the risks, we should consider "death or serious bodily injury," not just death.

And THAT said.....there still has to be a point where we realize that this disease will continue to exist, will continue to infect some people every year, and will cause serious harm to some of them.  The question is, what is our tolerance for that?  We haven't answered it.  I think we should.

And THAT said....COVID is different than the seasonal flu in that MUCH more effective vaccines are available, so our ability to reduce the transmission and negative outcomes is better.  The best flu vaccine plan still has huge holes in it.  The best COVID vaccine plan could functionally starve out the disease, creating something close to herd immunity.  So, what do we want to accomplish?  And how feasible is it?  Those are two important questions to answer.  I'll suggest that what we want to accomplish is to reduce COVID to being no more of a problem when it comes to outbreaks and harmful cases than the seasonal flu is.  And I'll suggest that it's very feasible.....it is as easy as shots in arms.  Get 75% of folks vaccinated, with vaccines that have better than 90% efficacy, and COVID will be a relatively de minimis problem.

So, with those two answers, you can see why some of us are fucking tearing our hair out at the stubborn vaccine resistance.  We can turn this disease into a mere public health nuisance in relatively short order.....but we won't, because.... I don't even fucking know why.  It makes no fucking sense to me.

[XYZ 2,154]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

....but we won't, because.... I don't even fucking know why.

Because “muh rights”.

Edited May 4, 2021 by XYZ

[gmr548 16,616]

LOL, you know why....

There's certainly virtue signalling but I really think the general public is confused at this point.  Not enough to fall for the "don't have to wear a mask outside if everyone is vaccinated" bs confused but some rational guidance would be helpful.

People wear them because most places still require them and it’s nowhere near worth being a Karen or the male equivalent (have we named this yet?) and making a scene over. It’s not really more complicated with that. Also no one wants to be mistaken as being babayaga’s intellectual peer.