CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[HenryJames 66067]

9 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

 

2,1

[Anastasis 23472]

Enjoy CO.

 

[Continental Op 3934]

WHY THE FUCK ISN'T FAUCI WEARING A MASK???  WHY THE FUCK ISN'T FAUCI STRANGLING THAT FUCKING DOG FOR NOT WEARING A MASK?  WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF HALF-MEASURE CHASING PUSSY IS THIS MAN?

Edited January 25, 2021 by Continental Op

[Anastasis 23472]

3 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

WHY THE FUCK ISN'T FAUCI WEARING A MASK???  WHY THE FUCK ISN'T FAUCI STRANGLING THAT FUCKING DOG FOR NOT WEARING A MASK?  WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF HALF-MEASURE CHASING PUSSY IS THIS MAN?

You seem really hinged. 

[mdmost 43002]

I did chuckle at that picture thinking Ana's first reaction was probably "why isn't Fauci wearing a mask". 

[Continental Op 3934]

You're right.  I should spend my time making 100 posts both sidsing over some minor point in the space of a couple days to show how hinged I am.  Have fun!

[Anastasis 23472]

1 minute ago, Continental Op said:

You're right.  I should spend my time making 100 posts both sidsing over some minor point in the space of a couple days to show how hinged I am.  Have fun!

I post a lot but don't think that I've ever fantasized about choking a dog in all caps. What king of warped brain even comes up with that shit. 

[Anastasis 23472]

MY PEE SMELLS LIKE ASPARAGUS. 

[Guest Lobo]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

MY PEE SMELLS LIKE ASPARAGUS. 

If you can determine that, you don't have Covid-19.  Congrats! 

I could smell the red onions from my bbq pizza in my piss this morning.  Today's gonna be a good day.  

[HenryJames 66067]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

my bbq pizza

Negged.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

21 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

 

If anyone should mask, it's Cruz, just to hide that abomination of a beard.

Thanks so much.  Wish I would have seen this a week ago.  But I still ordered masks.    

 

 

The Fauci and Birx interviews coming out now are incredible.   

That Face the nation interview was deep and she was well spoken, sincere.  You have to remember that Birx is a scientist first, who works in a bureaucracy that spans from administration to administration.  They work to maintain a neutral political stance and up until Trump have worked with administrations that recognize that need for neutrality and respect it.   

Trump admin was different.  Trump is a weasel, and it took both her and Fauci some time to realize he could not be trusted.  Plus the media didn't help by making certain assumptions.   She was a scientist, well respected in her field for decades tossed into the political pit amongst a group that had no compass, moral or otherwise.  Yes she made mistakes, but she's owned up to them, and is paying for them in unimaginable ways.

The SNL skits about her hurt her deeply, and all this has threatened and changed her family.   She said she will be resigning in the next 6 weeks because she has lost so much credibility.  And someone trying to do her job needs credibility.   That's sad for our country.  To lose someone so good at their job because of someone who absolutely sucked at his.

I give Birx some slack. She easily could have attacked Trump and his administration last year, but she wouldn't have been immediately fired/reassigned and replaced with someone else like another Scott Atlas. Instead she stayed on the inside and attempted to steer the boat in the right direction. When you're not in charge, sometimes you have to go along with decisions that you do not fully support or you're opposed to it. Now everyone has to have a line that they will refuse to cross. 

[HenryJames 66067]

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I give Birx some slack. She easily could have attacked Trump and his administration last year, but she wouldn't have been immediately fired/reassigned and replaced with someone else like another Scott Atlas. Instead she stayed on the inside and attempted to steer the boat in the right direction. When you're not in charge, sometimes you have to go along with decisions that you do not fully support or you're opposed to it. Now everyone has to have a line that they will refuse to cross. 

I don't give Birx any slack.  She could have avoided criticizing Trump while giving matter of fact statements and still kept her job.  Instead, she heaped praise on Trump's knowledge and response to the pandemic and that was both unnecessary and wrong.  It is one thing to avoid criticizing your boss and another to actively slob his knob.

[HenryJames 66067]

 

[Js1 85346]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

I don't give Birx any slack.  She could have avoided criticizing Trump while giving matter of fact statements and still kept her job.  Instead, she heaped praise on Trump's knowledge and response to the pandemic and that was both unnecessary and wrong.  It is one thing to avoid criticizing your boss and another to actively slob his knob.

This.

Fauci found a way to try and thread the needle - give factual information without overtly criticizing Trump.  Birx sucked his fat orange dick, saying Trump's business background meant he was able to process all this data and information.  The same guy who said to drink bleach and open your asshole to sunlight. 

[Anastasis 23472]

7 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

I don’t know, maybe start giving people the 200k you’re holding in the freezer?

Edited January 25, 2021 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 45960]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don’t know, maybe start giving people the 200k you’re holding in the freezer?

Sounds like we'd be trading off the 2X dose regimen for more 1X doses . . . is that wise?  There is no crystal ball to see dose distribution from the state in the future.  If things bog down, they might end up with a larger number of patients with little to no immune response.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don’t know, maybe start giving people the 200k you’re holding in the freezer?

Disagree.  Second doses should be held for that purpose.  Otherwise, a future supply chain fuckup could send people already inoculated with a first dose back into the original line where they will now need to use 3 total doses rather than 2.

People who haven't had a first dose can wait and reschedule.  So what if someone is inconvenienced for an additional 2 weeks after they have already been inconvenienced for a year.  Not as big a deal as wasting an already used first dose because you don't have a supply of second doses around.

Patience is a virtue.  Both for you and for the NYC officials bitching about running out.  

Edited January 25, 2021 by FondrenRoad

[Anastasis 23472]

A first dose is not wasted on anyone, a shot sitting in a freezer is a waste of time.  Early data out of Israel is showing a 60% reduction in hospitalizations among those aged 60+ three weeks after first shot, before boosting and full immunity has been achieved. We know from the clinical data that there is a risk reduction after first shot. IMO, we have to put some faith in the supply chain and monitor it closely. We also have flexibility on the timing of the second shot, and if worst comes to worst, you give a mixed regimen. I am not advocating that we step away from the two shot series.  But shots sitting in freezers are wasted time imo. Trust that the supply chain will keep up, and have contingency plans in place to deal with interruptions.     

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

A first dose is not wasted on anyone, a shot sitting in a freezer is a waste of time.  Early data out of Israel is showing a 60% reduction in hospitalizations among those aged 60+ three weeks after first shot, before boosting and full immunity has been achieved. We know from the clinical data that there is a risk reduction after first shot. IMO, we have to put some faith in the supply chain and monitor it closely. We also have flexibility on the timing of the second shot, and if worst comes to worst, you give a mixed regimen. I am not advocating that we step away from the two shot series.  But shots sitting in freezers are wasted time imo. Trust that the supply chain will keep up, and have contingency plans in place to deal with interruptions.     

 

Again disagree. We have been at this for almost a year. Just be patient and do it right. No need to rush at this point. 2 weeks to a month of "wasted time" for people who haven't even started the process yet is nothing. 

Also keep in mind that NYC is already seeing second dose appointments. That 200k won't be sitting there anyway.  

Nobody is going to settle for a small risk reduction either. They are going to get back in line for both doses if their second dose isn't delivered on time. 

I'm also not sure why we should trust the supply chain when we can already see its stressed past its limit. 

Most of us lucky enough to be considered healthy and low risk probably won't even get a chance to get the vaccine until summer.  Even if we get in the frenzy you desire, I could maybe get it in May if I go fuck around at Citi Field with 100k other people. Personally, I'd rather just wait a month longer. 

Edited January 25, 2021 by FondrenRoad

[Anastasis 23472]

Nobody is working up a frenzy. I'm talking about putting shots in arms instead of letting them sit in freezers. We wasted weeks of time on the front end of the EUA, and now we waste more in deployment. Given the emergence of the variants, a little urgency is warranted. Trust and monitor the supply chain, and deal with disruptions if they emerge. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Anastasis 23472]

tl;dr: get shots in arms. 

 

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-8137

Alternative Dose Allocation Strategies to Increase Benefits From Constrained COVID-19 Vaccine Supply

Background: On 18 December 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, adding to the earlier EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Although trial evidence for both vaccines indicates partial protection against COVID-19 illness after 1 dose (1, 2), the vaccines are authorized only as 2-dose series and have not yet been evaluated for single-dose use. In the United States, distribution plans for initial supply of vaccine doses withhold half of the available supply for second doses to be administered weeks later (3). With COVID-19 surging, there are important trade-offs to consider between the health costs of deferring benefits of earlier protection for half of people who could be vaccinated from initial supply, weighed against risks of possible vaccine supply disruptions that could delay receipt of second doses in the absence of sufficient reserves. We used a simple model to quantify these trade-offs.

Methods: We developed a decision analytic cohort model to estimate direct benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 under alternative strategies for dose allocation (details in the Supplement, available at Annals.org). The fixed strategy, modeled after current U.S. policy, reserves 50% of each vaccine installment for second doses to be administered 3 weeks later. The flexible strategy (an illustrative example of many possible alternatives) reserves 10% of the supply for second doses during the first 3 weeks, 90% during each of the next 3 weeks, and 50% thereafter.

Expected benefits of vaccination were computed as averted COVID-19 cases accumulated over an 8-week period, relative to no vaccination. Vaccine and programmatic characteristics were based on the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (1). Efficacy estimates allowed for partial protection (52.4%) after receipt of the first dose and full protection (94.8%) after the second dose (1). We assumed waning efficacy for those not receiving the second dose within 3 weeks after the first (single-dose efficacy reduced by a factor of 0.9 each week after week 3). We computed incremental benefits of the flexible strategy as relative increases in averted COVID-19 cases compared with the fixed strategy. Across a range of simulated scenarios, we varied vaccine supply, relative protection from the first dose, and waning efficacy given delayed second dose. To consider whether the preferred strategy would depend on infection trends, we assessed results when COVID-19 incidence was stable, was steadily increasing, or was sharply rising then falling.

Results: Under a steady vaccine supply of 6 million doses per week, the flexible strategy would result in an additional 23% to 29% of COVID-19 cases averted compared with the fixed strategy (Figure 1). In both scenarios, 24 million people received at least 1 dose by the eighth week, whereas 2.4 million additional people received 2 doses of vaccine in the flexible strategy because millions more received an initial dose during the first 3 weeks; all second doses were administered on schedule (within 3 weeks of first dose) in both strategies. If vaccine supply dropped to 3 million doses per week starting in week 4, overall benefits were reduced in both strategies, and the numbers of people receiving at least 1 dose by 8 weeks, 2 doses by 8 weeks, and 2 on-schedule doses by 8 weeks were 16.5, 12, and 12 million in the fixed strategy, respectively, and 20.1, 12.9, and 6.3 million in the flexible strategy, respectively. Overall, the flexible strategy averted an additional 27% to 32% of COVID-19 cases compared with the fixed strategy in the context of this moderate supply reduction.

Illustrative example of doses administered over time for the fixed and flexible strategies in a stable vaccine supply scenario (6 million doses per week). Total effective population protection represents the equivalent number of people benefiting from vaccine-associated protection against COVID-19, calculated as the number of people vaccinated with 1 or 2 doses multiplied by vaccine efficacy with 1 or 2 doses, allowing for waning protection with delayed second dose. B. Reductions in COVID-19 incidence through the fixed and flexible strategies, under the stable supply scenario and an alternative scenario with reduced supply (down from 6 million doses per week in the first 3 weeks, to 3 million doses per week afterward). Averted incidence expressed as percentage reductions in each week compared with no vaccination, which are not dependent on assumed incidence trends.

We examined additional scenarios that would deliberately disadvantage the flexible strategy, by assuming substantially greater declines in vaccine supply and greater waning of protection with delayed second dose (Figure 2). While numbers of fully vaccinated individuals were adversely affected by these changes, the flexible strategy continued to produce greater overall benefits than the fixed strategy even when we assumed that protection would drop to zero if the second dose was not received within 6 weeks after the first dose. In further sensitivity analyses that varied single-dose efficacy estimates over broad ranges, we found that the 2 key determinants of optimal strategy were the number of highly protected individuals at the end of the simulation and the stability of the vaccine supply. The combination of a low first-dose efficacy and a collapse in supply was the sole circumstance that favored the fixed strategy.

Numbers of people vaccinated and completion of vaccination series for the flexible and fixed strategies, under different supply and efficacy scenarios. For the moderate and large supply reduction scenarios, supply was reduced to one half or one tenth of the initial supply, respectively, from week 4 onward. Total effective population protection represents the equivalent number of people benefiting from vaccine-associated protection against COVID-19, calculated as the number vaccinated with 1 or 2 doses by week 8 multiplied by vaccine efficacy with 1 or 2 doses. Results are independent of assumed incidence trends. B. Percentage of infections averted using the flexible strategy relative to the fixed strategy for the different scenarios and under different incidence trends. Stable incidence assumes constant weekly incidence of infection for weeks 1 to 8; increasing incidence assumes a monotonic increase that produces a doubling of incidence over 8 weeks. Peaking assumes sharp rise to a peak after week 4, followed by a decline to the week-1 level by week 8.

Discussion: In this analysis, we demonstrated the potential to improve upon current policies for deploying tightly constrained early supply of highly efficacious COVID-19 vaccines in order to maximize population health benefits. Current policies place a premium on eliminating any possible delays to delivering second doses using an allocation scheme that maintains large reserves of vaccine to guard against complete collapse of supply. The cost of this conservative approach, however, is to delay receipt of first doses in many people who could gain substantial health benefits from earlier vaccination. We find that under most plausible scenarios, a more balanced approach that withholds fewer doses during early distribution in order to vaccinate more people as soon as possible could substantially increase the benefits of vaccines, while enabling most recipients to receive second doses on schedule. Our analysis is limited by focusing only on direct benefits to vaccine recipients rather than including potential secondary benefits from avoiding transmission. Key uncertainties remain around the time course of protection afforded by the first dose of vaccine and loss of protection with extended time to the second dose. Nevertheless, we suggest a simple modification to current policy that has potential to significantly amplify urgently needed benefits from limited vaccine supply.

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Anastasis

[Gap03 3308]

4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

That's good news, I suppose, but the headline doesn't seem to tell the whole story:

Quote

For the B.1.351 variant, vaccination with the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine produces neutralizing antibody titers that remain above the neutralizing titers that were shown to protect NHPs against wildtype viral challenge. While the Company expects these levels of neutralizing antibodies to be protective, pseudovirus neutralizing antibody titers were approximately 6-fold lower relative to prior variants. These lower titers may suggest a potential risk of earlier waning of immunity to the new B.1.351 strains.

Just dump that element at the end of the press release though, Moderna ...

[Anastasis 23472]

6 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Just dump that element at the end of the press release though, Moderna ...

Actions speak louder than press releases.  They are ramping up a new vaccine for testing. But I guess more trite platitudes about patience being a virtue. 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Anastasis

[HenryJames 66067]

 

[Wanker Bob 379]

I guess maybe it was impossible to do in the short time frame but wouldn't it have made sense to get a large study of people vaccinated at different intervals to see if it makes a difference if the second shot comes 3 weeks later or 20? This problem should have been easily foreseen as getting billions of people vaccinated exactly three weeks apart would be impossible on any reasonable time frame

[Anastasis 23472]

6 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Again disagree. We have been at this for almost a year. 

Doggy kisses, part two, bullshit boogaloo. 

[Anastasis 23472]

1 hour ago, Wanker Bob said:

I guess maybe it was impossible to do in the short time frame but wouldn't it have made sense to get a large study of people vaccinated at different intervals to see if it makes a difference if the second shot comes 3 weeks later or 20? This problem should have been easily foreseen as getting billions of people vaccinated exactly three weeks apart would be impossible on any reasonable time frame

UK is wrong to extend the interval to 12 weeks as a SOP, but we have some flexibility with the second dose interval. This really isn't that complicated. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

50 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Doggy kisses, part two, bullshit boogaloo. 

I get that you like to make out with your dog. That doesn't make it okay however. 

[Anastasis 23472]

19 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I get that you like to make out with your dog. That doesn't make it okay however. 

My dog died pre covid.  I never really felt the urge to make out with her. You think that the inhumane practices that have led to multiple outbreaks of coronavirus disease can be hand waved, while you posture a wrong headed position in vaccine strategy. Do you man. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

My dog died pre covid.  I never really felt the urge to make out with her. You think that the inhumane practices that have led to multiple outbreaks of coronavirus disease can be hand waved, while you posture a wrong headed position in vaccine strategy. Do you man. 

And you have zero credibility because you have spent the entirety of your existence trying to ride the fence between "both sides."  Whether you have a valid point now or not is irrelevant. You are about as trustworthy as Trump.  Hopefully, you are a better person in real life. 

As for the 200k, should they cancel the second appointments which are currently happening?  So tomorrow, they should tell those people to fuck off because the first shot people are more important?  Let's make that backlog 650k instead of the 450k it currently is.  Then when that additional 100k doses come in, I dont see why anyone should get a 2nd shot then either. No 2nd shots for anyone until everyone has a 1st shot.  Anastasis overrides Pfizer's recommendations. Not because he actually thinks its better, but because he needs to be contrarian about something a Democratic politician tweeted. 

Go work on that supply chain. If thats your industry, then the buck stops with you. Ramp up supply and we don't even need to have this conversation.  The whole point of NY posting the numbers is that there aren't enough doses. At all. Those 200k aren't getting wasted. They are being used.  Maybe we should all get 1/10 of a dose instead. So everyone gets at least some. Some is better than none, right?  

We can't trust the supply chain. It has already proven itself untrustworthy. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by FondrenRoad

[Anastasis 23472]

5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Whether you have a valid point now or not is irrelevant. You are about as trustworthy as Trump.  Hopefully, you are a better person in real life.

...
Anastasis overrides Pfizer's recommendations. Not because he actually thinks its better, but because he needs to be contrarian about something a Democratic politician tweeted. 

 

Ad hominem when you cannot argue the data and modeling. Be best man. I've been advocating the get shots in arms strategy for a while now.  I don't need tweets to inform my position. But if you keep throwing out keywords, maybe you can get some likes. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

[Anastasis 23472]

7 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Yeah, was pretty much my take too when I read...

19 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Maybe we should all get 1/10 of a dose instead. So everyone gets at least some. Some is better than none, right?

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

 

Ad hominem when you cannot argue the data and modeling. Be best man. I've been advocating the get shots in arms strategy for a while now.  I don't need tweets to inform my position. But if you keep throwing out keywords, maybe you can get some likes. 

There is a 450k backlog of people waiting for second shots in NY.  There are 200k shots available for that and another 100k promised this week which will be split with first shots. Do the math.  They have already gotten well out in front of it and given out a lot more 1st shots than the on-hand supply dictated. And now the supply chain is failing. NY State's allotment has dropped to 250k a week from 300k a week so NYC's share has dropped to 100k a week. 

In order to "get shots in arms," one must first have shots.  For an alleged "data" guy, you are willfully ignorant of the actual numbers.  They followed your plan and hoped that manufacturers would keep up.  They set up 24/7 sites and have the staff ready to administer vaccines around the clock. But your plan is failing. At a time when total doses need to be increasing, they are actually decreasing.  And this week, the first big second dose wave is scheduled to start. So why would you push them off only to add more piranhas waiting to eat at a continuously diminishing feed trough?  Until you can deliver well more than 100k doses a week to NYC, this is what you are gonna get. It will take 170 weeks to vaccinate everyone fully at that rate. And right now, you are headed in the wrong direction. 

The whole point of the tweet is to guilt the supply chain to throw more their way. And it will work, but there still won't be enough to even come close to the desired schedule. 

[Anastasis 23472]

10 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Do the math.

The math says that NYC is better off getting shots in arms as quickly as possible. Additional EUAs for one shot regimens will further impact the calculation. If you want to view this as a math equation, the solution is pretty clear. Get the first shots in arms ASAP.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The math says that NYC is better off getting shots in arms as quickly as possible. Additional EUAs for one shot regimens will further impact the calculation. If you want to view this as a math equation, the solution is pretty clear. Get the first shots in arms ASAP.  

In your last several posts you've slipped down the slope from, let the supply chain work because the second dose will be there when its needed, all the way down to we don't really need second doses anyway.  The truth is that if you want second doses for anyone at all, you are going to need to reserve some for that given the current supply. And when I say "reserve", I dont mean that your second dose is held for you when you get your first. We are talking about less than a week here at most. 

At the current rate of production, if they get ahead more than they already have, there will be zero people who will receive a 2nd vaccine.  And it will still take 85 weeks just to get everyone a first shot. You do know how many people live in NYC, right?

You do also know that they followed your trust the supply chain suggestion and not only have you failed to increase the number of doses, you've actually decreased them. 

You also dont understand how humans behave. Turning away people who have appointments for a second dose will create a shitshow of animosity. Pushing back first appointments won't. Until you can prove that a single dose provides the same level of immunity as two doses, nobody is going to get back to life after just one dose that wasn't already painting the town red during the whole pandemic. 

The bottom line is that production needs to increase dramatically. The new take seems to be akin to, "I know we said you needed two before, and I know we said the second was important, but since we can only produce enough for one, we now say you only need one."  That messaging will work really well.  Hopefully, this will all be academic and the people who actually produce things in your industry will get things ramped up.  That way we can have the increasing supply we were promised and get on the accelerated schedule we desire.  Because even you, currently in full CYA mode, actually want 2 shots for everyone.

[Anastasis 23472]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

In your last several posts you've slipped down the slope from, let the supply chain work because the second dose will be there when its needed, all the way down to we don't really need second doses anyway.

You are either misrepresenting or being outright dishonest.  I have never advocated for straying from the two shot regimen for PFE and MRNA shots. JNJ will likely/hopefully have an EUA in February for a one shot regimen. That will free up PFE and MRNA second doses. Again, the models are quite clear on the optimal vaccination approach.  Get shots in arms. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You are either misrepresenting or being outright dishonest.  I have never advocated for straying from the two shot regimen for PFE and MRNA shots. JNJ will likely/hopefully have an EUA in February for a one shot regimen. That will free up PFE and MRNA second doses. Again, the models are quite clear on the optimal vaccination approach.  Get shots in arms. 

Right, you said that. It will take 85 weeks for all NYC residents to get first shots at the current availability rate.  I guess second shots will start in the 86th week. Is 86 weeks in your flexibility window?  

So answer the question. Which arm is more important?  The one that needs a first dose or the one that needs a second dose?  Dr Anastasis only gets 1 dose a day. Every day he gets 3 brand new patients and he sees a patient who needs a second dose. Who does he give his shot to each day?  The drug company says they'll give him more doses in time but he used to get 2 and now he only gets 1 so can he be sure?

The models you posted assume that some if not most 2nd doses will actually still occur.  They assume a functional and increasing supply chain which doesn't currently exist.  A measured approach is better until it does. NYC could sign up 5 mllion people tomorrow.  They have 100k doses per week.  This is the math you keep avoiding.  There is already a 450k backlog of people awaiting a 2nd dose. Literally zero of them will get a second dose without one being reserved for a week.  Some of them probably already won't get a second dose the way things currently look. And that number will only increase as you use up the weekly 100k for more first doses.  Maybe instead, you think some people should get a 2nd dose and others shouldn't. How are you going to make that decision?  I guess a zero priority method could work if it wasn't appointment based. And lines would eliminate most of the 2nd doses too. I can't imagine waiting in a week-long line in 30 degree weather twice.  Personally, I would wait another whole year before I waited in that line even once. 

And yes, eventually there will be at least one single dose vaccine on the market. February is pretty optimistic. But if it does then great. The math tells me to wait for that one instead of getting caught in limbo with the current ones.  

[Anastasis 23472]

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

And yes, eventually there will be at least one single dose vaccine on the market. February is pretty optimistic. But if it does then great. The math tells me to wait for that one instead of getting caught in limbo with the current ones.  

St. Ouchy Fauci has already proclaimed it. Your math is fucked though.  You should get whatever shot is first available to you. 

[lemonlime 5503]

Meanwhile, 

 

[Js1 85346]

Someone check Jared’s buddies 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

St. Ouchy Fauci has already proclaimed it. Your math is fucked though.  You should get whatever shot is first available to you. 

Also while we are talking about NYC using theirs up, and having the gall to keep some ready for scheduled appointments this week, Florida is sitting on way more of theirs. You should take your "shots in arms" battle to them. If only "both sides" was actually true for you instead of just being a thinly veiled way to attack Democrats or the "left."

Much like you seem to have given Fauci a pet name, but nothing so cute for Birx.  Sure. Both sides. Fauci isn't even a Dem or leftist. He earned your ire simply because he insulted your godking. 

As for me, I'm lucky to be healthy and also able to work from home easily. I won't be eligible until the summer at the earliest no matter what happens to the limbo olds right now.  I won't be in a big hurry even when I am eligible. May wait for my actual doctor to have it. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by FondrenRoad

[Anastasis 23472]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Also while we are talking about NYC using theirs up, and having the gall to keep some ready for scheduled appointments this week, Florida is sitting on way more of theirs. You should take your "shots in arms" battle to them. If only "both sides" was actually true for you instead of just being a thinly veiled way to attack Democrats or the "left."

Much like you seem to have given Fauci a pet name, but nothing so cute for Birx.  Sure. Both sides. Fauci isn't even a Dem or leftist. He earned your ire simply because he insulted your godking. 

As for me, I'm lucky to be healthy and also able to work from home easily. I won't be eligible until the summer at the earliest no matter what happens to the limbo olds right now. 

Florida should get their shit together if they are sitting on reserves. This is not a political position. But more keywords please.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Florida should get their shit together if they are sitting on reserves. This is not a political position. But more keywords please.  

You're a "data" guy. How do you not know about Florida's reserves?  Also reserves is the wrong term for them. They arent saving it purposefully. They are instead going full Florida on scheduling, distribution, and administration. I guess they expect people to pick it up from the warehouse themselves. I'll gladly have them ship them up to NY so we can "stick them in arms."

Also someone who says shit like St Ouchy Fauci should really stfu about political positions. You are one of the most politically aligned people on this board.  But I get it. You've posted 100 times now about NY and fuck all about FL even though you know all the "data."  But when called on it, a meek "Florida is bad too" is heard. You claim to dislike Birx just as much as Fauci, but have also spent the last few pages blasting Fauci alone. Birx sometimes gets a tiny criticism when you get caught.  That's pretty much your MO for every topic. Like I said, you do have good points sometimes, but you blew your credibility. It makes you entirely untrustworthy. You should create a sock and let him be the "data" guy. Qnastasis is a hack who drives things toward the right by attacking anything center left. 

And the q was a typo but it fits so I'm leaving it. 

[Anastasis 23472]

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You're a "data" guy. How do you not know about Florida's reserves?  Also reserves is the wrong term for them. They arent saving it purposefully. They are instead going full Florida on scheduling, distribution, and administration. I guess they expect people to pick it up from the warehouse themselves. I'll gladly have them ship them up to NY so we can "stick them in arms."

Also someone who says shit like St Ouchy Fauci should really stfu about political positions. You are one of the most politically aligned people on this board.  But I get it. You've posted 100 times now about NY and fuck all about FL even though you know all the "data."  But when called on it, a meek "Florida is bad too" is heard. You claim to dislike Birx just as much as Fauci, but have also spent the last few pages blasting Fauci alone. Birx sometimes gets a tiny criticism when you get caught.  That's pretty much your MO for every topic. Like I said, you do have good points sometimes, but you blew your credibility. It makes you entirely untrustworthy. You should create a sock and let him be the "data" guy. Qnastasis is a hack who drives things toward the right by attacking anything center left. 

And the q was a typo but it fits so I'm leaving it. 

Build more strawmen, please. The modeling is pretty straightforward. Inconvenient to your position, but straightforward. Shots sitting in reserves are wasted time. Whether they are in NYC or Florida or an APH locker. Your continued ad hominem only highlights the weakness of your position.  

Edited January 26, 2021 by Anastasis

[Js1 85346]

Are you two gonna fuck or what? Preferably after you're both vaccinated 

[Anastasis 23472]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Are you two gonna fuck or what? Preferably after you're both vaccinated 

Only if he talks dirty about sensitivity analyses. That shit gets me hard. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

30 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Build more strawmen, please. The modeling is pretty straightforward. Inconvenient to your position, but straightforward. Shots sitting in reserves are wasted time. Whether they are in NYC or Florida or an APH locker. Your continued ad hominem only highlights the weakness of your position.  

Ad hominem is only necessary because you ignore direct questions and avoid responding to statements for which you have no rebuttal.  Then you post mostly bullshit like the post I am quoting here which really says absolutely nothing. The only thing worse than an ad hominem attack is the belief that pointing out the existence of the attack is a sufficient rebuttal.

The conversation we are having here is pretty simple. You commented on a post about NY. You didn't know the overall numbers in NY.  When I told you them, you ignored them because you don't want to now admit that people should actually be getting their 2nd dose this week from that 200k.  You wouldn't even have to say you were wrong. You could just say you lacked the facts which would be true, but you can't even do that. 

If you wanted to talk about theory, you have to abandon the specific hill that you are trying to die on. You didn't comment on Florida or an APH locker. It doesn't make you less of a man to admit that NYC should administer second doses on schedule this week rather than sticking an entirely brand new 200k people.  I've already said the model you desire has merit. I even said NYC was using it. Past tense.  And it failed due to supply chain failures. So we could still have that theoretical conversation. 

Quit being a pussy. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by FondrenRoad