CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[Anastasis 23720]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Seems like it's pretty hard to accurately track what was actually going on in January-April 2020, given we had no fucking tests available.

Should be non-differential across states, and if anything would seem to only suppress the observed relative differences in the period where D-led states were hardest hit. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Anastasis

[Captainant 28539]

46 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

You mean like when you fuck around and find out the article you posted only covered dates from May through July of 2020 and now you look stupid or something else?

I posted the same in the DT thread - but the studies that article used examined the entirety of available data for 2020

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(21)00135-5/fulltext

 

Maybe don't believe everything that johnny sack and cheeseweasel say without actually reading it yourself

[wildcat09 29579]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Should be non-differential across states. 

I may be misunderstanding you here, but this seems like nonsense. A lot of deaths in blue states happened very early on, as people were finally coming to understand what we were dealing with and before effective mitigation measures could be taken. At that time, it was barely present in most red states because most red states don't have major international ports of entry. So it seems to me that deaths in California in March/early April 2020 wouldn't be as useful in determining the effectiveness of measures taken or not taken to mitigate covid as deaths in, say, Oklahoma in November 2020.

[Anastasis 23720]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I posted the same in the DT thread - but the studies that article used examined the entirety of available data for 2020

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(21)00135-5/fulltext

Maybe don't believe everything that johnny sack and cheeseweasel say without actually reading it yourself

You should take your own advice.  They constrained the time frame for the analysis that they drew their conclusion based off. They don't analyze the relative risk over the full study period. 

[Captainant 28539]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

You should take your own advice.  They constrained the time frame for the analysis that they drew their conclusion based off. They don't analyze the relative risk over the full study period. 

I didn't get that from the abstract of the study:

Quote

A longitudinal analysis was conducted in December 2020 examining COVID-19 incidence, death, testing, and test positivity rates from March 15, 2020 through December 15, 2020. A Bayesian negative binomial model was fit to estimate the daily risk ratios and posterior intervals comparing rates by gubernatorial party affiliation. The analyses adjusted for state population density, rurality, Census region, age, race, ethnicity, poverty, number of physicians, obesity, cardiovascular disease, asthma, smoking, and presidential voting in 2020.

The method similarly never mentions a particular constraining of the study's data analysis. Care to help a dude out with what you're referencing from the study in question?

[Anastasis 23720]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I didn't get that from the abstract of the study:

Did you get beyond the abstract? Where do they report full calendar year aggregated 2020 relative risk? They don't.  They brake it into different timeframes based on crossing into D-led state favored time periods, and don't report the RRs during the early phase which favored R-led states.  Frankly kinda sloppy to report the RRs for some periods but not all periods and not the overall time frame. The RR during early phase appears to bottom out around early April ~0.40 with a pretty tight confidence interval favoring R-led states.  

The sample comprised 26 Republican-led and 25 Democratic-led states. Figure 1A and B present the incidence trends (cases per 100,000) and adjusted RRs by gubernatorial affiliation. Republican-led states had fewer cases from March 2020 to early June 2020. However, on June 3, 2020, the association reversed (RR=1.10, 95% PI=1.01, 1.18), indicating that Republican-led states had on average 1.10 times more cases per 100,000 than Democratic-led states. The RRs increased steadily thereafter, achieving a maximum of 1.77 (95% PI=1.62, 1.90) on June 28, 2020 and remaining positive for the remainder of the study, although the PIs overlapped 1.00 starting on December 3, 2020. A similar pattern emerged for deaths (shown in Figure 2A and B). Republican-led states had lower death rates early in the pandemic, but the trend reversed on July 4, 2020 (RR=1.18, 95% PI=1.02, 1.31). The RRs increased through August 5, 2020 (RR=1.80, 95% PI=1.57, 1.98), and the PIs remained >1.00 until December 13, 2020 (RR=1.20, 95% PI=0.96, 1.39). Testing rates (Figure 3A and B) tracked similarly for Republican and Democratic states until September 30, 2020 (RR=0.95, 95% PI=0.90, 0.98). By November 27, 2020, the testing rate for Republican-led states was substantially lower than that for Democratic-led states (RR=0.77, 95% PI=0.72, 0.80). The test positivity rate (Figure 4A and B) was higher for Republican-led states starting on May 30, 2020 and was 1.70 (95% PI=1.65, 1.74) times higher on June 23, 2020.

[Brisketexan 106900]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

By ill, do you mean had a cough and a sore throat, or like ended up in the hospital?

Interesting, haven't seen that yet myself, but it is not really a meaningful counterpoint to my comment about herd immunity.  I think/hope that we are closer than we think to hitting the thresholds in Israel and UK and that we see the same outcomes. 

As I understand, some are sick enough to be hospitalized.  But this is all anecdotal.  Just something I'm having to deal with in some of my circles and obligations.

[Anastasis 23720]

25 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I may be misunderstanding you here, but this seems like nonsense.

Testing capacity should be relatively non-differential between states.  Testing capacity sucked across the board, so all cases were undercounted but that should not, at least meaningfully, impact relative risk calculations. If anything, changes in testing capacity might bias against states with later surges versus states with early surges. 

 

Oh, we should be looking at the contrasts where death is the outcome, imo.  That's what I linked up thread. Should be less sensitive to testing capacity, but with its own set of issues of course. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23720]

31 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I posted the same in the DT thread - but the studies that article used examined the entirety of available data for 2020

 

Oh, and just to be clear, that RawStory piece cited that AJPM piece, but appears to be a totally distinct analysis. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

This isn't really helping with the politically vax hesitant joe.

 

who gives a shit? it's the truth.

[Brisketexan 106900]

13 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

who gives a shit? it's the truth.

Anything that's true ROYALLY pisses off 40% of our population, who are pointlessly defiant children.  Tell them it's hailing outside, and they should really stay inside, and they'll immediately run outside and claim that the sound of baseball chunks of ice cracking their skulls is "THE SOUND OF FREEDOM!!!!"

We are afflicted with 100 million oppositional defiant children.  It's fucking insane.

[henrygandorf 29225]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Seems like it's pretty hard to accurately track what was actually going on in January-April 2020, given we had no fucking tests available.

this was not coincidental.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Anything that's true ROYALLY pisses off 40% of our population, who are pointlessly defiant children.  Tell them it's hailing outside, and they should really stay inside, and they'll immediately run outside and claim that the sound of baseball chunks of ice cracking their skulls is "THE SOUND OF FREEDOM!!!!"

We are afflicted with 100 million oppositional defiant children.  It's fucking insane.

yeah, but by saying what he did, he backed them into a corner on this issue. there are two choices he laid out, but all know there is a 3rd. and if they choose that one, well, they've chosen their fate. the rest of us can start trying to piece our lives back together. fuck em

[mdmost 44049]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

This isn't really helping with the politically vax hesitant joe.

 

Would you prefer he just keep saying pretty please?

[Anastasis 23720]

Just now, mdmost said:

Would you prefer he just keep saying pretty please?

 I honestly don't think that it matters much one way or the other, but framing mask wearing in authoritarian terms isn't really going to land with the intended audience. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 I honestly don't think that it matters much one way or the other, but framing mask wearing in authoritarian terms isn't really going to land with the intended audience. 

fuck em

[washparkhorn 9973]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 I honestly don't think that it matters much one way or the other, but framing mask wearing in authoritarian terms isn't really going to land with the intended audience. 

snowflakes.

[Anastasis 23720]

I don't disagree with the sentiments. They about to FAAFO. 

[mdmost 44049]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 I honestly don't think that it matters much one way or the other, but framing mask wearing in authoritarian terms isn't really going to land with the intended audience. 

Authoritarians rarely give people choices. "The choice is yours" is pointing out a reality and I doubt that was aimed at the MAGAs who won't listen him anyway. It was aimed at the middle of the road people who have been vaccine hesitant. Get the vax, CDC says you don't have to wear a mask. Don't get the vax then you're wearing a mask that much longer. 

[Anastasis 23720]

Just now, mdmost said:

Authoritarians rarely give people choices. "The choice is yours" is pointing out a reality and I doubt that was aimed at the MAGAs who won't listen him anyway. It was aimed at the middle of the road people who have been vaccine hesitant. Get the vax, CDC says you don't have to wear a mask. Don't get the vax then you're wearing a mask that much longer. 

That's fair regarding the target of the tweet. 

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/us/covid-vaccines-vulnerable.html

Quote

They are, for the most part, America’s working class, contending with jobs and family obligations that make for scarce discretionary time. About half of them live in households with incomes of less than $50,000 a year; another 30 percent have annual household incomes between $50,000 and $100,000, according to an analysis of the census data by Justin Feldman, a social epidemiologist at Harvard. Eighty-one percent do not have a college degree. Some have health issues or disabilities or face language barriers that can make getting inoculated against Covid-19 seem daunting. Others do not have a regular doctor, and some are socially isolated. 

Technically, they have access to the vaccine. Practically, it is not that simple.

“Hesitancy makes a better story because you’ve got controversy,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “But there’s a bigger problem of access than there is of hesitancy.”

 

 

[Anastasis 23720]

6 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/us/covid-vaccines-vulnerable.html

Overlay the vax hesitancy maps that have been posted previously with maps based on prevalence of racial/ethnic minority groups that are vax hesitant and social vulnerability index scores map, and you get a pretty good correlation across most of the south and south west. Political affiliation gets more clicks though, so that is the story line.   

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

Makes sense.  That NYT article is worth a full read, I just couldn’t post it all on my phone.

It is a bit of confirmation bias for me as I have suspected things like this just based on anecdotal stories I have heard.

 

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

7 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

CDC getting ready to announce further guidance for vaccinated people.  I have no idea how we are going to regulate vaccinated vs non-vaccinated people.  Is it going to be up to businesses to make people show their vaxx card?  I think non-vaxxed people are just going to say fuck it and lie or make fake vaxx cards.  

obvs it has now been announced, but I have the same questions.  Many poor retail workers have had to be mask police.  Seems to complicate matters.

 

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

Also, I have to wait until June for my son to get vaccinated and no idea when my under 12 year old daughter will be able to do so.  I kind of wish they had held off on this announcement.

 

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

Well Kate Brown wasted no time.

https://covidblog.oregon.gov/oregon-updates-masking-and-physical-distancing-guidance-for-fully-vaccinated/

“Starting today, Oregon will be following this guidance, which only applies to fully-vaccinated individuals,” said Governor Brown. “That means Oregonians who are fully-vaccinated no longer need to wear masks or social distance in most public spaces.”

Apologize for so many posts in a row.  Nowhere else to vent.

 

[InkaUtexas 26893]

Vent away. 

[lmao 178]

 

[Biff Tannen 46168]

5 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m such a child, I still catch myself subconsciously doing that when I have a badge 

I do it consciously. Nothing childish about it. Just good movie references. 

[gmr548 16701]

This isn't really helping with the politically vax hesitant joe.
 

You’re not wrong but there’s nothing he or anyone else could do to win over that group. Maybe if Trump were a touring vax hype man. They don’t even care that Trump got vaccinated though.

[Neonmoon 38130]

And it begins 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

10 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

And it begins 

 

they must have had internal polling that said enough of their workforce is anti-vax and unless they wanted more of a labor shortage, they better not mandate it for existing employees. if true, it's still chickenshit. but it's a start. I suppose

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

they must have had internal polling that said enough of their workforce is anti-vax and unless they wanted more of a labor shortage, they better not mandate it for existing employees. if true, it's still chickenshit. but it's a start. I suppose

Or more like...we can put the language in new hire contracts that isn’t in old contracts. 

[gmr548 16701]

Or more like...we can put the language in new hire contracts that isn’t in old contracts. 

This.

[The Dog 44861]

26 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Or more like...we can put the language in new hire contracts that isn’t in old contracts. 

note that most Delta employees (other than the pilots) aren't unionized, so they can make them do whatever they want without addressing a contract. 

I think at some point they will do something with current non-union employees but many may not have even had the opportunity to get vaccinated yet. 

[babysdaddy 2731]

16 hours ago, Captainant said:

I posted the same in the DT thread - but the studies that article used examined the entirety of available data for 2020

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(21)00135-5/fulltext

 

Maybe don't believe everything that johnny sack and cheeseweasel say without actually reading it yourself

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

Quote

 

Just 12 People Are Behind Most Vaccine Hoaxes On Social Media, Research Shows

Researchers have found just 12 people are responsible for the bulk of the misleading claims and outright lies about COVID-19 vaccines that proliferate on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

"The 'Disinformation Dozen' produce 65% of the shares of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms," said Imran Ahmed, chief executive officer of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which identified the accounts.

Now that the vaccine rollout is reaching a critical stage in which most adults who want the vaccine have gotten it, but many others are holding out, these 12 influential social media users stand to have an outsize impact on the outcome.

These figures are well-known to both researchers and the social networks. Some of them run multiple accounts across the different platforms. They often promote "natural health." Some even sell supplements and books.

Many of the messages about the COVID-19 vaccines being widely spread online mirror what's been said in the past about other vaccines by peddlers of health misinformation.

"It's almost like conspiracy theory Mad Libs. They just inserted the new claims," said John Gregory, deputy health editor at NewsGuard, which rates the credibility of news sites and has done its own tracking of COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation "superspreaders."

The claims from the "Disinformation Dozen" range from "denying that COVID exists, claiming that false cures are in fact the way to solve COVID and not vaccination, decrying vaccines and decrying doctors as being in some way venal or motivated by other factors when they recommend vaccines," Ahmed said.

Many of the 12, he said, have been spreading scientifically disproven medical claims and conspiracies for years.

Which provokes the question: Why have social media platforms only recently begun cracking down on their falsehoods?

Both members of Congress and state attorneys general have urged Facebook and Twitter to ban the "Disinformation Dozen."

"Getting Americans vaccinated is critical to putting this pandemic behind us. Vaccine disinformation spread online has deadly consequences, which is why I have called on social media platforms to take action against the accounts propagating the majority of these lies," Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., told NPR.

Social networks crack down on COVID-19 vaccine claims

The companies have stopped short of taking all 12 figures offline entirely, but they have stepped up their fight: They've labeled misleading posts. They've removed falsehoods. In some cases, they've banned people who repeatedly share debunked claims.

Facebook said it's taken action against some of the figures identified by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, several of which operate multiple accounts on the company's apps. That includes permanently removing 16 accounts from Facebook or Instagram and placing restrictions on 22 others, such as preventing them from being recommended to other users, reducing the reach of their posts and blocking them from promoting themselves through paid ads.

"We reacted early and aggressively to the COVID-19 pandemic by working with health experts to update our misinformation policy to target harmful claims about COVID-19 and vaccines, including taking action against some of the accounts in the CCDH report," spokesperson Kevin McAlister said in a statement. "In total, we've removed more than 16 million pieces of content which violate our policies and we continue to work with health experts to regularly update these policies as new facts and trends emerge."

However, Facebook also disputed the methodology of the center's report, saying it was not clear what criteria the group used to choose the set of social media posts at which it looked.

Twitter said it permanently suspended two of the "Disinformation Dozen" accounts for repeatedly breaking its rules, required other accounts to delete some tweets and applied labels that link to credible information about vaccines and don't allow the tweets to be shared or replied to. Overall, it's removed more than 22,400 tweets for violating its COVID-19 policies.

However, spokesperson Elizabeth Busby said Twitter distinguishes between "harmful vaccine misinformation that contradicts credible public health information, which is prohibited under our policy, and negative vaccine sentiment that is a matter of opinion."

And so the "Disinformation Dozen" are still easy to find on social media.

"Tried and true" tactics

Sometimes they skirt the platforms' rules by using codes.

"Instead of saying 'vaccine,' they may, in a video, hold up the V sign with their fingers and say, 'If you're around someone who has been' — hold up V sign — 'you know, X might happen to you,' " Ahmed said.

Or, they take something true and distort it, such as falsely linking a famous person's death to the fact that the celebrity got a vaccine days or weeks earlier.

NewsGuard's Gregory said a "tried and true" tactic of vaccine opponents is "grossly misrepresenting some sort of research, some sort of data to promote whatever narrative they've chosen."

Facebook said it now limits the reach of posts that could discourage people from getting vaccinated, even if the messages don't explicitly break its rules.

But the cat-and-mouse game continues.

Anti-vaccine activists claim censorship

As the social networks have cracked down, some previously prolific spreaders of vaccine misinformation have toned down their posts and have told their followers they are being censored.

Take anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the "Disinformation Dozen" identified by CCDH, who has promoted the long discredited idea that vaccines are linked to autism. During the pandemic, he has shared baseless conspiracy theories linking 5G cellular networks to the coronavirus, and suggested, without evidence, that the death of baseball great Hank Aaron was "part of a wave of suspicious deaths" tied to vaccines.

None of that is true.

Kennedy was kicked off Instagram, which Facebook owns, in February over repeatedly sharing debunked claims.

Yet Facebook did not remove him from its namesake platform. He told NPR the company has flagged some of his posts, however, so he has become more cautious.

"I have to post, like, unicorns and kitty cat pictures on there," he said. "I don't want to give them an excuse."

He also uses it to promote his website and newsletter, where he makes claims he cannot on the social network.

Kennedy said he's never posted misinformation and accused Facebook of censorship. He said the crackdown has cost "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in donations to his organization.

A battle of persuasion

Even as the social media companies have gotten tougher recently on misinformation, researchers worry the persistence of vaccine-related hoaxes will further erode confidence among people who hesitate to get the shot.

That's especially concerning as vaccines roll out for children 12 and up.

In a survey of U.S parents, Indiana University sociologist Jessica Calarco found more than a quarter don't plan to vaccinate their kids.

"So many of these moms are turning to Facebook, are turning to Twitter, are turning to other social media platforms" for news and information, she said. "And they're saying, 'Every time I open my phone, I see something different.' "

Even some parents whose kids have had routine childhood vaccines told Calarco they're unsure about COVID-19 jabs.

Facebook this week released survey data showing vaccine acceptance among adults in the U.S. has increased by 10% since January. However, its survey also shows that the top reasons people said they don't want to get vaccinated are worries about side effects and lack of trust in the vaccines or the government — exactly the kind of fears anti-vaccination accounts promote.

The social networks said amplifying credible information from authoritative sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is just as important as reducing the spread of harmful posts. Both Facebook and Twitter link to public health information in their apps and in the labels they put on misleading posts.

But they now face an uphill battle of persuading the skeptics.

Calarco said many of the parents she spoke with weigh the posts they see on social media "equally against the kinds of expert medical recommendations, expert medical information coming out of things like the CDC."

Editor's note: Facebook is among NPR's financial supporters.

 

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr

[Beau Vine 55867]

20 hours ago, The Dog said:

I want my free Whataburger and I want it NOW.

Socialist!

Edited May 14, 2021 by Beau Vine

[Bama Chick 28596]

[Beau Vine 55867]

16 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

who gives a shit? it's the truth.

Haven't you heard?  People don't like the truth any more.  They only like their "truth."

[Beau Vine 55867]

20 hours ago, kevwun said:

We make everyone who refuses to get vaccinated wear a piece of flare.

Uphauling.

[GopherRock 1773]

20 hours ago, The Dog said:

I want my free Whataburger and I want it NOW.

 

[jimmyjazz 47205]

This is surprising.  I'd like more information -- it seems incongruent with what we've been told about efficacy.  As the story points out, it might be related to mutated virus breakthrough:

Eight fully vaccinated NY Yankees players or staff contract covid

[Beau Vine 55867]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is surprising.  I'd like more information -- it seems incongruent with what we've been told about efficacy.  As the story points out, it might be related to mutated virus breakthrough:

Eight fully vaccinated NY Yankees players or staff contract covid

Fuck the Yankees.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

36 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Socialist!

If that call I made to their headquarters yesterday results in a free promo for the vaccinated, you'll have socialism and like it.

[Red Five 41738]

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is surprising.  I'd like more information -- it seems incongruent with what we've been told about efficacy.  As the story points out, it might be related to mutated virus breakthrough:

Eight fully vaccinated NY Yankees players or staff contract covid

Michael Scott nope don't like that gif.

[The Dog 44861]

33 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is surprising.  I'd like more information -- it seems incongruent with what we've been told about efficacy.  As the story points out, it might be related to mutated virus breakthrough:

Eight fully vaccinated NY Yankees players or staff contract covid

 

[jimmyjazz 47205]

Well, they caught it somehow.

[Red Five 41738]

The chance of spread is close to zero but eight Yankees have it after being fully vaccinated?

[Biff Tannen 46168]

A fully vaccinated co-worker of mine is saying she's going to claim disability if they try to make her go back into the office if everyone isn't vaccinated.  Not sure how well that's gonna go.